thedanNYC

We have all either read about or experienced masseurs who do NOT have the best personal hygiene, home cleanliness, professionalism, etc. Now imagine that their failing isn't just an inconvenience and fodder for a forum thread, but rather a pathway to make you sick with a life-threatening illness which you will also expose your friends and family to. Yes, we'd love to expect providers to keep their studios as clean as a hospital, but the fact is most are not educated in any type of protocols for cleanliness, and you are taking your life and the lives of others in your hand for that happy ending.

I mean that any relationship is work, trans or not. Being trans certainly comes with its unique set of baggage and insecurities, that you have to remember are not yours to fix.

LA real estate is spendy.
Not everywhere -
Just in the neighborhoods that have paved roads, sewers, water and power.

I think the ubiquity of cameras have really put a dent in this type of business. I think there are still a lot of DL people who would give it a go but in today's surveillance society don't trust that they won't get their pic taken.

What does "safe" mean to you?
 
We all know what one must do to be "safe" out in the world in general: wear masks, practice social distance, don't meet up with strangers, avoid indoor spaces because virus particles may be hanging in the air, wash your hands and high-use surfaces regularly, etc. If you can't practice social distance, a mask might be enough to protect you (but that statement presupposes you're not having non-social-distanced strangers hover over you and touch your body head to toe for an hour).
 
So, if you must get a massage, which happens in a setting that is incompatible with most safety recommendations, then you should at least apply as many of those recommendations as possible, such as wearing a mask the entire time, opening the windows in the massage room so that air circulates, having the massage table and other items you will come into contact with properly disinfected, having the masseur disinfect his hands and wear a mask, disinfecting your hands before and after the massage, etc. Do that, cross your fingers, and maybe you'll be able to say the massage was "safe"...not because the experience was inherently safe, but perhaps simply because you got lucky.

I vote for @BeefyDude posting a photo of dat ass for research purposes. You know, just so that the people can at least compare theirs to his and get an idea of whether they have a chance of getting that much-wanted attention. ???

That's a great, thoughtful question @FrankR. I would love to research it for you. Care to send me one of those chairs so I can conduct a randomized double-blind [insert other sciency words here] safety study and issue a robust report for the benefit of the entire world? ?

I did not express an opinion about whether your behavior is racist. I said it is discourteous. And I also said that a simple "I'm not interested" would be a more civilized answer to give someone, particularly when you're clearly fully aware of how your normal answer is going to be perceived and the reaction it will cause. Bu if you prefer to go around telling people that you're not interested in them because of the color of their skin, and then blabber on about how that's not racist and make analogies to other types of behavior to defend your preferred answer, then more power to you.

I don't want to start a whole different controversy here, but you really can't see why people would react poorly to this? You're literally saying that no aspect of their existence is worth you taking a look at simply because of the color of their skin. I wouldn't tell people that and expect them to respond with an "oh, okay". A simple "I'm not interested" would be a more courteous thing to say. Expecting courteousness doesn't make people pussies, it makes them civilized.
 
The trans issue is different because OP is basically saying that he likes men with penises, which is completely natural when it comes to being attracted to the male form as it is traditionally understood. Just to say it, I would always make that point that directly and clearly; I wouldn't dance around it by saying you want men with "all the working parts" because trans men are not defective. If you've been saying things along those lines, then that might be what is getting you in trouble.
 
Your sexual preference shouldn't offend a trans man without a penis if he's secure in his manhood, much like a man with a small penis shouldn't get offended if you only like horse-hung men. But, again, to be civilized, I think the people who are telling you to not give a specific reason for turning down a trans man are right. A simple "I'm not interested" would work. You don't owe anyone an explanation about why you're not interested, and I would say as much to avoid getting into arguments that won't be productive.

The ultimate question one has to answer for oneself, though, is whether taking a risk to get a massage is justified. Some risks are avoidable, some are not. So I'm not sure that the best way of answering that question is by comparing the risk you decide to assume by getting a massage to the risks you must assume to survive (e.g., going to work, buying food, etc.). That's a slippery slope that would take us all the way down to virus transmission being out of control again. I think that each risk-assumption decision should stand on its own, they shouldn't be based on a "well, I already did something else that could have been risky, so why not take some more risks?" logic.

I hope you don't take this personally, @sniper, but I feel like addressing a few points in your post. I'm doing it not to pass a value judgment on whether you or anyone else should get a massage, but instead to highlight the risks involved so that people are making that decision fully informed and without unexamined rationalizations.
 

 
How do we define the "area"? Country by country, state by state, county by county, city by city, neighborhood by neighborhood? Do we interview the masseur about his whereabouts in the past 14 days at that "area" level (e.g., is it risky for him to have left his "low-prevalence" county at any point to step foot in a "high-prevalence" county?)?
 
How do we define "low prevalence" for purpose of deciding with whom to interact in close quarters?
 

 
What kind of mask? For example, would a simple blue surgical mask worn for over an hour, getting moist from your breathing, effectively protect you from virus particles that might be floating in the room if the masseur has been coughing, sneezing, speaking a lot in that room, and there's no good air circulation in there?
 
Also, do we check what mask the masseur is wearing, that it is still effective (e.g., not overused) and that he is wearing it properly the entire time?
 

 
Do we double-check that the substance being used as disinfectant is effective enough to do the job (e.g., that it's not a cheap mix of mostly water with a bit of alcohol?) Do we supervise the cleaning process?
 

 
Yes, "relatively" is the key word there. When one compares a massage with, on the one hand, being in absolute no-contact, hermit-like lockdown and, on the other hand, going around licking doorknobs, then a massage is relatively safe.
 
In terms of the masseur's odds of being sick, well that depends on how one responds to the questions and assumptions noted above and below.
 

 
Same questions about how to define "low" prevalence and whether "state" is how we should define the area level at which prevalence levels should be looked at.
 

 
That's a lot of trust. How many one-hour, transactional encounters should we have had with a masseur to trust his answers to the relevant questions above? That aside, should we consider that the very fact this is a transactional encounter can motive masseurs to act in less-than-ideal ways (e.g., not disclose that he did go to Fire Island because he feels well and because he knows that disclosing that he traveled there could mean he looses business he desperately needs to pay rent?).
 
These are all rhetorical questions to illustrate the issue. I'm not actually asking for answers.

That's a great, thoughtful question @FrankR. I would love to research it for you. Care to send me one of those chairs so I can conduct a randomized double-blind [insert other sciency words here] safety study and issue a robust report for the benefit of the entire world? ?

Standoffish = Distant and cold in manner; unfriendly. He was polite, yet distant in conversation. When an eastern European person translates into English... the translation is often very direct, clear and to the point. "Put clothes there" instead of "you can put your clothes on the couch". Also, very little eye contact... which is very Russian. Been several times and it does not bother me, because I know it is cultural and not personal.
 
Second visit, I got him to talk more. He wants to make sure you are happy and comfortable. Hope that helps. -xx

In my case, he literally said 2 or 3 words the entire session including "hello". I don't expect or want much conversation, but he just seemed like he was going through the motions and was not very much interested in what he was doing.

I keep a box of disposable gloves in the trunk of my car, and use one every time I fill up. Which is not all that often these days anyway, but still. Especially since I mostly buy gas at Costco, and you'd better believe that the answer to "how many hands have fondled that handle?" is " a lot".

What does "safe" mean to you?
 
We all know what one must do to be "safe" out in the world in general: wear masks, practice social distance, don't meet up with strangers, avoid indoor spaces because virus particles may be hanging in the air, wash your hands and high-use surfaces regularly, etc. If you can't practice social distance, a mask might be enough to protect you (but that statement presupposes you're not having non-social-distanced strangers hover over you and touch your body head to toe for an hour).
 
So, if you must get a massage, which happens in a setting that is incompatible with most safety recommendations, then you should at least apply as many of those recommendations as possible, such as wearing a mask the entire time, opening the windows in the massage room so that air circulates, having the massage table and other items you will come into contact with properly disinfected, having the masseur disinfect his hands and wear a mask, disinfecting your hands before and after the massage, etc. Do that, cross your fingers, and maybe you'll be able to say the massage was "safe"...not because the experience was inherently safe, but perhaps simply because you got lucky.

I don't want to start a whole different controversy here, but you really can't see why people would react poorly to this? You're literally saying that no aspect of their existence is worth you taking a look at simply because of the color of their skin. I wouldn't tell people that and expect them to respond with an "oh, okay". A simple "I'm not interested" would be a more courteous thing to say. Expecting courteousness doesn't make people pussies, it makes them civilized.
 
The trans issue is different because OP is basically saying that he likes men with penises, which is completely natural when it comes to being attracted to the male form as it is traditionally understood. Just to say it, I would always make that point that directly and clearly; I wouldn't dance around it by saying you want men with "all the working parts" because trans men are not defective. If you've been saying things along those lines, then that might be what is getting you in trouble.
 
Your sexual preference shouldn't offend a trans man without a penis if he's secure in his manhood, much like a man with a small penis shouldn't get offended if you only like horse-hung men. But, again, to be civilized, I think the people who are telling you to not give a specific reason for turning down a trans man are right. A simple "I'm not interested" would work. You don't owe anyone an explanation about why you're not interested, and I would say as much to avoid getting into arguments that won't be productive.

I did not express an opinion about whether your behavior is racist. I said it is discourteous. And I also said that a simple "I'm not interested" would be a more civilized answer to give someone, particularly when you're clearly fully aware of how your normal answer is going to be perceived and the reaction it will cause. Bu if you prefer to go around telling people that you're not interested in them because of the color of their skin, and then blabber on about how that's not racist and make analogies to other types of behavior to defend your preferred answer, then more power to you.

I don't want to start a whole different controversy here, but you really can't see why people would react poorly to this? You're literally saying that no aspect of their existence is worth you taking a look at simply because of the color of their skin. I wouldn't tell people that and expect them to respond with an "oh, okay". A simple "I'm not interested" would be a more courteous thing to say. Expecting courteousness doesn't make people pussies, it makes them civilized.
 
The trans issue is different because OP is basically saying that he likes men with penises, which is completely natural when it comes to being attracted to the male form as it is traditionally understood. Just to say it, I would always make that point that directly and clearly; I wouldn't dance around it by saying you want men with "all the working parts" because trans men are not defective. If you've been saying things along those lines, then that might be what is getting you in trouble.
 
Your sexual preference shouldn't offend a trans man without a penis if he's secure in his manhood, much like a man with a small penis shouldn't get offended if you only like horse-hung men. But, again, to be civilized, I think the people who are telling you to not give a specific reason for turning down a trans man are right. A simple "I'm not interested" would work. You don't owe anyone an explanation about why you're not interested, and I would say as much to avoid getting into arguments that won't be productive.

I don't want to start a whole different controversy here, but you really can't see why people would react poorly to this? You're literally saying that no aspect of their existence is worth you taking a look at simply because of the color of their skin. I wouldn't tell people that and expect them to respond with an "oh, okay". A simple "I'm not interested" would be a more courteous thing to say. Expecting courteousness doesn't make people pussies, it makes them civilized.
 
The trans issue is different because OP is basically saying that he likes men with penises, which is completely natural when it comes to being attracted to the male form as it is traditionally understood. Just to say it, I would always make that point that directly and clearly; I wouldn't dance around it by saying you want men with "all the working parts" because trans men are not defective. If you've been saying things along those lines, then that might be what is getting you in trouble.
 
Your sexual preference shouldn't offend a trans man without a penis if he's secure in his manhood, much like a man with a small penis shouldn't get offended if you only like horse-hung men. But, again, to be civilized, I think the people who are telling you to not give a specific reason for turning down a trans man are right. A simple "I'm not interested" would work. You don't owe anyone an explanation about why you're not interested, and I would say as much to avoid getting into arguments that won't be productive.

There are a lot of words you could use to describe the guy it those links..."Cutie Pie" is not one of them

I usually say something along the lines of "Sorry but I don't think we are a good match." It doesn't directly put the perceived blame on them. I'm not into Trans guys in a similar (yet opposite?) way that I'm not into cross dressers/drag queens/transsexuals. I don't find women attractive so why would I want a guy in women's clothes or a Trans man with a pussy? I support them for who they are, who they've become and all that, but I'm not sexually interested in them.

I think this has more to do with them refusing to accept a "NOT INTERESTED" for an answer than with being trans.

In society, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to turn people down in a way that doesn't seemingly shatter their entire existence.
 
Bottom line, a 'thanks, but not my type' or 'not interested, thanks' should work.
 
If someone pushes past that and tries to make it an issue (as many now do), block them (if on an app) or just walk away. You do yourself no favors being wrangled into someone projecting their own insecurities in a feeble attempt to feel stronger or make a statement.

What does "safe" mean to you?
 
We all know what one must do to be "safe" out in the world in general: wear masks, practice social distance, don't meet up with strangers, avoid indoor spaces because virus particles may be hanging in the air, wash your hands and high-use surfaces regularly, etc. If you can't practice social distance, a mask might be enough to protect you (but that statement presupposes you're not having non-social-distanced strangers hover over you and touch your body head to toe for an hour).
 
So, if you must get a massage, which happens in a setting that is incompatible with most safety recommendations, then you should at least apply as many of those recommendations as possible, such as wearing a mask the entire time, opening the windows in the massage room so that air circulates, having the massage table and other items you will come into contact with properly disinfected, having the masseur disinfect his hands and wear a mask, disinfecting your hands before and after the massage, etc. Do that, cross your fingers, and maybe you'll be able to say the massage was "safe"...not because the experience was inherently safe, but perhaps simply because you got lucky.