Golem

THIS IS A MUST WATCH VIDEO OF @Russ. :)
 
~Boomer~

I gave this post a thumbs down and the @down_to_business came into a political thread of mine and gave my most recents posts a thumbs down. Hilarious, and a waste of my time. Welcome to the Block Party.

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.

yes, but as annoying as it is when an escort flakes, we are not making a living out of this activity. We don't lose money or potential earnings but they do.

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.

Good stuff but still be ready if they do show up. I remember meeting one guy at his place and his fun room was a total shambles. The second time we met, it was all organized and I kinda chuckled to myself, realizing he must have assumed I was never going to show up for our first meeting.

I gave this a try last night. Created a new account with ‘generous’ indicators and tapped some of the hot guys that never responded to my original profile. About a 30% success rate in responses. To be clear, these guys were of a certain age (over 22) and had no indicators in their profile that they were looking for generosity (like rose emojis). I am traveling to another large city next week and will see if the results are the same.
 
Before I meet a guy off of Grindr I will of course take some common sense precautions...

I got a substantial interest in my messages after posting about meeting a smooth tight twink bottom in NYC off of Grindr who met up for a “generous” arrangement. I wonder if we might create a thread to share finds with each other that aren’t necessarily from the standard ad sites. I find many young gents are willing to make themselves available these days but don’t want to go the rentmen route per se.

I got a substantial interest in my messages after posting about meeting a smooth tight twink bottom in NYC off of Grindr who met up for a “generous” arrangement. I wonder if we might create a thread to share finds with each other that aren’t necessarily from the standard ad sites. I find many young gents are willing to make themselves available these days but don’t want to go the rentmen route per se.

I got a substantial interest in my messages after posting about meeting a smooth tight twink bottom in NYC off of Grindr who met up for a “generous” arrangement. I wonder if we might create a thread to share finds with each other that aren’t necessarily from the standard ad sites. I find many young gents are willing to make themselves available these days but don’t want to go the rentmen route per se.

Vander (Chaosmen). Fuck yeah! ("to do" not "done"). Sadly, no evidence he 'scorts.

Just received the Wednesday show email from Matt of Adonis Lounge LA and Nick Wolanski (one of Shane's porn names) is appearing tonight for possibly one night only. Might be an opportunity for anyone interested to meet him in person first as a dancer

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.

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

Haha...he was pretty fun. We saw each other on/off over maybe 3-4 years. Started off pretty mild but got more and more fun. I kind of watched real time his body change from college/Twinkish to semi-bodybuilder. Lots of fun in the interim.

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.

How was chad conners? I’ve always fantazised with fucking that muscle ass!

I can insert a 36 paragraph pro rant supporting Boston Let’s even the score!

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

I hope this means you will be visiting our fair city soon. ?

Yet again I’m 2 steps ahead of you @JEC

Time to plan your Spring visits to Boston guys. Hotels get crazy expensive as the weather warms up...make your travel plans now!!!!! :p:p

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.

I have read many of @bostonman's posts here. If he felt uncomfortable from the very beginning, including the "you are very handsome" remark, there was a very, very good reason.