Michael, it's about being honest

[+ Lucky]

TY, I am sure your heart is in the right place, but I am not looking for an escort to be with me, an HIV POZ CLIENT, because of "compassion."

[BewareofNick]

TY,

 

Thank you (and regualtion) for seeing the point I was trying to make. Michael seems to be incapable of seeing as I think he is suffering from some sort of persecution complex.

 

I am not advocating that we run some sort of list to "out" bareback escorts. If you want to know who they are, visit the bareback websites. I am however advocating outing those escorts who conceal their bareback activities from their clients.

 

I am not advocating that we run some sort of list to "out" HIV+ escorts. I am however advocating outing those escorts who hide their HIV+ status from their clients.

 

I am not advocating that we run some sort of list to "out" HIV+ clients. I am however in favor of outing those clients who hide their HIV+ status from their escorts.

 

And yes, to me it is narrowly defined. It's about being honest.

[BewareofNick]

Regulation, will you marry me???

 

Thank you for clarifying my point. I was beginning to think that I was twiating in the wind here.

[MiamiLooker]

> I am not advocating that we run some sort of list to

>"out" HIV+ escorts. I am however advocating outing those

>escorts who hide their HIV+ status from their clients.

>

> I am not advocating that we run some sort of list to

>"out" HIV+ clients. I am however in favor of outing those

>clients who hide their HIV+ status from their escorts.

>

 

How do you propose to get this information (for escorts and clients)?

[Guest Traveler]

I will agree up to a point. If an escort specifically states in his general website "only safer sex activities," but then has an alternative website with a different identity in which he identifies himself as a barebacker, then he should be exposed. The same would go with HIV status. If he specifically states "disease free," "HIV negative," or some other such phrase when he's lying, this should also be exposed.

However, if an escort's website makes no mention of his HIV status or barebacking activity, I think it's unreasonable to assume he doesn't bareback or is HIV negative. Of course, anyone who has unsafe sex with an escort is out of his mind, especially if he's HIV negative. Nevertheless, some clients may choose to seek out those escorts who specifically advertize as doing only safer sex activities. I certainly think that as a bare minimum (so to speak), escorts have a duty not to lie about that.

Ideally, escorts should be upfront on all of their advertizing if they are HIV positive and/or barebackers. On the other hand, I think it behoves the potential client to assume than an escort who doesn't mention safer sex is likely to be riskier than one who does. And of course, we all know that escorts never lie on their websites! :7 }>

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>TY, I am sure your heart is in the right place, but I am not

>looking for an escort to be with me, an HIV POZ CLIENT,

>because of "compassion."

 

Lucky,

 

I'm sure you are not... maybe a bad choice of words on my part -- I apologize. Simply trying to highlight the application of a principle to the other side of the coin and what I see as a potentially negative impact on a positive circumstance.

 

BTW, I amost always read your posts. :-)

[+ deej]

>>there definitely was a scarlet letter issue first and foremost

 

Of course this is an issue. Extremist groups have been trying to trample privacy rights and get mandatory HIV registries as public record since the advent of the disease.

 

It AMAZES me now, 20 years later, to see the same call coming from our own community.

 

Let's all get ready to wear our pink triangle tattoos in very visible places on our bodies. I suppose we'll need a black star in the triangle for poz. The only difference this time from when the Nazis did it is that the pressure is coming from within our own community. We don't need to worry about Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bush or Ashcroft. We're doing it to ourselves.

[Guest LiLBlondBoy]

*Shiverz*

[BewareofNick]

deej,

 

I couldn't agree more. I do not want to see any sort of registry such as that. I simply advocate exposing deceptive business practices not matter what they entail

[Guest regulation]

>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.

 

Your statement makes sense only if you think it is "small-minded" to be afraid of being exposed to HIV. I don't think it is "small-minded," I think it is sane.

 

It would indeed be small-minded to be concerned about the risk of intercourse with a positive escort IF it were the case that using a condom eliminates ALL of the risk of exposure, and you have created several posts which seem based on the assumption that that is true. But you and I both know that that is not true. It has never been true. Condoms do fail. So anyone who has intercourse with a positive escort is taking a significant risk. If it is "small-minded" to be concerned about that risk, then it is "small-minded" to be concerned about the safety record of an airline you plan to fly.

 

>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.

 

No, you do not have very good friends who are as you describe. They are not your friends because they don't really know who you are. They don't really know who you are because you have deliberately concealed from them one of the most important aspects of your life.

 

>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.

 

Yes, you are being dishonest. You are deliberately concealing from them information about yourself because you think it wold make a difference to your relationship with them. You just said they would be "shocked to their very roots."

 

And yes, the escorts are doing the same thing and for the same reason. They are concealing information about themselves because they think it would make a difference to their clients. It is the same thing and it is just as dishonest. And potentially very dangerous for the clients.

 

What you do with your "friends" is up to you. But there is NEVER any excuse for a seller of goods or services who deliberately conceals from customers information about what he sells that he KNOWS would make a difference to their decision to purchase. And there can be only one motive for such behavior: money.

[Guest regulation]

>Regulation, will you marry me???

 

No, but I will attend your wedding if there is a good buffet provided afterward. :-)

 

>Thank you for clarifying my point. I was beginning to think

>that I was twisting in the wind here.

 

You are most welcome. I value your contributions to this board. I would think that by now you would realize, however, that there are some very self-deceptive people here who are going to react negatively when you puncture their little fantasy world by putting some of the sleazier aspects of this business right in their faces where they can't ignore it. Keep doing it anyway. Remember, consumers only benefit from accurate information about what sellers offer for sale. No one can ever challenge that.

[+ deej]

You just huddle up with me, LilBlondBoy. (You ARE on my list!) I'll send those Shiverz away and give you a few new ones, OK?

[+ deej]

>I couldn't agree more. I do not want to see any sort of

>registry such as that. I simply advocate exposing deceptive

>business practices not matter what they entail

 

Kneel, let me quote you from earlier in this thread:

 

<<

I am however advocating outing those escorts who conceal their bareback activities from their clients.

I am however in favor of outing those clients who hide their HIV+ status from their

escorts.

>>

 

You are advocating outing and on two completely different issues, neither of which should be of issue in the sex worker trade. They do/are or they don't/aren't, when talking about clients or escorts. It's the same score on both sides. Making assumptions that they don't/aren't is not a good idea. Making the opposite assumption is the smart thing to do, although it may be politically incorrect.

 

What's the difference between your outing and a registry? It's a witch hunt either way.

[Guest LiLBlondBoy]

*smiles*

Wiggglez up and Cuddlez*

hehehe

[Guest regulation]

>You are advocating outing and on two completely different

>issues, neither of which should be of issue in the sex

>worker trade. They do/are or they don't/aren't, when talking

>about clients or escorts. It's the same score on both

>sides. Making assumptions that they don't/aren't is not

>a good idea. Making the opposite assumption is the smart

>thing to do, although it may be politically incorrect.

 

You keep sidestepping the real issue. The real issue is that there is a real difference between the risk of intercourse with a positive escort and the risk of intercourse with one who is negative, no matter what precautions one takes. And that is why HIV status IS "of issue in the sex worker trade." And that is why some escorts take pains to conceal their bareback activities. You can pretend it doesn't matter all you wish, but their own actions show that it does matter.

 

 

>What's the difference between your outing and a registry?

>It's a witch hunt either way.

 

I don't know that there is any difference between outing escorts who conceal their bareback activities from some clients and creating a registry of such people. I don't have a problem with either one. And it is time you stopped using the term "witch hunt," which is meant for situations in which people are pursuing an imaginary danger. The danger here is real. Saying it isn't won't change anything.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

I think Traveler just articulated my position for me. You da man, Trav, as usual. :*

 

I have an additional comment regarding the subject of an escort's having a second identity for advertising on the bareback site. I can certainly understand its setting off a red flag, but one should investigate further before leaping to conclusions. For example, writing the escort under his non-barebacking identity and telling him you saw his ad on the bareback site and you're interested. As an escort who does specifically advertise as "always safe" (and whose "turn-ons" section on my website emphasizes extremely low risk activities), I can assure you that, after hitting the roof, I would immediately write back to thank you for telling me you'd seen my picture there. I have heard of those sites padding out their spaces with fake ads, and the fact is there could be and probably are people out there all over the place attaching all kinds of claims to an escort's picture without his knowing it. If it happened to me, I'd rather find out about it in an email from you than to log on to the message center one day and read a post accusing me of barebacking AND lying about it.

 

Also I could theoretically see an escort who barebacks having a second identity because he may be going through an experimental phase in his marketing: maybe the name on the barebacking site is more bad-boyish and evocative of a dirty sex pig than his more wholesome-sounding non-barebacking name, or maybe he's considering focusing more exclusively on barebacking clients but wants to test the waters before committing to a whole new identity in all his advertising. Of course, I'm talking only about an escort who isn't mentioning barebacking at all on his "wholesome" site, not one who's claiming that he never barebacks. As Traveler points out the distinction matters.

[BewareofNick]

>You are advocating outing and on two completely different

>issues, neither of which should be of issue in the sex

>worker trade. They do/are or they don't/aren't, when talking

>about clients or escorts. It's the same score on both

>sides. Making assumptions that they don't/aren't is not

>a good idea. Making the opposite assumption is the smart

>thing to do, although it may be politically incorrect.

 

 

Deception is never an acceptable business practice. Bareback and HIV status are definitely an issue in this line of work and I fail to understand how you can say they are not. deej, you know that I am generally very thorough in what I do. When I found a certain escort's ad on barebackcity, I made contact with him through a third party and we found out that the ad was bogus. Someone else had used his picture. Witch hunts just aren't my style.

 

I don't view this as being any different from outing escorts like Nick or Anthony Holloway for their dishonesty. If an escort is hiding his bareback activities under another name, he should be exposed.

 

>What's the difference between your outing and a registry?

>It's a witch hunt either way.

 

There's a big difference. In fact, there's already a registry of bareback escorts. It's called barebackcity.com and bareback.com

[MiamiLooker]

> I am not advocating that we run some sort of list to

>"out" HIV+ clients. I am however in favor of outing those

>clients who hide their HIV+ status from their escorts.

>

 

So the information on bareback escorts can be found on barebackcity.com and bareback.com. Where do you propose to get the info on HIV+ clients?

[BewareofNick]

It is inherently more difficult to find out information about clients than escorts, since escorts are in essence public figures. Clients are not. I have no intent of 'finding' them, but escorts could certainly share that information in the Escorts Only section.

[Guest 7Zach]

Let's say not very subtle, since JR Nashville comes to mind.

[BewareofNick]

You can find his listing on bareback.com and barebackcity.com