TruthBTold

I always liked Elvis because he was pretty. But Brando was a man I would want to "boff".

If it is true that "guys are less likely to dig up BS from 20 years ago like these women are doing," it may be because women were far more likely to be the objects of abuse and discrimination. I'm not saying that men did not have their moments (a lot of priests out there!) but women had a lot less power and leverage.

I cannot use chopsticks. However I am so uncoordinated that I choose to master (or at least try) other things that required one skill or other. Like spell.

I believe that he is a florist/shop owner in Chicago.

Bring a friend, it's gonna take two.

Damn, I wish I had BBC One. I don't think we can get it on our server. It begins on May 20th and directed by Stephen Frears. That is a rather good choice for Mr. Grant and looks like it should be good.

I felt that he did not know what his sexuality was. I felt that his gut told him that he was gay but that he could not go against his friends and society in general. I thought that this struggle made him hate himself and his community (though I definitely had sympathy for his mother and that she would be sympathetic to him). Of course, he is not what we want people seeing as the only portrayal of a gay guy. Unfortunately, that is exactly what a gay guy becomes for many different reasons. At the same time, however, most people were hugely sympathetic and drawn to the Heath Ledger character who was having the same problem and was engaging in tremendously destructive behavior that impacts other people, i.e., simultaneously cheating on his wife and child with Jake. So while I did not think the main character in Beach Rats was particularly admirable I thought he was realistic and that the movie was worth watching for his performance and for the unfortunate journey he goes through, much of it of his own making.

I'm hoping big, beautiful assed BOTTOM.

As you no doubt discern from my replies in this thread, I agree that we must balance for ourselves the risks presented by having unprotected sex. This includes having unprotected sex while on PrEP. These risks include the possibilities of contacting HIV (much reduced as far as studies have shown so far) by PrEP and the always existent possibilities of contacting various STIs. Scientific studies have also more recently discussed the fact that there are fewer and fewer antibiotics that will be able to be used to treat various bacterial infections. That of course has to be added to the mix.

And God said, "Let there be . . .."

Please ask him to the Palm Springs Weekend.

Wow, a lot of great looking guys on Leonos. Check out Enrique (1893) if you are looking for a versatile/bottom. Great looking body.

For $300 that looks like a great time and a great body. Something tells me he would let you suit up if you wished. And if you are on PrEP and he says he is then things could go the way you want.

Saw this yesterday. The lead is very good looking and a very good actor. I found it very sad. Very worth watching.

That's more like it!!!

In my experience, if asked off the cuff at the end the working gentleman will accept without being on the clock. I like to think that it is just because we usually have had a good time and he has no probable with continuing it by getting asked out to dinner. I have only had one bad meet and did not ask because the dinner would not have been enjoyable for either of us (or I did not think that it would).

Actually I think he needs more wood.

An understandable look of mesmerization.

Unfortunately, that is the truth. At this point I am not sure what you are trying to protect. My discussion was all about protecting yourself from prosecution - otherwise I am not sure what the argument would be about. The question would be whether you could defend yourself by stating that you were being paid only for signing a document stating payment only for not spilling the beans not for having the sex. Even if you could present the defense, the fact finder (judge/jury) would probably find that you were using that as a hoax but that it was imaginative. The same would go for any discussion you present as a verbal contract and that would probably be given even less weight. The prosecutor would of course have to show his elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Let's pretend though you are in one of the few jurisdictions that does not make prostitution illegal then you would be enforcing (assuming that it is one of the two of you that wishes to enforce the contract) either a written or verbal contract. Then you would be before a fact finder having to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a contract existed, that the people were competent to enter into it (hopefully you were not fucking a 13 yo), and the elements of the contract.

No but I do not think that is what I (or others perhaps) am saying. I think that while shaming may stop some people from doing a particular behavior it will not do so for very long or ironically may have them participate in even more dangerous behavior. Moreover, if guys get the shaming message, they will also receive a societal message that participating in anal intercourse without a condom puts you at a certain scientific (approx. 6% or below) risk of being exposed to the HIV virus. If you do anything with partners that you do not know do not have STDs put you at some risk of acquiring an STD. I want them to make the choice based on the societal scientific message not the message that you are "shameful" if you decide to take the risk based on science.

Actually while the article seems to agree that there is some evidence that STI transmission has increased after the introduction of PrEP there may also be other factors at play. Particularly because there seem to have been an increase before the introduction. "Other factors could possibly account for the increase in STI rates in this study population. For example, before PrEP became widely available, yearly surveys by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that rates of condomless anal intercourse had increased steadily among gay and bisexual men from 39% in 2001 to 60% in 2014. Given the rise in condomless anal sex before the introduction of PrEP, it is therefore likely that STI risk has been increasing in this population for over a decade. Study authors hypothesized that the higher rate of STIs after starting PrEP may be due to “risk compensation,” in which individuals engage in higher risk sex due to the perceived protection due to PrEP. Because PrEP may be lowering men’s sexual inhibitions and leading to higher rates of STIs, this study underscores the importance of STI testing and counseling for PrEP patients every three months."

"If you weren't paid for sex (as in the case of Trump and Stormy) the contract is enforceable . . ." I have always questioned this assumption. I have absolutely no evidence that there a payment for the sex but I have seen no discussion about a perusal of her bank records. Sure, there is a possibility that she was a youngish woman who wanted to have sex with an older gentleman but even in her interviews it does not sound like that.

Happy Birthday. If you can let Mr. Brandon know, I will tell him what he can do with the rest of his day after his "dance."

I had to sigh when I saw his butt pic and then saw his Position "Top".

Lawdy, which butt first? Or, I hope they are versatile and I can watch.