APPLE1

It was all very civilized. The police were called but didn't show up. They told the store to call the secret service. The grocery store manager, myself, and the credit union manager did a conference call with the secret service. I gave the store a different $20. The Secret Service had taken down my name and information and allowed me to walk the $20 back to the credit union. The credit union gave me a different $20, and before I left the credit union, one of the employees had returned from the Staples in the strip mall with bag of counterfeit markers, and they checked the rest of the $20s they had given me thst morning before I left.

Just a heads up, even when you become an old timer here (more than 30 days LOL), I believe your ability to "edit" a posting is limited to 24 hours after you "submit reply." Another point of clarification, "locking" a topic is an action reserved for moderators. Typically used for comments swaying too far off topic, religion, politics, personal attacks between members, etc. Everyone can still read it, but no further written comments are allowed. If you start a topic and you loose the argument, or are embarrassed about things you wrote, etc, as the creator of the topic you have the option to "hide" or "delete" the topic and then no one can even read it anymore.

I inadvertently passed a counterfeit bill ONCE at the grocery store, after having recieved that bill from a teller at the credit union in the same strip mall minutes before.

Learned years ago from a friend that the best response is: That's an odd question to ask someone your barely know. Why on earth would you ask?

Can you imagine getting a jury panel to convict on that unanimously? Certainly not if I was on that panel.

The discussion of whether or not "rape" occurs through "fraud" actually falls under the umbrella of "conditional consent." When it comes to sex and conditional consent, courts are working on sorting out many specifics. However, people offering legal opinions and potential strategy, as well as contrary opinion and strategy, are a dime a dozen. When goods and services are exchanged for something of value, that is CONTRACT LAW. Until I see a judiciary, and its higher controlling authority rule otherwise, it will always be contract law. I have yet to see a case ruling stand where calling simple sex for money, when no money gets paid, rape. If I agree to do Only Fans, and I don't get paid what I agreed to, I get to sue for breach of contract, not rape. Just like if I sell 10 trees to a lumber yard, and they come in and cut 20, I get to sue for breach of contract, not trespassing.

I completely understand archetypes based on observations. However, I don't think personal oservations shouldn't limit or prohibit possibilities, expansion, or change. To maintain that words are limitted to specific archetypes, is akin to denying that English is a living language. As someone who has experienced rigid, stoic, stigmatized words that applied to myself, I strive to try accept changes in descriptors so others have a better experience as they go forward. I will echo what @Manhattan said about it not being easy, and I will admit to some mistakes and failure on that front. I strive not to be my grandparents, who limited gay to mean men who were feminine, soft, sissies, and who walked around behind closed doors in bras and panties. Or my parents who defined trick as the guy a prostitute took home.

I'm not sure there is much a purpose analyzing one dictionary definition vs another, or the history and root of a particular gay descriptor. Let's call a spade a spade - we all know what they mean. The real difference is the connotations associated with the specific words, and connotations are important. Hell if they weren't, it's likely a thesaurus wouldn't exist. I think connotations grow their roots both in society's culture, and our individual history and experiences. I also think they change their direction through both of those things. In terms of the first, society's culture, certain words have a history of being considered low brow, or impolite, and know one used to speak them in "polite" society. Like myself, I am sure some of you may remember when it was considered, by many, inappropriate to talk about cancer. In a highly progressive crowd, you MAY have been able to openly use the words "cancer" or "breast cancer." But, come hell or high water, you deffinetly wouldn't have said "uterine" or "ovarian" or "cancer" in the same sentence. Saying them in "mixed" company would have earned you a one way ticket to hell for sure! Then, as more people spoke those words freely, it became completely natural and acceptable behavior. It was a trend likely precipitad by younger folks and people fed up with the stigma. When we can freely use stigmatized words to apply to ourselves and others without malice, it pushes those words into a commonplace arena for usage, and it decreases some of the stigma. In terms of the second, our individual history and experiences, there are certainly words that cut deep when we hear them. I am not advocating for anyone to ignore or dismiss our own or another's history, and I am certainly not saying anyone has to fully embrace or use any word they find painful. But, if there are words WE saw used to degrade or bully every single kid like us when we were growing up, and a few generations later, if there are kids who saw only 75%, or 50%, or 25% of their peers bullied with those words, that generation may likely be in a different mindset. If that mindset allows them to use those words freely or proudly, even when others use them as a pejorative, isn't that at a small victory for us all?

1) I think I would have been happy I was texting with him at that point. In person, I probably would have blurted out "what the fuck does that mean?" 2) My written response would likely have been, "I am looking for a session that consists of . . ."

Clear, open, direct communication??? What a novel, yet seemingly very effective, type of communication.

I generally use the term gay to describe myself. However, if someone refers to me by any other "gay" descriptor, without malice, I am pretty indifferent. Others have alluded to this, and I think that malice is a key factor. After all, whether someone stands on the street with a sign that says "homosexuals should die," or "queers should die," neither fills my heart with warm fuzzies. And, likewise, neither is more palatable than the other. I also have a few gay friends who make specific word choices to describe specific subsets of people. If one of them said "my friends are joining us for dinner. John is gay, Bob is queer, and David is a f-g-t," I'd likely know who was who based solely on the demeanor my friends associate with the gay descriptors.

"A," "Columbian," and "Fraud" all denote singularity. It seems fundamentally obvious that if anyone wanted to include a whole group, they would have chosen words like "All," "Columbians," and "Frauds."

I assume you are asking about the case linked below. Looks like the last 2 entries on the court docket were on 01/08/24 when a pretrial conference was set for 10/04/24, and a trial was set for 11/04/24, and an entry on 03/27/24 when a judge was assigned. https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=23CY-CR00900-01&inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0001_CT07#docket

I will confess that there' is one regular that I pay upfront, but it's more for his discretion requirements. Per his request, I only text him things like "are you available tonight at 7?" Then when I arrive, he sees how much cash I put on the table, and he knows what I want for that session. BUT, the tip depends on his performance, and that is left on the table as I leave.

I saw him last summer. Okay massage. Nothing to write home about. Extras were OK. He was charging much less last summer. If it matters, I would say he's not 6'1 or 6'2. Maybe around 5'11 or 6'. Wasn't a bad experience, but I wouldn't repeat and certainly not at his current rate. There was no experience with the BF.

Rebrand. Unfortunately, I don't remember the prior name, and have never experienced him, but I distinclty remember pic 4.

Glad to hear that you are finding value in this site. I am assuming that you may not have come across the discussions on using a VPN. They typically allow you to see the actual written portion of the rentmen reviews when you use a location outside the US. Given the propensity for providers to come on here and tout themselves, I hope you can understand that when @azdr0710 or other longer term members point out that reviews are written by very new members, IMO, it's not a red flag automatically defining a new member as disingenuous. It's more of what I call a yellow post-it note indicating that maybe I should give the review a little more scrutiny. Like @crazyivan indicated, 5 months from now, if someone looks at your profile and it's active, contributing regularly, or logging in regularly, your post will likely have just as much credence as other reviews. And, after 5 months of reading reviews on here, you may come to appreciate it when members throw that post-it note out on someone's review to give you a heads up regarding scrutiny.

Sometimes the truth is utterly depressing 🙁

I completely understand what you are saying. I think anytime a group is excluded, or made to feel unwelcome on any level, it warrants a high degree of scrutiny. I can certainly accept that some people feel that all venues should graciously welcome women, and other people scrutinize the same venue and feel women shouldn't be welcomed. We see, and seemingly allow, descrimination all the time! The only difference is really how individuals feel in regard to what level of exclusion/inhospitableness is acceptable and who it can be directed at - - - we all evaluate and draw our lines in the sand differently. Often, I think we just have tunnel vision to a few hot button issues that are presented to us. We are more than happy ignore the rest, or consider it as a tolerable level of descrimination.

I often believe the extra charge is only because businesses know customers will pay it, and some of it is clear profit. Years ago, I had a friend who worked customer service for a private store credit card. He said the company did a study and found it cost 50 cents for the company to process a check payment mailed in. It was cost 25 cents for the company to take a check by phone. The company pushed customer service to take checks by phone, and no convieince fee was passed on to the customer.

I've struggled with that. And I will be very frank, it was never an internal DURING an "event." At that point, I was either in hog heaven surrounded by only men, OR scouling quietly and deciding how and when to leave after I saw they women. Ultimately, I've taken the same stance as the civil rights act of '91, with perhaps a little more allowance when it includes accurate self reporting. The Act allows for exceptions when there's a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (your business requires it for success). It's the reason Playboy couldn't have been forced to have naked male models, or older obese women, on it's pages. It was a magazine self proclaiming to target men who wanted to see attractive, naked, young women. And I find the declaration significant. If Playboy had marketed itself as a magazine for adults who wanted to see nude models, it would be a different story. Because live venues take on a dynamic that's dependent on direct attendance of a specific sub population, they should have a good share of liberty in deciding who enters their venue in order to keep their target group returning and spending money. While it may not always be ideal or without some limitation, choosing what to sell and how to sell it, is a pretty significant cornerstone of the free market economy. If there's a market for change that can be successful, someone will fill it - - - hence, Playgirl. PRIDE events are often free market capitalism as well. If a significant portion of attendees were turned off by men in feather pink boas, or guys sucking dick in the corner, people would stop coming, and organizers would make changes to satisfy their target population and keep attendance up. While I am by no means an ultra conservative prude who thinks that a child seeing a sex act will scar them for life, there are people who feel differently. To that end, I also feel events like age rating PRIDE, either as a whole, or individual happenings at the event, would be great! If the local festival advertised that: "Sunday's street carnival is family friendly and a great place for kids. Saturdays street fair - - - not so much," it would be terrific! Parents would know they could go on Sunday and have a great time. And I would know, I could sleep in on Sunday, and there was no reason to leave the house.

I think the key point of the risk/benefit analysis of a deposit isn't the benefit part, it's the risk part. All of the RISK is on the client. If I give my CC to secure a hotel, or most any business reservation, and my reservation is canceled by the business, it's almost 100% that I am getting my money back. Regardless if it's $5 or $100 that I pay a provider for a deposit, if the provider cancels, I feel like my chances of getting that money back are nowhere close to 100%.

I do feel like anyone who is strict about punctuality, should let a provider know up front. While I am normally on time for client meetings, I can also say that clients I see who are rigid on absolute punctuality, pay more. If I have to set aside a block of time ahead of them to make sure they get in my office at exactly 3pm, they are paying for that. I remember years ago being chastised by a client who had to wait a few minutes. At our following appointment, I announced that he needed to stop talking, and it was time for him to leave my office. He was aghast. I explained that, I knew punctuality was important to him, and I was sure he wouldn't want to be the reason another client had to wait a few minutes. He had a different perspective on my punctuality for our subsequent meetings.

I am selective about when I log in. I review potential profiles AND THEN I log in to re-examine or contact providers that I may have interest in.

I was with you until "that's only for openly gay men who are comfortable with their sex life." Mainly, I can't accept the converse that I read into that statement: 'if someone wants just an hour, they are either closeted or not comfortable with their sex life.' We all have different proclivities for sex. Top/bottom, quick dirty/drawn out passion, used hard like a slut/loved tenderly like a BF, etc. I think it's inherent to being comfortable with your sex life to know what you want, what you desire, and even know what you are missing in your non-monetized sex life. Maybe you're both tops or bottoms, or don't want a BF experience, or simply enjoy lots of new "faces". If a guy can bring in a provider to scratch that itch, and it's satiated after 30, or 60 mins, good for him.