KensingtonHomo

He changed his profile name: https://rentmasseur.com/MrSensual

We saw him tonight. He's very handsome with a great lanky body. He has a great personality. He gave two great erotic massages. And he's fun to talk to.

I've known many people who engage in sex work of various types. From what I've seen, there's nothing about sex work that is inherently traumatizing. Rather, doing illegal work and dealing with nasty or violent clients without recourse to the police are the primary issues. We live in a culture that is very sex-negative and puritanical. So if someone chooses to do sex work, or circumstances of their life push them into it, many people will judge them as damaged, diseased, and other forms of dehumanization. I think that's the primary cause of trauma for sex workers.

We’ve done the whole range of vanilla options with Mike and he’s not only fabulous in bed but a total sweetheart.

I’ve only been asked for deposits when I’m meeting someone for the first time. I’d they have a good rep I don’t mind doing it and I’ve never been burned. 🤞🏻

You're so thirsty for negative attention. 🤣

I’ve looked ar his page and he does nothing for me. I get bored reading his profile.

He’s cute but not $600 cute. I haven’t met anyone who is.

Yes, highly educated people are known for being unable to spell and write. 🙄

Please cite the sentence where I said you must be attracted to something you're not. You cannot because that is not my point and has not been my point. I haven't started a thread called, "Six pack abs" which details why I don't find them attractive. I haven't posted that men with poorly groomed feet are disgusting, or that guys who don't wear deodorant smell bad. Those are things I find unattractive to completely repellent that other members of this forum enjoy. Yet I not only have never started a thread about those things, I rarely even mention them if someone posts about a provider with those qualities. It's really simple to just have your preferences and ignore things you don't find appealing.

I think my roll is at the correct speed. Yes, me saying "we don't need" is a value judgment. Lastly, nail care is grooming or self-care, just like the other things I cited. You can literally get your hair cut, tan and your nails manicured at most salons.

I reached out to him recently but haven't heard back.

Where did I say a client had to hire an escort with nail polish? I didn't. I'm saying we do not need threads where people tell us what they don't like about guys they're not going to hire. All these threads do is yuck other people's yum. I actually agree that a provider showing up looking substantially different than their photos can be a deal breaker. I doubt I'd include nail polish because I either like it or am neutral about it.

This is a stunning amount of projection that you're foisting on people you don't know. It's a lot of rationalization for your own dislike of something.

No, and this subject has been brought up numerous times. Nail polish is no different than cutting your hair, tanning, dieting or working out.

I saw him once. He's mediocre in terms of massage and not very interactive. He kinda of wanted to flex to turn me on, which doesn't work for me. He might be good for people who are into muscle worship.

But you're bi. I wouldn't "mercy" fuck anyone at this point in my life but when I did it wasn't any women.

That was him.

I think it's funny. I've been with this provider, and wouldn't repeat. DM me if you want details.

No, what has been happening is right-wingers are claiming a) that all drag is inherently sexual (which is ludicrous to anyone who has seen Milton Berle or Mrs. Doubtfire nevermind Nina West), and b) because it's inherently sexual, simply having drag queens interact with children - not matter how tame or age appropriate is corrupting. These same arguments were made about cis gay men and lesbians (and in some quarters still are) to oppress us and deny us our rights. If anything, people like Kirk Cameron enjoy MORE rights than the average drag queen, and they are definitely aiming to indoctrinate children to their values. I wish people who are defending Cameron or falling for the right-wing argument would wake up and see that this is a cynical campaign to erode support for queer people. First they came from the trans people, Then they came for the drag queens...

No religious beliefs are being repressed. Kirk Cameron is not being prevented from publishing his book, or having a book tour at private venues that are concordant with his beliefs. Do you think those calling for Cameron to be permitted to use public libraries to spread his right-wing religious beliefs would support a Muslim author with a children's book on sharia law?

I'm not being nasty or disrespectful. I'm pointing out that someone claiming knowledge of the Constitution doesn't, in fact, understand it or the history of precedents based upon it. You're trying to control the parameters of debate, by asserting that a simple statement is "nasty", which is a predictable strategy. It lines up perfectly with claims that drag queens are "sexualizing children" by dancing or reading books. A long judicial record affirms that public institutions cannot prioritize one religion over another, including providing space for an evangelical Christian to proselytize to children. For example, Roy Moore had to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom. To my knowledge, drag queen story hour does not proselytize about religion. Rather they read secular books that are often about children being free to explore their own identity and being respectful of differences, including those based on religion. Those are not my values. Those are the values on which this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.

So you don’t understand the Constitution. That’s okay. There are lots of books about it, but I’ll give you a hint: the key word is “establishment.”

Equal access ends when the person in question wants to impose their religion on others. Drag queens reading “Good Night Moon” is a secular activity, what Cameron was proposing was not. My presumptions are based on my experiences. You’d be surprised what gets overlooked when a venue is repurposed. 8 year olds will likely giggle at the sign. SCOTUS said Roe was settled law, and look how that turned out. And they’re looking at challenges to Ogberfell just like they’re granting hearings to cases that would allow businesses to discriminate against queer people.

We all know this was an oversight doing a family-focused event at a venue that is typically for adults. Depending on the age of the children, they will either laugh about it or not understand the reference. Either way, it's irrelevant to everyone except the parents of the children who were in attendance. What's remarkable about those arguing in defense of KC is that "drag" or "trans sports" or what have you is a smoke screen for attacking all queer people. SCOTUS is aiming to repeal marriage equality. Drag queens are the warm-up act.