BootmanLA

That's something the management can shut down easily. They can be told "This place allows that to happen; if you're not happy seeing it, you're welcome to leave." And again, for what it's worth, there are gay trans men. The sex they have is gay sex, by definition.

I believe RawTop has addressed this in other postings in this forum about membership levels. Basically, though, the exact number of postings, time of membership, and so forth - your "engagement", so to speak - needed to advance a level isn't published. That's to keep people from gaming the system. The whole point of having these limits at first is to ensure that people are coming here to actually engage with the forums. It's a discussion board, not a hookup site. And there was an ongoing problem with outside parties joining up and using private messages for spamming members with, for instance, offers for porn site memberships, pushing to join other sites, and what not. Since the messages are private - I assume the site manager can view them if need be, but he's not going to be reading them on an ordinary basis - the problem was going undetected unless members reported it. We already have "limited" private messages that increase the more you participate. They just start at zero. Eventually, you get to the point where you can send a few a day, and then as you keep participating, you can send more and more. It's not hard to get there. With the thousands of topics here, surely there are many on which you could express an opinion. Read some of the fiction and thank the authors for the stories you like, for instance.

Oh and looky: the guy who says he can't stand to read about politics is back in the politics forum downvoting things instead of, you know, being an adult and staying the fuck out of an area that allegedly doesn't interest him. How sad a life one has to live, to seek out stuff that's already helpfully segregated away from other info PRECISELY so that it can be avoided if you don't like the topic - just for the purpose of downvoting people.

One other thing Savage talks about is how there's no such thing, ordinarily, as "the one". Nobody is ever 100% perfectly suited to meet all the needs of someone else while the same is also true in reverse - no such thing as perfect matches. Rather, he notes, we "round up" - someone is a 0.69 or a 0.72, and we round that up to 1. Some of the difference is balanced out with friends (your partner may not share your interest in kayaking, but you've got a buddy who enjoys it so you can keep at it); some of it you just accept you'll differ (I like having the dishes done immediately after a meal, he prefers to wait till he's got a sinkfull to do at once, so if I want a clean sink, I do the dishes myself). When the difference between the 0.72 and 1 involves sexual likes and dislikes, the same's true. Sometimes one partner foregoes something he really likes (say, ball bashing) because the partner is squeamish about it. Sometimes one partner agrees to do things that don't interest him as much, because it means so much to his partner. Sometimes they agree the partner can seek that specific activity elsewhere. But again, communication is key for "rounding up", unless a guy is willing to discard all the things he wants but won't get with a particular partner. The problem I see most often is, few people actually are ready to just "give up" everything that is a mismatch area, and that's where talking it out becomes necessary.

For a long time I've said that the most important factor in a relationship is agreement on what that means. For some, it means absolute monogamy (and that's fine if that's what both parties choose as their terms). For some, it means fidelity - faithfulness of the heart, but not necessarily the body. For those, there are subsets of people who limit "outside play" in various ways - no sex in our shared home, no sex in our shared bed, no overnight visits just for sex, no canceling "our" time for an outside fling, only when one of us is away from home traveling, whatever the two parties may think is necessary to bolster that separation between nonmogamy and fidelity. That's without going into other relationship forms, like triads, quads, and other poly situations. And for any and all of these, what constitutes acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior, i.e. what counts as cheating? Does online flirting, over an extended period, count, even if two never meet in person? Is it cheating if your partner regularly meets up with another person for lunches - long lunches, where they share deep emotional secrets, but never do anything physical beyond, say, hugging or holding hands? It's amazing how differently two people can view the exact same behavior. In all of these, communication and agreement are critical. And that includes, inevitably, what happens when someone in the relationship screws up? If one person cheats, however they define that term, do you call it quits, do you work on rebuilding trust, do you agree to change the terms of the relationship? There's no single right path or answer to any of this. There's only what's right for the individuals involved, and there may need to be some serious compromise, or as Dan Savage puts it, one person may have to pay the price of admission. If A wants a relationship with B badly enough, and B requires a completely closed relationship, then even if A prefers a more open arrangement, "closed relationship" is the price of admission to that particular relationship; if A isn't willing to pay that price, the relationship's not for him. (And it works in reverse: the price of a relationship with A could be "must be open", and if B wants that relationship badly enough, that's the price he needs to pay. The problems come when people pretend that the price isn't really fixed, and don't actually plan on paying that price, or assuming the price will change when push comes to shove. (There's nothing wrong with changing the terms as long as both parties agree; but when they haven't, you're back in the situation of what do you do when one party screws up under the terms agreed upon.)

This makes zero sense.

Very possibly so, and I personally think about half the sexual exploits described on here are aspirational at best.

Not saying it's fiction or not. But to think that people aren't willing to do to "other" people what they wouldn't do to their own family members is to ignore about 10,000 years of human history.

But again, how is that different from race? We don't believe in "clear cut distinctions" on the basis of race any more, but there are still biological differences - the increased susceptibility for people of African descent, for instance, to sickle cell disease, which appears to be a *genetic* difference. Until HIV/AIDS, Kaposi's Sarcoma was a cancer thought to be essentially exclusive to people of Mediterranean descent; it's possible that "white" (ie more specifically, northern European) biology evolved an immune system that could keep KS from taking hold, something that advanced HIV/AIDS patients lose. And although we realize that skin tone and facial feature differences are, to use a phrase, "skin deep", whether they're deeper or not is irrelevant for the purpose of discrimination: either it's a valid basis for discrimination, or it's not, and that's a *societal*, not a *biological*, choice. Throughout this entire discussion I have yet to see a single argument in favor of allowing this discriminatory practice to exist other than, in essence, gay men don't want to see vaginas and should be protected from "having" to see them. In other words, pure snowflake-ism. If someone can offer a more reasonable justification otherwise, I'm listening.

For once I'm not the one downvoting (and to be honest, I went back to check, and was going to remove my downvote before adding this. But I disagree strongly with your assertion that race is all in the mind and gender is a very real thing. You said that "Gender difference is very real, at least to the vast majority of humans in every culture that has ever existed." That was EXACTLY the perception of the scientific community regarding race about 100-150 years ago, and for "the vast majority of humans in every culture that had ever existed". As recently as the mid 20th century, courts were still accepting the view that blacks were inherently inferior to whites intellectually because of inherent biological differences. And yet, in a hundred years, that belief has been exposed as false and reduced in prevalence to a fringe of society. In other words, just because societies have always considered men and women vastly different (and, naturally, women inferior), doesn't mean the differences are as pronounced as some of us think. We have people who are, genetically, unequivocally male (XY genome) who are born with a vagina and ovaries. We have people who are genetically unequivocally female (XX) who are born with a penis and rudimentary testes. We have people who have variant genomes (XXX, XYY, XXY, etc.) who sometimes can't be determined as male or female from external inspection - and a long history of infant surgery forcing "conformity" - removing a penis and creating a vagina for such children on the grounds that it's unlikely they'd be successful as a male, sexually speaking. And as for separate rest rooms - the reality is that's about protecting women from men's sexual assault and from men leering at them. I don't know many women who are worried about trans women sharing their bathrooms, especially since most women's rooms have individual stalls with doors, not open urinals like men's rooms. it's only the men who raise the question about men pretending to be trans to get into women's bathrooms. That tells you where THEIR minds are.

My point about "home": no, an entire campground where you rent out spaces to transient visitors all year long is not purely a home. It's a commercial operation. If I buy a hotel and rent out rooms but I live on the premises, that doesn't transform the entire hotel into "my home". As for the "membership only" bullshit: as I noted earlier, it's a private membership only venue if the membership fees - and not "daily membership fees" that are nothing more than space rental fees thinly disguised - actually cover the lion's share of the operational costs. In other words, the membership fee needs to be substantial enough that you don't then also charge so much for daily/weekly/monthly occupancy/rental charges that the latter overwhelms the former. I realize that's the gimmick most such places employ trying to evade scrutiny but the reality is, if they're ever challenged, they're going to lose. And yes, I'm sure there are people for whom this guy's cis policy is a plus, just like there are bigots who saw "no blacks" lunch counters and restaurants and hotels as a plus. That doesn't make them legal.

To be fair: I'm not saying and never would say that the experience of black people in this country is the same as or even close to that of any other group. I use the race angle because it has become a familiar way for people to look at discrimination: if the argument you're making wouldn't hold true for a racially biased decision, why would it hold true for one based on orientation, gender, or sex? I'd like to think that while we can agree black people absolutely had it worse, for longer, than any other minority group in this country (though arguments could be made over our treatment of Native Americans) - that doesn't mean we can't employ the same analytical techniques to evaluate discrimination and rationales for it. That said: As evidenced by this campground, there are still people and places where a black male outranks a white trans person. I realize some white guys' willingness to have sex with black men is itself problematic (fetishizing BBC, etc.) but I'd imagine more white gay men sleep with black men than with trans men. If in socializing outside the bedroom, white trans guys seem to have an advantage, I'd suspect it's because most of the white gay men there don't know who the trans ones are, and if they all suddenly had a trans nametag, you might see a different approach to them. For what it's worth, I don't consider it okay to say "no blacks" (in terms of expressing one's sexual partner preferences). It may be legal, but I think it's a shit move by cowardly assholes who don't like having to turn someone down one-on-one and so figure it's easier to make a racist statement of "preference" to forestall any awkwardness on their part, even as it shits all over the feelings of black men scrolling through profiles, etc. Anyone who does that is, in my book, someone I'd "cut" when being introduced in public. As for saying you're not into trans men: I don't have a huge problem with that as long as it's done with some sensitivity. "When I play, I find a penis essential, and so respectfully decline playing with pre-op trans men" (or some version of that) is a lot better than "No trannies, no femmes" which I used to see regularly. Oh, I'm not fooled, and I am well aware that this is the case. It's shameful. But - as I note - once you're in the gate, so to speak, you stand a shot at finding at least a few guys who are into black men, even if it's for problematic reasons. If there are several, some might even find each other attractive and be able to ignore, for a time, those who rejected them. But - if, like the trans guys here, you can't even get in the gate - that's another story. They aren't even being given a shot at being accepted or rejected on an individual basis.

Perhaps "BiDad" didn't realize that fictional sex accounts belong in the fiction section. If that's the case, he can request the moderators move the story to the appropriate place (General bareback fiction) and remove the comments chastising him for treating someone like shit. If he's going to continue to claim this is a true story, I suggest we get marshmallows for the roasting.

One other suggestion: if he makes jokes on the side, you can joke back with plausible deniability. Especially if the joke has even the faintest hints of "you wish you could" about it. The rejoinder I'd make is something like "Don't let your mouth write a check your body's not gonna cash". (That is, assuming he knows what a check is; with younger people today you never know). Sometimes that'll be just enough opening for him to amp up the teasing - which you can take note of. If he backs off, you can always say you were just picking on him the way he picks on you, "bro".

Every time some snot-nosed GOP apologist queer tries to tell me that Republicans aren't opposed to gay people's rights any more, and we should be more concerned about things like rich people's taxes, I'd love to print this out, roll it up, and shove it up their asses. The only reason there's only 206 and not 208 Republicans voting against the bill is that two of them are dead and can't vote. There's also a single vacancy on the Democratic side, for a member who left to join the Biden administration, but I can assure you his successor (whoever it ends up being) would have voted for the bill.

For what it's worth: I'm not suggesting that race and gender are "equivalent". But in terms of how people *respond* to them, I don't think there's a hell of a lot of difference. Toilet arguments are about a combination of privacy and safety; women legitimately worry about being molested or raped in areas where they may be exposed to a predator. Remarkably, most opposition to trans women in women's restrooms seems to come from cis MEN who think trans women are going to rape their women and children (perhaps betraying something of their own thought processes). In any event, at a campground like this - based on the bathroom analogy, the trans men there should be the ones most concerned about safety. The fact that they want to attend suggests that's not a concern, so the whole "bathroom" thing comes down to just another excuse. You may think there's a huge difference between responses to gender and race. I can assure you that in much of the country, that's simply not true. I've seen cruising/play at a public place come to a screeching halt among the white participants when a black man shows up. I've seen the white participants break off into smaller groups and move further out of sight so that the black guy is discouraged from pursuing. I've been at gay bars where a group of white guys will "close ranks" from being a formerly "open" stanced group if a black guy heads in their direction. (And conversely, just as some gay men fetishize trans gay men, I've seen some treat black men the same way - objectifying them sexually far beyond ordinary feelings of "that guy's hot.) I'm not out to make anyone look like a bigot. I'm out to push those who say they are NOT bigots to give me a rational basis to exclude trans gay men from a gay men's event other than "I don't want to look at a vagina, anywhere, at any time, during my visit, and I feel that so strongly that instead of taking reasonable effort to ensure I don't look at them, I want them barred from being anywhere I might look."

It boggles my mind that anyone could think sex is about being "fair". Especially someone who posted elsewhere about how much trouble he has "giving up control", but apparently who has no problem taking that control away from other people. Fundamental rule of sex: consent can be withdrawn at any time. Anyone who doesn't honor that is a dick, and not the good kind.

I'm not surprised either, just as I'm not surprised when I find out that, in the 21st century, there are still bars and nightclubs that systematically exclude black people (through bogus and poorly enforced dress codes or any other means they can use to initially evade scrutiny). Lack of surprise that an abhorrent practice is ongoing is not a defense of said practice continuing.

Here's the thing: I haven't heard one reason for this kind of policy other than "there are gay men who are icked out by vaginas so we're banning them". If someone can present a more rational basis for such a policy, I'd certainly take that basis under consideration. But "We don't like that around" (which is what this boils down to) doesn't cut it for me. Sure, you're welcome to think that. But don't be surprised when people point out that it is, in fact, transphobic.

You made DrScorpio's point for him. He said that it IS an issue that women's only spaces DO often discriminate against trans women, and it's a huge issue in the women's community, dividing those who recognize and respect all women vs. those who only recognize and respect cis women.

Of course there is a place for cis gay males who want to spend time in a place exclusively for them. It's called "their own house". Let's swap out your post's wording with ones based in race instead and see what we get. "While I've never discussed this specifically with the owners, it's more than merely being disappointed. In a highly sexualized environment, there are more than a few white males who would be very uncomfortable with a black man being present. That in and of its self doesn't make someone racist. Otherwise white people who are totally supportive of racial equality but don't want to be around blacks while they're having sex with each are racist. Is it really so wrong for there to be a place for white men who want to spend some time in a place that is exclusively for them especially when nearby there are other options available? One can carry "wokeness" to silly extremes." See how that sounds?

I think in addition to this, a lot of the older members have been here long enough to know they don't have anything to prove and don't feel the need to grab attention or stand out. Many newer members, for good or bad, seem prone to wanting to "one-up" and make things ever closer to an edge they don't even acknowledge exists. I see guys with 2 or 4 posts to their name hopping into thread after thread, posting about all the things they want done to them, or to do to others, almost as though they believed anything less than aiming for a 32-top gang bang or nine different STI's within six months is shameful slacking off. Or they'll brag about what a cumdump they are, and in every thread that starts with "Should a bottom..." they're posting away with how every bottom should allow anything whatsoever to be done to them, should allow themselves to be called any name, should allow whatever their honest needs might be to be ignored, all because REAL bottoms need to be treated like crap and anyone who doesn't like that isn't really a bottom, he's a pretender. It's kinda sad in a way, because I suspect that most of these guys are the real pretenders. I'm not the sort to call out anyone in particular, but when a guy claims he went to the local seedy motel next to a truck stop (in a town of less than a thousand people, ninety miles from the nearest interstate highway, and situated on a two-lane state road that leads basically nowhere) and twelve tops came and barebacked him and three had BBCs at least ten inches long, I'm inclined to be just a tad skeptical.

I'm not entirely sure - as I noted - that they do have the right to do this. If they're deemed a commercial entity, then (thanks to of all people, Neil Gorsuch) they're running afoul of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the 6-3 majority that held "sex", as used in that act, included both sexual orientation and gender identity.

Bear in mind that size and sensitivity are two different things, and may be unrelated, or directly proportional, or even indirectly proportional to each other. So be careful what you wish for. I have known guys (two) who had small but very sensitive nipples who did everything imaginable to increase their size, primarily with suction. They both ended up with nipples that had as much erogenous appeal to their bodies as their middle toes - ie none.

I assume that's facetious? Gay people do manage to live quite productive and fruitful lives in places where there are no bathhouses or sex parties and never have been. I'm not suggesting that people need to abandon hope such things will never return, but I guarantee you, nobody's going to die of a lack of bathhouses.