BootmanLA

Newsflash: When you type a response to someone, by definition, you're not letting him have the last word. You're taking it for yourself. I think we've established my point about comprehension pretty adequately by now.

So, you make a blanket statement that X people are only on Y apps for Z reason. Then you backtrack slightly, saying "OK, there might be some exceptions". Then you assume that "keeping up with friends" can be done other ways ( presumably, ways that YOU approve of, like texting) and that everyone else needs to shut up. Here's a newsflash: not everyone wants their phone number out to people in general. I don't give my number to people to text me unless I'm confident it won't get out farther. I keep in touch with friends from various "realms" (my former gay rodeo career, my gay birding trips, etc.) via some of these apps, and no, I can't just "go get drinks at the bar" with people who live hundreds of miles away. And there are a lot of us who use the apps this way. Now - some of us may also use them for sex-related activities - and there's nothing wrong with that, either. But it's up to US to determine how we use them, not you. And it's up to US to decide how we choose to react to unsolicited nudity (or unsolicited sex offers). And the fact that you keep circling back to "you just have to expect it and you're stupid for not liking it" tells me a lot about how invested you are in your vision of how the world needs to adapt itself to how YOU want to live your life.

And again, here you are, telling me I'm in the wrong place. It's not your place to decide I'm in the wrong place. That's arrogant.

Here's your exact words, in fact: "Nobody uses grindr for social interaction and if you do you are on it for the wrong reasons" Again, you're literally telling people how THEY should or shouldn't be using a social media app. That's really breathtakingly audacious.

No. I'm curious as to why you think it's your place to decide other people are "doing it wrong" if they're on an app like these for other reasons. You consistently convey the idea that everyone needs to expect that people who behave like you are the norm, expected, and must be indulged no matter what. I'm curious why you seem to think your viewpoint on what a social media app SHOULD be used for trumps anyone else's. Because YOU are the one who used the phrase "doing it wrong" to describe other approaches.

No, I am not. I'm not dictating any rules to anybody. You need to learn to read slowly and carefully. I said that I do not want unsolicited dick pictures sent to me. I find it rude, yes. I'm not saying nobody should send dick pics. I'm not saying nobody should send unsolicited dick pics. I'm not saying people should be kicked off the system for sending dick pics, solicited or not. And as I made clear, I'm not trying to stop people from using it as a hookup app. I AM trying to get people to understand that NOT everyone uses it (or Growlr, or Scruff, or...) as a hookup app, and they shouldn't get bent out of shape when people ignore them. I AM trying to get people (at least, SOME people) to understand that they do not get to dictate how other people use an app like those, nor do they get to dictate what their reactions to behavior on those apps must be. This is apparently a difficult concept for some people to grasp, no matter how clearly stated I make it.

See, there you go again, changing the terms of the discussion. Nobody said anything about "closed relationships". You assume there are two kinds of people, apparently: those in closed relationships who shouldn't use gay social media apps, and those who use social media apps strictly for hookups. Why you feel empowered to assign people to one of those two categories is beyond me. I know monogamous couples who have profiles on Growlr, Scruff, and Grindr. I know people in open relationships who also have them, but who use them primarily for keeping up with friends. None of that's relevant to the original point, which is that unsolicited greetings - whether "sup?" or dick shots, always merits a response. You seem incredibly invested in defending this practice. I'm curious why.

For starters, I don't have a Grindr account. I'm familiar with the service and I've seen it in action, but again, please stop projecting what YOU do on a site onto me. You seem very, very taken with the idea of coming up with things you think I'm saying and things you think I'm doing and stating them as facts. It's a little creepy, to be honest.

I did not say that sending dick pics through Grindr is unacceptable. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I said that sending UNSOLICITED dick pics (or ass pics, for that matter) through Grindr is unacceptable. At least, to me. And since the whole point of this thread was whether every unsolicited contact merited a response, my point - that I don't feel obligated to respond to virtual flashers - is still on point.

There are threads of all of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) that proscribe homosexuality and endorse harsh punishment, including death. There are threads of all three that do the opposite. The issue isn't Islam; it's wedding a particular strain of Islam to civil authority that's the problem. Just as it was a problem when Christianity was wedded to the civil authorities of what is now Europe. If you don't want to be married, that's your right. Some of us do. Some of us want equal treatment under the law for our relationships. You may not have concerns about tax treatment of spousal benefits, inheritance rights, the ability to see one's spouse in a hospital and make health care decisions for him if he's incapacitated, etc. - and it's fine that you don't care. I assume it's probably because there's nobody who'd want to make those calls for you. But for many of us, they are important issues.

Thank you so much for telling me what are acceptable and non-acceptable reasons for being on any social media site. </sarcasm filter off> Seriously: the rules here prevent me from telling you what I think of that bullshit, but suffice it to say, Grindr is not your personal property and you don't have any right to tell anyone the "right" or "wrong" reasons to use it. The FUCKING SITE ITSELF doesn't describe itself as a hook-up application. That may be how many people use it. It may even be how most people TRY to use it (though I doubt seriously that the majority of the people on there regularly actually get hooked up). Here's how it describes itself on its website: "Today, Grindr proudly represents a modern LGBTQ lifestyle that’s expanding into new platforms. From social issues to original content, we’re continuing to blaze innovative paths with a meaningful impact for our community. At Grindr, we’ve created a safe space where you can discover, navigate, and get zero feet away from the queer world around you." Now - if you want to use it just for hooking up, go for it. If you want to be the biggest whore in the world and earn a gold medal for sluttiness, I'm all for you reaching your personal goals, and I'll defend your right to do so as long as the site's rules are upheld. More power to you and all that jazz. But: DO . NOT . FUCKING . TELL . ME . HOW . TO . LIVE . MY . LIFE . ONLINE.

"fa" is not "atmospherically present." Fascism, which is what "fa" is short for, is the result of deliberate choices by those who govern and those who vote for those who govern. But in any event, the first step is calling attention to the problem. It's not going to be solved overnight. And there are changes coming - as more and more police are forced to wear body cameras, and more and more people are recording the police during arrests, it's becoming clearer that there are widespread, systemic problems in law enforcement. Knowledge of those abuses is the first step in ending them. Fascism is about power, and almost always, it's about the power of the majority to force minorities to comply with the abridgment of their rights. LGBT people are distinctly a minority in this country, with a long history of oppression. It shouldn't be hard for someone with an IQ above room temperature to realize that a fascism designed to prop up the power of straight white Christian men is going to present problems for LGBT people. It's true that lesbians and gays have, in the last decade, made significant progress towards equality under the law. We're now permitted to get married throughout the country; we can serve openly in the military (and despite the wails and whining of right-wing bigots, it hasn't presented any morale issues). And as of this summer, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination "on account of sex" includes gay, lesbian, and trans people; assuming the court is true to its moorings, we're likely to gain the same protections under the Fair Housing Act and other federal civil rights laws that mention sex. But we're not done yet. Under Obama, the military had moved to allow trans people to serve; Trump reversed that. Since the military is considered a special case, the Supreme Court is not likely to step in and force that to change back, so it's up to the next president and/or Congress to change that policy, hopefully on a permanent basis. But beyond those things: right now, the biggest problem American Fascism presents is in crushing dissent. Look at how Trump used federal law enforcement and tear gas to break up peaceful protests near the White House just so he could strut around outside a church, profaning it with his very presence, trying to appear tough on "law and order". LGBT protests are just as likely to be broken up violently by federal thugs if this cancer of fascism isn't eradicated.

Except that many such apps and sites are not "intended only for hooking up" - many people use Growlr, Scruff, and yes, even Grindr for social interaction in general. Contrast these two publicly posted statements, by the sites, as to their purpose: GRINDR: Grindr is the world’s #1 FREE mobile social networking app for gay, bi, trans, and queer people to connect. Chat and meet up with interesting people for free, or upgrade to Grindr XTRA for more features, more fun, and more chances to connect. BarebackRT.com: Meet Real Men Online for Realtime Bareback Sex. Grindr/Scruff/Growlr/etc. all offer features beyond hooking up for sex - I'm not under the illusion that most people join Grindr looking to find their new best friend or next husband, but it's also a fact that many people who have accounts there frequently go online with no intention of hooking up any time soon. And yes, you can ignore what you choose. The problem I see is that things tend to get reduced to the lowest common denominator. And once a site becomes identified as "just a place for people eager to have sex to find it", the bots and spam accounts and such soon follow, because they know those users are more likely to open anything while they're hunting their next orgasm. Some sites - Adam4Adam come to mind - have essentially become useless for that reason. I see no reason to encourage people to treat the sites/apps that still work with the same lack of care.

I'd also note: I'm not calling for the (real or virtual) flashers to be arrested or barred from the websites or whatever. I'm saying I'm under no real or imagined obligation to treat that behavior as the equivalent of a friendly "hello" that common decency requires acknowledgement.

I'd say there is a difference in that on this site, public nude shots like mine are acceptable to the moderators and it's clear upon joining that you can see publicly viewable nude shots. For the real world, I'd say it's the equivalent of going into the Folsom Street Fair or perhaps a bathhouse. You know what to expect. By contrast, most mainstream hookup/dating apps - probably because they're available in app stores - restrict publicly viewable pictures to somewhere between PG-13 and R ratings. They're more like a mainstream gay bar, where you can probably get away with chaps over a bare ass, but not without a jock or codpiece. If I were in such a bar, and some guy dropped his shorts and underwear, I'd equate that to public flashing, whereas I wouldn't at Folsom or Dore Alley or other similar street fairs.

Good to know. That said: I'd assume that pretty much any site that allows you to download its videos for offline viewing has a download link available thereon. I'd be interested in seeing a site that expressly permits you to download its videos but does not provide any easy way to do just that. If you have to conjure up a third-party tool in order to do it, chances are pretty good that the terms of service for the site prohibit downloading a copy. In fact, I'll wager that the reason IDM+ doesn't work with the sites mentioned by the OP is that their terms of service prohibit it, and IDM+ has wisely chosen to block downloads from those sites to avoid lawsuits.

or fishing for more pictures of photogenic cocks and/or asses to jack off to. My middle name is not 'FreePorn4u".

In my experience (which may be limited), streaming porn sites usually do not provide that download ability. In fact, if anything, most of the ones I've dealt with go to great extremes to hide even the file name so that there isn't any sort of "hack" that lets you point directly to the file and then use a browser's built-in download feature to capture it. Maybe I'm just using the wrong sites and others are more generous.

To be fair to this site's owner: I don't think he developed the software himself; rather, it's a package people can license to run forum-like websites like this one. So the features available and how they work are not entirely under his control (although it would be nice to have those kinds of things confirmed rather than just ignored). The only reason I made a point about the status updates: that's a very simple change to make because the code for that query has to be fairly compact (ie "Select the 5 most recent status updates by members", translated to plain English). That could easily be fixed by the developers to instead be "Select the 5 most recent status updates by members who are not ignored by this user" - one line of code, most likely, easy to test, easy to implement, and almost certainly what the developers probably meant to do in the first place. RawTop may not be able to change that, but as the licensee of the software it's a simple update he should be able to suggest. I'm not so sure about the galleries update, but even if it's more complicated, adding the qualification "where the gallery is not owned by someone being ignored" should be pretty easy to implement too.

Just to be clear, you're asking people for instructions on how to bypass legal copyright protection on a website in order to make an illegal copy of material you don't own. Correct? I don't think that publicly stating those kinds of intentions is particularly wise.

Bumping this up with an additional "bug" (that again probably can't be dealt with). Even with every box checked for the "ignore user" for a name, those users' status updates still show in the "Recent Status Updates" section of the main forum page. And there are some whose status updates, while *technically* probably within the rules of this forum, are so offensive that if I saw the person in real life, I'd punch the everloving shit out of them, just on general principle. I'd be happy to ignore them so I don't have to see their obnoxious bullshit, but the tools provided here do not cover that. This, unlike the previously reported problem, should be easy for the developers to fix, if they cared. It's a simple condition to add to the query that retrieves the most recent status updates. Despite my fondness for the color blue, however, I'm not holding my breath waiting.

"The economy" is not the same thing as the stock market. Barely half of Americans have any stock holdings at all, and for the vast majority, it's a small amount held as part of an IRA or 401(k). 84% of the stock market's value is held by the top 10% of Americans (by wealth). Focusing on the stock market only means that the richest of the rich keep getting richer. And remember: when gifted with over a trillion dollars in tax cuts, what did all the big companies do? Buy back their stock, which drives up the price per share, and makes those who hold it even richer. So Donald Trump's government gave away more than a trillion dollars to make the richest of the rich even more rich. What matters most to the vast majority of people are (a) salary/wage income - which was stagnant in real terms for decades - and (b) home equity, because a home is the single most valuable asset most families have, IF they have one. Unfortunately, thanks to the LAST recession brought on by Republican policies of under-regulation, the housing bubble that burst in 2008-09 has yet to recover completely in many places, and many people stand no chance whatsoever of ever being able to buy a house. One thing that IS "the economy" is the jobs market. All the Trumpanzees want to stop the jobs clock as of February 2020, as though the last six months never happened. But they did - and even though we're recovering some of the 21 MILLION jobs lost in March and April of 2020, we're nowhere near the employment level that Donald Trump inherited in January 2017 after seven years of growth under Obama. In fact, even if we keep recovering jobs at the current pace - and that's assuming another wave of the Trump Virus doesn't sweep the country and force another round of shutdowns - Trump will be the first president in history to show a net jobs LOSS for his entire presidency.

If I actually believed that the typical unsolicited cock pic sent was (a) actually of the guy sending it and (b) he was seriously interested in using it with me, I might feel differently. But somewhere north of 90% of the ones I receive that way are from guys a thousand miles away or more.

I don't think there is any way to quantify the risk, as in "You have a 27.4% chance of....". In this case, here's the thing. You see a sore, but you don't know whether it's herpes or not. If it is, you have at least a moderate risk of contracting it. If it's not, obviously you don't. If it matters, ask. Ask in general terms ("I prefer full disclosure - do you have any STIs, so that I can plan accordingly?"). Your plan may include declining to fuck him if he says "Oh yeah, I have herpes and it seems to always be acting up." Of course, you can't know if he's telling the truth if he says he has none. So as long as you know this MIGHT be a herpes sore and he MIGHT be experiencing an outbreak and you MIGHT get infected if you do fuck -- then make your decision accordingly.

Not everything, no. If the first message I get from someone is, say, unlocking a bunch of nude pictures, I don't care how hot they are, I'm very unlikely to respond. And yes, I do (or rather, would do) the same thing to flashers in public face-to-face. I'd be tempted to point and laugh, but today that might get me shot. Muggers are human beings attempting to interact, too, but I don't believe they deserve a response any more than Mr. Virtual Flasher. I don't mind crude, but if the first message is something both crude AND demonstrates he hasn't read my profile, then I typically don't answer, unless a very curt and blunt answer would work better, e.g. HIM: Wanna fuck my ass? ME: Not in the slightest. If someone sends me a compliment, I say thank you. If I see something to be complimented in return, I do that. Sometimes it's a compliment on something physical, sometimes it's something nicely phrased in his profile; sometimes we have a common interest and I'll mention that. Sometimes it's even just "I've never been to X region, but I'm hoping to get there someday to see Y." If there's literally nothing in the profile I find even remotely appealing, even as a potential friend, then I typically add "that's very kind of you." And I'll repeat that if he starts getting assertive about his interest, until it's hopefully clear I'm being nice but declining. (If he's nice, and then asks for something directly, I'll respond politely but directly as well - "No, thank you, but again it's kind of you to ask.")