Lucky

Luke Morcum or Marcum? Good luck with your new adventure.

Since it is so rare to see a new thread in the pornification forum, I thought I would mention that I contributed one today, and you can look at it or not, but I just wanted you to know it was there!

You might have noticed in the upper left hand corner of the home page that there is a link to a site which sells porn DVDs. The link usually shows a cute Asian guy with an erection, so yes, I tuned in. I rarely look at porn on the internet, especially since xtube went down the tubes. My favorite Asian porn films have been by the director called OGGI. Some of his films have had the cutest guys doing the sexiest things, but he insists on lengthy scenery shots to interrupt the action. I forgive him. Cream of Coconuts is my favorite OGGI film. So my first order I concentrated on buying OGGI films. The service from the company was excellent, the films were so-so. OGGI apparently is erratic in his work, or maybe I had just seen his best stuff. I should make clear that I am cheap when it comes to porno. I don't buy the 49.95 stuff, just the sale stuff at 19.95. Maybe you get what you pay for. Recently I tried again, buying a couple of non-OGGI films that looked good on the covers. Well, where are those cover boys? The guys in the DVD's I got were clearly third-tier, and the sex mechanical and boring. I only got two of the four that I ordered, and I am throwing both of them away. Hopefully the other two will be better, but I don't have my hopes up. No word came from the company as to when I will get them. One final thing. At the end of the purchasing process, I could swear there was a shipping special being offered to all- priority mail delivery. They came media mail, not priority mail I haven't gone back to see if I misread, because you need to go through the ordering process to get to that point. But I think I am done ordering $19.95 porn DVDs.

Hey, hey cynics! I'm going on a luxury Nigerian safari this summer which an admirer is buying for me after reading my posts. Sure, I had to put down a deposit, just to make sure I show up. Then he will refund it at the end of the trip. If I had been as cynical as you guys, I would have missed out on this opportunity of a lifetime.

How much did you save off of the $20 regular price? I like to support small theaters, so when the fare is so low, a discount doesn't appeal to me. But with general admission, they shouldn't offer discounts anyway. But I am glad that you are seeing the show, we can compare comments on it afterwards.

Los Angeles' Celebration theater is showing the above-named play now, about two hustlers and a midwestern lawyer in 1994's Times Square. Not wanting to usurp Townsend P. Locke's preeminent position as chronicler of what's happening in LA, I'll simply cite the link to the LA Times' mini-review of the show, which includes a pic of the actor playing the lawyer and a Latino actor playing the hustler. I'm seeing it next week. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemon...n-theatre-.html

I did find this info, excerpted from a blogger on the Daily Kos: "Events like this are not inexpensive to produce. It costs approximately $750 per participant to produce AIDS/LifeCycle. During the AIDS Ride era, there were frequent complaints that the event was not making good use of funds raised, and that an excessive amount of money was going to pay the producer of the event and cover overhead. Since AIDS/LifeCycle is produced by the two beneficiaries, they are very careful as to how money is spent. No expense is spared to make the ride safe and enjoyable for participants, but no dollar is spent if a cost can be covered by in-kind donations." I'm glad to know that, and I do support the riders, but it does not seem a cost effective way to raise money for AIDS, nor is it clear how much of that money actually ends up directly helping someone with AIDS. Ultimately it may be a fun event, calling attention to the issue, but serving a fairly limited purpose.

I'm confused. The event is billed as benefiting people with AIDS, yet the only two beneficiaries are the SF AIDS Foundation and the LA Gay & Lesbian Community Center. We know that the AIDS Foundation is for people with AIDS, but the LA Center serves a multitude of purposes, so there is no way set as to how that money is to be used for people with AIDS. Years ago the AIDS bike event was highly criticized for keeping most of the money raised in the promoter's hands. Yet I scoured the AIDS Life Cycle website, and cannot find anywhere that says how the money is to be divided. With fundraising down this year, does that mean the promoters cut their profits, or do they cut the money that goes to the two agencies and maintain their profit level?

And then?

I've already learned the first part...

I thought the new Chekhov was the highlight of the movie. Young Kirk was fun as well, but the rest of it was just filler.

The day I spend any time watching a movie on Mike Tyson is the day my life has run out of meaningful things to do.

Why the need for a separate thread on this when there is already a perfectly fine thread on Numbers? You even acknowledge that fact.

For some time now I have been complaining about the crappy food at Numbers, but it had tis defenders because of the availability of boys (to some). Now that that is gone, can we concede that Numbers wasn't really a restaurant at all?

All very easy for Adam Smith to say, having just won the $1500 from the previous contest. So now he is having his fun with Andre, on Oz's dime! So the real winner of all of these contests is Andre. And that's as it should be.

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."