The Ethics of Outing.

[PozBearWI]

@brnbk IMHO when it doubt, start a new thread....

[hntnhole]

1 hour ago, brnbk said:

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

Whichever you choose, we'll be waiting to hear your viewpoint !!

[hntnhole]

On 9/25/2023 at 1:56 AM, BootmanLA said:

successful public crusade

Not everywhere. 

She brought her dog & pony show to Chicago once, which was to be held at huge old Masonic Temple on the Near North side.  I was working downtown - one "el" stop south of there - and people started calling each other to show up for a demonstration.  Interestingly, this was before cellphones had come into wide use; these were land-line calls.  My boss (also gay) said "go".  

I jumped on the el (at that point the subway, but still called the "el" for "elevated") and got there pronto.  Every bus, every train, every time a subway train stopped, hundreds and hundreds of guys poured out, and congregated in front of that building.  By the time she showed up, no vehicles could even approach the venue.  We hollered, we chanted, we stomped and hooted.  Finally, the bitch was driven away. 

Another example: Remember when Matthew Shepard was murdered in cold blood by that ridiculous excuse of a "pastor", whose only "congregation" were members of his family?  He had the balls to come to Chicago to protest something or other - I don't remember exactly what - but the same thing happened.  This time in Boystown, right on Broadway, of all places.  Literally thousands of men showed up to the protest, many of the buildings were one-storey, guys got up on the flat-roofs of the buildings throwing rocks, beer bottles, anything at hand at the hatemonger, because they couldn't get near the location (a dry-cleaners) where pastor shit-for-brains and 4 or 5 of his "congregation" were holed up behind a cordon of cops that had to hold each others wrists to keep back the surging crowd of very angry men.  I'd never seen the Chicago cops so afraid of being overcome.  

The cops couldn't get hold of the owner of the dry cleaners (this must have been a Sunday) to come unlock the doors so the cops could evacuate the miserable wretches out the back door.  Finally they got someone to come open the back door (from the alley), then unlock the front door, and unfortunately the miscreants got into their ratty p.o.s. van and got away, with a police escort to the Eisenhower expressway, headed out of town.  

Those were heady days. Back then, Chicago really rocked.  I hope it still does. 

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

OK, then let me try with less snitty of my own.

Right here, you're assuming he hasn't thought about it at all, because if he had, he'd have come to the pre-ordained conclusion YOU already are assigning him.

No. In fact, he's made clear to me that the negative feelings of being rejected and passed over were a lot worse than the idea that he was having to pay for it. As he put it, he could easily be so unappealing that he couldn't even get it for cash. But in any event, again, you're saying something "can only" have the effect you have determined it's going to have - no possibility that his experience may be different.

Yeah, a guy might say that. And asking "Does your friend ever feel like..." is one thing. Declaring that "if he stops to think about it" (which suggests he's not capable of thinking it through for himself - presumably because his thought process must be messed up as he didn't come to the same conclusion as you), and saying X action "can only" have a particular effect isn't asking a question. It's telling him how he should feel.

Again, maybe he values the physical contact more than he values whatever "sense of self" you seem to think is more important. And yay! that it's more important for you. Just.... don't assume what's important to you is important to everyone.

And yet again - because his introspection produced a different result than yours, he's doing it wrong and missing out and should .... do what, actually? Do without and learn to rejoice in his glorious unwantedness for its own sake, rather than at least bypass part of the less desirable result of being (or at least feeling) less than appealing by getting the physical contact he wants?

I don't mean this last part critically as much as I mean it to legitimately inquire. You have discussed, at various times, your life "on the spectrum" (I don't want to put words in your mouth as to where along that spectrum you are). You've described how it's difficult for you to pick up on social cues that (at least some) neurotypical people recognize and navigate with ease. Might it be possible that for someone who isn't neurodivergent, as you are, might not have the same problems deciding that having to pay for sex to get it regularly is still a lot more appealing than not having it at all?

*sigh*

Since this seems to be eating you alive, allow me to clarify.

The fundamental error you are making in interpreting my post is that you assume that I am suggesting that a person ought to have a negative self-reflection if he stops to consider the implications of paying for sex. You impute that I am making absolutist claims that a given thought process “can only” arrive at a given result, full stop. And you seem to think that I am attempting to make a declarative value judgment about how people ought to feel about themselves and this practice.

All of which is rubbish.

My contemplation was based on a question about how an individual resolves internal conflict -if- he is the sort of person who introspects. Clearly, not everyone does. Some people are perfectly happy living life at face value, and don’t think too deeply about anything. I sometimes envy them; I imagine it’s much easier to be happy that way.

Pay attention to the context: When I said a man’s self-image ‘can only’ suffer, the context is in ‘can only be expected to suffer, if he is prone to negative self-analysis.’ The statement has bupkis to do with anybody who doesn’t think that way, not does it suggest that anybody should.

Again, this is a topic about ethics. There’s a young man in his 20s who’s been communicating with me of late expressing his deep inner conflict over the rightness of his sexual behavior. There are people out there who suffer great anxiety and distress over a perceived disconnect between their drives and their conscience, and their self-image suffers. I am interested in the experience of such people with regard to this question, not the experience of those whose sex lives can be satisfied by transactional, conscience-free fucking.

 I have no problem with transactional people - my entire personal goal in my sexual life is to make it unnecessary for any Top to have to pay for a fuck, and is therefore largely transactional at its core - it is simply a free transaction. I obviously am not a crusader against all transactional sex for those for whom it works.

Now that I have explained that I am not attempting to proselytize or stuff my bespoke morality down anyone’s throat, I would be very much obliged if you would A. Make no further attempt to characterize the nature of my Autism, and B. Get off my ass.

[hntnhole]

19 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

and as a result her body lived longer than she did

That would not surprise me.  Years ago (well, make that decades ago), she was a bit on the fleshy side, She married Ed McCaskey during WWII, and the Bears Lockeroom talk referenced some of the players playing with her.  There was gossip about visits to the plastic surgeons, all of that, while her husband was away fighting in the war, but who knows?  That was all well before I was even born.

It could very well be that her soul died long ago, and her carcass lives on - but in the world of the rich and famous, that's fairly common, particularly these day.  

Edited September 28, 2023 by hntnhole
phrasing

[ellentonboy]

15 hours ago, ErosWired said:

*sigh*

Since this seems to be eating you alive, allow me to clarify.

The fundamental error you are making in interpreting my post is that you assume that I am suggesting that a person ought to have a negative self-reflection if he stops to consider the implications of paying for sex. You impute that I am making absolutist claims that a given thought process “can only” arrive at a given result, full stop. And you seem to think that I am attempting to make a declarative value judgment about how people ought to feel about themselves and this practice.

All of which is rubbish.

My contemplation was based on a question about how an individual resolves internal conflict -if- he is the sort of person who introspects. Clearly, not everyone does. Some people are perfectly happy living life at face value, and don’t think too deeply about anything. I sometimes envy them; I imagine it’s much easier to be happy that way.

Pay attention to the context: When I said a man’s self-image ‘can only’ suffer, the context is in ‘can only be expected to suffer, if he is prone to negative self-analysis.’ The statement has bupkis to do with anybody who doesn’t think that way, not does it suggest that anybody should.

Again, this is a topic about ethics. There’s a young man in his 20s who’s been communicating with me of late expressing his deep inner conflict over the rightness of his sexual behavior. There are people out there who suffer great anxiety and distress over a perceived disconnect between their drives and their conscience, and their self-image suffers. I am interested in the experience of such people with regard to this question, not the experience of those whose sex lives can be satisfied by transactional, conscience-free fucking.

 I have no problem with transactional people - my entire personal goal in my sexual life is to make it unnecessary for any Top to have to pay for a fuck, and is therefore largely transactional at its core - it is simply a free transaction. I obviously am not a crusader against all transactional sex for those for whom it works.

Now that I have explained that I am not attempting to proselytize or stuff my bespoke morality down anyone’s throat, I would be very much obliged if you would A. Make no further attempt to characterize the nature of my Autism, and B. Get off my ass.

If I didn't know better, I could almost sense an "air of sexual tension" between the two of you.  Knowing that neither of you especially like me, I think I'll go hide out on Nastykinkpigs until the smoke clears.  Wow, the two of you........🙄

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

If I didn't know better, I could almost sense an "air of sexual tension" between the two of you.  Knowing that neither of you especially like me, I think I'll go hide out on Nastykinkpigs until the smoke clears.  Wow, the two of you........🙄

FWIW I don't dislike you, either - we may disagree on some issues (though certainly not all of them), but I don't move someone into "dislike" territory simply for disagreements. My default position on most people is amused ambivalence.

But in any event, you're certainly correct in this case: whatever tension there might be in this case, it's not sexual in nature. 

[BootmanLA]

20 hours ago, ErosWired said:

*sigh*

Since this seems to be eating you alive, allow me to clarify.

The fundamental error you are making in interpreting my post is that you assume that I am suggesting that a person ought to have a negative self-reflection if he stops to consider the implications of paying for sex. You impute that I am making absolutist claims that a given thought process “can only” arrive at a given result, full stop. And you seem to think that I am attempting to make a declarative value judgment about how people ought to feel about themselves and this practice.

All of which is rubbish.

My contemplation was based on a question about how an individual resolves internal conflict -if- he is the sort of person who introspects. Clearly, not everyone does. Some people are perfectly happy living life at face value, and don’t think too deeply about anything. I sometimes envy them; I imagine it’s much easier to be happy that way.

Pay attention to the context: When I said a man’s self-image ‘can only’ suffer, the context is in ‘can only be expected to suffer, if he is prone to negative self-analysis.’ The statement has bupkis to do with anybody who doesn’t think that way, not does it suggest that anybody should.

Again, this is a topic about ethics. There’s a young man in his 20s who’s been communicating with me of late expressing his deep inner conflict over the rightness of his sexual behavior. There are people out there who suffer great anxiety and distress over a perceived disconnect between their drives and their conscience, and their self-image suffers. I am interested in the experience of such people with regard to this question, not the experience of those whose sex lives can be satisfied by transactional, conscience-free fucking.

 I have no problem with transactional people - my entire personal goal in my sexual life is to make it unnecessary for any Top to have to pay for a fuck, and is therefore largely transactional at its core - it is simply a free transaction. I obviously am not a crusader against all transactional sex for those for whom it works.

Now that I have explained that I am not attempting to proselytize or stuff my bespoke morality down anyone’s throat, I would be very much obliged if you would A. Make no further attempt to characterize the nature of my Autism, and B. Get off my ass.

What I object to (to the extent I object to anything in this circumstance) is your repeated attempts to pigeonhole my friend, someone whom you don't know and only know a very, VERY few limited facts about, into some sort of "hole" that allows you to categorize him. I don't care why you're doing it; I just know that you don't know him, and you certainly aren't qualified, on the basis of the few facts I have mentioned, to opine on ANYTHING about his motivations, his introspection, his "transactionality", his taking life "at face value", or anything else. I brought him up solely to illustrate a point, and since you reject the point, you have been trying (unsuccessfully) to imagine your way into finding a slot into which you can place him that aligns with your viewpoint.

The reason I call this navel gazing is that you keep describing things in terms of your own introspective experience. The idea that a person can actually be (a) very introspective and (b) not come to the same conclusions as you have about paying for sex, seems to be a non-starter. And in your life, maybe it's impossible for you to conceive of paying for it, because of your introspective outlook - but that's your life. Not his.

[brnbk]

 

23 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

@brnbk IMHO when it doubt, start a new thread....

 

23 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Whichever you choose, we'll be waiting to hear your viewpoint !!

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...😁 

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On 9/20/2023 at 10:11 AM, meetme said:

Money should NEVER be involved with sex.  If it’s $1300 or $30,000. Not even $3.00. If you don’t want to be with each other, it can’t be a good experience, and if only the buyer wants it enough to pay, that’s bad news too. 

  

On 9/20/2023 at 11:41 AM, NWUSHorny said:

if money is involved it becomes a crime in most states. Once a crime is involved it becomes both a legal and ethical matter.

  

On 9/21/2023 at 12:09 PM, BootmanLA said:

I'm going to disagree here, only because I think sex, like any other personal service, ought to be up for negotiation. ................... People sometimes have sex just to get off, and you know what? it's not always bad.

  

On 9/21/2023 at 12:36 PM, ellentonboy said:

What if the buyer has no other options, he can't meet anyone either online, on an app, or in person.  What if he is handicapped or disabled in some way.  ............................The recipient could be one step away from homelessness......so what is wrong with the two of them coming into an agreement to help each other out.

  

On 9/21/2023 at 6:35 PM, Kayne said:

It never ceases to amaze me how people are perfectly fine with paying everyone else to get a piece of you.  .............Most people pay Sex Workers to go away afterwards anyway, because post nut clarity bring back whatever religeous or Societal dogma you've been raised with making one wanna distance one's self from the "filthy things" they've done........ But not everyone likes being used and thrown away. compensating them negates some of the damage you've caused.  but you're not okay paying for that.  

yeah..That to me is disgusting.

  

On 9/21/2023 at 10:37 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

I’m not personally that transactional, but if two other consenting adults are, shouldn’t that be their decision?

  

On 9/21/2023 at 11:31 PM, meetme said:

Well that’s your prerogative. I pay my own way and I have enough self respect that I’m asked for money before someone wants to b3 with me they can hit the road.  Other people may not feel that buying a physical encounter with someone else makes them feel very undesirable.  Likewise if a partner has to be drunk or high before sex, I’ll just wait until someone actually wants to be with me.  

  

On 9/22/2023 at 2:30 AM, Kayne said:

Okay so you're telling me that whether or not you consciously realize it in the moment or not that if you....

Pay for the date or pay for the transportation  - even if it was just to transport one of you so that you both share the same space- Pay for the shelter / Vene.................

If the fact thatcyou had to pay everyone around him ro get your dick wet, and it doesn't happen. you're a fucking Saint. and by the same token, if you're already shelling out ducats everyone else, why does payi g the dude actually involved with knocking your bits around, so insulting , abhorrent, or degrading to you? 

  

On 9/22/2023 at 1:00 PM, tallslenderguy said:

i have nothing against sex work or exchanging money for sex. i think my needs and desires should NEVER be imposed as a standard for others. I've been approached and asked for money in exchange for sex and i simply say, no thanks and wish the person good luck. 

Theft and extortion, black mail, those are different issues. 

  

On 9/22/2023 at 9:24 PM, SomewhereonNeptune said:

“I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, natural, wholesome things that money can buy.” - Steve Martin 😀

  

On 9/23/2023 at 11:09 AM, ErosWired said:

The difference is that human sexuality isn’t supposed to be a commodity. @Kayne touches on the core of the reason when he talks about payment being in part compensation for damage for the harm caused. ........But they still happen, every time, and they account, often, for the feeling of emptiness, unfulfillment, or sense of being discarded, devalued, or used that may follow a casual encounter even if it’s otherwise consensual, exciting, and pleasurable. Sexuality is s basic need identified in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, ......................When made transactional, an act of sex may superficially satisfy the level 1 need, but it actively causes a deficit in levels 3 and 4..................................But a society that sanctions transactional sex, however illicit, essentially obliges him to sacrifice his higher-level needs to do it. He must rob Peter to fuck Paul.

 

[ErosWired]

9 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

Knowing that neither of you especially like me,

I don’t dislike you in the least. I apologize that I have ever given you that impression. Just because I might not agree with something you say at some point doesn’t mean I don’t like you. I don’t agree with everything my mother says.

(I don’t dislike you either, Bookman. I find you entertaining.)

[viking8x6]

 

On 9/27/2023 at 7:28 PM, ErosWired said:

*sigh*

Since this seems to be eating you alive, allow me to clarify.

The fundamental error you are making in interpreting my post is that you assume that I am suggesting that a person ought to have a negative self-reflection if he stops to consider the implications of paying for sex....

Pay attention to the context: When I said a man’s self-image ‘can only’ suffer, the context is in ‘can only be expected to suffer, if he is prone to negative self-analysis.’ The statement has bupkis to do with anybody who doesn’t think that way, not does it suggest that anybody should.

Expand  

 

On 9/27/2023 at 7:28 PM, ErosWired said:

*sigh*

Since this seems to be eating you alive, allow me to clarify.

The fundamental error you are making in interpreting my post is that you assume that I am suggesting that a person ought to have a negative self-reflection if he stops to consider the implications of paying for sex....

Pay attention to the context: When I said a man’s self-image ‘can only’ suffer, the context is in ‘can only be expected to suffer, if he is prone to negative self-analysis.’ The statement has bupkis to do with anybody who doesn’t think that way, not does it suggest that anybody should.

Expand  

Gentlemen:

I think you both have now made your positions sufficiently clear to ascertain from the thread that:

1. @BootmanLA did not identify the person he was talking about as a friend in the original statement, and

2. @ErosWired made a transition from talking about that person to talking about a different hypothetical person, without perhaps making that transition very clear in his text, and

3. That as far as I can tell, neither of you were actually intending to offend the other.

So perhaps we have beaten this horse enough.

Just sayin.

Namaste!

[SomewhereonNeptune]

On 9/28/2023 at 11:27 AM, ellentonboy said:

If I didn't know better, I could almost sense an "air of sexual tension" between the two of you.  Knowing that neither of you especially like me, I think I'll go hide out on Nastykinkpigs until the smoke clears.  Wow, the two of you........🙄

And I was just about to setup a GoFundMe to get them both a room. 😀 Anyway, plucky comic relief aside…

I’ll avoid multi-quoting various excerpts and just cite my point. I’m not an angel, I have in the past ‘arranged’ for some ‘companionship’ and certainly sex was on offer though not necessarily on the printed menu. Not proud of it, it was an especially lonely point of my life, I’m not normal transactional in that way, and frankly I tend to shut down those types of overtures from people. 

I get where people can feel betrayed by especially political figures who manipulate situations where one moment they’ll be doing the kneel-and-bob and the next they’ll be thumping a Bible in front of constituents and decrying the moral breakdown of the family unit. But let’s not be naive in that most politicians and public figures are serially dishonest and sociopaths. It’s scummy, they deserve the karma they’ll at some point get, but outing someone like that will only result in the wrong sort of blowback and the point will be lost in the noise. 

My $0.02: I believe in karma, and it has a way of catching up with people.

[CumBustion]

The one love of my life lived in fear his entire life about his “lifestyle.” He was tall, dark, handsome, sexy, hung like a horse, and stoic. He was also Black, and a Marine, two communities that detested homosexuals. He lived in fear that two pillars in his life, his family and his career, both which he loved dearly, would shun him if they ever discovered his past and me, in his present. Then “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was repealed in September 2011. Things were looking up and he took one tiny step outside of the closet, allowing us to be seen in public among friends and co-workers he trusted. Then the “Defense of marriage act” was struck down in June 2013. By then, he felt more comfortable with whom he was and, through counseling, that he was not an abomination or deviant. He was ready to fully embrace who he was and that I was someone he could officially recognize in his life. He was ready to come out to his family, fully well knowing not everyone would accept him, to include his parents (his siblings knew and supported him). He received orders to deploy to Iraq, but promised to continue making plans to officially come out as well  as to be married when he returned. He never returned. 

I wasn’t allowed, by his family, to attend his service. I stood far, far, away, nearly out of sight, for his burial. It was a beautiful military ceremony. 

I got impatient with him, sometimes angry, that he was hesitant to tell the world what he was and who we were. Maybe it was me, who was already “out and proud” and just wanted to get him to embrace who he was when he wasn’t ready. At the end of the day, I respected his boundaries and accepted that coming out for him was complex and fear-inducing. Being outed probably would have killed him, if not make him extremely paranoid. That being said…

Fuck all those that hide behind a cloak of morality and made his life a living hell. Fuck religion. Fuck politicians. Fuck anyone that hated him for who he was and all that potential that he could have been. And a special “fuck you” to all of the above, those that policed his “lifestyle” and told him he is to be abhorred and hated and ridiculed while they choke on fat ass cocks or touch boys’ naked parts behind closed doors. Anyone that espouses hate publicly, yet finds the time to recreate “Sodom and Gomorrah” privately, deserves to be outed hard and fast, especially if their hate caused harm to someone.

 

[hntnhole]

Thanks, Cumbustion, for sharing this sad story. 

I too am sorry it took him so (too?) long to come to terms with his truth and live as an "out, proud, and most worthy" man.  I'm even sorrier for your loss.  

Once we accept ourselves fully, practice the art of being a decent, honorable man and also a gay man fully capable of love, honor, the loss must be particularly difficult.  There are fewer examples of this kind of needless loss these days, but it doesn't diminish the hurt one bit.  

You've honored his memory with this post, which is small comfort, but there's a chance that some other guy in a similar situation might read it and make his decision to live openly.  You'll probably never know it, but it's something that may give you some small measure of comfort.  At the very least, you can move forward, knowing you've held him up to his brothers-in-the-life as a real Man. 

Again, my condolences.  

[BlindRawFucker1]

Cumbustion,

 

I didn’t know whether to “like”, “upvote”, or “sad”, your post.  It had elements of all three.

 

I’m sorry for your loss, and for his fear.

 

I do understand some of his worries.

 

It is pathetic that any of us have to suffer those worries.  And, the atmosphere is only getting worse again.