SomewhereonNeptune

On 6/9/2023 at 2:53 PM, leatherpunk16 said:

I've certainly asked my scene partners about their experience living with HIV. I think it comes down to HOW you ask - if they volunteer their status, it's not really being nosy. It's disclosure, which is proper. There's also context, and everybody's story is different...I enquired with my scene partners if they feel comfortable sharing their story, their experience....If they aren't comfortable, don't pry. If they are, listen and be prepared to offer a sympathetic ear. And certainly don't go to a place of judgment, even if they say it was their own damn fault.

This. 👍🏼 If you're establishing rapport with someone and that topic emerges through the discussion, I would expect that you're conversing in an atmosphere where there isn't judgment being passed in it. Or so one should hope. To ask "Do you feel comfortable talking about it?" should be an indication of how open you might expect a partner to be other than their disclosure. Are they detectable? Are they taking other precautions (i.e. condoms)? Are there things they might want to know about you (i.e. STD disclosures, recent testing, etc.)? 

If they don't feel comfortable, OK. But perhaps that response -- how forthcoming they might have been after noting that you aren't asking for the specific details of 'how, where, who, why' -- should inform you of how candid and comfortable they will be as a potential partner.  But I'm saying it from a position of being HIV negative and recently tested, so any decision I might make would be informed on some knowledge of my partner. Not being suspicious but also not trying to be naive. We've all been around the block a few times and maybe things have happened as a result of what we haven't been told or what might be omitted. Just a thought.
 

23 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

And since you mentioned this in a previous post -- if I had kids, I probably would give a fuck -- let me introduce you to me. I have 3 trans nieces/nephews (AMAB), as many gay family members, and a lesbian niece around whom I apparently cannot use the word "moist" (makes describing a cake pretty difficult). So do I get how LGBTQI2AS++ kids feel? Sure, as much as being a confused bisexual kid when I grew up and when any queer kid got a severe beatdown just for being that queer kid, or even thought to be the awkward kid who wasn't queer but was simply awkward. I survived it, in some ways it prepared me for the world afterward in a time when being a snowflake would have gotten your ass kicked. So I'm highly sympathetic to what kids may endure. Does it mean that I would necessarily agree that schools should be making all of the decisions and (in many cases) shutting parents out of the discussion? Absolutely not. End of the day, the parent has rights that can seem forgotten amidst all of these.

20 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Great example of a strawman argument. Nobody's arguing that schools should be making all of the decisions and shutting parents out. But parental rights can be taken too far - there was a time when you could discipline a child pretty much up to the point of not quite killing them and officialdom didn't bat an eye. Parental rights have to be balanced against the rights of the child, and the older the child gets, the more important it is to take the child's needs and wants into consideration. What the anti-Trans and anti-LGBT parent groups want is full and unrestricted authority over their kids because it's "Godly". 

That's what you took away from what I wrote!?  I literally tell you my background and you make the argument that I'm suggesting that religion-freak parents are trying to take over school boards? REALLY!? Nope, you need to always be right and have the last word. No mention of my background, no mention of the fact that I lived through a level of private Hell like so many of us did from being an LGBTQ+++ kid growing up in a time when you'd routinely come home with black eyes or broken bones courtesy of classmates.

I think you've proven in other posts with me that you pick and choose what you care to believe about people. Good luck in your life, I'm done here.

20 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

That explains a great deal. As I explain that position to other people, "It means he likes living in a nice world but doesn't want to pay the costs of living in a nice world. It's called freeloading."

That's the problem with random assumptions, since you don't actually know me. They're almost always mistaken.

I'm definitely not freeloading. I pay a great deal in taxes, probably more than I reasonably should, and take very little from the system I pay into. I do so out of ability to support others in need, in addition to being charitable. So just because someone is fiscally conservative doesn't mean that he's unwilling to pay for those nice things, but that he's already paying and wants to be sure that money is being put to best use.

On 8/31/2024 at 6:42 PM, NEDenver said:

It only counts if it’s non cishet.  I took Flowers in the Attic out of my high school, so Genderqueer should be accessible for high schoolers.  You’re so fucking disingenuous.  

Exactly how am I being disingenuous, since you don't know me at all? Read the post above this for an introduction as to who I am, I already know how ugly of a person you are by your comment.

22 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

So what we have is the opinion of one school board member and one person/parent trying to read parts of the book at the meeting. With no actual evidence of what the book actually contains.

Actually, in the case of the Clark County Nevada School Board, the parent read the book and began to read aloud a selected passage from the book, so he had first-hand knowledge of the contents.

But I can understand the argument on certain books becoming potentially offensive because they contained certain words or phrases that were more socially accepted at the time of writing than they'd be written in current day. Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn would be suspect today because of Mark Twain's use of that "N" word. One example. I'll concede that point and the hesitancy of how much the intent can confuse guidance.

But let's consider that in the light of things that 30-40 years ago that were common in society or TV that would never be aired today without creating a shitstorm. No one would dare want to air a series like "All In The Family", which was groundbreaking for its time because it would be too offensive to certain viewers. Comedy from generations ago would never happen today because some constituency would find it offensive. Hell, we haven't seen Mister Magoo for years because of the objections of the National Federation of the Blind finding it offensive (yeah, like they'd ever see it...that was a joke, y'all remember those). 

And since you mentioned this in a previous post -- if I had kids, I probably would give a fuck -- let me introduce you to me. I have 3 trans nieces/nephews (AMAB), as many gay family members, and a lesbian niece around whom I apparently cannot use the word "moist" (makes describing a cake pretty difficult). So do I get how LGBTQI2AS++ kids feel? Sure, as much as being a confused bisexual kid when I grew up and when any queer kid got a severe beatdown just for being that queer kid, or even thought to be the awkward kid who wasn't queer but was simply awkward. I survived it, in some ways it prepared me for the world afterward in a time when being a snowflake would have gotten your ass kicked. So I'm highly sympathetic to what kids may endure. Does it mean that I would necessarily agree that schools should be making all of the decisions and (in many cases) shutting parents out of the discussion? Absolutely not. End of the day, the parent has rights that can seem forgotten amidst all of these.

I'm all for an inclusive environment. Wish we had that 40 years ago, but we didn't. It doesn't mean that I want the pendulum to swing so far in any direction that it gets stuck in the rafters somewhere and hope there's a time when we can have a fairly civil discussion that includes disagreements. Besides, you're a fun guy to disagree with. 😃

I'll close on that as I think I've said all I can or desire to on the topic. We'll never agree 100%, won't even guess that we ever would, but wish you well on this. Peace out.

On 8/31/2024 at 3:03 PM, hntnhole said:

Thanks for that most interesting addition.  

Well, I try. But I'm perhaps in the minority in this group since I'm fiscally conservative and socially libertarian (read: Do what you want, but don't force me to fund your decisions).

On 8/31/2024 at 3:03 PM, hntnhole said:

I don't think we're at a "Brownshirt" moment quite yet, when gangs of thugs roamed the streets a century ago, looking for "the other" to beat up.  That said, we've already seen a "kinda-sorta" Torchlight Parade, with unimpressive, home-made flagging, the torches sourced from garden-supply stores.  We're on the road to that shocking development, but not quite there yet.  There's still time to quell that insidiously selfish instinct, but only if those carrying that burden are voted out of office in decisive numbers.

This was out of a different topic, but I lived in a town in New York where the "elected" representation (Board members, Supervisor) did everything possible to shut-down public comment, well before what we've also seen from parents being branded as domestic terrorists. Our confluence of events occurred when enough people became involved, aware, and irate enough to vote out the incumbency, but those who were front and center fighting were branded as Brownshirts in the process. By people who didn't understand the use of the term. Not like the public shouting down we see today and the polarization.

On 8/31/2024 at 3:03 PM, hntnhole said:

I enjoyed the "pendulum" metaphor, and it's a good one.  The problem though, is it can easily swing so far in one direction that the balance is destroyed (i.e, the fulcrum itself becomes un-centered), and then there's nothing but chaos.  The more reasonable folks that get on the "woke" side of the pendulum, the better.  It's a bit of an "ask" though, given the hard-set "values" the anti-wokers seem so infused with.  I guess we'll see in a few weeks.  

I like the center. I support the more moderate approach in most matters. The trouble now is the vast division -- on both sides -- that hasn't been positive politically. Used to be that political compromises could be made. Now it's an all-or-nothing which serves no one well, lest the citizens who elected them.

On 8/31/2024 at 3:03 PM, hntnhole said:

I too was in business for many years, and encountered similar events within the organization.  Once, it got so bad I had to go out to the LA office and fire someone.  Completely unpleasant, in every way.  However, no business owner can allow one misguided person to infect an entire office with cultural biases or worse.  It got so bad (before I even found out) that the rest of the staff didn't dare tell me at first, but garbage like that always surfaces at some point, and they got (a very minor) scolding about letting things get to that point before reporting it. 

All of which is to agree that we need to keep ourselves aware of what is happening around us, consider where we stand on the issues, and defend those who are unable to defend themselves - across the board.  

Thanks for that most interesting addition.  

I suspect that in her case, the hill that her 'current' organization has wanted to die on is DEI. That's come complete with very biased management decisions and overall suspect behavior toward some people and not others. Her (the manager-in-question's) decision-making has veered totally off course from the values of the organization to where it's no longer considering the "equity" and "inclusion" parts, and the only thing remaining is "diversity". Sort of. The manager is in a minority group. So is my friend. Everyone else she hasn't tried to terminate? White-male. Her higher-ups? Either deaf, dumb and blind to it, or (more likely) giving tacit approval by doing nothing about it.

On 8/28/2024 at 2:08 AM, Rillion said:

Do you have any evidence that classroom instruction was inappropriate before the parental rights bill was passed?

The book "Gender Queer" was one of those that was found in Florida Public Schools. Pinellas County -- traditionally a more liberal Florida county that includes cities like St. Petersburg -- found it and pushed for removal. Others have been found throughout the state, and parents who attempted to present the findings to the Clay County school board during public comment were shutdown quickly. From the meeting, available on Youtube:

• “Are you going to listen or are you going to run your mouth?” the school board member said. “You’ll get it back. But, you’ll get it back to talk about something besides reading pornography into a public television set.”

Wasn't that the point? If it couldn't be read during the Clay Count School Board meeting because of pornographic content, why should children be given unfettered access to the same material? And Florida isn't the only place where it happened. In Clark County, Nevada, the same sort of exchange happened and a citizen was removed under similar circumstances.

So those are two in Florida. One in Nevada for good measure. So it could be contended that there was inappropriate reading material that would fall within the law's purview.  

46 minutes ago, stillbreedin said:

a stupid right wing word to criticize just about any progressive idea/action

I suppose the issue I see with "wokeness" is 'who decides what is or is not woke'? I suspect that it's born out of some vestige of virtue-signaling to say "this is the vogue view to which to subscribe for this moment" and anyone who doesn't is singled out for attack or made an example of in a rather "Brownshirt" manner.  Sure, life and society is a series of progressions and steps toward a destination, and rarely is it a straight path. You'll have course corrections throughout that journey -- you've veered too far left, now you've gone too far right -- that should eventually lead to a consensus of centrism.

Think of it as a pendulum. One end is controlled by a fulcrum that doesn't move all that much but viewing the other end can create a perception that things have veered way off course. Eventually, that fulcrum and pendulum will come to rest somewhere in the center alignment.

Notice the number of companies in the current economy that have backtracked from the notion of DEI being a first consideration for all hires. I think we can agree that we want diversity and inclusion in society as well as the workplace. I'll ask the irreverent question of whether going all out on DEI was a bridge too far for too many people. Someone I know is currently working for a company that is highly focused on DEI, and as a result they went all in on promoting it and made DEI hires that have been unsuccessful. Her manager constantly bludgeons her people with DEI-speak, and meanwhile the place is literally a sweatshop where employees are overworked, micromanaged, and shown how expendable they are by arbitrarily being terminated. DEI might be a wonderful thing, but without qualifications, training, support, and helping maintain a productive workforce who isn't overworked and burnt-out, the notion of DEI gets painted with the brush of the few who might have benefitted from it at the cost of a productive and well-run organization. (My friend has already given her notice to go elsewhere, she couldn't stand it). 

I'm all for inclusion. When I managed folks, I made sure that my employees were diverse but qualified and had opportunities to be successful. Maybe I'm just old but I think a lot of that is missing in the current climate. Or maybe I'm marching to my own drum and trying to do the "right thing" by people. Which strikes me as being fair, equitable and inclusive. And often diverse.

On 8/29/2024 at 5:52 AM, PollaDeMiel said:

However, there's a nasty way to say it and there's a more face-saving way. 

And there's a very direct way of saying that the bottom is being a cock-tease. When the blood rushes from the little head back to the bigger one and he gets a moment of clarity to have thought about what he's doing, it's a bit too late to suddenly tap out.

Can he withdraw consent? Sure. Is it the right time to do it? Blue balls aside, that's some thinking he should have done before he consented to be in that situation in the first place. Want to get some angered? Do that. 

But let's be pragmatic about this as well. It's a dark room. Did the bottom even see the top who is fucking him? What are those chances? Most of us have a conscience but think about the guy that doesn't or who's going to see this through to the end, consequences be damned. And perhaps not put yourself in that situation without thinking seriously about it.

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

As someone who has worked with legislation and legislative text for over 35 years now, I can assure you that the bill doesn't have to CONTAIN the words "don't say gay" to have that effect.

But then based on the rest of your post, it's all subjective based on anyone's individual interpretation. The bill says ANY discussion needs to be age appropriate. 

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

You're highlighting the inconsistencies that are the fundamental problem with the bill. A drag queen reading a child a book is no different from Barney the Dinosaur or Elmo reading a child a book; it's an adult in a costume, or a puppet, and there's nothing sexual, inherently, in wearing clothes of the opposite sex. It CAN be - but then so can a woman's outfit including a lower cut neckline, a bare midriff, or much of her legs showing. So can a man with a shirt unbuttoned halfway to the navel, or wearing pants that are tight across the butt. Or... well, almost any clothing could be "sexual" to someone else, depending on his or her interests. But the only one they're getting riled up about is the drag queens.

So anything can be arousing to any individual based on their fetishes and taste. That's the summary of your comment. I don't disagree, and I'm not objecting to drag queens...or Barney or clowns or anything else. I don't have kids, so I don't really give a fuck either way. In my view, it's up to involved parents discussing in school board meetings, hopefully without weaponizing law enforcement against parents for expressing concerns. I'll get to subjective experiences in a second, but bear in mind that I've done activism against elected officials for shutting down citizens in public comment when they disagree, as well legal action for election irregularities (spoiler: We settled with protections against that recurring). My experience is subjective to me, yours is likewise subjective to you.

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

And of course no one wants stories with strong sexual overtones being read to children.

I didn't get that by reading the rest of your response, BootmanLA. And there are age appropriate ways of introducing a same-sex marriage to say an 8 year old child. What has made its way into classrooms are non-age appropriate texts that discuss the mechanics of masturbation or gay sex specifically in a school library where any pre-teen could access them. So if you don't want that, I don't see that we disagree much. But again, my intent was to state the actual wording of the bill, not how people perceive that. You've previously referenced how each person can interpret something differently. Moving on...

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

And no, parents shouldn't get a veto over saying some people's marriages can be mentioned and others' cannot.

I'm fine with the premise. And I think we agree there is an age-appropriate way of explaining this to say a 6-8 year old. What you're inferring was not specifically indicated by the bill. Mr. Jones gets married to Mr. Smith and becomes Mr. Jones-Smith. You can explain that to a child. Should we be explaining what they do in the privacy of their bedroom? You've said you don't want stories with strong sexual overtones being read (or explained) to children. Again, I think we agree more than not here.

7 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I have an answer. We all have an answer. It's just that the state is being dishonest (through refusing to comment) about that answer. The point is not that there aren't queer-friendly places and institutions in Florida; it's that the state used to allow them to be highlighted in one spot on the web because INTERESTED PEOPLE WANTED THAT INFORMATION. Note that you can still go on the site and pull up lists of outdoor and adventure places to go; you can still go on the site and pull up major shopping destinations; you can still go on the site and pull up listings of arts and cultural destinations. There's even still (for the moment) a link where you can go research African-American heritage travel locations. But not a list of LGBT places. Gee, I wonder why that could be, especially given that the places who were listed there said it helped bring in tourist business for their locations? 

Pretending that "we just can't know" what this means or "the bill doesn't actually SAY 'don't say gay' in the text" is just wildly irresponsible. We absolutely know. And it's absolutely going to have that effect. 

I don't have an answer beyond all reasonable doubt about the intent, though we can all infer and use our imagination. "I don't have an answer" means that I don't have firsthand knowledge of that, neither do any of us here other than speculation. If I were to speculate, I'd provide the same speculation. But again, 'I don't know' means that I don't have the absolute answer on why. All we can do from our vantage point is 'speculate'. 

My point in all of this was not to be incendiary in a topic by presenting the text of a bill and citing that it did not use the words cited. That's all I did. But knowledge means that I have an absolute and firsthand experience through a direct answer from the bill's author(s). All we can actually do is speculate. So while in your view it's "wildly irresponsible" to not cite an absolute that doesn't exist, it's completely irresponsible to state an absolute out of a speculation.

"I think BootmanLA committed the (insert offense of your choice) because...well, he's just that type of guy and he has a reputation for sometimes being combative."
That would be irresponsible because I don't have the evidence to prove that assertion nor do I have anything other than circumstantial items to impose into the situation. Just my own speculation, which is the result of my personal views, judgments, and any personal biases based on my experience. Do I "know" for certain? Nope. Can I speculate with some fairly reasonable certainty? Sure. But again, I wasn't there, didn't witness, have no evidence, have no means, and have a motive that comes out of personal perception.

I'm not disputing your points -- you make great ones. You're probably right, but neither of us can prove our case.  Have a great night.

On 8/24/2024 at 4:04 PM, poundmyhole said:

Since 2021, Florida has enacted legislation to limit the instruction of sexual orientation and gender identity in its public schools, to limit the ability of trans minors from accessing transition-related health care or from participating on school sports teams and to defund diversity programs at Florida colleges. 

In recent years, Florida lawmakers also unsuccessfully attempted to limit drag shows, an artform that has decades-old roots in the LGBTQ community. Some of the state’s schools have also voluntarily removed or banned LGBTQ-related books or books with queer characters. 

Just last week, New College of Florida tossed hundreds of books in the trash, with many of the discarded titles appearing to be related to LGBTQ issues, race and women’s rights.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis notably waged a yearslong legal battle with Disney, which has a massive corporate footprint in the state, after the company came out against the state’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law. Disney settled with the state this year.

So I don't disagree that there is a 'rightward' shift in policies on the State level in Florida, and I agree that DeSantis embroiled himself in areas in which he shouldn't have (the Disney action, for one). But I need to point out the following in the above with HR Bill #1557: Parental Rights in Education. (see link) Nowhere in the text of that bill is it written "Don't say gay". And yes, I've read it.  

The actual legislation stipulates that parents must be disclosed on topics that are suggested for classroom instruction, and that any instruction must be "age-appropriate". I would think that with the backlash against child predation that the LGBTQIA2S++ community would be all for supporting age appropriate instruction and not subjecting kids who are say 8 years old from inappropriate instruction about rather adult topics. Ok, Drag Queen Story Hour is one thing, but reading that has strong sexual overtones being put in libraries and assigned as mandatory might be a bridge too far. Ultimately, parents should be the decision-makers for how they want their children reared (no pun intended). Before they're educated on sexuality that isn't age-appropriate, should they be taught about adult topics that have not included sexual and reproductive functions? That's the thrust of the law. It doesn't state that you "cannot say gay", but that any discussion of sexuality must be appropriate for children at a young age. Not here to debate this topic but rather to provide the link to the actual legal text to dispel any misinformation. 

I wish I had an answer on "why" Florida removed LGBTQIA2S++ references from the state's websites, and sorry that the community seems upset over their perceived marginalization. That doesn't speak for the entire state, however. St. Pete is by far a very gay/queer friendly city, as is Lauderdale, Miami, Orlando, and even the Keys. There are definitely hoteliers who cater to the LGBTQ community and we have at least 2 campgrounds that are absolutely gay-friendly and queer-focused. I suspect you'll see changes come in '24 and '26 based on Rick Scott being vulnerable in his Senate seat and DeSantis helping to swing the pendulum back to center at the next gubernatorial election. My county has endured several DeSantis appointees in the past couple years and they've been an unmitigated disaster. We voted all of them except one in the recent primaries, so people are waking up to what he represents: Political cronyism of the highest order.

 

On 1/31/2024 at 9:19 AM, ellentonboy said:

Has anyone been told by their pharmacist that the medication "Flomax" or it's generic version "tamsulosin" may cause their HIV med  PREZCOBIX to be less effective?  When I was first written a script for Flomax, and fortunately I do not have prostate cancer, the pharmacist called me and said "Oh by the way, there is research that indicates Flomax may reduce the effectiveness of Prezcobix".  I do have a viral load now.  I was wondering if anyone knows of a particular article or where I could find this information.

Drugs.com gave me the following contraindications for just those two drugs together:

Major: tamsulosin  cobicistat
Applies to: tamsulosin, Prezcobix (cobicistat / darunavir)

Using tamsulosin together with cobicistat is not recommended. Combining these medications may significantly increase the blood levels and effects of tamsulosin. This may cause blood pressure to fall excessively and heart rate to increase, especially when you rise from a sitting or lying position. The risk of other side effects such as dizziness, lightheadedness, fainting, headache, flushing, nasal congestion, heart palpitation, and priapism (prolonged and painful erection unrelated to sexual activity) may also increase. Let your doctor know if you develop these symptoms while using tamsulosin and they do not go away on their own or they become troublesome. Avoid driving or operating hazardous machinery until you know how the medication affects you, and use caution when getting up from a sitting or lying position. It is important to tell your doctor about all other medications you use, including vitamins and herbs. Do not stop using any medications without first talking to your doctor.

When you use the generic for Prezcobix (darunavir), the interaction is almost word for word the same contraindication, but the interaction is considered Moderate. Unclear why. When you mentioned Flomax, you got me curious since I've used that for a while now and would be concerned if I needed to use those two drugs. Fortunately, Truvada doesn't pop-up with the same warning, good to know if you need to use that for PrEP. Another note is that tadalafil (Cialis) enhances the efficacy of tamsulosin and is considered as an off-label indication when Tamsulosin alone isn't quite enough, so that's a bonus if you use Cialis for (ahem) other purposes. 😉

So on the topic of "which tattoo", suppose you see someone with a scorpion tattoo somewhere. Other than asking "What's your sign" discreetly, is it generally viewed that someone who has one should just be assumed as Poz, or is it a toss-up on what it represents? 

And for the visually impaired, are there braille-type tattoos? Not asking for a friend. 🙂

4 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Except, of course, the wife who gets the STI or HIV from the cheating husband. Or just the emotional devastation from finding out her husband is cheating on her. 

Totally agree. If you're truly considering the other partner's feelings and well-being, you should never do something that jeopardizes them. I've actually spoken to some guys who are on the slope of bug chasing and show zero consideration for the partner still in their life. One viewed it a twisted sort of revenge on her deep immersion into religion. Another found out, they discussed, and both soon became involved in the same twisted activities together as the outcome (which I think is the remote exception to your statement and the proverbial norm). 

4 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

To me, though, it's simpler: cheating in a relationship is like cheating in a board or card game. It's breaking the rules that the participants have agreed to. Those rules don't have to be the same for every game, or for every grouping of players; games like Monopoly, for instance, have alternative sets of rules available right in the rule book to make games more or less challenging. There are so many variations of poker and solitaire that you could fill a small town public library with publications on different sets of rules. But the important thing is that they all DO have rules, and it's pretty crappy to be playing by one set of rules and find out that the other player(s) are using an entirely different rulebook.

Boardgame? Try life itself. In business, I can think of too many times where most players are guided by one set of rules, and another class -- let's call them management or leadership -- is privileged to avoid those rules and plays by a different set.  Casinos and Congress do it all the time. 😉

3 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I agree that if such an understanding is in place, then there is (by definition) no cheating. Assuming, of course, that the "understanding" covers the particular circumstances. In my experience, such "understandings" are rare; the only "understanding" is that the guy "understands" he wants a different kind of sex than the one he signed up for, and is willing to risk hurting his wife by cheating.

And part of that "least bad" option, to me, is a requirement that the guy at least TRY to come to that understanding, which means laying cards on the table. If he's hiding his sexual desires from her because he thinks she's going to freak out and want a divorce, then discreetly sleeping with men is NOT "least bad". "Least bad" would be recognizing he isn't the right guy for her, letting her go, and moving on with his life.

@BootmanLA, I'm assuming you might not have considered that the MSCs already understand that their love, affection, and relationship is not nor has ever been based solely on "sex", and there are MSCs where for various reasons one partner is no longer interested in intercourse (health, lack of sexual desires, medical conditions, you could go on). I've heard and know some MSCs who have an 'understanding' that because of the sexual desire differences and out of respect for their relationship, they choose not to parade it around the other partner.

I can agree with you that as needs evolve one partner may have recognized they've suppressed their sexual desires for a same sex relationship and wants to explore that. Meanwhile, the abstaining partner may find even the notion of gay sex repugnant (some like vanilla, some like rocky road, the famous ice cream place serves 31 flavors), leaving the non-abstaining partner unable to be as honest as they'd like without truly hurting the other partner. Love doesn't always translate to sex, sometimes it transcends. There's a few folks on here that have outlined their situations, @Poz2play immediately springs to mind as he's shared his situation many times. 

But I otherwise agree with you. The MSCs I knew of sent up trial balloons and had them shot down. People stay in relationships for many reasons. So I'd say they can't be faulted for the attempt.

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

...we've also come to understand the nuances that come with those commitments. Sometimes the married straight couple (MSC) has an understanding where one or both partners can seek outside sex. Some MSCs are polyamorous, and can seek not only outside sex, but additional relationships. Some MSCs have one partner who is no longer interested in sex and doesn't want to know whether, or when, or if, the other partner has sex with someone else, as long as it doesn't interfere with the relationship at home. And sometimes MSCs have one partner who refuses to have sex and refuses to give even tacit permission to the partner to have outside sex, and those people are left with the choice of going completely without or cheating. Those are the ones for whom, as the saying goes, cheating is the least bad option.

This happens a lot more than you think it does. The guy at the adult book/movie store. The older fellow cruising. The guy that looks straight and wears a wedding band. For them, it may be an understanding between partners, one partners no longer having an interest, or the couple who realize that they're more compatible as intimate friends without sex and seek that outside of their relationship. Hell, the apps are full of guys who want 'discreet' situations or 'cannot host', clear signs that there could be such an understanding in place ('could be' as the operative term). You're spot on in that cheating could be the least bad option if everything else is in order, and I know a few in that situation.

Unfortunately, there's still a huge bias between men being bisexual being accepted versus acceptance of bisexual women. So coming out might be honest but not the best option.

On 3/1/2024 at 4:51 PM, BootmanLA said:

I'm not sure how anyone who claims to have a conscience could cast a vote for Mango Mussolini and sleep at night, but then I guess "conscience" is relative.

Some like mustard, others like ketchup. We all have differing perspectives. The question originally was whether there were LGBTQIA++ folks who were Republican. I think I answered. Just as you cannot understand voting for Trump (whom I really don't care for either), I'd conversely struggle to understand why people will vote for Biden. Again, we all have different perspectives. 

I'm also a Gen X'er. A mean tweet doesn't trigger me as it seems to others.

As long as we're all sharing...this is more a statement than an invitation for debate, so I'll just put this out there.

I was a registered Democrat when I lived in NY, but more for the reasons that @BootmanLA cited since I lived upstate. If I lived in NYC or close, voting wouldn't even matter since a rat on a treadmill in a cage registered as a Democrat would automatically be elected. Sad. When I moved to Florida, I went with my true party affiliation since my positions are more focused on fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism. So I'm more conservative but have a conscience about whom I'd vote. I'm also Pro 2A and a firearm owner, support border enforcement...basically, I'm not voting a liberal agenda.

That said, we have awful choices again in '24 like we did in '20, but I cannot bring myself to vote for Biden. So my vote will be more a reaction to this administration and its ineffectiveness than a vote for the presumptive Republican nominee. But our real problem is the divide we have as a country when in reality most politicians are bedfellows with their counterparts across the aisle. Well, them and Pharma.

4 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

I'll say this, I am not a huge fan of the management of BBRT or Adam4adam which have been my mainstream source  here in this part of Florida for awhile.  Now IF I were traveling, going to be out of town and having a bunch of free time (say in Philadelphia)  

Since Philly is my original home -- and yes, some of the old haunts have changed over time but a lot still exist -- a little local knowledge tends to go a long way. If I'm traveling and looking, I might know where to go and for a lot of things I suppose you don't need a hookup app for Philly versus other places. If you're looking to be a cumdump in a motel or want to have randoms meet at your location, then Sniffies is a decent option. 

I'm inclined to agree with you that Adam4Adam and BBRT are like choosing between two 💩 options but I don't know a better one out there. I've found that despite the really over-the-top kinks on Nastykinkpigs, people there are more open and not necessarily always snobby about hooking up. Never once has the notion of 'generous' ever entered a dialogue there for me where it's almost a mainstay on A4A if you get past the Nigerian 419 scams. 

This is going to seem out of left field, but has anyone here heard of or tried a mobile app called Taimi, and if so, what were your thoughts?

Way too many years ago while I was at Disney World in EPCOT, "Vinnie" came up to me, asked a question and we began chatting. Which turned into a long day around the park until he had to leave to catch his flight back to NY. But not without exchanging contact information. A long time ago before texting and instant messaging and social media.

Have to believe it still happens.

On 10/28/2023 at 7:30 AM, PozTalkAuthor said:

Have I always said I've seen the worst of web? Well, this one is the worst of the worst...

...No, I don't want to enter paranoid mood! Sorry! 

And the Oscar for "Oldest Dredged Up Post We Should Have Long Since Forgotten" goes to... 🤣
Amazing how things get mentioned after a 9-year hiatus. The Twitter hasn't been active in 9 years, the site is unreachable, and I'm pretty certain the horse in this drama is very dead. No need for paranoia today.

On 10/12/2023 at 3:06 PM, hntnhole said:

Realtors around here are like alligators !!! 

(and yes, I'm a transplant from the northern flatlands, and I'm pretty decent behind the wheel too)

I’ve stood corrected on the crocodile comment by the gentleman from Louisiana. And I’m originally from Jersey and moved around NY/NJ/PA for a number of years before finding myself here.

But my home office overlooks what I’ll call “my gator” since it enjoys the confines of the small pond behind the house along with a mini-zoo of other critters. 

On 10/12/2023 at 6:13 PM, BootmanLA said:

This is simply not true.

Alligators do outnumber crocodiles in Florida, but south Florida *is* within the northern range limits for the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). 

See, for instance, this page from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/profiles/reptiles/american-crocodile/ 

Was intended for levity.

On 10/10/2023 at 10:12 AM, ellentonboy said:

Just don't decide on Florida.  I have lived here long enough to know that it's not the state is was even ten years ago.  Home owners insurance (if you can get it) has skyrocketed.  

I’m among those who transplanted here a bit over 4 years ago. When I bought, I had my eyes on Punta Gorda since I have relatives in the area, and looked at homes on the canals. But something told me that ultimately wouldn’t end well, and that proved out with Hurricane Ian. I’m happy with where I landed which came through Ian unscathed and is in a good area near everything that isn’t on the East Coast (the night life on the Gulf Coast is fairly tame).

10 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The realtors are like crocodiles around here. 

You mean alligators, don’t you? We don’t get crocs in Florida but we’re overrun with three things: Northern state transplants who can’t drive, alligators, and realtors. 🤣