Do you feel that with the new norm of condom free porn that you are pressured to go sans condoms?

[30somethingsexybear]

With the dominance of condom free porn now, do you guys feel the pressure from clients to go raw? Most escorts don't stay in the business longer than a few years so maybe the difference isn't noticeable but for those veteran escorts who have been in the business 7 years or more do you notice it? Has it made you change your habits when being with clients? Has Prep helped in constructing a decision that works for you?

[Riley Wynters]

I'm not a seven year veteran by any means, but I have noticed that a lot of clients just don't seem to be all that worried about it unprotected sex. Quite a few clients have inquired about barebacking, and I've considered implementing a requirement that an extra fee ($50 or so) is paid and that I have to see a recent STD screen to protect myself.

[Juan Vancouver]

No, I am not pressured.

 

I get asked more than before, but it never feels like I have to do it or else. I guess maybe if I weren't busy enough it would be different, but still, I think we are all able to make adult choices about this.

[mattr]

I'm not a seven year veteran by any means, but I have noticed that a lot of clients just don't seem to be all that worried about it unprotected sex. Quite a few clients have inquired about barebacking, and I've considered implementing a requirement that an extra fee ($50 or so) is paid and that I have to see a recent STD screen to protect myself.

 

Why an extra fee? My feeling is that you are either OK with barebacking or you aren't. If you are OK with it then presumably there is no additional cost on your part and I see no reason to charge extra. If you are opposed to it, especially for health reasons, then no amount of money should convince you otherwise. For the record, I only engage in "safe" (condom) sex.

[Riley Wynters]

I obviously know that that system would never work, which is why it isn't happening. I care more about my health than an extra $50, which is why I practice safe sex with my dates. All I was trying to say is that I have seen recently a greater number of guys that have asked about barebacking.

[Juan Vancouver]

Why an extra fee? My feeling is that you are either OK with barebacking or you aren't. If you are OK with it then presumably there is no additional cost on your part and I see no reason to charge extra. If you are opposed to it, especially for health reasons, then no amount of money should convince you otherwise. For the record, I only engage in "safe" (condom) sex.

 

Actually a surcharge for barebacking makes a lot of sense. Before, when it was just a surcharge just to have a greater risk, the proposition always seemed creepy and unhealthy. Now, with the state in which safe sex is, it absolutely makes sense. It's no longer an extra amount to convince the escort, it's an extra amount to deal with the specific expenses related to barebacking.

 

If I were going that route, I would absolutely charge extra for that. A lot more.

 

Not only clients who want barebacking should be contributing to pay for PREP, but also these sessions should share the risk if the escort contracts an STI with these clients and for that reason has to stop working till the infection clears and he is no longer contagious.

 

Barebacking can and will eat away a big portion of the escort's income, it's only fair clients that want that pay for it.

[mattr]

Actually a surcharge for barebacking makes a lot of sense. Before, when it was just a surcharge just to have a greater risk, the proposition always seemed creepy and unhealthy. Now, with the state in which safe sex is, it absolutely makes sense. It's no longer an extra amount to convince the escort, it's an extra amount to deal with the specific expenses related to barebacking.

 

If I were going that route, I would absolutely charge extra for that. A lot more.

 

Not only clients who want barebacking should be contributing to pay for PREP, but also these sessions should share the risk if the escort contracts an STI with these clients and for that reason has to stop working till the infection clears and he is no longer contagious.

 

Barebacking can and will eat away a big portion of the escort's income, it's only fair clients that want that pay for it.

 

Not sure I agree. What level of risk is built into the base fee already? Sounds like the first step in the implementation of an ala carte menu which, as a client, I find annoying.

[+ glennnn]

This discussion is frightening. I'm sure, at least I hope, my 4 current escorts are too mature and smart to risk unprotected sex, but it is increasingly unlikely I would hire an unknown who may have been indulging, willingly or not, and who may endanger my health by being infected with any STI. For me it is safe sex or no sex as much as I can control the issue, PREP or not. Am I over reacting?

[Juan Vancouver]

Sounds like the first step in the implementation of an ala carte menu which, as a client, I find annoying.

 

I respect that. I hope then that you won't be asking escorts to bareback with you. However just because you are annoyed with something it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

 

For me it is safe sex or no sex as much as I can control the issue, PREP or not. Am I over reacting?

 

It's not a matter of over-reacting, I see it more as a matter of being an adult making your adult personal choices. It's perfectly fair not to want to meet with men who bareback. Even if those men are not lying and are taking PREP and are negative, there are some risks involved in having unprotected sex or having protected sex with men who routinely have unprotected sex.

 

It's your body, your rules. Enforce them every time.

 

I would only invite you to consider the possibility that many of the men with whom you are having sex might be having unprotected sex and saying they aren't. I say this not to scare you or to invalidate your choice, but to insist that if it is important for you not to contract STI's, then you have to take all the necessary precautions for that, every time, even with those men who claim to be 150% safe.

 

I say this because I often encounter clients who claim to be incredibly paranoid about STI's, take me through the whole interview to "make sure" that I fulfill their safety criteria, and then in the heat of the moment they swallow my cum or even play with my cum in their ass.

 

Human beings lie. If you are really scared of STI's, then take precautions ALL the time.

[LADoug1]

I'm not a seven year veteran by any means, but I have noticed that a lot of clients just don't seem to be all that worried about it unprotected sex. Quite a few clients have inquired about barebacking, and I've considered implementing a requirement that an extra fee ($50 or so) is paid and that I have to see a recent STD screen to protect myself.

Is $50 worth it to risk contracting an STD?

[+ Lance_Navarro]

I know this point has already been brought up by myself and others on multiple threads, but when it comes to STI infections, you are just as much at risk if your having condomless oral sex. The only thing you're more at risk for when having condomless anal sex is HIV. Prior to being on PrEP I wouldnt see guys that insisted on barebacking and I couldn't understand why they weren't willing to deal with me wearing a condom when fucking them, however I understand now, it's simply not as comfortable or as intimate. I can understand why guys who are positive/undetectable, on PrEP, or trust the science behind PrEP feel comfortable forgoing the condom for anal sex.

 

Whether or not to use a condom is a conversation I have with each client, and it's predominantly about their comfort level. I am taking no greater a risk at an STI infection going bareback than I am when sucking or being sucked bare. Notice too that i use the term condomless rather than "unsafe" or "unprotected", because PrEP is a safety measure.

 

I hope that people won't make judgments based on the fact that I don't abide to using condoms 100% of the time, or that the pictures on my site show me and my partner having bare sex. I however have to live my truth and can't be worried about the judgment of others.

[+ Eric Hassan]

I know this point has already been brought up by myself and others on multiple threads, but when it comes to STI infections, you are just as much at risk if your having condomless oral sex. The only thing you're more at risk for when having condomless anal sex is HIV. Prior to being on PrEP I wouldnt see guys that insisted on barebacking and I couldn't understand why they weren't willing to deal with me wearing a condom when fucking them, however I understand now, it's simply not as comfortable or as intimate. I can understand why guys who are positive/undetectable, on PrEP, or trust the science behind PrEP feel comfortable forgoing the condom for anal sex.

 

Whether or not to use a condom is a conversation I have with each client, and it's predominantly about their comfort level. I am taking no greater a risk at an STI infection going bareback than I am when sucking or being sucked bare. Notice too that i use the term condomless rather than "unsafe" or "unprotected", because PrEP is a safety measure.

 

I hope that people won't make judgments based on the fact that I don't abide to using condoms 100% of the time, or that the pictures on my site show me and my partner having bare sex. I however have to live my truth and can't be worried about the judgment of others.

 

Well said. +1 for certain.

[Juan Vancouver]

when it comes to STI infections, you are just as much at risk if your having condomless oral sex. The only thing you're more at risk for when having condomless anal sex is HIV.

 

Actually, I think that is not entirely correct. I was told this by a few experts in the field.

 

It is perfectly possible to transmit Chlamydia and Gonorrhoea orally, but it is harder than anal transmission. Unless the infection is full blown and very aggressive, unless there is an ejaculation or a lot of discharge, you could potentially have oral contact with someone who is contagious and not be infected. Anally, chances are much greater. Also, it is a matter of length of exposure; if someone sucks my cock for ten minutes, then I pee, I put a condom on and fuck him for an hour, chances of infection are lower than if someone sucks my cock for ten minutes and then I fuck him without a condom for fifty more minutes.

 

Also, after having condomless sex if you pee right away, sometimes certain bacteria can be eliminated from your urethra preventing a few infections. This is impossible when being the receptive partner of a condomless penetration.

 

That is why with the advent of PREP and the increase of men having condomless sex, all STI's have been rising. It just makes sense.

 

If my income didn't depend on it, I would have absolutely no problem going on PREP and enjoying condomless sex. In my mind, a slightly higher chances of STI's absolutely justify the advantage it would give me.

 

Notice too that i use the term condomless rather than "unsafe" or "unprotected", because PrEP is a safety measure.

 

I agree. I have been using un-protected, but that is not precise. Condomless is more adequate.

 

I hope that people won't make judgments based on the fact that I don't abide to using condoms 100% of the time, or that the pictures on my site show me and my partner having bare sex. I however have to live my truth and can't be worried about the judgment of others.

 

I for one applaud you! It is time we all start making adult, informed choices and accepting the fact that we are always negotiating different levels of risk for every single activity in which we partake.

 

People will judge. That is the nature of the beast. People will be ignorant and will be harsh, but the more we have an open, adult, caring dialogue about this, the sooner the stigma will go away.

[+ José Soplanucas]

The key is "we are always negotiating different levels of risk", as Juan says. There is no physical contact that is 100% safe, not even kissing, and there is no way to make it safe other than having sex in an astronaut suite. If you are a germophobic person, you better invest your money in pornography or voyeurist encounters.

Educate yourself and make informed decisions.

[+ Lance_Navarro]

Thanks @Juan Vancouver for your thoughtful response. You can always be counted on for supportive and intelligent conversation. Your comment about peeing after sex is a really good one, and something I try to do, whether it's oral or anal, and again timing is everything, the quicker the better. I would just like to add that an oral STI can often be undetectable, as the most common symptom is a sore throat, so many just attribute it to allergies, environment, or so many other things, which is why it's important that everyone who is sexually active get a full screening every 3 months.

 

My partner once got chlamydia in his butt from a guy eating his ass and using spit to finger him.

 

You are absolutely right than what we need, not just on the forum but in life, is more intelligent and respectful conversations about sex. We can't allow the fears of "what if" to keep us from living and connecting, but of course, we should manage the risks as best we can.

[Juan Vancouver]

Thanks [uSER=4405]We can't allow the fears of "what if" keep us from living and connecting, but of course, we should manage the risks as best we can.[/uSER]

[uSER=4405]

 

Amen brother![/user]

[mattr]

I respect that. I hope then that you won't be asking escorts to bareback with you. However just because you are annoyed with something it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

 

As I said in my initial reply to the OP: "For the record, I only engage in "safe" (condom) sex." If anyone asked me my opinion on condomless sex in a casual relationship, I would counsel against it. But no one asked and that was not the issue being debated here. You're right though, just because something annoys me, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't make sense. In this case however, I find it annoying, AND it doesn't make sense. Hate to say it because I generally find your comments thoughtful and even insightful, but you're off base on this one Juan and with each tortured post and snarky remark ("I hope then that you won't be asking escorts to bareback with you.") you seem to be digging yourself deeper. Even the OP has backpedaled on the idea of putting a price tag of $50 on barebacking.

[Juan Vancouver]

Hate to say it because I generally find your comments thoughtful and even insightful, but you're off base on this one Juan and with each tortured post and snarky remark ("I hope then that you won't be asking escorts to bareback with you.") you seem to be digging yourself deeper.

 

My point is that if you have no intention of asking escorts to bareback, debating whether or not YOU think this makes sense is a moot point. I am flattered you think my posts have been insightful in the past.

 

Again, just because for you, as a client who will never use this service, this price system doesn't work for you, and just because it annoys you, it doesn't mean this won't be right for some escort who lives from this and has done a very careful risk analysis.

 

If I were to do this, however, a 50 dollar surcharge would not be enough for me to take the risk of having to stop working for a couple weeks until something clears. My surcharge would be much higher.

 

Even the OP has backpedaled on the idea of putting a price tag of $50 on barebacking.

 

I am not surprised. When he started getting better roles, Tom Hardy also back-pedalled about his having owned up to having had sex with men and now due to the outside pressure says his comments were taken out of context.

 

We all tend to "adapt" the things we publicly say, often as a response to what we believe the opinion of others to be. This is specially true when we believe the reaction of other people to things we say might affect our income.

 

That is why I am so proud of Lance, gently stating his honest point of view, owning it, not letting other people's passionate disagreement alter his honesty and opening up room for further discussion.

 

I find it ridiculous that grown men spend their entire lives making a ball of rubber bounce with the only intention of making this rubber ball go through a hoop of wire. It doesn't make any sense at all. I know, however that it makes sense for many, and I know I should not spend even two seconds trying to theorize why this makes no sense.

 

My opinion on this subject is absolutely irrelevant.

 

My opinion on all subjects, as a matter of fact, is absolutely irrelevant.

[+ Lance_Navarro]

My point is that if you have no intention of asking escorts to bareback, debating whether or not YOU think this makes sense is a moot point. I am flattered you think my posts have been insightful in the past.

 

Again, just because for you, as a client who will never use this service, this price system doesn't work for you, and just because it annoys you, it doesn't mean this won't be right for some escort who lives from this and has done a very careful risk analysis.

 

If I were to do this, however, a 50 dollar surcharge would not be enough for me to take the risk of having to stop working for a couple weeks until something clears. My surcharge would be much higher.

 

 

 

I am not surprised. When he started getting better roles, Tom Hardy also back-pedalled about his having owned up to having had sex with men and now due to the outside pressure says his comments were taken out of context.

 

We all tend to "adapt" the things we publicly say, often as a response to what we believe the opinion of others to be. This is specially true when we believe the reaction of other people to things we say might affect our income.

 

That is why I am so proud of Lance, gently stating his honest point of view, owning it, not letting other people's passionate disagreement alter his honesty and opening up room for further discussion.

 

I find it ridiculous that grown men spend their entire lives making a ball of rubber bounce with the only intention of making this rubber ball go through a hoop of wire. It doesn't make any sense at all. I know, however that it makes sense for many, and I know I should not spend even two seconds trying to theorize why this makes no sense.

 

My opinion on this subject is absolutely irrelevant.

 

My opinion on all subjects, as a matter of fact, is absolutely irrelevant.

 

Thanks for the shout out darlin! I gave up on giving a shit about what everyone thought, a while back. Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. I try to approach life from the perspective that I don't need to change others to be happy myself. I'm on your side and find your voice to be far more positive, supportive and compassionate than those that choose to hate on you. Much love & light in your life and path.

[LADoug1]

Actually, I think that is not entirely correct. I was told this by a few experts in the field.

 

It is perfectly possible to transmit Chlamydia and Gonorrhoea orally, but it is harder than anal transmission. Unless the infection is full blown and very aggressive, unless there is an ejaculation or a lot of discharge, you could potentially have oral contact with someone who is contagious and not be infected. Anally, chances are much greater. Also, it is a matter of length of exposure; if someone sucks my cock for ten minutes, then I pee, I put a condom on and fuck him for an hour, chances of infection are lower than if someone sucks my cock for ten minutes and then I fuck him without a condom for fifty more minutes.

 

Also, after having condomless sex if you pee right away, sometimes certain bacteria can be eliminated from your urethra preventing a few infections. This is impossible when being the receptive partner of a condomless penetration.

 

That is why with the advent of PREP and the increase of men having condomless sex, all STI's have been rising. It just makes sense.

 

If my income didn't depend on it, I would have absolutely no problem going on PREP and enjoying condomless sex. In my mind, a slightly higher chances of STI's absolutely justify the advantage it would give me.

 

 

 

I agree. I have been using un-protected, but that is not precise. Condomless is more adequate.

 

 

 

I for one applaud you! It is time we all start making adult, informed choices and accepting the fact that we are always negotiating different levels of risk for every single activity in which we partake.

 

People will judge. That is the nature of the beast. People will be ignorant and will be harsh, but the more we have an open, adult, caring dialogue about this, the sooner the stigma will go away.

But Juan, is it worth the small risk of contracting HIV even when on PrEP?

 

I almost always agree with you. This time I'm not so sure.

[killianjamesnyc]

If someone feels pressured to do something that they see in a scene that took 90 minutes to do with two people they dont even know and wont remember 2 years from now, thats pretty powerful. You just got controlled by a porn star. A class of people 80% of the world consider disgusting. Im being 100% serious when I ask you, how do you feel about that?

[mike carey]

@killianjamesnyc, I can understand people feeling pressured, but I agree they should reject that pressure. If I meet a guy I want to be enticed, not forced.

[killianjamesnyc]

@killianjamesnyc, I can understand people feeling pressured, but I agree they should reject that pressure. If I meet a guy I want to be enticed, not forced.

 

By what? The radiation from the TV? That makes more sense. Brain cell mutation and all. LoL. I do bareback porn and just bought 3 boxes of condoms. Anything to avoid talking to Ghonaherpasyphilitis, yaps for days. Gotta have that CondomSense guys. Now im just busting balls. Lets go pump some iron, check ya later

[mike carey]

The radiation from the TV?

I knew I had to watch out for that, dayum!

[+ Lance_Navarro]

But Juan, is it worth the small risk of contracting HIV even when on PrEP?

 

I almost always agree with you. This time I'm not so sure.

 

I understand your point, but condoms fail as well, so even if your using one, their is still a risk. Even if condoms only fail 1% of the time, that is still a greater risk than what seems to be the statistical evidence of PrEP, from which we have only seen 1, maybe 2 incidences of seroconversion when it's taken as prescribed. Considering that over 50,000 guys are on PrEP, multiplied by a conservative estimate of 20 sexual encounters, we are looking at over 1 million sexual encounters. Even if there had been 10 PrEP seroconversion, that would still be a failure rate of just .0001%