riorockstar

Stating that one is a NoGagSucker in passing would be trashy enough, but defining and naming yourself after your kink is most certainly deserving of derision, particularly when coupled with gleeful plans of obtaining “affordable” men of color in a third world country. Privilege theory in no way contraindicates homonegativity in this context, when the original posting screams of privilege, fetishization, and exploitation of men of color.

You sound like such a cheap predator. But I guess I would’t expect anything different from someone who calls themself NoGagSucker. #NoClass

It is a little ironic how YOU stalk guys you are interested in, but then are IRRITATED and complain about guys you aren’t interested in “stalking” you. Here’s a hint: Like a lot of gay men, you are only interested in guys that are OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE. Heaven forbid someone of equal attractiveness and age expresses interest. You better stick to PAYING for it - it is the only way you will get hot guys (and it isn’t because they like Coroas, it’s because they want your $$$)

In the context of privilege theory, beauty privilege is less of a privilege than, for example, economic privilege, white privilege, cis privilege, straight privilege, male privilege, etc. Specifically, this is because there are no institutionalised forces enforced by beautiful people, ‘oppressing’ the not-so-beautiful masses. (Contrast this with segregation, apartheid, the caste system in India, sodomy laws, rights of women in Saudi Arabia, etc) In general, beauty privilege is rooted in health privilege. While we in the first world take adequate nourishment, sanitation and at least the option of rest after a hard day’s work for granted, historically that would be reserved for, well, privileged classes; bourgeoisie, aristocracy, nobility, royalty. The irony lost on many a young Instagram validation junkie today is that only a few centuries ago, being overweight would be a marker of high social status and robust health, and the average peasant would expect to be frail, sick and starving on a regular basis.

To me that just indicates consent was not actually given. The client likely mislead the garoto on the intent of the pictures (private use only vs. posting on a public forum).

Exactly, in BiLatin’s original post he did make a point of noting that he only had to pay $10 to the darker skin guy vs the lighter skin guy who he paid double to ($20). In retrospect there were several things about his post that caused me to become “triggered”

In my opinion, a highly paid professional garoto would know much more clearly the ramifications of consenting to nude photos vs. a naive non-professional teenager in Cuba.

Groupthink should not be a goal of any forum. Regardless whether you are a newbie, Paborn, feel free to post your opinion without worrying whether or not it will be popular or overwhelmingly agreed with.

This is where you confuse me a bit. If rentboys are highly paid professionals, then how does that reconcile with your posts about stark class imbalances and lack of ability to give true consent to photo taking. I am willing to consider that Cuba is a different dynamic than the commercialized setting of a brothel in Brazil. Somehow BiLatin’s post came off as far more exploitive than what I have read about garotos in Brazil (for example in Numazu’s thread).

It’s unfortunate that you’re incapable of engaging in nuanced or higher-level discussions (i.e. those above an 8th grade level).

Please check your privilege. You are aware of others abusing class dynamics but ackowledge none of your own (I actually agree with many of your sentiments). The reason BiLatin posts seems to have offended many is because of his verbiage. Two Guys That “I Had,” has a totally different subtext then “I played with” The former is more of a gloating that I was able to have some guy for $10, i.e. take advantage of. To be clear, I am not trying to be the moral majority, I would just like people to be a little more respectful when discussing sex workers.

What I propose is that people on this board have a little CLASS and not boast and brag how they were able to dicker down some rentboy and get sex for $10, as if they were buying something at a flea market. FURTHER, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that posting pictures without consent is exploitive, but actually fucking the rentboys somehow isn’t? If a rentboy is not able to give consent for photos taken because of power imbalance (as Solace Soul contends) then how can consent be given for sex? Either neither is exploitive or they both are. Solace Soul does not get to have a moral highground, while he is engaging in the same “exploitive” behavior that he is accusing BiLatin of.

Congrats on your wonderful achievement of getting bargain basement prices for desperate rentboys. Why are so many people on here so CHEAP.

While I understand your point, it seems pretty hypocritical to basically preach about economic privilege and exploiting underprivileged people, while you then go to Rio and fuck the same underprivileged guys you pretend to be so concerned about. Can a rentboy truly give consent when he is fucking you out of economic desperation?