BBFS, the Elephant in the room

[Need4Deed]

Getting an unexpected BBBJ, when CBJ is expected, feels like driving at night and suddenly seeing a shooting star in the sky.

Not so thrilling if that shooting star is an STD landing on your ass!

[Universal]

Likewise...I have met with several ladies who didn't bother to offer ME the courtesy of asking MY permission or to pose any question of concern to me about BBFS prior to meeting.
It then becomes very awkward going forward with the session when I have to insist on safety. The entire mood/atmosphere is affected.

YOU Reaching for a condom & placing it >on your Dick is no different than me reaching for a parachute when going skydiving , it's a safety device. I ain't waiting on anyone to SAVE ME .... unless it's CPR.

[Need4Deed]

YOU Reaching for a condom & placing it >on your Dick is no different than me reaching for a parachute when going skydiving , it's a safety device. I ain't waiting on anyone to SAVE ME .... unless it's CPR.

Agreed, thank you! My point is that there is lack of consideration both ways sometimes.

[Universal]

^

[Securitized]

Not so thrilling if that shooting star is an STD landing on your ass!

That risk is probably no higher than somebody rear ending you at 45 mph the next time you’re waiting at a traffic red light

For STDs there are treatments, but not so much for a cracked spine

[Universal]

Save the message though so you can refer back to those guys if you need to. You can create a new inbox folder. You might want to call it a BBFS or DNS folder. Dump those messages there so you'll have a permanent record of the guys requesting it. Just a suggestion.

^ this Helps. Advice that I didn't think of at the moment is a blessing. Smart people rule the earth

[bb1961]

Yes two consenting adults should do whatever they want. I agree.

Here are potential issues that I see....

When something is said long enough and loud enough, then people begin to believe it and the more BBFS is discussed, the more it becomes the norm in people's mind. There is a reason why sometimes it's best to ignore the elephant in the room. Gentlemen who are partaking in BBFS may possibly be taking home what they could be contracting to their unsuspecting wives, and their wives were NOT consenting.

So therefore, is it still a question of two consenting adults doing whatever they choose?

As this becomes more openly discussed and more and more the "norm", what will be the consequences if we begin to see outbreaks and health hazards? Do you guys truly believe ladies are getting tested regularly? You guys don't even trust ladies enough to lay your money down before a session or to prepay via an app, but you will trust your health and your life?

As BBFS becomes more commonly posted and accepted, what will happen if these outbreaks begin to affect a plethora of unconsenting, upstanding, church-going housewives? Would this not be the fuel for the fire that puritanical conservatives need to begin a witch hunt against these hobby boards if they are going to become perceived as a threat to public health, like the way AMP's are being targeted for sex trafficking?

Now I understand there are arguments to made that lots of people have unprotected sex that meet in bars, etc. so the phenomenon and possibility of spreading disease to other unconsenting adults is not just confined to these boards and is not new, but neither is sex trafficking and that hasn't stopped them from recently targeting sites and businesses for sex trafficking.

What I find concerning is the possibility that it could give conservatives even more ammo than they already have to target online sites as it becomes more accepted to be openly posted about and discussed.

How does it look to the casual observer/conservative who is merely scrolling through the site to see more and more open ISO's for BBFS?

Purely hypothetical, but just some food for thought.

In your post you are always eluding to "conservatives" the legislation that was past was a VERY bipartisan bill.
The liberals were on board as well...so you were very disingenuous by not pointing that out.
There are puritanical liberals as well...I have a feeling you already know that.

[1andonlyboardman]

In your post you are always eluding to "conservatives" the legislation that was past was a VERY bipartisan bill.
The liberals were on board as well...so you were very disingenuous by not pointing that out.
There are puritanical liberals as well...I have a feeling you already know that.

Of course it was bipartisan. It takes a pretty strong political stance to vote against stopping trafficking without looking like an idiot. Just the way they frame things makes it difficult.
I don't know about all the reasons the 100+ Reps voted against it. Who knows what most of them are thinking.
In the Senate only Ron Paul(big surprise there) and Ron Wyden voted against it. They get the big picture of censorship. Paul is a reasonable libertarian and a beacon for real freedoms. He pretty much daily he rubs the Republicans the wrong way but he's got enough clout to vote his conscience and say what he thinks rather than always follow the party line. Wyden is a Democrat that I really don't know much about but in this case he cited concerns with censorship and the intrusion into the internet. I'm sure neither one supports trafficking. What they do support in regard to Sesta is not taking away the rights of the majority of people to control a small minority. It's the kind of thinking we need more of in politics.

[bb1961]

Of course it was bipartisan. It takes a pretty strong political stance to vote against stopping trafficking without looking like an idiot. Just the way they frame things makes it difficult.
I don't know about all the reasons the 100+ Reps voted against it. Who knows what most of them are thinking.
In the Senate only Ron Paul(big surprise there) and Ron Wyden voted against it. They get the big picture of censorship. Paul is a reasonable libertarian and a beacon for real freedoms. He pretty much daily he rubs the Republicans the wrong way but he's got enough clout to vote his conscience and say what he thinks rather than always follow the party line. Wyden is a Democrat that I really don't know much about but in this case he cited concerns with censorship and the intrusion into the internet. I'm sure neither one supports trafficking. What they do support in regard to Sesta is not taking away the rights of the majority of people to control a small minority. It's the kind of thinking we need more of in politics.

I'm just pointing out the fact that she puts this at the feet of "conservatives"...when there are a lot of puritanical liberals.
Her political discourse toward the "conservatives" is pretty evident.

[1andonlyboardman]

I'm just pointing out the fact that she puts this at the feet of "conservatives"...when there are a lot of puritanical liberals.
Her political discourse toward the "conservatives" is pretty evident.

Fair enough although I'd characterize it a bit differently. I think conservatives tend to be puritanical by nature while liberals become puritanical when it fits their agenda or a particular narrative, meaning it's basically disingenuous.

And sorry, I got the vote count wrong. Only 25 reps voted against the house version.

I try not to hold someone's political views against them as long as they understand there is a reasonable opposing viewpoint.

[chloevankatie]

In your post you are always eluding to "conservatives" the legislation that was past was a VERY bipartisan bill.
The liberals were on board as well...so you were very disingenuous by not pointing that out.
There are puritanical liberals as well...I have a feeling you already know that.

The entire point of my post was completely and totally lost on you.

I do not care to have the liberals vs. conservatives debate and which one is better. That is NOT the point of this thread nor the point of my post but thanks for your efforts to point out all my disingenuous ignorance and your efforts to ignore all other points that were made so that you can educate me on all my disingenuity.

Have a lovely day.

[bb1961]

The entire point of my post was completely and totally lost on you.

I do not care to have the liberals vs. conservatives debate and which one is better. That is NOT the point of this thread nor the point of my post but thanks for your efforts to point out all my disingenuous ignorance and your efforts to ignore all other points that were made so that you can educate me on all my disingenuity.

Have a lovely day.

You brought "conservative" into this thread...no other post on this thread mentioned it.
You could have just as easily as puritanicals...who's disingenuous??
Sometimes it's just a force of habit...political ideology just slips out.

[Universal]

liberals and conservatives had more success persuading political opponents when they framed their arguments in terms of the moral values of their adversaries. The most effective persuasive appeals were the ones that literally spoke the (moral) language of the enemy.

[chloevankatie]

You brought "conservative" into this thread...no other post on this thread mentioned it.
You could have just as easily as puritanicals...who's disingenuous??
Sometimes it's just a force of habit...political ideology just slips out.

You are right. I am fucking stupid and disengenuous. My word choice completely invalidates my post. Why didn't I say puritanical? God I am so fucked up. What was I thinking? How could I made an error?

I will refrain from posting anymore til I learn proper terminology and learn to make proper posts that perfectly fall underneath the criteria of others. I should know better. When I said conservative it was obviously completely fucked up of me. You are right it me that brought "conservative" and I take all the blame. May God have mercy on my ignorant and disengenous soul.

[Universal]

please close thread. Not intended for personal hostile flames at each other