The end of BBBJ's?

[newboy 4919]

Genetically modified foods, increased use of herbicides and pesticides, superbugs etc.

 

Can't we all just have fun anymore?

[Carrie Moon 68826]

It's not the least bit silly though to draw lines as to what is the level of comfort to take where risk is concerned..

I draw the line at BBBJ.. but I enjoy daty.. so that's my level. Some choose BBBJ but no CIM.

Some enjoy BBFS and this is where 95% of us I'd say draw the line at level of risk.. Some enjoy BB anal.. and that's where those who offer BBFS may draw the line..

BB anal is definitely riskier than BBFS..

 

Wherever your line is... your choice. At least for now anyway.

 

In Australia.. BBBJ is illegal for providers to provide as part of the service in certain provinces. I believe Queensland? last I looked..

[cinelli 22184]

It's not the least bit silly though to draw lines as to what is the level of comfort to take where risk is concerned

 

Everyone has their own limits. Some people are unmoved by any amount of factual data.

Statistical modelling is interesting but we are governed more by emotional response than logic. Flying on an airline is statistically safer than driving but we still drive.

[roamingguy 300292]

Here is the CBC Story

 

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Embedded-Only/News/ID/2051137449/

 

It reports only one case (sorry that sounds minimizing, not intended to come across that way) of the super resistant strain and in Japan, not in Canada. As I said not written to minimize, but there isn't a worldwide epidemic. As for me, I've always respected ladies' boundaries.

If those boundaries should change I'll understand and continue to respect them

Anyhow, a rambling.

 

RG

[Warped88 5815]

I don't have much of importance to add to the thread, but...

 

When I look to meet with a lady, and this is only me, I'm not really looking for services, or how those services are performed. I'm just looking to meet her and enjoy our time in whatever way she's most comfortable. But, I understand not all are like me, and I guess that's where issues start to come up.

 

And for what it's worth, I haven't had a covered BJ in probably 20 years, but had one last week and if felt just as good. So....

[Phaedrus 209521]

Every few years, a superbug blows through, SARS. H1N1, even killer bees.

 

And sometimes the WHO is wrong about just how big the pandemic really is.

 

The WHO's recent report isn't really talking about the same thing as the latest headline-grabbing bug. Things like SARS, H1N1 and now MERS will inevitably crop up every so often, and we just have to deal with them when they do.

 

What the WHO is talking about is the unfortunate coincidence of two things: the gradual evolution of drug-resistant pathogens, and the fact that there's very little research into new antibiotics. The first is more-or-less inevitable, but the second isn't. it's an unfortunate consequence of the fact that pharmaceutical companies exist to make money, and these days the money is not in treating infectious disease; it's in treating the chronic diseases of the affluent West. If you invent a drug that cures MRSA then you can sell it to a patient that will take it for a few days or weeks and then stop because they're cured, but if you invent a drug that reduces cholesterol you can get decades of continuous revenue from each patient.... and so that's precisely what happens. The WHO is saying, "this needs to change, and here's why". There's no deadline... yet. There will never be a sudden moment when this becomes a huge issue. It'll just get worse and worse and worse, until we realize that we have a major problem on your hands.

 

Of course, the real threat is of something evolving that's as deadly as HIV or ebola and as infectious as the common cold. When that happens, there's a good chance that Homo sapiens will become extinct, as so many other species have done before.

[fortunateone 156618]

It's not the least bit silly though to draw lines as to what is the level of comfort to take where risk is concerned..

I draw the line at BBBJ.. but I enjoy daty.. so that's my level. Some choose BBBJ but no CIM.

Some enjoy BBFS and this is where 95% of us I'd say draw the line at level of risk.. Some enjoy BB anal.. and that's where those who offer BBFS may draw the line..

BB anal is definitely riskier than BBFS..

 

Wherever your line is... your choice. At least for now anyway.

 

In Australia.. BBBJ is illegal for providers to provide as part of the service in certain provinces. I believe Queensland? last I looked..

 

 

This is how the law in NZ is set up. Fined for non compliance

 

https://www.healthed.govt.nz/resource/health-and-safety-information-sex-workers

 

https://www.healthed.govt.nz/resource/health-and-safety-information-sex-workers pg 22

 

It applies to all sex workers, whether indy or employed at a brothel. I think it is very specific, and certainly didn't take a lot of time and effort to come up with the idea. Stds are a workplace hazard, safer sex practises involve use of barriers for oral, vaginal, and anal sex, therefore, the PRA laws make it a condition of doing commercial sex work that barriers be used at all times.

 

Commercial is the key word there, this is workplace safety issues, nothing else. It is not a personal decision, and educating is the key as shown in the info, signs are supposed to be put up on the walls etc lol. We don't have other commercial industries where the workers get to decide for themselves what level of risk they are OK with, when it comes to public health and safety. they can't randomly pick and choose what laws, in the case of NZ as comparison.

 

In the comparison of driving, this would be yes someone can choose to drive without wearing a seatbelt, but it is against the law. You can get away with it a lot of the time, but eventually and at some point, chances are you will either get caught (and fined) or you will get in an accident and badly hurt or dead. The frequency of doing it increases your risk.

[Gabriella Laurence 301887]

Carrie, I am quoting you but my comment is not directed at you ;)

It's not the least bit silly though to draw lines as to what is the level of comfort to take where risk is concerned..

I draw the line at BBBJ.. but I enjoy daty.. so that's my level. Some choose BBBJ but no CIM.

Some enjoy BBFS and this is where 95% of us I'd say draw the line at level of risk.. Some enjoy BB anal.. and that's where those who offer BBFS may draw the line..

BB anal is definitely riskier than BBFS..

 

Wherever your line is... your choice. At least for now anyway.

 

In Australia.. BBBJ is illegal for providers to provide as part of the service in certain provinces. I believe Queensland? last I looked..

 

We all draw the line somewhere, and as you stated, that line varies from person to person. To each their own.

 

I am not going to debate the rights and wrongs of BBBJs (or DATY or kissing) and risk levels but I will say this:

As an independent human being, I do not want nor need the government telling me what I can and cannot do in the privacy of a bedroom, as a companion with a patron or as a grown woman in her private life. Whether or not I receive money when sharing intimate time with someone is no one else's business but mine.

 

I value my rights and freedom of choice.

 

(I hope my post makes sense)

[Carrie Moon 68826]

Oh of course.. I'm not saying I advocate gov't influence.. I'm just stating that it's possible. Same as my feelings in the rates thread.. I want always to be my own boss.. I think if it ever came down to the gov't telling me what I can and can't do with my body.. I'd move to live where I once again had freedom.

[roamingguy 300292]

It's not the least bit silly though to draw lines as to what is the level of comfort to take where risk is concerned..

I draw the line at BBBJ.. but I enjoy daty.. so that's my level. Some choose BBBJ but no CIM.

Some enjoy BBFS and this is where 95% of us I'd say draw the line at level of risk.. Some enjoy BB anal.. and that's where those who offer BBFS may draw the line..

BB anal is definitely riskier than BBFS..

 

Wherever your line is... your choice. At least for now anyway.

 

In Australia.. BBBJ is illegal for providers to provide as part of the service in certain provinces. I believe Queensland? last I looked..

 

I swear I do not understand government "thinking" at times.

In Australia BBBJ is illegal for providers to provide as part of their service.

Why is the government so paternalistic to it's citizens?

Is this restriction on BBBJ just to providers, or to everyone? I mean the risk is the same whether it is a SP/Client, or two people dating in a non committed relationship, or non monogamous relationship or well you get the idea

My point, what makes BBBJ such a risk, a risk to be outlawed, only when it is done as a result of a monetary transaction.

BTW Canada isn't much better. Take for example the Canadian Blood Services requirement on being a blood donor. Certain sex acts (although some do) in and of themselves don't bar you from donating blood, if you paid for sex in the last twelve months, or had sex with someone who takes money for sex, then you can't donate. What is it about money that makes sex acts so risky...if no monetary transaction, then those same sex acts OK....???

Anyhow, a lady should just establish her boundaries and restrictions and the gentlemen respect them...no need for government to be involved

BTW maybe all these restrictions on this lifestyle have less to do with concerns about sexual health, I mean if the politicians/lawmakers truly cared about sexual health, wouldn't BBBJ, well any BB be outlawed, and only BB sex allowed with two consenting adults done in a sterile medical environment after thorough testing only if the sex is intended for reproduction. Making such restrictions might be the government's roundabout way of eliminating prostitution. Sorry, just had a quick brain fart there, but then again, it seems that's how the government runs

A rambling

 

RG

[Guest g*nch***2]

Well I have been to Australia and I have seen a few providers there in almost every States and from my experience CBJ is the norm, in brothels and gentlemen's clubs anyway (wich are legal in OZ). I have seen some independant providers and it was always BBBJ. Didn't even need to ask! Same thing in New Zealand, again, from my experience.

[Carrie Moon 68826]

I swear I do not understand government "thinking" at times.

In Australia BBBJ is illegal for providers to provide as part of their service.

Why is the government so paternalistic to it's citizens?

Is this restriction on BBBJ just to providers, or to everyone? I mean the risk is the same whether it is a SP/Client, or two people dating in a non committed relationship, or non monogamous relationship or well you get the idea

My point, what makes BBBJ such a risk, a risk to be outlawed, only when it is done as a result of a monetary transaction.

BTW Canada isn't much better. Take for example the Canadian Blood Services requirement on being a blood donor. Certain sex acts (although some do) in and of themselves don't bar you from donating blood, if you paid for sex in the last twelve months, or had sex with someone who takes money for sex, then you can't donate. What is it about money that makes sex acts so risky...if no monetary transaction, then those same sex acts OK....???

Anyhow, a lady should just establish her boundaries and restrictions and the gentlemen respect them...no need for government to be involved

BTW maybe all these restrictions on this lifestyle have less to do with concerns about sexual health, I mean if the politicians/lawmakers truly cared about sexual health, wouldn't BBBJ, well any BB be outlawed, and only BB sex allowed with two consenting adults done in a sterile medical environment after thorough testing only if the sex is intended for reproduction. Making such restrictions might be the government's roundabout way of eliminating prostitution. Sorry, just had a quick brain fart there, but then again, it seems that's how the government runs

A rambling

 

RG

You make some great points. I'm also not allowed to give blood anymore because I lived in the UK for six months. I might have mad cow disease. Yeah right :p

The idea that seeing a prostitute precludes you from having the ability to give blood safely is antiquated

[roamingguy 300292]

You make some great points. I'm also not allowed to give blood anymore because I lived in the UK for six months. I might have mad cow disease. Yeah right :p

The idea that seeing a prostitute precludes you from having the ability to give blood safely is antiquated

 

And none of these screenings have anything to really do with getting clean blood. The only ABSOLUTE way to ensure you get clean blood, is to test it first and scientifically see if it is clean...which I believe is what they end up doing anyway.....frankly I'd hate for the blood supply's cleanliness dependant on the word of people who fill out a questionnaire.

But some of the questions are really more based on the government's "morality" if you will...and I wonder how many politicians'/lawmakers' would pass the questionnaire?

BTW I flunk off the top of my head around six areas

A morning rambling

 

RG

[fortunateone 156618]

And none of these screenings have anything to really do with getting clean blood. The only ABSOLUTE way to ensure you get clean blood, is to test it first and scientifically see if it is clean...which I believe is what they end up doing anyway.....frankly I'd hate for the blood supply's cleanliness dependant on the word of people who fill out a questionnaire.

But some of the questions are really more based on the government's "morality" if you will...and I wonder how many politicians'/lawmakers' would pass the questionnaire?

BTW I flunk off the top of my head around six areas

A morning rambling

 

RG

 

 

 

re: sex work and bbbjs it isn't a case of morality, as i express in the comment i made about. It is a high risk activity for stds, and it is treated as a high risk activity at the Work Safety level.

 

This is a 'commercial' sex work issue, and work safety standards protect the worker, that is what those policies are in place to do.

 

If it came only to the case of government imposed morality, believe me the difference of cbj versus bbbj isn't what they are going to focus on, it is sex work in total they will morally object to.

 

In commercial sex work ALL oral services, and all other services, require barriers. This means both cbj and cdaty, but i am not sure if kissing is actually mentioned in the regulations. The regulations are about the safer care and handling of potentially harmful fluids, in other words :)

 

In other words, sex workers are not contracting chlamydia or gonorrhea in their throats with cbjs, nor are they spreading it to clients with cbjs, even if they may be doing high risk activity in their personal lives.

[roamingguy 300292]

re: sex work and bbbjs it isn't a case of morality, as i express in the comment i made about. It is a high risk activity for stds, and it is treated as a high risk activity at the Work Safety level.

 

This is a 'commercial' sex work issue, and work safety standards protect the worker, that is what those policies are in place to do.

 

If it came only to the case of government imposed morality, believe me the difference of cbj versus bbbj isn't what they are going to focus on, it is sex work in total they will morally object to.

 

In commercial sex work ALL oral services, and all other services, require barriers. This means both cbj and cdaty, but i am not sure if kissing is actually mentioned in the regulations. The regulations are about the safer care and handling of potentially harmful fluids, in other words :)

 

In other words, sex workers are not contracting chlamydia or gonorrhea in their throats with cbjs, nor are they spreading it to clients with cbjs, even if they may be doing high risk activity in their personal lives.

 

I am sorry but I do disagree with the sex work and morality comment. I know of some very sexual active women, some you might, although I hate using the term because it sounds judgemental, call promiscuous...I prefer very sexually active. But one in fact has her dates at parties where heavy drinking and drug use (cocaine) takes place

The guys are young, single, and well looking for a notch in their belt

They brag at work. When asked if they wear a condom when having sex, no is the answer. Ask if they get tested...the answer "For what?"

I am only setting the scene (true btw) I am sure there are variants of this across Canada and the United States, well the world

It isn't clients meeting professional companions, who are professionals who are well versed in STD/STI risk reduction, testing etc.

It is consenting adults engaging in sexual activity. But there is no money exchanged. Does that make their sexual activity any less risky than if it is between a SP/Client.

Both cases, both true btw. So what is it about paid companionship making a BBBJ high risk versus two consenting adults hooking up and engaging in sex including a BBBJ. Actually likely engaging in BBFS too

All I'm asking is what is it that makes the exchange of money jump something to high risk...it should be considered equally high risk and safety standards imposed whether the sex act is between a SP/Client or BF/GF or two adults dating or two adults and a one night stand. But throw in money, which really just makes the date no strings attached, and all of a sudden the government is involved. If it was about safety, BBBJ plus other sexual activities would be regulated on everyone, not just SP/Client. But singling out SP/Client only, that's government morality

 

A rambling

RG

[Brad 49548]

RG, in spirit I think I agree with what you're saying, but I think I also get the difference Fortunateone is outlining.

 

Consider this, at Home Depot workers have to wear a harness and a helmet if they are going to retrieve anything from the upper shelves. It's a regulation of their workplace safety. However, in my personal life it is not illegal for me to get up on a step ladder without such equipment to reach something, no matter the height. In keeping with the comparison, I could say I have friends who are less trained and cautious than the Home Depot worker and at even more risk of injury at home.

 

Now, we all know such comparisons can be riddled with troubles, but I think that's the sort of difference Fortunateone is discussing...that commercial sex work--in places where it is treated as a business like some others--may also have safety standards. I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of rules and laws you have to follow at work that you don't in your personal life (even when the personal activity is potentially more dangerous)

 

I don't profess to know enough about the topic to discuss whether New Zealand's model is good or not. In fact, I think I'd say I'm generally against any such government regulation. I certainly agree with you that often SP's are unfairly held to a standard that others aren't, and that interactions with them are, if anything, less dangerous than a random bar hookup. And no doubt sometimes regulations that are put out for "people's best interests" do often hide a moral agenda.

 

That said, if something is formally commercialized, it's not necessarily inconsistent to see regulations applied at an industry level that aren't at a personal level. What those regulations should be and what is fair or right is a whole other question of course. :)

[roamingguy 300292]

I understand what Fortunateone is saying too and get it.

I just believe any legislation around restrictions on what a SP can and can't do is morality based more than safety based

The general argument is the underlying assumption that STD/STI's would go uncontrolled and society is put at risk

Your analogy about Home Depot, if a guy climbs unsafely at home, if he falls, he hurts just himself, but at work, yes Labour Laws come into play and Home Depot doesn't want all legal ramnifications not to mention insurance hassles. But whether safety gear is used or not used, the risk is borne by one person alone

All I maintain is if the risk of STD/STI's is really the reason for government restrictions, then ALL sexually active people need to be governed by the same rules and regulations (ie no bbbj)...but we won't see that because lawmakers have a different morality when it comes to sex for money...not to mention a politician who has a mistress on the side doesn't want to give up his bbbj's...did I say that outloud LOL. For arguments sake, the risk of not using protection doesn't just mean a risk for the companion, it means potentially all future sexual partners are at risk too.

But if reducing risk is the rationale, all I'm left wondering is why is the monetary transaction increasing the risk. All bb should be treated equally risky whether in this lifestyle or civilian lifestyle and equally regulated

 

Ooops one last thought. If there is going to be legislation specific to SP/Client such as no BBBJ wouldn't it be better to have it drafted and regulated by a board of SP's. Not unprecedented to have professional organizations regulate their own, for example "The Bar" regulating Lawyers (Law Society Of Upper Canada in Ontario) or the College of Physicians and Surgeons for doctors and so on

Keep the professionals who know the profession regulating it, and the politicians out of it.

Last thought, well till the next one

 

 

 

 

RG

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

I have always tolerated requests for cbj but I'd much rather perform oral without a barrier.

 

If someone tried to tell me I'd have to give up daty or kissing I'd retire.

[Ice4fun 78407]

Suggesting that the introduction of laws or regulations will mean an end to BBBJ's is kinda like suggesting that whatever laws Canada introduces will result in the elimination of Prostitution in Canada.

 

This industry has been around since the beginning of time...yes it evolves and changes but at its basic it is still the same. Outlaw sex is like outlawing breathing.... when that door closes and those two individuals are alone it will be between them what happens. Maybe laws or medical concerns will impact those first visits but once people know each other... all bets are off.

 

Just my opinion.

[fortunateone 156618]

But RG, the whole entire point of sps/clients versus civilians is the business side, the commercial transaction, and the fact that the sp is 'at work' while performing these services. And like any other workplace, conditions and regulations can be (and in some countries are) applied.

 

It is what it is. It isn't about stamping out stds, and it isn't about controlling morality, it is a simple case of worker safety. The example of Home Depot is of course exactly the same. We aren't controlling what civilians or even the Home Depot worker is doing at their own home, only regulating what they can do in the work place, for their safety. Once a regulation is in place, this means also that an employer cannot demand the worker get up on that ladder, at the workplace, without the proper safety equipment. Nor in NZ or similar places can any employer demand that an sp provide uncovered sexual services.

 

And that is what it means to protect a worker with regulations. Whether a worker would voluntarily do it, they will have to do it on their own civilian time, not at the workplace.

 

Comparing it as a morality issue is not at all accurate, when the fact of the matter is that stds are real, and std transmission occurs without barriers. As a health and safety issue, it is a pretty clear line. Sps aren't high risk because they are sps, sps aren't being morally judged and found faulty due to the fact that they are sps, The focus is that the risk is in the activity >>> uncovered sexual activities. You take the bbbj out of the work place, and the work place is a safer place for the worker (the sp).

 

I really have a hard time believing anyone thinks it is OK to not protect sex workers just like any other labour force just because they are sps, and not regulate the safety issues of commercial sexual activity.

[Ice4fun 78407]

Just to be clear I don't have any problem with safety regulations for a legal sex work industry in fact I think it could be great for everyone.... clients and SP'S. it would help SP'S resist the pressure they may feel from clients / employers to participate in unsafe activities that they might not want to participate in.

 

In a perfect world each SP would have full discretion to decide what services they wished to provide but we all know that this is not a perfect world and like most industries it usually requires some type of regulation to improve the status quo.

 

My concern about any legislation and or regulations is that it will be implemented under the guise of improving the lives of Sex workers but will really be driven by a desire to eradicate the industry. Maybe if safety regulations were driven by industry workers I might be more in favour.

 

Just my opinion

[roamingguy 300292]

But RG, the whole entire point of sps/clients versus civilians is the business side, the commercial transaction, and the fact that the sp is 'at work' while performing these services. And like any other workplace, conditions and regulations can be (and in some countries are) applied.

 

It is what it is. It isn't about stamping out stds, and it isn't about controlling morality, it is a simple case of worker safety. The example of Home Depot is of course exactly the same. We aren't controlling what civilians or even the Home Depot worker is doing at their own home, only regulating what they can do in the work place, for their safety. Once a regulation is in place, this means also that an employer cannot demand the worker get up on that ladder, at the workplace, without the proper safety equipment. Nor in NZ or similar places can any employer demand that an sp provide uncovered sexual services.

 

And that is what it means to protect a worker with regulations. Whether a worker would voluntarily do it, they will have to do it on their own civilian time, not at the workplace.

 

Comparing it as a morality issue is not at all accurate, when the fact of the matter is that stds are real, and std transmission occurs without barriers. As a health and safety issue, it is a pretty clear line. Sps aren't high risk because they are sps, sps aren't being morally judged and found faulty due to the fact that they are sps, The focus is that the risk is in the activity >>> uncovered sexual activities. You take the bbbj out of the work place, and the work place is a safer place for the worker (the sp).

 

I really have a hard time believing anyone thinks it is OK to not protect sex workers just like any other labour force just because they are sps, and not regulate the safety issues of commercial sexual activity.

 

I have no problem with this being about SP safety. But you know who is really great at SP safety...SP's who look after it themselves, imposing their own boundaries, screening clients and so on. Case in point. Did you need politicians to develop your screening methods and tell you what is and isn't allowed. You prove exactly what I believe. SP's are better at controlling this than politicians/lawmakers

Politicians wouldn't impose laws restricting bj for example to cbj only because they care about the professional companion's health or client's health. But unlike falling from a ladder, hurting one, one only person, it's not an epidemic. But the fear of a SP getting an STD/STI also would lead to fears of an STD/STI epidemic.

And if fears of an STD/STI epidemic are considered, then it's not a workplace safety issue, it's a public health issue. And as a public health issue, all, not just SP's/Clients to consider. And it's an issue that affects

all sexually active, not just professionally sexually active people, so the same legislation should be across the board

But as I also just argued, you don't need lawmakers to draft legislation in a field which they really don't 100 percent understand. You ladies know it much much better, and are better at screening, imposing your own boundaries and so on.

BTW I'm not missing your point, I completely understand your argument. I just have this opinion, that's all

A rambling

 

RG

[fortunateone 156618]

That would be a valid argument except: all sps are not at liberty to decide for themselves what services to provide or not provide. Some are employees, many in fact, and they are and will be marketed and advertised as to offer popular services. There are some who do not wish to provide bbbjs, but due to pressure of the business, do so for the sake of their business. The pressure of what others provide, and provide cheaper, drives what they provide.

 

Plus the reality is, that in the work place, and if sps want to be taken seriously as a business, businesses get regulated for worker health and safety. It is what it is. If the std clinic is telling you to cover up for the bjs, and the cdc is telling you, and random news articles are telling you, then it doesn't take much to figure out that the Worker safety board is also going to be saying the same thing. :) They may also say that employees have to get tested weekly, or that the employer is required to provide free weekly testing.

 

Whether sps are able to police this for themselves for their own services is irrelevant to this discussion, of worker safety health policies. Sps are not always providing services in ways that are in their own best interest, health wise.

 

Just as drivers aren't always driving in ways that are in their best interests: speeding, undue care and attention, and not wearing seatbelts. They have a license, they took training, it doesn't mean they won't break the law, but in the interest of the public, there are still laws against speeding, undue care and no seatbelts.

[LeeRichards 177238]

I have always tolerated requests for cbj but I'd much rather perform oral without a barrier.

 

If someone tried to tell me I'd have to give up daty or kissing I'd retire.

 

Well get your hot ass back out west Jess !! Cause my lips and tongue aren't retiring anytime soon ! I'll do the DATY dance if I have to make ya come back ;)

 

If they outlaw BBBJ tho ...... the sadness may be overwhelming and you might have to revive my bits and pieces sexy pants. See pic below.

 

[Old Dog 179138]

So this is not about what happens at the end of a bbbj.

 

It's about something else.

 

Cuz... umm.... ermmmm... if you get a goooooood bbbj ummm....

 

back to internet porn... nevermind.