Does Kevin Slater (SF escort) bareback?

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>I agree that an intelligent conversation regarding

>barebacking in general or even barebacking with an escort is

>worthwhile. However, when messages single out an individual

>escort then it is a witch hunt.

 

Teddybear, here's scenario I'd like you to consider: You meet a guy in a bar and go home with him and fuck and suck. Three days later you wake up and can't piss because your cock is dripping and on fire from syphilis. On the fourth day you find out that your best friend has a date with the very guy who gave it to you. Do you tell your best friend that his date has syphilis or would you just have an intelligent conversation with him regarding VD and let him go on his way, blind to what he was walking into? I'm curious.

[peterchampa]

I've always wanted to hire Kevin Slater, the SF escort with the donkey dick. But a friend in Atlanta who hired hm told me that Slater prefers to bareback clients, especially if they're young and high on crystal. The idea of a popular escort who goes from city to city barebacking makes me nervous. Is it true? Does anyone have first-hand info about Slater? x(

[peterchampa]

Precisely. Sometimes it's the obvious that we forget to see. Like, an escort who barebacks has an exponentially greater likelihood of transmitting a whole host of STDs, not just HIV.

 

I remember how dramatically the rate of syphillis and gonorrhea infections declined when gay men started using condoms in the 80s. Now, both diseases are increasing tremendously.

 

How many of us can tell the difference between pre-cum and the ooze of gonorrhea?

 

Edit due to personal attack and libel. A letter was sent with an explanation to the author. Cooper

[Guest bernardff]

It takes two to bareback.

This post has a smell of mendacity to it.

Someone concerned about community health issues could do better things than 'witch hunt' a worker.

Get a life,grow up,take care of number one.

Bernard

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>It takes two to bareback.

>This post has a smell of mendacity to it.

>Someone concerned about community health issues could do

>better things than 'witch hunt' a worker.

>Get a life,grow up,take care of number one.

>Bernard

 

Part of "taking care of number one" is informing yourself with the best and most accurate information you can find to make your decision. Can't you see that?

[Guest Delaware Man]

The other topic regaring unsafe sex was locked so I will reply here. Quite frankly I am sick of the witch hunt that as appeared here and in another link about a southern CA escort. I say to each there own. I only practice safer sex. ( please note I did not say safe because there is no such thing.) That is my choice. If one chooses to have sex with a person who may have engaged in barebacking, etc. that is one person's choice but since I only have "safer sex" I do not worry about it very much. Let us stop the name calling. It is an utter waste of time and very tiresome.

[Bearman]

>It takes two to bareback.

>This post has a smell of mendacity to it.

>Someone concerned about community health issues could do

>better things than 'witch hunt' a worker.

>Get a life,grow up,take care of number one.

>Bernard

 

Hey Bernard, Thanks!! I couldn't have said it better myself! You are so so right.

I'm really surprised that this thread is still going with an issue that's between the escort and clients. Even if he did bareback if you always use a rubber then what's the issue guys??!

 

Give it a rest :*

[SexualAlchemist]

>>The solution to barebacking is simple: we do what we want.

>>We'll all do what we want to anyway, it's not like anyone is

>>*forcing* us to have sex at all (unless it's rape).

>

>There is no solution to barebacking except for educating those

>that have not yet fallen into your irresponsible pattern of

>behavior that represents one of an idiot.

 

Sir, I merely advocate personal choice--freely given, freely taken. Outside the limiting circumstances of rape, incapacitating intoxication, or psychological disability, free will always exists and what we do is always freely willed. At this point in my original posting you know nothing of my "pattern of behavior", nor what it represents. Furthermore Sir, in the context of a discussion of barebacking, your carefully crafted intimations of what my behaviour is verges on libel. Your assumptions are prejudicial.

 

>>Singling out the escort who barebacks doesn't tell the whole

>>of the story.

>

>It tells enough for those wanting to make an informed and

>educated decision on what level of risk they are willing to

>take in whom they choose to have sex with.

 

Sir, now you're being disingenuous. Logically, our choice of anal protection should be a medical/epidemiological one. Our partner's apparent prior behaviour should have little, if any effect on our final choice; after all, you do not discard condoms when your partner simply professes to have never barebacked, do you? You do not let your partner shoot his sticky wad down your gullet when he simply professes to have never barebacked, do you?

 

We often use terms like "informed and educated decision" for their propagandistic and rhetorical effect, but a truly informed and educated decision involves medical testing and isolation from all and any sources of infection. The decision on anal protection should not be a statistical one, lest we want to end up as a statistic.

 

Sir, whether or not our escort-partner, trick-partner, or spouse-partner is known to bareback or professes not to bareback is not a valid basis on which to determine our own behaviour. Unless we truly know, in the strictest medical sense, that what we're about to embark on is medically safe, we should assume the very worse...no matter we assume we "know" about our partner's prior behaviour.

 

But, in the end, it's always free choice. If of sound mind, we cannot do anything other than what we freely choose to do.

 

>>It leaves out the dozens/hundreds of his clients

>>who make the active choice to bareback with him, and it

>leaves

>>out the thousands of clients out there barebacking with

>other

>>popular escorts.

>

>Your numbers are as irresponsible as your behavior. I

>challenge you to present the data that supports your claim.

 

Sir, now you merely appear to be naive.

 

>>And for every escort who barebacks, there are

>>thousands and hundreds of thousands of ordinary joe-schmoe

>gay

>>guys all around us who also have decided to bareback.

>

>Your claim continues to get more frightening and your only

>reasoning behind it is nothing less than trying to justify

>your irresponsible behavior.

 

Sir, at the risk of being jocular, you don't get our much, do you?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12856896&dopt=Abstract

 

Here's the abstract:

 

"This study was undertaken to assess the frequency with which gay and bisexual men in New York City engage in intentional unprotected anal sex, or "barebacking," and to examine explanations about the emergence of barebacking. A total of 518 men completed a brief intercept survey. Of the 448 men who were familiar with the term "barebacking" 204 (45.5%) reported bareback sex in the past 3 months prior to assessment. HIV seropositive men were significantly more likely than HIV seronegative men to report this behavior and reported significantly more sexual partners with which they had engaged in intentional unprotected anal intercourse. Participants reported significantly more acts of seroconcordant bareback sex (intentional unprotected anal intercourse with a partner of the same HIV status) than those of serodiscordant bareback sex. Men who reported barebacking also reported significantly more benefits associated with this behavior. The Internet and the availability of sexually oriented chat rooms, HIV treatment advances, emotional fatigue regarding HIV, and the increased popularity of "club" drugs were commonly cited as reasons for the barebacking phenomenon."

 

It would seem that almost half of men who have sex with men bareback. Sir, your continued libelous assumptions regarding my personal behaviour reflect only the state of your mind.

 

>>If an escort can't ply his trade with another consenting

>adult

>>as they feel themselves freely moved to do, maybe we should

>>make bareback sex itself a criminal offense, punishable by

>>surgical castration and emasculation as the recidivism rate

>>would be so very high.

>

>Every escort and every consenting adult should bareback

>themselves to death as far as I'm concerned with no criminal

>or societial decry, as long as the escort has been honest with

>the client what he does with other clients in regard to

>passing the bug of death to an un-suspecting client.

 

Honesty, Sir? And just how are we to determine whether or not any of our sexual partners are being honest? A Ouija Board?

 

>>No, singling out escorts is silly.

>

>No, it's the responsible thing to do.

 

Sir, that leaves us with non-escorts...almost half of whom bareback. We should not single our escorts unless we wish to become a statistic. We deserve protection from all those whom we have sex with, not just those we pay to have sex with.

 

>>Either we do it, or we don't. No great choice, really. It's

>>rather akin to tobacco. Every filthy cancer stick is another

>>spin of Russian roulette with some seriously nasty

>oncogenes,

>>but, self-loathing hypocrites that we are, our moral

>>opprobrium we save for a steamingly sexy sin, rather than an

>>embarassingly infantile one. It just happens that the

>chances

>>are just really, Really, REALLY bad for those who bareback

>>without sober and serious thought, planning, and discipline.

>

>Wrong. My smoking will not infect my sex partner with a deadly

>disease. Can't you see that or is your head so far up your

>unprotected ass that all you care about is your own selfish

>sexual behavior?

 

Sir, now you display your ignorance. Second-hand smoke is a serious and potentially deadly health problem. Your smoking does not infect your sex partner with a deadly disease. It affects everyone downwind or in the same room as you.

 

Sir, you display gross ignorance with your comment, "your unprotected ass". On what evidence do you base this libel? To this point in my original posting I have given you no clue as to what my behaviour is.

 

>>Also, if an escort sometimes barebacks can't ply his trade

>>with another consenting adult who always insists on a condom

>>(or femdom) as they feel themselves freely moved to do,

>maybe

>>we should make all safer sex with anyone who sometimes

>>barebacks a criminal offence as well. The only thing next to

>>do after that is figure out who's lying.

>

>That has nothing to really do about your arguement supporting

>deadly, unprotected sex. As long as the escort is honest in

>his behavior to the questions of the client, I have no issues

>with that. Bang away. But as Woodlawn has so many times here

>before made clear, the only people who would ever know what

>occured between two consenting adults would be a video tape of

>the illegal act. It's really an unproveable.

 

"Honesty" again? I daresay the statistics on honesty would be even more dismal than the statistics on barebacking.

 

>>No, that whole approach is infantile, smacks of false

>morality

>>and, worse, wooly-headedness.

>>

>>Hysteria over barebacking escorts is hardly becoming, after

>>all it's only your own sweet booty you need to worry about.

>>You don't know if joe-schmoe trick-of-the-year you picked up

>>last night has ever barebacked, *not really*, but there's

>only

>>one thing necessary: a bit of personal responsibility on

>your

>>own part. You cover your ass by covering his cock. It's as

>>simple as a condom. Or a "femdom".

>

>Excuse me, but didn't you just shoot your own arguement in the

>foot?

 

Sir, I have done nothing other than state the obvious:

 

- we have free will

- we will engage in whatever sexual activities we want to

- a lot of people bareback, escorts and clients and non-escorts too

 

>>And you do it every time you have sex. Unless you want to

>>become one with the moral underclass you've created--those

>who

>>bareback, even sometimes.

>>

>>*Every* escort who fucks my ass has a condom on. Every last

>>one of them, even the simpering "D/D free" ones, because I

>>don't *really* know which one has or hasn't been

>barebacking.

>>It's that simple. The easiest safe approach is to assume

>>everyone you have sex with is barebacking, and insist on

>>appropriate protection from the possible consequences of

>their

>>actions.

>

>Agree 100%

 

Perhaps this is the appropriate place for you to apologize for your libelous assumptions and statements regarding my behaviour?

 

>>The most difficult approach involves two

>>soon-not-to-be-virgins, and true monogamy. Or, for the

>>imaginative, any number of soon-not-to-be-virgins, and true

>>endogamy within the marital community.

>

>Again, I use the wisdom of Woodlawn's comments of a day ago,

>(excuse me Woodlawn) But there is absolutely no risk of

>transfering HIV to another individual if both parties are

>negative. However, it's almost impossible to ensure that this

>is true based upon many factors of exposure and incubation

>periods. Youth, virgins; the most vulnerable victims to this

>cruel disease need only to look to the 80's for answers to

>what their future holds if they choose to believe barebacking

>is simply the way to go cause it feels good and hundreds of

>thousands of guys are doing it.

 

There is nothing the matter with *barebacking as barebacking*. Nothing immoral, unethical, or unhealthy. I quite enjoyed it as a monogamous newly-no-longer-a-virgin boning my monogamous newly-no-longer-a-virgin boyfriend up his tight ass (and he mine with his intimidatingly large cock). That was six fabulous months of very slippery fun with lots of cum in every possible orifice. And then we moved on, and I've covered my ass ever since.

 

Men have barebacked for decades/centuries/millenia/aeons. Nothing is the matter with it. It's great! I remember how great it was, and we will all rejoice the day that we can do it again, safely. We've unwisely loaded it with moral opprobrium, when our only consideration should be medical, for we are not fighting barebacking, we are fighting a disease. We've been informing and educating for years, to little effect it seems. Just as Kevin Slater's barebacking is not my problem, nor would it alter my decision to always cover my ass, so too the "honest" profession on the part of any of my partners that they don't bareback is irrelevant to my decision to always cover my ass. I have no desire to become a statistic by depending on "honesty" or statistics.

 

Ultimately, we freely choose--whether or not our partner has ever barebacked. Our choice should be rational, and that choice is most rational if it involves covering our asses--whether or not our partner is an escort or not, or claims to bareback or not. But it's *our* free choice that saves or endangers our life, not the 9.5" by 7" statistical possibility nudging at our manpussy. Kevin Slater, or last night's hot-hunky trick who *claims* never to have barebacked before is a non sequitur. Our free choice is what matters.