tenderloin

"Only a White guy could have pulled off that degree of fakeness." - Mocha
 
Anyone who would post something like that needs to deeply within himself to try to understand how he reached the point where such fatuous generalizations could be entertained, much less posted publicly. I don't want to pick on you Mocha, but really, stop digging!

On my own. About 13 or 14. I remember it felt good moving my hands on my erection. One day, continued to do it for a longer time, and when I came (never expected that to happen), wow!

I believe Mocha is a good example of someone suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect.

What you're describing as whites flaking on blacks or treating blacks as disposable is true of the gay dating scene in general. It has been for decades. Young gay men can be very fickle and often play the field. The blurred lines between relationships, casual sex, and anonymous hookups make gay dating a minefield for everyone. I've known black and white gay men who date within their race, exclusively across race, or who make no distinctions -- and the same games are played. Young gay men dispose of boyfriends, they flake on guys with whom they had some apparent closeness, and they keep their options open.

Put me in the category of clients who enjoy it more if my partner is enjoying it more than i am. Creates a vicious cycle of enjoyment which can spin out to orgasmic levels. So escorts, give up some of your own sexual secrets and you may be unlocking the deepest sexual secrets of your client.

What is this "invade privacy" bs? Invading an escort's privacy would be something like trying to find out his real name, where he went to high school, and where his parents live. An escort is a sex worker. Seeking to understand a sex worker's sex practices is NOT an invasion of privacy. Note: I didn't say "ask if he is HIV positive." I agree that an answer to that question is of limited value. I said one should ask if he insists on the use of a condom when getting fucked. Can someone explain to me why such a question is an invasion of privacy? If you are an escort and don't like that question, you are in the wrong line of work.

It's not such a tough concept. there are two parts to understand:
1. Imagine two people - one says he barebacks as a bottom all the time, the other says he will only get fucked with a condom. Which one is more likely to have an STI? While you do not know for a fact that bachelor #2 is "clean," there are better odds that he is because he is already demonstrating cautious behavior. One can infer....
2. there is no such thing as "riskless" sex unless you literally do not allow skin-to-skin or lip-to-lip contact. So you must assess the field and calculate the risk that YOU are willing to take - you SHOULD care if your partner is someone willing to take risks - that is part of the calculation.
 
That's all that Quincy is saying, and it makes perfect sense. No judgment. I personally take some calculated risks (as a rimming enthusiast, for example), and have on occasion paid the price (thank God for antibiotics). But I assess my potential partner's judgment and behavior as best as I can and act accordingly.

I think the point of asking that question is not to have the expectation of a completely "clean" partner based on the answer; rather, it's to narrow the field: logic suggests that one who is open to barebacking is more at risk for a plethora of infections. By avoiding those who are open and enthusiastic barebackers and staying only with those who insist on condoms, one is improving the odds of an "STI-free" encounter. Note, I said "improving the odds" not "guaranteeing."
 
To use a different example: many people drink and drive, and you can never be certain who is sober and who isn't. But given the choice, do you go with the driver who says "sure, I tie one on every day" or the one who says they don't drink? Neither is a guarantee, but I get the logic of going with the latter.

I think the point of asking that question is not to have the expectation of a completely "clean" partner based on the answer; rather, it's to narrow the field: logic suggests that one who is open to barebacking is more at risk for a plethora of infections. By avoiding those who are open and enthusiastic barebackers and staying only with those who insist on condoms, one is improving the odds of an "STI-free" encounter. Note, I said "improving the odds" not "guaranteeing."
 
To use a different example: many people drink and drive, and you can never be certain who is sober and who isn't. But given the choice, do you go with the driver who says "sure, I tie one on every day" or the one who says they don't drink? Neither is a guarantee, but I get the logic of going with the latter.

I will go ahead and read through the lines and presume you had a bad week.

Novice, please look up the definition of "client" in the dictionary. Let me explain something to you: I am NOT advertising, I am NOT selling something. I am the buyer. If the escort wants to know something about me, I will be happy to engage in an exchange. But no client has an obligation to post public information about himself anywhere.
 
As for Zachary Prince, where is my "incredible sense of entitlement?" I am asking to have a look before I commit to the encounter, before I fork over several hundred dollars. Entitlement? No. Common sense? Yes.

Novice, please look up the definition of "client" in the dictionary. Let me explain something to you: I am NOT advertising, I am NOT selling something. I am the buyer. If the escort wants to know something about me, I will be happy to engage in an exchange. But no client has an obligation to post public information about himself anywhere.
 
As for Zachary Prince, where is my "incredible sense of entitlement?" I am asking to have a look before I commit to the encounter, before I fork over several hundred dollars. Entitlement? No. Common sense? Yes.

Novice, please look up the definition of "client" in the dictionary. Let me explain something to you: I am NOT advertising, I am NOT selling something. I am the buyer. If the escort wants to know something about me, I will be happy to engage in an exchange. But no client has an obligation to post public information about himself anywhere.
 
As for Zachary Prince, where is my "incredible sense of entitlement?" I am asking to have a look before I commit to the encounter, before I fork over several hundred dollars. Entitlement? No. Common sense? Yes.

Novice, please look up the definition of "client" in the dictionary. Let me explain something to you: I am NOT advertising, I am NOT selling something. I am the buyer. If the escort wants to know something about me, I will be happy to engage in an exchange. But no client has an obligation to post public information about himself anywhere.
 
As for Zachary Prince, where is my "incredible sense of entitlement?" I am asking to have a look before I commit to the encounter, before I fork over several hundred dollars. Entitlement? No. Common sense? Yes.

It always surprises me when someone refuses to show their private pics upon polite request. I only request when I’m looking to hire and I make that clear in my request. If they say no, I move on. There are plenty of good guys out there that are willing to be friendly to potential customers. The rest aren’t worth worrying about.
 
It’s a really strange business decision to make the shopping process difficult for potential customers.

You misunderstand me. I WAS originally considering hiring - that's why I asked for the access - but wouldn't do so after I was refused access to the photos. Both men lost a potential customer. I don't ask for access to get my rocks off - there is way too much free porn around to bother. When I am intrigued by a guy's public photos, and I am/will be in the same vicinity, I request an unlock. It's not like I am asking for a free test drive. Gee.
 
I gotta say that I am surprised at the disdain with which potential clients are often treated with regard to requests for additional info/views - the expectation that the purchase will be made sight unseen. What amazes me is how many clients put up with that crap.

I messaged him a month ago to ask his rate. He saw the message but never replied.

You misunderstand me. I WAS originally considering hiring - that's why I asked for the access - but wouldn't do so after I was refused access to the photos. Both men lost a potential customer. I don't ask for access to get my rocks off - there is way too much free porn around to bother. When I am intrigued by a guy's public photos, and I am/will be in the same vicinity, I request an unlock. It's not like I am asking for a free test drive. Gee.
 
I gotta say that I am surprised at the disdain with which potential clients are often treated with regard to requests for additional info/views - the expectation that the purchase will be made sight unseen. What amazes me is how many clients put up with that crap.

I've had this happen a few times. I was puzzled at first and now I simply move on. I think some may want a donation to unlock, some may want more of a message (showing genuine interest) than the standard RM "please unlock". I'm sure they get unlock messages all day long (photo collectors) which never go anywhere, some may simply decide it's not worth their time to respond if there's not more of an expression of interest. If I'm genuinely interested in someone, I'll try to craft a 1-2 sentence email with my unlock request.

http://static.celebuzz.com/uploads/2014/06/16/AG029485_12.jpg

Whenever I hire a new escort, I usually have a conversation with them, face to face, about their life and what is going on with them, followed by making out, and moving on to other things we may enjoy together, always politely asking if they are ok with certain specific things, like rimming, etc. that I especially enjoy. I feel like many others do that if what happens between us gives the escort as much pleasure as he is giving me, our session has been a success and I will be likely to hire him again!
 
TruHart1

I cannot avoid listening to an ass eater sister. I also needed antibiotics recently.

I am more interested in invading his ass than his privacy LOL.
 
You really can't get this concept? Oy. Good luck to you.

It's not such a tough concept. there are two parts to understand:
1. Imagine two people - one says he barebacks as a bottom all the time, the other says he will only get fucked with a condom. Which one is more likely to have an STI? While you do not know for a fact that bachelor #2 is "clean," there are better odds that he is because he is already demonstrating cautious behavior. One can infer....
2. there is no such thing as "riskless" sex unless you literally do not allow skin-to-skin or lip-to-lip contact. So you must assess the field and calculate the risk that YOU are willing to take - you SHOULD care if your partner is someone willing to take risks - that is part of the calculation.
 
That's all that Quincy is saying, and it makes perfect sense. No judgment. I personally take some calculated risks (as a rimming enthusiast, for example), and have on occasion paid the price (thank God for antibiotics). But I assess my potential partner's judgment and behavior as best as I can and act accordingly.

What is this "invade privacy" bs? Invading an escort's privacy would be something like trying to find out his real name, where he went to high school, and where his parents live. An escort is a sex worker. Seeking to understand a sex worker's sex practices is NOT an invasion of privacy. Note: I didn't say "ask if he is HIV positive." I agree that an answer to that question is of limited value. I said one should ask if he insists on the use of a condom when getting fucked. Can someone explain to me why such a question is an invasion of privacy? If you are an escort and don't like that question, you are in the wrong line of work.