Golem

Class. ACT.

Good dude -- def recommend. PM for details.

Huh? I'm not arguing that. I have not argued that. At all. Like, please point to where I said ANY OF THAT. This is a crazy straw man. I've literally said that I agreed with the OP's actions. What I HAVE been arguing is that we can have some frigging sympathy for the client, and others in that miserable position, rather than calling them "emotionally manipulative", a "fool", "cruel", and (speculatively) a "manipulative xunt". That's all.

I don't know what to say. I sincerely hope that none of you ever have an acquaintance or a colleague who's in a dark place and turns to you for help, even though you're not really close enough to be an appropriate choice. People should absolutely be held to account for their impact on others, and for their bad choices -- but when they are so miserable that they are actively expressing a desire to end their life? Maybe not the best time for that. I don't think this is a complicated concept.

This thread has me extremely confused. On the one hand there are posts from people I trust saying very nice things. But there are also an inordinate number of repeated posts from people defending him, 50-90% of whose post history here consists entirely of defending or mentioning this one escort in various threads. The simplest conclusion seems to be that he is actually a good escort (at least much of the time) but has an atrociously aggressive and transparent marketing strategy. Which he should stop. Seriously, the rabid defenses of him in this thread hurt his case more than anything.

Sounds like the OP did what he could. Clearly the client ended up needing something different from what he booked. For the rest of us... I would urge some kindness towards people expressing suicidal ideation. Dude was clearly in pain and struggling to deal with it. He did what many people do when they are feeling that low -- which is to reach out in a flailing, poorly targeted way. He had a positive interaction with someone who he (rightly!) assessed as being a caring individual... and then asked for help in a way that wasn't a good fit for what that person could offer. This doesn't mean that he was being manipulative, and it definitely doesn't mean that he needs to be involuntarily hospitalized or assessed by a crisis team. Hospitalization has its place, but it is a BIG leap to go there -- temporarily giving up your autonomy can be helpful in some cases, but it can do real damage in others. However rough a position he put the OP in... let's take a step back and recognize that the client is in a dramatically worse position. The world is a hard place, and he deserves our sympathy. We can appreciate the OP as a good guy, while still having sympathy for the struggling client.

I think you've done a really terrific job Rob -- somebody had to step up and you've taken care of things that could easily have doomed the site. I don't think that can be stated enough. I would really, really encourage you to avoid jumping to the above conclusion, though, when people voice different points of view. For two reasons: 1. It feels incredibly patronizing, and a little bit arrogant, to have thoughtful feedback written off as "oh it's just somebody who can't handle change." It's dismissive, and it erodes community rather than building it. 2. It's inaccurate! There are all kinds of reasons somebody might disagree with a decision you make. This is the nature of being a leader. If you want to ignore concerns from people who disagree with you, that's your call -- and as the guy who's actually getting shit done, you're entitled! -- but there are a lot of practical, operational benefits to hearing people out, especially when they disagree with you. This has come up a few times now. I hope you'll consider what I'm saying here seriously. I write this in good faith, with respect for what you've accomplished, and because I'd like things to continue to prosper here. Cheers.

Really appreciate the legacy theme option. I can't tell you how many sites I've seen lose users over a controversial redesign, when there's just no need for it. Big thanks for putting in the time and effort on that front, Rob! (I do wish the URL could remain discreet as well, but there's obviously no way to have login-specific options there.)

Wow, that's pretty high.

https://rent.men/MrRafa Any info? Thanks and cheers. (There's an old 411 in the spa as well, but no responses there either)

Since there's no "none of the above" option I guess I should make a comment to express that opinion. These are clever names and great brainstorming... I just agree that something simple and unrevealing would be preferable to a flashier site name. Several of these are so literal that they make the whole project feel uncomfortable. Just my two cents, no criticism intended for anyone's ideas.

So I did a little more research. It turns out this is a retro overlay the kids are using these days -- presumably not intended to be taken seriously at all.

you don't think it could just be an incorrectly set date? that looks too clear to be a 1993 digital photo.

Anyone else? Seems very promising...

Well, assuming that list of top search terms was in order, I notice the 5 cities that appear there also show up in identical order on the geo list. So really the question is what those 5 cities have in common, that the others don't: IN COMMON: Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Boston, Vegas BUT DIFFERENT FROM: NYC, LA, SF, DC, Long Beach, Philly

Also why him in particular? Do you really think you can reasonably assume that people (providers or even just regular guys) who don't have an onlyfans profile like that, haven't had a similar amount of condomless sex?

It's literally earlier in this thread. Really, stirring the pot is easier than hitting the "previous page" button a couple of times? That subject generated plenty of drama already, let it rest in peace.

Excuse me, you're interrupting my insecurity with that honesty. (Part of what makes you so hot, really. Le sigh.)

Also note the use of the bomb response icon ("insulting" according to the tooltip) in this thread. Yeesh.

Where did anybody say that? There's a real conflation of arguments going on here.

I don't support that attitude. I guess I just don't feel as much of a need to judge other people when I don't know what all their circumstances are. "For even the very wise cannot see all ends," etc. Peace out.

Dude, I did. See "it's because they don't know you, they don't really care about you, and a better opportunity came along" and the two surrounding paragraphs.

Respectfully, you guys are trying to read minds. You simply don't know what's behind the flaking. Let me be very clear, I'm not defending the flaking behavior. But despite a total lack of information, you have concluded that the only options are: * drugs * a psychiatric diagnosis * an unspecified character flaw with value judgment attached ("immaturity") I'm not trying to find a potential excuse for the flaking behavior. I'm just saying there are lots of other reasons people flake. They aren't good reasons to flake, but they aren't necessarily so personally damning of someone's character. "Ghosting" -- from someone you've never met -- does not suggest "significant animus/anger." You're taking that way too personally. I mean, come on, we've all used hookup apps in our time. We've all had someone vanish on us after we started making plans to meet. It's not because they hate you, it's because they don't know you, they don't really care about you, and a better opportunity came along. Is it nice to just vanish? No. Is it good practice for one's reputation? Of course not. But it might just be a cold hard calculation about the best use of their time. I may not agree with the math -- it doesn't take long to send one text that says "Sorry, something came up, I have to cancel." But this really is how a lot of people think. Again: see Manhunt. The fact that the person you are talking to was talking to you in the first place to make money, rather than out of pleasure, only makes this more likely. If I were going to read minds in a similar way, I might say that the only possible reason your conclusions are limited to personally damning ones are because you're needy and have poor boundaries, or you are clueless as to how human interactions work. IMPORTANT NOTE: I do not actually think these things And there isn't any real evidence to suggest them -- just a super speculative interpretation of the circumstances that ends up being more judgmental than insightful. See what I mean?

Uh. How in the world do you make the flying leap from "a no-show with bad communication" to "possibly on drugs"? I get being annoyed, but there are tons of possible reasons why people might do this. Reporting what happened is helpful. Wild, pejorative speculation pulled out of thin air: not so helpful.

That does suck. Sorry Marc! On a happier note, I now see a new reason to visit Indiana...