Massageislife

Yeah, that's the one thing I recalled. Has he held his (very cute) looks?

I remember reading a detailed thread on this guy, but I can't find it: https://rentmasseur.com/AmazingMassage

I was catfished by "Nick" (https://www.masseurfinder.com/massage-therapists/38458/) who was using these photos under the name "Hotjay." There's a thread on this. The Hotjay ad disappeared for a while and has reappeared now as Jaysonn (Son of Hotjay!). I texted him saying that I had met Nick thinking I would be meeting the guy in the pictures. I told him that I enjoyed my massage with Nick, but I would like to meet him, if he were actually the guy in the pictures. He did not reply. Recommendation: avoid!

https://rent.men/MigueLlo

Bump

There's discreet ways to get that info. And please share the link to his page!

About a year ago I decided against seeing CJ for a massage because he said he was only doing 4-handed, which I don't like with his, I guess, then boyfriend, this West Coast frequent name-changer: https://rentmasseur.com/Mmike

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d6048c5e4b02cc97c8d70f2

https://rentmasseur.com/gay-massage/philadelphia/

Roger, yeah, I guess that's the central discussion point here: the moment of penetration. The OP says the masseur didn't ask to penetrate him, and the OP was surprised when he did. The OP says the masseur was on top of him, with his penis brushing his ass. It seems that most of us think that the masseur should have explicitly asked, but the question is whether in the context of an erotic massage, when the masseur has climbed on top and is brushing his penis against an ass, implied consent could have reasonably--not necessarily correctly--have been inferred by the masseur, i.e., whether there was communication of a non-verbal sort (asking for an erotic massage (which is verbal), welcoming or at least accepting the masseur climbing on top, not commenting when the penis was brushing against the ass) . I understand differing answers to the question, especially the view that it's problematic what the masseur did. The other aspect of the question that is complicated is whether one's judgement of the non-verbally consensual moment of penetration applies past that moment to what the OP suggests was fucking until orgasm. I don't consider someone sticking their dick in my ass without verbal permission as "engaging in sex." Unless it's desired despite the lack of verbal permission, it's either sexual assault or an egregiously misreading of the situation by the penetrator. Allowing the penetration to continue into fucking until orgasm, however--unless there is some kind of coercion involved (which the OP does not describe)--might be properly described as "engaging in sex." The best comments in this thread ask us to consider what we're expecting from "massage," what we learn about our sexuality in sexual interactions with masseurs, and what boundaries we respect, even as we are demanding that our own be respected.

But better!

I understand, but my point is that someone who knowingly engages in unsafe sex shouldn't be running to the law if they become infected. It's a time for self-reflection and change

Yeah, but putting it anywhere rubs me the wrong way. It evokes the old "not fat, no femmes" self-hatred of our sexual community. I'm sure all masseurs/escorts have personal sexual preferences, but there are better ways to handle them

Roger, I'm glad you added this to the discussion. The--utterly unjust--criminalization of prostitution is another factor that differentiates erotic m4m massage from other types of sexual encounters. The client and even more the masseur are in legal jeopardy for being together at all. It means all parties have different and serious responsibilities to consider. It really was the high-minded "burn the witch" posts about exposing or even reporting to the police the masseur described in the original post. I agree that the police would probably reject--for anti-sex work and homophobic reasons--any plea by the client in the original post for legal redress, but I think, given the initial description of the post, that the client would have been out of line to go to the police anyway. For what it's worth, I'm not sure that a "delayed negative health reaction" would make any difference in the police's reaction, but if it did, that would also be wrong. A person who has unprotected sex (not a dick slipped in and then withdrawn immediately when the person objects (which is raises the difficult question of consent discussed in this thread, but not what is described in the initial post)) has to examine why they did it--I have had to ask myself such questions--not run to the police.

Been looking at him for a while. I like it that he's added dick shots to his portfolio. I would too, if I were him!

Thanks! He's as cute as they come, but I can't get over the "I'm not into feminine guys." There's honesty there, I guess, but it's such a gross prejudice to announce on a gay escort site!

Glad to see the "Robbie Madson" part of this expose too. Both always seemed like scammers. If I ever needed a reminder to avoid self-described straight erotic masseurs (and I didn't), this is it. Thanks for the research!

Tom, I addressed Deadlift's use of the term, SJW, because using slurs in serious conversations tends to end them, rather than move them forward. You appear to be trying that now by throwing the term at me. I'm sorry that you don't like the grandiosity of my rhetoric, but you have no idea of my level of "real" activism. My bottom line on this is that a progressive activist, armchair or not, calling out my use of a gendered pronoun (or whatever it is that you think social justice warriors--and thank God for people whose fight is for social justice--do) is hardly my concern, particularly in this very scary current political environment. In fact, being called out has many times made meore thoughtful in how I act and speak. Your passionate attack on "SJWs" recalls for me our gay mayor Pete just last night, calling out Trump for trying to fool people into thinking that "political correctness" is their biggest enemy. It is not their enemy at all

I was around then too, and our elders often frowned on our protest styles. That seems to be the way generations of activists relate to each other. No social justice group--or individual activist-- is perfect, but in this time of incipient fascism, it's important to identity who our real enemies are, and they're not Me Too, Black Lives Matter, or queer activists, which are the kinds of groups that term is thrown at.

BostonTom is a skilled poster, but the "SJW" snipe isn't funny or necessary. Without what rightwingers and "liberals" like Bill Maher dismiss when they dismiss this term is exactly the kind of activism that has made, among many other essential things, gay rights and the safety of websites and gay massage services possible. Know your enemies!

This post is problematic, particularly in the context of m4m massage. What the linked article designates as "enthusiastic consent" may be the ideal for some people--particularly in non-remunerative kinds of sexual exchange (which m4m massage isn't)--but it is not only wrongheaded but a refusal to engage in dialogue to call all other kinds of sexual exchange "wrong" and any form of consent that doesn't involve detailed questions and answers about all aspects of the encounter "coercion," "intimidation," and "assault." One thing that strikes me here (and, honestly, in many of the threads on this forum) is the implicit condemnation of providers and expressions of perceived superiority by many of the clients who post. I've heard just as many complaints from masseurs about clients who grab their dicks or expect sex when that is not agreed to or advertised, as well as clients who don't show up, show up late, or refuse to pay the agreed upon price. Many clients who post on this site gleefully describe what they get away with or how they got escort service for the price of a massage. The disjuncture between the acceptance of these behaviors and attitudes on the behalf of clients and the outrage-more-than-outrage (calling for an unnamed masseur to be publicly shamed, to have his business ruined, even to be reported to the police) suggests a denial about the actual power dynamic at work in m4m massage and the sense of entitlement many of us bring to the scene. It’s not to say that masseurs are angels or victims; they’re people and workers who are more or less good at their jobs. We clients are the ones, however, holding the purse; the ones who get to scroll through pages of (usually younger and better-looking than us) possible masseurs and select the one who suits our fancy; the ones who get to say, "I want this and this kind of intimacy but not that kind or that kind" (Masseurs only have the right of refusal); and the ones who feel free to go on this public forum and ridicule masseurs in every possible way. It all smells of the classic disrespect (to use the mildest word possible) for those who provide the body and sex work that is so valuable to all of us. I've tried to stick to the post that originated this conversation in my comments. That post does not describe a person with a history of abuse (although there might be) that made him vulnerable in particular ways. It does not describe an incident of drugging ("Massage bliss" does not deprive a person of the power to consent). It does not describe being physically overpowered or a fear of being physically overpowered. It does not describe a masseur who ignored an expression of lack of consent (“no means no”). Most of all it DOES describe a context in which a sexual encounter (erotic massage) was requested and agreed to. It describes a masseur who did any number of acts that pleased the client which, apparently, were not cleared in advance (and which were they to be non-consensual, would be sexual assault). The post suggests that the non-verbal refusal of consent (turning the head to the other side) to the offer of oral sex was respected by the masseur. The non-refusal of consent in the non-verbal request to penetrate anally (the brushing of the penis against the ass, while on top of the client) was apparently taken by the masseur to mean consent. The non-refusal of consent once the penetration began was apparently taken by the masseur as affirmation of consent. The value of this thread, for me, is not to trash an anonymous masseur--and especially not to trash the poster--but to discuss the m4m massage experiences we have. The initial post made me thoughtful about my expectations from men who are only in the room with me because I am paying them, about my comfort level around sex generally, and about my relationship to sexual spontaneity, including the use of condoms. Something has seemed not quite right about the perhaps majority opinion on this site that one should be clear in advance about exactly what one expected from the massage. Reading and thinking about this thread has helped me understand that my discomfort with communicating explicit requests to a masseur who has not met me and expecting him to match them is not because I'm excited by the unknown (I actually wish I could always count on certain things in an erotic massage). I think it's because it's dehumanizing to treat a masseur like someone who doesn't have their own sexuality, dignity, or moods. It's my privilege as a client to not only have a strong sense in advance of who and what I'm getting (unless their ad is misleading, in which case I can just walk away) but also to punish them economically if I'm not satisfied (by stiffing them or trashing them on a site like this). In our dehumanizing imagination of masseurs, however, we expect that, sight unseen, we are entitled to require them to do precisely this and precisely not that in the massage. It's why I try to accept the broad parameters of an erotic massage. There are minimum, generally understood things that define a massage as erotic (partial, usually total nudity), mutual touch of some kind, and contact of some sort with the clients ass/penis. Once we meet and--especially the masseur who is getting a look at me for the first time--begin to get a sense of each other, those parameters get specified. Beyond the bare minimum implied by the term "erotic," I have to accept what occurs when they do or don't respond to my signals. Too many of us feel that a couple of hundred bucks entitles us to anything with another human being. I hope every client reading this thread and this forum understands that some erotic massages lead to fucking, which many of us, many times, desire, and that many people fuck without a condom, unless one asks otherwise. I hope every masseur reading this thread understands how attentive he needs to be to a client's signals (and lack of signals), especially regarding something as fraught as anal sex.

Please always post the link

Billy is the best! https://www.masseurfinder.com/massage-therapists/13043/ https://rentmasseur.com/BodyworkbyBilly

Very interesting thread. Thank you for reviving it! It raises a lot of questions about the massage scene that are nuanced and worth talking through. First, I have to say that it is painful to hear about the incident described in the initial post. The freezing up is an understandable response for someone who is not expecting anal entry, and it is unfortunate that the masseur was not a better reader of what was going on in the client's mind. The poster does not describe anything he did to let the masseur know that the penetration was unwanted, however, so the question is whether an explicit verbal request for penetration followed by verbal or non-verbal consent is always required in advance. For me the context of m4m massage culture is the key to if not answering, at least considering responsibly this question. It's a mistake to quickly conflate what is described in the post with rape involving restraint or threat of harm, rape of drugged or unconscious persons, heterosexual rape (which involves a gender dynamic that has to be taken into consideration), etc. It seems to me that the most thoughtful posts here which designate as rape what the initial poster describes rely on ideas of consent most relevant to date or spousal rape, wherein the issue of consent is complicated by taking place in a setting where the parties have expressed some degree of sexual or romantic interest in each other. If a person in a marriage or dating situation says no to a sexual advance, it is unambiguously sexual assault or rape if the other proceeds. Reading non-verbal cues, however, is a much thornier issue, and, legally, is much harder to prosecute. Lack of cues, including an affirmative one, however, is, I think, what we're discussing, and that is the murkiest area of consent of all. As some have testified to here, many welcome anal penetration during an erotic M4M massage, and a non-verbal cue or even a lack of cues is considered sufficient permission for a masseur to proceed. Many threads in this forum discuss preferences for explicitness in advance versus "playing it by ear" in how far the sexual dimensions of a massage proceed, and I think this issue falls painfully within that difference. Any masseur who doesn't respond to a client indicating that the anal entry is unwelcome is committing sexual assault, but given the complexity of sex work dynamics, penetration that is not objected to either verbally or non-verbally shouldn't be immediately equated with rape. Of course, I hope masseurs reading this will take seriously those, including the original poster, who indicate that they would prefer an explicit request for anal penetration and that even when a client being penetrated doesn't object verbally that checking in that they are okay is advisable. That seems a good idea for all sexual exchanges. I think that it's unfair, however, to describe as a simple rapist an erotic masseur who wrongly reads a client as welcoming anal penetration. Those of us who have specific preferences and boundaries within the highly charged scenario of M4M erotic massage need to communicate those things explicitly. To say this is not the same thing as blaming the victim; it is to recognize the complex, particular communicative structures of gay sex work. I understand, for example, campus codes that require verbal consent in sexual interactions between (in particular heterosexual) students. M4M massage and other types of gay sex work have particularities that should be considered--and are considered in this thread--before we strictly invoke other sexual scenes to describe what happens. I think most of us cherish many of the differences between M4M massage and other forms of sexuality. People have been pretty open in this thread, so I'll say that a masseur penetrated me without a condom without asking. I had sent plenty of non-verbal cues that I was enjoying his hands and then his penis brushing against my asshole, but I was still surprised when his penis went in, without a condom. I had never been fucked without a condom, and the whole thing was disorienting. I wish he had said something like, "I want to fuck you," and had worn a condom, but I didn't say anything. I enjoyed the experience but even if I hadn't, I wouldn't have called him a rapist. He wasn't a particularly empathetic person, but he was responding to the expectations of the sex work context and the non-verbal cues that I was enjoying the things he had done up to that point--none of which he got specific, individual permission to do. Afterwards, I worried about my silence and about the chance that I could have been infected, but I had to own both things and grow from the experience.

Harry and I disagree on John. He's one of my biggest disappointments ever