This just makes me feel very uncomfortable and pretty much won't visit any K-girls who provide BBFS. Aren't they worried about the much increased chance of getting STD? Although I sometimes can't resist the temptation to see some girls, I still have STD-phobia. I was wondering if any other people have this feeling or just me.

It's not complicated . . . . they can charge another $100 for the session and if they slack on the service a little, no one complains because they are allowed to CIP.  

Because that's what the market wants. In other words, mongers are pushing for it and the girls feel like they'll lose business if they don't, because they know as well as we do how widespread it's gotten over time. Or, like CDL said, they just want to make more per session. Kgirls are financially motivated.

Largely agree with everything said here.

K-Providers don't like BBFS either. They're afraid of catching a disease just as much as us. Unfortunately, most need to offer it to stay relevant and competitive.

No kissing and no blow job or fucking without a cover.  

Same here and I've mentioned this on multiple posts.  I don't know how some people are justifying this change in the market by saying that's what the market wants and so some girls provide and so we should just accept it.  

Lol yeah okay. Good luck buddy. That train has left the station

agree

here who can only think in binary terms.  Those that are somewhat risk adverse, as I am, still have options in the Kgirl scene to play it safe, but I don't believe I have any right to tell other mongers that have a higher risk tolerance what they should do, or how they should be hobbying with Kgirls.  There has ALWAYS been Kgirls who were willing to go bare with regular customers that they trusted, and I would be lying if I said I don't still see a few of these ladies.  I know what the risks are, and am willing to take them.  However, I don't see girls who advertise BBFS or have a clear review history of offering it indiscriminately.  Call me old fashioned.  Lol

Well Said!!
Two thumbs up!

On the contrary, I am not thinking in binary terms at all.  Risk is on a continuum because we're talking about probabilities here.  Risk to the whole community is increased if the idea is pushed that not covering up is okay.  
- For one, spread happens.  Doesn't take much to know what the first 2 words in STD means.  BBFS by others absolutely increases the probability of you catching something, even if you take precautions.  Think of it this way, you cover up and bang 100 clean girls.  You cover up and bang 100 girls who all have multiple STDs and the cum of previous customers in them.  Which do you think is likely to be safer?  This is not binary thinking at all.  This is thinking on a spectrum of risk.
- Secondly, if the provider community wrongfully gets the impression that they won't have customers if they insist on CFS, then they are being pressured into providing BBFS.  This only increases the probability of the community moving towards unsafe practices and this harms everyone.
By the way, I see that you guys are pretty active in this and other forums as well.  So, I am thankful for your contributions to this community.  However, this is one topic on which we really won't see things the same way.
Whoever agrees with me, please tell your booker that you prefer non-BBFS girls.  If enough of us tell them, at least there will be a few providers who will keep it that way for us.
Are you guys on PreP and that's why you're so confidently fearless?  Or are you guys already HIV+ and so it doesn't matter anymore?

Can you clarify "You could argue that STD's can also harm innocent people".  Who are the "innocent people"?  CFS guys or people who don't partake in mongering at all?

The safest airplane is the one that never leaves the ground. Airplanes have been proved to be extremely safe, but not perfectly so.  
 
During the height of the AIDS epidemic, study after study showed -- proved -- that condoms are extremely safe at protecting against STDs, but not perfectly so.
 
You want to reach the kind of safety you're talking about, whether flying or fucking strangers? Stay home.

If you read my post again, you will see that it's a false argument and there are NO innocent people who catch STD's.  Percentage-wise, I believe STD's are still more predominant among the civvie population than among sex workers.

Again with the binary thinking.   Seems like you guys are thinking "its not zero risk, so might as well make it very risky".

in binary terms, but read your last sentence, where you suggest that mongers who do BBFS only have two options . . . . Either we are on PreP, or we already have HIV, so it doesn't matter anymore.  When you insist there are only two options, that's binary thinking.  

made its choices, and that is to allow each member to hobby the way he wants to.  There are guys here who cannot easily finish with a cover on, and you are not going to persuade them with any amount of argument that they should give up BBFS.  It's a fool's errand to even try.  Do what you can to achieve a level of risk that you can accept, as I have done.  You eliminate your risk of harm if you stop participating in the Kgirl scene.  Covering up is still risky, running for cover is not.  Lol

I'll say this again though I have multiple times but somehow you don't seem to notice: my goal isn't zero risk since I know that isn't achievable.  My goal is minimizing risk and that isn't a bad thing.

in the discussion. First, I think you're making a very general point about disease propagation and implications for some population (no reason to call it a community). I think your point is sound and correct at one level. The more that people engage in BB the greater the potential for spread and infection (including to others that are either staying covered or even not part of this game but have a relationship with someone that is). From that perspective having a discussion about implication from behavior and whether it should be considers a pure private question is valid I think. However, just because it's valid to call something like that out and seek a dialogue on the presence of an externality doesn't mean others actually have an obligation to change (within a lot of blurry line people do have the right to be pretty big assholes to their fellow humans).

These are some fair arguments you're making, 36363jensen.  We'll never get good enough statistics and so will have to depend on what appears logical to us.  And it is not at all surprising that each of us estimates risk differently.

And by the way, I can't believe I'm having this discussion in this country!  Even in 3rd world places like Tijuana and Bangkok, covering up is the norm.

Who are the initial source of pressure on the girls to provide BBFS service. You describe us as a community, but what we really are dealing with is several communities who see KGirls. Broadly, there’s the BBFS group, and then there is the CFS group. But as pointed out up thread, it’s not that black and white.

I'm a K-Girl in the DC area and I don't offer BBFS. It is rather scary how many girls in general are offering it. I think many just think they'll just get meds if they catch something. Most probably aren't even having relations with their SO so waiting til the meds are done isn't a big deal for them.

I don't think CDL is an advocate of BB and has a number of times mentioned that the open advertising at lease give mongers a more clear choice when deciding to see a particular woman or not.

True, broadly speaking, among the mongers there is the BBFS group and the CFS group.

in Tijuana.  Several years ago they had a serious STD outbreak in TJ, and lo and behold, Kgirls in San Diego were catching STD's.  Many stopped touring there as a result and still don't go there to this day.  They only get the newer girls that don't know the history.  It was never proven whether the diseases were sneaking across the border at night or it was the mongers were catching it in TJ and then bringing it across the border to Kgirls.  Lol

when girls felt "pressured" and I will never forget the feeling of encountering a Kgirl in a bad mood because her last customer pressured her relentlessly for BBFS.  However, the Kgirl scene has evolved, and it's not that market anymore.  The GFE girls are still "asked" but not pressured, because the girl will simply ask them to leave, and mongers know if they get thrown out for pressuring a girl for BBFS, they risk being BL'd by the entire org, so they back off.  

of pressuring anybody to do BBFS, and I agree that the open advertising of BBFS by Kgirls makes it easier for those that want it to find it and those that don't to avoid it.  The only thing I have ever been judgmental about is the douches who OUTED an UTR girl as a source for BBFS.   There are three classes of Kgirls when it comes to BBFS; those that offer it to everyone, those that offer it to no one, and those that offer it sparingly to their best customers, and I have always been against outing girls who wanted to offer it selectively but not have it publicized.  The guys that do this don't realize that when they poison the well, THEY won't be able to drink from it either.  It's a dick move in my book.  I have no objection to anyone that wants BBFS getting it, nor from girls offering it, even though I will voluntarily restrict my own access to such girls.  The main thing I advocate is individual freedom to make your own choices.  

When you are a provider posting on the boards, you are allowed to attach a link to your website ad that will allow the customers here to look you up with one click.  I think some of the help pages will tell you how to do it, or else go to the lower right-hand corner and click, "contact us", and ask Admin how to do it.  You need to also claim your profile as part of the process.  

Hello Coeur-de-lion!  

...but it is not MANDATORY to do so.  A provider can choose to participate on the boards without linking a website and without having any reviews.  In fact, providers who link their websites to every single one of their posts are just posting to get free advertising.  

Annyeonghaseyo! 안녕하세요.  
.
I'll post a couple of Kiana's links here:
DC Ad Board: http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/washington-dc-ads-102/asian-blonde-busty--69653
.
Web site: http://kiana-reeves.com/  
.
I can't find a Profile that matches up with Kiana Reeves but there is an Asian Kiana in DC from two years ago: https://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/kiana-4805475749-351670
Kiana: is that you? (With those reviews, I hope not!) If it is and you can prove it to TER, you can claim it as yours: see the link "Claim my profile" in the left side frame. That way, your username (kianareeves) is linked to your Profile and shows up on all of your posts. Also, you get "free limited VIP" which includes PM (private messaging = TER email).

only two groups of mongers . . . . the BBFS group and the CFS group.  This is binary thinking and far from correct.  There is a third group, which includes me and may be the largest, who will go bare with SOME girls, but not with others.  

I wish I could say those are my reviews if they’re good ones! Lol But they’re not mine. Mine are somewhere else. But I don’t doubt I’ll get some on here soon! Thank you for posting my site and trying to get me some reviews. 💋🤭

LOL I missed the part where you said you hoped those reviews weren't mine. Now I just hope people don't think they are!

Is it...

so the two statements are not mutually exclusive at this point in time.   Things change over time and Kgirls have not just been sitting on their hands.  I did get one thing wrong back then, and it was that providers always post under their working name.  That's not true, but I didn't learn that with regard to Kgirls until about a year ago.  Some post under an alias just like the mongers.  Two years ago you thought a Korean-American indie was a Kgirl.  After getting beat up, I think you kept your opinions of the biz to yourself.  Now you only stalk here.  

well maybe not, that what you say in this post has not been picked up on before!
I don't think any of your posts, in this thread or others, have been for or against BBFS.
Just freedom of choice for Mongers and Kgirls and that each individual needs to do what they feel is best for them!  

But that misses the actual complaint underlying the contra BBFS side. The driver, as far as I can see is not about controlling others but pointing out that a negative externality exists and actions that increase the risk of incidence of that externality are not purely private choices. "One side is saying I should be able to make my own choice and you other people just have to deal with that." The other side is saying "We don't want a situation that increases the risk of transmission of STDs that put everyone at a greater risk of infection so should try to promote policies/norms in the activity that minimize those risks by restricting the choice for engaging in BBFS." Both sides have some problems with the position from some absolute perspective (any and all cases) and both sides have plenty of real world examples that support their positions. We do have laws and regulation and customs that prohibit or really discourage certain behaviors and actions. We also have protections of rights that ensure we can make our own choices without interference from others. But neither of those are universal. So where does the line fall in this discussion?  

What changed in the intervening two years??????

I remember her quite well! I saw her every time she visited the NoVA area. Many good memories of her when she was with a K-agency and after when seemingly an indy.

to indie now that there are more bookers willing to represent them.  The orgs previously where the only place the bookers would work.  Now there are independent bookers.  

She was a true Korean legend!

why?

a veteran who has lived through the market changes.  I admit I was "slow" to get on board with the openness in advertising BBFS, especially when some of my favorites joined the movement, but I'm convinced now that, overall, it's a positive development.  It makes it easier to identify who you want to see, or who you want to avoid, depending on your own perspective on the risks.  However, it's sometimes frustrating when I'm in Vegas, and there are NO GFE Kgirls available while I'm there.  Last few trips, my only options were indies.  

"...  get tested
share your test results of you and your partner
that way you have CURRENT knowledge of the status of you and your escort ..."
.
emphasis on CURRENT (as in "right now!") and ANALYSIS.
.
Too bad there isn't a 5-minute test for the presence of male DNA. Ask your hostess to let you swab her deposit slot, run the swab using the [doesn't exist yet] test kit, and look for the color change associated with male DNA residue. If present, get outta there! Combine that with a 5-minute [doesn't exist yet] test for a variety of undesirable infections.

You don't specifically say so, so I have to ask if that's what you're saying. I've always said to myself, I've never fucked a girlfriend with a condom (except the first time with a couple of them). So I would ask, how can a provider advertise GFE and then say "no BBFS," and lots of them saying "no DFK." NEVER had a girlfriend that didn't DFK, lol.
 
And your last sentence, what's the rub there? Ease of access? Location? What?

been used to designate BBFS.  Last few years, some use PSE to mean BBFS.  In the Kgirl scene, GFE is generally meant to include DFK and BBBJ, but many girls go beyond that to include DATY, FIV, and occasionally FIA.  If a Kgirl tells you she is GFE, it means don't waste your time trying to get BBFS . . . . at least not until you have firmly established yourself as a weekly regular.   Then it might be YMMV even though she says she is GFE only.  Ask but don't pressure.  Some girls are quick to BL if they get pushback on a "no."

-- Modified on 12/19/2022 4:30:40 PM

Not anything I've found, anyway. My experience is that GFE is a nebulous term; it has no definite meaning anywhere. PSE is similarly used to get attention, but not promise anything. I was only saying that TO ME, if I got to define GFE, it would mean she'll do anything I'd expect from a girlfriend... and then I'd need to explain what *I* expect from a girlfriend, so it would be the same rabbit hole. On the other hand, the ad sites could impose definitions to be used for common ad terms on their website.

-- Modified on 12/19/2022 8:18:32 PM

make up your own definitions for various things, but expecting providers to go along with it is what gets mongers blacklisted.  Trying to walk a provider through YOUR definition of GFE to try to get BBFS under the theory that she is advertising GFE service, so that should include BBFS like your real girlfriend gives you is not likely to end well.  Just a little friendly advice from someone who has been in the game awhile, which you are welcome to ignore if you choose.

Jensen, my post was to CDL and the fact that he was looked at as being pro BBFS.
And he isn't for or against it.
My post was not about the ins and outs of this discussion.

Fair enough. I did read it in the context of the larger discussion.

that I think each monger should be allowed to hobby the way he wants, so long as he is not pressuring non-BBFS girls (because it puts them in a bad mood for the next customer) and are just going where the girls are willing to give them what they want.  As long as these guys can afford the rate and there are girls willing to accept the risks, there will always be a market for BBFS and I don't think it's my place to advocate one way or the other.  I have never advocated against it,  only against mongers OUTING girls who are UTR and NOT advertising it.  

If you wear a condom then why do you care about what the other person does? Isn't that the same logic the anti-vaxxers used?