stevenkesslar

There's probably as many different models as there are people. The better question is, what's your stereotype?
 
My stereotype is of a "kept man" who relies on one person for primary support, whether that's money, housing, food, helping them get through school or start a business, or some combination of the above.
 
"Kept" does not necessarily mean "exclusive" as opposed to "primary." It doesn't necessarily include sex, as opposed to companionship, but it probably does.
 
Those are my stereotypes, at least.

Boy, it's nice to be able to agree with the Baron for a change.
 
I can't comment on "Sugar Daddy" per se, but I can comment on "Sugar Friend."
 
Another word that I don't like that hits the same idea is "polyamory."
 
Or arguably, another word that describes the same thing is dysfunction, but if so I have set up some pretty enduring dysfunctional relationships with clients.
 
I've had and have a number of clients that I've known for, in a number of cases, over a decade. The boundaries between "client" and "friend" and "on the clock" and "off the clock" are fluid in that all of them at one point or another have crossed the line, all in different ways. It sounds like self-serving bullshit, but I can say some of my best friends are clients, just like I know teachers and business people and other professionals who can say some of their best friends are colleagues. In some cases the paid relationship morphed into simply friendships, in other cases it endures as "paid" relatioships with dollars and strings attached, at least most of the time.
 
The "Sugar Daddy" model is tried and true throughout the ages and the downsides are the ones Baron points to. In particular, it is likely to have a relatively short shelf life. "Sugar Friend" is a different thing, and I think one main difference is that it allows both parties way more psychological (not to mention physical) space in the context of a sort of committed relationship, although the commitment is never formalized in any way. That's actually probably a good thing too, because the commitment to continue being "friends with benefits" is basically as good as the relationship itself, which I think is as it should be.
 
It also probably helps that I'm a bit over the hill and my clients are even more mature than I am. Yeah, it sucks to get older. But guess what? In youth and beauty, wisdom is rare.

Boy, it's nice to be able to agree with the Baron for a change.
 
I can't comment on "Sugar Daddy" per se, but I can comment on "Sugar Friend."
 
Another word that I don't like that hits the same idea is "polyamory."
 
Or arguably, another word that describes the same thing is dysfunction, but if so I have set up some pretty enduring dysfunctional relationships with clients.
 
I've had and have a number of clients that I've known for, in a number of cases, over a decade. The boundaries between "client" and "friend" and "on the clock" and "off the clock" are fluid in that all of them at one point or another have crossed the line, all in different ways. It sounds like self-serving bullshit, but I can say some of my best friends are clients, just like I know teachers and business people and other professionals who can say some of their best friends are colleagues. In some cases the paid relationship morphed into simply friendships, in other cases it endures as "paid" relatioships with dollars and strings attached, at least most of the time.
 
The "Sugar Daddy" model is tried and true throughout the ages and the downsides are the ones Baron points to. In particular, it is likely to have a relatively short shelf life. "Sugar Friend" is a different thing, and I think one main difference is that it allows both parties way more psychological (not to mention physical) space in the context of a sort of committed relationship, although the commitment is never formalized in any way. That's actually probably a good thing too, because the commitment to continue being "friends with benefits" is basically as good as the relationship itself, which I think is as it should be.
 
It also probably helps that I'm a bit over the hill and my clients are even more mature than I am. Yeah, it sucks to get older. But guess what? In youth and beauty, wisdom is rare.

Boy, it's nice to be able to agree with the Baron for a change.
 
I can't comment on "Sugar Daddy" per se, but I can comment on "Sugar Friend."
 
Another word that I don't like that hits the same idea is "polyamory."
 
Or arguably, another word that describes the same thing is dysfunction, but if so I have set up some pretty enduring dysfunctional relationships with clients.
 
I've had and have a number of clients that I've known for, in a number of cases, over a decade. The boundaries between "client" and "friend" and "on the clock" and "off the clock" are fluid in that all of them at one point or another have crossed the line, all in different ways. It sounds like self-serving bullshit, but I can say some of my best friends are clients, just like I know teachers and business people and other professionals who can say some of their best friends are colleagues. In some cases the paid relationship morphed into simply friendships, in other cases it endures as "paid" relatioships with dollars and strings attached, at least most of the time.
 
The "Sugar Daddy" model is tried and true throughout the ages and the downsides are the ones Baron points to. In particular, it is likely to have a relatively short shelf life. "Sugar Friend" is a different thing, and I think one main difference is that it allows both parties way more psychological (not to mention physical) space in the context of a sort of committed relationship, although the commitment is never formalized in any way. That's actually probably a good thing too, because the commitment to continue being "friends with benefits" is basically as good as the relationship itself, which I think is as it should be.
 
It also probably helps that I'm a bit over the hill and my clients are even more mature than I am. Yeah, it sucks to get older. But guess what? In youth and beauty, wisdom is rare.

Boy, it's nice to be able to agree with the Baron for a change.
 
I can't comment on "Sugar Daddy" per se, but I can comment on "Sugar Friend."
 
Another word that I don't like that hits the same idea is "polyamory."
 
Or arguably, another word that describes the same thing is dysfunction, but if so I have set up some pretty enduring dysfunctional relationships with clients.
 
I've had and have a number of clients that I've known for, in a number of cases, over a decade. The boundaries between "client" and "friend" and "on the clock" and "off the clock" are fluid in that all of them at one point or another have crossed the line, all in different ways. It sounds like self-serving bullshit, but I can say some of my best friends are clients, just like I know teachers and business people and other professionals who can say some of their best friends are colleagues. In some cases the paid relationship morphed into simply friendships, in other cases it endures as "paid" relatioships with dollars and strings attached, at least most of the time.
 
The "Sugar Daddy" model is tried and true throughout the ages and the downsides are the ones Baron points to. In particular, it is likely to have a relatively short shelf life. "Sugar Friend" is a different thing, and I think one main difference is that it allows both parties way more psychological (not to mention physical) space in the context of a sort of committed relationship, although the commitment is never formalized in any way. That's actually probably a good thing too, because the commitment to continue being "friends with benefits" is basically as good as the relationship itself, which I think is as it should be.
 
It also probably helps that I'm a bit over the hill and my clients are even more mature than I am. Yeah, it sucks to get older. But guess what? In youth and beauty, wisdom is rare.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/fa265a36425e13682317666c2d8a66ff/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo2_r1_250.gif http://33.media.tumblr.com/c4522dd9312d54a1eb9fd1376f03f328/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo3_r1_400.gif
 
Obviously a bad casting choice.
 
No fucking way I'm sitting through a few hours of a movie with this guy in it.
 
Magic Mike, anyone?

Yes. I saw it years ago. It wasn't memorable, either. Now we get two movies made about us, neither of which are all that good.
 
I think I'll stick with the revamped and 3D version of "The Wizard Of Oz." A friend of mine treated me to that recently, and it was really enjoyable. Just hearing Judy sing "Over The Rainbow" gives me a good dose of gay, whether she actually caused Stonewall or not.
 
Here's another pretty balanced article I just found that quotes several people that actually were present at the original:
 
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/25/stonewall-film-gay-rights-activists-give-their-verdict
 
There's lots of grounds for irony and compassion in this, I think.
 
First, Stonewall wasn't Stonewall. As was mentioned above, it was one of a series of bar closings. Perhaps it lit a fire in a way others didn't, but the whole idea that Stonewall is somehow THAT BIG and all these other events mean nothing and are long forgotten is drama. It's all part of our history.
 
Second, the director, Roland Emmerich, is probably proving he's a better filmmaker than most gay activists are. Here's one quote from the article above by a former Gay street youth: "This story really needs a series, because each character needs to be developed more." Really? Somehow, I feel like Roland Emmerich might have judged correctly that most Americans who spend at most 2 hours watching the destruction of the planet by a new Ice Age or aliens probably won't go spend 6 hours watching a series of tender portraits of Gay street youth. The film sounds deeply flawed, which is what I would have expected from a Director of disaster flicks, but it doesn't really turn history on its head.
 
Third, the reaction to the film says everything about where we are at today, and very little about where we are at in 1969, when anybody and everybody in the LGBTQ rainbow was mostly considered a pervert and criminal. Here's a quote from the article above that I think really nails that point: "While Stonewall wasn’t as gut-wrenchingly terrible as I expected, it was a disappointment in many ways, mostly because Emmerich felt he had to have a generic, “straight-acting” white dude from Indiana as the protagonist so straight people could “feel for him.” But thanks to the Stonewall Riots, most straight people know a gay person and can sympathise with a gay character. As the movie’s production values painfully make clear, this isn’t 1969 – mainstream audiences can (and should) deal with the kind of complex, diverse LGBT characters television has been churning out for the past few years."
 
Fourth, to sum it up, the main criticism of the movie is it focuses on a pretty white twentysomething, to the exclusion of everybody else. Hmmm. Didn't we have a debate earlier this year about something like that? You guys probably learned your lesson and are way into the diversity thing now. Good for deej and me, since we get the pretty twentysomething boy all to ourselves. We'll let you know how it goes.
 
http://33.media.tumblr.com/fa265a36425e13682317666c2d8a66ff/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo2_r1_250.gif http://33.media.tumblr.com/c4522dd9312d54a1eb9fd1376f03f328/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo3_r1_400.gif http://38.media.tumblr.com/41f07cd57f8aefbd532e6568f6a06c7f/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo1_r1_400.gif
 
Seriously, the reaction to the film is causing a reaction in me. This is arguably really apples and oranges, but it reminds me of the ton of abuse that was directed at leaders of the LGBTQ community in California back in 2008, when we lost the state vote on same sex marriage. While it may be true that a bunch of really good people whose strong suit was practicing law were in fact a little out of their league when it came to running a statewide issue campaign, it floored me how harsh our own community was to its leaders, simply because they had the audacity to try and fail. It doesn't surprise me that Emmerich would be out of his league telling a story like this, and might have failed, but ironically the way he chose to tell it led to a debate that will likely raise more awareness than the movie itself will. Good for him!

... Masturbate
 
They cum just by knowing you guys worship them like this.

Very well written Steven, and much to contemplate.

Yes. I saw it years ago. It wasn't memorable, either. Now we get two movies made about us, neither of which are all that good.
 
I think I'll stick with the revamped and 3D version of "The Wizard Of Oz." A friend of mine treated me to that recently, and it was really enjoyable. Just hearing Judy sing "Over The Rainbow" gives me a good dose of gay, whether she actually caused Stonewall or not.
 
Here's another pretty balanced article I just found that quotes several people that actually were present at the original:
 
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/sep/25/stonewall-film-gay-rights-activists-give-their-verdict
 
There's lots of grounds for irony and compassion in this, I think.
 
First, Stonewall wasn't Stonewall. As was mentioned above, it was one of a series of bar closings. Perhaps it lit a fire in a way others didn't, but the whole idea that Stonewall is somehow THAT BIG and all these other events mean nothing and are long forgotten is drama. It's all part of our history.
 
Second, the director, Roland Emmerich, is probably proving he's a better filmmaker than most gay activists are. Here's one quote from the article above by a former Gay street youth: "This story really needs a series, because each character needs to be developed more." Really? Somehow, I feel like Roland Emmerich might have judged correctly that most Americans who spend at most 2 hours watching the destruction of the planet by a new Ice Age or aliens probably won't go spend 6 hours watching a series of tender portraits of Gay street youth. The film sounds deeply flawed, which is what I would have expected from a Director of disaster flicks, but it doesn't really turn history on its head.
 
Third, the reaction to the film says everything about where we are at today, and very little about where we are at in 1969, when anybody and everybody in the LGBTQ rainbow was mostly considered a pervert and criminal. Here's a quote from the article above that I think really nails that point: "While Stonewall wasn’t as gut-wrenchingly terrible as I expected, it was a disappointment in many ways, mostly because Emmerich felt he had to have a generic, “straight-acting” white dude from Indiana as the protagonist so straight people could “feel for him.” But thanks to the Stonewall Riots, most straight people know a gay person and can sympathise with a gay character. As the movie’s production values painfully make clear, this isn’t 1969 – mainstream audiences can (and should) deal with the kind of complex, diverse LGBT characters television has been churning out for the past few years."
 
Fourth, to sum it up, the main criticism of the movie is it focuses on a pretty white twentysomething, to the exclusion of everybody else. Hmmm. Didn't we have a debate earlier this year about something like that? You guys probably learned your lesson and are way into the diversity thing now. Good for deej and me, since we get the pretty twentysomething boy all to ourselves. We'll let you know how it goes.
 
http://33.media.tumblr.com/fa265a36425e13682317666c2d8a66ff/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo2_r1_250.gif http://33.media.tumblr.com/c4522dd9312d54a1eb9fd1376f03f328/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo3_r1_400.gif http://38.media.tumblr.com/41f07cd57f8aefbd532e6568f6a06c7f/tumblr_nn2a86lg8y1st09qzo1_r1_400.gif
 
Seriously, the reaction to the film is causing a reaction in me. This is arguably really apples and oranges, but it reminds me of the ton of abuse that was directed at leaders of the LGBTQ community in California back in 2008, when we lost the state vote on same sex marriage. While it may be true that a bunch of really good people whose strong suit was practicing law were in fact a little out of their league when it came to running a statewide issue campaign, it floored me how harsh our own community was to its leaders, simply because they had the audacity to try and fail. It doesn't surprise me that Emmerich would be out of his league telling a story like this, and might have failed, but ironically the way he chose to tell it led to a debate that will likely raise more awareness than the movie itself will. Good for him!

Not to hijack this thread- but Stonewall wasn't the first action of this type. The police abuse of gay people in other parts of the country were causing a incidents in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Here is the account of the events at the Black Cat Tavern in the Silverlake neighborhood of L.A. 1967:
 
The bar was established in November 1966.
 
Police raid and LGBT demonstrations
Two months later, on the night of New Year's 1967, several plain-clothes LAPD police officers infiltrated the Black Cat Tavern.[3] After arresting several patrons for kissing as they celebrated the occasion,[4] the undercover police officers began beating several of the patrons[5] and ultimately arrested thirteen patrons and three bartenders.[5] This created a riot in the immediate area that expanded to include the bar across Sanborn Avenue called New Faces, where officers knocked down the owner, a woman, and beat two bartenders unconscious.[6]
 
Several days later, this police action incited a civil demonstration of over 200 attendees to protest the raids. The demonstration was organized by a group called PRIDE (Personal Rights in Defense and Education).[7] The protest was met by squadrons of armed policemen.[3] Two of the men arrested for kissing were later convicted under state law and registered as sex offenders. The men appealed, asserting their right of equal protection under the law, but the U.S. Supreme Court did not accept their case.[8]
 
It was from this event that the publication The Advocate began as a newspaper for PRIDE (Personal Rights in Defense and Education).[9] Together the raid on the Black Cat Tavern and later the raid on The Patch in August 1968 inspired the formation of the Metropolitan Community Church (led by Pastor Troy Perry).[10][11]
 
These events pre-dated the Stonewall riots by over two years.[8]

I came out in 1970, and got involved in the Gay Liberation movement right from the start. One of the discussions you heard most frequently was whether we should suppress Drag Queens, Transexuals, and effeminate men from appearing at demonstrations. There were always "normal" looking guys who could "pass" ( in the parlance of the time), who did not want obvious Queens to be on display as part of the movement. When we founded a Gay Students Union at my University, one our first actions was to found a speakers bureau to send panels to speak to classes, and other student organizations. There was a huge battle within our organization about who would be acceptable to send out to represent us. It was a very turbulent time. When it was mentioned that the Stonewall riots were largely fought by drag queens and Transexuals, some people did not want to believe it.
 
On one hand I'm glad that so much has changed, and the strides our community has made. When I see two young guys, or young women walking hand in hand, and being affectionate it makes me smile. By the same token, young people today are so ignorant of what life used to be like, and the efforts, that have been made by so many men and women to achieve the freedom that so many take for granted. Some of those people were ones we would be very uncomfortable around today.

After you throw him out, send him over to my place.

http://www.stonewallvets.org/ As I wrote in a previous post..we lived behind Stonewall on W 10th St....we were in PTown that weekend....No one will ever capture the real neighborhood...the people.....movies almost never do give accurate portraits..but maybe encourage questions...
 
 
 
http://www.stonewallvets.org/swpin.jpg

Hate to be a dick about this guys, but let's have a big dose of historical reality.
 
It's all very nice that right now, before the movie has opened, there's 25,000 people that have signed a petition to boycott it, because it does not do an accurate job of representing the history of Stonewall. The very fact that there can be a movie, and that it can be that controversial, and that people can be upset that drag queens and lesbians are not being given the respect they deserve, is itself a huge sign of progress.
 
If you go back to the year Stonewall happened, let's remember that there was only one word to accurately describe the people the movie does not portray adequately: criminals. They were all criminals, and as criminals they all deserved to have their asses thrown in jail. Period. That was what the law said, and that was the law the cops were enforcing.
 
The Stonewall Inn was breaking the law because it did not have a state liquor license. Same sex sexual activity was not legal in New York until 1980. Same sex marriage became legal in New York in 2011. At the time the Stonewall riots actually occurred, it was a small thing, that did not get much press coverage, at least according to Wikipedia. My guess is it likely got way less coverage than the Rentboy.com bust.
 
Speaking of which:
 
https://www.change.org/p/new-us-attorney-general-stop-the-anti-gay-prosecution-of-rentboy-com
 
https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/daddysreviews-clients-help-rentboy-staff
 
Challenge me if you think I'm wrong, but nobody alive in 1969 could have predicted that Stonewall would become the symbol for LGBTQ rights and for resistance that it is today. What was known at the time was that a bunch of criminals got busted, and my guess is most people thought they deserved to get busted, because they were worse than criminal. They were sick perverts. That's what a majority of Americans thought in 1969 about nice White homosexuals, not to mention Black drag queens.
 
From that perspective, we're way ahead of ourselves on the Rentboy.com bust. Nobody is saying rentboys or the people who hire them are sick perverts. But its a measure of reality to me, and the way history works, that 25,000 people will sign a petition to boycott a flawed movie made by a Gay Director about Stonewall, and meanwhile a petition that involves a Gay escort website and 7 people arrested for creating a "global criminal enterprise," whose lives are left dangling in the wind, including gay activists like Hawk, is having a hard time.
 
A lot of people don't necessarily want to be on the cutting edge of history when it actually involves taking a risk. Half a century later, when it's as safe as deciding whether you want to go see the Hollywood version of it, and whether you want salt on your popcorn, it's a bit easier.
 
I'm saying this partly to put a crappy movie in perspective, and partly to refocus on Rentboy, and also actually as a way to pat us all on the back. I have no idea how this Rentboy thing is gonna play out, any more than anyone in 1969 really knew that a shitty little bar in New York would become an eternal symbol for LGBTQ rights and lifestyles.
 
But like it or not, we have a front seat view to a little piece of history with Rentboy. To muddy the waters between Hollywood and reality even more, a few year's ago I read a really gripping profile of the SEAL that actually killed Bin Laden:
 
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26351/man-who-shot-osama-bin-laden-0313/
 
The title itself says it all: "The Man Who Killed Bin Laden.....Is Screwed." Hollywood and history are not the same thing, are they?
 
This is a sad and fascinating article, but here's perhaps the most poignant part of it, to me, delivered with a perfect sense of historical irony:
 
"The Shooter is sitting next to me at a local movie theater in January, watching Zero Dark Thirty for the first time. He laughs at the beginning of the film about the bin Laden hunt when the screen reads, "Based on firsthand accounts of actual events." His uncle, who is also with us, along with the mentor and the Shooter's wife, had asked him earlier whether he'd seen the film already. "I saw the original," the Shooter said.

The original we are watching is neither as noble nor as dangerous as what was portrayed in Zero Dark Thirty. I'll argue Rentboy is like Stonewall, in that what we have is a bunch of people accused of being criminals, who we actually believe did no harm, and no wrong.
 
Anyways, hope you guys enjoy the movie. You get to see the original.

Having read a number of reviews but not seen the film, an observation. Mr Emmerich seems to have made a fundamental error in making an historical movie, and that is you can't change the basic story of what happened. The way he characterised the white boy from Kansas or Indiana (depending which review at the top or the thread you believe, and that is an indictment of one of the reviewers, but that's a separate discussion) does just that, it didn't happen that way and there are plenty of people still around who know that it didn't happen.
 
There are two ways you can inject fiction into an historical film that will work. One is what Peter Weir did in The Year of Living Dangerously where a fictional story was wrapped around a depiction of the Soeharto coup in 1965. The other is the way Costa-Gavras made Z and State of Siege that respectively told the stories of the colonels' coup in Greece in 1967 and the kidnapping of a US Embassy officer by the Tupamaros in Uruguay in the 1970s. He didn't misprepresent what happened, rather he told a story that fitted into a realistic protrayal of what had happened. Emmerich could have set his story against the background of what really happened but instead chose to change the history. I wish he hadn't.

I'll go with your first instinct on this one, BVB. The caveats are I haven't seen the movie, and it sounds like just as a piece of film it sucks - so far it has a 35 score on Metacritic. Assuming what even a harsh critic points to - that the gay Director self-financed, it is a labor of love, and in the end it is a sympathetic portrayal of the plight of Gay youth, plus there's nice eye candy along the way, I wouldn't be too harsh.
 
In some ways, we can be happy that LGBTQ is mainstream enough that we now even get to have shitty movies made about us. And if they focus too much on the pretty but fictional White eye candy, and the eye candy boy turns out to have a sexual preference for other eye candy, is that really a shocker, especially if you assume the Gay guy who made the film might want it to at least break even?
 
One of my favorite picky bitch things to do after I see a "historical"movie is to research whether what it portrays actually happened. The amazing thing about "McFarland USA" is it was almost 100 % accurate, and the details it left out didn't change the narrative, and so can be easily explained away. I didn't like the fact that they fictionalized the white coach's history to make him look like a loser who had no choice but to take a job in a dump hole, when in fact he came to McFarland fresh out of Pepperdine when it was mostly white. It changed around him, and he obviously went with the flow to help young Mexican American kids achieve the American dream - what's wrong with that? "Selma" was tougher, in that a lot of people felt it completely misrepresented both LBJ, and the politics of inside/outside collaboration that made the civil rights movement so effective.
 
In that regard, the LGBTQ movie that really bothered me, and still does, is Dallas Buyer's Club. Here's why:
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/10/what-dallas-buyers-club-got-wrong-about-the-aids-crisis/
 
I get the fact that Hollywood ought to be able to change facts for dramatic effect. So I'll go with the way they turned a Gay protagonist into a straight homophobe who ended up simply be sympathetic to Gay people. And the movie gets credit for humanizing the character Jared Leno won an Oscar for. And I'm all for the fact that Matthew McConaughey viewed it as great Oscar bait.
 
The bridge too far for me is that it turned the FDA into a villain, and that happened to occur right in the middle of the Obamacare debate, when there was a concerted national attempt by the entire Republican Party to convince people that government involvement in health care sucks. Obamacare and AIDS are apples and oranges, but coming from liberal Hollywood, I thought the message sucked. As the Post article above documents, the actual history is that the FDA went after Ron Woodruff because he sold dying people mostly useless crap. Meanwhile, while they were far from perfect, to me the FDA's efforts to fight a deadly plague that came out of nowhere were in large part commendable. The bizarre thing is that the whole movie demonized the FDA and AZT, and then in the closing credits, like an afterthought, it mentioned - oh, guess what? - AZT in an improved form ended up saving millions of lives. Never mind.
 
Unlike the Dallas Buyer's Club, Stonewall won't win Oscars. Hopefully both will open some minds. For me, given the choice between turning Jeremy Irvine into a young God boy, or turning the FDA into a villain, I'll take Jeremy Irvine in a heartbeat, wearing anything - or even nothing at all.

It will be interesting to here your take on the accuracy of the movie. There are other members who post here (some not as often) that have mentioned they lived in the same neighborhood as Stonewall, and were around the night of the riot. I would love to here from them also. Movies rarely are an accurate reflection of true events, for that I would not fault them. The product has to sell and appeal to a wide range of people. I'm grateful that it is making it to the screen at all. We shall see...

Critics are treating it like a documentary and scoring it for historical accuracy. That's wrong and unfair. It's dramatic fiction told from the perspective of a fictional character created by the filmmaker and scriptwriter to express their intended themes. It should be judged on that basis. I haven't seen the film yet, just the trailor, and I will reserve judgment until I see it.

The pharmaceutical company boss under fire for increasing the price of the drug Daraprim by more than 5,000 percent said Tuesday he will lower the cost of the life-saving medication.
 
Martin Shkreli did not say what the new price would be, but expected a determination to be made over the next few weeks.
 
He told NBC News that the decision to lower the price was a reaction to outrage over the increase in the price of the drug from $13.50 to $750 per pill.

http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_39/1233246/150922-martin-shkreli-jsw-309p_5ecab724533864dd68e5cc0307ffaae7.nbcnews-ux-320-320.jpg
Martin Shkreli, chief investment officer of MSMB Capital Management, sits for a photograph in his office in New York, U.S., on Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2011. MSMB made an unsolicited $378 million takeover bid for Amag Pharmaceuticals Inc. and said it will fire the drugmaker's top management if successful. Paul Taggart / Bloomberg via Getty Images file
 
"Yes it is absolutely a reaction — there were mistakes made with respect to helping people understand why we took this action, I think that it makes sense to lower the price in response to the anger that was felt by people," Shkreli said, 32.
 
Turing Pharmaceuticals of New York bought the drug from Impax Laboratories in August for $55 million and raised the price. Shkreli said Tuesday the price would be lowered to allow the company to break even or make a smaller profit.
 
RELATED: Drug That Fights Potentially Deadly Infection Goes From $13.50 to $750
 
Daraprim fights toxoplasmosis. The infection is particularly dangerous for people who have weakened immune systems, like AIDS patients, as well as for pregnant women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/drug-ceo-will-lower-price-daraprim-after-outrage-n431926

... Masturbate
 
They cum just by knowing you guys worship them like this.

... Masturbate
 
They cum just by knowing you guys worship them like this.

This is a no brainer.
 
"Love Will Keep Us Together." Captain and Tennille.
 
It's not just that the song is trash. It's that President Ford, at the behest of his daughter, invited them to perform at the White House during a state visit by Queen Elizabeth. C & T performed "Muskrat Love," and good old Jerry learned it is un-Queenlike to perform a song about muskrats fucking in front of royalty.
 
It is a wonderful metaphor. If we had gotten this gay discrimination thing out of the way back in the 70's we could have brought so much joy and grace and dignity and good taste to Queens and everyone across the world so much earlier.
 
Besides, it is always natural and important for Americans to try to insult Europeans. Some things are truly timeless.

... Masturbate
 
They cum just by knowing you guys worship them like this.

Oral sex will make your day, but anal sex will make your hole weak.
 
Kevin Slater