Lucky

I disagree with Daddy on many occasions, and I have been lucky enough to be able to tell him all of my gripes to his face. I've gotten nowhere. As for cocks with the pix, well, c'mon, we're gay. I agree that Daddy has little to fear by showing pix of guys who are clearly of age. He doesn't want to be involved in the record-keeping required, and, well, that's his choice. But it sure would spice up his site if he did. Ultimately though, we are just along for the ride. Both Daddy and Oz provide these forums to us free of charge, and while I give my opinions for free too, I hold none of the responsibility or take any of the risks.

Steven, I was mainly surprised at your post as it seemed inconsistent with what I perceived your views to be. I am sure however that you will be most welcome here, especially with 17,936 other members to keep you company! They are mostly a quiet bunch though...

Here's one more comment that Steven made on the Hooville site: I can't imagine my escort career without this site. Most of my time with clients these days is spent with regulars I have known for years, and almost all of them are people who found me on this site, despite the fact that I've probably had profiles up on over a dozen sites at various times. That's not a coincidence. I learned early on that this is the "thinking man's" site, and that people who actually make thoughtful decisions about who and why to hire, and are able to communicate about their sexual needs and wants, are almost always more fun to be with. People with those characteristics are attracted to this site, which is mostly about thoughts and words, not cock and ass shots like most other escort sites. Mostly, that thoughtfulness has been reflected on this message board whenever I've tuned in or posted something. I've refered lots of people who hired me to it, both to protect them from making bad hiring decisions, and because I thought it was a cool forum to talk about all kinds of things relating to escorting and being gay. *************** Now understand that I am not saying I disagree with everything he has to say today, but it is a very big change from what he has said before, and I am curious what brought it about. I can't think of another site to which he could be referring.

Steven, if your remarks are about Hooville and Daddy, they seem inconsistent with what you had previously posted on the subject. When and why did you change your mind? From Steven Kesslar: I am not assuming Daddy has reason to believe anything. In this situation, or some future one, he may not be in a position to prove anything. And part of the problem is you are right that simply by posting the review, it could suggest that Daddy has reason to believe the meeting did occur. This is a pretty rare situation. As far as I can recall, most escorts that get bad reviews don't claim the reviewer never even met them. In a situation like that, I don't know how either side could prove anything, or why Daddy would want to get in the middle of a 3 way like that. (Unless he gets to remove sperm samples from Kristian as evidence). To me, the value of a flag would be that it would be rare. I'm not suggesting Daddy should get in the business of judging the quality of reviews. *********** One of the things I like most about this site is that it is mostly open-ended and collaborative. I just got spanked by Daddy because I set up a signature picture with a cock shot, and he reminded me, appropriately, that his ass is on the line for a big fine if he is found to be in violation of the law. That seems totally appropriate to me, and besides I like it when Daddy spanks me. :-) But on something like this, where there is no federal law, I like the fact that the people who contribute to the site, both escorts and clients, have a say in setting policy. __________________ Steven ************ And just so I am very clear, my point is not that Daddy should kill negative reviews or second guess critical things that clients say in those reviews. ***** When I was being roughed up on the message center I appreciated the people who stuck up for me, including Daddy. ************* As I said repeatedly, you are a fair-minded judge, and I appreciate that. I'm bending over. You may spank me if you wish. And I promise to be quiet now.

That made me laugh. Thanks!

For a reward, a weekend with Andre would work just fine to motivate me. After all, I have posted two reviews here, and although there are guys that have posted more, they did so because they could afford to hire more escorts than I can. See the logic there? Those of us who post the fewest reviews should be rewarded so we can afford to post another review.

What we have right now in Palm Springs is therapeutic service. That's where all of the masseurs have gone. Now, instead of having a gay section and a straightsection, it is all lumped into one, which means the pussies prevail.

My local Palm Springs craigslist no longer has an erotic services section, thus even massages are out. But the m4m section offers this: 18m seeking pnp tonight or tomorrow - 18 (ps) Reply to:pers-fn2zj-118****656@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?] Date: 2009-05-22, 12:45AM PDT looking to pnp tonight and get fucked.im btm and will do just about anything.im 5'9 150 athletic.into getting spanked and sucking cock and rimmming.any age is ok as long as you like pnp and have some as well.im 420 friendly and i have some and popper friendly as well dont have any.plz be able to host Wouldn't society be better off if I just paid a guy to jack me off, rather than indulge an 18 year old's need for drugs? This ad is okay, but erotic services for money are not. On the other hand, no pic, and the ad could easily be a cop's setup.

I sure hope so.

The LA Times reports that we have essentially been tossed under the bus as Obama cozies up to the generals: By Carol J. Williams 10:46 PM PDT, May 19, 2009 President Obama's campaign vow to end the ban on gays in the military -- and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that forces thousands of military personnel to stay in the closet -- appears to be driven now by a strategy of "don't rush." The recent coming-out by dozens of gay West Point graduates, including Arabic language specialist Lt. Daniel Choi of Tustin, has spotlighted the conflicting policies and put pressure on Congress and the White House to make good on promises to repeal them. A report issued last week by UC Santa Barbara's Palm Center research institute said Obama had the power to thwart the discharging of military personnel for their sexual orientation. Under the "stop-loss" provision, Obama can issue executive orders to retain any soldier deemed necessary to the service in a time of national emergency, the report said. The president also could halt the work of Pentagon review panels that brand troops as gay and thus excluded from service, the report said. And Obama and his Defense secretary could revise discharge procedures, as allowed under the 1993 law banning gays in the military. Choi, who received a notice of discharge this month for publicly disclosing his homosexuality, doesn't want Obama to intercede on his behalf. He wants officials to eliminate obstacles to gays serving their country. "Why would I be comfortable with him making a special case for me when so many others are getting kicked out?" asked Choi, 28, whose Korean immigrant parents have not accepted his homosexuality. Those who support openly gay troops point to the loss of important skills, such as Choi's fluency in Arabic and independent study of Persian, as unacceptable costs of an outdated and unfair policy. But neither Congress nor the White House appears eager to reopen the bitter debate over gays in the military that rocked the early months of the Clinton administration. "They're caught in a political double bind. If they move too quickly, they will expend political capital with the military and Congress. Yet if they move too slowly, they will alienate a core constituency and fail to deliver on a very clear campaign promise," said Aaron Belkin, director of the UC Santa Barbara institute. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said recently that if the ban were lifted, it would be difficult for the military to restructure its units to accommodate homosexuals. National security advisor James L. Jones Jr. also has reacted coolly to the prospect of lifting the ban. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama recognized that banning gays from the military -- leaving an estimated 65,000 people to serve as long as they don't disclose their homosexuality -- "isn't working for our national interests." But Gibbs said change required "more than the snapping of one's fingers." He said Obama considered congressional action the best way to ensure real change. He said the president would refrain from issuing executive orders to halt discharges. Legal analysts differ about whether Obama's intervention would help the cause of integrating gays or hurt it by taking the pressure off Congress to repeal the ban. "It's better to address the statute itself rather than issue an executive order that would temporarily suspend discharges" and leave lawmakers to think there is no urgency to amend the law, said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which lobbies to end the ban. Others, like Nathaniel Frank, author of "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America," see the latest musings on how and when to let gays openly serve as reflecting a fear of tackling a tough issue. "The military has been passing the buck to Congress by saying, 'This is a congressional issue; we're simply following the law.' But the military was instrumental in insisting that this ban is necessary," Frank said. He said the policy "is not just a social issue, it's a national security issue in that we are losing people we can't afford to lose." Since 1994, when "don't ask, don't tell" went into effect, more than 12,500 men and women have been discharged from the armed forces for being gay, including nearly 800 "mission-critical specialists" such as Choi. In the first decade after the ban was imposed, the Pentagon was forced to spend an estimated $364 million to train replacements for those discharged for sexual orientation, a 2005 Government Accountability Office report said. At the very least, Sarvis said, Congress should cut the Pentagon budget item for rooting out gays from the military and training replacements. Obama has said he wants the ban lifted during the current congressional term, but even the most motivated lawmakers see little prospect of swift action. Democratic U.S. Reps. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, co-chairs of the newly formed Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus, have said they need to be sure there is majority support for repealing the ban before beginning debate. Opponents of gays in the military applaud the back-burner treatment being accorded the issue and warn against any end-runs around the ban. "The latest strategy of the opposition is to say that if they don't have the votes to change the law, they'll just ignore it. But that would be a breach of faith between the commander in chief and the troops he leads," said Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness. She concedes the world has changed since the ban was passed, but says "military culture hasn't changed." Men and women are separated in the services to ensure privacy and dignity, she said, and to try to integrate gays would "cause a lot of disruption." Flag and General Officers for the Military, a nonprofit group of senior officers, has written a letter urging Congress to retain the ban, with at least 50 four-star generals and admirals expressing their concern about "the impact of repeal on morale, discipline, unit cohesion and overall military readiness."

Only 12 of MER's 18000 members were not watching American Idol tonight. Sometimes posting here is like shouting in an empty room.

Another shocking discharge story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aubrey-sarvi...5_b_205553.html

18 young men, some claiming to be bisexual, joined in on the first Mr. Gay Cambodia contest. The winner was a 19-year old high school student (a late bloomer?). Here's the article from the Phnom Penh Post, which includes a picture of some of the smiling contestants: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/200...ay-crowned.html

Happy birthday. Did you fuck a soldier for the occasion (a gay one)?

My reference reflects my own wonder at why someone would want to be in a military that doesn't want them, and there is no doubt some spillover from my pacifist days. Choi is a quite self-assured man, and he sure did wink. That's why I think he will be a great spokesman for his cause, and I wouldn't be surprised if the White House offered him a post where his skills could be used.

I can only tell you what show I want to see, and that is Terry Fator, I believe at the Mirage. He was on America's Got talent and is a ventriloquist who does singing impressions of famous singers. He's quite good...looks a little like jackhammer.

Okay, granted. But no one will claim that a significant amount of these funds, and an even higher amount of the TARP funds, will be stolen. They may not be delaying the expenditure of Obama's money to steal it, but they will ultimately find a lot of it going where it shouldn't have gone.

Given that only about 10% of the $787 billion dollars allocated for economic stimulus has been spent so far, am I too cynical for thinking that the hold-up is so the rest of the money can be stolen or otherwise allocated to the usual corporate pigs at the trough? Just asking.

I guess I should stop complaining about being stopped and robbed by 2 Tijuana cops. It kinda pales in comparison, but does serve to point out how corrupt Tijuana is. No more Club Exstasis for me.

Dan Choi is becoming the poster boy for gays in the military. He has been on several tv programs this week as he is being booted from the military after graduating from West Point and serving honorably for ten years. He is a nice-looking, well-spoken man, who actually winked at Anderson Cooper on the air. He claims to have studiously adhered to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for all of these years, only recently finding love and deciding to come out. I wonder why a guy would want to give up his sexuality for all of those years in order to learn to be, and then be, a killer for the military. He apparently performed well at his tasks and is respected by the men under his command who support his efforts to stay in the military. I like the idea that he claims present law doesn't respect the professionalism of the troops in that it assumes that they cannot handle working with gay men. In short, especially given that he has learned Arabic ( those smart Asians!), he seems well-suited for the military. I wouldn't want to cross him up on a date, though.

I thought the Katie Perry performance was dreadful...just dreadful. And she shouldn't have been allowed to do that endorsement, such as it was, it may have cost him votes. Identifying himself with Perez Hilton probably doesn't help either. Given that the vote difference was a million votes, your 250 goes down as A for effort, but ultimately not very effective. But maybe 40000 other guys like you were doing the same thing...

250 times? When does your Tiger Beat subscription run out?

From Huffington Post, it looks like 3 states attorneys won a battle with craigslist: CHICAGO — Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan says that Craigslist is getting rid of its "erotic services" ads and will create a new adult category that Web site employees will review. Madigan's office said Wednesday that such existing ads on Craigslist will expire in seven days. Madigan and the attorneys general for Connecticut and Missouri met with Craigslist officials last week seeking an end to ads they contend are advertisements for illegal sexual activities. An e-mail sent to Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster was not immediately returned Wednesday morning. Craigslist came under renewed pressure to remove the ads after a medical student in Boston was charged with the April killing of a masseuse he met on the site.

From Politico: Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Monday he had no problem supporting an openly gay nominee to the Supreme Court. “I can vote for a gay nominee – we’ll just have to see,†Sessions (R-Ala.) told reporters Monday afternoon. “That’s just not the test really; the thing that I’m concerned about is high legal quality.†Sessions’ comments were the most explicit to date on the subject of whether he could support a gay nominee. Sessions, whom the GOP has tapped as their primary voice on the Supreme Court nomination, also wouldn’t say whether a nominee’s support for the controversial Roe v. Wade decision upholding abortion rights would be a disqualifying factor. “I think the whole record needs to be analyzed on how they approach the law.†Sessions’ comments came after what appeared to be contradictory statements last week on the issue of a gay nominee. The Alabama Republican told MSNBC that he didn’t think a “person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job,†while later telling Fox News that Americans “might feel uneasy about that†and it could be a “big concern.†On Monday, Sessions said his comments were not meant to be conflicting, and that the real measure of his support will come from a thorough evaluation of the nominee’s record. “I think the primary thing is that a nominee show fidelity to the law and that they not have any agendas, personal, social, religious or otherwise that would keep them for being faithful to the legal system of America,†Sessions said. “So that would be my fundamental concern.†Confirmation of Obama’s upcoming nominee is highly likely given Democrats’ large majority in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee. But Sessions is now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and his position will be critical in determining how fierce of a battle the GOP will wage over Obama’s replacement for Justice David Souter. Sessions meets Wednesday with Obama, Senate leaders and Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) to discuss the vacancy. Sessions declined to say whether he had any objections to the handful of names being discussed as possible nominees. Asked Monday if Republicans would focus on a nominee’s position on gay marriage, Sessions said, “I think people would want to inquire into that because … it may reflect the degree to which they think that they are not bound by the classical meaning of the constitution that they might want to let their own personal agenda go beyond what the law says.†He added that the issue of gay marriage is being debated in state legislatures across the country – “that’s probably where it should be.†Sessions said he had no issue if Obama considered gender or ethnic diversity in his choice, but said that Obama should primarily examine whether the nominee could be valuable to the court. “This is the Supreme Court – we need a great justice,†Sessions said. “A person should be selected who could really make a contribution to that court. And it shouldn’t be seen as a political patronage job. It’s more important than that.â€

From the New Republic, Yes We Can!: A Gay Supreme Court Justice? Politico notes that two of the people whose names are being tossed around as Supreme Court possibilities are lesbians: Kathleen Sullivan and Pam Karlan, both of Stanford Law School. (For more about Karlan, see this impassioned endorsement from Bill Stuntz, who has written some terrific pieces for TNR over the years.) Obviously, putting a lesbian on the court (or a gay man, for that matter, although none appear to be under consideration) would mark a wonderful step forward for the country. But is it politically possible? The obvious, first-glance answer is that it would be a political minefield. But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it would be eminently doable. And not only doable: It's even plausible to envision a scenario where it ends up helping Democrats by damaging conservatives. First, history suggests that the country is willing to accept Supreme Court nominees from minority groups even at a relatively early stage in their integration into American political life. When Louis Brandeis was nominated to the court in 1916, anti-semitism was still pervasive. When Thurgood Marshall was nominated in 1967, the country was still in the throes of the civil rights struggle. Yet both men were confirmed. More significantly, though, nominating a lesbian to the court would put conservatives in a politically awkward position. As the gay rights battle has come to center more and more on the specific question of marriage, conservatives have frequently insisted that they are not anti-gay, just opposed to gays getting married. Conservatives are attached to this distinction because they know that, without it, they end up looking like bigots. But if they decide to make an issue of a Supreme Court nominee's sexual orientation, they would effectively be conceding that this distinction was a lie. (After all, could there be any more baldly anti-gay political maneuver than bashing a Supreme Court nominee because of her sexual orientation?) Given that most Americans are no longer comfortable with transparent homophobia (while conservatives still have the majority on same-sex marriage, liberals enjoy majorities on various other gay-rights questions, such as workplace discrimination), it would be a risky move for conservatives to toss aside their cherished distinction between anti-gay sentiment and anti-gay-marriage sentiment. So maybe they would think twice about raising sexual orientation during a confirmation battle. And if they decided to do it anyway, it could become one of those defining moments where the American political center gets a glimpse at the fundamental ugliness undergirding a particular crusade--and turns decisively in the other direction. Of course, conservatives could try to have it both ways, and argue that they oppose a gay nominee because of gay marriage--that is, because it would bias the justice's vote should gay marriage ever come before the court. But this is a patently absurd argument--equivalent to maintaining that no women should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on abortion, or that no blacks should serve on the court because it might bias their votes on civil rights--and I think voters would be quick to dismiss it as thinly veiled bigotry. Wishful thinking? Maybe, maybe not. Of one thing I am confident: If it doesn't happen this time, it will happen soon enough. --Richard Just