former lurker

1 hour ago, Pd1_jap said:

He's a pornstar, has a public Twitter account and onlyfans. How exactly is that being a private figure?

The term "public figure” has specific legal meaning, and it tilts the balance from rights to privacy to fair game for criticism and harm to reputation.  The contrast with "private figure” is confused.  The questions of how negative comments are evaluated is about public officials (who are least protected w/r/t privacy and libel or slander, public "figures” who enjoy some protection, and eveyone else.  Standard exist to ascertain whether someone is a public figure and they don't involve contrasting with "private” individuals.

6 hours ago, builder boy said:

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting gentleman in his past, he ran an Ad in my city on the same day he was to spend an overnight with me.    I am not suggesting men from the his past 

You are reading a lot into the ad in your city for that date.  A lot of guys put up ads to see if there are other potential client sessions on subsequent days.

When did you first find out he missed the original flight?

Suicide and the mental health conditions that underlie it strike me quite hard.  Even those who seek treatment often struggle.  Imagine finding life so much of a struggle and yourself so miserable that continuing to live is not your perceived better option.  Often, depression, anxiety, and a sense of helplessness are compounded by financial and emotional insecurity. 

I grieve his loss, and for his loved ones.

On 3/30/2023 at 8:08 AM, robear said:

Right or wrong, to me in this context PNP means meth meth and only meth. Other "party drugs" (of which I admittedly have no first-hand experience) don't provide the quick, intense, sex-enhancing high of methamphetamine. Meth addiction is a major scourge among gay men, and its use is largely tied to sex.  Recovering addicts often say they cannot experience sex sober like it was when they were using, and have to learn all over again how to enjoy sex without the high.  It's hardly surprising to see it featured one way or another among providers and on the hookup apps.

That is NOT to assume that any provider advertising PNP is an addict or otherwise deeply involved with the drug. Doubtless there are clients who wish to use during sessions and want a provider who is cool with that, but it does indicate that the conversation is open to whether and how meth might factor into any encounter.

For me, it's absolutely a big old red flag.

Not that it changes much of the thinking on the subject, but PNP likely includes more chem sex drugs than meth.  It could include G or K (I forget what "G" stands for, K is ketamine, a horse tranquilizer.  Also, the provider may be open to clients using but not use themselves, or may use a different chem than the client.  If the whole area is something you want to avoid, either avoid those who list PNP or be clear about your expectations and what you won't tolerate.

8 hours ago, Lazarus said:

His profile says “English” as spoken languages. So that is a clue that he is full of shit & a fake & no I will not give him a break. 

Being able to communicate in English (speak and understand) doesn't mean high proficiency in writing.  If poor syntax, misspellings, off conjugations, etc., meant one couldn't speak English, a substantial minority of adults born in the U.S. couldn't claim to speak English even though there is not other language they speak.

10 hours ago, Wolfer said:

Okay but let's say your order steak with fries and they bring you mussels with Brussels sprouts. I certainly would talk to the waiter and ask for the correct order. If the waiter would then inform me that it's impossible for them to make the food I ordered, I would leave without paying.

I've never refused to pay a provider, even though I do think a client is within his rights when the provider has grossly misrepresented himself and his services. 

I would rather compare it to me having reserved the table for two hours and a four course dinner and the manager then saying after 1 hour and 2 courses that my time is up and need to leave but still expect me to pay for the full 4 courses. 

That doesn't really fit any scenario I've seen discussed.  As for your earlier point, I'm still not sure you're addressing the point raised by Public Assistance.  If you order steak and fries -- the mussels add nothing to the hypo -- and they inform you they ran out, you can either order something else or leave.  Of course, the scenario is trickier if you ask for delivery and give a general idea of what you want.  In any event, if you ordered the steak, got something else and ate it, it'd be unreasonable for you to dine and dash just because you really wanted a steak.

10 hours ago, tenderloin said:

If the food brought to the table wasn't what I ordered, or they tried to rush me out before dessert, I would certainly reduce the check. 

If the meal is not what you ordered, request the one you did.  As for rushing you, it's rude to occupy a table for a lengthy post-meal hangout without ordering.  If you need a lengthy post-feeding digestive period to be able to have dessert, that's on you.  If such is the case, either forgo dessert or find a way to compensate for tying up the table. 

The point here is you can't have your cake intact and eat it too.  If you eat the meal, you owe what it costs.

27 minutes ago, TJMS said:

Before I had a chance to respond this guy blocked me  on Rentmen, not a good look for a newbie

Respond to what?  That could lend some insight into why he blocked you, reasonable or not.

4 hours ago, Pd1_jap said:

He is dismissive. That bares truth in the text exchanges. And as I said before, conceited is my personal opinion. 

Stop digging.  You came across poorly, to him and to those of us who've read this thread.  You wanted to take his pics, he (politely) declined.  That should have been the end of that particular issue, but you became obnoxious and agressive by suggesting  he must have been burned and that he was dismissive.  That interpretation says tons about you, and nothing about him.

2 hours ago, Scott Virginian said:

I'll defer to someone who's an attorney with experience in this field, but my sense is that federal law is pretty weak here as long as you're not selling it and everyone is of age.  The person who didn't consent to posting it might try to sue civilly for humiliation or damages (i.e., maybe it cost them a job?) if they can show the harm.

As in a lot of these cases, the interest in prosecution varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and prosecutor to prosecutor.  Federal law itself isn't weak in this area at all.  Because we're talking about the internet, it's interstate and thus federal and where federal law applies it is supreme.  The anti-trafficking laws cover internet porn and require not just that both parties be of age to consent to sex, but also of age to consent to publication and do in fact consent.  Hidden camera cases have been prosecuted even without broadcast, but broadcast adds another layer to the crime.  The records requirements studios and OF producers have to follow include signed forms granting consent to publish/air the "performances", and that's under federal law.

On 12/21/2022 at 11:28 PM, azdr0710 said:

I believe in some jurisdictions (including mine), secret recording is not illegal as long as one person being recorded knows it (presumably the person doing the recording!)

The one- vs. two-party consent rule goes mainly to whether a tape is admissible in a court proceeding.  Although I don't know the law in your jurisdiction, I'd bet one-party consent is not a defense to taping a sexual encounter without the other person's consent.  Moreover, state law wouldn't be the only issue if dealing with sex broadcast on the net.  That would run afoul of federal law.

On 12/16/2022 at 2:01 PM, Brady said:

I am not going to ask your age as it is not my business but believe me I am curious but I will not ask.I'm in my mid-60s and I don't know if you are new to all this or not and that is also not my business.You had no obligation whatsoever to have left your money at the front desk.I actually for some reason feel bad for you that you did.You are so much better than that.However I have to chuckle also that you left it with the front desk because they were bound to wonder what the hell that was about. Lol

Odd that he left money at an unattended front desk, and in front of a bullet-proof glass window. 

RIP Tyler.

On 11/14/2022 at 12:53 PM, BenjaminNicholas said:

At that age, how do you already face heart, liver and kidney failure?

Genuinely curious. 

If any organ fails, it may put undue strain on others.  Dialysis can help with kidney failure, but kidney failure places greater strains on ones lungs.  Liver failure often compromises lungs and kidneys.  Heart failure can compromise all other organs by limiting proper flow of blood to and from those organs.  Diabetes increases the likelihood of other organs failing.  Genetics may play a role. 

6 hours ago, kcx202 said:

interesting that half your comments on this website are just making these types of claims about this man….

and that all his defenders on here conspicuously use the exact same language and phrasing….

makes you wonder (i’ve personally seen him and would definitely not recommend)

I'm one who has written positively about him. I've been a member of the site/forums since the Hooboy days (decades).  Feel free to peruse my posts to see how I phrase things.  What you'll discover, if you look back over prior threads on this provider is that the negative comments are universally from posters who never met him, and that the posts from those who've met him are universally positive.  Perhaps the positive comments sound similar because we've all had similar experiences.

7 hours ago, Beancounter said:

Are Tyler Roberts and Jesse Santana still a couple?

No, not for a while.

My heart goes out to those who were close to him.  I've experienced my share, and then some,of loss.  Thankfully, most of my family died peacefully, but three had tough endings.  Dying in one's sleep is a mercy for which to be thankful.  I've also been present when my mom died, and spoke to my grandfather and cousin hours before they died.  Take comfort in knowing that among his last conversations were ones who cared. 

1 hour ago, maninsoma said:

That article applies to people who spend time in a rental unit even though they are not on the lease, not guests of the owner living in his own residence.

Slight correction:  it discusses the rental unit scenario, but it doesn't exclude the same legal analysis where the person allowing someone to move in owns rather than rents the domicile. 

3 hours ago, Unicorn said:

I'd be extraordinarily surprised if this doesn't vary widely from one jurisdiction to another. 

In "common law", the operative concept is "adverse possession” for vacant property when non-owners move in without permission.  The owner can lose ownership to the squatters.  That's different from Glutes's fact pattern where his initial residence is by an extended invitation.  Whether or not rent is paid, allowing a person to reside for a period of time confers tenancy rights, especially in the absence of an enforceable contract that has a set term and contemplates termination.

14 hours ago, Unicorn said:

A common provision of a contract is that the prevailing party has the right to recover legal expenses, but I doubt it's legal for a contract to say that the loser in a lawsuit gets to recover legal fees. That would be kind of crazy. Maybe one of the lawyers can chime in on this matter. I can't imagine it's legal for a contract to say that I would have to pay your legal expenses no matter how outrageous and frivolous your lawsuit is. 

The losing side does not generally get its costs paid.  The contract provision discussed above is not ultimate payment, but placement of the anticipated court costs into an escrow account in case that side loses.  If s/he prevails, the escrowed funds are returned.  But the requirement to place the costs in escrow is itself a potential hardship. 

On 9/10/2021 at 11:53 PM, Jomo said:

I'm gonna be intentionally vague, but halfway through our planned weekend, after I dropped the overpriced rental at the airport.   I got back to the bellagio,  he was gone

I had paid half up front, so it's not like he took my money and ran, but it felt like it at the time

i frankly had more fun pre arrest with him.   It's one less cash drain that I have now tho!!!!

 

You left him mid-session to drop off a rental car? 

15 hours ago, DBWEHO said:

No I haven't but Holly Hannah what a stud. So it seems he'll get fucked for an hour, but insists on a three hour session to top. Looks expensive, but could be worth a splurge . I know that's no info, but hey...  

I read it as the opposite.  He will bottom but only in a session 3 hours or longer.

On 10/10/2022 at 1:26 PM, samhexum said:

Approximately three years after receiving a scathing zero-star review from The New York Times, Peter Luger Steak House in Brooklyn has been stripped of its Michelin star.

While the news about Peter Luger, which was one of three NYC institutions to lose a Micheline star as Carbone and Marea also lost theirs, was somewhat surprising, it really shouldn’t be a massive shock as the writing has kind of been on the wall about the stodgy steakhouse for awhile now. There is still clearly a time and place for a cash-only joint with overpriced plates and rude waiters, but there’s also no need to pretend those are requirements of a fine-dining establishment in 2022.

Luger's longevity provided it with at least 2 advantages:  (1) the legends who ate there in prior centuries; and (2) it was one of the few restaurants in New York allowed a coal fired oven since the NYC regs precluded them because Luger's was grandfathered so as to be exempt from the regs.  I always wondered how a restaurant focusing on steak could maintain it's culinary strength when it's been owned for so long by a family that won't eat steak for religious reasons.

2 hours ago, coriolis888 said:

It does not matter that you interject other issues with regard to an NDA.

Plain and simple, it is obvious that the true motivation for an NDA, when prostitution is involved, is to conceal the fact that prostitution occurs. 

In the case of escorts and clients, if the person who asked for the NDA was not involved in prostitution, there likely would be no request for an NDA.

To interject the other issues you mentioned for the NDA ignores the true reason that  motivated the NDA (to conceal prostitution).

By the way, what happened with the NDA of the senator, "Lady G" when certain  escorts decided to do a "tell-all" because of the callous treatment they received from Lady G? 

Reportedly, the issue was never litigated and the escorts involved allegedly were given a handsome fee to drop their intended disclosures. 

If a NDA that included prostitution were truly valid, as you insist, that NDA would not have been quietly brought to a monetary conclusion as it was.    

No, it's not "obvious" until the NDA is pierced.  Beyond that, most corporate NDA's are part of settlement/separation agreements.  A fair portion of those seek to keep allegations of sexual harassment and related details from being disclosed.  They are routinely enforced, even though there is generally more collateral evidence of an improper purpose for the NDA (payments made to the person who sign the NDA.  The "everybody knows" argument isn't evidence.  To get the evidence to nullify the NDA you first have to nullify the NDA. Not gonna happen absent a criminal inquiry into the hirer. 

19 hours ago, coriolis888 said:

 

The illegal prostitution plus the client's status in society likely motivated the NDA. 

However, the prostitution act makes the the NDA invalid. 

This also makes the other issues you mentioned irrelevant. 

What "confidential information" would the escort know about the client except there was prostitution involved between the two of them?

"Reputational harm" would be worse for the client if the client pursued legal action against the escort and the escort defended himself and told what occurred between the two.  

If a client were to attempt to sue the escort, do you think the escort would keep quiet about the prostitution that occurred?  The escort would put up a defense if sued.  The defense could be more damaging to the reputation of the client.

How many escorts have sufficient assets to be sued for breaching an NDA agreement even if the agreement were legal?

 

 

You consistently (and incorrectly) insist that the NDA wouldn't be enforceable because it relates to prostitution. Now you're answering other purposes of an NDA by saying they can only be about prostitution and therefore render an NDA unenforceable.  Your well-phrased "we all know" argument isn't evidence, facially or otherwise.  A contract to perform an illegal act is not the same as one to maintain confidences that, if violated, might lead to revealing an illegal act.  For example, a contract to pay $10K to someone for killing your spouse, etc, is on it's face unenforceable.  In that situation, an NDA is irrelevant it's the contract to kill that is unenforceable.

As for escort's resources, that may not be decisive.  A "tell all" book could both bestow financial resources and be the target of a suit to enforce the NDA (the relief sought may be a bar to publication rather than money damages).

I sense we are going in circles.  We've all had our say.  I'm not sure more commentary will do anything productive but I suppose you or someone else could say something that causes me to respond.