Riobard

Kkkkk ... it really should be clothing optional, for many reasons. But to clarify, fee structure varies according to in situ attire, in my experience. Clothing is partially and subtly associated with availability and intent aspects of communication, on both client and provider side. If you do not think those factors seep into exchange negotiation we might not be frequenting the same places. I am not attempting to endorse any particular experimentation, but how behaviour patterns evolve is typically related to perceived subjective reward. Sometimes the reinforcement is quantifiable. That is usually a requirement for sustaining my own choices. I have done both towel and streetclothes in bordels, eventually settling on the latter. Further, the dressed garoto upticks appeal for me. My own simplistic clothing projects a tad ambivalence while as wearer I salaciously or diffidently (who cares which) signal interest through other levels of presentation. This all happens very quickly so as not to squander time for whom the clock is important. There are other eroticized aspects of attire on either side that escalate my excitement, nothing to do with garment fetishism. I like the prospect to tease me through and under conventional fabric barriers and I like to discover him through a bit of archeological excavation. I like us both to work a little and build up to the main course, with broad yet pragmatic distance between starting blocks and finish line. If you think this is quirky, realize we have all done the same outside of the 117-type setting. And of course, the choreography can help substitute for limits imposed by language proficiency. Unless creatively replicating the dance of the 7 veils, towel removal is a split-second strip. Why the rush? There is already enough push for the Gatorade, rinse, suck and fuck routine without totally having to capitulate to sterile cookie-cutter experiences. What floats your boat may be a big yawn for me and vice versa. But I would never summarily dismiss your preference to look like you just emerged from the shower, especially if it has utility beyond convenience and conformism. I suspect it doesn't. The sole thing in common with the footballer referenced is a single 7-letter R name. Latbear posed the question. I sense he got more than he bargained for. Bottom line: no restriction or inadequate rationale for either style choice. If you still fail to grasp why clothing can add an edge at the personal level, no explanation possible. Not for lack of trying.

Kkkkkk ... when you tire of the unicorn, what species next? I am stumped.

A ruling in T&T on recently challenged anal sex criminalization (illegal though rarely enforced, any 2 people either gender) comes down in a few days.

Enjoy Iguaçu! Lovely.

Yes, in several Caribbean nations. But be grateful living in the western world. Also reflected in highly disproportionate STI rates. Just be careful. Maybe consider Dominican Republic to avoid the legal risks.

Love the quote, but his insightful logic is up against the legally formalized counterargument that central to the ills of commercial sex and its definition is that clients are solicited indiscriminantly. Nonpaid hook-ups come with more discretionary and empowered selectivity, notwithstanding that providers have the prerogative of client selectivity. But again, conflict theory repudiates the notion that female sex workers' screening methods are analogous to the choice factor intrinsic to noncompensated sex. Just another illiustration of the challenges to dismantling vice law and its theoretical underpinnings. If my life depended on winning the debate in these times I might take the criminalization position, antithetical to my values. None of this impacts much on me ... I average a day per year on U.S. soil, but I am somewhat riveted.

Jamaica ... hmmmm ... clack click clack click ... erm, computah says No. Commercial sex illegal but "tolerated". Sodomy/buggery punishable by life imprisonment. Me not likey that combo. Just be sure to wiki before you sticky.

Oh virgins like aubergines?

I will PM "Jack" and remind him. Spring still ongoing.

Me shocked! Such rigidity unlike you. Eyebrows knit, gaze upwards, rubbing chin. I do not go to saunas though I fuck garotos at the places loosely called "saunas". I don't get bent out of shape or inflexible about the shorthand nomenclature used to label these venues. As I opined before, they are hybrids of establishments, and I now append this ... establishments conceptualized within a USAmericocentric context. Diehard positions about it can be little more than amusing. Let me riddle you this: I like my body just fine but the nuances of complex commercial sex mating rituals there pretty much supplement the cost of the wardrobe I wear while enjoying my time at a comfort and preferential level on my terms. Clothing projects a little bit of messaging that never yields 'disadvantage Riobard'. Not that money is a huge factor or motivator for me. Only a minor consideration in a place geared to feeding libido. Earlier joking aside, I wholeheartedly agree with the axiom regarding not sweating about your body, though your body should sweat without clothing in the sweat areas.

Internal contradiction: shortsighted support for sodomy criminalization positioned in tandem with sodomy (conjugal intimacy) as a requirement to verify same-sex couple definitional criteria for immigration purposes. Sorry ... cannot make it any gomorrah clear than that. Sexually green couple? Green card more out of reach.

As well, a central basis for sponsoring a foreign national same-sex spouse is evidence that oodles of conjugal cornholing occurs!!!! Stupidity is truly our undoing.

Downright viaggravating.

And little more than a decade previous to gay marriage legalization one-third (!) of the Supreme Court justices voted against rolling back sodomy law. (I neglected to mention earlier.) Many of us will not see commercial sex decriminalized in our lifetime.

I think that consumers where commercial sex is illegal invest considerable psychological capital suppressing the stark reality that the terrain is peppered here and there with tripwires of prosecution and associated consequences. These defenses are difficult to shore up at a time when vice law is shoved into our faces. The anxiety is naturalistic and realistic, for now. When consumers became indictable in neighbouring Canada 3 years ago barely a blip was registered. And law enforcement certainly did not go full-SWAT on it. Any site containing the non-neutral non-inocuous moniker "boy toy" is now going to raise more eyebrows and perk up the wrong ears more than ever. It worked fine for a long time. It does not merit internal criticism but is worth being vigilant about in these turbulent times. Any language legitimately colloquial is twistable and spinnable in the wrong hands.

If 117 garotos do not meet your standards, the day of the week at MR will not be too relevant. Depends on your tastes.

Some of us prefer a more drawn out process working towards the creamy centre. Give me a surfer beach over a naturist beach

Could be same guy ... what are the chances of a quantity as large as 2 visitors being jaded about 117 within the same time frame?

Sodomy laws were struck down by the US Supreme Court merely 15 years ago. This was serendipitous because the right people at the right time took up the cause of Lawrence v Texas. He and friends were partying hard, police responded to a domestic-type dust-up, and a prosecutor elected to indict for fucking. The plaintiffs were not at all sophisticated but interest groups decided to carry appeal to the top because it was high time to bring law up to snuff with the depathologizing of homosexuality formalized by the APA decades earlier. The subsequent ruling precedent confers a glimmer hope ... the fact that a governing majority considers an act to be immoral is an insufficient reason to uphold a law prohibiting the practice. This would essentially be the backbone of decriminalizing consensual sex for consideration between a male distributor and a male consumer. Leveraging with politicians will likely be ineffective. Only high level arbiters of justice have the intelligence and will take the time to process through the division of popular theories regarding prostitution. Conflict theory is the model that is widely cherry-picked by conservatives and feminists alike ...the notion that women are sexually objectified in a patriarchal society. This perspective coheres beautifully with current news cycles and exerts prominence because it seems true because it sounds true. But of course falls flat in relation to M2M performative labour. So it would have to be formally declared as lacking relevance for cases of male homosexual consensual commercial sex. Once debunked by authorities with half a brain, potentially that opens up space for other theoretical frameworks to balance out the overweighting of conflict theory. Examples, functionalism and symbolic interactionism ... commercial sex as mutually beneficial alternative, justification for consensual sexual behaviour forms that do not emanate from inequity and exploitation. One party or a conjoint party of two or more males charged with the related offense would need to fight it to the bitter end with substantial infrastructure support. It will be a challenge to mobilize the same degree of support that occurred following the travesty of Texans charged with sodomy not so long ago. And for a substantial number of liberals even, an abhorrence of prostitution is bred in the bone. It is deemed to be psychologically immature and interactionally lazy. They might not strongly support criminalization but won't be eager to help push a boulder up the mountain in favour of M2M impunity. But I believe that an appeals-level action is the most viable concrete hope for a partial (subgroup) or full repeal of commercial vice law. Expert testimonials from male commercial sex workers would need to be provided by men who are viewed as stereotypically male, albeit a strategy pandering to misguided notions of conventional masculinity. One struggle at a time. Keep it tight. Optically manipulated to reduce the risk of diluting the central thesis with other social causes. Freedom of speech advertising is a separate though related question.

I will try out Adan for the first time later next month. It so happens that my apartment will be a few minutes stroll away in Malasaña.

Reading that other platform's thread's proposal was like going down the proverbial rabbit hole. And the main advocates are providers I would not go near even if I were the one paid half a G. They are entirely unrepresentative of what all other consumers I know go for. I would sooner fuck a subterranean Roger Rabbit before clawing my way back up and out. That's all folks.

You are a toddler in Brasil sauna years.

They are a hybrid of bathouse and bar. Stripped to towel optional. I am often dressed even starting out with a programa in a private suite, often undressing and a quick shower there as opposed to the communal bathing. The temperature can be chilly in some areas. The other difference is you don't walk the halls where the suites are located. You only see into a suite when you go into one with a garoto. The cruising is done in the common areas. A little different at Thermas in Barcelona where much of the cruising is in the suite corridors though you are not hooking up with someone who is stretched out on the mattress looking. And where towel or bathrobe is mandatory. Though frankly I cannot remember 100% what club dispenses robes if you prefer one ... I think it is Thermas.

Or in a Lucas Kazan solo as Tiago ...

If you want he will perform at your bridal shower ... Lohran +55 (21) 98134-0542