Golem

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?

Or just explain what leads you to conclude that you were the victim of a DDoS attack in the first place.

Me three.

Oh for crying out loud. The website went down. It came back up with a new pop-up element that wasn't there before. The simple explanation is that it was down briefly as part of the change to its content. That's normal. Nothing to be ashamed of! Making site upgrades is good! Instead, the site's rep gives us a vague, unprovable and untestable accusation of financed DDoS attacks purchased by the site's competitors. There is no explanation of what leads them to believe that. THIS is the reason people worry about the integrity and trustworthiness of friendboy.pro.

I agree with dropping the "dislike" icon. Unlike the others, that one isn't constructive, it's just a value judgment. Will lead to bad feelings and I'm not sure what it really adds beyond that.