BergenGuy

4 hours ago, chaserslut said:

For several days now the chat icon has just been three little dots for me and doesn't open chat.

Same here.  Clicking on the icon just brings me back to the home page.  I've also tried various browsers, to no avail.  I know that the chat room was often empty, but sometimes it could get lively and it certainly made the site more interesting.

7 hours ago, sus-tor said:

Sure, we had Barz in Nyack, but we also were a 30 minute drive to Chelsea...

I remember Barz.  It was the only bar in the area to survive long-term other than Feathers.  Too bad it was mostly lesbian except on Friday nights.

In my 35 years in the area, I've seen a number of bars open and close (Triangles and Pulsations in Rockland, B Lounge in Westchester, Connexxions and numerous bars that didn't last long enough to visit in NJ).  Bergen County can seem to support only one gay bar despite having a population of 950K.  Even that bar, Feathers, is no longer open seven nights a week, although I think that some of their fall-off in business is self-inflicted.  Westchester County, with a population of a million, doesn't seem to be able to support any.  Driving into the city is a pain, but there's not much of a choice.  Not that I go out much these days.  When not on vacation, my weekend nights tend to end at 10pm.  That's when they used to begin.

I don't know if suburban gay bars are declining nationwide or if it is a trend unique to metropolitan areas.

On 4/27/2023 at 3:30 PM, nicktheslut said:

Good start. I can't wait to read the next part.

Part I was written nearly 11 years ago.  I really doubt that there's going to be a Part II.

On 2/23/2023 at 6:30 PM, BootmanLA said:

And in every case, even if I can't find a reason to vote FOR either candidate, I can almost always find a reason to vote AGAINST one of the two candidates. It's rare that both candidates are equally bad, even if neither is someone I'd pick from an open field of thousands of possibilities.

You're so right.  It frustrates me when someone says that there's no reason to vote because there's no difference between the candidates.  Of course there are differences!  No two candidates have the same experience.  No two candidates take identical positions on all the issues.  One candidate is always less objectionable than the other.  Vote for that one.

4 hours ago, valleyvers said:

This seems to be the prevailing line of thought. Even when there was gay bars in my area play really didn't happen on premise, you had to click and then go get a hotel. Didnt have much luck at Feathers in River Edge

I don't know that any suburban gay bar, at least in the NY metro area, ever had much action on premises.  Feathers, with the "woods" across the parking lot, was probably the closest to something like that.  But, the woods are fenced off now, or they were the last time I was there several years ago.  No gay bar, with the exception of Feathers, seems to last very long in the Bergen/Rockland/Westchester area, and even that bar is now only open four or so nights a week.

18 hours ago, Lustofalltrades said:

FINALLY, someone else from my area. I've been on here on and off for like 2 years checking out this part of the message board hoping to see someone or a group of someones hosting something,

I'm from Bergen County, NJ, just a mile or so from the Rockland line.  There's never anything in the area.  I think that being so close to NYC just sucks the gay life out of the area.  The prevailing attitude seems to be why hang in the 'burbs when there's a gay playground in Manhattan?

On 4/1/2023 at 10:01 AM, ytowndaddybear said:

Without any assurance that stopping coverage of PrEP would reduce their exposure to HIV+ patients it is unlikely that any non-religious affiliated insurer would stop coverage, doing so is simply illogical.

Actually, it isn't illogical at all.  For the insurance industry as a whole, it would be illogical to end coverage.  But, for any one company, it could make sense.  Since many employers tend to change carriers every two to three years, an ininsurance company might assume that, on average, a number of the HIV infections that result from the non-coverage of PrEP would actually be the problem of another insurer.

But, I agree with you, that isn't likely.  Most, if not all, commercial insurance plans covered PrEP even before it was designated preventative.  But, PrEP was subject to the standard deductibles and copays.  A return to those days is the real problem.  Many people can't afford a $3,000 deductible before the cost of PrEP and associated labs is covered.

24 minutes ago, viking8x6 said:

It has an edit button.

Thanks!  I don't see that option under the "..." menu, but I might be noticing my mistakes more than 10 minutes later.

2 hours ago, brnbk said:

If Grindr takes pains to make sure it is available and operating in these non US jurisdictions, then it needs to make sure it is doing  whatever it reasonably can to protect gay men's health and well being in those places. 

It turns out that this isn't Grindr's program (it is one partner among several in a bigger initiative) and the campaign is supported by a CDC grant, which would explain why it is limited to the US.

[think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/grindr-joins-major-public-health-push-distribute-free-home-hiv-tests-rcna75751

A quick search of the internet turned up several articles on the free HIV kits.  There's some interesting information, including that the fact that this is not Grindr's program.  It is a partner in the "Together TakeMeHome" campaign, but doesn't run it.  The program is funded by a $41 million grant from the CDC, which explains why it is limited to the US.

[think before following links] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/22/business/grindr-free-hiv-tests/index.html

[think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/grindr-joins-major-public-health-push-distribute-free-home-hiv-tests-rcna75751

So, in summary, Grindr isn't racist.

5 minutes ago, brnbk said:

While the three countries don't have medical regulatory regimes that are necessary aligned, they do have agreement — and at home test kits would not be an issue either in Canada or Mexico.

Of course the kits could be an issue.  Grindr can't distribute an unapproved test kit in any country.  I've worked in the medical device industry.  You seem to dismiss logistical and legal issues as trivial.  I'm telling you that they're not.  Just because a test kit is approved in one country doesn't mean that it is approved in another.  It depends on whether the manufacturer decides that the time and expense for approvals in another market was worthwhile.

You're also ignoring that Grindr probably isn't undertaking this on its one.  The expense would be huge.  The source of financing may be limited to the US.

1 hour ago, ErosWired said:

The generation that is coming into adulthood does not think as they do, and will in time reshape the world to their own liking.

Which is why the regressives are so frantic to sanitize education.  They are desperately trying to get the next generation to think as they do.  Their plan would have a good chance of succeeding if it wasn't for the internet and the "woke" media allowing the "outside world" to seep in.  That's why I expect the regressives to turn their attention to both very soon.  Utah has already passed a law requiring teens under 18 to have their parent's consent to use social media sites.  As usual, it is couched as "protecting the children."

1 hour ago, Cumpigmelb said:

i heard they want to ban the statue of David? 

So far, only in Florida.  I think the heat and humidity have finally driven them crazy down there.  

This country is rapidly being split in two by regressives who can't stand the idea that straight male WASPs are no longer in the majority.

On 3/11/2023 at 5:08 PM, brnbk said:

but selling gay priests' data to the US church - and government as there is a new found brotherhood between the US Evangelicals and Catholics, is a new low. 

Too much data is being collected, and too much of it is too easily sold for purposes that no one could have imagined.  This is a perfect example of that.  Grindr didn't sell any data to the Catholic Church and it didn't single out data concerning just priests.  It sold a huge dataset to a data broker, who then sold it to this "non-profit" group that used sophisticated data-mining techniques to identify the priests out of hundreds of thousands of users in that dataset.  Grindr should be condemned for selling that data in the first place, but it didn't set out to deliberately expose gay priests.

20 hours ago, brnbk said:

So my beef with them can be summed up as : its John Doe and not Jane Doe, Grindr!

Why is your beef with the use of "Jane Doe" on the sample packaging?  "Jane Doe" is a perfectly acceptable way of indicating anonymity.  Since you're nitpicking, I'm surprised that you didn't complain about the fact that there's no Sunshine Lane in zip code 10001.  That must signal some sort of -ism on Grindr's part.

10 hours ago, ErosWired said:

No attack on you was intended. The comment was simply an observation that the motivation of these litigants seems misguided.

Sorry .. I took your comment the wrong way.

10 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Health insurance is no longer mandatory at the federal level. The tax penalty for not having health insurance was repealed by the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2019.

Technically, insurance is still mandatory.  There's no just no penalty for not having it.  So, I guess their argument is that they have to choose between breaking the law (even if there's no penalty) and observing their beliefs. 

10 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Nor can they demonstrate that their individual dollars, out of all those paid by millions of others, are the ones being used to subsidize PrEP.

Since insurance works off risk pools, mixing all premium dollars together, an insurance company would not be able to show that their individual dollars were NOT being used to subsidize PrEP

10 hours ago, ErosWired said:

It always boils down to the same thing - this isn’t about freedom to believe what they wish, it’s about them wanting to be able to control how other people live.

Of course that's it.  They would be furious is a Christian Science (or is it Jehovah Witnesses?) group filed a lawsuit claiming their rights were being violated by the coverage of blood products.  

But, this group managed to go beyond the religious argument by claiming that the administrative structure that created the mandates is unconstitutional.  It is also interesting that the judge didn't strike down all the mandates.  He left things like no-cost baby well-care and immunizations in place.  He struck down the things that conservatives don't like, such as contraception and PrEP.

8 hours ago, ErosWired said:

!!  Hold the phone. When these people paid their money to purchase their insurance coverage, it stopped being their money, the same as when their money stopped being their money when they subscribed to Netflix. It isn’t a violation of their religious freedom for Netflix to use the money they spent to distribute movies that don’t comport with their religion, and the insurance companies likewise have the right to do whatever they damn well please - or meet whatever requirements the government places on their industry - with the money they’ve earned.

Look, don't attack me!  I'm simply stating the basis of their actions.  

Netflix isn't a good example because they're not forced to patronize Netflix if they don't like its policies.  They can go to another streaming service or do without altogether.  Their argument is that, because of the coverage requirements imposed by the government, they're unable to find an insurance company that doesn't use premium dollars to fund PrEP and they can't go without insurance because of the ACA mandate.

9 hours ago, brnbk said:

Given that gay marriage is legal in both Mexico and Canada  I doubt if the governments of either of these countries would have an opposition to AIDS at-home test kits for gays who choose to do so through a gay app, and turns out they don't. They already have such programs in place!!

It is opposition to the concept, it is legalities.  As I understand it, there is one at-home test approved in Canada.  If that same kit isn't also approved in the US or the manufacturer doesn't want to work with Grindr on this, then you seem expect Grindr to manage the logistics of two manufacturers and two different distribution systems, not to mention absorbing the entire cost if the Canadian manufacturer doesn't want to participate.  Given that the Canadian government and/or provinces already have programs in place for making these kits available for free, I think that one could forgive Grindr for concentrating on its largest market, one where at-home testing isn't so easy accessible to underserved populations.

Just because all three countries have same-sex marriage and all three have at-home testing doesn't mean that their medical regulatory regimes are aligned.

2 minutes ago, onlyraw said:

companies have been allowed to not make wedding cakes based on religious freedom

Those cases have involved individual bakers.  Hobby Lobby might be a better example of a corporation allowed to make religious claims, although the courts have limited those claims to "closely held" companies.  I think even the current crop of jokers on the Supreme Court would be hard-pressed to argue that publicly-traded companies like CIGNA, Humana, United Health with hundreds of thousands of owners can harbor religious beliefs.

4 hours ago, JamesL100 said:

Would this apply from now on (for new PrEP payments) or retrospectively (to stop PrEP for existing patients)?

Health insurance contracts are typically written on an annual basis.  Most business coverage renews on January 1, although some private employers renew at other times.  Coverage can't change during the contract period, for most people PrEP coverage is safe through the end of the year.  But, there are some public sector plans (governments, school districts) that renew on July 1 of each year.  Those people could lose their mandated coverage in a few months.    Note that if the order stands, companies are not prohibited from covering PrEP and mandated services, they just wouldn't be REQUIRED to cover them.  But, it could still result in thousands of dollars of out-of-pocket costs for PrEP users.

One would hope that this judge or the appeals court would have the decency to stay this order until appeals are complete (yeah, I know it is a lot of expect "decency" here).  If it is stayed, it could be another year or more before the appeals are complete so coverage would remain unchanged through 2024, at least.

6 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

Companies are companies.  They aren't people.  How can a non human entity have a religious preference? 

You should note that it is not insurance companies that are claiming a violation of religious freedom.  There's a small group (two or three insureds) formed specifically for this challenge.  They're the ones behind this suit, and they claimed that it is a violation of their religious rights for their premium dollars to go to payments for PrEP.

3 hours ago, Muscledadbod said:

I notice Scruff has a search hashtag for "blackonly", but they don't have a "whiteonly" hashtag.

I hadn't paid much attention to the hashtag feature until you mentioned.  It appears that people can create their own hashtags.  So, if someone wants a "whiteonly" hashtag, presumably they create one (unless there's a Scruff policy against it).  I didn't actually try it, so maybe I'm mistaken.

3 hours ago, austin_submale said:

There is probably some logistical or legal reason why the program is currently only in the US.  It seems unfair to smear their name with possibly false accusations if all the facts aren't known...

You're exactly right.  We don't know the facts.  I doubt that Grindr is buying the tests and distributing them on its own.  It is probably working with a manufacturer who is covering much of the cost.  Maybe the manufacturer is doing this as part of a US marketing effort, or the tests haven't received approval outside the US.  Or, the program is fully or partially funded with US grant money that has restrictions.  And, as you pointed out, international shipment of medical products has its own complications.  One can't blame Grindr for not wanting to research and conform to the importation requirements of dozens of countries.

On 3/9/2023 at 2:31 AM, JezzabellaCD said:

What was it like?

I have a feeling that, like making porn, it is far less sexy than it sounds.

10 hours ago, 120DaysofSodom said:

The republicans curtail their intentions behind a veil of deception and do this with every piece of legislation they put forward.

"Think of the children" has been used for decades curtail freedoms and impose censorship.  Why?  Because who could possibly be against "protecting" children.  Conservatives are masters at framing a position in simplistic terms and putting progressives on the defensive.