• Welcome Notice

    Welcome Guest to SexForum!

    New Zealand’s Fastest Growing Adult Entertainment Forum!

Daty be Dammed

Daty be Dammed
Aucklandpunter said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
I will seriously address this bit.
I have already said in this thread, and another, that I personally think that it should be clearly noted in an ad if DATY will only happen with a dam.
Why have I said that?
Because that then allows a client to choose not to book that SW.
So on that point, we are in full and total agreement.

Giving a discount, that's not such a sensible idea.
Better that the SW lets the client know before the booking is confirmed, so that neither has any issues.
The girl can use a dam, because that is her right, and the client can choose a different SW because that is his right.
Seems the most logical solution.
 
Aucklandpunter said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
What makes you believe that it can be pushed back against, or that it is nonsense.

It is their vagina, not yours.
If she wants to use a dam that is totally her business and her right to protect her own body.
It should be understood that the choice will narrow her customer base, and her decision will have potential earning consequences.
Which is why I keep saying that it should be CLEARLY stated in the ad, or at the time of booking so that the client isn't blindsided and they have a choice to book with someone else.

Or don't you believe in free choice and bodily autonomy.
You, me, and every other punter on the planet whinging about a particular girl choosing to use a dam will not change her mind ... nor should it.
In fact, a bunch of whinging adult schoolboys harranging her is probably just going to entrench her in her position, and potentially have her convince others to do the same
That seems like a self-defeating strategy on your part.
As long as she is honest from the get go and is willing to accept that will limit her.
 
Last edited:
Hornybutbroke said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
Important reminder about protection and safety

There’s been a lot of talk lately about privacy and fake advertising, but one thing many people still ignore (or joke about) is unprotected services, like no condom or no dental dam.

The law in New Zealand Prostitution Reform Act 2003, Section 9 is clear , condoms or barriers (including Dam) must be used for all commercial sex. It’s not optional. If reported, the worker, clients or brothels can be fined up to $2,000.

Besides the legal side, using protection is simply about respect and health. It keeps everyone safe.

Some SW promote unprotected services as “VIP”. This is misleading, dangerous, and gives the false idea that it’s normal or allowed, it’s not.


To agencies and booking platforms
You have a responsibility to keep workers and clients safe. Legally and ethically, you should never confirm or promote unprotected services (including no dental dam) if asked. Even talking about it can bring legal trouble and damage your reputation.

For clients
Please remember, asking for or expecting unprotected services is not only illegal but also disrespectful and unsafe. If it’s legal here, it’s for a reason, to protect everyone’s health and safety.

For SW
You deserve to feel safe and respected at work. Using protection isn’t just a rule, it’s about protecting your health, your future, and your power to choose. You never have to agree to something that puts you at risk.

Let’s keep the industry professional.
 
Dannylaw said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
Sure but say that clearly up front before money has changed hands. The interpretation of NZPRA in practice when applied to oral sex is for condoms to be worn for fellatio. It's not accurate and disingenuous of you to extend this express protection to dam use for cunnilingus which as you know, is not the accepted standard practice (indeed it is seen as optional rather than mandatory) . So respectfully, let's keep this industry (and your high handed factually questionable posts) honest.
 
Last edited:
Aucklandpunter said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
Clearly not.
Since you're loosing your shit online about people making a choice that by your own admission limits income.
So you've made a fallacy of your own argument.

Also, as stated by @Dannylaw it is legally a moot point, as the law is the law.
What you and an SW agree to behind closed doors is of course only the business of you and the SW, as long as everyone keeps it zipped.

And yes, you''ll start screetching 'simp' again.
You'll keep kicking up dust and drawing attention to something that if you just shut the f up, you wouldn't be potentialy ruining things for a whole bunch of people, yourself included, and potentially costing some other people their livelihoods.
All so you can ... actually I can't really tell what you're trying to achieve, maybe blubber about your rights trumping someone else's right to stay healthy, or some shit.
Yep, I'll gaurantee you're an ACT voter, you show the same lack of descretion, the same disreguard for other people's choices, the same selfish devotion to your wants at at any expense, the same lack of forethought and the same lack of understanding of consequence.
So again, if you like the act that is the subject of this thread, shut the f up with the whining online, before the 'wrong' people take an interest.
You say you are Gen-X, then you know the code, 'the only crime is getting caught', but if you draw attention from the narcs, the follow on is pretty obvious.
 
Ive only ever had a few girls require a dam and have typically taken it as an "oh they don't actually like receiving and therefore never mind" approach which usually involves not visiting them again unless I take a particular liking to them.

One thing that has irritated me on a number of occasions is places that state DATY or kissing is part of GFE and then you get there and this particular girl doesn't do it without any warning on the listing.

And for the record im a firm believer that good oral hygiene is common courtesy in both directions in this industry and follow that quite strictly along with a proper shower before visiting.
 
OnlyHermes said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
I saw her a couple of times at DH pre-covid, great eating for sure. Then went back after covid and was told it was dam time. I went ahead so as not to cause any awkwardness, but it was a humiliator and tasted blurgh. Then after the renegades set up LF I received a text from their number as Riley saying that she was there now. I never went back as had been put off, probably should have though as so many other elements made her a great punt.
But I guess it sounds likely that the previous health anxieties that brought about the dam then faded after a while.
 
To be completely fair it is a legal requirement that escorts use protection at all times. Its written in the prostitution reform act. They must use condoms and oral dams at all times or face fines, criminal conviction and risk of disease - for both client and escort.
Sti's / Std's are in human mouth and throat.
SO if clients are performing unprotected oral on escorts its a huge health risk to escorts.
Its only fair oral dams are used plus its a legal requirement.
 
Top Dog 1968 said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...

Yup, for this reason, I don't quite agree with a list of girls that require a dam. It's logically no different from a thread that has a list of SWs that provide BBBJ.

If punters are seeking this and SWs are providing it, it's possible for the two to be connected without potentially harming the business of those SWs that comply with the legislation and indirectly pressuring them into breaching the law and risking their health.
 
Last edited:
Top Dog 1968 said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...
That's fine but put it on your bio and then no one loses out. I would think hookers would be all about anything that avoids a disgruntled punter who feels like he was shortchanged so goes and writes a bad review and tanks her business. There should be no negative surprises in this game (and unfortunately negative surprises seem to be the 50/50 norm now)....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top