soloyo215

He looks like he's from South Philly.

I am not trying to top anyone (that way). Just came to post that I find that fascinating.

For that, I have a husband.

You shouldn't be. Taking down the profile and coming up with a new one is actually a practice that I have seen several providers incurring in. An honest, objective review is precisely the purpose of having reviews in the website, not for others to be mislead to believe that every single client is satisfied with the service. I don't necessarily believe a specific good/bad review, but I do get a good idea of what to expect when I read all or most reviews, mostly because I started seeing patterns and themes. If you get a bad experience, it is ok to give a bad review. However, it's always going to be subjective. Some people consider a "bad experience" things that are not important at all to others. So your review might be influential to those who just take them as factual information, or who will think that they will have the exact same experience. I gave bad reviews to two providers, one of them was a terrible experience, terrible massage, terrible facilities, terrible atmosphere (the Steve Wilkos show in the backgrounbd) and discovered a camera pointing at me. There's no way that I would have given a good review simply because he might come back to me complaining. The other one was also a bad and unprofessional experience, there were people passing by as I was receiving the massage, and the place was a mess, not to mention how bad the massage was. The first bad review guy disappeared, is no longer in the website, and the second guy changed his profile several times, then disappeared. It's not ok to give a good review if you didn't get the desired experience. However, I know well that some people can't provide meaningful reviews, so it's not that people will/should take your review as law.

I think that the rules should be defined by the people involved. It's not that there's some ordinances or actual regulatory agency to enforce them. My husband and I do not just isolate our rules and boundaries to relationships with others or sex outside our marriage. Our approach is more holistic. Only one rule: be responsible and act responsibly in every aspect of your life. That means, we both have to trust that we are going to make responsible decisions about everything, ourselves as individuals, our lives, our relationship, our finances, our personal safety, eveything. I approach all my decisions from having a sense of responsibility towards me as an individual, me as a member of my family, as a professional, as a friend, as a citizen, and as a lover, so I'm not going to do anything that will place myself or my loved ones in harms way, or will hurt them. We've been together for 21 years and so far, I've never needed to discussed any of his flings or who he gets involved with. Neither of us are interested in bringing another person to our relationship in a romantic way, and he hates threesomes (don't know why), so we have our things outside of our marriage. Sometimes we share about it, sometimes we don't. I just trust he's an adult who will know how to handle situations and people as they appear. Polyamory is supposed to involve formal relationships, that is, involving decisions about living situation, fiances and emotional support. That's how I understand polyamory. However, I just live and let live, so if people consider themselves polyamory outside of those parameters, I'm nobody to judge (unless they want me or my husband involved).

I think that releasing that list (which I agree, at best it will be heavily redacted) is more for the public's morbid pleasure of knowing something, and with some kind of agenda attached to it, probably with the intent of creating controversi for the media to have yet another field day of "experts" giving opinions about it. It's just a show and it says nothing to me, other than what I already know which is that there are people who can afford the luxury of paying for inappropriate sexual relationships.

I have experienced providers recording me without my permission, at least twice. And that is when I have noticed. I don't like to ask, nor do I like being asked about it. Personally I don't need mementos of my encounters, but I certainly dislike the feeling that I might be recorded without my permission.

I like the idea because it puts all those dog owners together, so they can do their self-serving display of moral superiority because they care for their dogs. Keeps them away from the rest of us normal people.

Interesting read. Not sure that any of those ants are interested in joining Doctors Without Borders.

Most times I tip about 15%-20%. At first I thought that a tip was always expected, but then I changed to tip based on what KeepItReal said, service quality, overall experience and history with the companion.

So he still wants to see you before booking, for "safety". Interesting. He seems smart.

I'd be curious to know if you treat clients differently when you know their stats than when you don't. Does it make a difference?

I'd be curious about what his reply is, including getting ghosted. Please, do tell.

Only two providers have asked me for a pucture of my face, and none have ever asked for my stats (those two providers apparently were ok with what they saw since we had business). The only exception was one provider who asked me if I weight more than 299 lb, but it was because that was the maximum capacity of his massage table (yes, I weight less than 299 lb). Your last question is the reason why I wouldn't give my stats, which is that many people lie, misrepresent or have convinced themselves about having a type of body or shape that they actually don't have. I also know that this is a sensitive topic to many men. Of course, I don't like being rejected because of my physical appearance, but I know of some men who get devastated when rejected that way. Like BuffaloKyle, I prefer not to deal with a provider who doesn't like my appearance, but I don't necessarily take it personal/wrong if I'm not their preferred client, or if they can afford the luxury of rejecting clients and choose not to take me. At the end of the day, I look at myself in the mirror and like what I see. I am a client, I can take my business elsewhere. Since I've never been asked for my stats, I do not know for sure how I'd respond. Maybe it depends on the tone of how I am asked.

I have experienced both them removing their clothing when starting, and removing their clothing later. I also had an experience that didn't look (at least to me) like anything involving the provider removing his clothing, but we ended up almost breaking the massage table (not exactly massaging each other). Of course, the purely therapeutic massages I've received have been delivered with the guy dressed and he had stayed dressed. Some didn't even see my private parts during the massage or when turning. In those settings there is neither a discussion nor an expectation of nudity from the provider. I've never been asked about my preferences regarding nudity by the provider.

So let me see if I get this right. First you say that you know what my parents are supposed to teach me, now you were able to read the minds of the student population of a vocational high school in the early 80s, so you can assert that they "declared" that they don't want to go to college. You really are a millennial. Good God. Moving on... I agree with some things, but disagree is other things. This past May I finished another MA at NYU, and I was surprised at how watered down education at a Master level has become. The school involves a lot of digital media classes, and I couldn't believe that some students were unable to produce a simple, coherent video. So yes, I've seen first hand that there are many people in college that might use some additional support. I am all for not telling anyone that he/she isn't college material, for that precise reason. There's a lack of some foundational knowledge in college students that I'm quite sure many people have. It's more about interest. In my education sciences classes, I learned that there are several approaches to learning that are intended to be more inclusive, and also more encouraging and supportive of learners, providing what they named "scaffolding" which is specific support for their particular challenges. Also, that approach allows people to bring their own experiences and realities to the classroom. It's a great approach, at least on paper. Unfortunately, educators seem to think that a constructivist approach to learning means participation trophies, never correcting learners, make things up as you go along, and "the sky is the limit" type of bullshit, which is why we have poor quality higher ed students. And that is not even mentioning specialty areas where constructivism isn't adequate. Because of that, I wouldn't place the blame on the students not being prepared; they have been made believe that they deserve everything, that the self-discipline that comes with some learning is punishment, and that cognitive dissonance that is meant to be used for learning, is now being used for getting offended. The cost of education issue, on the other hand, is an entirely different one. There are plenty of research on the topic of the "cost disease" of higher education in USA. It is particulary terrible in for-profit universities, which goal is to provide the minimum and charge the maximum. I went to a for-profit university in my undergrad, and it was very, very bad. The foundational education (at least in USA) needed to prepare students for college is severely politicized, and as such, some of the solutions that they want to apply come from EdTech companies that have never set foot in a classroom. When it comes to social issues, we have an entire crowd of people attacking education over what, when and how to be taught, and the problem of parents who are too involved ready to sue or literally fight over a decision made by a teacher, or otherwise parents who are never seen in school because they use school to get rid of the children. And that is not even mentioning that now there isn't a guarantee that children will come back home alive from school. Who on Earth will be ready for college under those conditions.

I don't see why not asking the provider, but it's on the masseur to (a) comply, (b) comply for an additional charge, or (c) not comply. You can always ask. I'm sure many providers get many requests based on clients' preferences. Wearing a jockstrap (IMO) is not an out-of-the-ordinary request. Is not that you want him to massage you with him in roller skates.

Not if you also go to the wrong public high school, like I did. Again, all I got was decisions that I had to make, surrounded by adults who couldn't or won't provide guidance. My high school counselor was more interested in counseling young girls in mini skirts, and I was in a vocational high school, which means that every teacher there saw us as people who are not supposed to be college material because we were learning a trade. My parents were supposed to do a lot of things that they didn't. They also did a lot of things that they should have.

I would (if facing the right direction).

And his About-Me doesn't say much, leave alone anything about being certified or educated in massage therapy. Maybe he has student loans to pay for his PhD (unless that stands for "Pretty Huge Dick").

That's great, but it's a major challenge to first-generation college graduates who don't have parents that can tell them things based on experience (even if bad advice, they do know about university life). I am a case of having to figure everything on my own, and I could not have chosen a worst college for my undergrad simply because I didn't know better and that's what felt right to me. So I think it's more about making educated decisions. Parents don't have all the answers and can give bad advice, but if they went to college they can provide the right kind of support. My parents were just happy that I got access to the education that they didn't; that's as far as they could go.

No, never did.

I deal with this question about universities and colleges being worth the expense. Like everything else, the right answer is that it depends on many factors. I work in the healthcare industry, and my health system has performed kidney transplants to humans from genetically modified pigs. They have conducted face transplants, and have an entire ward dedicated to gender affirmation surgery. Would you like a kidney transplant performed by a person who learned how to perform surgery on the streets? I don't think so. So university education is essential in that arena. Same goes for Engineering and the law. Those are regulated professions that require formal education in the areas of expertise, and requires maintenance by continuing education, research and additional professional studies. Now, when we talk about BS (and that's not short for Baccalaureate in Science) degress, such as women studies, philosophy, gender studies, and other similar areas, the panorama can be different. Professions that don't require licensing, certification, or that are not regulated don't seem to be very useful regardless of how expensive or inexpensive the cost of obtaining a degree in that area is. When it comes to learning and education, it is a completely, all-over-the-place situation. First, especially since the pandemic, learning technology has become quite critical. However, teachers are not required to learn technology, not even learning sciences. Yet, there has been a major exodus of teachers delving into instructional design and learning technology, as well as L&D in corporate settings. The issue is that there are no reliable numbers about the result of that exodus because our wonderful government doesn't even list learning technology or instructional design as legitimate professions, so there isn't any data collection about it (from the same who claim to want to fix education). So in that respect, it's the wild west out there. Depends on how you market yourself, what made-up concept you make up that becomes catchy, and how you sell yourself. Furthermore, another major issue is that we keep attacking higher education as if companies actually have their act together when it comes to managing, training and even appreciating areas of expertise in people. Something common to hear now in companies is them saying "we can train skills, so we prefer to hire people who fit in our organizational culture", which is the biggest bullshit ever since they never train skills to people; it's just a way for them to choose and hire candidates based on personal preferences. That is a larger issue to deal with that should be addressed as we also address the cost disease of higher education.

I find interesting how last night, MSNBC gave quite a spin to the story to make it look like a plot from some people. In the All-In with Christ Hayes show, hosted by a different person covering for Mr. Hayes, it claimed that the “bad faith” campaign against Ms. Gay and other university leaders, was spearheaded by congressional Republicans like Elise Stefanik and right wing activist Christopher Rufo, declaring that “Republicans want America’s elite institutions to remain run by conservatives and conservatives that they like. Period. And they’ll come up with any phony controversy to achieve that end.” This is why I hate current media. At the end of the day, even if she was being under scrutiny by conservative nuts, the reason for her leaving is legitimate. Don't try to make her look like some kind of victim. She isn't. Of course she face the "nothing-new about it" pressures for being a member of a racial minority while holding a high position at an IV league university, but the fact remains that she did plagiarize work and presented it as her own.