APPLE1

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.

Yeah, but those damn ethics get in the way. I mean if we could have a control group and an experimental group where we locked them in cages and kept everything the same besides the pot, we would have our definitive answers. Until then, we will have to speculate if it's the pot or possibly things like lifestyle changes that may accompany it, i.e., I'd rather sit around all day and get high instead of using my mind and body.

Thank you. I am being sincere. The other letters in that alphabet certainly can bring a host of feelings and issues other than who one is sleeping with. They can be complex issues, and I appreciate the response letting me know a little more of the specifics.

In the past 50 years, the world has changed in terms of the manner and speed that information is spread. It's hard to cite specific actions that cause backlash now, and then say backlash was minimal 50 years ago because the action was more civil. If Stonewall riots happened today, I assume the backlash would be much different than when they happened originally. Are there specific actions or ideas that you see happening now that you feel shouldn't be included in the perserverence for sexual freedom?

That's often a catch 22 in high profile cases. Specifically for the reason of appeals. When you assume, as most do with a high profile case, that the case details are going to be gone over with a fine tooth comb looking for appeal grounds, being thorough is often a significant priority. It's therefore prudent for the defense and prosecution to make sure jury instructions are clear and specific, and that you don't have the court's most novice judge making rulings that run afoul of precedent.

That's not correct. While the term "convicted felon" may be removed by the legal process, as the process drudges along, the term is still valid and official. Now when it comes to punishments or sanctions, sometimes those are withheld during certain appeals.

I think that is a common trend among most groups fighting for change. We start with a subtle expression that the new idea, and the people embracing it do so as "every day folks," pretty similar to their neighbors. Then, as acceptance grows even slightly, we see people who feel like calling for change shouldn't be subtle. It should bold. There are always people who call for subtle change and those who call for radical change. Some believe it to be a natural flow. Once the subtlety has softened the idea, it then awakens more people. People who support the idea in the same or different manner, or people who now have a somewhat safer culture for the bolder to call for change.

That's a significant statement. Marriages, and their terms, are a state controlled contracts. Likewise, the dissolution of those contract terms (divorce) are also state controlled. I would ask a lot of questions about the effects if both of us, or one of us, moves to another state and how it may affect the prenup. Especially if I live in a small state, or on the boarder. It certainly isn't unheard of for spouses to separate, then one moves just a little ways to another jurisdiction, establishes residency, and ends up filing for divorce.

Have your visits in past years been over Memorial Day weekend also? As I understand, IML is in Chicago on Memorial Day weekend. I am not diminishing your review, or the Lucky Horseshoe Lounge. I'm just wondering if the influx of gay tourism over the weekend caused them to up their game for the weekend?

Good god man! $100 discount - - - - share his name! Let's not be keeping secrets. 😉

Other than the Black Party, I have been to all of them mentioned here, and then some. They've included lots of men, sex, socialization, and drugs. My experiences/observations have been that "sex" is going to include aggression and sex you personally may not find appealing. "Socialization" is going to include strangers brazenly propositioning you for sex and drugs. "Drugs" is going to include open use, sale, and overindulgance. If any of those extremes being included is going to completely ruin your experience, do not go. If you can walk past the turn-offs hardly batting an eye, and simply enjoy the parts that do appeal to you, go and savor the good parts.

At my job, when a client is unpleasant or difficult or I dislike dealing with him, the price goes up and my availability decreases. If neither of those happen with the masseur, I would take it as at least a partial sign that "OK" truly meant it was "OK. "

Thank you. I have never had a particularly "bad" experience with a hookup or a hire. I'm guilty of forgetting my privilege in this regard, and working to keep reminding myself that other's haven't been as fortune.

I think a lot of the distinction between aversion and preference rests on decorum. I am a big supporter of expressing, exploring, and discussing opinions and preferences. However, when engaging in debates with adults about differences, in order to keep those discussions fruitful, thought provoking, and thought challenging, they need to be logical and appropriate. If a discussion shifted to say clean shaven/facial hair, like most topics, expression of support for either is easy. Expressing dislike can always be a little dicier. It wouldn't be a worthwhile discussion if all I hear are things like bearded men, and the guys who like them, are unclean and akin to dirty homeless guys who are hiding their face from me, and are too lazy and poor to afford and use a razor. OR, clean shaven men, and the guys who like them, are really just shallow men who lead vapid lives without enough to do, and are really just deluding themselves into believing they're not pedophiles who secretly desire boys not old enough to grow facial hair. Ridiculing another's choice in a vicious manner is NOT a DISCUSSION or a DEBATE. If I wanted venemous thoughts thrown at me for my sex choices, instead of coming to CoM nightly, I could find myself an ultra conservative church to go to every night. Hell, they would even eliminate any debate for me on which man was most attractive! It'd all be a disgusting, dirty obomination.

The above seems very significant in this situation. We can certainly debate all day about which providers prefer advanced notice and how much, or which providers prefer same day meet ups, and which is more likely to come to fruition. Provider and client lives vary a lot, and the scheduling protocols that work for one, may not work for another. BUT, when you have an appointment scheduled in advance, AND you confirm that appointment a few hours before the meeting, you've really accomplished the best of both worlds. There's plenty of notice, and you should be able to assume that everyone is still serious and ready to make it happen. There are very few good reasons to miss an appointment that was confirmed just a few hours prior. And almost no good reasons to not communicate why you failed show up for the meeting.

I wasn't trying to label the session as "perfect." I frequently see things in ads about preferring phone or video calls, times to reach out, chats about getting to know one another, etc. I am not making judgements about any of those preferences. It was a big picture comment on simply and clearly expressing preferences for communication.

I understand it may be a bug. I hope it really is a bug, and not the result of an added algorithm that modifies the list of nearby providers based on other criteria.

A perfect example of "the easiest way to get what you want is to let people know what you want." It wasn't bitchy, rude, or demeaning. It was simple. 'Reach out to me when ready to book.' That happened, and an appointment was set.