Leaderboard

Hello, Babybear: I have spent quite a bit of time all over Brazil over the last decade, and continue to do so. I’m a bit hesitant to delve again into pricing discussions here because oddly, some posters seem to equate the amount of money they pay for sex (whether it’s a smaller or a larger amount) with their self-worth or their physical attractiveness — and it has to do with neither of those things (It’s purely transactional. Stop. The End.) Nevertheless, regarding overnights with garotos de programa in Brazil, I will provide you with my personal experience and the experience of my travel partners (all of whom vary in physical appearance and personal tastes in men, but are in the same socioeconomic class in the USA and Europe): Asking prices for pernoite (overnights) can vary widely — depending on what Brazilian city you’re in, the demand of the garoto from other clients, how he looks and his self-perceived value. In general, the “guy next door types” / average guys / twinks will expect and cost less, while the Greek Gods / body boys / muscle guys : supermodels / “Beach Barbies” expect and ask for more. (I suspect that at least one of the garotos that quoted you the 800 - 1000 R range fit in the latter category — or at least perceived himself to be In it.) Also, consider that some garotos, due to family or other obligations, do not even like or want to do overnights, and consider pricing them simply on a time basis (by the hour, instead of pernoite), and thus, will charge accordingly. So again, it depends. I have seen or have been quoted overnight prices from anywhere from $200R to $2000R. Yes, I said $2000R. Now, I don’t know anyone who admitted to actually paying that amount out — I certainly did not — but that was the garoto’s quoted overnight price. A good rule of thumb is to follow the 80/20 rule. High 3 figures to 1000 reais in SP and RJ is not an unusual overnight asking price for a number of the “Greek God” types. Estimated about 10% will ask in this range. The lower range of around 200R or so from the average “guy next door” or “man on the street” types is probably around another 10%. But in the mid 3 figures (which would include your expected range of 400 R, but that’s usually a variable, not a hard and fast number), you should be able to happily secure an overnight with about 80 percent of the available garotos, which should include a wide range of looks and body types. (Prices are generally less in the North and NE regions of Brazil. It should not be shameful, insane, indentured servitude less, but slightly less due to cost of living differences.)

Because they are meant for a Thai audience. The boys have no interest in going with foreign customers nor is there any incentive for the patrons, or owners of these venues to introduce foreigners when they are doing good business from locals already. They have a system in place, foreigners don’t know the system and they don’t necessarily spend more than local customers, who have the benefit of being regulars and would not enjoy frequenting the same venue as tourists. Same goes for the girls commercial scene, for every Patpong or Nana bar, there are even more Thai-only joints with local entertainment and high rollers. There are also many trendy bars for a middle class audience, many of them pretend to be host bars but the boys and girls can he bought for the right price. There are also venues for hi-so and lo-so transactions. I was told if you go far enough up the hi-so ladder, even celebrities can be procured. As for the lo-so, this is an old interview: https://bk.asia-city.com/city-living/news/21-year-old-money-boy-bangkok

Yeah!!! it took a lot convincing and force to get you to have sex with that handsome, sexy guy.

Have you actually read that article and the review posted by the man in question on Tripadvisor? Frankly, he is a total idiot. He wrote two reviews on Tripavisor one of which was taken down as contrary to the site's guidelines. He had basically defamed the hotels F&B manager. The one review that remains up reads like the ranting of moron. I have not read his google reviews. Anyone who marches into any hotel or restaurant expecting to drink their own liquor without some form of corkage payment and then makes an idiotic song and dance about it (it was only 500 baht for goodness sake) plus writes a string of abusive reviews full of vitriol that can be read publicly is a spoiled brat. The F&B manager actually waived the corkage to calm him down. But that was not going to stop this moron. In this particular case, Im glad he ended up in jail for a night or two. Had he had cash in his bank account or got some from his friends he could easily have avoided that. I also agree the hotel overreacted. But the idiot deserved it in this instance.

I like , next door looking type of guys and usually pay 150-200 for overnights. Some of the greek God types do ask for more.....in all my years of whoring around, the better looking guy doesn't equal better sex, sometimes it's the opposite, lol

I will try to finish shortly after I leave Salvador next week. Also a big shoutout to @sfcastro who has been traveling to Brazil for about 20 years and has a wealth of knowledge! And a shoutout to OZ! We killed that Whitney Houston song during karaoke.

I have a little free time, so I’ll say a little about my adventures so far before I forget. I arrived in São Paulo on the 16th and stayed until the 21st. This trip was my first time at SP, and it’s very different than Rio. It’s a massive concrete jungle where the closest beach is an hour away. On my first day, I linked with @brockmiller, who is now my Brazilian travel BFF! We turned Lagao out every night!! We are both very friendly and welcoming people and not to mention massive sluts. Shoutout to everyone else who we hung out with or meet from BT! I don’t remember your user names, and I don’t want to say your real names here, but you all know who you are! Lagoa was decently busy every night and very busy on the weekend. The guys were prob 30% European white, 50% light mix, and 20% darker-skinned mixed. If the European look is your thing, then Lagao is the only sauna I’ve seen that would satisfy. The building was mostly open, everyone was naked, and no one except the building staff wore a mask. Only the actual wet sauna was closed. All other parts of the sauna were open. I enjoyed myself at Lagao, but it is expensive. I prob spent more than twice the amount I spent here in Salvador. But I did find out I was overpaying for programs. I was paying 400 for overnight and 200 for a regular program. A middle-aged black Paulista told me and @brockmillerthat there is NO REASON we should spend that amount for a program. In his words; we were too young and beautiful ever to pay that amount. He said at the very most, 250 for overnight and 100 for a program in SP. When I asked him about Salvador, he said 50 for the regular program and 150 for overnight. I’m here to report he was right! I have not been turned down for a single program using his rates. Being honest, I hooked up with many guys while in SP, and I only remember a few. Two intensely dark-skinned guys we will call Casa and Diego. Both vers and both 5star yep reviews. All others were forgettable or didn’t stand out from the pack. After São Paulo, Brock and I went to Rio, where the party continued. Rio was Rio... some good, some bad as always. 202 had a fair amount of guys working. Some new faces and many old faces had not returned. 117 was damn near empty, and none of the guys were to my liking. I only had one new guy in Rio, and that’s because @brockmillerforced me to have sex with him. In Rio, I had a few favs who entertained me for most of my stay. In particular, a 6’5 deeply dark guy who has done some porn had been working out heavily during COVID and had a nice new buff body. I enjoyed his new body and WAP for a few days. On a side note, one thing I don’t like as much about Rio is that many of the black guys only top. In SP, all of the black guys I was with except two were vers, and many here in Salvador are also vers. Maybe I’m not doing something right, but I know a few black guys who work at 202 who’s asses are calling to be fucked. I will tell you about my adventures in Salvador once I have a moment. Salvador is magical is so many different ways! I hope my spacing allows everyone an easy read this time.

I'm not going anywhere until its safe, except local stuff that I can stay socially distanced the whole journey and at the destination. The guys, by definition, are getting very intimate with lots of people repeatedly. That doesn't strike me as someone I want to get close to. The reality of it would probably be a major boner killer for me. Perhaps I carry too many memories of the worst of the AIDS holocaust. Porn it is, for now.

Namazu....he just described YOU, in one long sentence

What is a Greek God to you, may not be to me. For me, covered in Tattoos and full of attitude and they live on Mt. Olympus!

weekend project was 'The Effect ", just three episodes, highly boring with long 'nothing happens' moments but also highly unusual as a far as BL series are concerned / rape , suicide, very questionable ending/ . Can't say I recommend but if one is tired with rather sugary BL dramas, this is short, 3 hrs. all, detox.

Also, from the comments, I would not assume the guys are even there in the saunas. They seem fairly empty. Being a sauna boy entails having intimacy with many different people and is almost a certain infection if susceptible to infection. Having covid in Brazil is much more deadly, even if just for friends and relatives of the young, than in the US. As poor as many of these guys are, it seems most are curtailing dangerous activity like saunas as much as possible.

Thanks for the report! Waiting anxious for the update in Salvador scene!

Not until there'a a vaccine or I know I have immunity otherwise. I'm not headed anywhere the hospitals and medical care are worse than here until then. Much of western Europe or Canada maybe when travel starts. Until then Florida's wide open and fine for sex in the sun.

What a great premier !

Did you meet this guy working there, he's usually the DJ or working at the bar...his English is really good and he's super friendly.

A few days in rio, 1, I think I love Rio, the smell of vacation is in the air. And with all those eye candies on the beach, who would not love Rio. Spending whole afternoon on the beach with a beer and coconut, really enjoyable. 2, 117 is the best in the atmosphere, super friendly stuff who speaks very good English. 2 nicely decorated bars and a good show with Monika. Although it is indeed very slow, around 10 boys, no stunners as well, and 10 clients, but the vibe really good 3, 202 is the best in boys. I know, all the conclusions are only based on my very limited visits and personal taste. 202 seems to be viewed as 2nd teir by some other folks, but the day I went, there are around 15 boys and a few of them actually very cute/handsome with great body. 4, logoa ranked as 3 in this short visit 5, no internet meetup in rio, mostly sightseeing during the day time. Looking forward to check all 3 sauna again after covid and things back to normal. I hope it is early 2021.

Hi everyone, I will write up a full review of my trip once it is has concluded. I wanted to see if anyone will be in Salvador over the next week. I have meet some AMAZING people from this forum over the past week and I would love to connect & explore the cities offerings.

After reading all the exciting reports, and been staying at home for more than half a year, finally decided to take on a September brazil trip. I have been to thailand a couple times, this is my first time to brazil. Non-sex related stuff, if thailand is a 10, brazil is a 3. 1, do not take money from atm in shopping malls in brazil, they charge 12% wholesale fee, no idea what is the fee about. Go to a brazil bank and use their atm machine 2, do not try to get a local sim card, it took me 5 hours in a big tim store in a shoppibg mall in sao paulo and 3 in person visits, first time, it will be activated in one hour, second day, we will activate your sim in 24 hours, third time, something is wrong with your credit card, it will take around 72 hours to fix. What the fuck, i told them do not bother to fix it. 3, in thailand, I barely feel language barrier, while in brazil, this is a issue everyday from restaurants to shopping. Brazil is not a tourist country, they do not know how to handle foreigners, be prepared 4, food in brazil is just so so, missing thai food

Well then baby, just try to RELAX and at least, have a Cannoli......

I think good sex is all in the head, so if your partner is not someone you would be very attracted to or turned on by, you’re less likely to think the sex is great. Or maybe that’s me! Some people are just wired to be (or maybe are trained or conditioned to be) sexually attracted to specific types, while others have broader sexual tastes. I can give examples from my Immediate social circle of wolves — one likes hairy, swarthy Mediterranean / Arab types; another is only into smooth twinks; another likes tall, dark, skinny basketball player types with huge dicks; another likes short, fire hydrant-height bottoms; another likes street trade with “character faces”; another wants them to look like a model fresh out of GQ Magazine; the last one wants to get fucked by anything with a huge dick, looks be damned! I prefer masculine, muscular men, dark or olive-skinned. Sometimes, my friends and I can overlap in what we like, but not that often. One of my friends told me that “I’m missing out on the good twinks”, yet I remain unmoved. I try to get him into one of my favorite guys, and he says “there’s nothing that a statue can do for me”. As one of my good friends likes to say, variety is the spice of life.

somebody should tell him that cemeteries are full of people impossible to be replaced. And it's always endearing when coup leader sings praises of obeying the laws

From Bangkok Post The Satellite Terminal 1 (SAT-1) extension to Suvarnabhumi Airport is now more than 95 per cent complete while its transport link with the existing terminal should be ready by April next year, said Airports of Thailand (AOT) president Nitinai Sirismatthakarn on Monday. SAT-1 will service 28 parking bays and relieve overcrowding by boosting Suvarnabhumi’s capacity by about 15 million passengers per year. “The building [structure] itself is now 100 per cent complete, with only some interior design and landscape work now being finalised,” he said. “AOT is also working on the APM [Automated People Mover] system, whose installation in the Satellite 1 Building is now over 70 per cent complete.”

Thank you for that ranking, I like those , if only to realize that people have different tastes and those rankings reflect that but it's always fun watching. For me absence of Tul / Knock / and Max / Korn / in this ranking is painful, on another hand can see why Bright / Sarawat / beats everybody

Omg, it is as low as 150 for overnight. This must be loyal customers 50% off discount, must be, lol

It has been an amazing trip so far! I will be back in São Paulo on Friday and Saturday if anyone wants to meet up at the sauna or for lunch!

Great report! It sounds like you are having a blast! I love Salvador. Go to the turtle sanctuary if you have time. It is beautiful.

so many cute boys on the beach, sigh, wish I know some Portuguese.

My dearest sis, perhaps it might be better if you emulated Sleeping Beauty (setting the fact that you ARENT a Beauty aside) and sleep for the next 36 days, then wake up and see the RESULTS ? It might keep you from having hypertension and high BP... Like Edna Turnblad sang in Hairspray, "you cant stop the beat"......and all the wishin and hopin and prayin, and hypothesizing and pontificating WONT change the end result that is most likely already destined.... Sleep my pretty, SLEEP ! (But dont forget to watch the debate Tuesday)

Thank you for your insights, I feel better prepared now. Personally, I am very hesitant to pay for anything above 2x the short time fee for overnight.

I hope to go in August or September, 2021.

From Thai Enquirer Thailand will be unlivable if protestors topple me, Prayut says Prime Minister Prayut Chan o-cha said on Monday that he personally does not want a pro-democracy rally to take place on October 14 but he will follow the law. “In regards of allowing it, I do not want to allow it but the law is the law,” he told reporters when asked if the government would allow a rally led by United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration (UFTD) on October 14, with demands to lower the power of the monarchy. “If we do not allow it, they will not accept it. If we try to stop it, they will resist. When we enforce the law, they will say that we are putting pressure on them,” he added. The PM said what could happen if he ordered the security officers to use full force would be based on “the people who do not want to respect the law”. “Let me ask you this, if these people succeeded, how will their management of the country be like? I do not understand because the conflict is escalating and in the end, the country will be unlivable,” he said. When asked what would happen if the pro-monarchy protestors decided to confront the pro-democracy supporters, the PM said the government will try to make sure that the two groups do not come face to face with one another. He said the government will continue to provide spaces for pro-democracy rallies, as long as protestors follow the law. “Today might look like we are being too soft,” the PM added. “But there is a need to see what their terms and conditions are, as they want this outcome [use of force] to happen and that could be playing into their way.”

Top 20 hottest Thai BL actors

So, trigger warning. Even by my own standards, this is going to be be a particularly obtuse and rambling post. Every month or so I Google Allan Lichtman's name to see if he has anything new up. This month he didn't. But I found a long essay (actually a book chapter) I linked below that I found really interesting. It's another author who admires Lichtman's theories commenting on their validity. Reading it generated two ideas. I'll summarize them, and then return to them in more detail in my rambling below: 1. Lichtman's model provides an interesting way to think about how President Toxic could win. The three keys in his system that turned this year that led Lichtman to call the election for Biden are the short-term economy (recession), the long-term economy (laggard GDP growth), and the social unrest. In theory, those are decisive nails in President Toxic's political coffin. That said, Trump is clearly trying to get people to ignore those three things. If he succeeds with a majority of voters in the Electoral College states, he could win. If he fails, he'll lose. 2. 2020 is only the third time that Lichtman has called his "social unrest" key against the party in power. The other two times were 1932 and 1968. I932 marked the beginning of a new political era. Arguably, so did 1968. Could the social tumult that ignited in 2020 be an indicator of a major political turning point? Like I said, I'll return to those two ideas below. Lichtman's claim to fame is that his system can predict who will win the Presidency. What I actually find more interesting is that his system describes why they will win or lose. Which boils down to governing effectively. I think it explains what is happening right now. So far, nothing President Toxic is saying is really sticking to Joe Biden. And Biden is mostly being Silent Joe. Some of that is Biden's staff trying to avoid gaffes, I suspect. But probably they agree with Lichtman's basic theory. This election is a referendum on President Toxic that he is going to lose. So they just don't want to get in the way of letting Trump lose it. Biden's staff has pretty much told reporters as much. CHAPTER 5: WHAT DOESN'T WIN THE PRESIDENCY That's 33 bold-faced pages from a 2006 book called Campaigns Don't Count from an Ohio newspaper columnist named Martin Gottlieb. He declared in his column early in 2004 that Bush had already "won" the 2004 election. He did that using Lichtman's model. But this chapter goes through each of Lichtman's keys as they relate to the 1988 election. It was interesting to read a smart journalist's take on Lichtman's own analysis. The reason Gottlieb chose 1988 is he argues that was an election that everyone thought Dukakis would win. Especially in May 1988, when Lichtman published his article in the Washingtonian saying George H.W. Bush would win. Here's the Gallup polls from 1988: You can see that in May Dukakis had a lead of 16 points. So the prediction was as outside the box as Lichtman saying in September 2016 that Trump would win. Here's the last paragraph of the chapter: Just to make sure it's clear, Lichtman says that if the party in power has six or more "keys" turned against them, they lose. Right now, President Toxic has seven turned against him. In 1988, Bush only had three. So it was an easy call that Bush would win. And by the end of the race, reality reflected Lichtman's prediction about the voter's imminent judgment. The whole 33 pages is a good read. But a brief summary is that this had nothing to do with Willie Horton or Lee Atwater's campaign gimmicks. It had to do with a growing economy, Reagan winning The Cold War, and other "big picture" factors that led people to conclude they wanted four more years of Republican leadership. What I learned reading this that I didn't know is that when they built the model, Lichtman and his Russian seismologist colleague tested all kinds of theories of what might drive an election. Including, for example, campaign messages and campaign tactics. When the tested possible algorithms, characteristics of leadership and governing always trumped campaigning as predictors pf who won. So many of Lichtman's keys are right most of the time. If all you do is say any incumbent President running will win, you are right about 2 times out of 3. The key that is the most accurate on its own is whether there is a serious contest for the nomination of the party in power. In 2020, President Toxic had no real opposition. So that in itself would predict that about 80 % of the time, that candidate running o behalf of the incumbent party will win. So the idea of the 13 keys is that it's not armchair judgment. They went through a larger menu of possible factors that could predict the winner, and picked 13 that seemed to be the most reliable. Another interesting point is that when this article was written, there were 14 "subsystems" - combinations of some portion of the 13 keys - that were just as good at predicting the winner. The reason they picked 13 keys is they figured that it gave them the best chance of being consistently right every time. That leads to this statement from the caper above: i thought that was interesting in the context of the 2020 election. Here's the list of 13 keys. If you only pay attention to the six listed in that quote, President Toxic gets four of the six. Meaning that in 2020 that subsystem says Trump should win. Lichtman was saying last year that Trump had lost Keys 1 and 13. But he had 2, 3, 4, and 7, and still does. So this subsystem contradicts what Lichtman predicted based on the full 13 keys: that Trump would lose. The three keys that turned against Trump this year are 5, 6, and 8. Basically the economy went to shit, and all hell broke loose in the streets and there was suddenly mass social unrest. Lichtman has called it the quickest turnaround in Presidential history. Because mostly these keys are big picture items, and they don't turn in a day or month like polls do. So Trump went for having four keys against him in 2019, which is two short of a loss, to seven turned against him, which is one more than needed to predict loss. Here's what I find very interesting about that. I think this is a good way to think about what President Toxic is clearly trying to do, and what he in fact has to do to win. In effect, he has to be The Wizard Of Oz saying, "Ignore that man behind the curtain." He has to get people to pretend like the economy is fine, and the social unrest doesn't matter. That's what his show on The White House lawn was intended to do. Lichtman's keys say that President Toxic does not get to decide how voters judge him. That said, if you buy the idea that Trump runs a cult, in theory he could be uniquely able to control how people judge his successes and failures. The real question is whether President Toxic can get people outside his core base, plus Republican party stalwarts, to see the economy and the unrest that started with Black Lives Matter as he wishes them to. So far, it looks like he simply does not have the unique ability to change the verdict of history, which Lichtman says is definitely against him. We'll see. Again, what interests me the most about Lichtman is not the voodoo prediction part about who will win. It's the deeper meaning of why they win or lose. So if Lichtman is right, it means that Trump simply can't script his own Reality TV Presidency. He is stuck with reality. And with voters who think like Bob Woodward. They will conclude he's the wrong person for the job. The second thing I mentioned above that jumped out at me reading this article is that the 8th key, social unrest, was last turned against the incumbent party by Lichtman in 1968 and 1932. Like his other keys, Lichtman is focused on big picture things that suggest a political earthquake is coming. Those two years were very eventful years. So now I'm straying from anything Lichtman says. But it struck me that 2020 could be one of those really eventful years. When people say it's the most important election of our lifetimes, they may be right. 1932 was obviously a really big deal. It was a landslide that shattered an old political coalition and birthed a new one of Democratic dominance that basically endured (with a pause under Ike) from 1932 to 1968. I'm not sure 1968 fits in the same category. If there is a conservative version of a realigning landslide like 1932, it is obviously 1980 and the Reagan Revolution. 1968 was actually a fairly close call between Nixon and Humphrey. But the sense in which 1932 and 1968 fit together is that the social unrest did signal a political earthquake. You can view 1968 as a signal that a coalition and liberal ideology that more or less prevailed from The New Deal to The Great Society was really starting to fall apart. It actually did start to fall apart in 1969, when Nixon began picking SCOTUS justices that gradually ended the Warren Court's activism. There was also the Silent Majority, the Southern strategy to take over the White South, and then the 1972 landslide against "McGovernment". On Election Night 1980 historian Teddy White argued that Carter lost because of the weight of history itself. The old Democratic coalition just no longer worked, he said. I think you can argue that a political coalition that was clearly starting to fall apart in 1968 finally just collapsed by 1980. It took until 1992 for Clinton to start rebuilding a different coalition, in part by co-opting conservative ideas. This is where @tassojuniormight argue that even Obama and his ilk were essentially closet corporate Republicans pretending to be liberal Democrats. At the very least, Obama explicitly wanted to change history in the way Reagan did. I don't think Obama quite did that. All of this sounds very esoteric. And this stuff about 1932 and 1968 is my thinking, not Lichtman's. I'm not even sure why Lichtman picked only 1932 and 1968, because there were other years in US history when there were mass movements and protests. But after thinking about it I buy the idea that 2020 and 1968 and 1932 are fairly unique Presidential elections that all have a depth of spontaneous social unrest that doesn't happen very often. I also buy the idea that each year may represent a fundamental turning of the tide. 1932 for sure was a massive tidal wave shift to liberalism. 1968 can accurately be described as the beginning of the end of a liberal era, that climaxed 12 years later in the Reagan Revolution. There's a few other things about 1968 that fit to me. Nixon was himself a transitional figure. By today's standards he would be too liberal for Republicans. The lowest the poverty rate ever got in the US before Bill Clinton was under Richard Nixon, in 1971. He basically embraced most of the anti-poverty programs Reagan later used as his whipping boy. Biden is likely to be a Nixon-like figure in that sense. He explicitly calls himself a transitional figure. It does make sense to me that just as Nixon lead to Reagan, history could be arcing so that Biden ultimately leads to a figure like Sanders or Warren or AOC a decade or so down the line. The other comparison that strikes me is "The Silent Majority". When Kenosha happened there was a lot of concern that President Toxic might be able to adopt a Nixonian "law and order" tone that would wipe out Biden's lead. "Law and order" is the issue some Trump supporters list as their top priority. But Biden is the candidate a majority of voters see as better at dealing with the issue. And his lead in Wisconsin has held steady at 7 %. What the polls seem to be saying consistently is that there actually is a Silent Majority, and Biden is the one who is building it. The Liberate The Virus crowd with guns on State Capitol steps and the maskless MAGA rallies are the minority. That's now 100 % clear. Overwhelming majorities are for masks mandates. Meanwhile, there is at least a slender majority that says there is systemic racism in America. And that views Black Lives Matter mostly favorably, and not as a radical group out to abolish suburbs. If 1968 can be viewed as the end of a liberal era with the Warren Court and a series of liberal Presidencies, the social unrest of today could be a signal that Trumpism has basically failed. John Harris of Politico wrote a nice piece last week that argued just that. Essentially that Trumpism and McConnellism is the bastard child and dying gasp of the sunny ideal of Reagan conservatism that climaxed in the 1980's. Before someone points it out, I recognize that the kinds of people protesting in 1968 were the same kinds of liberals and progressives and Blacks protesting today. The difference is that in 1968 Nixon had the support of The Silent Majority. I can't find polls about MLK or the Viet Nam War protests in 1968. But here's a poll about views on Nixon and the war in 1969. All adults supported Nixon's Viet Nam policies 64/25. Even college students supported Nixon's war policies 50/44. Today, Biden seems to have the support of 2020's Silent Majority. 54 % of Americans say they view Black Lives Matter favorably. Only 44 % view President Toxic favorably. Who has the majority now? Like I said, this was just a long intellectual masturbation about Lichtmanland. Some part of my feeling is that I would much rather choose cynicism than hope. The cynical part of me does have to consider the possibility that President Toxic may be able to pull off his Great And Mighty Donald routine, and convince people to ignore the economy, the virus, and the social unrest. More likely, I think hope will win in 2020, like in 2008. I'd like to believe that like in 1932 and 1968 the tumult signals a major change in the tide. And this time it's going to shift decisively from a waning conservatism to a rising progressive and Democratic majority.

John Zogby of Zogby Polls would agree with you. I posted it already in some other thread. He told some academic writing about predictions and polls about 2016 that he could not say who was going to win in 2016. He could tell you what the polls said on any given day. And he said he could make a pretty good guess - if you told him the turnout. But he couldn't predict turnout, of course. Therefore he could not predict who would win. That's even more true in 2020, as you say. There's this idea that President Toxic has the best organized ground game ever. And Democrats are freaking out that Biden folks are not knocking on doors. So maybe the Trumpians will just roll over Biden. Then there's also the idea, which is showing up in poll after poll, that youth turnout will be through the roof. Much higher than in 2018 when it was enough to win a strong House majority. We won't know how any of that plays out until it happens. (Although we will have a preview in terms of the number of mail in ballots.) The state polls are almost always weaker. Usually they have higher margins of error. And another problem is they tend to be older: Pennsylvania 2016 Clinton Trump I keep bringing up Pennsylvania as an example, because it's a good one. The final poll average ( Clinton + 1.9) was not horribly wrong. But that average included poll data that was up to a week old. A lot can change in a week. Especially if it is the LAST week of the campaign. If you only count the two most recent state polls, which are themselves 3-5 days old, one says toss up and the other says Trump + 1. The final result was Trump + 0.7 %. Those last two polls were both very close. Ohio 2016 Clinton Trump Wisconsin 2016 Clinton Trump Those are two good examples of what you are talking about. Ohio was off by 4.5 %. Wisconsin was off by 7 %. In all four Rust Belt states Trump way did better than expected. But it's not clear why Wisconsin would be off so much, compared for example to Pennsylvania. That said, I think every one of those polls used to arrive at the Wisconsin average was a week or more old. So the idea that nothing changed in a week is just not realistic. In Pennsylvania the two most recent polls, several days old, turned out to be correct. I think one big clue is that in all four Rust Belt States Hillary's percentage was pretty much dead on. In Wisconsin she was predicted to get 46.8 and she got 46.5. The real driver was President Toxic got 7 more points than the polls said he would. That trend happened in all four states to one degree or another. We know for sure from exit polls that the last minute deciders broke for President Toxic. We also know that nationally Hillary got 100,000 fewer votes than Obama, and President Toxic got 2 million more than Romney. That suggests it was likely most of the pollster's turnout models were all just off. If they were going from 2012, which I'm sure was part of the model, they would overestimate Hillary's turnout and underestimate Trump's turnout. I don't find "quiet" Trump voting to be a good explanation. These are states where White working class people were proudly saying this time they were voting for Trump. I think the obvious thing is that there was a sort of grassroots movement, built on anger and frustration, that President Toxic tapped into - by design or luck or both. There's just no way the pollsters could measure that. Even though if you were paying attention, it was obvious. We are both saying the same thing. We both agree that polls can't tell you who is going to win - at least not when it's relatively close, which it was in 2016. And we both agree that the national polls are marginally better. In part because they are marginally fresher. All the polls used to predict the final national popular vote in 2016 were from November. And they appear to be mostly Nov 3-7 data. Again, all the Wisconsin polls were taken before then. The oldest Wisconsin state poll used in the final average was Oct 26-27, almost two weeks before the election. That is just asking for trouble in a fluid race. Texas 2016 Clinton Trump Arizona 2016 Clinton Trump Nevada 2016 Clinton Trump I posted those polls as well because they were wrong, too. But in exactly the opposite way. In Texas President Toxic won decisively, but by 3 points LESS than expected by the final polls. He won Arizona, and it was close to the expected result, but still 0.5 % LESS for Trump. In Nevada, the polls were also off by about 3 points. The final average showed President Toxic winning narrowly. He ended up losing by two points. So in all three states, in a different region with different voters, the trend seemed to be going in Hillary's direction. Hispanic voters in the Southwest seemingly were acting differently than White voters in the Rust Belt. Again, the age of the polls matters. The last two state polls in Nevada were 3-4 days old, and they indicated a small Clinton lead. The state poll showing a big Trump lead was from the end of October. I know for a fact that the last few days before the 2016 election I was worried. I noticed that the final poll up on RCP in both Michigan and Pennsylvania showed a very small Trump lead. I noticed that in the last week the race was tightening pretty rapidly. That alone scared me. It's not good news when the trend is going against you in the last week of an election. So if people thought these polls were wrong, a big part of it is that just don't have much experience interacting with polls. There's a whole bunch of things that could explain why Hillary lost those Rust Belt states that only have to do with Hillary: 1) mediocre Black turnout, 2) medicore youth turnout, 3) votes for Jill Stein that exceeded Hillary's losing margin in all the key Blue Wall states. Any one of those three factors, by itself, is sufficient to explain why Hillary came up 70,000 or so votes short. Combined, those three factors account for way more than 70,000 votes. That said, the polls were not that far off on Hillary in any of those states. Where they were way off was on President Toxic. They dramatically underestimated his turnout. But that DID NOT happen in Texas, or Arizona, or Nevada. They actually overestimated how well he would do in those states. So if I had to pick one bumper sticker to explain 2016, it's this: WHITES WITHOUT COLLEGE DEGREES ABANDONED HILLARY. That's just a known fact. It was stunning. Bill Clinton is the only Democrat in my adult lifetime that split the vote of Whites without college degrees in both his 1992 and 1996 races. His ability to appeal to the "Bubba" vote is what won him the Presidency, twice. Hillary did way worse than any other Democrat, including Obama in 2008 and 2012, with Whites without colleges degrees. At this point, it's not a shocker that happened in 2016. And now it's also not a shocker that a lot of those people have left Team Toxic in disgust. I would not be at all surprised if President Toxic in 2020 underperforms with his base, like Hillary did in 2016. He's not just throwing red meat at them every day. He's throwing the whole fucking cow at them, every hour. It could be that means that they'll have record turnout. Or it could mean he's desperate. I don't think we'll know until it happens. But poor Brad. He's supposed to be riding this wave of enthusiasm. Not in a hospital on suicide watch. That can't be a good sign. When it's all said and done, the single best day of the year for me so far, in terms of this election, was when I read Lichtman saying Biden would win. Obviously I pay a lot of attention to the polls. But I agree with Lichtman that ultimately the election is about the big picture fundamentals. He'd say 100 % of what happens with polls is just noise. I'd say more like 80 %. Either way, I agree with him. It will be very hard for President Toxic to win this election, as long as Biden doesn't massively fuck it up in the last month. I don't mean that to say we should be overconfident. We should donate and volunteer like we are losing. But to me it is motivating to think that if we do this right we are on the cusp of bringing the baby home. This feels more like 2008 than 2012 or 2016. It feels like the task now is to be confident, execute, and bring the baby home.

Not a thai BL, but hot spanish strippers solving crime on Toyboy series is in netflix. Sometimes i wish gogobars in thailand would try some of their choreographed shows lol

I think picking the state you win in is a little premature. It smacks of 2016ish overconfidence lol. Bloomberg's 24/7 incessant advertising spending didn't help him in the primaries; it just caused a backlash to his arrogance of money. I doubt it's going to do better for Biden/Harris in Florida. If they do the same with their half-billion they'll also get backlash. Florida was what alerted me that polling might be fucked up this year for president. For half the year in Florida's 50/50 county I dared not say anything resembling Democratic support and saw nothing but Trumpists everywhere. Then I look online and the polls tell me Florida and Pinellas county are +7% Biden?? No way, no how. At least the polls have evened out now (although nothing changed) but at first they were very wrong in Florida. South Florida is not as controlling as it used to be. (and Cubans in Miami love Trump). When the pandemic first struck the primaries were ridiculous. Expecting people to risk covid to vote. Turnout and motivation usually matters most and it's still to be seen how our first almost-national mail-in election affects motivation and turnout . I don't see how the pollsters can know that yet. Some of them are saying 2-3% have already mailed ballots in many states, and I expect that to go up after the debate tuesday. But I don't see how they'll know if 50% or 80% are going to return their ballots (if automatically sent out) in new mail states or how many absentee ballots will be requested, much less returned in other states. It's a whole new ballgame in 2020 that pollsters can't possibly know yet. I'm not buying that they've figured the mail-in effect yet. (it should help the Dems a lot if it means more voters). The worst thing about polling in 2016 was not the national polls, they were within 1%; it was the battleground state polls. Many of them were way off like in Ohio (that was 7% off), Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. State polls are too unreliable in spite of how much pollsters defend them. I think this year there may be even more "shy" Trump voters in the midwest. When you're told 100 times a day that Trump is a racist and then asked if you're for Trump you may not be give the answer a voter will make in secret. We went through this for years with George Wallace who would poll barely double digits in states but then on election day would win states across the country by landslides. If there's social stigma to being for a candidate, people polled will often not answer truthfully. And the media has put more social stigma on being for Trump than any candidate I can remember back to Wallace. Sometimes it's better to be more impartial and seem fair than to create a backlash by browbeating people. And it really affects polling. Anyway, I still don't trust the state polls much (for prez or Senate) and I really doubt the pollsters have any idea what turnout and motivation is going to be with the pandemic mail balloting. It's a whole new ballgame. Booker was pretty unknown in Kentucky until the primary when he surged in popularity and the DNC had to step in to stop him from getting the nomination. McGrath was a known (loser) candidate. The DNC always thinks money=votes. McConnel is no more popular in KY than Graham is in SC and the races should have been similarly close, especially after Breonna Taylor.

It takes a noble gentleman to admit he's not the #1 cock gobbler in the room. That said, network news reports this evening that ongoing anti-mask/lockdown protests continue in London. A segment of US doctors, health gurus and others continue to spew their position that the pandemic should not require Americans to wear masks or social distance. And Rand Paul spewed false pandemic claims about herd immunity this week while he criticized Dr. Fauci during more Senate hearings. Sounds like the pandemic death toll is sort of acceptable to these people. Now, some better news this evening: COVID hospitalizations in LA and Orange County are dropping. The data varies depending on which news source, but in any case, good to hear. I should say something about A.M., to stay with the OP. The article attributed her being basically standing at the head of European affairs. Reminds me of a pre-covid protest I attended where one of the LA board of supervisors spoke about kidnapping and murder of gays in Chechnya, and how we need the leader of the free world, Angela Merkel to stand up to Russia. That got a rousing cheer from the crowd. I look forward to better times when we can gather safely, and better times after bad-POTUS is out of the WH.

My dear Kessie, I can truly appreciate your ra-ra enthusiasm for the demise of Trump, one way or the other. I share your sentiments... But PLEASE remember 2016 when everyone had ra-ra enthusiasm for Hillary, AND WE GOT TRUMP...... It COULD happen again.... And that would make all your pages and pages of postings about his loss even sadder.... Maybe we need to turn the optimism DOWN just a smidge ? For almost 4 years Trump has been pulling fucking rabbits out of a hat, lied, mishandled, schemed and destroyed our democracy without ANY consequences... I hope you are right, BUT you could end up wrong ?

To be fair Michael probably knew all of this himself already Person right on the money was actually the boy, in his accurate estimation of Michael’s generosity!

My favorite community organizing mantra is Saul Alinsky's "the action is in the reaction". The more I read about this SCOTUS nomination, and its potential long term consequences, the more I think this could be the mother of all political reactions for much of the 21st century. So far, the title of Lincoln Project co-founder Rick Wilson's book has been more right than wrong. In 2018, the Republican House majority died. No one is even suggesting they'll get that back in 2020. For the next month we'll hear endlessly about the amazing mandate the Senate Republicans were given in 2018 to do what they're about to do. One big clue that they had no mandate is that the majority of Americans oppose Republicans filling the seat now. Another big clue is that in 2018 Democrats had 24 seats to defend, and Republicans only had 9. So Republicans netting 2 seats isn't a mandate. They won Missouri and North Dakota and Indiana - red states - in 2018. But losing red states like Montana and purple states like Arizona wasn't exactly a huge Republican victory. 2020 will be the real test of Wilson's book title. As of now, it's looking like the Republican Senate majority will die. And the grand prize - the Toxic Presidency will die, too. Boo hoo. Boo hoo. Now there's a new question. If Barrett is seated, President Toxic will definitely have touched the Supreme Court. So will it die, too? My guess is it will. It will die in the sense that in a decade it will have lost much of the legitimacy it has today. This article is a good compilation of what a bunch of legal scholars think about the likely impact of Barrett (and President Toxic's other justices). I'm quoting two of scholars, who express one of the strongest themes of the various prognostications. How Amy Coney Barrett Would Reshape The Court - And The Country Of course, we don't know whether Barrett will be confirmed, let alone what she'll do. But this seems to me like a grim and realistic prognosis. If correct, it suggests that the legitimacy of SCOTUS will diminish. Depending on how far they go, SCOTUS could simply be seen as an appendage of the Republican Party. Or of corporate America. Or of climate change deniers. Or even the most right-wing religious organizations in America. None of these legal scholars mention anything about political reactions if their predictions come true. But the reactions could be massive. It's one thing to be a conservative bulwark that blocks what even many Republicans in 2020 would view as progress: child labor laws, minimum wage laws, income taxes that fund popular social programs. It's another thing to actually roll back progress, or repeal it. I assume that a 6-3 conservative court will do everything they can think of to NOT repeal Roe. v. Wade. Instead, they will incrementally kill it in all but name. That won't work as easily with the ACA. They've already killed part of it. But now it's sort of all or nothing. Another one of the themes of the Politico piece is that this is probably the end of the line for efforts by Justices like Kennedy and Roberts to zig zag in a way that kept SCOTUS near the center of American political gravity. No matter how well they try to disguise it, Americans will figure out that the Court has swung hard to the right. That will likely cause a huge political reaction. A lot of that reaction will happen at the state level. Including in the state elections of two US Senators. Long term, this could address the Democrats' biggest structural problem. There's a lot of data being put up right now about how the Senate naturally favors Republicans. I'll post some of it below. My point is that a far right SCOTUS might have the effect of gradually loosening the Republicans' hold on some of those states, and thus the Senate. I'll use abortion as an example. I don't think anyone knows what the political implications of a repeal of Roe v. Wade will be. I cited poll data above from Pew that suggests that right now 61 % of Americans support legal abortion in all or most cases, and 38 % oppose abortion in all or most cases. Pew also found no difference between men and women - 60 % of both sexes support abortion in all or most cases. This Gallup poll which is also recent provides a significantly different picture. It is perhaps a classic example of the answer depending on how you ask the question. When you ask about "pro-choice" or "pro-life", it's much more of a 50/50 split. And a gender gap appears. A slight majority of women are "pro-choice", and a slight majority of men are "pro-life". On the bottom line question of whether it should be legal, Gallup's numbers suggest that as few as 43 % of Americans support abortion that is legal in most cases. And up to 55 % of Americans want abortion to be legal "in only a few circumstances", or not at all. If you believe the Pew numbers, Republicans appear to be asking for massive long-term pushback in most states, with the exceptions being ones like Alabama. If you believe the Gallup data, it might explain why McConnell and The Divine Miss Graham are pushing full speed ahead. They may believe this will help them in all red states, and most purple states. The 2018 Senate results don't suggest that. Nor do the polls in 2020, so far. But nobody knows. We will have a very good indication when we know what happened in Senate races in Montana, Kansas, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Texas. (Of those purple to red state, three had Senate elections in 2018. Democrats won Montana and Arizona, and came closer than expected in Texas. Like I said, 2018 was not a Republican mandate.) The same goes for the ACA and a long list of other issues. My guess is that Mitch McConnell is politically unassailable in Kentucky. But Andy Beshear just won the Kentucky Governor seat back in part because of the ACA, basically avenging his Dad's loss to a one-term right wing Governor. If SCOTUS repeals the ACA, it's not completely clear what reaction that will cause even in a deep red state like Kentucky. If we are doomed to repeat the obstructionist conservative court of the 1930's, it's even less clear what the political reaction will be when they throw out whatever watered-down parts of the Green New Deal Biden and Democrats are able to pass. I agree with the authors I cited above. The Supreme Court will likely revert to being what it was for much of US history: a block against democratic and progressive majorities, and a protector of powerful minorities and elites. The reaction at the state level could be to move more states to the left, driven by social issues like abortion and economic issues like health care and minimum wages. If that happens, I could also see it eliminating any structural advantage Republicans have in the US Senate. The Senate’s Rural Skew Makes It Very Hard For Democrats To Win The Supreme Court That article has good data on two things: the partisan lean of all 50 states, and the urban/rural geography of all 50 states. I don't buy the idea the the Senate is the biggest obstacle to Democrats "winning" SCOTUS. I think it's obvious the Slavery Electoral College is the biggest obstacle. Were Hillary Clinton the winner in 2016, we'd potentially be looking at a 6-3 liberal majority (assuming Kennedy resigned.) If you also assume Gore was President in 2000, there would never have been a Bush second term during which he appointed two justices. Arguably, up to 8 of the 9 SCOTUS justices would have been appointed by Democrats. What screwed Democrats (and democrats) first and foremost is not the Senate, or McConnell. It's the Slavery Electoral College. If we want democratic politics in America, we have to get rid of the Slavery Electoral College. The idea that the woman who wins the most votes is the winner is NOT a radical idea. I'm assuming any court packing scheme designed to give liberals a court majority will be politically toxic. An effort to restructure the Senate to look like more like the House would be even more politically toxic. What Democrats should be thinking about is getting and keeping a 50+ vote majority in the Senate. And then getting rid of the Senate filibuster, which relied on a level of bipartisanship and comity that is now just dead. I've read a bunch of good articles this year that suggest that "it's the geography, stupid" is even more important today than "it's the economy, stupid." The way I understand the first phrase is that it incorporates the economy. Areas that are more rural and Whiter tend to be more culturally conservative as well. They tend to be the areas that feel, and often are, left behind economically. Everything about the sunny and outward optimism of Reagan (California, pro-trade, pro-immigrant) is now associated with the Democratic Party. Reagan was the one who said Hispanics are Republicans, but they just don't know it yet. The post-Trump Republican Party fits more into the pessimistic tradition that America and American values have been lost. I love the phrase "coalition of restoration" to describe the Republican Party as it will probably exist for a long time to come. So if all that is accurate, if you look at that 538 list of states by partisan lean the Democrats can probably just forget about states that are the most rural. They already have been the least Democratic: like Wyoming and Idaho and perhaps Montana. That said, Tester survived 2018, right after voting against Justice Rapist. And they have a Democratic Governor that may be their other Senator soon. There are only three states that have 0 % of their population in the big urban cores and small cities that are supposed to favor Democrats. They are Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Given that Vermont is both one of the most rural AND the most Democratic, it's obviously more than just the geography, stupid. Here's numbers 20-24 on the list of states by Republican partisan lean, in order: South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio. If those five states were always in play for Democrats, plus the next 25 states that are most favorable to Democrats, that would mean Democrats ought to be able to have realistic chances to get up to 60 Senate seats in any cycle. Right now, it looks like Iowa and Georgia and even South Carolina are toss ups. Again, what happens in 2020 will give us a really good read on how hospitable those states are to Democrats. But my basic premise is that when the SCOTUS turns hard right, there will be a broad and deep reaction. My guess is that as this plays out it will make it easier, not harder, to win Senate seats and state legislatures in states like Ohio, Georgia, Texas, and maybe South Carolina. I'm actually most pessimistic about Iowa, which used to be a pretty solid Democratic state. It has neither significant concentrations of urban areas, nor significant concentrations of non-Whites, which are the the trends favoring Democrats the most. South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, and Ohio do have concentrations of either urban areas, or minorities, or both. So if Iowa is going to stay Democratic, it's going to be despite the trends rather than because of them. I'm trying to get my head around the bright side of a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS. It pisses me off, because but for the Slavery Electoral College Democrats won 6 of the 7 last Presidential elections, and therefore should have "won" the SCOTUS as well. But being pissed off isn't a good place to be. For a lot of US history slave owners and robber barons and corporate interests used SCOTUS and the Slavery Electoral College to dominate and secure their interests, including owning Black people as property. I don't have a big conceptual problem with letting them go back to being just that. In a system of checks and balances, it will create a reaction. The more conservative a little club of nine people gets, the more liberal the nation's reaction will likely be. At least in a majority of states, which are the ones Democrats should target. Arizona, Ohio, Georgia, Texas - those should all be in play. In the last three Senate election cycles (2014, 2016, 2018), Republicans won a total of 57 seats, and Democrats won 46 (that includes special elections). Meanwhile, Republican Senate candidates in those elections won a total of 100 million votes, whereas Democrats about 125 million votes. That right there speaks to the structural advantage of Republicans winning all these smaller, Whiter, and rural states like Wyoming and Idaho. I think Democrats have to elevate the issue of democracy and legitimacy. I'm now ready to let the SCOTUS damn themselves. Let them be the opposite of the Warren Court. Let Blacks and Hispanics and lesbians and liberals and progressives see this club of nine as the place where religious bigots thrive, White racism has a welcome home, civil rights legislation is viewed with hostility, and progressive ideas go to die. It would be consistent with much of US history. It really did not have to be that way. But the Slavery Electoral College, Gore and Hillary would have been elected. And it would not have been that way. But, as President Toxic says, it is what it is. There is no mandate for conservatism. So whenever Republicans say "mandate", we should do what President Toxic does and say, "No, assholes. You stole it. In a democracy, the person who gets 3 million more votes wins. So yeah, asshole. You stole it. If Democrats get 125 million votes and Republicans get 100 million votes, that's not a Republican mandate. Even if it means you got more Senate seats. Mostly, I think what Democrats need to do is lock down the Presidency and the Senate. Time and demography is on our side. We ought to be able to win and hold both a lot more than Republicans do. And a hard right wing SCOTUS ought to be able to help Democrats do it as this plays out. It probably won't work in Alabama or Idaho. But it should help tip states like Georgia and Texas. We'll know a lot better whether I'm right or wrong two months from now.

That was less about my post about a walk around gay Bangkok, and more about your foray into being a bitchy queen who doesn't know how to pass on posts they don't like.

He is a sweetheart and always extremely nice when Im in the sauna

This is completely untrue. There is a huge, thriving gay scene in Bangkok that has nothing to do with commercial sex or go go bars. Paid sex is a very small fraction of the landscape. The commercial sex scene is marketed and made accessible to English speaking tourists, which is why the discussion here tends to be heavily centered around boys and bars. But don’t discount the local gay scene, clubs and parties, the Songkran festivities, White Party, and the privately hosted gay events and parties just because our members rarely go to these. There is so much more to gay Bangkok than discussed here. But yes I agree we all wish we were there, for bars or other venues.

I think I recognize the boy (staff in 117) in picture in post above. He has a tattoo above his eyebrow? I noticed him and I think he is cute. I'm just back from my first trip to Brazil, two weeks in SP and RJ. Points the OP raised: 1, some ATMs tried DCC (Dynamic Currency Conversion with a very unfavorable rate) which would result in a loss of 10 to 15%. Can be easily averted. In the end, I got money from Bradesco without fee or DCC. 2, I got a SIM-card at Claro in Frei Caneca shopping center. The little required information was exchanged with google translate. 3, English is indeed more widely spoken in Thailand (and elsewhere in SEAsia) than in Brazil. On the other hand, I can read French as a foreign language fluently which allows me to understand half of written Portuguese. Even someone who cannot read a Romance language can read names of places in Portuguese, but not in Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia or China. Some of my sauna visits were indeed slow (low number of customers and boys). But I have seen more body shapes and types than in Thailand, and the biggest dicks I have ever seen.

I was there last month and am going back in a couple of weeks. I booked a ticket when I saw the new Fragata finally had an opening date. Namuzu is still there and I'm not sure he'll ever leave, lol

From Thai Enquirer Lawmakers Put off Vote on Constitutional Amendments BANGKOK (AP) — Scheduled voting by Thai lawmakers on six proposed amendments to the country’s military-backed constitution was canceled at the last minute Thursday as Parliament voted instead to set up a committee to further consider such proposals. The action, taken after two days of debate, means any vote on constitutional amendments is likely to be postponed for at least a month, and likely longer. At least 1,000 protesters pushing for charter reform gathered outside the Parliament building, and were angered when they heard that the voting might be postponed. They issued three demands for changes to the charter, including reform of the monarchy, limits to the powers of the unelected senators, and the election, not appointment, of any constitutional drafting committee’s members. Protest leaders threatened that they would hold another rally in October if their demands are not met by Sept. 30.

I just spent a few days at Logoa Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. If Logoa was a disappointment for you I’m here to set your expectations that 117 will not be better. Over the past 3 or 4 days 117 has been very slow. Only 202 was worth my time. But I’m not someone looking for a Greek god type in Brazil.

Boys, I cannot say which country is better, both have pros and cons. 1, it is easier to connect with thais than Brazilians. Maybe it is still the language barrier, thai people speaks okay English while most brazil boys speaks 0 English. 2, Lagoa sao paulo is a huge disappointment. I have been there 2 nights so far, have not seen any handsome man, no, I do not have carzy high standards. Most of boys are boy next door type, no Greek gods at all. 3, internet hire in brazil is good. I hired 2 boys from internet, both way more handsome than photos, cover boy material. maybe beautiful boys do not go to sauna anymore? They are so so in bed, but beauty is the pass for everything, no complaints. 4, I blame nazumi for this one, if you are not as rich and handsome as him, do not expect any love story with a super hot brazil man could happen to you. The chance to find a compatible boy for a couple days stay is higher in thailand. 5, brazil is cheaper in this regard, which is a plus. Bangkok stars in moonlight charge twice as much compared to equally hot boys here. Next, a couple days in Rio. Hope I can find some greek gods in 117!!

Thanks Bro, I am well. thanks to you all who are staying at home and help flattening the curve. keep sane and stay healthy!!!