stevenkesslar

And by the way, if you live in California, GET OUT! People in California are animals. People in California kill each other. If you live in California, GO TO THE AIRPORT NOW. DO NOT THINK. TAKE YOUR BELONGINGS AND LOVED ONES AND LEAVE. NOW. California is the kind of place where a White male animal will go into a gun store, buy an AR-17, and slaughter you while you are enjoying an outdoor concert or taking a class at a high school or community college. Your heart or brain or kidney will look like a rotten apple somebody stepped on when he gets done with you. You will die a horrible, painful, slow death. The "why" of your death will be unthinkable. The "how" of your death will be terrifying. California is brimming with rapists and murderers and lunatics. IF YOU LIVE IN CALIFORNIA, LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. YOUR LIFE IS AT STAKE! Fortunately, I'm following noted Mexican Director Guillermo del Toro's words. There are no words to comprehend the magnitude of this madness. del Toro is a native of Guadalajara, in the state of Jalisco, in Mexico. I'm moving there. It's a hell of a lot safer in Jalisco than it is in California, where lunatic murdering White animals run free. If you don't believe me, it's probably because you are an ignorant White animal yourself. https://www.statista.com/statistics/195331/number-of-murders-in-the-us-by-state/ In California in 2016, there were 1,930 homicides - the most recent year I could find data for. It was the most murderous state in the country. It is a shit hole of White animals who kill. If you read that hyperlinked report, you will note that there were only 1,153 homicides in Jalisco in 2016. In other words, California had about 67 % more homicides than Jalisco in 2016. Of course, there is no state in the US or Mexico where there are no murders. But I'd rather live in a state where my chances of surviving are better. Why stay in California? Like California, Jalisco is a big state. If you like San Francisco, move to Guadalajara. It is a charming big metro area. If you like Carmel or La Jolla, move to Puerto Vallarta. It is a charming beach community. Both are a hell of a lot safer than comparable shit holes in California, if your goal is to not be killed by some White animal.

If your goal is just to bash Mexico because they have about the same rate of gun violence or gun death as the US, per 100,000 people, go ahead. In fairness, you might want to warn people to stay out of Black neighborhoods in New Orleans, St. Louis, or Baltimore. We all know those Blacks are animals that breed violence and just kill each other. And that's not racism, any more than it's bigoted to say some Mexicans are animals who dissolve each other in acid. Whites would never do shit like that. Three Mexican film students are tortured, killed and their bodies are dissolved in acid by cartel after being mistaken for members of a rival gang "Javier Salomón Aceves Gastélum, 25, Marco Garcia Francisco Avalos, 20, and Jesús Daniel Díaz, 20, went missing last month, authorities say they were confused for a rival gang of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel." In your direct citation, you left the part out about the students being mistaken for cartel members. That's important. I spent a really enjoyable week in Guadalajara and Tlaquepaque and I'd love to go back. I felt very safe there, just like I do in Puerto Vallarta. I've been told I look like a whore, but I don't worry about being mistaken for a cartel member. The rate of gun death in the US and Mexico is about the same - but that includes a a lot of gun deaths in the US that are not homicides. If you just want to go for homicides, Mexico wins the prize, sadly. But the rate of homicides is higher in many US cities, like the ones I named above. And the rate of homicide in many Mexican cities, like Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta, is a lot lower than in many US cities. Mexico specializes in grisly cartel deaths that are often meant to either terrorize, like chopping you into pieces and leaving you on the street, or to hide the evidence, like by dissolving you in acid. America specializes in letting lunatic White men who are animals with guns carry out mass slaughters, like in Las Vegas and Florida. The way that works is your brain or liver are blown up like overripe fruit and spattered all over your body and you die quickly. You decide what's more horrific. Whether it's gangs in Black neighborhoods in the US or cartels in Mexico, the #1 driver of all this is the drug trade, which the US is the #1 market for. And the #1 weapon of choice to kill people is usually guns made in the US. I don't know where the acid came from. If you follow the hyperlink in your citation, look on Page 3 of a 200 page government report and you'll note a breakdown by month and year of homicides and other types of crimes over a two decade period. There were 16,866 homicides in Mexico in 1997. That number went down to 10,253 in 2007, before Calderon ramped up his war against cartels, which didn't work. Homicides ramped up pretty much every year of Calderon's Presidency, to a high of about 22,000. After he left office in 2012 it ramped down. Now it's ramping up again. It's obviously cartel-related, as is the case in the murder of these students. If you look at the number of robberies of vehicles without violence - the last column in that report - that crime numbered 116,086 in 1997 and 123,717 in 2017 - not a big increase. And 2017 was not the worst year for these kinds of robberies. My point is that you're 10 times more likely to experience crime in Mexico this way that you are to be killed. Most American tourists don't look or speak Spanish like cartel members. Socalguy mentioned he was robbed in Mexico - by the Mexican cops, when they stopped his car to do a search if I recall right. That doesn't shock me. And I don't blame him if that's the kind of thing that turns him off going to Mexico. I've gone there dozens of times, and nothing like that has ever happened to me. I love the people there. I actually wonder if this has some relationship to The Wall. Probably not. But it's not unlike FOSTA. We're playing whack a mole, whether it's prostitution websites or drug cartels. And Prohibition doesn't seem to work. We did get cartels out of Columbia, and then cartels moved to Mexico. When Mexico cracked down it created more violence and disorder. Some of it moved to Guatemala and Honduras and El Salvador, where gun death and homicide rates are far higher than in either Mexico or the US. I'm not even sure Trump's rhetoric has really disrupted the coyote networks that traffick undocumented immigrants into the US. But that would be one explanation for why they've focused on other things - like importing opioids - as revenues from human trafficking declined. But whether it's prostitutes or drugs, demand never really seems to go away, and efforts to crack down can just backfire and actually make things worse.

That's what I was going to ask you tomorrow. At least I got the Sam part right.

In the short run, Stormy Daniels is a huge gift to the sex work community. No matter what Republicans think of her, they can't deny the fact that the President of the United States had sex with a ................... well, what is she? It's not quite the same as Rock Hudson normalizing and humanizing AIDS and being Gay. But it's in the ballpark. I think we are back to Milk. Nothing said in that movie script was wrong. It summed up the conflict between respecting privacy and political power perfectly. My favorite line is this: "If you want real political power ... if that's what you want ... try telling the truth for a change." If every escort in America, Gay or straight, suddenly decided to out every famous person that has ever hired them, that would change the discussion dramatically and immediately. For obvious reasons, nobody wants that to happen. The slower course that worked in Milk's case was to gradually change everybody's comfort level of just being honest about being Gay. The same applies here, I think. It's going to take time, but Trump and Stormy paint a picture of where this is going. After all, it turns out that some of my best "friendboys" are ..... wait, what's the word?

I think I understand you, PK. But just to be 100 % sure, would you mind defining what you mean by "most everything," and by "entertainment." The plot can be hot, simply teeming with sex A gay courtesan who is moving out West It could be Oedipus Rex Or perhaps even Beyonce, or my future fiance The guy who was waving Gay flags Or the jock with two cocks in his hands Hip hooray! The American way The world is a stage, the stage is a world of entertainment

From The Life And Drama Of Steven Kesslar, an upcoming series produced by Ryan Murphy Oliver, to Steven (regarding me asking advice about real estate last year): "Now try not to overthink this, okay?" Steven (mildly chuckling): "Oh, come on! You know me. You have to be fucking kidding me!" I agree with everything you say. Except you have to be kidding. You do know you are speaking to a room full of Gay men, right?

And apparently no photos, either. I can live with that. Thanks for the info Robster.

Really? And if you don't mind me asking, how much score do you pay? And is your place score controlled, or just score stabilized?

Does anyone know if CC was actually filled up that weekend? The assumption this discussion is based on is that all the LGBTQ places book up that weekend, even though Coachella itself is not predominantly LGBTQ. If Maus got a reservation one month before the event, is there any reason to think anyone will have a problem in 2019? As I said above, Inndulge told me on the phone this morning that they book up 6 to 9 months in advance. If I book a room at CC as a placeholder, I will follow Robster's advice, call them, get a free fourth night, and use that to check on their cancellation policies as well as the likelihood that they will sell out. But does anyone know for a fact that CC was actually full this year during the party?

Thanks. I'm going to wait til I talk with Oliver, but I will likely do that next week, and if so let people know. That way PK and I would both have optional rooms there and Epigonos possibly has a room at Inndulge. Solves the problem x 3.

Thank you PK . That's exactly the info I was looking for. I moved that quote from the Palm Springs 2018 thread to the Palm Springs 2019 thread since this discussion seems more appropriate here, in terms of planning for next year. Okay, here's what I'm suggesting, bottom line. Let's think about informally booking 2 or 3 extra rooms. I don't think we need to have a contract with CC to do so. If it makes sense to people, I think we should just do it, informally. Now let me take a step back and walk through the possible logic of this. I went online and started the reservation process for Inndulge that weekend and got this message: Check-in: 4/12/2019 Check-out: 4/15/2019 Select a room Sorry, we have no available rooms for the requested dates. Feel free to email us at [email protected] to see if we might be able to shuffle things to accommodate your request or if there's an available One Bedroom Suite as well. Or you can call us at (760)327-1408. I called Inndulge and learned that right now they are only about 35 % full for that weekend. The reason that message came up is it's considered a holiday weekend due to Coachella, so they have a minimum 4 night stay. When I went online and added a 4th night - presto! - I got a bunch of options. Although having to stay 4 nights may not be everybody's preference. Also, it's more expensive. The least expensive I got for 4 nights at Inndulge was $900, whereas when I went online for CC yesterday I could get a Studio King on the pool level for $300 for 3 nights. More important, what the guy at Inndulge told me is that for pretty much ANY weekend in season they book up 6-9 months in advance. So that confirms what ArVaGuy has been saying: we should pick a weekend now, which Oliver did, because any weekend in March or April is a potential problem. So the biggest problem is already solved. We have a weekend, so if you want to book: BOOK NOW! Here's one other important factoid, Inndulge's cancellation policy: HOLIDAYS, EVENT WEEKENDS, & MARCH RESERVATIONS: Forty five (45) days prior to arrival date, a non-refundable deposit equal to half of your stay (room and tax) will be charged to your credit card. Reservations cancelled less than 45 days prior to arrival date will forfeit the deposit made. By comparison, CC has a 72 hour cancellation policy, or 7 days for special event weekends. I'm going to assume this is a special event weekend. I think we should anticipate that anybody who wants to try to book a room in January or February or March 2019 is going to have a problem. I agree with everything PK says above and commend how he dealt with it this year. My own view is that for various reasons - work schedule, health issues - there will be people who just can't book this far out. On the other hand, bottom line is that the person PK tried to help ended up cancelling anyway, so it's not like there really was a huge real world crisis to be solved this past year. I'm having dinner with Oliver Tuesday night and I will ask him about this. I think I will suggest that in addition to PK, who says he has already booked an extra room at CC, I may book a room at CC and I may see if Oliver or a third person wants to do so as well. My own sense is that 3 extra rooms would probably be overkill, but it more than covers our asses. (Except for Victor. Sorry, we don't want yours covered). PK is right that CC may not be to everybody's taste - so to speak. But they are less expensive and their cancellation policies are really optimal - you are charged a $100 deposit and can wait until only a week in advance, whereas with Inndulge it's a 45 day cancellation and a much larger deposit. If the problem we are trying to solve is to have a few affordable rooms available for people who try to book late, I think this is the simplest way to do it. If they don't like CC and can afford fancier digs and those digs are available, that's their business. But if everything is booked up by early 2019 we can use this forum to let people know there are some rooms, like PK just did this year. I'm also aware that we don't want to piss off CC. But my guess is that if they have a few rooms cancel at the last minute that is standard practice for a place like that. As PK said above, when he cancelled this year somebody else booked it within hours. So it just means someone else will get lucky. And we know that AS A FACT, because in this case it means they get to spend the weekend hanging around the pool with PK. I also just spoke with Epigonos about this. It's funny, because he's a conservative and I'm a liberal, and in this case I think that matters. He tends to not like the nanny state, and I tend to be okay with nannyism. So in this case part of what it boils down to is that you can say that if you didn't get your act together and book in advance, it's your loss. I tend to think like a government bureaucrat, that we should plan ahead that for whatever reason some people just aren't going to do that. We're both right. He agreed with me that there is no huge problem that actually needs to be solved here, but on the other hand he sees no good reason not to book a few extra rooms. He actually has a reservation at Inndulge already, as a backup, which he may or may not end up using. So that helps as well. I'm going to run all this by Oliver. But does anybody else have suggestions about making rooms available for late deciders in 2019?

Here's a thought. I honestly don't know if this makes any sense or not, since I don't have to worry about booking hotels in Palm Springs. Does it make any sense to reserve a small block of rooms now that can be cancelled if they are not needed? If so, I'm assuming Canyon Club would be the place to do it. The issue at the last minute seems to be both availability and cost, and of the places most people stay Canyon Club is the most affordable. I just checked and on those dates next year for a Friday - Monday (3 night stay) at CC it's about $300 total for a ground floor Studio King and just under $500 for a ground floor Poolside King. Here's what CC says about their cancellation policy: • Non-holiday periods require a one night deposit and have a 72-hour cancellation policy. • Holidays and special event weekends have a 7-day cancellation policy. • Cancelling within the 72-hour (or 7-day) period will result in forfeiture of your deposit. In theory "we" could book 2 or 3 extra rooms and then cancel them a week or two in advance if they weren't needed. This could be done either being upfront with CC, and letting them know we were doing it, or just doing it. I've never worked with management there, but presumably they should like our group because they get lots of business from us. So it's conceivable they'd just hold a few rooms. Or if not, we could just book 'em anyway. My impression from reading this thread is that people who waited until the last month either couldn't find anything at a reasonable rate, or just couldn't find anything period. My guess is also that for various reasons - like work schedule - there are people who just can't book one year or even a few months out. If I recall right I did something like this with Guy (at Helios) a few years ago since he wasn't sure until very late in the game, due to extenuating circumstances, whether he'd be able to attend. So we just held a room on my credit card with a one night deposit and by the time the cancellation deadline was reached (72 hours) he knew he'd be able to make it. If something like this makes sense I am sure some of us could figure it out. The real issue would be what hotel, what level rooms, and then how do we let people know that there are in fact rooms being held on a first come first served basis? And also how many rooms might we need late in the game? As I said, I have no practical experience with how this actually worked out this year or previous years, other than what's mentioned above. But I'm pretty sure that there will in fact be people who might like to attend but won't be able to know with 100 % certainty until much further down the line. For anyone who knows is there reason to think if someone tries to book say in February or March 2019 they are likely to be completely shut out? And if so does it make sense to anticipate that and try to work around it, or just say, "Sorry. Try next year." ?

The Growing Trend of Fake Reviews and How to Stop Them https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2018/04/01/the-growing-trend-of-fake-reviews-and-how-to-stop-them/ Sorry, but one more. The more of these articles I read, the more it seems to come back to the word advertising. This article says this in a nutshell: if you are a company or service being attacked by fake reviews, like by a sly competitor, you can try going after whoever is behind the fake reviews for defamation. But good luck. The better route is to use the Lanham Act. It allows for federal jurisdiction against false advertising. But you first have to identify the perpetrator. Then you have to prove they are engaged in "commercial speech," i.e. paid advertising. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. Before 2014, in order to use the Lanham Act you had to prove that fake reviews were being put forth by a competitor. A 2014 Supreme Court ruling broadened that to having to prove that the website operator's goal is to find customers to do business with them. From the article: Still, the “Lanham Act has never been applied to stifle criticism of the goods or services of another by one, such as a consumer advocate, who is not engaged in marketing or promoting a competitive product or service,” as in Reybold Group v. Doe, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160688 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2017) (quotations omitted). So, for example, using this standard of judgment you have to prove that Daddy's Reviews is set up in a way that basically posts reviews so that people will hire Daddy. If Daddy turns out to be an elderly Gay man with a disability, that's a little dicey, I think. I mean, I've paid for his dinner a few times. So I suppose you could say that implicitly makes Daddy an escort. I guess Sean Hannity giving Cohen $10 qualifies as earning you client-attorney privilege. But does me paying $10 for Daddy's chicken strips make him an escort running a review website with a hidden and dark agenda? Personally, I don't see that. More likely, it makes him a watchdog connected to lots of Gay men who are interested in outing scammers and promoting Gay professionals who offer reputable services. Nothing in the law before FOSTA suggests there is anything wrong with that.

This is part 2 of a rant regarding advertising, reviews, and freedom of speech. Mostly I am just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, and elicit discussion. I'm not a lawyer. And even if I was I'm not sure that any lawyer has a clue what might happen. A lot of this is just brand new territory. Charlie's post made me think about this: 1) If you see a paid full page advertisement for a hit play in the New York Times, is that advertising? The answer is almost certainly YES. But: 2) If you read a fabulous review of a play in the New York Times, is that advertising? After all, it could sell more tickets than the paid ad. And 3) If you go to Facebook or Metacritic and read lots of comments about the play from website users, is that advertising? My guess is the answer to 2 and 3 are pretty clearly NO - it's opinion and freedom of speech. So I went a few directions on this and spent some time Googling to see what came up. Again, just to make it super clear, I'm just throwing shit at the wall to see if anything sticks. https://www.yelp-support.com/article/Do-Yelpers-ever-get-sued-for-posting-negative-reviews?l=en_US https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/how-to-yelp-review-lawsuit/ https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2014/09/11/website-marketing-statements-the-achillesheel-to-cda-protection/ The sites I write reviews on tend to be Yelp (for repair or contractor services) or Tripadvisor (for restaurants). Not surprisingly, Yelp has a slightly different take on whether you can get in trouble for writing a review than other websites writing about Yelp do. Yelp comes right out of the gate saying reviews are protected freedom of speech. They then add: Few of these lawsuits against Yelp reviewers have ever met with any success. They actually can backfire in that the media tends to focus its attention on the negative comments that the business hoped to hide from public view by suing the reviewer. The second website I hyperlinked starts out by saying, Yep, people can and have gotten sued for reviews on Yelp. What both websites stress is that opinion is opinion, and you have a right to your opinion. The standard for getting in trouble when it comes to reviews is defamation - making false statements. What I found most interesting is this: 30 states have anti-SLAPP laws (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) that specifically protect people like Yelp reviewers from baseless lawsuits. Nevada and California, for example, both have excellent anti-SLAPP laws. https://anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection/ The third article reinforces the idea that suits against review websites have mostly struck out when companies try to hold website operators responsible for third party reviews. The few exceptions to this rule seem to go back to the idea that advertising actually does means advertising. A suit against a moving company review website was allowed to go forward. In that case, the website operator was itself a moving company. They were alleged to have removed positive reviews of a competitor, and negative reviews of their own company, for the purpose of increasing market share. In effect, in my words, they subverted the public's right to know in order to make money. The review site was, in effect, an advertising website for the moving company itself. I realize what FOSTA is about is not going after people who might write reviews on websites. It's about going after the websites themselves. But in terms of thinking what DOJ and states might do, it does seem relevant that 30 states have laws designed to protect reviewers, and other speech in public forums. Now I'm really connecting dots, but what does that mean for Gay men like us who have a public interest in harm reduction? Again, this goes to legislative intent, not law, but one of FOSTA's co-sponors said on the record that FOSTA was in no way meant to criminalize "harm reduction communiction" even among what he called "commercial sex workers." So if somebody writes a review about an escort that is a rip off in a public forum, is that "harm reduction communication." In a state like Nevada can you argue that Gay men have a public interest in protecting themselves through this kind of online communication? Would DOJ or the State of Nevada want to really test where the courts come down? The Rentboy take down suggests that DOJ or DHS or states can do whatever they damn well please, and it's better to be safe than sorry. But there's a huge distance between going after a website that makes millions selling children for sex, and going after a website that makes no money by posting reviews written by a minority community, Gay men, interested in promoting better escort or masseur services that are consensual. Would DOJ really go after a Yelp for reviewing escorts? I'm not sure. Particularly because Yelp doesn't make money off reviews - it posts reviews to promote a higher quality of service, which can be viewed as a public good and as freedom of speech. http://web.utk.edu/~rhovland/firstamendcases.html The other question I was interested in was what happens if you come at it from the other way - and look at legal cases involving explicit, paid advertising? Where do the lines get drawn by the Supreme Court in terms of what counts as "advertising?" Is there any case in which reviews - either by an authoritative source, or just some consumer - was considered advertising? That list above is the closest I could find to a summary of cases where the Supreme Court, over the course of several decades, made rulings on how advertising intersected with First Amendment freedom of speech. If you scan the list, it should be no surprise that many of these cases involved attacks on the advertising of perceived vices - such as tobacco, alcohol, and gambling. The definition at the bottom makes it clear that "the Hudson Test" does not protect commercial speech relating to unlawful activities. We didn't need FOSTA to know that the advertising of prostitution is illegal. DOJ prosecuted Rentboy based on the idea that they made millions off advertising prostitution services, regardless of what Rentboy called the services they advertised. So what's interesting to me about this list is there's no case in in which advertising meant anything other than the plain meaning of "advertising" - meaning outdoor billboards or broadcast ads, things where somebody is paying money to advertise a specific product or service. There's no case in which something like a newspaper review or news article or public comment was construed to be "advertising." When it involved clear advertising, the Supreme Court did say, for example, that if gambling is illegal, a federal ban on the advertising of gambling (in this case state lotteries) is perfectly legal. The Supreme Court seemed to err on the side of protecting the public's need for information. They also erred on the side of throwing out overly broad interpretations of laws. I think there is a very common sense argument that the purpose of reviews is not advertising, but allowing consumers to protect themselves and each other from things like financial rip-offs and harm in a market economy. Would DOJ want to push the limits on that one? QTR already made this point, but it also fits in that websites involving fiction about prostitutes probably would be hard to label as "advertising." Websites that discuss the political merits of decriminalizing prostitution, even moreso, I'd guess. That's pretty clearly freedom of speech, not advertising. I'll say it one last time, in closing. I'm having my usual verbal diarrhea. In this case I am throwing it at the wall to see what sticks. If there's any lawyers out there, please weigh in. I think at this point it's anybody's guess.

Happy birthday, Sam. You are, in effect, one of our bankers. You sure helped us a lot when you figured out how to divvy up the bill at Sunday night's after-pool-party dinner. Bankers never get the credit they deserve. We love you. Happy birthday. And thanks a million for your contributions. http://forums.azbilliards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=36842&stc=1&d=1172515204

I agree. I've now argued this ad nauseum. I think the thing to avoid boils down to one word: advertising. That's actually a written DOJ standard, and it goes back to the "smell test." Backpage could make any argument they wanted, but at the end of the day they were clearly advertising something. And that meant they were making a lot of money that was real money in real bank accounts, which has now been seized. Just like Rentboy's money was. What FOSTA mostly cleans up is the argument that they are not responsible for somebody else's advertisements. The common sense argument everybody behind FOSTA kept making is this: if you make millions off it, you're responsible. I'm not arguing that the language used on the Senate floor by Blumenthal or Schumer counts for anything - although Schumer himself argued it did, and he is Senate Minority Leader. Just out of curiosity, I Googled what Wikipedia had to say about "legislative intent." Short answer: it's anybody's guess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent I think the concept of "harm reduction" makes sense as a guideline for what is safe to say on websites, and what isn't. Nothing suggests US Senators wanted to increase HIV transmission or physical harm to prostitutes, or those who hire them, or to anyone like a masseur who could be described as doing something similar to what prostitutes do, at least from the perspective of nervous websites who are now worried about anything that sounds even remotely suspicious. To me the real prize we should have our eyes on is maybe three years or so down the road, when by law the GAO reports back to Congress. To go to the extreme, if prostitutes have their throats slashed in back alleys, and some psycho Gay prostitute like the one we just saw portrayed in Versace takes out some rich closeted man like Lee Miglin he met in a bar, that at least indirectly speaks to whether FOSTA made life safer, or more dangerous. Meanwhile, I think the best strategy is to hunker down and survive. The weird thing about it is that the best way for FOSTA to either be amended or (less likely) rescinded is for all the bad things people predicted to actually come true. I don't wish that on anyone, least of all us. So to some degree we're just going to have to wait and see what actually happens.

Jesus Christ, Oliver. You of all people should know how to be discreet. Now everybody will figure it out. No, you don't owe me a penny for borrowing my large testicles. I'm just glad they enhanced your pleasure during the event. And perhaps I should pay you a storage fee. Seeing as how you returned them empty, I assume they were well cared for. Whatever you did with Nate and others in private, you appear to have had a Gay old time. Glad to be of service, as always.

My love and hugs to you, Funguy. You've brought us lots of humor and warmth and strength, and now that's what you'll bring to fighting this. We're here to fight and support with you. The two relatively recent run ins I've had involved a brother who got a very bad diagnosis and lived for a year and a friend diagnosed with cancer who actually did completely beat it. Your diagnosis sounds hopeful. In both cases helping a friend or family member with cancer brought us closer than ever before. You are right, it makes you think about how life is fragile, and it makes sense to spend it sharing love and hope with those you care about. You are dealing with this openly and honestly. Good for you. That's the best thing you can do.

What do you want me to say? Fuck you! (Oh, wait. No. I guess I'm fucked). And I assume you can see the spirit I meant that in. Even if you are positioned according to your preference.

So sorry you feel that way. As always, I was just trying to be your humble servant, and aim your shot in the right direction. You know me. I don't like things to come off half-cocked. I think I'll just leave you and the group to figure this exciting new initiative out. I'm sure you will do wonderfully. Once the plan is complete, I'll just be sure to get down on my knees and kiss your ass.

Not a bad idea, but we'd have to do some rebranding. Not that I always make it all about me. But let me make it all about me. There was the time a few years ago when another escort was sucking my cock in my hot tub during the party. I'm not sure how that would have worked if it was Sharpie flavored. (I didn't remove my shorts this year in part because Latbear4Blk was prepared to make fun of my small testicles - incorrectly . But mostly because I just don't think that kind of indecency should be tolerated at a gentleman's party). That did not stop my dear friends Dane Scott and Epigonos from sampling Maus's cock. So you might want to consult with them regarding the possibility of ink stains. And with all due respect for branding decisions, I fail to see how it adds to the seductiveness of the event to have a beautiful specimen of manhood like that with the words "Maus" plastered over it. Worse, there is the matter of Purplekow. He might need to rename himself Purplehorse. There would be a clear beneficiary of your proposal, in terms of the match between name and anatomy. Are you listening, Lance? P.S. As far as my future fiance goes, I seem to recall one year he pranced around naked, sans pubic hair. So Baldwin could work, I guess. P.S.S. You might want to be more inclusive in terms of anatomical markings. It goes without saying that many would savor the sight of a certain man's bottom with the word "Powers" slathered all over it. P.S.S.S. And this would, or course, solve the great puzzle of the event. Inquiring minds still want to know. Was it really Super? Or merely Junior?

And the best part, of course, is that you can come back next year, and do it again. Purplekow, for example, is the 627th man who took my virginity away. (P.S. Please don't tell my future fiance. He thinks I'm a virgin).

My problem is pretty simple. I'm always shy and quiet when my future fiance is around. And the real problem is I don't have a clue who that is. And who I think it is changes every year. When I'm alone, it's easier. I'm married to the keyboard. And I'm a little disappointed that you weren't a little more observant. I don't actually have a Tristan Baldwin picture collection. But wasn't it obvious while we were eating that I had my 2018 future fiance Tristan Baldwin's Official Dildo shoved deep up my ass? (If you are nice to me BVB I will tell you where you can buy one cause I'm sure you wouldn't want to share mine).

https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/support-this-site.132486/page-2#post-1499709 Miami, why don't you just drop it and start sending Guy $50 or $100 a month, okay? Why don't you support this website instead of bitching at me about escorts you don't like or bitching about ideas of how to resist FOSTA? If your goal is to dredge up the past, I asked you to drop it. There is an individual escort who became a menace to this website, lots of clients, lots of escorts, my friends, and me. Lots of people were kind to him and tried to help him, and he fucked with all of us. So if that makes me a kind-hearted moron, fine. There are many fine people on this website, starting with the Guy who runs it, who were kind to the asshole, and got lies and attacks in return. Is your point that your distrust of him turned out to be right? Do you want an award because you disliked him from the start, and didn't want to give him a chance? I'll give you an award if that's what you want. You were real adept at dishing it out to him. If your goal is to question my support of Jeffrey and Rentboy, fuck you. Let me repeat, fuck you. Let me repeat, fuck you. You are a traitor. I'm proud of the fact that when the federal government tried to shut Rentboy down, I was one of the people who fought back. My organizing support and my GoFundMe account for his legal defense counted for about shit. But at least some people stood up for our community, and for a website that was used every day by lots and lots and lots of people I know. https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/rentboy-com-bust-im-an-escort-not-a-terrorist-so-get-out-of-my-pants/#gs.=M97dYo More important, the New York Times editorialized against the Rentboy shutdown. National LGBTQ organizations characterized it as a needless attack on the Gay community. Even the judge who sentenced Jeffrey said she was troubled having to send him to jail. She realized his website provided a service lots of people like you wanted, even though it ran afoul of a dated prostitution law. You didn't lift a finger to defend him. You just bitched. I offer no apology for what I did. Why don't you apologize for being a whiny little bitch who likes to use this website to piss and moan, but won't help defend when we are under attack? I don't recall you contributing to Rentboy's legal defense. Now, two years later, you want to dredge up one of the many lies the asshole who I won't name made up about escorts. He said lots of shit about me that was untrue, like I was being foreclosed on. His lies about my efforts to help Jeffrey were specifically intended to hurt me and one of my escort friends. He even managed to drag Rentmen into it. That was really stupid, because it then gave me a way to discredit him to Rentmen, directly. Which I did. So I'm 1000 % proud of my actions in this matter. Now we have a much bigger threat, in the name of FOSTA. The fact that DHS took down Rentboy and got away with it - even though there was some pushback from the Gay community - was a mixed bag. If they paid attention, they might have concluded that they don't want to get up the ass of members of the LGBTQ community who feel vulnerable. In their floor speeches, Senators Schumer and Blumenthal specifically said that FOSTA wasn't meant to go after vulnerable LGBTQ communities, or websites that help "commercial sex workers" sort out how to protect themselves and others from violence and harm. So presumably you could take that as assurance that their efforts to go after sex traffickers of women and children is not targeted at Gay people like us. I was at a really fun party of escorts and people who hire them last weekend. And while I may have had one too many margaritas, I just didn't notice any sex traffickers lurking in the bushes. Now you are asking, again, for a reasonable explanation of my GoFundMe account to support Jeffrey? Are you saying that looks "questionable?" Or are you saying my donations to this website look "questionable?" Here's my point, asshole. Why don't you just stop being a whiny little bitch and make a monthly donation to this website, okay? Why don't you provide a reasonable explanation of how you want to come here to bitch and moan, but you won't lift a finger or donate a penny to actually defend this community? If you want my two cents, every Gay escort in America should be talking about organizing locally, just like our female colleagues are actually doing - right now. https://survivorsagainstsesta.org/june-2-iwd/ We should be figuring out how to resist a stupid law that will probably do more harm than good in the long run. It is definitely not a law that is appreciated by the kind Gay men that I know make up this community. I realize what we are up against. We lost a vote on the Senate floor 98 to 2. Although Wyden had a separate amendment that got support from dozens of Senators that was a better way to actually fight sex trafficking - by giving DOJ $20 million a year to fight sex traffickers and support sex trafficking victims with things like housing and visas. It's going to take years to sort this mess out. But count me in as one of the ones who will fight it. Now back to the point of this thread, before you launched a personal attack on me. If you don't like the proposal one escort put forward to raise rates, that's fine. I think it is one way some escorts can resist. It's not the way I will resist. I hope there are going to be 1000 paths of resistance. And I hope everyone will join one of them. So how are you going to resist FOSTA, Miami? Or are you just going to whine and bitch and moan? Because I'll defend your freedom of speech and your right to come to this website and be a negative, whiny little bitch. But why don't you instead do some good and go to your bank account's bill pay section right now and send this website a monthly donation? Then you can provide a reasonable explanation of how we as a community need to come together, stop bitching, and focus on how to resist a threat to our survival.

Funny you bring that up. Some guys get to have all the fun, and others are left doing all the work, with little or no gratitude. A lot of the gossip all last weekend was about how sorry everybody felt for poor Purplekow. Others were frolicking in the sun with margaritas and hunky guys. And here you are stuck providing proctological exams to Vin Marco. Knowing you as I do, I'd bet money you even went as far as providing analysis of body fluids, flexibility training, and testing his blood pressure during strenuous activity. Anyways, let me express our community's admiration of you, and your selfless desire to do the heavy lifting. After all, Vin's legs are quite muscular. Lifting them to perform your examination must have truly been a sweat-inducing labor of love.