Edit: Whoops, just saw the date on this thread. Feel free to delete/take any other action. Been reading from 2016 up and forgot.
New around here. I fully understand the reasons why this is hush-hush, but we're all aware of the reality of the situation. Fellas "warning" girls about men who have had unprotected sex with other providers, Fellas refusing to see women who have had unprotected sex with a gent...it's all unnecessary drama in my opinion. Lying in reviews saying they didn't do it; lying saying they did to damage them. Come on now. These circumstances only exist due to the power given to BBFS. That power really exists due to people in my opinion not acknowledging the bottom-line.
You mitigate your risk as best you can by using a condom. Or you decide you want to indulge in risk and you don't. Whether a Provider has done BB in the past doesn't come into play in a meaningful way if you use a condom - particularly if we acknowledge that everyone is barebacking or has barebacked someone (significant others, flings, that one gent they saw every week for 2 years etc.).
It's just a source of board drama. Just wear a condom and a provider's BBFS history doesn't play a meaningful role health-wise, unless you want to argue the poor judgment is a turn-off. However, based on my time in Upset, judgment skills aren't rated heavily in the rubric to judge whether a fella wants to spend time with a provider.
It seems to be to just be a wedge issue to add intrigue and drama. The only way to be protected is to use protection. Or if you want to take on the Providers risk profile, you have to make your peace with it.
There are sexual marketplace reasons why most Providers will speak out, but those reasons exist largely because some lads aren't understanding that when a condom is in play, her BBQ status ( to borrow Loki's term) doesn't make a substantial impact in your bottom-line risk. Originally Posted by TSlyC
Bbq status ? ?