Riobard

Fingerprints recorded on entry in EES system as early as 6 months from now ... ETIAS is comparatively a cakewalk. NIGHTMARE! Imagine the queue wait times while exhausted from a long, often sleepless overnight, flight. Anyone here had the misfortune of fingerprint system with a residential building, gym, etc? I have for both. Typically putting tips on a glass surface for a scan. Consistently non-functional for routine subsequent entry thru the turnstile or other mechanism even when it all seems in order at baseline. And there is often the painfully slow process of accompanying data being typed into the system. Since EES will apparently replace passport, I assume the manual data entry approach because no passport means no quickly scannable data. And why one's passport would be not utilized to triangulate data is simply beyond comprehension. And fingers scanned on departure to return home??!! WTF!!?? Airport horror. Europe evidently wants to shut down tourism. This is likely something that should be piloted/trialled. As far as I know, it hasn't. This is just my initial reaction. I am NOT putting myself forward as an expert or as someone who fully grasp these developments.

Small gym bag or knapsack, often doubles as flight carry-on ... double slider zipper with holes large enough in the sliders that the shackle of a small padlock can fit through. Most everything put in except shoes that might be a little soiled. No employee is likely going to try to cut open the bag with a knife or take and stash it for the remainder of his shift.

Part 1: Yes same problem ... it sometimes annoyinging pops up repeatedly while typing. At least I figured out how to disable the sound. Frankly, I don't see the point of this added reaction notification because you see those alerts in the bell icon anyway. Part 2: I don't seem to have that problem. I rarely go to Inbox ... just to see if my own sent msg has been read, I think.

I would add that it is important to have fun, particularly directed to those who obviously have the capacity to creatively soak it up in "safe" play settings, and not be so concerned with entertaining the Board or taking risks to assess risk.

At the risk of sounding contrarian, the relationship is not particularly robust. Sweden's neo-abolitionism is regressive. Feminism has the potential to override sexual liberalism when it comes to commercial sex work. Prostitution is not illegal in many nations that would be considered to be sexually conservative.

Well, Casa Sanchez does appear to be single-friendly after all ...

With apologies, not to overlook Discovery Hotel or Casa Conde Hotel Boutique, also in the area and mentioned by other posters previously, that would serve the same purpose and perhaps even more economically.

I forgot to mention that an Airbnb host typically provides linen for one person, unless you formally stipulated additional legit guests on the reservation. Often, for a week or so, you get the bare minimum and there is no easy system for replenishment. There is a self-service directly across from Apolo Spa Sauna.

PS: I mention NAMBLA not because anyone here referred to it, but because man-boy love advocacy has bled into societal views of gay sex and likely into attitudes about gay men purchasing commercial sex. I also forgot to mention that there is some evidence that attitudes towards prostitution change for the better once it is legalized. Therefore, the nonsexual advocacy focus does not rule out that a general shift in society being more sex-positive follows.

Fair enough. The right to sexual autonomy is the one piece that applies to all providers and clients alike. I do think, though, that the widespread negative attitudes towards Johns and the conflating of buying sex with exploitation and with pedophilia, particularly in terms of views of gay men's role and MO in prostitution, will militate against visibility. NAMBLA is not your friend on this issue, and they may want a place at the table, helping to fuck it up. The message "we want to do what we want with our bodies" is a one-note argument pitted against deeply ingrained moral attitudes. A cursory look at strategic focus does not seem to highlight the value of punters' out-ness, and organized John self-advocacy is unlikely to galvanize society into taking action for fairness. Right-to-work in chosen field, protection and de-stigmatization of commercial sex workers, and pummelling misinformed well-meaning policy makers with academic data-driven educational material appears to be the approach favoured by advocates and their supporters, rather than putting the spotlight on the ickiness of sex. The placard "stay out of my business" or "all sex is good" does not require much intellectual effort and does little to disabuse do-gooders of the false assumptions that promote criminalization or neo-abolitionism. A coordinated effort to reach out individually to lawmakers, your consituency politicians, etc, with well organized and succinct credible data to shift their viewpoint is more challenging but likely to best hit the mark. There must be a way to contribute that helps you suck up remaining in the shadows. I think there is scope for absorption into SWOP, DecrimNY, etc, without raising anxiety that putting a face to punters will detract from the current momentum.

Enjoy! Make sure one of you controls the steering wheel while scanning the Photo file. DUIPimping can be hazardous.

The trick will be to make strange bedfellows compatible bedfellows in a reality where a particular position to shoot for on the gradient from Prohibitionism to Decriminalization may be more realistic or appropriate for MSW versus MSM, or vice versa. Technically, Decriminalization is a long shot at the outset for a nation state in which Prohibitionism currently reigns because it is the most relaxed, extreme, and has minimal precedent globally. It would be fallacy to assume or expect gay men to lobby any more than hetero men for punter advocacy simply because a drive for LGBTQ rights including marriage equality exists and worked. That wave is not so surfable here. The analogous argument here for legal equality, apart from protecting women and self-determination, is to have what particular other countries have, not what the majority of nationals have (as in legal union). However, the American sentiment is not so predisposed to mirroring other nations. Where Prohibitionism exists globally, the USA thought of it first. It would be misguided to pursue an offshoot of sex work legitimacy pertaining specifically to gay men because the leaders and charter challengers risking visibility and putting themselves out there have been, and will continue to be, predominantly female sex workers. It makes the most sense to support that movement because whatever shift in the legal framework occurs will likely depend on that rising up continuing to gain momentum and will (sadly) perhaps benefit the male-to-male faction comparatively more. Piggy-backing on the hetero without confounding decision-makers with the sexual orientation piece may be prudent. One challenge for the gay players will be to reconcile with a possible (initially, anyway) shortfall in progression, a one-step shift to Neo-abolitionism (aka Nordic Model), that drives workers underground to protect clients, a situation far riskier for female than male sex workers. Abolitionism, essentially Neo- plus punters' impunity, is perhaps the level to realistically aim for in the longer term for a country with a huge population. That shift in the legal framework reduces the gender discrepancy in safety. Regulation is costly and unwieldy. New Zealand has the population of Alabama, not much more than Nevada. The larger the country, it seems, the greater the risk of being chopped up jurisdictionally as opposed to uniform Decriminalization. Abolitionism, while appropriate to maintain as a concept but problematic where the loaded term "slavery" buttresses the Criminalization argument, leaves wiggle room to combat trafficking. You have to leave in something that keeps most groups happy. If the legal framework shifts to Legalization and Decriminalization, fine, but I am not sure regulation will be of any use to gay commercial sex. We see a trend towards private ad- and app-based in places like Brazil with a longstanding gay brothel history. I am not sure a regulated brothel model would fly in North America. Moreover, it would be localized, likely state-specific, and leave many punters in the lurch.

I would say for safety and perhaps non-fluency in Spanish, hotel option best, since there are several accessible and ID deposit is required. Private dwelling likely better for expanding selection of guys who are self-conscious about the commercial sex work label.

Casa Sanchez looks quite nice. Though not a 'gay hotel' like Adam, it is apparently gay-owned and gay-friendly, presumably accustomed to same-sex couples using the lower courtyard pool and rooftop hot-tub, outside pool table, etc. However, being gay operated says little about tolerance for the parade of sex work guests for which some of us want an unencumbered privilege. As I reported earlier, locals less comfortable about being seen obviously in a "get down" role in a hotel context might be more easily persuaded to come in for a drink and billiards (how inocuous and macho is that?!) or swim or jacuzzi, breaking the ice, and eventually moving towards the privacy of the room. Similarly, Palacio has a rooftop sunning and pool area. You might even pack a few extra swimsuits. TAU Casa Conde by Paco's (aka Grand) would be a place to which you would have to be more direct inviting the guy to your room, and entering is publicly more visible. While not necessarily a great place to stay, it would be affordable to some as a secondary base exclusively for sex. It is more definably geared for that, for female guests of male punters (but sex hetero tourism is usually highlighted over MSM), though a regular hotel.

Perhaps his experiences of sacrifice putting himself thru school and go-funding his whorehouse helped pave the way for the current generation of working ativos.

Practice safe park cruising. Meaning that if you are not vaccinated against Yellow Fever you will be unique among Paulista dwellers enjoying their parklands. [See update in related thread]

The spike in Yellow Fever seen in the most high-risk season (Dec-May) in 2016-17 and 2017-18 has not been repeated to the same degree so far ... Dec2018-Mar2019 is latest tally period. However, it remains much higher, and mostly in São Paulo, than any year from 1980 up to 2016, notwithstanding that now more than 13 million state Paulistas have been vaccinated. This suggests that YF is still circulating at a higher rate among the host mosquitoes and nonhuman primates. A São Paulo zoo monkey died from it earlier this year.

Positively reviewed 'coming of age' story just released on iTunes

I hope Rodolfo keeps the gym equipment. It is convenient to get a basic improvised workout scheduled in when you are waiting for Mr. Right Now.

Canadians are the worst overstay offenders in the USA volume wise, about 1% of Canadian visitors there, or close to 100,000 annually. Poles can visit Canada under our simple Travel Authorization. Perhaps they are crowding us out. The US is snubbing them unnecessarily.

Great that you are flexible about being paid in drugs.

Oh, I just read that the ETIAS application will arbitrarily be registered within one specific member state for each three-year authorization. There is apparently no centralized integrated registration across the member states. That would explain the requirement to identify first entry. I would guess that the fees are thus specifically streamed in a balanced way among the states rather than chopping them up from one central point of distribution.

One ETIAS requirement that does not make sense is identifying and commiting to a specific member state initial entry point. Since returning home is essentially a 'reset' for subsequent re-entry to Europe, one could make multiple consecutive entries, from outside Schengen, into many different member states as first point. I do not know why the first visit within the three-year authorization should be different. It would seem that the jumping off point is obtaining the authorization. First entry point specificity might make sense for tracking each new visit. Of course, it would be burdensome to apply anew for every deviation from the initial visit first entry point. Perhaps it is a means test, assessing that the person, on initial visit, can identify travel plans with accommodations and financial capability, prove it has been thought out, etc. Then possibly more relaxed assessment for repeat visits. I don't know. Apparently, each country does have its own specific daily means of subsistence standards, but it would be onerous to assess this for each member state entry within a visit. The website is rather poorly designed, with each section essentially repeating the same thing.

At the risk of disturbing the delicate mental processes of rigid, overly literal thinkers, one might consider one's passport as another distinction without a difference, in basic functional terms. I am ancient enough to recall not needing it for some international travel. The main differences are needing it to return to Canada and my Queen explicitly requesting the safe passage abroad of a much younger queen.

I believe the Godwin reference was used simply as an example of the ways a thread can quickly degenerate in the context of disagreement. That he did not choose the exact comparison according to another's standards, or otherwise put forward a different view, does not point to mental instability. I thought he was sufficiently on point. Anyway, now perhaps we have Mvan's Law: As a contentious online discussion continues, the probability of a Bavarian cuckoo clock gif emergence approaches 1. Don't deposit your eggs in our nests, spinning the narrative to defend your point, and expect us all to incubate them. Neither the cuckoo clock nor muezzin is much of a burn, though, as they are simply temporal alerts.