maninsoma

Not a seafood buffet, but there is a Brazilian steakhouse near me that opened as soon as indoor dining was allowed and they had their buffet open as usual. (Meat was still served by waiters roaming around the dining area.) Quite frankly it made me a bit uncomfortable. Though they had hand sanitizer in front of the salad bar, there wasn't anyone there making sure that everyone who stepped up to handle the serving spoons sanitized their hands with each visit. BTW, I typically equate lobster with a high price. How much is an all-you-can-eat buffet that includes lobster?

See? You can learn something new every day. Since I was taught that loan wasn't a verb, I had held onto that notion without question. Thanks for the education.

Madonna has always been pretentious. She always comes off as at least somewhat imperious to me. I like some of her music and some of her videos, so I'm not saying she has no talent, but her narcissism has always been off-putting to me. Cher, on the other hand, just says/writes what she feels. Apart from when she's performing, she comes across as being more natural and authentic. Cher admitting that she doesn't even like some of the music she made definitely puts her in a different camp than Madonna, who seems to think she walks on water. I happen to like some of Cher's music she dislikes (she appears to favor her more rock influenced tracks and I like her pure pop and dance stuff, for the most part), but I contrast Cher's willingness to critique her own work with Madonna's ridiculous stance on her latest flop called Madame X, where she dressed in a silly costume and tried to sell the concept and her album as some serious piece of art when most everyone who heard it said, "thank u,next."

Maybe we are just reverting to a time when using "they" to refer to a single person was acceptable. Linguists indicate this usage dates back to the 14th century, so it isn't like the modern convention of using "they" for a single person is something new. I'm personally much more bothered by people using "loan" as a verb. The verb is lend. I lent him money, I didn't loan him money. Yet almost everyone uses loan as a verb today.

Dear HoleTrainer: I also live in San Francisco. I have hired a couple of plumbers and paid both when the job was finished. I hired a couple of handymen; paid both when work was finished. I have hired many, many masseurs over the period of 30+ years and never paid a deposit. I do pay for medical services when I arrive for my appointments, but I don't have to send money before I even arrive. You seem to be confusing sending money to an unknown person before even meeting with paying upon arrival. A lot of people don't even want to pay upon arrival, but that request is at least in the ballpark of reasonability. Your argument is that people should also be willing to just look for a plumber on Craigslist and then send money to someone they found there without any knowledge whether that person will show up and have the skills required to do the job. That's just silly, but if you want to keep arguing that it's reasonable for people to send money to strangers in the hopes that person is not a scammer and then just be okay if they lose money here and there because it's the equivalent of spending money on restaurant food and not liking it then go ahead. I don't see how being disappointed in what was provided for the money is the equivalent of getting nothing for one's money. I would suggest that you step away from the keyboard, at least from this thread. This is a perfect example of a provider shooting himself in the foot because he has a strong opinion about something and won't just let the argument die. I don't think your argumentative stance in this thread will win you any new clients and it very well might drive others away under the assumption that you aren't a reliable provider at best and perhaps someone who views his clients with contempt.

I don't get this guy's appeal at all, but if I had to guess he's simply figured out another way to make money. Not everyone will pay to watch his soft core porn but maybe some of those people will watch him ramble on YouTube. Enough views and he can make some more coin off his "celebrity."

Not only undue entitlement, but bad business sense. Wouldn't it make more sense for the provider to decline the booking, then, rather than show up and not give his best because he's resentful that the client wouldn't pay an advance deposit? Talk about starting out on the wrong foot -- first the client has a bad impression that the provider wants money before they have even met, and then when the provider agrees to meet with the deposit he has a negative view of the client and therefore provides a substandard experience? I think a reasonable provider could set aside his negativity once he and the client were together and it was clear he wasn't being scammed; otherwise he's just compounding the ways in which he can establish a negative reputation.

If anyone has any doubt that true bisexuals exist, look at self-made porn of someone like Donte Colle. He clearly gets off having sex with both men and women.

As a client, I've never no-showed for an appointment. I have shown up and walked away when the person answering the door wasn't the same person shown in the ad. I have had multiple experiences with providers who failed to show up at my place or weren't reachable when I arrived at their hotels. I'm not losing money when this occurs, but it's still a waste of my time, a waste of preparation as a bottom, and a disappointment since most guys aren't just sitting by the phone available at the drop of a hat if someone else flakes out. I don't expect a provider who is new to me to do anything for me to prove he's reliable and I don't think I need to pay a deposit to prove I'm legitimate, either. As far as I am concerned, the trust needs to be a two-way street. But, again, a provider can obviously choose to run his business any way he sees fit and I, as a customer, can choose to hire him or not.

I guess he's one for name changes. I see that he now has a RentMasseur profile under the name Heyhellohi, and apparently he previously had a Rentmen ad under CrazyAsianMassage or something like that according to a thread about him here that I found searching for Heyhellohi.

I understand a guy being concerned about having no-shows or maybe even guys who try to get something for nothing by not paying at the end of a session, but it's extremely rare in the professional world to have to pay for work before it's performed. I pay at the counter at my doctor's office when I arrive for my appointment, so that would be the equivalent of paying an escort on arrival. If I need work beyond a normal cleaning/exam at my dentist's office, I pay my portion after he performs the work. I know that people pay a deposit when hiring a contractor, but that makes sense because that person typically has to procure materials for the job before actually starting work. The notion that I would just send money via Venmo or whatever to someone I had never met simply because he promised to be available for me at a certain future time is laughable. But, like FrankR wrote, the guy has a right to run his business the way he wants and we as clients have the right to simply look for someone without such a requirement.

I only made it through about 2 1/2 minutes, which was long enough for him to finally give 3 opinions about what drink orders mean in a gay bar: Beer - you are a top Manhattan - you are an older gay man who just wants to sit by yourself and make catty comments to those around you Cosmo - you are an older gay man who wants to remain current with pop culture and have fun with younger guys Beyond just generally finding this guy annoying, these above observations are just so silly.

Not that I haven't watched a lot of "free porn" in my day, but keep in mind that a lot of "free porn" that's available online is only free because someone has posted it without consent of the person who created the content. If some guy really floats my boat, I'd rather pay for a month or three of his OnlyFans page so I can see all of his content without it being edited, without it having reduced picture quality, and without having to scour "free porn" websites for it. That being said, I'm not one to subscribe to someone who is only posting jerk off/show off videos. I want to see men having sex with other men, and not the same couple of guys over and over (another reason why my subscription to someone's page might not get renewed). The best OnlyFans content providers are the ones who are sexy sluts who find a lot of other sexy sluts who want to have sex while recording it so it can be shared online.

To have a good Only Fans page -- one that's worth subscribing to because new, worthwhile content is regularly added -- requires work. I guess from the outside it might look like "easy money" to some since part of the work involves having sex, but recording and editing that sex so it's interesting to watch requires effort. Even without subscribing you can tell a lot of guys' pages are not worth subscribing to due to the infrequency of content being added. Some guys add content regularly but it's more of the same -- here's another photo of me, here's a quick video of me jerking off, etc. I doubt that many subscribers stick around for more than their initial subscription period if that's all they are getting; I know I don't. I'd love to subscribe to a masseur's Only Fans page who posts full videos of erotic massages, but I assume that many masseurs wouldn't want to post their sessions even if they could get their clients' consent and probably even fewer clients would consent to their sessions being posted online, even if they got a cut of the action.

More than a bit, I'd say. The age listed in the ad is definitely a decade off. It's fairly easy to find his information online since he uses the same phone number in his RentMasseur ad that is associated with other aspects of his life.

Given that "transitioned" can mean different things, it's not possible to give a single answer to the question. I would potentially hire a gender fluid or non-binary or gender non-confirming escort who had a penis. I would not hire a person who had surgery that removed their penis since having a penis is a very important part of what makes someone sexually attractive to me.

Maybe the ad has already been removed. The link just leads me to a page of listings. I'm a little perplexed by the story, but as others have written never pay up front unless you know the provider or have good reason to believe he's trustworthy. Even for someone with a known, solid reputation I'd probably just look for someone else if he wanted to be paid up front and I'd never met him before.

I assume the San Quentin quip was meant as a joke, but if one puts up an ad where he is lauding the character Voldemort then it makes sense that someone might equate him with murder or attempted murder -- you know, the type of behavior that could land someone in San Quentin. The photos show a hot young man, but the text is either just not well thought out because it creates the wrong impression (just because you like reading murder mysteries or watching films with heroes and villains doesn't make you a killer or wannabe killer) or the entire ad is a joke. I am voting for the latter.

I think he means chivalry, and if I hired the guy and liked him I would try to politely inform him that he needs to correct his ad.

I'm not even sure the ad is legit. The amount of information provided is scant, yet the advertiser spent a lot of time philosophizing about the wonders of villains. Even if the guy shows up and looks like the man in the photos, do you really want to be with someone whose leading line is how much he admires villains? Do you want to be his victim?

Thanks for the laugh.

Maybe the ad has already been removed? You link just took me to a general listing for New York City.

He is absolutely, stunningly gorgeous (at least to my eyes), so he has that going for him. $1,000/hour is way too rich for my blood, but if he makes enough on Only Fans and wants to limit his clients to those who are either very wealthy or who spend more than they can really afford then there's nothing really to complain about except that us mere mortals won't ever get the chance to be with him.

I'm not sure that the show's ending has anything to do with the claims of how horrible of a person Ellen is when the cameras are off. I'm guessing it's all because the show has lost so many viewers, and for whatever reason the show's producers haven't figured out how to have an entertaining show since the pandemic began. Her series of shows shot from her home were pretty awful. I ended up fast forwarding through most of them. I think people were willing to give her some slack, though, since no one was going to have a talk show with in person guests and a live audience when the pandemic began. But there's really no excuse for how they have produced the show this season. Some guests show up in person, but a lot are still only there via computer. The number of guests has been reduced, with entire episodes being devoted to people without much to say so it ends up feeling like the audience is just eavesdropping on a mundane conversation between Ellen and someone she knows. Way too much time is spent playing clips from pre-pandemic shows. Sitcoms maybe do this once per season, if that, but for a daily talk show to expect its viewers to want to watch repeats almost daily is puzzling. The icing on the cake was Ellen deciding she didn't want to film five episodes per week, with rotating guest hosts appearing on Friday -- many of whom had no experience carrying a show (and it showed). All in all, this season has been a drag to watch which is why I fast forward lots of segments and simply delete without watching other episodes. I basically only watch still for the monologue and if there is a guest I like. Somehow Graham Norton figured out how to return to work and still make an entertaining show. Even when he was doing everything via Zoom, his interviews still had the same wit. Now that he's back in the studio with four socially distanced guests, the dynamic is pretty much the same as pre-pandemic if you ignore the lack of an in person audience.

Not only does cash protect escorts against chargebacks, as a client I prefer it because I don't really want an electronic record of my payment to providers.