tenderloin

The last time I offered a critical comment of an escort by name I was subject to abuse. I guess my point in posting was to suggest that 'scorts shouldn't be offended if they ask a question like "what will you offer?" If you have a price in mind, just friggin' share it. If it is too high, the market will tell you.

I reached out to a provider on RM, told him I found him attractive and that his services aligned with my interests. Asked him his rate. His reply: "Hey there, thanks! I usually like to hear an offer first...." So replied with a $$ range that I usually try to stay within (it wasn't $30, but it wasn't $400 either). His reply was peevish and insulted, and cut off further discussion. Time wasted on both sides....

When I was younger I was very naive about relationships, and imagined that there were only two types: good virtuous people who remained committed for life, and sleazy people who cheated and lied and couldn't be relied upon. Now I realize that there are myriad ways to make a relationship work (or fail), and no two are the same. And I am wise enough not to judge the way other people make things work. In each relationship, there are social, cultural, sexual, religious, and psychological dimensions that intersect in unknowable ways. Live and let live.

Based on his postings on this thread, methinks His Majesty has enough ego and arrogance that only the self-loathing and low-esteem types need beg for the privilige of paying his fee. To make sure I land on his blacklist and therefore avoid his company, I am ready to send him my social security number, date of birth, and mother's maiden name.

The last one, Alexurfantasy, is a long-standing one for me - more than six years now. Great body, great booty, lovely personality.

I think you are wise, and sound like a decent guy.

Willing bottom, nice dick, great personality. PM me for more if you are interested https://rentmen.eu/alexUrFantasy

Gee, forgive me for pointing out that your comment makes you sound...ummm...a bit full of yourself. Those of us who have been burned in the past have legitimate grounds to request some form of verification. That you will not deign to address the concerns of potential customers in an industry full of scammers, hucksters, and frauds says a great deal. So by all means, please put me on your blacklist now.

Last minute shit happens to everyone at one point or the other - that's life. Especially when trying to arrange encounters in a surreptitious manner. To me it is all about communication, and that is the difference between cancellation and "flaking." The few times I have cancelled, I gave at least a day's notice. But I have experienced at least 6 times when an escort just stopped communicating and didn't show up. Even a simple confirmation that the guy is definitely not going to show would be useful ("can't make it -- so sorry"). Years ago, in a Dallas hotel, I couldn't sleep because I had given the guy my room number and I was sure that, any minute, he would show up at my door even though I hadn't heard from him for hours. I think I finally succumbed to a deep sleep somewhere around 3:30....

Completely agree with you regarding respect and patience. I am in client service myself so I very much value those things. But those who are not willing "to “snap to” all the client’s preferences in the way providers advertise, communicate, setup ad layout, availability, on and on and on" will probably not thrive in their chosen professions.

For me, the operative word here is "client." Good client service would include, IMHO, a willingness to adapt to the means of communication preferred by the client, within reason. Yes, telegram and fax and quill & parchment are out, but both email and text seem reasonable to me. Escorts who won't ever email simply close off a portion of the market for themselves.

Thanks so much for reinforcing the ugliest of the many ugly calumnies used to hurt gay people. Get a therapist. Now.

I ask the question because gay men have a long history, leading up to and including the present, wherein we are tagged with the "child molester" label. I think we all have to be careful not to load that one on ourselves -- we carry enough baggage thanks to many other peoples' homophobia.

What does it tell you?

I have a few simple rules: 1. If I think he is younger than 18, I don't hire. 2. If he seems like he might even be close to the line (ie, 18, 19, 20 ), I tell him in advance that I will want to see his photo ID to make sure he is of age before anything else happens (I'm not kidding - I have done this twice; both guys laughed but agreed) 3. Also for those close to the line, I make a point of saying via email or text that I am not seeking/am not interested in anyone younger than 18. When the police do a sting, they often try to get the prospective client to document in writing his understanding that the person is underage - that goes to intent ("you knew yet you proceeded....). It would be bad enough to get busted for soliciting -- committing/getting busted for statutory rape is a whole other thing....

Our society has deemed 18 the age of consent, so he may be off limits for you, but you have no right to dictate to or judge others. I believe we all have an ethical responsibility not to exploit people who are, for whatever reason, lacking capacity. I once cancelled a session with a young man when it became clear that he had some form of cognitive impairment - I don't know if it was just a low IQ, or drug-related, but it was evident that he had an issue. I paid him a partial fee and sent him on his way with a hug. So if you think 18 is too young, don't hire 'em. But spare the rest of us your righteousness. We get enough of that in this thing we call life.

These guys take advantage of our unwillingness to cause a scene. For me, "pay upfront" is one of those red lines. Just say no.

It's the same all over, including A4A. Part of the attraction for hiring is that it reduces (but does not eliminate) the bullshit factor. I have been contacted many times on A4A and then get strung out with ridiculous multi-week exchanges - some guys are just fucking around, some are too closeted, some are probably just sociopaths. I just blocked a guy with whom I had dozens of email exchanges where he described all sorts of intimate things he wanted to do, but wouldn't share his phone number because he wanted his privacy. It has certainly reduced my bullshit tolerance -- I am much more likely to block as soon as I think I smell it.

We've been down this path before, and I can't believe it keeps coming back up. Look, it's pretty simple: imagine you have a choice of two escorts, one who is open about barebacking all the time, and the other who says "safe only." While you cannot be certain that either one is "clean," logic would direct one to conclude that the barebacker is going to attract barebacking clients who want what has been advertised, and who bareback in other situations. Mr. "Safe Only" is more likely to attract clients who follow safe-sex practices. Mr. barebacker is not only more likely to be HIV positive, he is more likely to have other STDs. If it makes Chad Constantine feel more comfortable to go with Mr. Safe Sex, why the hell do you have to give him a hard time about it? Another example: I need a neighbor to pick up my kids from school. One neighbor drinks too much, the other doesn't. I can't be certain that either will be sober at any given time, but I know who I am going to call first.

So in your twisted world, the only people who can write fiction containing characters of a specific race/ethnicity/religion/sexuality are people of that same race/ethnicity/religion/sexuality? How does a male writer include female characters? What about Kazuo Ishiguro, author of "Remains of the Day" among many others, and winner of countless prizes? How dare a Japanese person dare to write about early 20th century Britain? Say goodbye to most of the world's great literature. The examples are countless. Your assertion is laughable and ridiculous.

When one writes about the past, presumably one is trying to create as accurate a picture of the time and place as possible. Sanitizing the past to avoid hurting feelings today is, I would argue, more harmful to anyone than the use of words (however distasteful) in the proper context. Look at it this way: if I wrote a story about the Stonewall riots, I would not have the cops refer to the patrons as "members of the LGBTQ community" - the cops called us faggots and dykes and cocksuckers and.... Whether or not we like it, that is part of our shared history, and should not be forgotten, erased, or sanitized.

I may not be the right person to write such a story? Oy. For the record, I am an author and historian. The idea that one must be the right race/gender/whatever to write anything is repugnant to anyone who truly values freedom of expression.

You still haven't answered my question, and I am genuinely curious as to your answer (and I am not saying that to be combative - I am curious): if I were to write a book and set it in the south pretty much anytime before 1900, what term should I put into the mouths of southern whites when referring to their African American neighbors? If I want my dialogue to be believable and realistic, what should I do?

So if I want to write a novel set in the antebellum south, how do you think I should have the plantation owner refer to the enslaved persons in his custody? "My dear employees?" "My beloved African-American colleagues?" Shall we pretend that people didn't use awful terms to refer to people of other races, ethnicities, religions, etc.? Will that really enlighten the readers? Will that really give them a realistic perspective on life in America in the mid-nineteenth century? It's been said but merits repeating: there is no writer, politician, religious leader or other notable without blemishes. Once the cleansing starts, where does it stop? I am going to go rooting through Octavia's works - I am sure there is something controversial in there.....

If we start scrubbing from history everyone whose statements or writings are not aligned with current-day thinking, there aren't going to be many people left.