Strafe13

Thanks so much for this. We couldn't meet last month, but he was so polite and apologetic in contacting me afterwards. I hope we finally connect.

That was a different list (albeit there's some crossover) pertaining to my anticipated November debauchery. This is for December. (Thank you, Santa! )

Any personal knowledge or experience about these NYC-based providers? Looking to hire later this month. Thanks in advance. https://rent.men/RomanovVladimir/ https://rent.men/Midtown_bull/ https://rent.men/TommyColeXXL https://rent.men/MassiveRio/#platinum https://rent.men/BBasar/#platinum https://rent.men/NIGERIANMUSCLE/#platinum https://rent.men/ALEXHUNGLATIN https://rent.men/Cornbred https://rent.men/ShawnWhite https://rent.men/NewDepths

Oops! Sorry about that.

I'm not 100% certain, but I thought, in response to a 411 inquiry a year or more ago, that @Kevin Slater reported back positively on this gentleman. I agree that it's hard to do searches for guys with short stage names, given the forum's restriction to searches for terms having 4 or more characters.

It's fine if that's your philosophy, but just make sure you wrap it for all sex acts, though.* Wrapping it for anal sex, but going raw for everything else isn't particularly effective in protecting against STI infections in general. It does minimize the risk of HIV infection, but if that's your only concern, then rather than throw stones at PrEP-compliant BBers, you should realize that you've elected to engage in conduct that shows a similar risk calculation. That's the main point that I and others were making. *I'm using "you" and "yours" in the general sense, by the way. I'm not directing my post specifically at you, the individual.

You've pretty much missed the point then, and perhaps intentionally so. There are multiple safer sex options out there, notwithstanding your apparent discomfort with one of the most effective ones to come along in decades. Using PrEP, by definition, means that the users are protecting themselves against HIV. The discussion of heterosexual HIV infections was important because it undermined your oversimplification about the relationship between anal sex and HIV transmission. It also highlighted that you're applying an unfair judgmental standard to gay men in a very paternalistic way. That's the essence of respectability politics. The purportedly "poignant peripheral point" of yours to which I was referring was your declaration that condomless sex with sex workers should only be between HIV-positive guys who, according to you, put their own immediate pleasure above everything else. Instead of "poignant," it was patronizing, sex-negative, stigmatizing, and destructive of respectful discourse and the sense of community that this site seeks to foster. We can do better than that.

I understand your emotional reaction to this topic but that doesn't imbue your posts with more validity than anyone else's, particularly with respect to the empirical statements you've offered with no citation to authority. We all do that from time to time and for things that are within realm of common knowledge and generally undisputed, that's usually fine. I'm not sure that your stated belief, which appears to be the main thrust of your argument, is correct: "Almost every std will be easier to transmit via anal and yes the big one hiv is almost always transferred that way as it pertains to sex." It's pretty bold to assert that HIV is almost always transmitted by anal sex. Based on what I think you're trying to articulate (as opposed to your literal words), I wouldn't say you're necessarily or 100% wrong, but there's so much context lacking here that your statement borders on irresponsible. As a quick example, since male-female vaginal intercourse is the leading cause of HIV infections in women, particularly in certain regions like sub-Saharan Africa, your point carries significantly less heft than you intended, unless you're willing to paint these women with the same broad brush as you do gay men, with respect to decreeing how, when, and with whom they should be allowed to have sex. Moreover, the reason that anal sex is such an effective means of transmission for HIV is because it's more likely to cause tears and bleeding, making it easier for HIV (which doesn't survive long outside of bodily fluids) to enter the bloodstream. In other words, anal sex just happens to be an excellent vehicle for HIV because it neutralizes one of the virus's more unique vulnerabilities. It's not because anal sex is generally great for almost all STIs. I think the point of the forum member to whom you were responding was that for those who are on PrEP, which minimizes HIV infection risk to near zero if used consistently and correctly, their risk of contracting other STIs (which don't share HIV's unique transmission properties) is far more comparable to other forms of sex. That's why, contrary to your assertion, analogizing PrEP-adherent anal sex BBers to oral sex BBers is not a false equivalency. An analogy doesn't require the situations to be identical, only that they be sufficiently similar with respect to the specific issue for which the comparison is being made. That's easily satisfied here. Hence, those who engage in other kinds of sex acts without using condoms are in no position to pass judgment (are any of us, really?), particularly when you consider that so many guys are incredibly and stubbornly adamant about refusing condoms in certain of those scenarios, particularly for oral sex. In real life and on this forum I've seen guys mock and disparage those who insisted on using condoms for oral sex. I fail to see how that's much different than taking down to PrEP-adherent anal sex BBers. I can't speak for @MassageAdam, but my intention in raising the analogy was not to disparage oral sex BBers. Rather it was to help illustrate the irrationality behind what some folks assume about the efficacy of varying types of safer sex practices, as well as the different risks relating to STI transmission generally. Your last sentence is particularly troublesome, and I hope you reconsider how it could come across as particularly obnoxious and offensive: "No one should be having bareback sex with a provider who is having bareback sex unless you guys are both infected and have reached a point where a few moments of pleasure is the paramount concern in your life." Gay men are far from the only group of people with a long history of engaging in behavior that could be seen (fairly, or not) as high-risk or even self-destructive. Heck, the pervasiveness of that trait throughout all demographics is probably what keeps everyone's therapists and counselors in business! Why should we face a higher level of condemnation than others, particularly from our own brethren? If I may draw another analogy, this strikes me as very similar to the "respectability politics" often seen in the black community. As a lifelong member of both communities, my considered opinion is that I don't think it really helps either one, irrespective of the typically non-bad faith intentions of those who employ it.

Notwithstanding certain outliers, I wouldn't call barebacking an obsession, although I know some guys may have something akin to a fetish for it. There are plenty of fetishes that I don't understand, and which I might find to engender too great of a risk to physical or mental health/safety, so I won't judge those guys who happen to like this particular one. PrEP doesn't offer protection against other STIs, but then again, no safer sex practice offers 100% protection against any STI in particular, much less all of them. That being said, PrEP's protection rate against HIV, if used consistently and correctly, is stunningly high (up to 99% effective, if memory serves), well exceeding that of condom usage. For some folks, taking one pill a day is easier to do on a consistent basis than using a condom for every sexual episode. If someone is most concerned about HIV, then it's far from irrational to choose to bareback if the chance of getting another STI is well within his tolerance level, even if that's not the choice some of us would make. I've said this before, but I recall past discussions on this board when quite a few members pilloried those escorts who refused to go bare for oral sex. Obviously, for those members, unprotected oral sex was within their risk tolerance levels, despite the fact that it's low risk for HIV transmission, but not so much for other STIs that either require mere skin-to-skin contact, or stem from viruses or bacteria which are less vulnerable to the elements. (HIV doesn't survive long outside of bodily fluids, making it relatively less than ideal, at least as far as pathogens go). In short, oral sex exposes us to all kinds of STIs, like chlamydia, herpes, gonorrhea, warts, etc. Heck, rimming and even kissing can expose us to all of that and more (hello, mononucleosis, influenza, and the common cold). Yet, we'd call folks morons for allowing a "raw cock" inside one orifice, but those who allow the same inside another orifice are just fine? None of us can ever truly know our partners' sexual conduct and adherence to safer sex practices, past or present. But if one is on PrEP and adherent h/she must get regular STI screenings (supposed to be every 3 months at minimum) in order to qualify for the prescription renewal. So, that person is more likely than your average random sex partner to have other STIs detected early and treated/eliminated. There's nothing unreasonable about incorporating that into one's risk tolerance calculus, even if, again, some of us might choose a different strategy. For sex workers, using PrEP as a supplement to, or even as the primary method of, their safer sex practices (given its very high rate of effectiveness) is just one of several legitimate and responsible ways to navigate the potential hazards of their profession. The same goes for clients. It'd be wonderful if we could try to understand and respect one another's viewpoints and lived experiences without resorting to pejoratives or insulting memes.

Until you responded, I had no idea what @Wanderoz was talking about. I knew exactly what you meant by "moment of truth," though. Funny how folks can read the same thing and understand it completely differently. I noticed that here in the U.S., escorts seem to be much more open to not using condoms since the advent of PrEP, but they usually frame it as an option for the client to decide. So, I don't know if I've ever seen an ad where an escort states that he won't use condoms. I've only seen one ad even close to that, where the guy, who lists as versatile, said that he insists on BB when he tops due to sensitivity issues, which I find understandable. Different strokes, I guess (pun intended). P.S., should this thread be in the Lounge because it doesn't really ask about an escort? Or is it fine here in the Deli because it discusses escorts' practices generally?

Bump. Anything, guys? I'm more than willing to take one (or more) for the team, but would really appreciate a heads up on any of these providers, if a forum member can share some knowledge or experience (here or in private). Thanks again.

NYC is probably the busiest, most competitive market in the world, certainly in the U.S. Some of these guys afte new, but I've had many of them in my Buddy List for quite a while. We've definitely got an embarrassment of riches here in the NYC metropolitan area. You could say it's a good problem to have, but it can also make deciding on a provider more difficult.

I'm seeking help from those forum members who are willing to share their experience with the following guys (either here or via private conversation). I'm a 99% bottom bearcub planning to hire within the next 2-3 weeks, and I like tops who are assertive and will take control of the situation, but who can also be affectionate if the mood calls for that. I've listed guys in separate categories below, but it's not that rigid, since some of them seem to provide both kinds of experiences. These guys seem like they'd be great for a "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" session, which is sometimes just what the doctor ordered: https://rent.men/Remy_XL https://rent.men/RawNYCDick https://rent.men/NewDepths https://rent.men/maxxileo https://rent.men/Alanstud https://rent.men/Castrox https://rent.men/Nico_pombo https://rent.men/MarkStone These guys, on the other hand, seem like they veer more towards the romantic or boyfriend type of experience, which can also be quite nice: https://rent.men/AndrewRyeX https://rent.men/TopzRob https://rent.men/NonProJoe https://rent.men/JayCollege/#platinum https://rent.men/EduardoFerraz https://rent.men/TommyColeXXL https://rent.men/MARCELOINUSA https://rent.men/brazilian_stud https://rent.men/RodrigoVegaNYC https://rent.men/JamesBolano I'd appreciate input from whomever has actually met any of these guys, or knows of anyone who has. Thanks in advance.

Any experience with these attractive providers? https://rent.men/NewGuyNyc/#platinum https://rent.men/Isaac_jaxon/#platinum https://rent.men/OMERVIP/#platinum https://rent.men/PrivateEscort/#platinum https://rent.men/heavywhitemeat https://rent.men/CornFedStud https://rent.men/DariusXXXL

Any info on this apparently new provider, guys? He seems right up my alley! Pun intended https://rent.men/Thiiley

I think he's phased himself out over the past year or so. I had a great session with him in the summer of 2017, right before I underwent a major surgery, so I was out of commission for a long time after that. Once I was back in form last year, we made plans to reconnect, but that didn't happen because he uncharacteristically went incommunicado the day of our scheduled appointment and didn't respond to any of my follow-up messages over the next few days. (Due to the prior amazing experience, I was willing to see him again, despite that last-minute ghosting.) Right around that time I noticed that his ad would be listed as expired for long periods, and I believe it's been expired now for the better part of this year. The above led me to conclude that Junior is likely done with this biz, and has been working towards that for a while now. I hope that's not true, because he was quite good as a sex worker and came across as a really nice guy too. Definitely the type you'd bring home to mother, as the saying goes (or at least I would). I'd still love to see him again, but if he's no longer a pro, I wish him nothing but the best going forward.

I had a similar issue for a medication that wasn't related to sexual activity or function. My understanding, based on the pharmacist's explanation, was that it's rather common for insurance companies to just exclude compounded medications. I'm unsure why, but I take it that this is kind of the default rule, unfortunately.

I'm not entirely sure of whom you're speaking here. I say that because there was an Ali at Super Men's spa last year who became one of my 2 faves there. He was a younger slender man from Turkey, he said. Much to my regret, this Ali stopped working at SMS and I've heard nothing further about him since late last year (I never got his contact info). If this Ali is the same guy who may have returned to SMS, then I highly recommend him. I've no knowledge of any other Ali who may be there now.

What on earth does this mean?

We already know that he's real based on the responses from forum members in this thread who've met him. I suggest you send private messages to @cmennow , @Trick , and @Niles for more info, since they seem to have had varied experiences with Horsekok. Best of luck!

It's definitely understandable that the substantive content restrictions based on SOSTA/FOSTA fears would make the reviews not only less valuable to many, but also mor difficult to write. But that's spilt milk at this point. Clients with better writing skills will adjust, and those with a more discerning reader's eye will still gain something from even the less-detailed and sanitized reviews. But perhaps, given the new limitations' obvious and foreseeable effect on review submissions, the site could endeavor to make everything else concerning reviews as simple and user-friendly as possible. People in this thread have complained about the new fields being too plentiful, confusing and unhelpful. So maybe the admins could consider paring those down some. Also, maybe allow reviews of escorts using their preferred stage names as listed in their ads or profiles, instead of insisting on a stage name that can pass for a traditional real name. If the review process contains additional inconvenient steps like this, it's only more likely to whittle away participation, at least on the margins. Just my 2 cents...

I'm sorry if this comes off as a hijacking of your thread. But it's possible that your reviews haven't been published because of the rule requiring that reviews use a stage name that sounds more like a real name (think "Baby Blond" vs. "Sam"). One of the moderators recently said on another thread that this has always been the rule since back in the days of Hooboy (Daddy's predecessor), but I doubt it was strictly enforced (or interpreted that way) back then because I remember reading plenty of reviews of providers with regular profile or stage names that couldn't pass for real names. Other forum members have privately confirmed to me that this rigid interpretation and/or enforcement of said rule is of relatively recent vintage. If this is why your reviews have been been rejected, then all you've got to do is provide a real sounding name for the escort, assuming he is okay with that. One of my regulars asked that I not identify him except by the stage name used in his RM profile, so my positive review on Daddy's never got published. To him, that was worth the tradeoff. If the escort lists a regular name in the body of his ad, then there's nothing wrong with providing that in a review. But if escorts don't do that, and are uncomfortable with giving any stage name besides the one used as their ad profile name, then we should respect that.

Yep. Some guys are catty like that for no apparent reason. After I'd contacted one particular provider (ConnerBKN on rentmen) to book an appointment, he took the time to also grant my request to see his private photos. It turns out that he had actually blocked me, and he likely just granted the photo request to ensure that I'd see that he'd blocked me. As in your situation, we'd had no negative interactions before that. Sometimes folks are just mean and you'll never know why. View this scenario as his loss, and not as a reflection on you as a client.

Please do. He looks superb. I hope you have a great experience!

Again, I want to be you when I grow up!