Simon Suraci

I love these sessions. I agree with much of what others have already said. It’s much less frequent for me (almost everyone wants sex-and, or sex-only), but I enjoy the men hiring me for dinner dates, cuddling, chatting, and other forms of general companionship. So many men need safety, a no judgment zone, and to be heard and seen.

He’s clearly wanting people to consent to be filmed for content. Don’t be surprised if he has narrow criteria for who he wants filmed.

I usually charge my rate x2, x3, etc. I work this agreement out ahead of time with the providers I am coordinating to join for 4-hand and for group play sessions. Charging a consistent rate makes it easier for everyone and there are no negative feelings about getting paid less than someone else to do the same job. Some clients prefer to pay each provider directly rather than the usual format of paying me and I distribute. Paying each guy directly works nicely for when the guys are charging different rates. Nobody has to know who is getting paid what. The guys may still ask (and tell) one another, but not always. Labeled envelopes are good for distributing cash to each provider quickly and discreetly. Digital payments are more of a hassle in this regard. One of the guys I work with charges a $50/hr premium to participate in groups or to see a client couple. His regular rate is the same as mine and the other guys joining, but he was unwilling to do the job without the premium. Kind of a prima donna attitude, but it happens sometimes. I didn’t make a big deal of this with the other providers. I knew because I was coordinating the session, but nobody else did, and it was smooth sailing. It doesn’t bother me whatsoever that someone is charging less or more than me. Everyone is getting paid their respective rates. As long as the client is happy with what he is paying and each provider is happy with what he is receiving, all is well. Others may have more of a grumbling spirit over rate differences, but not me. As long as the client pays me my rate, I’m good.

One of my clients hired Nick for a group play session in San Diego. After sharing the client’s wishlist, he said the client is high maintenance, which to be honest, in many respects, is fair. In any case, Nick agreed to join. This was a week or more ahead. I followed up two days before to confirm our time. He asked for another reminder which I sent about half a day before our meeting time. 15 mins before our meeting time, he texts saying he is running 15 mins behind and for sure will be there by then if the client still wants to meet. I agreed and asked the client and other hired guy wait up. Time comes and no Nick. I reach out asking if he is still on his way. Nothing. 30 mins past our start time we give up and decide to start without him. I tell Nick as much with a text. Sure enough, halfway through the session Nick messaged saying he was 10 mins away. I see it after the session ends and he apologized saying he prides himself on professionalism, blah blah blah. He didn’t miss out on anything. The other hired guy was completely unprepared. Literally unwashed, dirty butt inside and out. Then lied about it later saying he was shocked there was any problem, that he had spent a long time prepping, gaslighting me. Smelled like rank musky beef jerky. Who in their right mind goes to a session expecting to take a dick, especially anything of the proportions of Nick Capra’s without first making any effort to prepare? It blows my mind the things I see in this business. Sometimes I feel like the only professional in the room. Scratch Nick off the list. This is why I shy away from content creators and porn stars. A lot of them don’t take their in person work very seriously, if they offer in person services at all.

YES

You can believe your claim sincerely. Without facts or evidence to back it up, however, your statement is only a belief. No reporting on either end of the bias spectrum has presented conclusive evidence - only theories, speculation, and opinion so far.

Still waiting for your evidence, any at all, from a credible, unbiased source to substantiate your claim that Jimmy Kimmel lied about anything on his show, given the circumstances and information available at the time. You can repeatedly say he is lying, but that does not make it so. Back it up

@tantric leopard is working a booth.

Sinclair will not. They said they won’t until Kimmel apologizes and donates to Turning Point. Hell would freeze over first. Kimmel has been sticking to his principles, not something we can say of many others in the current moment. A lot of folks, especially the under 50 and under 40 crowd, do not view shows like Kimmel’s live on TV anymore. Millennials like you (BuffaloKyle) and I tend to watch on YouTube and other outlets where the content is viewable on demand, at the convenience of the watcher, with minimal ads, and sometimes without ads. Few of us are staying up and tuning in at the moment the show is broadcast on traditional television. A lot of us don’t even have traditional television anymore. TV ratings do not reflect the true reach and influence of shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live. Sinclair can choose not to air, but that won’t stop the people in those broadcast areas from accessing the content. It’s all available online. Applause to Kimmel, various celebrities, entertainment unions, and others, for standing up for free speech! We can never truly live as free people in a society where the state either controls or polices the media. Rand Paul, and even Ted Cruz, of all people, spoke with clarity about the plain reality of what happens when the proverbial tables are turned. One core value all true American patriots (regardless of party) share is the right to, and unwavering protection of, free speech. This time, true American values win. Now that we get a peek inside the boardroom, we can see that apparently Bozo was wrong about the executives’ motives. Linking the following article discussing what really went down, and why. From the article: "Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country," the statement says. "It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive. We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday."

Send him to me. I’ll teach him. 😉 But seriously though, bottoming is crucial to learn what feels good so that a top can become excellent. Just like giving head, it takes practice. Also, there’s the subtle art of reading your bottom’s cues, reactions, expressions, and being sensitive to his particular needs. The bottom can tell his top to do these things, but it takes a true pleaser top and an empath to develop excellent topping skills.

You also were not in the boardroom, so your statements, too, are speculation. Here is the basis I used to speculate, using critical reasoning skills to examine the facts and arrive at a conclusion. Timing: Canceling the show occurred immediately after public and private backlash to the episode content. The timing suggests pulling the show was in response to the backlash. Motives: Nexstar is trying to buy another conglomerate to gain access to an outsize market share of American audiences. The FCC regulates that no single entity can own TV stations reaching more than 40% of the public. The deal would give them double that cap: 80% of market share. Nexstar needs the FCC to lift these restrictions to allow Nexstar’s otherwise unlawful acquisition to proceed. The FCC, therefore, has significant leverage over media corporations like Nexstar to make demands and concessions in exchange for more favorable, if not illegal, media company dealmaking. Influences: Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, said "We can do this the easy way or the hard way", referring to actions ABC could take regarding late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Carr’s mob boss style coercion and intimidation tactics almost certainly influenced the media company’s decisions. I need not mention where Carr’s loyalties lie to connect the dots, but I will add this obvious implication to make it plain. Given the recent history of people in power pressuring CBS to cancel The Colbert Report, the top of the movement has enormous influence. Jimmy Kimmel Live is the next of perhaps many pins to fall. Anyone that dare point out plain facts in a comedic manner risks damaging a fragile ego, and being pressured from said ego to be cancelled/fired/silenced. _______________ On what basis did you form your own conclusions? _______________ With regard to “lies” There is no evidence to support claims that Jimmy Kimmel lied about anything on his last show, given the circumstances and information available at the time. Any evidence you have, please share. Opinions are not evidence. Speculation is not “lying”, especially not speculation presented in a comedic manner designed to provoke contemplation and challenge the viewer to do their own investigation of the facts from credible sources, and arrive at their own conclusions. Some say the shooter was an alt-right extremist unhappy with Charlie Kirk’s views, perhaps in the shooter’s sphere of thought, not far right enough. Others speculate the shooter has left leaning ideas. Without more concrete evidence, or a trial to find all the facts, I don’t know that anyone can say for sure what was going on in the shooter’s head when he decided to murder someone who, at first pass, aligned more closely with his family’s beliefs and worldview than someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

These entities are beholden to the very leadership that Kimmel was critiquing. Their decisions weren’t about ratings; their decisions were about capitulation to that same leadership - leadership that can’t handle criticism. If it were truly about ratings, it would have happened much sooner, and on the basis of not renewing contracts at the end of a term. Actions to pull the show were in direct response to backlash from those who can’t handle criticism.

I disagree. The intent of propaganda isn’t to invite questioning, but to produce compliance and unity around a message by using emotional appeals, simplified narratives, and repetition rather than evidence-based reasoning. This approach discourages analysis and nuance. Late night shows employ satire, not propaganda. The show’s writers write the jokes, while the entertainer executes delivery. This small group of people does not a powerful cabal make. Satire uses humor, irony, exaggeration, mockery, or ridicule to expose and critique flaws in human behavior, social norms, and cultural institutions. Satire seeks to inspire awareness and critical thinking; it entertains while urging people to look deeper at what’s really going on. Critical thinking introduces doubt, nuance, and alternative perspectives. Satire does not tell people what to think, but rather invites them to question what the powerful in society are telling them to think. The power structures here are not a handful of late night show writers, producers or entertainers. The shows are punching up by poking fun at those in power who would tell us what to think. The key difference between satire and propaganda is whether the communicator wants the audience to think for themselves or to submit to a message. In late night TV, the entertainers want the audience to think for themselves. Jokes, in this medium, are the vehicle to get people to do so. With regard to parroting: late night TV shows come up with their own original creative material. They do mock, but they are not regurgitating, mimicking, or copying anything.

Welcome, @SaintV Beware the grumps. Enjoy all the rest. It’s a wealth of information, and lots of good people here.