former lurker

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.
 

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.
 

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.

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.

Quite right. For some, it wins out much more quickly.  Bitterness tends to weather a person.
This isn't really a discussion about looks, as clearly Alam is keeping himself together.  What we're talking about are people's shitty behaviors because they feel protected by anonymity.
We can all be better people.  It just takes stopping for a moment while you're IN the moment.
 
 

And the way you stated it and handled it in this post was mature and straight-forward.
You didn't go for the low blow.  You didn't act like a petulant child.  I'm fine with all of that (and sorry he stood you up, twice).  Like I tend to tell people, it's not what you say, but how you say it.  You kept it classy sir.
Most of the people on this thread who are taking the cheapest shots haven't seen him, nor have they even scheduled time with him.

Unless he's done something to personally spite you, the level of bitterness by some here is odd.
If they aren't for you, move on.  Putting constant negative effort into something just to make yourself feel better is the key trait of the brave keyboard warrior and classic internet troll.
People here have met with Alam and clearly enjoyed their time.

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.

You don't get eggs that look like him at Aldi...you sound more than a value shopper, just plain cheap. As I have said time and time again this sport is not for pensioners. $350 is a regular rate in most places. Now whether he is your type or lives up to his promises, different subject, but $350 is on the low side of regular rate in most areas. 

Agreed.
I've accessorized mine with decorative beading, tasteful glitter and colorful construction paper.
It really adds something to the experience.

RIP Tyler.

Okay, so I get why you're frustrated, but dude, it's not flaking to be unavailable or to change travel plans UNLESS you had an appointment booked already.

His political views were, at one time, a factor that could have made encounters uncomfortable.  By that I mean he reportedly was insistent on discussing them and defending them.  Then, at some point, it clicked for him that it was better to keep the politics to himself so as not to create discomfort or conflict.  From that point forward, those who've seen him have been universally laudatory in their comments.  I'd encourage everyone to do as Adam has and leave his politics out of the discussion.

If you're really a Good Samaritan, you do the right thing without seeking a reward because doing the right thing is its own reward.  If he really called them hoping for a reward, and called back again looking for a better payoff, he's no longer a Good Samaritan.
The check was uncashable by anyone but the recipient and Haribo could easily have stopped payment. It's nice that he called, but he isn't exactly saving the galaxy here.  Still, they sent something.  That was a nice gesture.  Then he got greedy.  Boo.

Cute songs…I don’t see bad PR?

His name wasn't on the freaking check,  @samhexum
 

Classic case of pot calling the kettle black.
On this other thread (link below), @nycboisaid he wanted to become an escort but only accept the best looking men as clients because he's better looking than most people and regrets hooking up with men who "aren't on his level".  Now, he wonders why attractive men ignore him.  Sounds like looking through a window and not liking the view, then realizing it's a mirror.
Start by not modeling the same behavior you find negative in others.  Best wishes on your journey
 

I think it's a double-edged sword to talk about yourself in the initial message.
Some, typically newer and gay, masseurs that don't fully get the nature of their business may want to pick and choose who is eligible for the sensual or erotic version of their massage. Here it should be a plus to be a confident & good looking client.
More experienced masseurs, often hot ones that specifically advertise as such, may suspect that you are angling for additional mileage or a discount and are unlikely to like it. Moreover, their business model and self-image may be based on being admired by clearly less hot clients, so encounters with good looking guys are potentially disastrous reality checks.  My 2c.

I’ve always found describing providers as “meat” is disrespectful. I’ve railed against this a long time…I get it but don’t like it. They’re humans first.