Why offer sex without condom?

[KnaldeBriks 182]

• 
• 
• 

Jeg har valgt at holde denne tråd på engelsk, da den er et debatoplæg til en GP, der ikke læser og skriver dansk.

 

@Melly 20 - CPH You suggested creating a thread, discussing the reasons to offer sex without condom. I'm curious about the reasons why and your thoughts about it.

If anyone else has offered sex without condom, I'd of course like to hear from you as well.

 

Please note, this thread is not about all of you who would never buy such a service. That's your rightful choice, but not the topic. Thank you for your understanding.

[Joey Joe Joe 2845]

Because without is ten times better. It gives the man much more of the feeling, that he have taken her.

[Dandy 405]

To be honest I'm a little bit tired of this debat. It's been done so many times on this side!!! If sex without condom is a problem, don't go. Personally I would never have sex without with a GP....

...in other words, just stay away...

[KnaldeBriks 182]

Dandy skrev, for 21 timer siden:

To be honest I'm a little bit tired of this debat. It's been done so many times on this side!!! If sex without condom is a problem, don't go. Personally I would never have sex without with a GP....

...in other words, just stay away...

I think you've misunderstood this thread.  My intention was not to discuss if it's a good idea and if you should do it or not. Simply understanding the reasoning behind offering it. She mentioned that she'd be happy to discuss it outside the review section, so I brought the discussion here.

If, however, what I'm talking about has actually been discussed here before, I'd be happy, if you could link to some of the old threads.

Redigeret 3. Juli, 2017 af KnaldeBriks

[gerog 9288]

Why offer sex without condom?
Because where there is demand, there is a market.

The question you should ask yourself, "Am I willing to take the risk, sex without condom can cause you?"

[Bebop 9127]

KnaldeBriks skrev, den 3/7/2017 at 18:29:

If, however, what I'm talking about has actually been discussed here before, I'd be happy, if you could link to some of the old threads.

Det er ikke diskuteret tidligere, men som du kan se er det umuligt at undgå at folk tror det er den sædvanlige diskussion. Du interesserer dig for gp'ens eget motiv, men emnet er en trigger for folk med skrivekløe.

[underdog40 6861]

Jeg er så afstumpet i min tankegang, at jeg tror at de piger som tilbyder sex uden kondom med statsgaranti har en eller anden form for sygdom. Ellers ville de ikke tilbyde det. Sorry at jeg tænker sådan og det er sørgeligt at min hjerne tænker på den måde  . Where is the trust? Hvis verden var sygdomsfri, knaldede vi alle konstant uden kondom. Så ville vi kun bruge det for at undgå graviditeter. Tror jeg...  

Redigeret 9. Juli, 2017 af underdog40

[John41 832]

underdog40 skrev, for 13 minutter siden:

Jeg er så afstumpet i min tankegang, at jeg tror at de piger som tilbyder sex uden kondom med statsgaranti har en eller anden form for sygdom. Ellers ville de ikke tilbyde det. Sorry at jeg tænker sådan og det er sørgeligt at min hjerne tænker på den måde  . Where is the trust?

Ahhh  Tror mere det er fordi de håber at trække flere kunder til    Men når det er sagt, så er din "afstumpet" tankegang med til at holde dig rask

[Bebop 9127]

underdog40 skrev, den 9/7/2017 at 18:54:

Jeg er så afstumpet i min tankegang, at jeg tror at de piger som tilbyder sex uden kondom med statsgaranti har en eller anden form for sygdom.

Tag en alvorlig snak med "din hjerne." Du kan blive smittet med meget via økofransk, som du benytter dig af. Og fra pigens vinkel er det tæt på lige så risikabelt som samleje uden, ergo burde det være samme motivation for de piger der tilbyder økofransk, ifølge din hjerne. [Edit: beklager den fortsatte afsporing, men det ser ud til Melly ikke er i humør til at svare. I det mindste fremlægger jeg et sandsynligt rationale: For pigen er risikoen ikke voldsomt meget større.]

Redigeret 11. Juli, 2017 af Bebop

[Melly 20 - CPH 67]

@KnaldeBriks

I know this thread you started was to get my reasons
Remember that this is my own private reasons, and reasoning - good enough of me maybe and super foolish for others. No judgements please.

Citat

I'm curious about the reasons why and your thoughts about it.

Okey, it's damn late now and I will try to be simple and brief.

I enjoy sex without condom...much more than with condom. It's as simple as this.

I tried both on my last visits.

Some might think " she does it to get more clients" it's not true in my case. I probably lost some clients because of it

I was terrified after the first visit when I started doing " without" on the last 2 days of the one week stay. I went to the clinic the day after I arrived home and I did full - full check.
I was healthy
I thought cool. I had sex with 4 guys without and I am healthy. I guess Danish men do take care of their health.

Second visit, it was with condom though, and last visit without. Again, I had Zero flags at the clinic. I was healthy.

You might think that all my clients choose without, but it's the opposite. Only 10% ask without.
 

Maybe it sounds like a stupid russian roulette for you, and maybe it is.

Maybe it's as stupid as driving 250 km/h on the highway - who of you haven't done that ?

not wise - I agree , yes but it's more fun, more thrilling, more pleasure.

risk, probabilities, calculations... yes yes.

I haven't caught any STD  so far.
I hope I won't.

This is my input and I don't want this to become a discussion about my decision.

 

Stay safe, stay healthy :*

[Guest Mette Tøsen]

I don't offer sex without, but I agree with Melly: it just feels so much better! And it's way kinkier and most men get harder. As some of you know I love cumm. Looooove it! And I sincerely enjoy the feeling of it running out of me afterwards and maybe he'll even lick me. 

It's always a good question whether or not a working girl should trust her clients on their word, let's not argue about that now and just pretend like they're all telling the truth: in the last 5 years I have outside of work met maybe 2 guys who actually get tested, like EVER. In the job however, most men get tested reasonably often, even though they use a condom. In the real world, guys look at me funny when I demand a condom and can't keep an erection because, in their own words; "I'm not used to wearing rubber". In the job world, rubbers are the norm. So I'm really starting to wonder if it might not be safer for me to get my eau naturale kicks off in the job, than in the real world... 

(that being said, it's my own decision that I'll make in my own good time and guys who try to pressure me into going without get blacklisted. Anyone alluding to this post when trying to pressure me will get doubly blacklisted! ) 

[KnaldeBriks 182]

Mette Tøsen skrev, for 20 timer siden:

I don't offer sex without, but I agree with Melly: it just feels so much better! And it's way kinkier and most men get harder. As some of you know I love cumm. Looooove it! And I sincerely enjoy the feeling of it running out of me afterwards and maybe he'll even lick me. 

It's always a good question whether or not a working girl should trust her clients on their word, let's not argue about that now and just pretend like they're all telling the truth: in the last 5 years I have outside of work met maybe 2 guys who actually get tested, like EVER. In the job however, most men get tested reasonably often, even though they use a condom. In the real world, guys look at me funny when I demand a condom and can't keep an erection because, in their own words; "I'm not used to wearing rubber". In the job world, rubbers are the norm. So I'm really starting to wonder if it might not be safer for me to get my eau naturale kicks off in the job, than in the real world... 

(that being said, it's my own decision that I'll make in my own good time and guys who try to pressure me into going without get blacklisted. Anyone alluding to this post when trying to pressure me will get doubly blacklisted! ) 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the subject. I'm really happy this thread finally turned out as I hoped, giving some great insight.

[TheVoice 9347]

Der er vist ikke så meget andet at sige end "Tiderne har ændret sig i den retning, at det ikke længere er et særsyn at der tilbydes ubeskyttet sex". 

[Guest Sparkster]

Melly 20 - CPH skrev, den 9/18/2017 at 04:26:

Maybe it's as stupid as driving 250 km/h on the highway - who of you haven't done that ?

I like this... analogy.

Well it is 100% your choice to drive 250 km/t on the highway, and if the car flips and you kill yourself... Darwinism.

BUT if you flip your car and crash into somebody else and kill them, now that would be a fucking tragedy.. 

Kind of the same with the whole condom thing... there might be collateral damage, but hey fuck'em right - its the clients choice... his responsibility  

Thanks for your input to the debate, always nice to hear from "the other side" even if I dont agree with your choices, they are yours to make, and I appreciate that you share your thoughts. 

[Bebop 9127]

Sparkster skrev, for 20 timer siden:

I like this... analogy.

Well it is 100% your choice to drive 250 km/t on the highway, and if the car flips and you kill yourself... Darwinism.

BUT if you flip your car and crash into somebody else and kill them, now that would be a fucking tragedy.. 

Kind of the same with the whole condom thing... there might be collateral damage, but hey fuck'em right - its the clients choice... his responsibility  

You are completely wrong in your reasoning. 

The defining difference is that in the fast car scenario there is one person making a decision that might influence other innocents badly. In the unsafe sex scenario there are two (or more) persons making a decision together, that might influence either of them badly, but not any other innocents.

So no, it is not "kind of the same".

[Guest Sparkster]

So the reasoning in my post falls apart based on the number of people making the decision? thats the point right?

If that is your argument, I am not convinced that I am "completely wrong" - would it be the same, if there were two people in the car?

[Guest Sara25]

Bebop skrev, den 11/7/2017 at 12:36:

Tag en alvorlig snak med "din hjerne." Du kan blive smittet med meget via økofransk, som du benytter dig af. Og fra pigens vinkel er det tæt på lige så risikabelt som samleje uden, ergo burde det være samme motivation for de piger der tilbyder økofransk, ifølge din hjerne. [Edit: beklager den fortsatte afsporing, men det ser ud til Melly ikke er i humør til at svare. I det mindste fremlægger jeg et sandsynligt rationale: For pigen er risikoen ikke voldsomt meget større.]

Præcis

[Bebop 9127]

Sparkster skrev, for 12 timer siden:

So the reasoning in my post falls apart based on the number of people making the decision? thats the point right?

Du forstår det virkelig ikke, eller stiller du dig bare sådan an?

Hvis du ikke forstår det, prøver jeg lige på dansk:

Nej, det afgørende er, om dem det kan gå ud over er med til at træffe beslutningen om at løbe en risiko. Hvis man løber en risiko, som ikke kan påvirke andre, så er det tilstrækkeligt, at der kun er en selv involveret i beslutningen. Spørgsmålet til Melly gik på hendes villighed til at løbe en risiko. Set fra hendes individuelle risikos sysnpunkt er der ikke kvalitativ forskel på at køre hurtigt eller dyrke usikker sex - begge dele kan have negative konsekvenser for hende. Men du inddrager også de uskyldige, som bilkørslen kan have konsekvenser for, og så fastholder du at de to ting fortsat er "det samme". Det er forkert, fordi du ændrer synsvinklen og dermed hele præmissen for analogien.

 

 

[Guest Mette Tøsen]

Bebop skrev, for 17 timer siden:

You are completely wrong in your reasoning. 

The defining difference is that in the fast car scenario there is one person making a decision that might influence other innocents badly. In the unsafe sex scenario there are two (or more) persons making a decision together, that might influence either of them badly, but not any other innocents.

So no, it is not "kind of the same".

You're wrong. The guy and the girl might make that choice for themselves, but then what happens when they go out and infect someone else? Like the guy's wife who had no idea he'd been banging a prostitute raw? So there are other innocents that might get affected without their knowledge or choice and the analogy holds up. 

This is one of my great concerns when I think about going without. If I or the guy gets AIDS, okay, we kinda asked for it, but what about his wife and mother of their 3 children? 

Chlamydia can render a woman infertile without her ever having had a symptom, so what about his girlfriend that was hoping to start a family one day? 

 

There are innocents. 

[Borende X 25035]

Fordi det er blevet et konkurrenceparameter. Ganske enkelt.

[Guest Sparkster]

Bebop skrev, for 3 timer siden:

Hvis du ikke forstår det, prøver jeg lige på dansk:

Lets keep it in English, since I am quoting an english speaking person, that seems to be the polite thing to do... 

I do understand, I just do not agree with your reasoning. I do however also get the distinct sense that you are arguing for the sake of arguing (occupational hazard?). 

Melly uses the car analogy as a way of explaining the risk, and why she is willing to take that risk. I am arguing that just like driving 250 km/t on the highway, there might be collateral damage with having unprotected sex. And therefore it is "kind of the same" - not "the same" (lost in translation?).

Now I will leave you to your rebuttal - it is a bit off topic, so I will retire, as I should have done before this post... your reply was just the right amount of patronizing.

Remember, you do not have to prove that you are right, just that I am wrong  

[Guest Sara25]

Melly 20 - CPH skrev, den 18/9/2017 at 04:26:

@KnaldeBriks

I know this thread you started was to get my reasons
Remember that this is my own private reasons, and reasoning - good enough of me maybe and super foolish for others. No judgements please.

Okey, it's damn late now and I will try to be simple and brief.

I enjoy sex without condom...much more than with condom. It's as simple as this.

I tried both on my last visits.

Some might think " she does it to get more clients" it's not true in my case. I probably lost some clients because of it

I was terrified after the first visit when I started doing " without" on the last 2 days of the one week stay. I went to the clinic the day after I arrived home and I did full - full check.
I was healthy
I thought cool. I had sex with 4 guys without and I am healthy. I guess Danish men do take care of their health.

Second visit, it was with condom though, and last visit without. Again, I had Zero flags at the clinic. I was healthy.

You might think that all my clients choose without, but it's the opposite. Only 10% ask without.
 

Maybe it sounds like a stupid russian roulette for you, and maybe it is.

Maybe it's as stupid as driving 250 km/h on the highway - who of you haven't done that ?

not wise - I agree , yes but it's more fun, more thrilling, more pleasure.

risk, probabilities, calculations... yes yes.

I haven't caught any STD  so far.
I hope I won't.

This is my input and I don't want this to become a discussion about my decision.

 

Stay safe, stay healthy :*

 

Stay safe and healthy, but take the risk anyhow... ok.. 

So danish guys are healthy, compared to guys in other countries? 

People say that the biggest risk are from homosexuels- a portion of guys are bisexuals- as a girl, the risk of getting a disease is as big if you have sexual intercourse  as megafrench, if the giver haven't found out about the disease yet. If a girl have 5-10 guests in a day,  people will quickly get affected

[Gæst]

no condom...no sex.dont take the Risk

[Bebop 9127]

Mette Tøsen skrev, for 7 timer siden:

You're wrong. The guy and the girl might make that choice for themselves, but then what happens when they go out and infect someone else? Like the guy's wife who had no idea he'd been banging a prostitute raw?

Nåh! - du tænker på utroskab. Hvad har det med sagen at gøre? Det er ikke det, at man dyrker usikker sex og dermed udsætter sig selv for risiko, der medfører at man udsætter andre for risiko. Det er når man senere dyrker usikker sex med endnu en sexpartner, som lider under den mulige misforståelse at man er seksuelt monogam. Men hvilken en af handlingerne er det der udsætter ægtefællen for fare? Det er selvfølgelig, når man har ubeskyttet sex med sin ægtefælle. I den situation træffer den utro en beslutning, som måske har konsekvenser for ægtefællen, og som ægtefællen ikke selv er med til at beslutte (medmindre man mener, at man principielt aldrig bør stole på sin ægtefælle i den slags sager).

Men bland nu ikke tingene sammen. Det er ikke når kunde og gp dyrker usikker sex, at det kan have konsekvenser for andre, som de ikke selv er med til at løbe risikoen for med åbne øjne. Det er når man ikke kender sin egen smittestatus, og man alligevel dyrker sex med en, der tror man ikke har udsat sig selv for mulig smitte.

Hvis jeg den ene dag kører hurtigt i en bil, hvordan kan det så påvirke nogen negativt en anden dag?

Mette Tøsen skrev, for 7 timer siden:

This is one of my great concerns when I think about going without. If I or the guy gets AIDS, okay, we kinda asked for it, but what about his wife and mother of their 3 children? 

Chlamydia can render a woman infertile without her ever having had a symptom, so what about his girlfriend that was hoping to start a family one day? 

Jeg kan sagtens følge dit ræsonnement, men altså: Først skal fx du som gp smittes af en kunde (samleje 1 med kunde 1). Så skal du bringe smitte videre til en anden kunde (samleje 2 med kunde 2) derpå skal kunde 2 bringe smitten videre til konen. Dvs. enten skal du stole på kunde 1 eller du skal nå at smitte kunde 2 inden du kan opdage at du er smittet. Derefter skal kunde 2 stole på, at du er usmittet og derfor satse på, at han ikke bliver smittet med noget, som han kan videre til konen. Din adfærd er ikke ligegyldig for smittekæden, men det er vel heller ikke rimeligt at gøre dig specielt "skyldig" i at konen udsættes for smitte? I mine øjne er det kunde 2, der er den store synder i den kæde. I relationen mellem en GP og en kunde er det i mine øjne åbenlyst, at begge parter løber en risiko med åbne øjne. Det er relationen mellem kunde 2 og hans kone, der er ubehagelig og hvor skylden klart ligger på kunde 2's skuldre.

[Bebop 9127]

Sparkster skrev, for 6 timer siden:

I do understand, I just do not agree with your reasoning. I do however also get the distinct sense that you are arguing for the sake of arguing (occupational hazard?). 

I just happen to be allergic to combinations of moralism and logical fallacies. Logical fallacies alone sometimes are enough to trigger me, but combined with moralism it's a sure thing. Has nothing to do with occupation, it's how I'm wired,

Sparkster skrev, for 6 timer siden:

Melly uses the car analogy as a way of explaining the risk, and why she is willing to take that risk. I am arguing that just like driving 250 km/t on the highway, there might be collateral damage with having unprotected sex. And therefore it is "kind of the same" - not "the same" (lost in translation?).

There is no collateral damage when a seller of sex has unprotected sex with a customer. Capiche? You apparently did not understand what I wrote (in Danish) about  which perspective the allegory is to be understood in.

That you "do not agree" is not an argument.