SirBillybob

Now if he would only shed fully …

Ah, OK. 60% advance.

That must be it. Choice theory meet performative erectile challenges for the 3rd inning overcome by the 4th. Or … faulty abacus.

Is not the cumulative math a bit off? An additional $225 for the 2nd hour yet an additional $250 for the 3rd hour? Shouldn’t the 3rd hour be somewhere between $225 and the $100 rate for 4th hour+ ? Logically, 3 hours should be no more than $725 and 3.5 hours $775. Putting out $800 in total is no discount.

Priced out, no key.

The offenders audaciously attempting to punch above their looks class on top of everything else egregiously criminal? That’s aggravating. I’d probably have to be there. But it’s good to know, after all, that the vast majority of gay men know better.

The settings are tricky because the rules and standards of flirtatious engagement shift according to where on the social continuum between a church social and a backroom sex party the activity occurs. Whereas the groping unambiguously and formally represents a sexual violation without considering context, a court of law would be hard pressed to determine whether the alleged offender did not accurately and respectfully assess whether a true swipe left from the recipient had occurred in relation to the initial physical pass made that is technically illegal but may be contextually, informally tolerable at the level of expected venue etiquette. If you say that the problem was that the flirter did not get the boundary message that you politely conveyed upon his first attempt you are already conceding some degree of acceptable courtship style fluidity. While such a grey area undermines the intent of the law to err in favour of the recipient of unwanted advances, many of us position ourselves in settings where we adapt to more aggressive and physically explicit flirting that would be deemed nonconsensual elsewhere. I have technically had my boundaries violated a few dozen times this year. I must have ‘Stockholm syndrome’ because I have just booked returning to the scene of the crime. That said, a spontaneous digital rectal exam without the necessary visa paperwork greenlighting it is bad form.

… who decided to not enter the den in spite of “open sesame” magically working.

Originally Brazilian. His social media and erotica are a few years dated, as are I believe some of his ad photos. You can get guys as hot in Brazil for under $100.

Me too. I doubt the ad pics are real. Hard to say. He was on a major reality show a number of years ago.

Did anybody else take tea with the cast at The Savoy yesterday on NBC?

One of the photos is at a Smartfit gym with Spanish signage.

Apparently make sure you stay through the end credits.

I don’t care if they drop their egos as long as they drop their panties … I’d say the soap, but gall darn dispensers.

Appreciating the stripped down version.

I just read the short story, like the film, set in New England.

Maybe he throws in the Feb 2018 Vanity Fair for free. 😏

Are you getting the 'existing user' prompt when logging in? I even occasionally get the error message when I login with the existing user prompt but still access the site. When logging in I only click ‘fill password’ without needing to complete the two fields.

I only use a smartphone and that happens occasionally but I still get access as well when clicking the 3 horizontal bars top right corner.

U=U, true. There would be no clinical reason to self-describe as being predominantly or exclusively insertive in anal intercourse unless you were implying that sexual position determines the legitimacy of U=U. Or if you simply wished to emphasize that sexual position is not a factor, but I didn’t read it that way. In contrast, sexual position is a determinant of risk where one partner is HIV+ with unsuppressed viral load.

Who knew that ‘making new friends get harder as you age’ [sic] is a thing? If we could only convince the younger prospective friends. 😏

Poor Calvin … fo’ shizzle shoulda chosen this film …

But surely you might clarify whether the beautiful hair is long, straight, curly, fuzzy, snaggy, shaggy, ratsy, matsy, oily, greasy, shining, gleaming, streaming, flaxen, waxen, knotted, polkadotted, twisted, beaded, braided, powdered, flowered & confettied, bangled, tangled, or spangled & spaghettied.

Mine comes to £8.00 equivalent for monthly over 6 months. A bit more for 3-month stretches. It’s far less than what it costs to source actual hires in more face-to-face contexts, considering that I very rarely hire from Rentmen although some just happen to also advertise there, and I use Hunqz slightly more. Hunqz PLUS is €85.00 one year.

If it’s Rentmen I am seeing X-rated photos in the main part of profiles when logged in as a premium member. I don’t know about the situation if not logged in or if non-paying. My location is Canada.