brnbk

I totally forgot to include another important group: Masseurs. Where I grew up in Asia, masseurs where the closest you could find who u could have a gay experience within a paid context, or most contexts for that matter as being gay was illegal just 5 years ago, without it being seen as evil. Would you see porn stars as prostitutes, or as performers – no different than a actor or movie stars?

Work can mean both Tasks that we do, or a job that we hold which involves an obligation to perform. While this obligation is not absolute– you can quit your job or say you won't do a particular task of your assigned duties because u disagree with it/don't feel you are qualified etc. – monetary compensation requires you to perform what you are paid for. To me the difference between what your task and that of a prostitute would be the difference between someone hosting a dinner party (or hostess!- lesbians I am told love to host people as well) and and a restaurant and its workers. Both involves food, work to prepare food and people who eat and are happy and whose primary reason for gathering is food. However, it is fundamentally different in that, the restaurant involves payment and obligations, of some sorts, while a dinner host has some kind of "obligation" but not quite.

I think there are two side to this question which tries to decide on the morality of paying for sex. Firstly at the personal level - would I do it? – which of course comes with a potentially compromising question of have I done sex work in the past — ever, and also the fundamental question of what constitutes paid sex. As many have pointed out: doesn't a married relationship often have the skeleton of paid sex – one partner often paying for the other person's upkeep and maintenance? Secondly Do i think it's right which brings to light its own shades of right! like it could be right for others, but not for me. Some may claim such a stance is hypocritical but i believe such a judgement is ill informed. For e.g. I might think becoming a Pilot is a the "right thing to do" but not be the thing I do or plan on doing and might actually believe I would be happy being a flight attendant! So holding the view that something is right.. but not for me, is not necessarily hypocritical. The original motivation behind this question... had got to do with the more difficult question of homophobia and how gay people esp. gay Youth are still overwhelming burdened with it. Often gay men just don't have a choice but doing sex work in some kind of way to survive, coz they have been thrown out of their houses coz they are gay. Of course this depends on which part of the country and the World u live in, but homophobia is still a sad reality of our times and the poverty and homelessness that gay folks face is real. What constitutes paid sex work is also up for debate. Some people hold pornography to be art and not paid sex work. Actual prostitutes are generally thought of as doing sex work while escorts are classified as sex workers depending on the location. For e.g. In Japan there is a strict distance between escorts and clients and they might not be thought of as sex workers. This topic also brings up the question of can gay sex work ever be classified as sex work; since gay men do face homophobia in society and many in our culture do take great pains to hide their homosexuality and bisexuality and... people who do gay sex work are themselves marginalized and through their work, they bring homosexuality to groups such as rich closeted preachers and politicians or super-successful closeted gay men who otherwise would have no way of experiencing homosexuality. While i am almost persuaded to agree that two guys who live together, often professionals, and in a married relationship are a 'better' picture of homosexuality – or are they really?

Thank you so much for getting me going 🫂and for being interesting in my viewpoint.👥 After hearing some preliminary views on this topic, come up in this thread about Outing, I realized this was another very important aspect of gay life and sexuality and a discussion on this topic is much needed. I have started a new Topic I am not sure if we can quote from those who have shared here, in this thread — in the other thread — as there have been some very interesting views on the topic that have been shared. and I have a feeling this is just the begining of another very "fundamental" discussion - so fundamental to human and gay existence that Fundamentalists are going to hate it...😁 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Church history is filled with LGBTQ men and women trying to make sense of their own self and sexuality and the teachings of the Church. The Knights Templar are a good example of a male 💪fraternal💏 organization that was stomped upon by the powers that be with the primary allegations of sodomy against them, even though they where doing so much good in the world – running businesses which we in the modern world call banks, hotels etc. Pope Clement V disbanded the order in 1312. Interestingly, a century later, Joan of Arc was burnt in 1431, one of the chief charges against her was cross-dressing i.e. she dressed like a man and not a maiden/girl.

Is paying for sex especially gay sex, ever Ok? Are gay porn stars and escorts — prostitutes, or ambassadors of gay culture, who keep alive what it means to be gay, in a world where the very act of gay sex seems unnatural and even nauseating to some. Should we as a community embrace gay – sex and sex related workers; Should the relations and social systems in the gay community reflect this, and if yeah, how so?

This question of Paid sex is as interesting as the originals question i raised about the ethics of Outing. I can't make up my mind if i should join in the discussion here or start a new thread on this very interesting question on the ethics of Paying for sex

Is there a Devil😈 of gay breeding as well? a Lucifer type who got fucked/fucked till he was 35/95 and now preaches a different religion?

Is is really the case that there is no person on the track? Isn't the closeted gay/bi man on the track in this scenario — as he is being forced by society to stay in the closet. After all no one objects to being reported as Italian American, Indian American etc., even though they might not necessarily identify with their ethnicity/heritage and prefer, American, as a self description. Outing is alleged to cause substantial harm alleged to the individual's professional and family life. Which begs the question: Why it is reporting someone as gay/bi considered — "violent", forceful imposition of values, and violating the right of personal choice, as if sexual orientation where something not as "natural" as ethnicity or the color of ones eyes, where individuals have no choice over it and there being no good or evil to blue eyes vs black eyes or green eyes vs brown eyes. As far as professionals life is considered, I believe there are sufficient anti discrimination laws on the book which protects LGBTQ people. Gay/bi affairs aren't the only reason why married men leave their families, and there are way more men leaving their families and wives for another women rather than a guy. If mainstream US culture does not vilify the man who chose to divorce his wife (and thus leave his family) unlike some cultures where marriages is predominantly for raising children and divorce is a huge [banned word], why should the gay/bi man who chooses to have sex outside of marriage, be such a bad guy and the reporting of it close to a crime. After all the word "marriage" does not mean the same thing around the world. In the Islamic and African world, it would include a man with multiple wives, in Europe and parts of Asia it would include a man with a wife and a mistress and in some parts of Asia such as India, it would be strictly be between one man and one woman. If we allow for such privacy as to frequent gay bathhouses or attend sex parties without it being reported in society, shouldn't we for sake of consistency make space for Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military.

Great discussion and great points raised. the crux of my question is, while almost almost everyone here agrees in preventing active harm i.e. closeted gay men who harm LGBTQ people by preaching or legislating against gay right, few justify absolute privacy i.e. right of gays to be gay at night and upright evangelical Christians during the day even if they indulge in anti gay activities; yet an overwhelming majority voted in the poll for right to maintain privacy and against outing — seemingly rejecting the question of passive harm. It is truly a complex and comprehensive question, as Outing itself is deeply connected to what a particular society considers private and public - rightly or wrongly so! I am not sure if its legal to report someone as an alcoholic or addict and if a newspaper could be held liable for defamation. Mr. Michelangelo Signorile who made the concept popular, states in his recent article he prefers to call it "Reporting" and the term Outing was surprisingly not invented by him but by the Time Magazine. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.signorile.com/p/matt-schlapp-and-the-closet-of-power?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fouting&utm_medium=reader2

Can Not coming Out by this politician/public figure, even if he hasn't done anything overtly anti gay in terms of legislation but supported DOMA when it was still politically important to attack gays — be itself considered as doing harm to the LGBT community and thus justify a possible outing — Señor Signorilde style of the 'Queer in America: Sex, The Media, and the Closets of Power (1993)' fame?

Which brings me to the original question. Is it fair to hold that a person refusing to come out as bi or gay, who is or was fairly sexually active while being married to the wife and a politician, and not having participated in anti-gay legislation, or at lest changing with the times when the tides change and being pro gay when it had become socially acceptable to do so, is causing harm i.e. spitting on the LGBTQ community?

Is it ever moral to out a gay man? Some cases are easy to judge, say instances where a politician or preacher is having gay sex secretly while preaching or legislating against gay people and homosexuality. However a same person, choose to be closeted, say a politician who is gay or bi and is in a marriage (heterosexual) but his routine involves mid-week trips to a gay bathhouse, is it ever OK to let the public know. By staying in the closet, isn't this person saying being gay or bi, is something to be hidden! Given the rising anti LGBTQ laws in various states isn't it time to stand up for gay rights at the social level and make legislative victories such as nation wide gay right, a lived reality. Is it ever acceptable for a gay/bi person to pass as straight ?

Great question. I haven often wondered about straight female sexuality, and if being slutty is something inherently gay. Pornography seems to suggest otherwise, with any gay sex scene easily found in straight pornography. I wonder where straight people are doing it though. As pointed out earlier, where do straight people in regular society, have slutty sex. Are there any parks or clubs frequented by straights where they only go to have sex. i.e. get laid.? Are there any other places where straights fuck like gay guys, but is not🤣 reported by the media. Secondly, women in Asia esp. south Asia tend to shun sex but less so in Anglo-Saxon countries where marriages are seen as an individual contract rather than a social contract so — a women who has sex without a marriage (contract) by is not shunned by Society but is more or less the social norm. Also do lesbians i.e. gay women have as much sex as gay men. I have never heard of a gay lesbian sauna, for e.g..

I would love to contribute 😈to this very important discussion😶‍🌫️, but unfortunately the Warning that I received from this site was that I was spreading conspiracy theories👾 when I alleged that Grindr sold info. to right wing catholic groups which used it to collect and oust gay priests especially the Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill in mid 2021. I got this info. from reputable US newspapers, the Catholic media and the US gay online magazines. [think before following links] https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/07/21/catholic-official-grindr-reaction/ [think before following links] https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/06/15/opinion-jeffrey-burrills-rehabilitation-compounds-the-original-scandal-of-his-sin/ [think before following links] https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2021/7/24/catholic-priest-may-be-gay-isnt-cause-sadness I do not remember the exact words of the warning as I have this character flaw of quickly forgetting unpleasant things, and I tried looking for it on the site but cannot find it. If anyone knows how to find a previous Warning, please feel free to message me.

Not to be racist, but I am just wondering why south Asian, Arabs/Middle Easterners and native Americans have been left out ←removed, of the racial categories. Are these cocks not worthy of being sucked. PS: I am not a racist, but I couldn't wonder why Indians and Arab men who have the longest history of gay history, are left out of these lists.

I am returning after 3 months and move of a " hot post" that landed me in trouble with the authorities. I just wanted to add my two cents to this discussion. What made me come back is among other things the fact that people continued to post to the threads I had started which made me realize, while some or many might disagree with what I had to say, it still seemed to interest people enough to post their thoughts, even if it was in opposition to what i had say. This I believe is the hallmark of a great question and people should try relate to a question either negative or positively, and respond to it. I am not going to go into the details of what was said to me, yet I believe banning people or censuring people is not the best approach. I inherently dislike censorship as I grew up with Breeders who liked to shut down any discussion that would go against the dogma of religion. While I do immensely appreciate the people who created this beautiful side, and the volunteers who I understand do this in their free time, I still believe in notions of free thought and expression, which seems to be on the decline... A quote from an Anglican-American writer, Clare Boothe Luce author of the 1936 play The Women, which had an all-female cast, seems relevant to our situation. "Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there."

No, it is not forgivable because there are lots of underserved populations in Canada and Mexico: folks who didn't immigrate from Europe like Native Americans (who never immigrated from anywhere else!), Immigrants of west and south Asian descent in Canada to name a few. In a story that sounds like one of the late 50s and 70s US, a serial killer Bruce McArthur used Toronto's Gay Village as a hunting ground for victims almost all of whom where of Asian descent and the police refused to intervene or investigate inspite several clues and request by the friends and families of the victims, until the gay serial killer targeted a white man. In most of the Americas, the native American race after the arrival of the whites mainly the Spanish and the Anglo Saxons have been reduced to servitude and hardly get any services or even a place in the line! These population groups would definitely benefit from a at home-test kit. Sadly, being closeted seems to make guys more horny or adventurous and I bet people who are not Out, are having more hookups and breeding sessions than those in gay marriages. Given that these non European groups don't have Equal Access - the native Americans to health care and the Asian immigrants to HIV testing sites that are culturally sensitive, the need for at home Aids test kits is greater in these populations! it is legalities..... 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. 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. The logistic and legalities arguments just don't stand! Mexico or Canada does not have an anti gay government or sodomy laws on the books like in Jamaica. 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. Mexico might have more logistical challenges than Canada, however, since there are already existing programs, Grindr would have had to just align itself with local gay health groups to distribute these kits. 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.

I don't need to defame a shameless company. Their recent act of being involved in the sale of data of gay catholic priests to right wing homophobes speaks a lot about what values they hold. Since Grindr operates in these jurisdictions: Canada, Mexico and the rests of the world, it needs to respect the gays that lives in these 'foreign' countries and try to act in good faith, which means that if it can arrange for HIV at-home test kits for them, in a way that is being done, then it should; but then good faith or actions is not something that Grindr is know for. My problem with them is their lack of respect for people and the diverse people that make up the human race and the gay community. I actually went on their website to take a look at their at discreet at-home text kit which turns out has [think before following links] https://together.takemehome.org/static/takemehome/ttmh/box_mock/TTMH_Box_Mock1x.png JANE DOE 456 SUNSHINE LANE NEW YORK, NY, 110001 listed as the address. So my beef with them can be summed up as : its John Doe and not Jane Doe, Grindr! Secondly, what is good for the goose is good for the gay gander. Thus, stop any and all racist and discriminatory practices

Since Grindr is a global company or at least is allowed to operate in other countries outside of the US and is not banned in Canada/Mexico and rest of the world, is it that hard to understand that given the health crisis that HIV AIDS is, it should have simultaneously rolled out similar campaigns in Canada and Mexico to show gay solidarity and respect the crisis that AIDs is ? Canadians and Mexicans are Americans too and part of the same continent! 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!! the Mexican state of new Mexico has such a program: [think before following links] https://betestednm.org/ and the University of Ottawa, Canada has a program, initially only for the province of Ontario but now across all of Canada, I believe: ttps://getakit.ca/ So, it turns out this isn't about logistics, since both countries already have such programs in place in some state/provinces or all over the country. One could make the point that this could be about money since Grindr is not likely to make any money of data of HIV poz Mexicans and perhaps Canadians but a market for such data exists in the United States. The main rationale behind at home test kits is not so much the cost of testing but to get people to get tested. There is still a lot of stigma out there, especially outside the United States and at-home test kits avoid having to see a nasty nurse or a non friendly one, who gives you an impression that you need to stop having gay sex if you want to avoid AIDS. Unfortunately, that is the sad reality of many gays outside of the US.

I was just asking questions and I don't believe any of my questions where unfair... AIDS is a serious problem, and gays on grindr - in Canada & Mexico are as horny as the guys in the USA - with the same risk of contracting HIV as their US counterparts. Grindr operates and collects subscriptions in other countries as well, and is known internationally as a 'gay brand'. Surely, it is not unreasonable to expect them to think of the global gay community and its needs as well …. which also brings us to the second question: Who is the someone else Grind is working with... and what kind of data will be shared with these partners.

Grindr announced last week that citizens inhabitants of the United States would get free HIV kits but no such program has been announced for Canada or Mexico. Does Grindr not think that people in other parts of America, let alone the world and ones which have similar infection rates as the US deserve HIV kits as well or is this privilege only for the US.

Robert Beachy's 'Gay Berlin' is a great read on the topic. [think before following links] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/books/review/gay-berlin-by-robert-beachy.html Which brings me to the next question: Why does the US media including gay media totally ignore the 'birth' and birthplace of the gay identity — Berlin, Germany, and constantly try to push the idea that 'Stonewall' was the birthplace of the gay movement. Doesn't this leave out a substantial portion of gay history and tries to hide it away?

To me, it sounds like I went to a gay bar and the owner decided to inform a data collector who turns out is a a local police informant who helps them build a database of who was frequenting a gay bar. While in todays world( pre Covid), it would seem rather harmless, if the police got to know if you went to a gay bar, 20 yrs ago in many part of the world, it could have gotten you into some very serious jeopardy. No one in the gay world would fail to see the homophobia and dangers in the situation I described but somehow there is a reluctance to see the inherent danger to gay folks, in the sale of data by gay apps. Anyone who does research has to abide by ethical standards or else there is always a danger of falling into 'Nazi science'. These apps have no business outing gay priests when most gay priests in the catholic church are trying to reform it from within. Since gay apps do business with gay customers, they have a moral responsibility to the gay community and are answerable to it.

[think before following links] https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/09/catholics-gay-priests-grindr-data-bishops/