Nvr2Thick

Makes me wonder if the profiles that had text such as "No Escorts! I don't need to pay for sex." were spared and edited or removed as well.

As I noted in the original post, they've scrubbed all mention of that word. or perhaps they've changed their search function to ignore it and return a "no matches found." Since text descriptions require moderator review they'll probably refuse any attempts for escorts to include it when they update profiles.

I've mentioned on a few other posts that I use a stealth profile on BarebackRT to see if I can find inconsistencies between an escort's profile on Rentmen or A4A and his BBRT profile, and also to compare notes between a potential hookup's profiles. Today I noticed that BBRT has apparently scrubbed all escort profiles, and all mention of the word "escort." Can Adam4Adam pro ads be far behind? A4A eliminated "escort" from the list of professional categories a while ago, and most of the escorts switched to the masseur category.

I usually sleep on my side. When I wake up I'm usually immediately aware of my cat perched on my upper arm and shoulder, or I have to move a little to be sure that she's camped out on my hip. As she's gotten older her weight has dropped from nine pounds to around five. If she's on my hip or thigh usually I don't even feel her once she's settled in.

LaBeouf as McEnroe is most certainly inspired casting.

Very high profile fitness model from the UK. I don't think he's Latino. It's likely that this is a fake profile with stolen pics.

In general there are a lot of people out there who treat social media as an entitled service they paid for with their Internet or phone bill. They don't get that "social" means that you're participating in a community.

It cuts both ways. I try to get to the point quickly as a client so that I'm not perceived as a fantasy sexter, but also for the escort's sake I try to walk the line between being specific and being explicit. When I reached out to a fairly recent hire, however, he asked what kind of scene I was looking for. I replied, "Boyfriend experience with an affectionate but insistent top who likes to kiss and who is able to take the lead and make things happen." I'm usually quite successful when I provide just this much detail regarding my expectations. His answer was, "Sounds perfect. I'm just what you're looking for." When I met the guy he was friendly enough, and the encounter was mechanical but in a reasonably hot way. I would occasionally try to maneuver toward more affection and kissing in particular, until he showed my a ring on his finger and smiled and said, "I'm committed to a guy and he's the only guy I kiss." I'm fairly certain my breath and hygiene were fine, and that this actually was his policy. He gave a lot to the session, but there was no affection. Years ago I might have asked the forum, "What should I have done differently? Should I have explicitly clarified his that he was into affectionate play and kissing?" Now I know better. Some of it comes down to chemistry. Some of it comes down to honesty. I'll never know whether an escort has some strict but undisclosed limits, or whether he's limiting the encounter based on how attracted he is to me. As I client I'd like to press for details, and at least get to an honest answer about what an escort will consider and what is off-limits. I know better than to offend an escort though by perpetuating the pre-engagement discussion. Even if I get the details I need, the process may create resentment that sours the encounter -- because the escort may feel as though I've ordered the session off a Chinese menu. In short, as an escort your well within bounds to be as explicit or discreet as you choose to be.

I believe that many men will insert unrealistic self-serving aspirations and wish-fulfillment into any ambiguity. If a client is attracted to your pics and description, but his desires aren't exactly compatible then the "vers" part of vers bottom becomes his opportunity to project his expectations onto you. I heard similar stories from one of my regulars in NYC back in the 90s, a hung and built Brazilian top. In his ad copy described himself as something like "an aggressive, intimate top 'fucking machine' with a huge uncut tool for service" but he said he listed himself as a versatile top mostly because he liked to kiss and seduce his bottoms. His most most extreme example of a potential client stretching the "versatile" tag was a guy who called and asked, "Your ad says 'versatile' top -- can you come to my playroom to get tag-teamed and fisted?" In the '90s I was hanging out with a friend in LA and paging through the Frontiers escort ads. I noted a guy we were interested in who had at least two different ads. One ad listed him as "Pete" -- a tall hung muscle top, and showed him from ribs to thighs in workout shorts sporting a big bulge. Another ad had a much better professional photo of him that showed off his entire body from head to knees, but he was in leather cap, vest, chaps and jockstrap -- and his ad copy was along the lines of leather play, domination and kink, and pushing your limits with "Tom," a hung leatherman. The ads were clearly the same guy -- same build, body hair patterns, exact same stats from height and weight to eye color and dick size, and phone number. When I asked my friend if thought he would call that escort he replied that he would call Pete's ad, but not Tom because he couldn't stand guys who were "leather queens." It took a long time for me to realize that he really believed at some level that he'd be connecting with a different guy and not just aligning to a different scene if he called this escort by a different name and held the image of different ad in his head -- even though he'd be calling the same phone number and speaking to the same man. The power of projection.

I'm 5'10, 190lbs, average hung - though guys say it appears very thick. My appearance is beside the point. I'm hitting up men regardless of their age and stature. It has nothing to do with my honesty -- just theirs. You're right about Craigslist, but you're making my point. Guys see an my ad and want to hook up. They're not a match for what I say I'm looking for, but they want to play with someone. We have a bit of back and forth in e-mail where they confirm that they're into one-sided play. When they arrive they try for something different because they were looking for something different in the first place -- they just presented a false or incomplete image in order to make the connection. Also, the "take out your dick and stroke it" or "don't you want to get sucked too?" come before they even see whether I have a floppy tool or not. I don't fault the system, but no, it's not a fault of my appearance that I'm very honest about my expectations and some of the guys I meet are not. The point I'm making to the OP is that guys don't use these top, total top, and versatile top labels consistently and truthfully. You're reaching here. I don't emasculate anyone, and I don't test a partner's level of dominance. He sets his own expectations. If I post a Craigslist ad that says "Cocksucker looking for non-reciprocal action" or if I tell an escort "I'm a non-versatile bottom looking for a top who is aggressive and affectionate" then, no, I have not fucked up, I have not created a sexual dilemma -- I've established my expectations, allowing potential partners to match those expectations to their own or to move on. It's not a test. If a guy feels pressured to accommodate me that's on him not me.

You've lost me. You asked if bottom shaming is self loathing. The act of bottom shaming isn't necessarily self loathing. The victim of shaming may experience self loathing as a result, but bottom shaming itself is an outward act.

Yes, but it can also be someone perceiving that someone else differs from what society deems is proper or correct. Seems to me that this subtopic was "bottom shaming." Shaming is outward -- disapproval of others. Granted sometimes shaming others can be motivated by one's own personal issues or demons.

It's definitely false advertising. Whether you're talking about escorts or just men meeting men this is a situation where someone is lying about his intentions. I just think that there are a number of reasons and influences. Someone could be lying to himself about how dominant he is, or it could just be that he feels it's OK to stretch the truth in order to make contact with the client or the hookup -- he wants the business as an escort or he wants the sexual encounter as a hookup, and he's willing to do so under false pretenses, for example. It isn't just self-loathing; it can be outwardly manifest, and it's often been ingrained by society. I can remember participating in jokes and insults targeting faggots as a child, before I could possibly even understand. I understand what you're saying about top shaming, but I think it's not all that common.

I'm an unapologetic "total" bottom. I haven't tried to top anyone in decades. Early on I believe that I was interested in topping because I was ashamed to be gay, and I thought that topping somehow lessened the stigma -- as a concession to our homophobic culture's perception of faggots who take it up the ass. Later I would top partners who imagined themselves to be mostly top, but who wanted to bottom for me. Some of those guys honestly wanted to bottom from time to time, but with others it was just poor communication between myself and tops who thought I wanted to top them too. I've always been happiest sexually with tops who have little to no interest in bottoming, and guys who aren't all that interested in sucking dick -- men who enjoy being pleased. The primary reason I seek out "total" tops is because the emphasis is often necessary. Whether I'm looking for a hookup or an escort I'm very clear about my expectations for a partner who is dominant and into a one-sided session, however, it seems that a lot of guys put up a front that falls away when we meet. When I would troll Craigslist for cocksucking hookups I'd clearly state in my ad that I was looking for a non-reciprocal "trade" situation. That might be verified in back and forth e-mail, and yet often the guy I meet would want then want to jack me off or suck me too. In my 20s and 30s I had the same problem with top escorts who were far more versatile than they'd advertised or who became more interested in a reciprocal session in spite of the theme of their ads and in spite of what we'd discussed. I've also talked to a fair number of escort tops who are much more versatile when they're not with clients, for whatever reason. I can think of a few I've met who explained it the way some escorts explain kissing -- bottoming is an intimate act that they don't care to share with a client. I've also known of escorts and guys looking for hookups on A4A who prefer that their public personas are those of "total" tops; they're very versatile when they date, but the image they portray online and to the guys they meet casually is one of a guy who doesn't bottom -- again for a variety of reasons, including some form of vanity or being uncomfortable with the homophobic stigma of being a bottom. I believe your interpretation of the situation is misguided. The expectations of total bottoms is not what is distorting the meaning of top or "total top" in the market. You're dealing with a reality of gay life. It's always been impossible to distinguish between the desires of men who are tops and men who are tops. As a total bottom it's not my fault that men are inconsistent in their self-assessment as tops. For any number of reasons some guys are less than honest about their own sexual interests and expectations.

There was nothing mean-spirited in either of my comments. The "frustrated queens" and "Old Biddies' Club" barbs were the only mean-spirited comments in our exchange.

Sorry. Not interested in straw man arguments. I've created no drama. What I stated was factual. A person who has very few comments, all in support of a single provider will be suspect until he establishes credibility. Surely you can understand that. I haven't assumed false personas or created self-serving comments. It's all there in black and white. Both you and Cockluber have made shitty comments in your own defense -- the real drama on this thread. As I said previously, we'll be able to take you more seriously as you develop a reputation on the forum. Trying to spin these observations does not help you. The best way to have your comments accepted as "honest opinion" is not to throw a tantrum -- it's to develop relationships in this community. That's what a forum is all about.

This forum has seen suspicious members pop up from time to time, purely to support a single escort. When a member's only posts are raves and defense of a particular escort it's perfectly reasonable to have doubts. Your recommendations will have more credibility as the forum comes to know you through your observations about experience with multiple providers. Making shitty comments will have the opposite effect.

Not signing up for a movie that takes problems that have plagued me for decades, and depicts good-looking middle-class young people resolving them in an hour and a half.

Sounds like the politics are retreating into context, much in the same way that the "Will & Grace" reboot started by wrapping the show around political themes and then backed off.

Gee, I wonder what the porn adaptation of this movie will be called?

I always take off my shoes when I weigh them.

Click on the phone number. "Phone is not available for expired/deactivated users"