pissed off escort

[caliguy]

what about the guy who got another guy's cum in his eye and got poz?

 

Sincerely, Anton.

Do you have a link to that story? Just curious since I've never heard of that happening.

[Steven_Draker]

I have a link for you: http://pivotpdx.org/hivmythbusters/

[mike carey]

I have a link for you: http://pivotpdx.org/hivmythbusters/

 

Thanks Steven,

[+ Axiom2001]

The only thing you might have done differently, and this is a small distinction, is to ask if he played safe, rather than if he bb'd. Asking if he bb'd could come across as that was what you were looking for.

 

Other than that, you're fine.

 

 

I like your response; it's candid and would have been the way I would have gone about it!

[+ SundayZip]

It must be that a lot of regular posters don't work or something. I can't really imagine devoting that much time to researching an escort. If I like his photos and his profile, I contact him. We have a brief phone conversation, maybe exchange a couple of texts and it's done...

 

Hi Rudynate, I'm one of the people who does a photo and phone number search before hiring. I've been burnt a couple times and want to minimize chances of it happening again. By the way, it takes about 3 minutes to do photo and phone number searches for an ad and it's saved me from a big mistake multiple times. If I'm going to spend several hundred dollars, the 3 minutes is well worth it. (I'm also one of those nerdy people who reads the ingredients and nutrition labels at the grocery store.) You live dangerously. I live less dangerously It's all good.

[Rudynate]

Hi Rudynate, I'm one of the people who does a photo and phone number search before hiring. I've been burnt a couple times and want to minimize chances of it happening again. By the way, it takes about 3 minutes to do photo and phone number searches for an ad and it's saved me from a big mistake multiple times. If I'm going to spend several hundred dollars, the 3 minutes is well worth it. (I'm also one of those nerdy people who reads the ingredients and nutrition labels at the grocery store.) You live dangerously. I live less dangerously It's all good.

 

Actually, what I said above isn't quite accurate. I always check an escort's reviews and don't normally hire unless he has at least 4 or 5 good reviews. I guess I let others do the vetting. I have hired completely without vetting a couple of times, and each time it worked out, but that's not my normal practice.

[caliguy]

I have a link for you: http://pivotpdx.org/hivmythbusters/

Interesting. Sounds like Anton's getting his info from some urban myths.

[Juan Vancouver]

He got angry because you did a bait and switch and then issued a judgment. It's simple. Shouldn't be a surprise.

 

I understand if you think you have to go to such lengths to achieve a a semblance of safety. It is irrational, since I am sure there must be some escorts who bareback in their personal lives but knowing how bad this would be for their reputation will always say no to barebacking with a client, so you see how your ruse is not as effective as you think.

 

You want to trick him? That's fine. Really, go ahead. If you are genuinely doing it just to screen your hires, if he barebacks move on, there is no need to explain why. Now, if you are using this to get on your high horse and attack him, then be prepared for his reaction.

 

This would be comparable to people writing to escorts asking if they take cock up their ass and when the answer is yes the "client" responds "Then you'll burn in hell." (Real story and not an isolated incident)

 

You can get on your soapbox or you can have peaceful relationships. You can't have both.

 

I have been fortunate with a few friends who were/are popular escorts, and in the afterglow of a session, more than one has mentioned another or others who bareback (names that would surprise many here, as they come across as "never done that!").

 

That's called trash talking the competition. I find that the one who looks worse is the one who does the trash talking. I always doubt the intentions behind such behaviour. I would take that "insider's information" with a grain of salt.

 

I couldn't agree more. Asking an escort about safe practices is pretty much a waste of time. Please, just go into the session with the determination to play safely.

 

What he said.

 

I'm always at a loss to understand these long threads on bare backing. If you had no intention of bare backing with the escort what does it matter if he bare backs with anyone else? Are you just being righteous or judgemental? We're all adults and can make our own choices. (Including who we hire.) I just assume everyone I have sex with is positive (regardless of claims to be on prep or being negative) and act accordingly.

 

This is another example of that sub-text that I have mentioned in another thread. Since people who do BB are considered depraved and amoral, normal standards of fairplay and decency don't need to be extended to them.

 

Since I missed the other thread I am missing a little background information... Are you in favour of the double standard that "allows" people to be disrespectful towards bare backers but DEMAND absolute respect and full rights for homosexuals? Or are you actually saying that people have the right to be treated with exactly the same respect and decency regardless of whether I agree with their choices or not? I think you might mean the latter but I am not sure.

 

Ultimately, I believe that the decency and respect with which I treat others will only affect and benefit me because I know that I have honoured myself and have honoured the reflection of myself in others. But there are many ways to live.

[caliguy]

It was in in "The Deli" the thread "Prison term for spreading HIV, applies to escorts too?" :

 

 

Sincerely, Anton.

This info is as good as people claiming to see bigfoot or the lock ness monster. This is all fifth hand information from a long time ago from some kid who wasn't even sure himself. Maybe we should just take it to Myth busters.

[ZhenXBear]

Interesting. Sounds like Anton's getting his info from some urban myths.

 

Before believing a website entitled "HIV Mythbusters" I'll put my faith in the Center for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health. Baring in mind that this data represents statistical odds based on various viral loads. They could be higher or lower based on ART vs. Untreated individuals.

• The risk after exposure of the eye, nose, or mouth to HIV-infected blood is estimated to be, on average, 0.1% (1 in 1,000) ( http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/infectioncontrol/faq/bloodborne_exposures.htm)
  
• The median number of HIV-1 copies in plasma was 14 817/ml (range: 167-254 880), in semen was 515/ml (range: 0-196050) and in saliva was 162/ml (range: 0-72 080) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8970677)
  

So is it improbable? Yes. Is it impossible? Just ask the 1000th guy in line at the 1:1000 statistical odds estimator.

 

[ZhenXBear]

This info is as good as people claiming to see bigfoot or the lock ness monster. This is all fifth hand information from a long time ago from some kid who wasn't even sure himself. Maybe we should just take it to Myth busters.

 

Actually, it's first hand information regarding the account, not 5th hand information. I did the serological testing on the person I described. The point of exposure is the only part in question, but again, as I said it's possible yet improbable.

[mike carey]

That's called trash talking the competition. I find that the one who looks worse is the one who does the trash talking.

Along the similar lines, in the course of an hour long public conversation with ABC journalist Annabel Crabb, Arianna Huffington said, 'Resentment is the poison you take hoping the other person will die.'

[Mocha]

I guess we can summarize that you're damned if you do, damned if you godddam don't.

 

I've come to just opt out of most BB questions from a business perspective.

[LookingAround]

Juan you are spot on and very well said.

[+ WmClarke]

Arianna Huffington said, 'Resentment is the poison you take hoping the other person will die.'

That's a great quotation.

[bigvalboy]

Along the similar lines, in the course of an hour long public conversation with ABC journalist Annabel Crabb, Arianna Huffington said, 'Resentment is the poison you take hoping the other person will die.'

 

That's a great quotation.

 

Indeed...and cuts to the heart of the matter.

[+ Chris Eisenhower]

The logic behind being dishonest to seek out honest escorts to help preserve one's safety and to create an atmosphere of intimacy based on trust while doing an activity that's considered "high risk" in and of itself seems a little convoluted at best.

[Juan Vancouver]

Why is it that you find this a "bait and switch"?

 

Hey Anton, so good to see you again after such long time. Welcome back.

 

It's pretty simple. If you are using indirect language to suggest an untrue possibility with the deliberate intention of receiving truthful information that otherwise you would have not received, this is a deception in itself. I don't judge Jake for doing this, the same way I don't judge the escort for barebacking. We are all adults, and we will have to live with our choices.

 

Jake knew that asking directly might have not produced the truthful response he needed for his peace of mind, so he resorted to a deception. It clearly worked. The reason for which I call it a bait and switch is because after finding the information he needed, he proceeded to tell the escort that he only sees escorts who don't bareback. Revealing your deception with a sentence that very easily could have been misconstrued as a judgment WILL ALWAYS elicit a response.

 

If Jake's intention had only been weeding out the chaff, he could have just as well not booked without revealing his ploy and without casting aspersions. Had he just said "oh, ok, good to know. I don't know if I will be able to book, I'll let you know" or something like that then nobody's feelings would have been hurt and he would have not gotten an angry response.

 

"Do bb?"

"Yes! It's extra!"

"I don't meet people who do bareback!"

 

That's a classical example of "GOT CHA!"

 

I wholeheartedly respect Jake's choice to do what he does. Doesn't faze me at all. I am just responding his question of why the escort lost his nut and suggesting an approach that might be less drama laden. His question is right here:

 

What I am wondering is about the way I forumulated the question to him and his response, and whether I should have been honest, or just told him my plans had changed when I learned about his practices. His attitude surprised me. I am slow at understanding personal responses and wonder what kind of, and how much error I made.

 

I think that if the escort had responded "no I don't do BB", Jakeleyman had made the appointment. How does that make this a "bait and switch"?

 

Personally I have turned down a few sessions with clients who did precisely that. It doesn't feel like a respectful way to treat another human being and a prospective client like that in my experience is more likely to not show up, cancel five minutes before the session and treat me as a thing there to provide him what he wants, not as a human being.

 

Cracks me up when clients approach me from a different email address asking if I bareback. Most people are not capable of changing their writing style, their misspellings, and overall grammatical mistakes. In Canada it's not all that common, but there are cities, like Chicago, for example, where almost every client wastes your time on two different email addresses. It can get really time consuming.

 

And why do you find Jakeleyman judgmental? Is messaging back that he doesn't play with guys who BB equal to being judgmental? To me the message sounds like "sorry, not my cup of tea". Sounds like liberty of speech to me.

 

That in turn surprises me! You sound more American than our American friends. I think this whole culture of "free speech" is nothing but an excuse to spew all sorts of offensive and insulting invectives. It has eroded the fabric of human decency and has allowed rudeness and mutual dehumanization in all sorts of interpersonal communications.

 

There is a way to express your opinions with integrity, even dissenting ones, without resorting to the cutting blade of "free speech".

 

The logic behind being dishonest to seek out honest escorts to help preserve one's safety and to create an atmosphere of intimacy based on trust while doing an activity that's considered "high risk" in and of itself seems a little convoluted at best.

 

Yes. Convoluted and ineffective. But we all do what we have to do to achieve a semblance of safety.

 

Living is a dangerous thing... it will definitely kills us in the end.

 

Trick is to really be informed about actual risks and then chose the ones with which we are comfortable and the ones we will avoid.

[Rudynate]

 

 

That in turn surprises me! You sound more American than our American friends. I think this whole culture of "free speech" is nothing but an excuse to spew all sorts of offensive and insulting invectives. It has eroded the fabric of human decency and has allowed rudeness and mutual dehumanization in all sorts of interpersonal communications.

 

 

I think anyone who utters the term "free speech" more than twice a year should have a course in First Amendment law, so that they will finally understand what free speech is. The First Amendment doesn't really care much about what is good manners/bad manners/civility etc. I imagine people in the most repressive countries in the world are free to get into quarrels with their neighbors and call people they don't like names and such and to suffer the consequences.

[caliguy]

I think anyone who utters the term "free speech" more than twice a year should have a course in First Amendment law, so that they will finally understand what free speech is. .

Why would a Canadian do that though>?

[Rudynate]

Because I am sure Canadians are also guaranteed the right of free speech in their constitution. I have an idea that Canadians may be better informed about that sort of thing than the average American is, so they may not necessarily need a class in the Canadian constitutional free speech guarantee. I have noticed that, at least in the US, a person's degree of preoccupation with the idea of free speech is often inversely proportional to their understanding of it.

[+ Chris Eisenhower]

I have noticed that, at least in the US, a person's degree of preoccupation with the idea of free speech is often inversely proportional to their understanding of it.

 

Ding. I can't wait until we cycle back around to the 50s where everyone is nice to each other again.

[Juan Vancouver]

Anton,

 

Thank you for your Bait and Switch link, however, I am very familiar with the phrase and the link didn't mention the most basic bait and switch instance: someone makes it look as if he is offering something and when there is a taker the original item or offer is changed into something different. It's a very common-place expression and any english speaker will be familiar with it. It's not only used in retail.

 

Your "quotes" of my response and your interpretation of them couldn't be more off the mark. I know you are a conscientious and intelligent guy which makes me think that perhaps you are very passionate about this issue and didn't spend much time actually trying to read what I wrote. I didn't say Jake spewed invectives, I wrote that people who invoke Free Speech often end up using it as an excuse to being offensive and thoughtless. I was not talking about Jake.

 

Also, if you actually read what I wrote I am not that concerned with hurting the escort's feelings as I am entirely uninterested in demanding Jake to withhold any ethical standard possible. As I very clearly wrote in plain English I entirely believe they have both the right to make their own choices and live with their own consequences. My post was only intending to answer Jake's question as to why the escort reacted the way he reacted. If he wants to avoid such reactions he should try a different approach. Period. I am not defending the escort's dishonesty and I am not attacking Jake's subterfuge. I can imagine how both of them feel entirely justified in doing so and I am no one to cast aspersions.

 

I wholeheartedly respect your choice of not caring if someone's feelings get hurt. I truly believe we all have the right to chose. Again, thank you for sharing.

 

Lastly, since your response and your misquoting make me think that continuing with this conversation will not yield any insight or clarity, I must let you know that this is my last response to you on this subject. This will not change the respect and affection that I have for you.

[Juan Vancouver]

I think anyone who utters the term "free speech" more than twice a year should have a course in First Amendment law, so that they will finally understand what free speech is. The First Amendment doesn't really care much about what is good manners/bad manners/civility etc. I imagine people in the most repressive countries in the world are free to get into quarrels with their neighbors and call people they don't like names and such and to suffer the consequences.

 

You must understand that your laws, just for the fact that they are laws in your country doesn't intrinsically make them right and cannot be used universally outside your country, right? I know that in your country the law (and the culture behind it) allows for all sorts of forms of speech that violate all rules of kindness, civility and human compassion. You can even say things that are outright untrue with impunity. That is exactly what I am talking about.

 

In your country meanness, rudeness and lack of civility are legally sanctioned. This is not an attack on the moral fibre of your country, it's only a cultural reality.

 

That allows for religious nuts to picket funerals, for radio hosts to utter the most primitive forms of racial slurs, for the media to entirely destroy the character of any person just for the sake of entertainment. "It's my right! It's in the Constitution!"

 

This is not a principle universally accepted as positive.

 

Because I am sure Canadians are also guaranteed the right of free speech in their constitution.

 

You are right to a point. In our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms Freedom of Speech is considered a protected fundamental freedom. However, this freedom is not without limits. There are many instances in which the citizens through their political representatives chose to limit the stuff that can be said. Not to suppress dissension but to foment and protect basic human respect amongst one another.

 

Some of the very strict limitations to our freedom of speech are hate speech, public obscenity and defamation to name a few.

 

Sure. If you have a well formed opinion that is respectful, please let us know. If what you are wanting is to spread hatred, ignorance and ill will, your right stops that very second.

 

It's no surprise this has created a society that in spite of being incredibly diverse is perfectly able to listen to one another, learn from our differences and grow into a society that is more accepting and humane.

 

Some people like the fact that they can say whatever the fuck they want. Personally I prefer living in a place where you are made accountable for the integrity and intelligence behind your words.

 

There's something for everyone!

[MiamiLooker]

Hmmm....I now have a better understanding of passive-aggressive behavior.