Golem

Dude, I did. See "it's because they don't know you, they don't really care about you, and a better opportunity came along" and the two surrounding paragraphs.

Respectfully, you guys are trying to read minds. You simply don't know what's behind the flaking. Let me be very clear, I'm not defending the flaking behavior. But despite a total lack of information, you have concluded that the only options are: * drugs * a psychiatric diagnosis * an unspecified character flaw with value judgment attached ("immaturity") I'm not trying to find a potential excuse for the flaking behavior. I'm just saying there are lots of other reasons people flake. They aren't good reasons to flake, but they aren't necessarily so personally damning of someone's character. "Ghosting" -- from someone you've never met -- does not suggest "significant animus/anger." You're taking that way too personally. I mean, come on, we've all used hookup apps in our time. We've all had someone vanish on us after we started making plans to meet. It's not because they hate you, it's because they don't know you, they don't really care about you, and a better opportunity came along. Is it nice to just vanish? No. Is it good practice for one's reputation? Of course not. But it might just be a cold hard calculation about the best use of their time. I may not agree with the math -- it doesn't take long to send one text that says "Sorry, something came up, I have to cancel." But this really is how a lot of people think. Again: see Manhunt. The fact that the person you are talking to was talking to you in the first place to make money, rather than out of pleasure, only makes this more likely. If I were going to read minds in a similar way, I might say that the only possible reason your conclusions are limited to personally damning ones are because you're needy and have poor boundaries, or you are clueless as to how human interactions work. IMPORTANT NOTE: I do not actually think these things And there isn't any real evidence to suggest them -- just a super speculative interpretation of the circumstances that ends up being more judgmental than insightful. See what I mean?

Uh. How in the world do you make the flying leap from "a no-show with bad communication" to "possibly on drugs"? I get being annoyed, but there are tons of possible reasons why people might do this. Reporting what happened is helpful. Wild, pejorative speculation pulled out of thin air: not so helpful.

That does suck. Sorry Marc! On a happier note, I now see a new reason to visit Indiana...

Boston to Virginia Beach

Any experience? https://rentmen.eu/TrippTerrell Not sure what area he's based in, based on the current RM -- likely somewhere west coast, though he's travelling east coming up. RM reviews are mostly good with at least one that's verbose and seems legit. There's also one negative outlier that's verbose and accuses him of post-session theft, but the reviewer didn't actually see the theft take place, so that's a question mark. I PMed the reviewer for more info, will report if anything comes out of that.

Looke to it: for, Ile stabbe ye.

Dear lord. The level of jealousy I am experiencing right now...

It's 4 pro and 2 con if you read the whole thread. Admittedly, the pro side has no equivalent to the like 36 paragraphs of ranting from Mocha. Now you're actually trying to terrify me

The thread you linked does not support your claim there. There are more providers in that thread saying positive things about Boston as a travel location than there are complaining about it -- there are only two who do that, one of whom is perennially grumpy. (Note, not a read, I am also perennially grumpy, & I don't get offended when people take that into account when listening to what I have to say!) tl;dr -- Boston's great if you can find lodging that isn't crazy expensive. That's the harder part.

How recent was that, @TruHart1? I ask because back when there was that really long, ah... debate thread about the site (January 2018), the people running it stated they were going to take down all ads for which they did not have explicit consent: https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/rentboy-pro-website.132253/page-10#post-1441712 If they are still refusing to respect providers' autonomy, despite claiming otherwise, that is a serious problem.

This is not true everywhere. These laws cover only about half of the U.S. as you described it. There are 33 states that have laws that criminalize having sex while HIV positive (or in some cases with any STI) without disclosing that fact. However, around 8 of those states have an exception written in where the law does not apply if you take reasonable precautions (e.g., if you use a condom). I believe that is also the case in the U.K. (There are some other U.S. states, like Texas, that have no such laws but have been known to charge people anyway under more general criminal statues, like assault or reckless endangerment. Thankfully, this is not true everywhere.) --- Now, since you seem to genuinely believe that having sex with people who know they are HIV positive is the real problem, let's look at some simple logic. 1a. Some people know they have HIV. 1b. Some people don't have HIV. 1c. There is a third group that assumes they don't have it, but in fact, does have it. 2a. People who know they have HIV are likely to be receiving treatment for it. 2b. That third group, however, is extremely unlikely to be receiving treatment for it (since they don't think they have it). 3a. Viral load zero is common these days when HIV is treated. The chance of transmission with viral load zero is close to zero, and that's on top of the reduction from any other precautions you take. 3b. The chance of transmission with nonzero viral load is obviously higher. The third group is far more likely to have significant viral load than the first group, since there is no treatment taking place that would lower viral load. 4. Ergo, the chance you pick up HIV from sex with someone who knows they have HIV (whether they publicize that fact or not) is quite probably lower than the chance you pick it up from having sex with someone who doesn't think they have HIV, since there is a chance they are in the third group.

You're either trolling or ostriching, now. That someone could potentially pass on a disease to you (if you don't take any precautions yourself) is the default position. It's true about everyone you sleep with, unless you have them go and get an STI panel and hang out until it's done. You aren't informing anyone about potential disease transmission. You're gossiping. That may not be what you think you're doing, but it is what you're doing.

Given that this information is not publicly reported in the vast, vast majority of cases, I don't understand what relevance this has to anything. If you want to protect your own health, you take appropriate precautions, period. Pointing out a particular person's status, even if it's publicly disclosed, serves absolutely no purpose when it comes to safety, danger, disease transmission, etc.

Bumping. Now in Boston, apparently. Any reports?

Hey all. Gonna be in town, thought I would see if there were any more recent reports on Mr. Riley -- though what there is seems pretty positive! Thanks.

Yeah, that can't be real. Gorgeous, though. Le sigh...

Moving away from those labels doesn't mean people can't still be attracted solely to one or to the other, if that happens to be the case for them. Every so often some crazy person, who has apparently forgotten the history of straight people claiming that every other orientation is not real, is a psychiatric disorder, etc etc., will post saying "bisexuality doesn't exist" or "being completely gay doesn't exist." But I think latbear's comment was just about the labels, not about what anyone actually experiences. Personally, I think labels like "gay" have their uses, some of which are important. But they also have their drawbacks. I think it's important to acknowledge that and be open to the benefits and drawbacks of other categorizing schemes, too. No categorizing scheme changes what is true for you, or for me, or for anyone else!

Given that publicly stated orientations are sometimes chosen for image/career reasons -- and for that matter the existence of studios that portray all or most of their models as straight/gay-for-pay/etc. as part of their own image/niche -- this seems like a hard topic to sort out. Nobody seems to trust the stated orientations on RM very much (at least not as direct indicators of the provider's actual orientation); the same principle applies in porn, doesn't it?

For the sake of future people using the search function just as you did, you may want to put this guy's profile name in the topic title, instead of just "this guy".

It's just reality that businesses of all sorts bump small clients for big ones. In the case of a one-person business, it's sort of a necessity. That said there are definitely better and worse ways to handle it. One provider I know always says "I've penciled you in on my calendar; let me confirm with you the day of." That way, both parties know it's still possible (however unlikely) that they will have to reschedule. I think this is actually good for both parties -- clients can have schedule problems come up too, they can get sick, etc.

N.B.: Angel replied to my last post ("But what makes...") from a different account, @DavidMore. That post has now been deleted. However, I still have it open in another window. Here's a screenshot: https://pasteboard.co/HRi7OkW.png This may be worth keeping in mind when deciding what to trust, and whether or not an external entity is using multiple accounts here to surreptitiously influence the conversation.

But what makes you think there was even a DDoS attack in the first place?

Whose site it is has nothing to do with the assertion you made. I'm just suggesting you could explain why you think there was a DDoS attack paid for by a competitor. It's a big accusation. Surely there's something that leads you to make it?