Matt doin bareback

[Guest verymarried]

Does anyone feel a little sad for Matt (see new reviews Mon Jul 24th) who reviewer twotopsinlove explains received his "seed" deep in his bowels bareback? I'd kind of like to see this site do a little more somehow to discourage the kind of activity much of the world has done so much to stop. It seems by publishing this kind of stuff more of us with little willpower of our own, like me, will start fanatasizing and end up emulating twotops and endanger ourselves or uneducated young guys like Matt. I am not sure what I am suggesting. Maybe just a simple editorialized comment next to such reviews warning us against the dangers posed by the activity.

[Guest Merlin]

While I certainly agree that we need to make sure that all the young guys are educated about safer sex, escorts who bareback are probably already infected. I noticed one LA escort on Rentboy who advertises that he will bareback. He has been in the business for several years and I am sure is not ignorant of the facts of life.

[Epigonos]

Verymarried I must admit that I was tempted to start this very topic myself after reading the review. However, I just couldn't decide what action I wanted or expected Daddy to take. I'm certain that whatever course of action he might choose to take, in the end, it would be condemned by some. It is simply a NOW WIN situation. Though I'm not happy about it, I believe Daddy has taken the correct position. Post the review and let the readers decide for themselves what they want to do.

[SAdler]

And another one falls through the cracks

 

I chatted with Matt early on when he first appeared on MER. He was super cute and seemed like he had so much ahead of him. I got really busy and we never met up. x(

 

I soon heard about the bareback thing from a client who almost hired him and emailed to ask him about it. He said it was something he did rarely and was planning on stopping but everything was fine so far.

 

After reading that review I'm truly saddened. I wish him only the best and will try to reconnect with him when I get home. But yeah, the pump/dump rate thing really made me a little ill let alone the "specialized" rate.

[Lookin]

RE: And another one falls through the cracks

 

< I wish him only the best and will try to reconnect with him when I get home. >

 

That's nice of you, Scott. Sounds like he could benefit from talking to someone with his best interests at heart.

[bigguyinpasadena]

Epiquinos-I do agree that this is a no win situation since there are homocidal freaks on this site that encourage barebacking and yell foul whenever someone calls them on their stinky shit.

However,I am very,very,very dissapointed in whoever let that review be posted let alone awarded the escort of the day spot to the kid.It just encourages/puts the seal of approval on suicidal/homicidal behaviour passing as "sexy"or"hot"

I hope this review is pulled and that a formal appology is forthcoming from the person who allowed this review to be posted.

There are those of us that want to live-and want all of the hot guys that make themselves available to us to have a long,healthy,and happy career.

[VaHawk]

Such histrionics, verging on hysteria!! But it is LA afterall.

 

Pulling the review would accomplish nothing, except to leave the hiring public unaware that this escort not only barebacks, but advocates "pump and dump" (eewww, this is one point on which I actually agree with SA).

 

Apologies?? How about apologies for all the bogus and/or boring, tell nothing reviews, if you're going to go that route?

 

The purpose of this site is to publish escort reviews, not to educate the public on safe sex practices. Put a warning sign on the review??? What would that accomplish, that isn't already detailed in the review, or are you advocating listing the escort's name without the review and then "branding" him as a barebacker?? That way you'll see that big WARNING sign so you can avoid hiring him cause you wouldn't be able to resist doing barebacking activities with him, since he barebacks with others!

 

 

People need to take responsibility for their own actions, and stop blaming their failure to do so on other forces. No one and nothing is advocating, enabling or forcing people to engage in unsafe sexual practices.

[Epigonos]

In the final anaylsis guys I have to say VanHawk is right on with every one of his points. Matt is the type of guy I might have considered hiring BUT FOR THE REVIEW BEING POSTED. Furthermore making him the escort of the day draws even more attention to the review and THAT IS GOOD. Additionally VanHawk's point about us all needing to take responsibility for our own actions and NOT expecting anyone else to do so is especially important. BRAVO VanHawk well done!!!!!

[Guest ncm2169]

< Furthermore making him the escort of the day draws even more attention to the review and THAT IS GOOD.

 

I disagree. Publishing the Review makes the escort's unsafe sex practices known. Making him Coverboy suggests that this site endorses, or at least condones unsafe sex among escorts. .x(

[+ deej]

>Making him Coverboy suggests that this

>site endorses, or at least condones unsafe sex among escorts.

>.x(

 

Look at the reviews for that day.

 

Danny Cruz isn't eligible because he's been coverboy recently, and (possibly) because his new photo doesn't show his face. Two of the other four reviews don't have pictures at all. Which of the remaining two (EXACTLY TWO) would you say have better photos? That is the ONLY criteria for coverboy.

 

It's an eye candy contest, plain and simple.

[+ deej]

>I hope this review is pulled and that a formal appology is forthcoming

>from the person who allowed this review to be posted.

 

Don't hold your breath on either account. Daddy does not discuss review issues in the message center and never has. Write to daddy@male4malescorts.com if you have complaints.

 

I happen to agree with much of what VaHawk posted. Pulling this review would do a grave disservice to this community by hiding the behavior you (and I) find objectionable. I would prefer shining a light on it so that potential future clients are aware of the escort's behavior.

 

This site's motto is "Honest in our judgments and truthful in our reporting". It would be neither honest nor truthful to only publish those reviews we agree with, withholding potentially important information from potential future clients.

 

I also feel it's important to escorts who might not want to engage with this client to have this review in public view.

[+ ArVaGuy]

Deej,

 

I agree with you and Hawk on this issue. Pulling this review would be foolish. Making a stink about it is even more foolish in my opinion.

 

Because of this reivew, clients now know that Matt engages in a practice that is highly risky and could expose clients to transmission of all manner of STD's including HIV. Based on this reivew many clinets, including myself, will now not hire Matt and that is part of the service this site provides. To pull the review, or not post in the first place, violates the purpose of the site to inform the community and allow clients to make informed hiring decisions.

 

On the other hand, there will be those who will hire Matt because of his barebacking.

[bluboy]

What is this nannyville? This is the most absurd discussion. There are not too many gay men living under a rock who did not know about the danger of barebacking. Whatever the health risks, some people find it very hot (and maybe even hot because of the health risks). Assuming that people are allowed to live as they wish as long as they are acting freely why deny those who want to bareback the info about who will bareback and not. PLUS by not having it it gives the FALSE impression that the behavior we engage with here is somehow not on some level dangerous (like going to sex clubs--oh my GAWD there is barebacking at sex clubs!!!oh my GAWD that guy has blown over a dozen guys in the last 20 minutes!!). There are far more barebacking escorts and clients than the little stories that we see here and no warning is necessary as we all know at this point. I myself LOVE LOVE to watch barebacking action and in fact often hire guys to watch them do this and it is a total turn on for me to watch a guy in a sex club take loads and loads of cock and cum. (Even more of a turn on for me if the guy has a rep on this site and elsewhere as being a "nice" conservative one.) None of these guys advertise that they do this. The review should not be pulled--you are hiring hookers--not sex educators and this activity comes with all kinds of risks--it is not the nursery. You want safe and sanitized--go for tea at the 4 seasons. Ahem, if you were forced to guess, which part the gay community is more likely to be spreading diseases--the ones home on a Friday night with their live in boyfriends or the ones out hiring hookers and going to sex clubs and frequenting sex sites--duh! We on this site have LONG left the shores of safe haven--we are already in dangerous territory--recognize it and act accordingly but do not ask all the participants to protect us as well--we are responsible for protecting ourselves--and by the way a further shock--many of us are lying and so do not necessarily believe what we say either online or in person. As far as sex goes--we are the middle east. And without these reminders periodically some may falsely assume that what we engage in is in fact safe--and so it is the RAISING it that is a problem--no so at all--the review does nothing--only you can act on the review. Blu

[RockHard]

"What is this nannyville?"

 

Who's your nanny?

 

"This is the most absurd discussion."

 

I've read more laughable crap. (See anything written by Tom Isern.)

 

"There are not too many gay men living under a rock who did not know about the danger of barebacking."

 

But there are plenty of gay men who have no conscience and are living in denial. There are plenty of gay men who are self-haters and sex addicts in denial. And we all know that denial, lying, and more denial are primary symptoms of addiction.

 

"Whatever the health risks, some people find it very hot (and maybe even hot because of the health risks)."

 

For those people, I recommend a good therapist. Didn't Charles Manson "get off" on blasting brains just at the point of orgasm?

 

"Assuming that people are allowed to live as they wish as long as they are acting freely why deny those who want to bareback the info about who will bareback and not."

 

Freedom does give everyone the right to kill themselves. The jury is still out on whether to classify the act of infecting someone else with HIV as murder. As long as you can't prove who infected whom (beyond a reasonable doubt), the jury will remain out.

 

"We on this site have LONG left the shores of safe haven--we are already in dangerous territory"

 

Speak for yourself, sweetie. Who's your nanny?

 

"we are responsible for protecting ourselves"

 

I agree. But some men wish they could save the world from evil and I like the new Superman. Many gay men are turned on by a man with a heart and a soul. Throw in a good, healthy conscience and watch my dick stand tall.

 

Matt's review should remain and not because I think barebackers need more stimuli. Matt's review should remain to illustrate the true meaning of debauched desperation. If we never saw darkness, how could we ever truly appreciate the sun?

[BgMstr4u]

RE: And another one falls through the cracks

 

A couple of things.

 

This is Matt's first review on this site. It concentrates almost entirely on the BB aspect, which makes me wonder a bit about the reviewer as well as about Matt. As an introduction to an escort you like, it seems to me as close to disastrous as could be. Is there any other reason to hire him, in this guy's opinion? The only other review by twotopsinlove that comes up on the search function is for Ray in Chicago, and while there is extensive comment on Ray's excellent abilities as a bottom, there is no mention of BB. Perhaps Ray is a good bottom who knows how to please safely? Or perhaps not and we just aren't told?

 

Second, there is not a word about BB on Matt's page. Not one word, not the slightest suggestion that BB is on his menu. Of course, to be fair, there aren't many words at all. So the review has done a service to the rest of us.

 

As has been said here so many times before, it would be wise to assume that any escort has had extensive sexual experience before any of us reaches him, and to take appropriate precautions. What makes me sad is the number of bright boys -- escorts many of them -- who end up dead because of AIDS. And what makes me mad is that some of them (escorts, not necessarily Matt) seem to want to take others with them. And that some of us (clients) seem to want to as well.

[+ Tom Isern]

Here is a prime example of a misconception I’ve written about before which is the direct result of HIV-prevention discourse. ArlingtonVAGuy writes: “Matt engages in a practice that is highly risky and could expose clients to transmission of all manner of STD's including HIV.”

 

1. It is a fact that STDs (with the one exception being HIV) are spread as easily through oral sex as they are through anal sex. To say that Matt’s behavior elevates the risk of the transmission of “all manner of STD’s” is illogical. The more sexual partners ANY escort or client has, the more likely are his chances of passing STDs. That is, unless he is using condoms for oral as well as anal sex (both passive and active) and avoiding all kissing as well. Certain of the Hepatitis strains can be spread through simple body contact without any sexual activity. The moral: ALL SEX IS DANGEROUS.

 

2. HIV is by contrast very difficult to spread. It requires, generally, that infected semen come into contact with the other’s blood system (through a cut or sensitive tissues). Unlike the other STDs, the chances of contracting HIV do not really increase all that much with multiple partners as long as one uses condoms for (esp. receptive) anal sex.

 

What can be assumed from the review in question is that both client and escort are HIV-positive. As an HIV-negative individual I would appear to possess the qualifications to jump on the bandwagon of condemnation and moral posturing. But answer me this: Where is the great harm, where is the irresponsibility, in two men who are ALREADY HIV+ engaging in unprotected anal intercourse? They are not, in any immediately obvious way to me, ramping up the risk for anybody else.

[BgMstr4u]

"Where is the great harm, where is the irresponsibility, in two men who are ALREADY HIV+ engaging in unprotected anal intercourse?"

 

I am certainly not a medical professional or a biologist, but it would seem to me that if there is more than one strain of the HIV virus going around, there could be harm in two HIV+ persons having unprotected sex, if one can become infected with a different strain or a mutation.

 

Anyone out there with the up-to-date biology?

[SAdler]

RE: And another one falls through the cracks

 

Since "Rico" is too cowardly to ever have an option of dialog and until now I've really not given a shit enough to respond to massively incorrect statements made -- I'll make my above statement clear as the crystal he must snort to be in a state to fabricate such sad pathetic fiction.

 

Though I discuss rates from an unpopular standpoint quite often on these boards, it is known to people without a grudge against me or simply with common sense that I care about people and that money doesn't mean a thing if attitude or personality are foul. My commentary had everything to do with Matt's potential health and the simple "concept" of a "pump/dump" rate. The rate itself is irrelevant, that fact that he does it is what is so upsetting.

 

I know it was clear for those of you with brains but just in case, I felt the need to clarify.

[bigguyinpasadena]

RE: And another one falls through the cracks

 

The phrases"pump and dump""breed""and "planted my seed deep inside his bowels"all infer unsafe sex practices-albeit they are couched in phrasology to make this homocidal/suicidal action"hot"

It is not hot-it is at least unwise and at the most criminal.

You and your friend could agree it would be"hot"for one of you to shoot,stab,poison the other.You could write out a contract to this effect.One of you will most likely stand trial/go to jail for this-please tell me how this is different?

[bigguyinpasadena]

Deej wrote"I also feel it's important to escorts who might not want to engage with this client to have this review in public view"

But Deej-that probably would not be possible as the john(reviewer)uses a psuedonym for his review.So there is no downside for him(except really bad karma-oh yeah and sickness and death from the new strains of HIV/STD's he is going to catch/spread as a result of his stupid behavior)but the hooker is going to have this on his record here forever,regardless of whether he changes his ways or not.

[bigguyinpasadena]

>What is this nannyville? This is the most absurd discussion.

>There are not too many gay men living under a rock who did not

>know about the danger of barebacking. Whatever the health

>risks, some people find it very hot (and maybe even hot

>because of the health risks). Assuming that people are allowed

>to live as they wish as long as they are acting freely why

>deny those who want to bareback the info about who will

>bareback and not. PLUS by not having it it gives the FALSE

>impression that the behavior we engage with here is somehow

>not on some level dangerous (like going to sex clubs--oh my

>GAWD there is barebacking at sex clubs!!!oh my GAWD that guy

>has blown over a dozen guys in the last 20 minutes!!). There

>are far more barebacking escorts and clients than the little

>stories that we see here and no warning is necessary as we all

>know at this point. I myself LOVE LOVE to watch barebacking

>action and in fact often hire guys to watch them do this and

>it is a total turn on for me to watch a guy in a sex club take

>loads and loads of cock and cum. (Even more of a turn on for

>me if the guy has a rep on this site and elsewhere as being a

>"nice" conservative one.) None of these guys advertise that

>they do this. The review should not be pulled--you are hiring

>hookers--not sex educators and this activity comes with all

>kinds of risks--it is not the nursery. You want safe and

>sanitized--go for tea at the 4 seasons. Ahem, if you were

>forced to guess, which part the gay community is more likely

>to be spreading diseases--the ones home on a Friday night with

>their live in boyfriends or the ones out hiring hookers and

>going to sex clubs and frequenting sex sites--duh! We on this

>site have LONG left the shores of safe haven--we are already

>in dangerous territory--recognize it and act accordingly but

>do not ask all the participants to protect us as well--we are

>responsible for protecting ourselves--and by the way a further

>shock--many of us are lying and so do not necessarily believe

>what we say either online or in person. As far as sex goes--we

>are the middle east. And without these reminders periodically

>some may falsely assume that what we engage in is in fact

>safe--and so it is the RAISING it that is a problem--no so at

>all--the review does nothing--only you can act on the review.

>Blu

Sorry bub-you are in the "Homocidal freak territory here.

"Epiquinos-I do agree that this is a no win situation since there are homocidal freaks on this site that encourage barebacking and yell foul whenever someone calls them on their stinky shit.

However,I am very,very,very dissapointed in whoever let that review be posted let alone awarded the escort of the day spot to the kid.It just encourages/puts the seal of approval on suicidal/homicidal behaviour passing as "sexy"or"hot"

I hope this review is pulled and that a formal appology is forthcoming from the person who allowed this review to be posted.

There are those of us that want to live-and want all of the hot guys that make themselves available to us to have a long,healthy,and happy career.

 

BigGuyInPasadena

"We are all in the gutter-but some of us are looking at the stars"

O.Wilde

[IceFireWizard]

>Where is the great harm, where is the irresponsibility, in two men

>who are ALREADY HIV+ engaging in unprotected anal intercourse?

 

Are you speaking from personal experience, Tom Isern?

[+ deej]

>But Deej-that probably would not be possible as the

>john(reviewer)uses a psuedonym for his review.

 

Many times in the message center people have said that they disclose their identities either as reviewers or posters when hiring.

 

>but the hooker

>is going to have this on his record here forever,regardless of

>whether he changes his ways or not.

 

So?

 

Note that the escort did not rebut the review. He's really the only one that has a say in this, and he has a venue for having that say (and this ain't it!).

[bigguyinpasadena]

Deej-I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that this fella is not going to identify himself,ever.

Also-I have it on firsthand account that escorts are NOT always notified when a review is posted-so that argument does not hold water.Daddy(or whoever)might TRY to contact,but either gets no response(asuming that the provided email is correct)thus an assumption is made that all the facts are correct.

[RockHard]

RE: Tom Isern's nostalgic longings.

 

Knowing how she longs for the euphoria of the filthy piers and the days of sexual abandon gone by, did you really have to ask, IceFireWizard?