Originally Posted by
Brock
Some but not all. Look at the way Ruhama and other powerful lobby groups see it, they constantly monitor E-I profiles. Any lower priced woman who offers something thats regarded as potentially unsafe sex like "owo" are an example of escorts practicing unsafe sex according to Ruhama and their supporters, they have a powerful voice.
Can you explain why certain independent escorts imply that they are intimidated by lower priced escorts who offer all the services, some of which are potentially dangerous services like owo? Not all escorts are willing to practice potentially unsafe sex like OWO to every customer they meet. Ruhama pushes the idea though that all sex workers offer unsafe sex.
Some escorts offer "owo" to meet demand and in order to compete with the competition. If they don't offer it, then they lose the clients who believe its their absolute right to have it as standard service, all because the next best thing is offering it on her profile. BOO HUU!
Its a serious issue when Ruhama are using "owo" in their submission and public lobbying arguments as an example that all escorts offer potentially unsafe sex.
Its the clients that are creating that demand, through saying that oh they can't get the same experience with a rubber on etc and need owo as standard to make their experience considered worthwhile.. To some of the politicans looking at the sex trade, it looks like its all unsafe, even to many independent escorts on E-I, owo is considered unsafe, thats why they don't offer it.
So for the sake of all clients wearing a rubber while getting a blow job, Ruhamas argument would be less potent. But thats not important to clients is it? so they still demand OWO and draw intense hatred from powerful lobby groups that want to make them criminals.
The escorts that don't offer it are creating an arguably more respectable picture as a whole, than some of the lower priced or even high priced escorts that offer potentially unsafe services, OWO in particular that other escorts simply will not offer as standard service.
People can advocate and tolerate "owo" all they want, but nevertheless Ruhama will use it as quite potent ammunition. If bareback was banned, due to it being considered unsafe, then the argument should be there for escorts to also lobby to get OWO banned, thus removing ammunition for Ruhama, thats providing of course that people want to stop Ruhama from having so much ammunition to use against all escorts as a whole.
Of course not all lower priced or high priced escorts offer unsafe sex, but Ruhama would have the public believe otherwise especially when "owo" is demanded by some clients who see it as a perfectly standard service that should be tolerated.
Well, not al clients are wreckless enough to engage in services like "OWO" yet Ruhama would have you believe that all clients want bareback and unprotected sex like OWO.