Golem

It's literally earlier in this thread. Really, stirring the pot is easier than hitting the "previous page" button a couple of times? That subject generated plenty of drama already, let it rest in peace.

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.

Class.  ACT.

Class.  ACT.

I have to disagree that it's "just intellectual nonsense." I never claimed everyone should be attracted to everyone else. I take exception when a gay man (or men) shame or belittle each other based on gender presentation. If the OP isn't interested in men with nail polish he can just move on from a provider he sees wearing it. Making a post about it, saying he'd send someone away without compensation, all based on a perceived gender transgression is shitty to the provider and it also reinforces heteronormative binary gender in a way that harms other queer people. 

Back in the days when I smoked, the store was out of my preferred cigarette brand. The clerk said, "But we have x-brand, instead!" I said, "No, thank you." Then the clerk said, "We also have y-brand, if you'd like." "I wouldn't," I replied, "but thank you, anyway." When the clerk moved on to z-brand, I stopped her and said, "Look, there are two things -and there are only two things- you can't sell me. One is what you don't have, and the other is what I don't want."
It's your money, your tastes, and your preferences; you have a right to satisfy all three with your selections and spending. You can ask for what you want and walk away if it's not available. You can ask about the nail polish, or the beard, or the tats, or the whatever -none of which were displayed in the ad you saw and none of which had occurred to you before the in-person meeting. But people aren't cartons of cigarettes and shouldn't be looked at or treated as such. If the provider is agreeable to an on-the-spot modification to suit your sensibilities, fine. But, if not -and over an issue not previously discussed- sending him on his way without some level of compensation for his trip and lost income opportunity, is graceless.

Again, you're dehumanizing the provider, doubling down on the point I made. If someone doesn't feel like having sex, maybe because bottoming three times in 24 hours can be irritating, and you coerce them into doing so, that's just fucked up.
Plus I don't want to have sex with someone who isn't in the mood. It sounds like you're treating him like a human Fleshjack, rather than a person. Maybe explore how you would feel if you were put in that position. 

This is an example of my point.
Some of you guys talk about money for service in a way that makes it clear you aren't aware there is a human being involved in this transaction.

You both agreed to a discounted one-night service. That was the discount: two sexual encounters instead of (the usual?) three. Or did you actually write up a detailed contract for that night? I wouldn't be surprised if you did — considering how you consider every single act as something to monetize.
 
And if you expect that someone you know and trust will perform like a machine every single time, you're probably a client who this provider can safely and easily delete from his phone contacts. 

A long time ago I accepted that 'hiring' is a multifaceted gamble, and therefore, if you can't afford to lose the investment, don't play.  Take the high road, check in with the guy to find out how he is doing. I wouldn't hassle over coin.

This says a lot about you. And none of it is good. 

Nothing like forcing someone to let you fuck them when they’re not in the mood. Not at all rapey. 😂

If I were that escort, I would never see you again. You had sex twice, and the morning after, he wasn’t up for a third go, so you pressured him into it. 
Maybe you think this is funny or you being butch, but it sounds like you treated this young man as something less than a person. 

I would have cut the provider some slack over not mentioning any type of refund or “do over” while he was sick, including when you both departed as you said he was still under the weather. Food poisoning is not fun, so I can imagine his thoughts were more focused on getting thru/over it vs what to do about the weekend that went, literally, down the crapper. 

As you say you have a long-standing relationship with this provider, which includes regular off the clock texting - yet if I’m reading this correctly, neither of you have reached out to the other in the 2 weeks since this unfortunate weekend. You’re miffed because he hasn’t offered any sort of apology, offered any refund or do-over. Fair enough. But, for all you know he could be equally miffed you’ve not checked in on him, how he’s feeling, if he’s fully over it. This why I always say the Three C’s are soooo important! Communication, communication, and more communication. 

I’d reach out to him, ask how his recovery was, express your disappointment in how the weekend turned out, but be clear you understand it wasn’t his fault. See how he responds, and you can determine how best to broach the subject of the refund/do over. I find a bit of cheeky humour often works - something like “looking forward to working off the credit I have now 😜” 
 
Friendships can occur between providers, and hobbyists which is why I wish you had reached out earlier. You’re sitting stewing thinking he only cares the money, he may be stewing thinking you only care about the sex.

Hopefully what sounded like a mutually enjoyable, and beneficial relationship can be rise from the ashes of that weekend. 
 
Good luck! 
BBD 

I have one caveat for those of you considering a three-way with these two guys.  Make damn sure you have a king size bed at your disposal -- you will NEED it.  My bed, at home, is queen sized and we had some difficulty keeping the three of us on it.  These two guys a big men and you will definitely need lots of space to play around with them. 

This thread has me extremely confused.  On the one hand there are posts from people I trust saying very nice things.  But there are also an inordinate number of repeated posts from people defending him, 50-90% of whose post history here consists entirely of defending or mentioning this one escort in various threads.
 
The simplest conclusion seems to be that he is actually a good escort (at least much of the time) but has an atrociously aggressive and transparent marketing strategy.  Which he should stop.  Seriously, the rabid defenses of him in this thread hurt his case more than anything.

This thread has me extremely confused.  On the one hand there are posts from people I trust saying very nice things.  But there are also an inordinate number of repeated posts from people defending him, 50-90% of whose post history here consists entirely of defending or mentioning this one escort in various threads.
 
The simplest conclusion seems to be that he is actually a good escort (at least much of the time) but has an atrociously aggressive and transparent marketing strategy.  Which he should stop.  Seriously, the rabid defenses of him in this thread hurt his case more than anything.

At that point, I would have been so turned off that I would have just given up. If you can't go into a session feeling "in the mood," especially if the escort is actually the one killing the mood, what's the point?

At the end of the day, you did nothing wrong.  You have to take care of yourself first and foremost above anything else.  
You tried to help as much as you could, including giving him resources for additional assistance, etc.  As much as we would like, you can only lead a horse to water.  You can't make them drink it.
In terms of the bad review, as soon as you get to any sort of real quantity... it's bound to happen.  Just remember at the end of the day, no matter what you do, you will not be able to please 100% of everyone you ever meet.  Keep doing what you're doing and keep doing the right thing.  In the end, it will work itself out.  The good reviews will hopefully outnumber the bad reviews.  
When I personally look at reviews, I'm looking for trends and commonalities in what someone says.  If someone has absolutely NO bad reviews, in some cases I almost wonder if they're either fake or that the reviews there might be faked.  

I'm trying to figure out if it's you who's posting drunk or if I've been quietly drugged as I'm reading your replies

Did you sign up for a username back in the 1900’s and it’s feeling a bit dated?  Maybe you just realized you prefer being called something else entirely.  

If this sounds like you… I have good news!  You can now change your member name.
Head on over to your Account Settings and choose “Display Name”.  There you will be able to pick a new username to use on this site without needing to start over and lose your account history.
There are a couple of things to note with this:
You can only change your name once every 30 days.  (While I appreciate you might prefer a name-a-day, it’s hard for the rest of us to keep up with everything!) You can only pick usernames that are not already registered on the site.   Our community guidelines apply to names.  Changing your name to something that violates the rules will result in a warning being issued and an admin changing your name to something of our picking!  (Most likely back to whatever it was before, but I reserve the right to be bitter if necessary!) Once you change names, your current name is no longer saved. It can be registered by someone else.  Enjoy your new name!

I think you've done a really terrific job Rob -- somebody had to step up and you've taken care of things that could easily have doomed the site.  I don't think that can be stated enough.
I would really, really encourage you to avoid jumping to the above conclusion, though, when people voice different points of view.  For two reasons:
1. It feels incredibly patronizing, and a little bit arrogant, to have thoughtful feedback written off as "oh it's just somebody who can't handle change."  It's dismissive, and it erodes community rather than building it.
2. It's inaccurate!  There are all kinds of reasons somebody might disagree with a decision you make.  This is the nature of being a leader.  If you want to ignore concerns from people who disagree with you, that's your call -- and as the guy who's actually getting shit done, you're entitled! -- but there are a lot of practical, operational benefits to hearing people out, especially when they disagree with you.
This has come up a few times now.  I hope you'll consider what I'm saying here seriously.  I write this in good faith, with respect for what you've accomplished, and because I'd like things to continue to prosper here.  Cheers.

As a retired accountant and Excel gurú extraordinaire I applaud not only Radio Bob’s statistical presentation but his formidable technology prowess.  Reading through the statistics gave me a boner.  😂.   I know.  I need to get a life. 
 
Thanks, Radio Bob. 

Yes, they were in order. This is stuff I look at as well. There are two common scenarios. 

- Logged in users vs guests. Logged in users (members) are more likely to use search. Their location profile can be a bit different than the overall site population. 
- This also showcases a bit what locations have more travel hires vs local hires. Seeing a high search in a region that does not also have a high user population there can potentially be attributed to people searching for providers not in their local market.