411 on Jaxtonwheeler

[DunwoodyGuy]

9 minutes ago, Danny-Darko said:

I'm sorry, is English not your first language that you don't understand the reference made and the context? I wouldn't know how else to explain it to you and others that can't follow. Anyhoo, I made my point as clear as possible. Why beat a dead horse, right? 🙄

English is indeed my Mother Tongue. As Shakespeare said, "I do desire we may be better strangers. More of your conversation would infect my brain."

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

5 hours ago, Danny-Darko said:

How often does anybody greet an escort and start discussing politics and social issues before the sesson??? 🙄

So far, >99% of escort I've hired have revealed themselves to be capitalists, each setting his own price.   There was the one rare escort who revealed himself to be socialist: first he provided his services and then allowed me to pay "whatever I can afford" at the end.

[+ Gar1eth]

On 3/22/2026 at 7:52 AM, ManTouch said:

I'd recommend checking out his twitter page (linked in his ad) before hiring.  Definitely know I'd never hire him.  https://x.com/OGJaxtonWheeler

I would never have hired him as on the whole I don't/didnt  hire straight tops-or straight bottoms-at least not knowingly (a few might have slipped through, and there was that guy from Philadelphia that I was mightily tempted too hire but ultimately didn't).  And I am doubly glad of that now that I've read his Twitter. 

On 3/22/2026 at 10:43 AM, Danny-Darko said:

I appreciate the links provided. I'd hire him, since I don't hire escorts to engage in ideological nor socio-political discussions. The hour I hire them for is for man-to-man sex. Nothing else! Their personal views on any given subject just don't come into play. Neither would nor should mine. After all, I'm not reaching out to them to date them nor seeking any type of relationship with them. As long as they are clean, professional and do the job they were hired to do, I don't care how they feel about anything. Just like any other service provider I hire for anything else. All I care about is that they are good at what they do and satisfy my needs for the money I pay them. RM shouldn't been seen as a social networking or dating app. If he had any issue with me as a client, I trust he'd let me know and I'd know we weren't a match. I can't count the ones I've not rehired for whatever reason. 🙄

I'll have to disagree with your point of view-and not even respectfully. That kind of filth I saw on his Twitter (X)  feed doesn't need to be promoted. Hiring him and giving him money just gives him the wherewithal to spread his filth. Why would you want to support that?

 

And yes if I knew a repairman -even the best in the city with those kind of ideas-and I had a broken refrigerator-I'd chose a less skilled repairman. It comes down to how do we want the world to be. And why would you (or at least myself) want to actively support evil. 
 

But of course you're free to do what you like because. The interesting thing is Jaxton wouldn't return the favor. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Gar1eth

[Danny-Darko]

16 minutes ago, purplekow said:

It is how we act on the information that we have that measures us as human beings.  Not knowing his beliefs is one thing. Knowing them and hiring him anyway, is quite another.  I have told this in the past.  I had a patient come in to my walk in center and he seemed as though he were a perfectly attractive twenty something with a minor medical problem.  During the course of the examination, I went to listen to his lungs and he had a very large swastika tattoo on his back.  I continued the examination and treated him as I would any other patient.   As he was leaving, I told him that while he seemed to be a very nice young man, he would be receiving a letter from us that he should find another medical care provider as we would not be caring for him after 30 days of that notice.  I very explicitly told him that his tattoo was so offensive to me, that I did not believe I could look past that.   He confronted me for it and I simply said, I will not offer care to someone to whom I can not offer care confidently and compassionately and that tattoo caused me to think that would be the case if I continued caring for him.  

If I happened upon someone in a more dire straight, I would not turn them away no matter their beliefs or tattoos, but given a situtation which there is a professional option, I chose to take it.  

He made some unflattering remark though not vulgar and left.  He never returned.  

I believe that had I not seen that tattoo there would not have been an issue, but once I did, I was faced with a professional and moral dilemma as are the people here who are debating hiring this person or not.  Ultimately, one has to set standards for oneself.  Some people can live with hiring this man and some cannot.  Neither is right nor wrong, only different.  

Sad. Yet we all see it different when the person with the tattoo or symbol goes in to get a service and the provider refuses because their LGBTQ+ tattoo/symbol is offensive to their core beliefs and values! No cake baked either and yet can even get sued because of it! And the Jews who would not be treated in Germany during the nazi regime, blacks in Apartheid South Africa either, or in the south during Jim Crow because it was taboo and offensive. Ah the nuances of our 1st Amendment still amaze me. I suppose you kept your Hippocratic Oath intact since technically "no harm was done". Oh well, I guess services are provided at people's own discretion. What more is there to say? Bigotry is only one way? 

[Danny-Darko]

11 minutes ago, Gar1eth said:

I would never have hired him as I don't/didnt  hire straight tops-or straight bottoms-at least not knowingly. And am doubly glad now that I've read his Twitter. 

I'll have to disagree with your point of view-and not even respectfully. That kind of filth I saw on his Twitter (X)  feed doesn't need to be promoted. Hiring him and giving him money just gives him the wherewithal to spread his filth. Why would you want to support that?

 

And yes if I knew a repairman -even the best in the city with those kind of ideas-and I had a broken refrigerator-I'd chose a less skilled repairman. It comes down to how do we want the world to be. And why would you (or at least myself) want to actively support evil. 
 

But of course you're free to do what you like because. The interesting thing is Jaxton wouldn't return the favor. 

And yet another is missing the point made. I take it you didn't bother with my inicial explanation either. I can't explain the obvious when people insist on not getting the obvious point. Hire/don't hire, I trust you all will survey your providers prior to your sessions. Good luck with that and everybody else you come across!  🙄 

[+ purplekow]

38 minutes ago, Danny-Darko said:

Sad. Yet we all see it different when the person with the tattoo or symbol goes in to get a service and the provider refuses because their LGBTQ+ tattoo/symbol is offensive to their core beliefs and values! No cake baked either and yet can even get sued because of it! And the Jews who would not be treated in Germany during the nazi regime, blacks in Apartheid South Africa either, or in the south during Jim Crow because it was taboo and offensive. Ah the nuances of our 1st Amendment still amaze me. I suppose you kept your Hippocratic Oath intact since technically "no harm was done". Oh well, I guess services are provided at people's own discretion. What more is there to say? Bigotry is only one way? 

There is a difference in denying service once a person is there and informing them that service will not be rendered in the future.  What I did was standard of care for patient's dismissed from a practice for whatever reason.  Care was rendered.  The patient was informed they had 30 days to find another provider and in the interim care would be rendered if needed.  They were addressed in person and in writing.  

As I said, if this were a critically ill patient, they would not have been an issue.  As it was, even a mild illness was treated and the patient given time to make other arrangements.  

I believe there is a significant difference between a doctor and the person for whom he is caring as opposed to a baker and his cake purchaser.   Eventually, the baker won his case at the level of the Supreme court.  

In addition, I suppose I would treat all my large swastika tattoo having patients the same way, they hardly compare in number to the groups you sited. i believe he was the only one in 40 years of medical care.   In the US, they are not a group recognized as a minority deserving of legal protection.  

Similarly, if one opts not to hire an escort once they know information about them which they find offensive, the escort is not being discriminated against, he is reaping the fruit of his actions.  

[+ purplekow]

1 hour ago, Danny-Darko said:

I suppose you kept your Hippocratic Oath intact since technically "no harm was done"

Just suggest you update your references.  Although the Hippocratic oath dates back almost 2500 years, there are parts of it which are regularly ignored.  Updated version speak toward the cogent aspects of it.  But such aspects as not cutting for the stone to proscribe gall bladder surgery have been updated.   

"The Hippocratic Oath today is a modernized, symbolic, and often voluntary pledge taken by medical graduates, focusing on patient welfare, ethics, and privacy rather than the original classical restrictions. Most schools use revised versions, such as the 1964 Lasagna Oath or the Declaration of Geneva, emphasizing humanistic care, confidentiality, and treating the patient rather than just the disease."  

I can understand why you might not have said:  I suppose you kept your Lasagna Oath intact, though it would have been amusing had you done so.

[+ Gar1eth]

On 3/22/2026 at 8:22 PM, Danny-Darko said:

Yes, but do people actually go around interviewing people about their views or all sorts of things before paying for a service or a job??

Often we do. 
 

9 hours ago, Danny-Darko said:

And you ONLY know these things because you read them on his X blog

But that's the point. We do know these things. It would be one thing to hire him, if he had these beliefs, but he didn't  have an X account to espouse them. It's an entirely different situation where you know what he is. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Gar1eth