Leaderboard

From CNN OnlyFans suspends proposed ban on sexually explicit content (CNN)OnlyFans said Wednesday that it will suspend its upcoming policy change to restrict sexually explicit material, citing "assurances" it received that would allow it to be "a home for all creators." "We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change," the company said in a tweet. "OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators." Asked by CNN Business whether the announcement means the policy change might take effect at a later date, and whether the company agreed to make any changes to appease banks and allow for this reversal, OnlyFans said: "The proposed October 1, 2021 changes are no longer required due to banking partners' assurances that OnlyFans can support all genres of creators." The reversal comes just days after OnlyFans announced it would bar creators from posting "content that contains sexually explicit conduct," sparking an outcry among sex workers who had helped create the company's success and popularity. OnlyFans said the changes followed requests by "banking partners and payout providers." https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/25/tech/onlyfans-suspends-ban/index.html

When we return so will shops and boys. It may not be immediate but I think relatively fast. The same like with many of those closed business in our countries. Whether Prince will re-open in it's location it may be different question as it was sitting on piece of prime real estate

And now they're back: OnlyFans Reverses Its Decision to Ban Explicit Content All in one day. Talk about public relations whiplash. Good grief. What a bunch of silly amateurs. But it's porn, so behavior does not matter.

Not humor, useful info to counter idiots:

I started some limited list in the past, after my first trip to Brazil, but there were no many contributors ... You can find other useful words in this thread Aproveita !

Another perceptive article in today's Guardian newspaper. It still leads with the chaos and catastrophe of the US and NATO powers departure from Afghanistan prompted by Biden's screwing up by rushing out so disastrously. But this focuses much more on those warmongers and especially the media which gloried in the invasions of Afghanistan and also of Iraq. Why the media? "Because to acknowledge the mistakes of the men who prosecuted this war would be to expose the media’s role in facilitating it." Excerpts from an article in The Guardian 26 August - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/25/blame-afghanistan-war-media-intervention Any fair reckoning of what went wrong in Afghanistan, Iraq and the other nations swept up in the “war on terror” should include the disastrous performance of the media. Cheerleading for the war in Afghanistan was almost universal, and dissent was treated as intolerable. After the Northern Alliance stormed into Kabul, torturing and castrating its prisoners, raping women and children, the Telegraph urged us to “just rejoice, rejoice”, while the Sun ran a two-page editorial entitled “Shame of the traitors: wrong, wrong, wrong … the fools who said Allies faced disaster”. In the Guardian, Christopher Hitchens, a convert to US hegemony and war, marked the solemnity of the occasion with the words: “Well, ha ha ha, and yah, boo. It was … obvious that defeat was impossible. The Taliban will soon be history.” . . . Everyone I know in the US and the UK who was attacked in the media for opposing the war received death threats. Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress who voted against granting the Bush government an open licence to use military force, needed round-the-clock bodyguards. Amid this McCarthyite fervour, peace campaigners such as Women in Black were listed as “potential terrorists” by the FBI. The then US secretary of state, Colin Powell, sought to persuade the emir of Qatar to censor Al Jazeera, one of the few outlets that consistently challenged the rush to war. After he failed, the US bombed Al Jazeera’s office in Kabul. The broadcast media were almost exclusively reserved for those who supported the adventure. The same thing happened before and during the invasion of Iraq, when the war’s opponents received only 2% of BBC airtime on the subject. Attempts to challenge the lies that justified the invasion – such as Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and his supposed refusal to negotiate – were drowned in a surge of patriotic excitement. So why is so much of the media so bloodthirsty? . . . An obvious answer is the old adage that “if it bleeds it leads”, so there’s an inbuilt demand for blood . . . Another factor in the UK is a continued failure to come to terms with our colonial history. For centuries the interests of the nation have been conflated with the interests of the rich, while the interests of the rich depended to a remarkable degree on colonial loot and the military adventures that supplied it. Supporting overseas wars, however disastrous, became a patriotic duty. For all the current breastbeating about the catastrophic defeat in Afghanistan, nothing has been learned. The media still regale us with comforting lies about the war and occupation. They airbrush the drone strikes in which civilians were massacred and the corruption permitted and encouraged by the occupying forces. They seek to retrofit justifications to the decision to go to war, chief among them securing the rights of women. But this issue, crucial as it was and remains, didn’t feature among the original war aims. Nor, for that matter, did overthrowing the Taliban. Bush’s presidency was secured, and his wars promoted, by American ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists who had more in common with the Taliban than with the brave women seeking liberation. In 2001, the newspapers now backcasting themselves as champions of human rights mocked and impeded women at every opportunity . . . You can get away with a lot in the media, but not, in most outlets, with opposing a war waged by your own nation – unless your reasons are solely practical. If your motives are humanitarian, you are marked from that point on as a fanatic. Those who make their arguments with bombs and missiles are “moderates” and “centrists”; those who oppose them with words are “extremists”. The inconvenient fact that the “extremists” were right and the “centrists” were wrong is today being strenuously forgotten.

So I called on the phone a few days after I made this post since nobody responded to me here, and they were (are) still open for business between 1pm and 7pm. They are not operating as they did before, where you go in and look at guys behind the mirror. Instead, they send you pictures to your phone of the guys working there and you have to text back saying which guy you want to meet. The person I spoke to on the phone sent me some pics of the guys who were available on the day I wanted to meet, and I chose the one I liked most, who was a Brazilian called Leo. I paid £130 for one hour with Leo and he was fantastic. I recommend Villa Gianni and Leo in particular if anyone reading this wants to go there and try it out for the first time.

I've met some Awesome guys in Brazil using Grindr. One guy I still hope to meet again! I remember him telling me he was only in Brazil for a short time to earn some money. On my final night in Brazil he came to visit and had a friend tag along with him. That was a night I will never forget. I can still remember almost every inch of their bodies and if I try a little, I can remember their voices.. Grindr never failed me when it came to meeting guys, be it free or for $. I am sure when I return, Grindr will be the first app I will be using. My favorite ways to meet guys over the internet in Brazil. Grindr (App) Romeo (www.romeo.com) Viva Local (https://www.vivalocal.com/acompanhantes-gays/br) Skokka (https://br.skokka.com/acompanhantes-masculinos/rio-de-janeiro/zona-central/) Garotocomlocal (https://garotocomlocal.com.br/) Hornet (App) Jack'd (App) Recon (App & web) (www.recon.com) Dudesnude (www.dudesnude.com)

This is becoming depressing, if true. Just been looking up the Prince massage in Bangkok and it appears another quality massage spa has closed permanently (according to Google search), that's 3 of my favourites gone now. I can understand these things happening because of covid but I'm really starting to wonder just what if any gay massage businesses will survive and what things will be like on the other side of the pandemic. Truly hoping this thing is over or under control sooner rather than later and that these businesses can start back up again.