maninsoma

I don't hire as much as I used to -- even before the pandemic my hiring had slowed to a trickle -- but it was very rare in my experience for someone to ask for money up front. I did do what a lot of clients mention when I had guys over, leaving the payment in a conspicuous place. But when I went to an escort's or masseur's place I never took out the cash first to show it to them and only a couple of times did anyone ask for payment up front. In both cases I simply left. As others have written, there are risks to both sides just like there are in many other service industries where clients pay providers directly. That there are a few bad apples who try to get something for nothing doesn't mean it's reasonable for providers to require every client to pay up front. I'd say there are far, far more posts here from clients who have been ripped off by providers after having paid up front than there are escorts who were not paid or underpaid after the session ended. That being said, a business owner can set his own rules and if someone wants his payment only in fifty dollar bills and wants it up front, he's well within his rights to require this. However, if someone wants payment before the session begins he really should mention that in his ad so as not to waste his and his prospective clients' time.

Not a link to a free site. I saw it when I subscribed to Diego Sans' Only Fans page.

Not my experience, but Diego Sans posted a scene of him fucking the very cute Mark Tanner. Mark is riding Diego's cock when housekeeping apparently opens the door. We don't see the housekeeper but we do hear her briefly. As soon as the door opens, Mark slides off Diego's cock and Diego stands up, both of them laughing. I think Mark makes some quip about how being caught by housekeeping will make the video better. I'm glad they kept that part in the video, and I was impressed that they were able to get right back to it. Of course, with two gorgeous men in the room what's a little distraction in the middle of fucking?

I was a Freshman in college, living in a dorm. I went to a meeting of the campus gay students' group. After the meeting, a bunch of people said they were going out for pizza at a place about a 15 minute walk from campus (as I recall -- it's been over 40 years). Someone in the group started chatting me up as we left, and then offered me a ride to the pizza place. I started to get worried as we drove farther and farther -- I knew the pizza place wasn't that far away. I asked the guy why we were driving so long and he said, "You don't really want to go for pizza, do you? Why don't we head back to my place?" I agreed even though I was still a bit uneasy that I was in some stranger's car and had no idea where I was. We eventually got to his place and after a very short time he sat down next to me, leaned in, and started kissing me. I vividly recall my feelings about it because it was both exciting and disgusting -- the former because I liked finally kissing someone and the latter because he was a smoker and his mouth tasted disgusting. Not long after that we were in bed 69ing. I think we had a total of four dates.

You have good taste. Dolph and Kris certainly were (are?) stunning. Not sure Hugh Jackman would be my #1 choice to look like, though. Maybe a young Paul Newman? Robert Conrad? Sal Mineo as he looked when filming Who Killed Teddy Bear or Marlon Brando when he filmed Streetcar Named Desire? Jason Carter of the Pit Crew on RuPaul's Drag Race? So many choices.

The "man who recently passed" took over this website after another man passed away a number of years ago who went by the moniker Hooboy. Hopefully this link will work, but if not simply do a Google search for Hooboy male escort review and there will be a link to a post in the archive here that has a brief history of the site. https://archive.m4m-forum.org/press/history

Yes, JFF is horrible lately in terms of responsiveness. I also emailed their support team because I was being logged out frequently with a message that a VPN was detected and they only allow you to use a VPN if you contact them and they authorize it (or something like that). The response was entirely unhelpful, something along the lines of "thanks for contacting us, what is your issue?" I had already told them what the issue was. At any rate, I think I resolved that issue myself -- I use a few add-ons in Firefox to block ads and other tracking and I think one of them was causing JFF to think I was using a VPN. Once I disabled Ghostery and AdBlock+ I stopped getting kicked off, but their site is still much slower than it used to be and sometimes doesn't respond at all when I try to log in.

I'm sure that word was carefully chosen; they are hedging their bets.

I agree that shorting payment simply because you didn't enjoy your time with a provider is inappropriate. However, shouldn't one expect a refund from a movie theater if the projector stopped working after 15 minutes? (Obviously one isn't going to try to get a refund from the actors in the film!) I don't know about you, but I wouldn't just leave the theater, shrug my shoulders, and then say to myself that it's okay that the theater only showed me a small portion of the film. I paid to see the film, not just a small portion of it. I shouldn't have to pay to see it again unless I liked it so much that I wanted a repeat viewing.

That's a perspective I share with you, but just realize that there are people of all ages who like tattoos. It isn't like everyone who gets tattoos in their 20s regrets that decision later in life.

Is it kiddy porn? Not for me to determine. I never "got" the album cover, though; I've always felt it was, at best, in poor taste and that there was no reason to have a naked baby on the album cover. If Nirvana wanted a naked baby on their album cover maybe one of them could have found a photo of himself as a baby that could have been used.

I know that not everyone viewed him as favorably as me, but I really enjoyed Rick "The Smart Ass" Munroe's posts. This site has been most helpful in saving me money/time/aggravation by sharing information that certain providers were not worth contacting. To clarify, it isn't that I would automatically write someone off just because one poster writes he was disappointed, but if the general consensus is that someone doesn't deliver on what he promises then I definitely don't feel the need to find out for myself whether that's true.

Search is your friend. Previous discussion:

I think I've done this only once. As background, I will say that I have paid the full amount when I've simply been disappointed and also when I've been satisfied but the escort cut the time short. The one time I paid less than agreed upon involved this situation: I arrived on time and the escort had me walking around his neighborhood killing time because he wasn't ready. When he was finally supposedly ready, I was invited inside but then he spent five minutes smoking pot before we began. We started our session and I wasn't 100% clean down there, though I would quantify the "accident" as exceedingly small (nothing visible on his sheets). The guy had an exaggerated response, ran to the bathroom without saying anything other than that I wasn't clean, and then spent over 10 minutes in the bathroom. He came out fully clothed and told me to pay him and leave. It's been years, but I'd say we spent maybe 10 minutes at most in bed. I thought I was being generous when I gave him half of the agreed upon fee. He got upset, but I reminded him that he wasted my time by not being ready on time and that he could have handled the situation by returning to bed with me if he wanted to earn his fee. I could have understood him not wanting to try to fuck me again, but he behaved as if I was a leper. I could tell he was still angry, but so was I. I told him he should consider himself lucky he got paid what he did considering the poor job he did. In retrospect, I could have just paid him the full fee to avoid confrontation but I really did view his behavior as beyond the pale.

My experience with the forum: An escort I hired in 2000 told me about Hooboy's site and asked me to submit a review, which I did. I appreciated being able to read reviews as well as discussions about providers. Over the years I have participated in a few other forums as well, and like most forums I simply ignore the vast majority of what gets posted here -- not because I think the subjects are invalid but simply because they aren't pertinent to me. For example, I'm unlikely to read a thread discussing someone who doesn't work in my area unless that person is also known from porn and I'm curious what others have to say about him. I've seen some people come and go. Sometimes it's clear why some people leave, but sometimes I find myself wondering whatever happened to certain people. Then again, I think I took a multi-year break from this site several years ago; I don't even think my current forum name is the one I used when I first signed up. I've appreciated the intelligence and/or sense of humor of some forum members and found some others irritating beyond belief. Thankfully there is an ignore list, though I confess I sometimes unhide posts from people I've ignored simply to gaze at their current drama.

I certainly am not defending Evangelical anti-sex propaganda, but from the sidelines it really does seem curious to me that a company that brings in as much money as OnlyFans does isn't able to better moderate content. They don't have the money to hire people to (a) review evidence of signed consent of all participants in the videos prior to posting and (b) review evidence that said people are of legal age to consent? I simply don't think that's true. Maybe the site owners don't want to spend their money on this, and maybe my understanding of their profit is wrong -- i.e., maybe most of the 20% they collect goes to other expenses. If that's the case, then they can change the split to something else that brings in enough revenue to hire staff for verification work. I say this because I do think it's important that a site like OnlyFans prevents itself from aiding people who would exploit others sexually for monetary gain and profiting themselves along the way. I don't think it's right-wing to think this way.

Is he older than when you met him 20 years ago? According to his ad, he is 39. I'm pretty sure that's the age he's been since I first noticed his ad 20+ years ago. Note that I do think men who are 60 can be sexy and I have no idea what Jake looks like today, but I just think it's beyond reason to shave not just years but decades from one's age.

I am attracted to a variety of types, and one of those is twinks. The danger in being attracted to twinks is that as they age, a lot of them make choices that make them less attractive to me and one of those choices is to get a lot of tattoos. I realize that they don't exist to conform to my idea of what's sexually attractive, so if someone changes his looks enough that I no longer find him attractive I just stop watching his porn. I'm sure there are others with the exact opposite taste where they don't like particularly like the clean-cut look at any age and would rather someone look rougher around the edges.

I figured there had to be a connection between the two of them since they both visit San Francisco frequently at the exact same time.

Discussed more than once. Just type "miguel_andres" in the search and you'll find the threads that mention him. Here is one of them:

I recall reading here that some people had appointments with him and when they showed up at his location he wasn't there (or didn't answer the door). That alone made me never attempt to book him even though I think he's incredibly hot. I'm guessing that he must provide a good experience for some clients or he wouldn't still be in this business.

They'll be lucky to pull in 10% of that next year if they really do pull all explicit content. That being said, I've already noticed that some content providers post naked photos in their feeds and then either send out sex videos in messages or offer them for sale for an additional amount. I don't mind the former so much, though it seems like only relatively short videos are sent out via messages. As for the latter, I've never taken a provider up on such an offer. If I'm already paying to subscribe to someone's feed, I'm not paying them more just to see a single video. There's no way I'd pay what seems to be the going rate for a single video, either -- $10 for one sex scene? No, thanks.

Finally -- and not surprising it's from the BBC versus a U.S. news source -- I understand what's happening. In a nutshell, there is just so much content posted to OnlyFans that they haven't been doing a good job of removing sexually explicit materials featuring minors or others being sexually exploited. They are not only under pressure from payment processors but also are facing increased government scrutiny. Too bad that they cannot figure out a way to ensure that all content posted is from consenting adults and then allow that content to continue to be posted, but I guess it's easier and safer for them to simply keep their millions and effectively close up shop. (I know they aren't officially ending the business, but I doubt many content creators or customers are going to stick around once sexually explicit videos are banned.)

I haven't noticed a significant increase in visitors listed on Rentmen. Filtering San Francisco ads to just visitors leaves 3 pages of listings, and many of those are for upcoming trips and some of them are somewhat local guys who, for whatever reason, have their ads set up so they are included when one filters to visitors. To answer the question, though, I don't think anything specific is happening in the area this weekend.

I get needing to do something if they are having difficulty with payment processors, but why do they need "institutional investors?" They are supposedly on a path to gross $12.5 billion next year. I've never run a business like this, but if one is pulling in that kind of cash and what one needs to provide is simply the platform for others to post the content that's actually being sold I don't understand why they would need outside investment to keep the business running.