Well you just made my point...folks saying I won't see so and so because they bareback is silly we all bareback someone...and it takes only one..and if we go with limiting risk then shouldn't we see someone that has less exposure than someone else...pick the chick with the fewest reviews..this whole bb makes me laugh...I gown up everyday at work..you can't see it so protect but to say you won't see someone that is supposedly barebacking when barebacking is all around us...it's not cleaner here because it's the internet or eccie
Originally Posted by Littleroc
Laugh then, I'm done. This is pointless.
Edit: Actually I'm not.
First, you made a Straw Man argument: I never said anything was cleaner because it's the internet or eccie. I didn't say anything like that.
Second: So are you telling me if you had a condom break with someone that does only CFS but barebacks with a boyfriend it's the same level of risk as someone that has barebacked with say, 300 guys? Really? It's not the same level of risk. That's all I'm saying. Is there still risk? Of course. So if we live in a world where condoms break, which we do*, why does it not make sense to minimize that risk if possible by seeing providers that don't bareback clients, to the best of my knowledge (which admittedly might not be entirely accurate). You seem to be saying that because bareback exists at all, there is no point in trying to mitigate the risk from people barebacking. I disagree with that.
* Condom breakage happened twice to me. Got tested both times after a suitable waiting period to cover STD incubation times and came up clean, thankfully.