GTMike

Thanks for follow-up.

In addition to a Masseur profile he used to also have one on RentMen but (at least in LA), it seems to be gone. On that profile he had more suggestive photo's and a video of his pole dancing. I didn't see photo's listed as private on that site but my recollection was that no other photo's were remotely close to as suggestive this doozy.

What's his public SA profile name?

And fyi assuming entire thread get's moved to Deli

Not sure what rules are here to cross reference. You can PM me. Same pic's (different profile name) in Deli section and reference in that profile to OF account as well (different name).

Ahh. I knew pic's looked familiar but couldn't remember. For reference -

Curious if anyone has any personal experience or history of pics for Arabgreek on Rent.Men RENT.MEN View my profile on Rent.Men

I feel like both some of those pics and some variation of that name are familiar to me but can't specifically recall nor find the name through search. Perhaps legit new and interested as well if anyone recalls or has intel

I think i know who you're referring to in SoCal, haha.

Just curious if anyone might have personal experience DominicLawXL on Rent.Men RENT.MEN View my profile on Rent.Men

Curious about him as well. Lovercall on RentMasseur RENTMASSEUR.COM View my profile on RentMasseur.com Currently in LA but seems that he has mixed reviews and inconsistent experiences?

As we discussed over PM it was a bit of both. Communication and in person sadly.

Don't either but seems to be alot about investor confidence in the banking sector as a whole as well. Interesting take on it. https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/first-republic-bank-tumbles-drags-down-shares-other-regional-lenders-2023-03-16/

I have cut short a couple 1st time meets. 1) one-time the gent was the actual person depicted (cleverly) in the profile but was egregiously far off in terms of height and weight. So upfront we agreed on a significantly reduced rate (for the time to show up) and it was clear that at that point he could immediately leave. He wasn't "a bad guy" beyond that initial deception and he wanted to do perform (even at a reduced rate) but I said no. But we did hang out watching sports for a bit chatting. 2) Another time I had a gent who after brief appropriate small talk couldn't help himself talking about people he met through parties and work and he was naming names. I live in LA and he was name dropping known gay celebs and it wasn't scandalous like outing or saying bad stuff about them and honestly they probably wouldn't have cared, but he was gossipy. I quickly feigned an illness and was fair for travel and limited time spent but got him out.

If it's a 1st time meet and was tentatively scheduled to perhaps exceed an hour I will typically offer a portion after 15 to 20 mins (just to instill confidence of no funny business) and almost always the gent says thanks for being considerate and defers till the end. I've never paid had a gent request full payment upfront though one or two have hinted they at least wanted to see evidence of it but that's rare.

Somewhat dismissive and pretty difficult regarding communicating/follow-up so unfortunately no longer a fan.

Do you mean specifically the flirt4free and chaturbate or are you also referring to potentially meeting up with onlyfans/twitter gents as well? If so I like you am experimenting and potentially meeting up with an OnlyFans/Twitter gent. (Not to film or anything like that) Tentatively scheduled and hasn't happened yet (so who knows) but seems promising thus far and hopefully works out.

I agree Here is the original Joint Statement from the US Treasury itself - https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337 My point being that Treasury Department, President, Head of FDIC and Head of Federal Reserve had a coordinated response to the crisis in an attempt to help restore calm and confidence specifically by saying "all Depositors" in SVB and Signature Banks will be made whole. Specifically the Treasury Department's joint statement on a Sunday (March 12th), notes, "...Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of SVB in a manner that fully protects all depositors ..... No losses associated with the resolution of SVB will be borne by the taxpayer ...Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders would not be specifically protected by these actions...) So yes i agree that it was not an explicit statement of "backstopping" potential losses but it was not an accident the Fed took actions as you noted, the FDIC took actions as noted, and yet with unknown "tbd" potential losses the Treasury Department was apart of an official statement saying all Depositors will be made whole knowing that it takes time to sell off assets, assess and collect fees/premiums from member banks, all while depositors would be withdrawing.

Thinking about it I guess it all makes sense! In January he's "Levi", a 24 year old straight guy with low balls hanging out in Texas. Moves to LA in March and suddenly is "Chad", 22 and bi with a bright future! Hahaha

Ahhh haha yes definitely agree!!!

Have you reserached QLAC's? - Qualified Longevity Annuity Contracts. It is a way to creatively help reduce the amount of the 401k/IRA (not Roth), that is used to calculate the annual RMD's. This article from a couple years ago explains them. - https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/qlac-qualified-longevity-annuity-contract/ I believe the amount was increased in CY 2023 from the maximum of $135,000 or 25% of the tax deferred amount to $200,000 or 25% that you can withdraw from the account when purchasing Annuity Contracts that you can use to help with financial planning and flexibility in your 70's to basically around 85. Basically you can withdraw up to the maximun allowed per year out of the account tax free if it is used to purchase specific types of annuity contracts. Then you can time/optimize when the annuity contracts start paying you and continue deferring paying the tax until receiving that income.

Prior thread -

Also has a RMasseur profile as well under same name. Haven't met but I'm gonna go out on a very large sturdy limb that if you also check "DavidKnight" profile on RMasseur as well that they're part of traveling pack and person who shows up might resemble one of these gents (which in some cases is fine with some folks including myself), but I doubt it's them. (Just my 2 cents based on prior knowledge and experience with a wolf pack participant and organizer). I'll take the abuse of stating unsubstantiated opinions but again, "sturdy limb", haha

All very interesting and potentially different based on where one lives and what typical policies are for insurance. For example I don't know if this applies to all of California but i live in Los Angeles. A typical Home Insurance Policy your home destroyed by a common variety fire. The $ amount of the insurance proceeds (at least in my case) has little to do with the current "projected market value" but based and priced on the current projected "replacement value" of what it would cost to rebuild a similar sized and construction quality of a house. Again (just speaking from experiences), the major insurance carriers have projected costs of construction that they use to estimate by zip code or some metric what it costs to rebuild and the brokers literally advise me against paying more in premiums as customer's reflexively tend to "overinsure" thinking they need an amount equal to it's market value. But also being in LA we also are advised to get supplemental insurance for Earthquakes. As if there is an earthquake and gas pipes blow and that causes a fire that's falls under a different policy. I can't remember specifically but i think if home is destroyed by flood then SOL.

I don't think you have that correct in that there was indeed an affirmation of extending a federal backstop to SVB's depositors above the insured limit. The actions this past Sunday was actually a coordinated response between Biden, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the Head of the FDIC, and J. Powell of the Federal Reserve. For reference check out this article for example - https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/12/politics/janet-yellen-bailout-silicon-valley-bank-cnntv/index.html Also it is a fluid situation and despite SVB and Signature Bank being under FDIC control the private banking market is still evaluating deals to purchase parts of the bank or different parts of the loan portfolio's etc.. potentially generating liquidity in order to satsify liabilities. This Government response was more akin to a quick stopgap measure to stop a domino spill over effect into the industry and to instill calm in the markets and avoid greater panic withdrawals in the system but (at least thus far) is not a taxpayer government bail-out despite guaranteeing the bank's liquidity problem with depositors.