RockHardNYC

Yes, from posters who use too much bold to express their strong opinions. Good grief, it's page 5. What else is a thread supposed to do at this age?

I enjoy a worthwhile discussion. But when someone with a rather strong opinion comes along and asks a question that has an OBVIOUS answer, I get impatient.

A pretty face who is just an asshole gets the privilege of my boot in his ass.

And that's why I disagree with you (somewhat). Celebrities who acquire wealth based on looks alone rarely run the test of time for longer than a minute. Here, the word minute is a metaphor. Smart people know that good looks are fleeting for the vast majority of people. I can count the Cindy Crawford's in my life on one finger. If you don't have intelligence and/or talent or greater genes to back a great face up, there isn't much substance or life to the so-called privilege of being attractive. I would argue that Bundchen and Clooney are SO MUCH more than pretty faces. Clooney grew into his handsomeness. When he was much younger, he was fairly average looking. When the subject is modeling, particularly Supermodels, most people have no clue what that talent entails. Most people don't know what it takes to be a good actor or a great movie star, either. Everyone assumes wrongly that just a pretty face will suffice. Escorts are required to be good at sex. You don't need to be a raging beauty to be successful as an escort. Good looks can certainly help an escort to expand his/her career. Good looks will open doors, but they don't guarantee they'll stay open. The aging clock never stops ticking, so good-looking people are forced to ride a wave as good as one can. The wave eventually breaks and comes crashing down. I don't know any super hot escorts who have earned Bundchen and Clooney money. Nowhere near that income, not even by a tenth. So much for the privilege of good looks. Some young people who think they're good-looking often behave entitled. This is not an endearing quality, so I would argue they're not a good example of privilege. This is a silly question. Certain industries require beauty, such as high-fashion modeling and movie star acting. Beauty is an enhancement in escorting, but I would argue a personality means so much more. There are plenty of successful escorts who don't even have a huge cock. If you want to see the gifts of true privilege, show me someone with a golden personality. Who doesn't want to be around that person?

Hooboy's creation had a profound effect on many lives. The more I read about him, retrospectively, the more fascinated I become. I've said it many times before, I had Hooboy's review page bookmarked. Viewing it over coffee was a morning ritual long before I joined the forum. Not only did I meet some very fun, generous, sexy guys along the way, I was happy sharing some of my experiences by writing reviews. I love giving credit where credit is due. My favorite from of advertising is word of mouth. I so enjoyed reading this personal memory from you, Steven. Thank you for writing it here. I personally hope we see and read more from you in the new year.

Amen. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have yet to see an escort who deserved the title "privileged." A certain type of "beauty" may open a few doors in life. It may get you more attention for a minute. But privilege? I guess it depends on how people treat your beauty, or whether they agree with your definition. Some people think beauty is a curse. I wonder how they feel about "privilege?"

I can't believe some of you queens are still ragging on about the ethics of posting escort photos of guys who work in bathhouses. With permission or not. What the fuck is wrong with you assholes? Were you dropped at birth? I have a good idea: for every guy who wishes to post escort photos on a public forum, they MUST allow escorts to post nude photos of those very same customers. I think that would shut most of these assholes up but quick. Sure, you miss the "fun," but have no answers for the consequences. It's all about having "fun" for some selfish people. Nothing else matters, even when someone gets seriously hurt. Be sure to let the door kick you in the ass on the way out. Anyone who quits a board and announces it because his "fun" has ended is an ASSHOLE. Good riddance. PS It's a new year and I'm feeling feisty.

I'm sure cut exists in Europe, I just haven't seen much among the w's. A lot of them aren't as sparkling clean as they are here, either. I'm convinced uncut European boys tend to be proud of their funkier smells, and they believe (hope) all their sex partners are going to love it, too.

That video is 7 years old. Both guys don't always have to be hot for me to enjoy them. I've met some very interesting, sexy male couples who don't look like two Ken dolls. Too bad they have their asses blurred. Naked ass would have made the sketch even more funny.

"Big" was the first feature film directed by a woman to gross over $100 million. You go, Penny!

RIP, indeed. A lovely woman from the Bronx with many friends. Great story teller. Big heart. Funny. Great sense of humor. A super talented director. "Big" is one of my favorite movies.

That's a bit outrageous. I haven't seen any evidence that Kevin Hart said or wrote that "he'd kill his son if Gay." At this point, you can't believe most of what you find on the internet. People in the bleachers say a lot of shit. Too many haters. Screenshots can be easily doctored. To my knowledge, these are actual quotes from Hart: “Yo if my son comes home & try’s 2 play with my daughters doll house I’m going 2 break it over his head & say n my voice ‘stop that’s gay.’” "One of my biggest fears is my son growing up and being gay. That's a fear. Keep in mind, I'm not homophobic….Be happy. Do what you want to do. But me, as a heterosexual male, if I can prevent my son from being gay, I will." Please note: no mention of killing anyone.

The percentage of Blacks at my gym is not as high as I would enjoy, but I'm always surprised by the number they do have. The neighborhood is very White. Based on that small sample, most Blacks that I observe in the wet area are indeed cut. And some are very fun to play with.

When surreptitious video like this is becoming more and more popular, many people will continue to lose all sense of boundaries. Dangerous for us all. Or fun, depending on how you feel about your privacy. (Be sure to catch the video before Tumblr porn ends.)

Just look at all the deleted tweets that still have a life. There must be a screenshot-capturing cottage industry somewhere. And given the nature of cache, words and photos could be up on the internet for one second, then deleted, and still be around for plenty of time to take a screenshot or steal the image. Posters like that need to be broken from their enjoyment. It's difficult enough to trust family and friends.

The desire to speculate must be human nature. A lot of people seem to enjoy it.

Mussolini gave Rome Il Vittoriano. Without affection, it's also known as the wedding cake. (The view from the top can be fascinating.) Mussolini also gave Rome via dei Fori Imperiali, a modern road that runs in a straight line from the Piazza Venezia to the Colosseum. This construction did serious damage to antiquity. The road cuts right through the ancient Forum, where excavations continue to this very day.

There are plenty of self-absorbed, insecure gay men who don't want other men having more fun. Any theory that involves envy, jealousy, and one-upmanship works for me. If my memory can be trusted, pics were originally posted on the open forum. That's how I know about them. All it takes is one mistake like that and the bad apple has his worm. There's nothing special about that photo. It's out-of-focus, and it's not very flattering to either actor. A model's face should never be placed on the outer edge of a lens to avoid lens distortion. BelAmi boys have access to seriously talented photographers. Why on earth would they put that unflattering photo in their ad? Sounds to me like someone enjoys the feeling of escort tongue up his ass. (Can't say there's anything wrong with that.) +1 Sharing a photo on the internet in a private area is only "private" if you trust every member of that club. Sharing a photo with an in-person friend is not the same thing as giving that photo to a friend. Any photo shared on the internet, private or not, is a gift. It can be stolen and used with negative intent. Typically, I fall into the camp of trust no one in order to secure less disappointment.

I already said I was not a lawyer. Do you feel more intelligent now? That's funny. No confusion at all. I am simply unaware of any lawsuit involving an escort suing over his/her right of privacy. "You can stop a website's use of your image for three reasons: invasion of privacy, violation of right of publicity, or defamation. Invasion of privacy can occur if you are portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. For example, your photo was posted at an America's Most Wanted type of website, and you are not wanted by the law. Your privacy might also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded on you in a situation in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy—for example, in your own home. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited. Another reason to stop the use is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if your image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. If the photo is used in a commercial website—that is, one sponsored by a business or that sells products or services—the unauthorized use of your image would probably violate your right of publicity. The public must be able to identify you in the photograph. You can also stop the website use if the photo defames you—that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. For example, it would be defamatory to doctor a photo to make it seem as if you were shoplifting. The fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray you and must cause people in the community to think less of you." To put it simply, no one should post/publish a private image of anyone without their consent. Period. No matter where you live.

Amen. Certain bars in Italy display framed photos of the guy. Some Italians wish he could rule today.

I'm all for fairness, but the paying customer is the one with cash in his wallet. When providing a paid service, it's never a good idea to bite the hand that feeds. So I would argue, posting photos of customers is BAD business practice. The mark of someone to AVOID. Any escort who is known to post photos of customers would be X-ed from my list, no matter what the escort's issue is. AVOID like the plague. Copyright law does extend beyond recognizable faces, but I sincerely doubt headless body infractions end up argued in court. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not aware of a body case filed and won. Let's not forget, it costs money to sue for copyright infringement. Most sex workers are not looking to spend hard-earned money on a lawyer.

It seems to me this "deficiency in awareness" and "trust" are issues with anyone using social media and maybe the entire internet. Most Facebook users got screwed and they don't even care. That's how dumb people want to be. Well, if you care about your fellow man, then alerting someone, giving them a teaching moment, is a way to possibly garner good Karma. I am always in the company of newbies to show business. Because I am a caring person, I forever seem to be alerting someone about the perils of this and that. Consensus is difficult to achieve, especially when the subject is sex. Many people don't respect sex work, and they feel sex workers are less deserving. If you feel this way, then you're not likely to care about a sex worker's feelings or their legal rights. Copyright law doesn't care what the person does for a living. If you own your image, you have rights in the U.S. The law knows how to differentiate between advertising and editorial usage. I imagine that most of the images posted on this board fall into "Fair Use" category. As long as Oz is not charging a fee to view these images, no one is making money off of them. That might explain why Daddy prefers "donations." It bypasses a lot of legal responsibility.

There was substantial debate within the Oprah camp on whether Oprah should leave her talk show. Many argued the loss of revenue could seriously hinder her growth goals, especially with her desire to start her own network. Eventually, she came back to doing interview specials, and did those for quite some time. Oprah also had a lengthy career as an actress. She appeared in The Color Purple in 1985. Oprah was never a comedian, so she never had to endure that crossover effect. Oprah and Ellen aren't quite equals when doing this comparison. I do think Ellen should follow her dreams.

If there is a debate, it's among people ignorant of local laws. In the U.S., you are not allowed to publish a person's face if the face is reasonably recognizable. If you're not sure, a signed model release can prevent a lawsuit. Many producers will simply blur out a face to skirt legal issues if shooting in a crowd. You see this all the time. The general rule is simple: if you have a photo of a model that does not exist on the internet, then you are ethically and perhaps legally required to get that model's permission to publish it anywhere, no matter if money is involved or not.

If the images are already on the internet (assuming they were put there by the person in the photo), then my ethical argument does not apply. If anyone deliberately puts an image on the internet, then it's open season. The image cannot be controlled. (Although there are digital markers.) Anyone who does not know that is either an under-age child or someone missing a brain. You don't need consent in this situation. Read above. The response to anyone who complains that their social media photos are being used elsewhere deserves a bucket of ice water in their face. "Wake up!" is the response I would offer. If someone does not want their internet image to appear on a website, no matter the subject, then it's on them to never post an image to the internet in the first place.