Golem

Didn't you just have a bad experience with this sort of thing?

Except that the client pays the same amount of money whether the provider is able to fully engage in the moment or is just doing the best he can. Sometimes two wonderful people have bad chemistry together. If the provider suspects that is likely to happen, I'd rather know about it, and avoid getting what will feel like a bum deal (even though no one was trying to give me one). It's not an insult, and it's not discrimination, to acknowledge that the way I act and the way I present myself impact my chemistry with other people. That said, I also cannot imagine saying to anyone "sorry, I'm not attracted to ____ guys" and don't see why that would ever be necessary. "Sorry, I'm just not feeling the chemistry that helps make my sessions work smoothly -- I think I am the wrong guy for you. But thanks for getting in touch and have a great trip!" If someone says that to me I leave the interaction feeling like they are classier than many others would have been. IMO, that feeling is a lot better than "ugh, I can't believe I just spent all that money on that disconnected experience."

I don't think "getting better" can be a thing when there is such a wide gulf between what they require for positive reviews and what they require for negative ones.

The stats I listed detail VeryDominantTop's complete posting history (across all threads). They do not include any posts by anyone else. EDIT: This was in response to several other posts which were deleted after I posted this, but I guess this is still a good clarification if anyone else needs it.

26 posts, of which all but 6 are about Collin, and seven of which go out of their way to -- very subtly -- undermine his local competition, as above. (And not so subtly, in one case.) Just a factual observation. I leave its interpretation as an exercise for the reader.

I think they missed the part of the Backpage charges that were specifically for deliberately disguising the nature of the transactions that went on there. "Score" instead of "rates" may not be the best idea...

I don't mind the documentation requirement itself -- if they applied it to positive posts, too, there would be no problem.

*blink blink* Um, about that...

I am thrilled to say that I met Jas Morgan a few days ago, and look forward to seeing him again. Please PM if you have any specific questions. To answer a few questions from this thread (and the other thread): - He is real - Pics are accurate (if anything, his physique is better in person) - Tattoo is his own translation into Latin, not Horace - I recommend communicating as far in advance as possible, as he has other obligations. Persistence, patience, and recognition that the provider has a life, too, are recommended.

I'm not sure $300 an hour (or whatever) is truly premium. Don't get me wrong, it's a huge amount of money to me -- I'm not rolling in it -- and I wish prices were lower too. But ask anyone who's worked in a profession where you schedule individual sessions with clients that are highly customized: the hourly rate doesn't just pay for that one hour. It also pays for time spent directly preparing for (and cleaning up from) the session, time spent communicating (which can be truly substantial), and time and money spent keeping "equipment" in top condition. It pays for the fact that sessions are never going to be perfectly scheduled back-to-back -- you can't just multiply hourly rate by number of hours in a workday like you can for salaried jobs. And, this is a particularly demanding job that requires a highly atypical amount of physical and social/emotional engagement, and has potential to suck a lot of energy away from one's non-work life. So maybe I would put it like this: the client is paying a premium amount, but the escort isn't getting paid exorbitantly, at least not most of the time. If you want to solve the equation, the escort has to be part of it, too

I understand wanting an escort that doesn't care what you look like. I don't understand the level of anger and disdain displayed in the OP that a particular escort doesn't operate that way -- especially given the reality that BaronArtz mentions above. Being able to see the beauty in every individual, no matter what they look like, is a wonderful thing to aspire to. But I see no reason to bar anyone who isn't able to achieve that standard from the profession entirely. I also think it's worth pointing out that, in the same way clients get a read on an escort's personality, reliability, etc. from initial conversations, the same thing is also happening in reverse. If initial chatter makes an escort think, "gosh, this guy is going to be high maintenance" then the whole proposition might start to feel less attractive... leading them to resort to questions they might not normally ask.

...and a third account that registered, and then immediately posted generic positive comments about Hungtool in 3 different threads. Coincidentally, within a few days of all this, Hungtool himself joined the forum, posting similarly short messages... I'm not hating. Really, I'm not. It's just hard not to look at this and go "huh."

Yup. https://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/sex/all/45423/facts.tom_of_finland_the_complete_kake_comics.htm

FWIW, that's two (2) accounts that have only posted here (4x for one, 1x for the other) to talk up Hungtool, and did so within an hour of each other. (Not impossible this is a coincidence, just pointing it out.)

Bump. Any takers?

I'd just like to say, for any escorts reading this thread... We aren't all full of drama in Boston. Most of us are chill. And we like to show our appreciation to visitors. :-]

Not many people, but it does happen. It's a big time commitment. On the other hand, spending 50 minutes each week talking about the, give or take, 6720 minutes you are awake that week, building up your understanding, therapeutic relationship, etc... it's not that much. Some time for thoughts to percolate between sessions is one thing, but there is zero question to me that the standard one-session-a-week model is the result of other influences (like the generally busy character of American culture, and insurance companies) rather than any concept of best practices. Two sessions are IMO a better standard. Yeah. It's overwhelmingly what psychotherapists state, when asked what their theoretical orientation is. I agree, though I would call it frustrating more than disturbing. The therapeutic relationship is pretty central for me. But there are people it works for. And there are analysts who take their classical training and apply it to relational psychotherapy.

Note that the aforementioned "documented efficacy" -- while real -- is generally only empirically documented in very specific areas: for example, using CBT to treat specific phobias. This is not meant to be a negative thing about any of those therapies, all of which I think are valuable. But you can find just as many people who've been helped by less directive therapies as well, not to mention therapists with eclectic styles. And no approach works for everyone. What matters is finding an approach (and a practitioner) that is a good fit for you and your needs. To that end, I think it is ill-informed, at least, to broadly attack any school of therapy or analysis that has clearly been helpful to some patients. "The primary fans of approach X are its practitioners" could be said about nearly any of them, certainly including CBT, DBT, and the like. But I think it's unfair to accuse any of these approaches of being used by its practitioners so cynically, "just to get patients." This is extra true of classical analysts who see their analysands 4-5 times weekly -- the quantity of appointments often means they have to charge significantly less for their time than comparably credentialed psychotherapists do, if they want a full schedule.

*faceplaaaaaaaaaant*

I prefer to keep the sex toys in my trunk.

Resurrecting this thread as he's doing a spread of traveling over the next month. Anyone have experience to share?

I looked into this and I question the accuracy of this information. 1) The only online source I can find that purports to have actual information about this case is a website (and associated twitter account) that very clearly has a homophobic, racist, etc. agenda. 2) Said website contains what appears to be a partial screenshot of a court records search. However, I question its legitimacy. The case number doesn't appear to be in the same format as any actual Arizona case I can find. The case title has no hits on google or on the state court records search. And the judge listed ("D. JUDGE") doesn't appear to exist. 3) There is one actual court record for this fellow in Arizona -- a speeding ticket.

Presumably due to having another side to his life that he wishes to prevent from being connected to this.

You need a what now?

These parts are getting pretty transparent, these days.