Gay-Owned Coffee Company Brazil

[alwaysrio]

A gay-owned coffee company in Rio has launched in just the last two weeks called Jacu (after the bird, it is not Jacu Bird Poop Coffee). I met the owner, and he is impressive. He is pushing diversity and has hired a great team. One of his executives I met is a guy who grew up in a favela and is now finishing his third year of law school. The company pays his tuition and high salaries. 

I asked how I could help. If you are in Rio, you can order the coffee at @jacucoffee. It is shipped the same day and takes about two days to your location in Rio. Just great tasting coffee and the picture on the box is the owner's farm.

He also said they started to use social influencers to add followers to  @jacucoffee. They are opening a coffee and doughnut cafe in Rio Sul. 

Can we help to drive up the Instagram numbers? Can work to get placement from more retail stores in Rio and SP. And when you are in Rio, ordering some coffee makes a great gift. I just brought back 12 boxes to the USA. Selling at R$39 for 250 g box in Brazil, this same quality coffee in the USA would be priced over US$15.

Say they are expanding to the USA market, have meetings set with large retailers.

Sorry did not see this topic before I posted.

[Uqtyang]

R delivered the coffee beans to me in person. Very smart guy! Self taught english. Genuine person, a future lawyer rising from favela. An inspiring story. 

[SolaceSoul]

For a one-in-a-million feel-good sauna story, the owner met his key worker at the sauna when he was a garoto. This ambitious former garoto traveled to the USA with the owner to promote the coffee and help land North American distribution deals.

[Riobard]

Sometimes it’s easy for indiscretion, albeit likely no ill will intended, to inadvertently slip through the cracks, and a particular post is best unwritten. What online audience would be the most likely to have few degrees of separation from a particular entity category with which personal interaction historically occurred and social media following ensued? Not my call, member autonomy being what it is, but simple enough to protect all parties ex post facto from fallout according to the central guiding principle of beneficence. 

[SolaceSoul]

8 minutes ago, Riobard said:

Sometimes it’s easy for non-discretion, albeit likely no ill will intended, to inadvertently slip through the cracks, and a particular post is best unwritten. What online audience would be the most likely to have few degrees of separation from a particular entity category with which personal interaction historically occurred and social media following ensued? 

Maybe you should have addressed this instead to the oversharing OP regarding his (or rather, “the owner he met”) employees and not-so-carefully cropped photos on a message board about gay sex travel. 

[Riobard]

For reals? What a pill.

At what thread juncture was prostitution history mentioned?

Now claiming that a previous circumspect post, as if none of us but but one exception possess a social radius beyond brothel context, later legitimized an essentially concrete reveal wrapped up in the MO of a heartwarming rags-to-success narrative is nothing short of Machiavellian. To boot, tipping off the readership about the direct relation posed by an image. I hadn’t even assumed that level of manipulation and justification.

Reminiscent of a thread here of some five years where a garoto was outed, by a person unrelated to the present topic, for the sake of embellishing a BFE travel narrative.

OK, figure out respective roles behind the reindeer games’ cascade effect, if moved to do so. I’ve done my part. I’d recommend simply engaging with admin to remove content explicitly containing sex work references, protecting a young Brasileiro from the caprice of chatter that could be considered defamatory according to his country’s legal conceptualization of reputation integrity. 

If the topic remains it obviously probably makes sense, similarly, for me to eventually back-channel my posts out of it. I’d have considered DM back-channeling under the present circumstances but for the incontrovertible expectation of hostility. 

[SolaceSoul]

40 minutes ago, Riobard said:

For reals? What a pill.

At what thread juncture was prostitution history mentioned?

Now claiming that a previous circumspect post, as if none of us but you possess a social radius beyond brothel context, later legitimized an essentially concrete reveal wrapped up in the MO of a heartwarming rags-to-success narrative is nothing short of Machiavellian. I hadn’t even assumed that level of manipulation and justification.

OK, figure out respective roles behind the reindeer games’ cascade effect, if you like. I’ve done my part. I’d recommend simply engaging with admin to remove content explicitly containing sex work references, protecting a young parent from the caprice of chatter that could be considered defamatory according to his country’s legal conceptualization of reputation integrity. 

You’ve literally admitted on numerous posts that you like to surf various IG, FB and TikTok pages of muscular Brazilians, looking to scoop up new conquests. Don’t all of a sudden try to pretend that when a social media address is posted on a gay sex tourism website, your interests are simply pure and selfless and you will only stop at hearing a heart-warming, poor-favela-kid-makes-good story.

No one here has posted any identifying information, other the OP — on a separate platform that he identifies in his own post (and workers from two separate sex tourism destinations / nations, no less!). The unnecessary embellished feel-good story should have been omitted, especially with the added social media info. 

[Riobard]

I do follow people I know on social media. It’s not an admission, as if it were a culpable behaviour (your manipulative spin) and for many members here such activities provide an entry point for post hoc interaction or setting up prospective interaction. Moreover, whatever content referenced would not have been literally stated, as if a simple declaration of shared widespread behaviour were to have been figurative. You are clearly demonizing a collective trend and vying for an arbiter perspective related to a specific member whose motivational status you think is below yours. So arrogantly self-aggrandizing. Well now we have your number on your values, willing to risk giving somebody’s identity up all because somebody else at recess in the sandbox started it.

You might figuratively go fuck yourself, if of age of course. It’s not lost on many readers that you ridicule a collective supportable behavioural trend when you single out one person’s alignment with it, as if the prerogative of surfing were exclusively yours. 

The above social media trend is distinctive from taking a post that includes a commercial beverage business site handle and, not once but now repeatedly, proclaiming knowledge of prostitution history specific to cross-national stakeholders represented within the business profile. This you did gratuitously as you now suggest that a success narrative coupling was an absurd cover, when in fact no written reference to sex trade was extant, while in fact your own posts contain said coupling with content that more extensively risks fallout for a few people. I had initially entertained the possibility that it was a simple misstep without underlying provocation. 

What I perceive here is somebody conflating a commonly discreetly practiced social media ‘follow’ship agenda, by members with reveal boundaries underpinned by principles of tact, sharing common interests in trade and concomitant social components, with today’s manipulative playing “Where-the-‘ho’?” in an identified site’s posted image montage, where ‘ho’ colloquially denotes commercial sex work provider history among whom some of us are acquainted, others not but now primed to make the association never intended by persons aiming to compartmentalize various aspects of personal history.

I thought it couldn’t get worse but continuously and ridiculously finger-pointing, as if an OP is the devil that prompted you do it, is a puerile low even for you. Sadly, one person’s narcissism may override the exigencies of obscuring revelations when what’s of paramount importance is backpedaling content that risks fallout for innocent parties. 

I heartily recommend the entire thread be cut, for good and for good, not plunked into the Sandbox. 

[SolaceSoul]

3 minutes ago, Riobard said:

I do follow people I know on social media. It’s not an admission, as if it were a culpable behaviour (your manipulative spin) and for many members here such activities provide an entry point for post hoc interaction or setting up prospective interaction. Moreover, whatever content referenced would not have been literally stated, as if a simple declaration of shared widespread behaviour were to have been figurative. You are clearly demonizing a collective trend and vying for an arbiter perspective related to a specific member whose motivational status you think is below yours. So arrogantly self-aggrandizing. Well now we have your number on your values, willing to risk giving somebody’s identity up all because somebody else at recess in the sandbox started it.

You might figuratively go fuck yourself, if of age of course. It’s not lost on many readers that you ridicule a collective supportable behavioural trend when you single out one person’s alignment with it, as if the prerogative of surfing were exclusively yours. 

The above social media trend is distinctive from taking a post that includes a commercial beverage business site handle and, not once but now repeatedly, proclaiming knowledge of prostitution history specific to cross-national stakeholders represented within the business profile. This you did gratuitously as you now suggest that a success narrative coupling was an absurd cover, when in fact no written reference to sex trade was extant, while in fact your own posts contain said coupling with content that more extensively risks fallout for a few people. I had initially entertained the possibility that it was a simple misstep without underlying provocation. 

What I perceive here is somebody conflating a commonly discreetly practiced social media ‘follow’ship agenda, by members with reveal boundaries underpinned by principles of tact, sharing common interests in trade and concomitant social components, with today’s manipulative playing “Where-the-‘ho’?” in an identified site’s posted image montage, where ‘ho’ colloquially denotes commercial sex work provider history among whom some of us are acquainted, others not but now primed to make the association never intended by persons aiming to compartmentalize various aspects of personal history.

I thought it couldn’t get worse but continuously and ridiculously finger-pointing, as if an OP is the devil that prompted you do it, is a puerile low even for you. Sadly, one person’s narcissism may override the exigencies of obscuring revelations when what’s of paramount importance is backpedaling content that risks fallout for innocent parties. 

I heartily recommend the entire thread be cut, for good and for good, not plunked into the Sandbox. 

I’ll be quite happy to peruse through your many posts over the years and point out where, in an attempt at braggadocio, you indirectly in your extremely odd and socially awkward way of speaking outed garotos and gogo boys that you were interested in, to those of us who know. 

[Riobard]

Ah, sigh … so a concerted retaliatory search for examples that parallel the indiscretion of today called out, but imputing to me grandstanding/ showcasing motives as opposed to my simply appreciating like most everybody else the serendipity and wonders of entertainment in Brazil, the latter an MO that you seem to proclaim you uniquely and exclusively possess. 

Get it guys? Anybody daring a toe-to-toe spicy exchange is somehow a socially inept and hypocritical braggart; watch your step. Move over, Judge Judy; there’s a new self-appointed magistrate in town. 

Well I’m clutching my purse as a Pantsonfire College alumnus with a first in Spin-doctoring grasps for straws. Someone who, ofc, alone possesses the skills for non-sexualized socializing outside of brothel contexts. Everybody else is evidently single-mindedly exploitive re: sexual gratification and importuning for likes. 

Let’s just simplify it. Gogos have stage names usually consistent with their true names, albeit truncated as the local birth record trend is multiple surnames. They are sexual entertainers and circulate transactionally among the audience in a patently erotic fashion for cash tips. Everybody knows this. Yet I cannot think of any single gogo that has been explicitly identified on this board in terms of their being “offed” (as is the commonly employed Thailand forum term), though I am certain that fantasies and unsubstantiated assumptions have been dropped here and there by various posters. Moreover, much to the chagrin of many readers our board is comparatively and rightfully oriented to playing one’s tourism cards extremely close in terms of the specific players in various exchanges.

I have occasionally but extremely rarely back-channelled cryptic information about being catfished, but that contained no identifying information or contextual markers that impugned anybody, and that was strategically enacted with a forecasted outcome in mind. The Friendlies are easily identifiable. I have not shared provider names or contact information with anybody on this Board or elsewhere in spite of backchannel soliciting from others.

Some garotos and some gogos explicitly advertise commercial sex work on various public platforms. Nevertheless, I cannot think of any single one of these advertising fellows having been specifically identified on our board by anyone, unless I have overlooked such data; I don’t read all posts. In fact, in contrast to the assertion that my bent is to subtly out providers for the sake of drawing attention to myself, there exists plentiful content on our board that represents my objection to such reveals and corroborates the notion that nothing good or purposeful comes from them. Today is no exception and one thing that I got for my efforts is the distorted claim that they are disingenuous. 

[SolaceSoul]

7 minutes ago, Riobard said:

Ah, sigh … so you’ll search for examples that parallel the indiscretion of today called out, but imputing to me grandstanding/ showcasing motives as opposed to my simply appreciating like most everybody else the serendipity and wonders of entertainment in Brazil, the latter an MO that you seem to proclaim you uniquely and exclusively possess. 

Get it guys? Anybody daring a toe-to-toe spicy exchange is somehow a socially inept and hypocritical braggart; watch your step. Move over, Judge Judy; there’s a new self-appointed magistrate in town. 

Well I’m clutching my purse as a Pantsonfire College alumnus with a first in Spin-doctoring grasps for straws. Someone who, ofc, alone possesses the skills for non-sexualized socializing outside of brothel contexts. Everybody else is evidently single-mindedly exploitive re: sexual gratification and importuning for likes. 

Let’s just simplify it. Gogos have stage names usually consistent with their true names, albeit truncated as the local birth record trend is multiple surnames. They are sexual entertainers and circulate transactionally among the audience in a patently erotic fashion for cash tips. Everybody knows this. I cannot think of any single gogo that has been explicitly identified on this board in terms of their being “offed” (as is the commonly employed Thailand forum term), though I am certain that fantasies and unsubstantiated assumptions have been dropped here and there by various posters. Moreover, much to the chagrin of many readers our board is comparatively and rightfully oriented to playing one’s tourism cards extremely close in terms of the specific players in various exchanges.

Some garotos and some gogos explicitly advertise commercial sex work on various public platforms. Nevertheless, I cannot think of any single one of these advertising fellows having been specifically identified on this board by anyone, unless I have overlooked such data; I don’t read all posts. In fact, in contrast to the assertion that my bent is to subtly out providers for the sake of drawing attention to myself, there exists plentiful content on our board that represents my objection to such reveals and corroborates the notion that nothing good or purposeful comes of it. Today is no exception and what I get for my efforts is the distorted claim that they are disingenuous. 

Wow. No wonder you have no real friends. 

[Riobard]

Welly welly welly well well … the expected ad hominem retort of a sad sack running out of steam. If that’s the level, now he’s an omniscient divine entity and can quantify everybody’s social connections. Sociopath, psychotically delusional, or simply Asshole Not Otherwise Specified, a category not yet delineated on a commonly used diagnostic manual axis? My sense is: distinctive pathology all on its own.

[SolaceSoul]

16 minutes ago, Riobard said:

Welly welly welly well well … the expected ad hominem retort of a sad sack running out of steam. Now he’s an omniscient divine entity and can quantify everybody’s social connections. Sociopath, psychotically delusional, or simply Asshole Not Otherwise Specified, a category not yet delineated on a commonly used diagnostic manual axis? My sense is: distinctive pathology all on its own. 

Come on, man. Get serious. I’ve had the unpleasant experience of being in the same room with you. You can’t even attract attention even with $100 bills Velcro’ed to your forehead. And still you try to reach out to people here both publicly and privately to make connections. And famously, with horrible results.