TruthBTold

Please ask him to the Palm Springs Weekend.

Wow, a lot of great looking guys on Leonos. Check out Enrique (1893) if you are looking for a versatile/bottom. Great looking body.

For $300 that looks like a great time and a great body. Something tells me he would let you suit up if you wished. And if you are on PrEP and he says he is then things could go the way you want.

Saw this yesterday. The lead is very good looking and a very good actor. I found it very sad. Very worth watching.

That's more like it!!!

In my experience, if asked off the cuff at the end the working gentleman will accept without being on the clock. I like to think that it is just because we usually have had a good time and he has no probable with continuing it by getting asked out to dinner. I have only had one bad meet and did not ask because the dinner would not have been enjoyable for either of us (or I did not think that it would).

Actually I think he needs more wood.

An understandable look of mesmerization.

Unfortunately, that is the truth. At this point I am not sure what you are trying to protect. My discussion was all about protecting yourself from prosecution - otherwise I am not sure what the argument would be about. The question would be whether you could defend yourself by stating that you were being paid only for signing a document stating payment only for not spilling the beans not for having the sex. Even if you could present the defense, the fact finder (judge/jury) would probably find that you were using that as a hoax but that it was imaginative. The same would go for any discussion you present as a verbal contract and that would probably be given even less weight. The prosecutor would of course have to show his elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Let's pretend though you are in one of the few jurisdictions that does not make prostitution illegal then you would be enforcing (assuming that it is one of the two of you that wishes to enforce the contract) either a written or verbal contract. Then you would be before a fact finder having to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a contract existed, that the people were competent to enter into it (hopefully you were not fucking a 13 yo), and the elements of the contract.

No but I do not think that is what I (or others perhaps) am saying. I think that while shaming may stop some people from doing a particular behavior it will not do so for very long or ironically may have them participate in even more dangerous behavior. Moreover, if guys get the shaming message, they will also receive a societal message that participating in anal intercourse without a condom puts you at a certain scientific (approx. 6% or below) risk of being exposed to the HIV virus. If you do anything with partners that you do not know do not have STDs put you at some risk of acquiring an STD. I want them to make the choice based on the societal scientific message not the message that you are "shameful" if you decide to take the risk based on science.

Actually while the article seems to agree that there is some evidence that STI transmission has increased after the introduction of PrEP there may also be other factors at play. Particularly because there seem to have been an increase before the introduction. "Other factors could possibly account for the increase in STI rates in this study population. For example, before PrEP became widely available, yearly surveys by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that rates of condomless anal intercourse had increased steadily among gay and bisexual men from 39% in 2001 to 60% in 2014. Given the rise in condomless anal sex before the introduction of PrEP, it is therefore likely that STI risk has been increasing in this population for over a decade. Study authors hypothesized that the higher rate of STIs after starting PrEP may be due to “risk compensation,” in which individuals engage in higher risk sex due to the perceived protection due to PrEP. Because PrEP may be lowering men’s sexual inhibitions and leading to higher rates of STIs, this study underscores the importance of STI testing and counseling for PrEP patients every three months."

"If you weren't paid for sex (as in the case of Trump and Stormy) the contract is enforceable . . ." I have always questioned this assumption. I have absolutely no evidence that there a payment for the sex but I have seen no discussion about a perusal of her bank records. Sure, there is a possibility that she was a youngish woman who wanted to have sex with an older gentleman but even in her interviews it does not sound like that.

Happy Birthday. If you can let Mr. Brandon know, I will tell him what he can do with the rest of his day after his "dance."

I had to sigh when I saw his butt pic and then saw his Position "Top".

Lawdy, which butt first? Or, I hope they are versatile and I can watch.

Really. Sit down and just say, "Here's $600. Meet me in the plane's bathroom."

He also works with a lot of charities, making him very likable. The ones I found were these: Canine Partners Diana Awards Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund Dolen Cymru Free The Children Global Angels HALO Trust Help for Heroes Henry van Straubenzee Memorial Fund Joining Forces MapAction National AIDS Trust Prince's Rainforests Project Sentebale SkillForce The Countryside Foundation For Education The Foundation of Prince William and Prince Harry The Warrior Programme Tusk Trust UNICEF Walking With The Wounded WellChild

Everything is just the right proportion for me.

That is true. However, as someone else has noted, paying someone so that they will not make our illegal act known is probably conspiracy. You do no have a right to do illegal acts and you do not have a right to pay someone not to tell.

This gives a few tidbit, including that the Obamas were not invited. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a18754442/prince-harry-meghan-markle-royal-wedding-guest-list/

Even though he is not going to be king, I think the world tends to look at him in a particular way. I don't think that current heads of state will necessarily go but it will still be an invitation to get for former heads of state. I am sure (as well as I can be) that the Obamas would go if asked. I don't know if past secretaries of state would go, like Madelein Albright.

Of course, if the Obamas are invited Britain (probably) is not going to have mass riots (of the bad kind) against them. We can't necessarily say the same thing about His Orange Highness.

Another part of the question is whether the the jury/judge are going to believe your statements that you were only being paid for not saying anything, i.e., not being paid for having the sex. If you were having consensual sex, then you simply do not speak about it. No contract need be drawn up so that one party will not talk. If indeed one side feels a contract must be drawn up, it can be seen as extortion.

I can't imagine that Theresa May, the Prime Minister, or the Queen care what Donald Trump think. The Obamas have met them on prior occasions and the new couple certainly have the right to meet them as private citizens. These things happen.

I saw him on the Graham Norton show last night month, along with Benedict Cumberbatch and Mary Berry.