ApexNomad

I love you. LOL Wow! Thank you!

For first-time providers, I always put the cash in an envelope on a table or stand, and it’s always visible when they come in. They know it’s there, I know it’s there. I don’t hand it to them directly—call it a bit of caution on my part or stupidity. For regulars, I hand it over directly, still in an envelope, since there’s already trust established. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like handing over paper money right after our encounter. “Don’t treat them like a commodity, and don’t treat me like an ATM.” It’s a reminder to me to always maintain respect and dignity in this transaction, emphasizing that both parties should be valued beyond just the exchange of money.

The real thing is ALWAYS better… but porn is also free.

Not to veer off topic, but I think it varies and depends on each client and provider. For example, if I’m paying for a “boyfriend experience,” I want the full experience for what that means to me and how I articulate that to the provider. That means I expect the provider to engage with me on a level beyond just physical pleasure. If I specifically express that I want things like “Tell me you love me during sex,” then I want that to be part of the experience—I want whatever fantasy expressed for that encounter. If, on the other hand, I’m looking for a purely physical encounter with zero commentary, then I expect to skip the commentary and focus solely on the physical pleasure. The key is clear communication and setting boundaries that work for both parties. It’s important that both the client and provider feel comfortable with the arrangement, and that those boundaries are agreed upon upfront. If a provider is comfortable with my desires and we both agree on what the experience will be, then I think everyone gets what they want out of the encounter.

I give you an enormous amount of credit for getting back on the horse after repeated negative experiences, especially the one where you were drugged. Honestly, that would have ended this as my hobby entirely. I’m really sorry that happened to you, and I sincerely hope the end result wasn’t what we often fear in situations like that. I don’t know the details of what happened, and I’d be remiss to speculate. However, if any physical harm was done, I would consider seeking legal action. In situations like this, it’s often referred to as drink spiking or, in more severe cases, drug-facilitated assault. As for the statute of limitations, it varies by jurisdiction, but many places have a period ranging from a few years to several decades, especially for serious crimes like assault. It might be worth consulting with a legal professional to understand your options going forward. Your resilience is impressive, and I truly hope any future encounters are much more positive and fulfilling.

Is he a porn star?

It’s all strategic. Three potential reasons: 1. Leverage in Plea Negotiations: A terrorism charge significantly raises the stakes, potentially pressuring Mangione to accept a plea deal. 2. Public Perception: Labeling the act as terrorism emphasizes the severity of the crime and signals to the public that the State views the act as having broader societal implications, reinforcing their commitment to addressing such violence. 3. Unclear Motive or Evidence: The prosecution may have evidence that hasn’t been disclosed yet, which could tie Mangione’s actions to the statutory definitions of terrorism, such as attempting to influence government policy or intimidate a population.

I haven’t seen this production yet. Did you see this new production of Gypsy or is this your overall assessment of Ms. McDonald from other performances you’ve seen?

This case extends beyond the courtroom and touches on larger societal issues. While Mangione’s background positions him within the privileged elite, his supporters—many of whom come from marginalized communities—might view his actions differently. They could perceive his act not just as a crime, but as a challenge to the very systems of power they feel have long excluded them. In this light, Mangione may be seen as a martyr, with his supporters framing his actions as a form of resistance rather than a criminal act. This is reflected in the fundraising efforts for his defense, which seem to resonate with those who see Mangione as someone taking a stand against the status quo. The framing of his actions is likely to differ significantly depending on the social lens through which they are viewed. What’s fascinating, and concerning (especially for the prosecution I’d imagine), is that the legal and media narratives surrounding the case may do little to shift this perception among his supporters. In fact, they may only serve to deepen the divisions in the public’s understanding of justice, reinforcing the idea that the system is either working against or for certain segments of society, depending on one’s perspective.

The indictment on a terrorism charge significantly changes the dynamics of this case. It frames the defendant’s actions not just as a personal crime, but as an attack on society itself. The prosecution will likely focus on proving premeditation, showing the defendant’s actions were part of a larger, ideologically driven agenda. They’ll use any evidence of extremist beliefs, communications, or behavior to argue that the crime was motivated by more than personal grievances, thus justifying the terrorism charge. This also opens the door for harsher sentencing under terrorism statutes. For the defense, the challenge has now intensified. They’ll need to argue that the defendant’s actions, while tragic, were not ideologically motivated and do not meet the legal definition of terrorism. This could include bolstering arguments for diminished capacity, such as an insanity defense or extreme emotional disturbance, in an effort to show that the defendant was not in full control of his actions. They will also likely emphasize personal struggles or mental health issues to humanize the defendant and counter the terrorism charge. It’ll be interesting to see what plea the defense enters, as this will significantly shape the trial strategy. In high-profile cases like this one, where the charges are severe (e.g., terrorism and murder), the decision for a jury trial is more likely, especially given the emotional weight of the charges. However, the defendant may still request a bench trial, depending on their strategy and legal counsel’s advice.

That’s a beautiful story. It speaks to the care, respect, and commitment both of you have towards each other. That’s really special.

To me, there are red flags. Why start a profile based in DC but claim you’re just visiting? Your lead photo is of your face covered—fine, you don’t have to show your face, then at least show your body. And the ad copy is odd: “Whether it’s a night under the city lights or an intimate evening in, I am your guide to indulgence.” Really? If you’re just visiting, I probably know more about the city than you do. My guess is you’ll find someone different than the person advertised. But a video call should do the trick to clear up any confusion.

Nothing kills the vibe faster than treating an escort like a cashier. If you really want to make the experience feel even more transactional, asking for change will do it. Just consider it a tip—they’ll appreciate it, and trust me, they’ll remember you if you decide to hire them again.

Surface: If you love mysteries that keep you guessing, Surface is for you. It’s a sleek psychological thriller that dives into themes of identity, memory, and trust. You’re constantly questioning what’s real and who’s lying, which makes it completely binge-worthy. Great, understated performances. Ted Lasso: If you haven’t watched Ted Lasso yet, you’re missing out on one of the most heartwarming, feel-good shows ever. It’s funny, uplifting, and surprisingly deep. Silo: Silo is one of the best new sci-fi shows out there—it’s a slow-burn mystery that’s both thought-provoking and thrilling. Set in a massive underground silo where society’s been living for generations, the story follows people questioning why they’re there and what’s really outside. The production design is stunning, the performances (led by the amazing Rebecca Ferguson) are incredible, and every episode leaves you wanting more. If you love shows like The Expanse or Westworld, you’ll be obsessed with this.

Would you mind expanding on this, I’m not sure I quite follow.

Eric Hassan https://rent.men/thedudenextdoor

I completely agree! (Everyone should listen to you - that’s perfect advice!!) I myself have never done the video clip with the provider. For first-time providers, I’ve only ever described what I’m into and looking for, confirmed the must-haves from their profile that are important to me to make sure we’re on the same page, and then I really just give myself (literally LOL) to the provider and to the moment. Not to sound corny, but I’m trusting myself in their hands. That’s why I’m there!

You could certainly try, but to your point about bad links, phishing, etc., that might raise a red flag for the provider. They might also think you’re a time-waster, especially if you’ve never hired them before. You’re better off describing the scene in your own words or showing the clip in person once you’ve hired them and built some chemistry. This way, it feels like part of foreplay and helps set the tone, making it a more natural and enjoyable experience for both of you.

The concept of healthcare as a fundamental right stems from the basic principle that access to life-sustaining care is essential to human dignity and equality. Healthcare is not simply a commodity to be purchased by those who can afford it—it is a moral and practical imperative for any society that values its people. Legally, we’ve already acknowledged healthcare as a right in specific contexts. For example, emergency rooms are required to provide stabilizing treatment regardless of ability to pay. Programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP ensure healthcare access for specific populations. These systems don’t exist in isolation—they reflect a collective recognition that no one should die or suffer needlessly because they were born into poverty or marginalized circumstances. As a gay man, I know firsthand how the denial of healthcare can affect a community. As many of us here do. The early years of the AIDS epidemic revealed how disastrous it is when healthcare is treated as a privilege rather than a right. Without accessible treatment, people—like so many of our brothers and sisters—were left to die because they didn’t have insurance, or were denied coverage altogether. The LGBTQ+ community fought for their lives—and for equitable healthcare—and made progress. That fight taught us that healthcare disparities are deeply tied to systemic discrimination, and unless access is treated as a right, the most vulnerable will always suffer the most. It’s a reality that still brings me to tears. This is not just a philosophical issue—it’s about creating a society where everyone has the opportunity to live fully. We provide public funding for education, clean water, and other public goods because we understand that certain rights are necessary for the success and sustainability of a society. Healthcare must be viewed the same way.

Food, clothing, and housing are also fundamental needs, and while no one is suggesting they must all be provided for free, we do acknowledge a collective responsibility to ensure people don’t starve or freeze. That’s why we have programs like SNAP, public housing, and shelters. Healthcare is no different—it’s about protecting lives and giving people the chance to contribute to society. A system that allows people to die or suffer unnecessarily because they can’t afford care is one that undermines the very fabric of our humanity and community.

The fact that Medicare’s administrative costs are around 2%, while private insurers spend 15-20% on overhead and profits, isn’t a partisan claim, but a well-documented statistic. The issue here isn’t whether Medicare is perfect, but whether we could improve efficiency and reduce costs in the system by addressing these disparities. Independent research has consistently shown that Medicare operates at a much lower cost than the private sector. Fraud exists in every system, but comparing Medicare’s fraud issues to the waste and exploitation within the private sector is misleading. Private insurers are notorious for denying claims, overcharging, and hiking premiums—practices that directly harm consumers. (Have you seen the news lately?) While Medicare is not immune to fraud, it has far better oversight and the capacity to address these challenges more effectively than the profit-driven private insurance system. The debate here isn’t about whether Medicare is flawless, but whether our current system is serving everyone efficiently. The private sector model has shown that its profit-driven incentives often come at the expense of preventative care and cost containment, leaving many Americans with inadequate care and skyrocketing medical costs. Healthcare is a fundamental right. Choosing not to seek preventative care is one thing, but ignoring the systemic barriers that prevent many from even having the option of affordable care is another. Dismissing the systemic inefficiencies in the current model doesn’t solve the problem—it just kicks the can down the road.

I hear you, I do. I understand your concerns. You’re right that the current private sector system involves massive spending, but I think it’s important to examine where that money goes and the inefficiencies within it. The private insurance system incurs high administrative costs—about 15-20% of premiums go toward overhead and profits, compared to Medicare’s 2%. These costs don’t directly benefit patient care, and reducing them would free up substantial resources. The profit-driven model of the private sector doesn’t prioritize preventative care. This leads people to delay necessary treatment until it becomes more urgent and expensive. This is a form of rationing—rationing by price—where those who can’t afford care suffer the consequences. While countries with socialized healthcare do face some waiting lists, these are often overstated compared to the U.S., where lack of insurance or underinsurance results in similar or longer delays for the most vulnerable. You’re right that Medicare for All would be expensive in the short term, but over time, bulk purchasing, negotiating drug prices, and eliminating the profit margins of private insurers would save the country trillions. The U.S. currently spends far more on prescription drugs than other countries, largely because we lack the ability to negotiate prices with Big Pharma. Socialized systems negotiate directly with drug manufacturers, saving billions. The real question for me isn’t whether the transition would be flawless, but whether we can afford to continue a system where healthcare is driven by profit, leading to preventable deaths because people can’t access the care they need.

It’s easy to point to the gaps in Obamacare as proof that it didn’t work, but I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. In many ways, Obamacare represented the first real attempt to address systemic issues in our healthcare system on a national scale, something that previous administrations had failed to do for decades. Was it perfect? No. But is it fair to call it a massive failure when it expanded access to millions of people, eliminated the pre-existing condition loophole, and reduced the uninsured rate to historic lows? I don’t think so. What we often forget in the criticism of the ACA is that, despite its shortcomings, it fundamentally shifted the conversation about healthcare in the U.S. Yes, premiums and drug costs still remain high, and there are gaps, especially in states that chose not to expand Medicaid. But to dismiss the law outright ignores how much it helped millions of Americans who were previously shut out of healthcare. When we hold any system to a standard of perfection, we risk losing sight of the progress it made. In fact, even today, millions of people benefit from its protections—especially in terms of ensuring access to care for the most vulnerable populations. The reality is that healthcare reform is never going to be a one-size-fits-all solution, and any attempt to solve these deep-rooted problems will face hurdles—whether it’s Obamacare, Medicare for All, or something else entirely. What I think we need to focus on is not just criticizing what hasn’t worked, but also finding ways to improve and build on the progress we’ve made. It’s not perfect, but Obamacare was a critical step toward a more inclusive healthcare system. And any future solutions will require learning from its challenges to create something that works for everyone.

A seminal piece of work. One of the greatest albums of all time. It deserves to be held so much higher than this.