maninsoma

Most preauthorizations go away quite quickly once the final charge gets posted, but I recently had a bad experience with Macys both charging my card and requesting a preauthorization for a mattress set. I was surprised that the preauthorization was listed on my account online until the next bill was issued, when it was finally cleared. Since it didn't impact my spending as I never spend close to my credit limit, I didn't do anything about it but it seemed very odd to me to tie up over a thousand dollars of someone's credit for close to one month when the actual charge had already posted.

It's up to the forum moderators to decide what's allowed. I suppose that as a member you can report posts that you think violate the stated policies, but my guess is that you'd have a lot of posts to report. I am always very careful to not post explicit information about masseurs I have hired because my experience leads me to believe that just because I enjoyed a certain level of interaction with a masseur doesn't mean that that's always part of that masseur's repertoire. I understand people wanting to know whether a guy charging a significantly-higher-than-normal price for a therapeutic massage is offering anything beyond a therapeutic massage, but when inquiries are basically asking if the guy provides "full service" even though it's a massage and not escort ad I get uncomfortable. I think people should be browsing on Rentmen or another escort website if they are looking for that kind of encounter, and then asking questions in the escort forum, not the spa, about services provided.

My thought exactly. I would hope that no escort is stupid enough to block someone simply because that person viewed their ad 5 or 10 or however many times. The viewer might already be a client, may have already scheduled an appointment, or might be ready to schedule an appointment. A good businessperson isn't going to discourage customers without reason, and someone simply looking at what you are offering is hardly a reason to shoo that person away.

I hear you. The problem with a lot of porn is exactly what you describe -- very little spontaneity or passion. Unfortunately Treasure Island either almost exclusively chooses physical types that don't appeal to me or they, as a brand, simply aren't able to attract younger, more buff guys to work for them. So even though their videos do have a cinéma vérité quality that I like, it's very difficult for me to be excited by porn when I simply don't find the performers attractive. That's why, at least on occasion, Sean Cody is my favorite studio. Every once in a while, Sean Cody puts together a pair who are obviously enjoying each other and, with rare exceptions, the types of men they cast are very attractive to me.

I think Kris still looks great, though I preferred him a bit less muscled. At least he hasn't gone completely overboard like former Sean Cody model Stu.

I could watch young men dance around in Speedos all day long.

Who wants to watch a TV show about this? Then again, TLC is the network behind the incest loving Duggar family so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that they would air something this ridiculous.

BelAmi bringing their own stable of performers to South Africa to film is the same as Sean Cody bringing their young men to Wyoming to film. I wasn't disappointed that Sean Cody didn't hire some local ranchers to do porn scenes and if I watch the BelAmi scenes shot in South Africa I won't be concerned with why they didn't recruit local talent to be in front of the camera.

If you just want to see the scene in the gym, here it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK-zilnKh5c

Oh, man. In his prime, Sal was so hot. I love, love, love him in "Who Killed Teddy Bear?" An odd movie that teeters on horrible but ends up being good, largely because of the excellent performances (including Sal in that gym scene). He had quite a number of other nice film roles around that time as well, but by the '70s seemed largely confined to guest shots on TV shows.

Ok, I just checked out the videos. Hope the show is more exciting in person because that was pretty tedious to watch on a computer screen. As to the short clip where someone pulled Kurtis' dick out, it seemed pretty clear that more than one person around the stage was trying to get some fucking started. Maybe the show is just as tedious in person and the audience was trying to liven things up. That doesn't make it "right," but I wouldn't call what I saw "assault," either. Someone overstepped Kurtis' bounds and he admonished the guy and putting his dick back in his jock. Nothing to see here, move along.

No, I didn't watch the videos. If it's as some of you are describing, then I agree that it went beyond consensual. I just got the impression from some of what was posted here that some of you thought that strippers should no longer be touched when performing, at all, unless a customer had a verbal exchange first and received express consent. That seemed impractical to me.

Thanks for the info, EastbayMike.

It isn't just Facebook. Lots of websites track your activity and then use that information to get ad revenue. You can cut down how much you notice this by installing browser add ons like AdBlock+ and Ghostery, but I'm not sure it's possible to avoid being tracked when you are on line. One thing I won't do -- despite Facebook trying to get me to comply for several years -- is give FB my phone number. They try to sell it as some security measure and I see it is another way for them to be intrusive.

No, a fair analogy would be to suggest that it's okay to grope a porn star in the gym because he was changing in a locker room and had a jock strap on. After all, he's asking for it by wearing something provocative. No one here is suggesting that these men's bodies are fair game everywhere they go. But if someone feels violated when random men come up and touch while they hand over money, then that person shouldn't work as a stripper.

Happy birthday, Dane!

Bumping this as I just noticed his ad. Did you end up hiring him or did anyone provide you feedback via PM? I'm a bit perplexed as to where he actually is since he seems to list many cities between San Francisco and Sacramento, but according to his current Rentmen ad he's in downtown Oakland and is using the name Jake (MasseurJake).

I, too, thought some hot guy worked at the Department of Motor Vehicles and was moonlighting as an escort. Made me look forward to upgrading my license to a Real ID compliant one in person later this year.

I've been perplexed about this all of my life as well. I can still recall a conversation with a friend of mine about ten years ago where he indicated he isn't attracted to black men. I showed him a fitness magazine with a very sexy black man on the cover (way sexier than either of us) and asked, "Really? You wouldn't want to have sex with him?" And my friend admitted that he did, in fact, find that man attractive but still maintained that, in general, he did not find black men attractive. What's funny is that he also doesn't find a lot of white men attractive but he would never say he isn't attracted to white men in general. I really do think that when men single out specific races/ethnicities that they don't find attractive there is an underlying racism, but it usually isn't a conversation that's worth having because most people are too uncomfortable to have a meaningful conversation about it. There is a long running thread in the gallery with photos of many sexy black men, but even there I'd probably say I only find about 25% of them attractive. But the same would probably hold true if I looked at all of the photos on Rentmen and calculated how many of the guys I thought were hot. Just because I like men doesn't mean I find all men attractive. We all like what we like. I might look at one guy and start drooling but someone else will notice some of the things that unconsciously attract me and actively dislike the guy for those same qualities. For example, I realize that I tend to be drawn to guys whose noses are slightly larger than average; I realize that many people will find that an unattractive feature, not a turn on. I just find it sad that some people react to skin color first and end up not recognizing beauty because they aren't looking with an open mind.

Another funny Rose story about herring.

I've kept track since the beginning of my hiring, probably because a few decades ago I was I had credit card debt because I didn't follow a budget. I started following a budget and keeping track of discretionary expenses in categories where I noticed it was easy for me to spend way more money than I realized and way more than I could afford. Nearly thirty years later, I still keep track of all of my expenses and have a few categories where I specifically break out my expenses so I can monitor them closely. One of those categories is escorts and masseurs. At the height of my spending on this luxury (years ago), I spent several thousand dollars per year. The figure today is perhaps 10% of that. I still like to look and lurk but I seldom hire anyone anymore.

I'm surprised that there have been two positive mentions of Lauren Weedman so far. For me, she was the worst part of the series. Has she appeared in anything else worthy of watching? I couldn't tell if she was simply a bad actress or if her lines were just incapable of being spoken without sounding ridiculous.

I hadn't noticed that, but it looks like you are correct. I just went to modelmahem, found a hot guy, and dragged his main photo into Google image search. It didn't find the modelmahem page or any other page displaying the model's photo and simply returned "barechested" as a result. I got the same result dragging and dropping the photo in Firefox as I did right clicking the image and selecting image search in Chrome.

I assume HBO is rerunning this if you just watched it last night. I think it was originally on a couple of years ago and I assume there is a previous thread here about it. Overall I think there were too many flaws for me to recommend this series, but it did get a bit better in season two.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Luddite. Anyone who knows me knows that I love gadgets as long as they perform well and do something I want them to do. I typically seek out the best examples of electronic devices that I can afford. That's why I cannot abide by listening to music on a small plastic speaker (unless I'm just sitting at my computer and listening to something for convenience). My issue with so-called "smart" devices like this is that I simply don't feel the benefits outweighs the negatives. I'm already able to check the weather, look up trivia on the web, or order something from Amazon on my smart phone (that I realize is also spying on me in some ways). I don't need a new gadget where I live monitoring the sound every second of every day. That's just unnecessarily intrusive.