Michael, it's about being honest

[BewareofNick]

Since Michael is apparently still missing the point that started in Jizz's thread, I thought I'd spin off my post in another...

 

 

Reg, as usual, I find myself in total agreement. The thing that disturbs me here though is the inability of most posters to discern the real issue here:

 

* It's not about being HIV *

 

* It's about deceptive business practices *

 

Escorts like Michael JOhnson, LilBlondBoy (OMG HE IS SO DAMN CUTE!!), etc are up front about their HIV status. That is an admirable trait.

 

Escorts such as Brandon Keadin, Antonio Vela, etc are up front about their barebacking activities. (Antonio is also a performer for Hot Desert Knights, just like Jeff Palmer and Jackson Price) Common sense dictates that barebacking leads to a far greater risk of transmission than use of a condom.

 

The thing that is the SAME in both these situations is that the escorts in question are above board and honest and allow the client to make a fully informed decision.

 

WHen you have an escort who creates a whole separate identity for barebacking activities that is being deceitful. Again, it's not about the fact that they are doing it..it's about the decpetive business practices.

 

I feel that those escorts who are for some reason hiding their bareback activites deserve to be exposed, not because they bareback, or because they might be HIV , but because they are dishonest.

 

Are we clear?

 

-Truth Justice and the American Way-

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

and again I state, where is it posted to the escorts who is at risk as well what clients are HIV+ as well

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

poor grammer, "who are"

[+ deej]

I still don't see what issue you're crusading about, kneel, and why it should matter. Michael actually has a point. He's not making it very well, but he has a point.

 

When two men get together, the ONLY sane assumption is that at least one of them has been with someone else. Safe or otherwise. Otherwise should be the default assumption. I doubt that two virgins in the same bed would be in the majority if we did a head count.

 

The rest doesn't matter. Assume your partner has been with others and make NO assumptions about safety.

 

I just don't see what you're crusading about.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

We continue to see Buyer Beware, this is true in the Consumer world, but I do recall the bank doing a very thorough search on my credit to make sure me as the consumer was clean and above any misfortunes as well to see if I could even purchase the product I was looking at

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

Lets start a witch hunt,

[Guest JON1265]

Gee, you're the Ralph Nader of the escort world...

 

How are these guys being deceptive in they are posting an ad on a bareback site for ALL to see?

 

Your logic doesn't work...unless of course you claim that you are doing it for little married Joe Blow, who is hiring for the first time because his missus is away visiting her sick mother for the weekend, and will not know of such websites...so therefore you are watching out for him...

 

You're a freakin NAZI BoN....

[+ deej]

Oh, please, we've had enough of those lately.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

I am quite sure Married newcomer looks here to see reviews

[BewareofNick]

>You're a freakin NAZI BoN....

 

deej, unless I misread the message center rules, JON's comment qualifies as slander since he did not preface it with the phrase 'In my opinion' I'd like to ask that it be removed.

[Guest JON1265]

>>You're a freakin NAZI BoN....

>

>deej, unless I misread the message center rules, JON's

>comment qualifies as slander since he did not preface it

>with the phrase 'In my opinion' I'd like to ask that it be

>removed.

 

 

IMHO...you're a NAZI BoN....

[+ deej]

>>You're a freakin NAZI BoN....

>

>deej, unless I misread the message center rules, JON's

>comment qualifies as slander since he did not preface it

>with the phrase 'In my opinion' I'd like to ask that it be

>removed.

 

The rules say nothing about slander unless they've changed recently.

 

Appeals should be adressed to [email protected]

 

You boys argue all you want. I'm going to bed.

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

While where at it being honest and all, my real name is Kris, what is yours

[BewareofNick]

Let's try this again:

 

An escort (We'll call him JR) advertises on several sites. He advertises that he is safe, no bb, etc. He develops a successful practice if you will.

 

Then, he decides to engage in some bb clients on the side. Instead of advertising his bb activites under this successful 'stage name', he selects another one and only advertises on bb sites.

 

You don't see anything inherently dishonest in that?

[Guest sdmuscl4hire]

Looking for any advertising escorts that claim no bb, be back in a few

[BewareofNick]

My name really is Neal

[Guest JON1265]

>

>You boys argue all you want. I'm going to bed.

 

 

Actually I am putting this whole issue to bed...I have said what I needed to say...let them continue their witch hunts...

[Guest regulation]

>Gee, you're the Ralph Nader of the escort world...

 

And is that a bad thing?

 

>How are these guys being deceptive in they are posting an ad

>on a bareback site for ALL to see?

>Your logic doesn't work...

 

We seem to have another case of "message board dyslexia" here. As BON stated in his first post in this thread, his concern is about escorts who create a different identity to advertise their services on bareback sites in order to conceal this activity from their other clients. Now do you get it?

 

Do us a favor and explain to us what could motivate an escort to do that. If one is an escort, what could be the reason for advertising under one identity on mainstream sites and a different identity on bareback sites? Can you think of any reason for doing that other than to hide one's bareback activities from some clients? If so, let's hear it.

 

We are told over and over again that this is a non-issue because clients can simply assume every escort is positive and take the necessary precautions. Well, deej, if that is true then why do some escorts try to conceal from clients their bareback activities? Obviously THEY don't think this is a non-issue. They are going to a certain amount of trouble to conceal behavior that will make potential clients think they are more likely to be positive. Why?

 

The fact is, condoms are not 100% effective and the risk of intercourse with a positive escort is real. The Salem Witch Trials were about a danger that didn't really exist. The danger of HIV is real. So the term "witch hunt" is inappropriate here. Consumers deserve to be able to make as informed a decision as possible when deciding whether to hire. There is NO valid argument in favor of concealing from consumers information that could otherwise be available to them about the risks of the hiring decision they have to make. So instead of making an argument, opponents resort to namecalling like this:

 

>You're a freakin NAZI BoN....

 

So much for the "new" Message Center.

[+ Lucky]

RE:it's about the cheese

 

Don't you guys have anything better to do on a Saturday night? Europa Europa was on the Sundance channel, and there was a repeat of SNL hosted by Derek Jeter. Derek did a skit in drag with red lipstick!

[Guest dave_nyc]

>poor grammer, "who are"

 

poor spelling

[DaninWA]

Kris,

 

That information, if it is available and true, should be posted in the Escorts Only forum. If other escorts choose to not post what they know, then there is nothing you or any of us can do about it except protect ourselves, as deej and others have recommended.

 

I know that you are concerned about yourself and others. One of the most common refrains I see on these message boards is that the escort chose the career and the inherent risks. I chose my career and the inherent risks of travelling 3 weeks a month. This does not mean that I don't check airline safety records or have my truck serviced regularly by a reputable, ASE Certified mechanic.

 

As you know, more personnally than most of us, our health is on the line.

[DaninWA]

By the way, my real name is Dan.

[+ deej]

<<Do us a favor and explain to us what could motivate an escort to do that. If one is an escort, what could be the reason for advertising under one identity on mainstream sites and a different identity on bareback sites? Can you think of any reason for doing that other than to hide one's bareback activities from some clients? If so, let's hear it.>>

 

Yes, the purpose is to conceal the activity. You seem convinced that it's 100% malicious 100% of the time, and I'm not so sure.

 

It could be that it's happening because they don't feel the need to burden small-minded people with details they are ill-equipped to handle.

 

I have some very good friends who don't know I'm gay. One couple, fundamentalist Christians, would be shocked to their very roots to find out the guy that babysat their kids is a cocksucking fag. I simplly choose not to burden their little minds with that fact. It is not a factor in our relationship.

 

Am I being dishonest with them? I don't think so. The subject has never come up and if they ever ask I'll tell them.

 

What the escorts are doing is, basically, the same thing.

 

Many of the escorts who bareback will tell you so when you ask. Those that won't tell most CERTAINLY are being deceptive. But I haven't seen any credible evidence that this is the majority.

[phage]

>and again I state, where is it posted to the escorts who is

>at risk as well what clients are HIV+ as well

 

It’s interesting to note that while you keep bringing this up, only one escort has responded to Lucky’s thread in the ‘Ask An Escort’ forum where he asks if escorts want clients to reveal their HIV status. Franco doesn’t directly answer the question but seems to be saying that his behavior is based on assuming the client is positive so it wouldn’t change.

 

Perhaps everyone is out of town for the weekend, or perhaps the topic is one that most escorts don’t want to address, but their silence seems to indicate that it is not much of an issue for them.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

To some the issue is honesty, others want a warning sign -- a scarlet letter if you will. So what this is about depends on who is reading it.

 

Neal, you have crafted the argument narrowly to focus on the honesty issue -- a philosophical discourse of sorts. However, that was not the sole issue raised in the first thread -- there definitely was a scarlet letter issue first and foremost. And for many that issue still lurks just below the surface here IMO.

 

Consider the noble escort (IMO anyway), the one who plays safe always but the one who is also willing to serve known poz clients. Are such compassionate escorts to be branded with the same scarlet letter -- after all, condoms can break. If they don't proclaim this publicly are they too to be outed?? Or are the poz clients to be relegated to only poz escorts -- whether or not there are any locally available.

 

Your principled argument cuts both ways.

 

And to others: there is Michael's argument -- Where is the list of poz clients? To those who say list them in the escort's forum... that is not viable as it is not an 'open' escort forum but by invitation only. To those who say they chose the profession and its inherent risks... we choose to play with its inherent risks too.

 

Bottom line... in this day and age playing has risk. Anyone on either side can be poz -- and not even know it!!. One's safest course of action is not to assume your partner is poz but to believe it and play accordingly or not play at all. Accidents happen... condoms break. As I client I wish I could play risk free -- I know I can't, so I live with it.

 

FWIW