Every now and again you chance on an article on a cultural trend which draws some larger meaning out of it. A few days ago, a reader e-mailed an article from Out magazine asking whether Manhunt, a web-site to facilitate sex hookups for gay men, has destroyed gay culture.
We are all aware (that is, we gay men) how numerous websites like Manhust (and internet chat rooms) have made it easier for gay men to meet for sex — and sometimes hopefully more. Instead of just describing this phenomenon, writer Michael Joseph Gross tries to understand its social, cultural and personal significance as this paragraph near the beginning of the article makes clear:
Manhunt would be your perfect weapon, a heat-seeking missile for the weaknesses that have plagued us for decades. Perry Halkitis, a New York University associate dean and professor of applied psychology, says, “Manhunt is a symptom. It does well because we don’t know how to relate to each other and we don’t know how to take care of ourselves.†Dan Savage, author of the sex column “Savage Love†and editor of Seattle’s The Stranger newspaper, says, “Manhunt is a tool. Big, bad Manhunt doesn’t make guys drag themselves to the webcam and take all those pictures of their dicks.â€
Halkitis and Savage are onto something. Â It is a symptom of the difficulty we have relating to each other, an attempt to connect while avoiding the challenging and often messy means of building deeper, lasting and more sustaining relationships.
While understanding the phenomenon, Gross also offers some criticism of what it can do to us:
Too many of us, too much of the time, are cruising online because it’s easier and feels safer than mustering the courage, patience, discipline, and imagination required to help ourselves and each other become the men that, in our strongest moments, we want to be.
Well said, very well said. Â It is easier, but it doesn’t necessarily provide what we really want. Â It provides only a moment’s release, opening a window perhaps to a real connection, but one which we, all too many of us at least, close all too readily.
This is one article where you really have to read the whole thing to see where the author is going, to discover his attempt to understand the social, cultural and even personal implications of the phenomenon of internet hooking up.
Perhaps we could use the comments section here to get a serious conversation going about sites such as Manhunt and those implications mentioned above.
Related: Â Gay Men, Vulnerability, Relationship
My partner and I rarely go out dancing. On the few occasions that we do go dancing, we have noticed a dramatic decrease in the number of people at the club. We have been going to this club (the only real dance club in our area) for over 20 years. We both think the advent of the internet sites have caused this decrease. The dance club used to be packed with the best, brightest, funniest, most outrageous, hottest men. Now, you actually have room to dance without bumping into anyone 🙁
True, I also believe that these websites, whether gay or straight, “deaden” our ability to find meaningful romantic relationships with people. These websites are meant to be escapist.
While these sites certainly have their addicts, I find less and less gay men are actually going online to look for “hook-ups”. With the saturation of porn sites out there, you no longer have to chat it up with someone for a quick release. 😉
I don’t feel these sites have killed gay culture. Before the internet, many gay men went to bookstores, rest areas, tea rooms etc for just sex. Often with no words spoken. These sites actually force two people to have at least minimal conversation before anything happens. Let’s be real, the majority of gay men weren’t looking for meaningful relationships before these sites existed.
While it seems that everyone’s rushing out to damn sites like Manhunt, I’d like to see some reasonable and sensible suggestions for alternatives…especially for those of us who don’t live in the gay ghettos of urban centers or suburban gayborhoods. Not everyone has a local gay bar or neighborhood gay softball league at which to meet people…or even just to have contact, even if shallow, with other gay men.
Where I live it’s now an hour’s drive into an adjacent state just to reach the nearest gay bar or gay social outlet. “Everyone” blithely claims there are gay men everywhere, but without a bar or social outlet to identify them by-association it’s not that easy. Is an hour or two of spent online inanely chatting REALLY any different than a similar chat on two adjacent barstools? Its’ all the same mindless chatter, sexual lies and narcissism…and without the drinking, ear-bursting background noise, parking and cover-charge.
And is there really the same amount of “hooking-up”? Well, maybe if the guys all live in your gayborhood…up out here in the sticks no-one just hoops in the car and drives 30-miles to “boff” a total stranger. And just like you local gay bar, the “stools” are crowded with trolls and twinks-on-the-make.
GPW, on the other hand, park / tearoom / bathroom cruising is down in many locales. Perhaps not gone, but down. In other words: This behavior is nothing new. It’s just moved to a new, electronic location. In a way that’s better, because those guys are “getting a room”, or doing it less in public restrooms. One aspect of Sen. Larry Craig’s utterc lameness (and other men like him) is that they haven’t kept up with the 21st century.
How about… (drumroll)… using the various gay dating sites, which may also be hookup sites… but making it clear that you are looking for friends & real dating, NOT for a hookup? And sticking to your resolve – persistently declining the inevitiable hookup offers / situations?
Actually, my profile on Manhunt…and Gay.com…says just that. And I’ve yet at actually meet someone local-enough and interested in dating. I can’t even get a golf foursome together online, no-less a twosome for golf…or indoor sports, if we’re being honest. I haven’t touched another guy sexually in years…not for lack of trying; they’re just not out-there.
I guess there’s no magic answer for your situation, Ted.
My broader point, which I think still applies, is individual responsibility. Things like “gay culture” and “dating” are whatever each person makes them. All choices have costs. Either you should get it up and move closer to a city / gay suburb, or, there must be something worth preserving in your present situation, despite its lack of social opportunities. You’d know which. Personally, I’ve chosen to establish my life in area where there are a few more people – and when I run an ad, along the lines we’ve been talking about, I get some responses. But there are some bad things about this area. It’s all choices and costs.
Dear Gay Patriot… Some nice reads. I want you to know that I have changed your position on my daily read list. You are now directly below Rush Limbaugh. I hope you enjoy your new position. Best & Semper Fi from Alaska.
BTW, as I am constantly evaluating my reads, with your continued improvement, it’s possible that in the future I may move you on top of Rush.
Dear Gay Patriot… Finally a thread where I can give you the good news. I like your blog and have advanced its’ position on my daily read list and you are now right below Rush Limbaugh. I hope you enjoy your new position.
and
with continued good reads, I may even put you on top of Rush! WD and Semper Fi. I remember in 1975 [I am 70 with a “real age” … y, i took the test… of 85] when Frank Robinson got to be the first black manager in the baseball major leagues… I remarked [and I actually did… not just making this up] that this was good but real black progress would be when a black manager was fired without it being a big deal. Hope I am not being too subtle for your readers.
BTW, all black people like me. Not so sure about gays.
It’s no big revelation to state that men are inherently sexual beings in a way that woman are not. Men desire sex and gay men find it more readily than their straight counterparts because their mates desire sex too.
But this article hits on one very important topic that is often overlooked in this discussion of sexual promiscuity. That is, the lack of public exploration of our sexuality in youth as gay men. I’ve come to believe that this void created by not being able to act out one’s sexual desires in one’s formulative years causes gay men to remain in a permanent juvenile state, always seeking the next “score” or conquest. The natural emotional growth that is nurtured through a collective experience such as middle school or high school is lost upon our relationships. As closeted gay men, we are mere voyeurs to this growing process. When no comparable alternative fills the void, our relationships end up being a carousel of one night stands, never elevating to a higher plane.
So how do we progress past this juvenile state? Well, I’m still working on that. LOL But I seem to find plenty of guys interested in dating, even on Manhunt. The problem is on my end. I chafe at intimacy. It’s something I have to work on.
So start one. Start out with a few people gathering for movie night and/or dinner and go from there. Whatever happened to Supper Clubs?
I am afraid that after reading the article all I could think of was the book “One Nation Under Therapy”. I’m not sure what the kerfluffle is all about.
Historically in so many different cultures there have always been avenues available to people (mostly men-but in many cases for both) that existed solely for the satisfaction of the sexual impulse. This is just part of life.
Somewhere along the line someone decided that emotion was supposed to be included in with sex, which is fine if it happens, but sometimes it doesn’t and I say, so what?
Sex is fun and it’s fine and sometimes it just doesn’t have to have any more significance than that. You do not have to have sex to have love and one does not have to have love to have sex.
It’s just a part of life. But it does mean different things to different people.
Well, that’s a frequently-heard rationalization, at any rate. But ask a woman if female sexuality is ragingly powerful and tempting, and her answer will be “yes”.
I’ll concede that different abilities or *incentives* affect male and female sexual behavior. Both can get STDs from risky behavior. But a woman can also get pregnant. If she does, she must then either face the terrible decision of having an abortion, or be stuck with a child – while the man has the option (be it dishonorable) of running off to the next adventure. So a woman has this major extra *incentive* to be careful.
But that aside, or that eliminated with birth control or sterilization, women are every bit as capable as being sexually piggish as men – and should be allowed to be! (if that’s the woman’s thing) Claiming a special “it’s in our nature” excuse for male piggishness is covert Victorian prudery toward female sexuality. In other words: SEXISM.
Let me advance a different theory. For the reasons I supplied, it is generally easier for a man to get away with being a crass sex addict. And because the gay identity was constructed in the 960s / 1970s with a strong left-wing “sexual liberation” component, lots of gay male sex addicts are given, and/or loudly demand, lots and lots of cover.
Another classic rationalization. But let’s do some math. Say the average straight person “comes out” around 15, and is well ready to settle down by 30. Then if you or I came out at 25, our “excuse years” are used up by 40. So, what’s with all these gay men at 45, 50, 55, still trying to be 19? And what’s the excuse of younger gay generations, who do come out at 15 or 20?
How convenient. (blame society!)
I suspect you’ll be “working on it” for a long time. No insult intended; I do not believe the slightest thing is wrong with you in terms of your capacities. Every mentally normal adult is capable of intimacy. But intimacy and relationships are a choice. It sounds like “working on it” is more fun for you… you get to screw around more.
Well, that’s a frequently-heard rationalization, at any rate. But ask a woman if female sexuality is ragingly powerful and tempting, and her answer will be “yes”.
I’ll concede that different abilities or -incentives- affect male and female sexual behavior. Both can get STDs from risky behavior. But a woman can also get pregnant. If she does, she must then either face the terrible decision of having an abortion, or be stuck with a child – while the man has the option (be it dishonorable) of running off to the next adventure. So a woman has this major extra -incentive- to be careful.
But that aside, or that eliminated with birth control or sterilization, women are every bit as capable as being sexually piggish as men – and should be allowed to be! (if that’s the woman’s thing) Claiming a special “it’s in our nature” excuse for male piggishness is covert Victorian prudery toward female sexuality. In other words: SEXISM.
Let me advance a different theory. For the reasons I supplied, it is generally easier for a man to get away with being a crass sex addict. And because the gay identity was constructed in the 960s / 1970s with a strong left-wing “sexual liberation” component, lots of gay male sex addicts are given, and/or loudly demand, lots and lots of cover.
Another classic rationalization. But let’s do some math. Say the average straight person “comes out” around 15, and is well ready to settle down by 30. Then if you or I came out at 25, our “excuse years” are used up by 40. So, what’s with all these gay men at 45, 50, 55, still trying to be 19? And what’s the excuse of younger gay generations, who do come out at 15 or 20?
How convenient. (blame society!)
I suspect you’ll be “working on it” for a long time. No insult intended; I do not believe the slightest thing is wrong with you in terms of your capacities. Every mentally normal adult is capable of intimacy. But intimacy and relationships are a choice. It sounds like “working on it” is more fun for you… you get to screw around more.
Not with the spamfilter the way it is 😉 I have a long one for Erik, awaiting approval.
Two things I think are relevant
1. I’ve read that people in general are interacting over the internet more and in person less, and
2. in regard to #11, I’ve also read that heterosexuals are marrying much later in life nowadays.
how is this any different?
oh and one other point:
Well, Dan is a MAJOR tool so I suppose he ought to know.
Somewhere along the line someone decided that emotion was supposed to be included in with sex, which is fine if it happens, but sometimes it doesn’t and I say, so what?
I don’t know who this someone was. All I can tell you is that I have never been able to separate the emotion from sex.
people resisted the horseless carriage,the airplane,flat earth theories…..progress/change is inevitable. Hours spent in bars in the hopes MR Right will wander in is not all that. I met and married the guy of my dreams 9 years ago thanks to the net. Those who long for the old days.get over it.we now have a vastly better way to meet,evaluate ,communicate,get to know before we sleep with them our true love.
Forgive me for being crude, but if you’re not making an emotional connection to the person you’re with, you might as well just masturbate to p0rn.
TnnsNE1: I think the downturn in the number of people at gay dance clubs is the proliferation of martini bars (with no dance floor) and the fact that as gay people become more accepted, they integrate into regular social venues.
Homocons should be thrilled that one of the owners gave $2300 to the McCain campaign. You can really get on and get off knowing that your money is going to Republicans. Enjoy.
All smart business owners give to Republicans over Democrats.
For that matter, all smart people give to Republicans over Democrats.
#18 – I am not quite sure what your point is. First, donations here are totally voluntary.
Second, our GayPatriot PayPal account is not used for political donations — just upkeep of the blog.
Third, the cost of running the blog has exceeded donations since 2004 so the remainder of costs come from my pocket.
Finally, and least important, while I cannot speak for my co-blogger — I personally haven’t given a cent of my own money to John McCain.
#21 – Bruce, I wonder why that libtard in #18 considers it his business as to what you or Dan do with your disposable income.
That being said, I would like to know if he has any proof of his statement that someone gave $2300 to the McCain campaign from this blog. If not, I would sue for libel.
Regards,
Peter H.
I met my true love nine years ago online. The bars,the clubs all that are fun.until they are not. But meeting mr right online has all the odds in your favor.wider selection thousands of candidates,not just several,even with the narrowest of criteria there are still hundreds,it would take a hell of a lot of pub crawaling to accomplish what can be done in the comfort of your home in a fraction of the time. Wheter one is looking for Mr Right or Mr Right now the internet is where its at
Wait…what’s the difference between man and animals again?
21,22 (Thanks for calling me a libtard. That’s so Peter of you). In re-reading my post, I can see why you didn’t understand to what I was referring.
The blog post is about ManHunt. It has come out now that one of the owners of ManHunt donated 2300.00 to the John McCain and is a Republican.
Democrats are bad, Republicans are worse. Neither gets my money.
Please sue me for stating a fact.
Thanks for being one. Really: your unintentionally-weak efforts at snark add color.
#7 Erik:
Well, that’s a frequently-heard rationalization, at any rate. But ask a woman if female sexuality is ragingly powerful and tempting, and her answer will be ‘yes’.
I’ll concede that different abilities or -incentives- affect male and female sexual behavior. Both can get STDs from risky behavior. But a woman can also get pregnant. If she does, she must then either face the terrible decision of having an abortion, or be stuck with a child – while the man has the option (be it dishonorable) of running off to the next adventure. So a woman has this major extra -incentive- to be careful.
But that aside, or that eliminated with birth control or sterilization, women are every bit as capable as being sexually piggish as men – and should be allowed to be! (if that’s the woman’s thing) Claiming a special ‘it’s in our nature’ excuse for male piggishness is covert Victorian prudery toward female sexuality. In other words: SEXISM.
Let me advance a different theory. For the reasons I supplied, it is simply easier for a man to get away with being a crass sex addict. And because the gay identity was constructed in the 960s / 1970s with a strong left-wing ‘sexual liberation’ component, lots of gay male sex addicts are given, and/or loudly demand, lots and lots of cover.
Another often-heard rationalization. But let’s do some math. Say the average straight person ‘comes out’ around 15, and is well ready to settle down by 30. Then if you or I came out at 25, our ‘excuse years’ are used up by 40. So, what’s with all these gay men at 45, 50, 55, still trying to be 19? And what’s going to be the new excuse of younger gay generations, who come out now at roughly the same time as straights?
In other words: Blame society!
I suspect you’ll be ‘working on it’ for a long time. No insult intended; I do not believe the slightest thing is wrong with you in terms of your capacities and reactions. Every mentally normal adult is capable of intimacy. But, it must be chosen. It sounds like ‘working on it’ is more fun for you… you still get to screw around, that way.
I actually agree with this article. I do think that sites like Manhunt cheapen human contact making it an all out meat market. It’s sad that today’s gay men don’t know how to relate to each other in a social setting. Manhunt reduces people to statistics and obliterates a person’s humanity.
ILC, I think Erik makes a valid point re “public exploration of our sexuality” (I don’t think he means public as in “public sex” but public as in dating). Erik doesn’t say how old he is but when I was a teen, damn few gays were out of the closet (no one in my high school).
In other words, if Mary and Steve were dating, they wouldn’t need to make any effort to conceal it. If Mark and Steve were dating, keeping the secret would be a matter of survival.
As far as men in permanent adolescence, this also goes for straight men. There was an article in a recent City Journal about this phenomenon (guys around 30 or so still behaving like high school kids). And there are a lot of boomer men are seemingly in their second adolescence (pony tails, earrings, tats, Harleys). Society doesn’t seem to expect people to grow up anymore.
As far as “manhunt”, never heard of it until I read this article. I’m not sure what it brings to the table that gay.com didn’t bring.
I met my other half in 2001 on gay.com. Neither of us are trolls or anything but we’re both middle-aged. Neither of us are barflies. I dated, off and on, a barfly prior to 2001 and found the relationship lacking. I hated going to the bar but felt like I needed to change lest I find myself alone for life.
The online route was easier for me since I could quickly filter out hookups, twinks looking for daddies, etc. Introvert that I am, I just don’t like cold-calling (and that’s what the bars are all about).
I dub thee “stopped clock”
Robert, don’t agree with all your points, but your point about our society expecting people to grow up later nowadays is well taken. 70 is the new 60, 60 is the new 50, 50 is the new 40, and on down… until 30 is the new 20. At least for some people. There’s a cute line from Animal House here. One of the guys is torn between partying and his serious girlfriend. She says something like “Boone, you’re 21 years old! Are you still really going to… [some disgusting, childish thing] every weekend?” When you watch the movie, it sounds… quaint.
Re # 26. The difference between us and animals, is that instead of a compulsion to reproduce for the survival of the species (and in some cases for only certain times of the year), we get to pick and choose when, where, how and why.
And for some us, it is a rich and deep emotional experience. And for some of us, it’s like having a great meal with a friend or even just an aquaintance. This is the broad spectrum of human experience. One size doesn’t fit all.
One of the things that humans have done is to make sex SO important, beyond the necessity of survival of the species. So now it has all the trappings of every other emotional saturation that humans can come up with. And those who think it is an emotional experience now like to judge those who don’t.
For some of us, it’s just fun. I’ll go to temple for my personal fulfillment.
Owner of Manhunt donates to the McCain campaign.
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardminiter/2008/08/13/mccain-accepts-money-from-gay-cruising-site/
Mega hissy fit ensues.
No wonder the self appointed leaders of “the community” are taking pre-emptive pot shots at the site.
I found the article to be so turgidly written & dressed up in pseudo-intellectual BS that I couldn’t make it past the first page.
#27 – Maybe if you clarified your remarks (because Bruce also misinterpreted it), we would not be discussing what I consider to be a pointless subject.
And as far as being a libtard goes: I merely create a shoe on line. If you want to put it on and loudly announce that it fits, that’s your problem.
Some Republicans are bad. All Democrats should be the permanent minority in government.
Regards,
Peter H.
I’ve certainly noticed that here in NJ. We’ve had basic gay rights for almost two decades now, and the one direct resultr from my observation is the closing of the local small-town gay bars….especially the ones that cartered to the college-crowd. Once you could be “out” on-campus as a student or professor, or out at work, it took a lot of the pressure-off to hang-out at the gay bar to see who’s-who. And once two guys could go to any bar, dance-club or restaurant if eliminated much of the clientele-base. Add to that the decline in anonymous sex post AIDS and the drunk driving crackdowns.
We used to have 6 gay bars here in Trenton NJ that catered to both the local community and the adjacent Princeton Univ. and local college crowd. And the nearby “art colony” of New Hope PA had 2 gay bars and several dance clubs. Now there are none, and the gay community has drifted away once the “social center”-aspect of the bars declined. Now we don’t “need” that safe-environment of the gay bar, plus the younger generation seems to have a much more fluid definition of sexuality and they all just mix together…and they are pairing-off much earlier.
They used to say that owning a gay bar was a guarenteed gold-mine, yet even Forbes magazine proedicts that it’s soon to be an obsolete business-model except in a few large urban environments.
Robert, no offense but it’s a new day and I’m still not buying Erik’s theory – that we need to explore our sexuality as adolescents with ‘public’ approval and if we’re juvenile and sex-driven, it’s because we were denied that.
Centuries of heterosexuals were denied all opportunity to explore their adolescent sexuality… going straight from puberty (which came later in the olden days) to marriage… and many of them still managed to be loving, mature human beings, not consumed by indiscriminate sexuality.
And I’ve yet at actually meet someone local-enough and interested in dating.
and
But I seem to find plenty of guys interested in dating, even on Manhunt.
Interesting. One person who wants to date, but can’t find one on Manhunt, whereas another person who is not ready to date, can find people to date on Manhunt.
So how do we progress past this juvenile state? Well, I’m still working on that. LOL But I seem to find plenty of guys interested in dating, even on Manhunt. The problem is on my end. I chafe at intimacy. It’s something I have to work on.
Erik, to paraphrase a cliche that seems appropriate, the biggest part to fixing a problem is recognizing it. Now you recognize it, and you have the resources to solve it. Simply decide that you are no longer going to meet people just for sex, and do it. No more rationalizing of the form, “well, I couldn’t find someone to date this weekend, so I’ll just go out for a hookup” or “I don’t think this guy is dating material, so I’ll just sleep with him, because at least he’s hot, and then bid farewell.” To use another cliche, I’m afraid this is one of those things that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
And those who think it is an emotional experience now like to judge those who don’t.
For some of us, it’s just fun.
Personally, it’s hard for me to judge it since I don’t quite understand it. Be it as it may, I suppose it works out well if both of those involved don’t treat sex as an emotional experience. It saves on the awkwardness, the “polite” or blunt blowoffs, the “is he going to call like he said he would” stuff, etc.
We used to have 6 gay bars here in Trenton NJ that catered to both the local community and the adjacent Princeton Univ. and local college crowd. And the nearby “art colony†of New Hope PA had 2 gay bars and several dance clubs.
Glad to see there’s someone else from NJ. Ted, you mean both the Raven and Cartwheel are both closed now? I’ve been to Trenton only twice (for an NCAA women’s BB tournament game, and to fight a ticket), so I haven’t been to any of the gay bars there. I thought a bar called Buddies was still open.
I live in Clifton, and we used to have a gay bar. Before it was a banquet/restaurant where my parents had their wedding reception, and now it’s a steakhouse. The closest gay bar is Switch in Boonton. It’s okay, but a typical gay bar with the typical stuff that tends to happen at gay bars. There’s also a gay bar near Hackensack. If neighboring Paterson or Passaic has gay bars they are underground.
#27, #28 – My apologies for misunderstanding your point, fnln.
That being said, a restatement of the GayPatriot donations & PayPal account was probably overdue on my part.
So my comment stands as is.
I am totally outraged and disgusted by all this Manhunt & Rebuplican scandal. I am moving my profile to a new site I found called WetLizard.com It’s free and very well laid out. I like it much better than Manhunt and the staff are really nice and friendly and reply to you MUCH quicker than Manhunt. I recommend everyone on Manhunt goes here.
Make that a 3rd from NJ. Ted, I’d be up for a round of golf sometime, that is if you can stand to play a round with a) a liberal and b) someone who really sucks at golf (my clubs haven’t been out of the attic in a couple of years). We’re down here in southern NJ – but not far from Trenton. Since when is Trenton the sticks? 🙂
The substantive comments on this thread have been an interesting read. I have to say my own opinion is that Manhunt is just less subtle about the venue they are providing. Gay.com wants you to think they have personals for dating, but I think the reality is that the chatrooms on gay.com are primarily used for hooking up. Neither of those sites is bad by their existence. I’m sure people DO find actual dates on both.
That all being said, I really should read the article in question. I hear it’s devoid of any scientific backup for it’s assertions. Big surprise. 😉
I am totally outraged and disgusted by all this Manhunt & Republican scandal. I am moving my profile to a new site I found. It’s free and very well laid out. I like it much better than Manhunt and the staff are really nice and friendly and reply to you MUCH quicker than Manhunt. I recommend everyone on Manhunt goes here.
It seems to me that gay men had quick, anonymous sex before there was an Internet. Tea-rooms, bathhouses, beaches, parks, streets, just about anyplace people could hook up they did, with gay abandon.
It seems to me that manhunt and its ilk simply facilitate that proclivity–they didn’t create it. Cruising always involved a certain amount of risk, whether it was physical, e.g., getting beaten up or arrested while cruising in public or emotional–getting snubbed in a bar when your pickup line fell on deaf ears.
Cruising from the perceived safety of ones home computer removes those risks to a certain degree. To an extent that is the case. Of course, there is always the chance that an online pick up will turn out badly,
Well now there’s a good excuse to f*ck around. “It was just a ‘great meal’ with a friend, baby!”.
I don’t know what sort of eateries you patronize, but where I go, there’s a very small chance of getting nasty critters in or on my junk. Last I checked, a Quarter Pounder was not very likely to give you HIV either.
Well, if you’re eating Quarter Pounders you can’t be TOO concerned about your health!!
To #47, sorry I couldn’t resist the crack (#48). But your point deserves serious consideration and response.
There are ways to be responsible and smart even if you are playing around in the sexual arena. And while the risks are greater than if you are monogamous, one can use one’s head about it.
And one CAN be safe and make sure that one doesn’t get HIV.
One can be stupid or smart here, just like in any other human endeavor.
M. J. Gross wrote: become the men that, in our strongest moments, we want to be.
“Most imaginative” moments, perhaps. “Strongest” is something else altogether.
The Manhunt “Republican scandal” merely demonstrates the rabid intolerance of the Left for anyone who fails to toe the party-line. The founder, major stockholder and Chairman of the Board at Hanhunt has been forcibly-driven from control of his own company over 2300-dollars.
This just proves both the herd mentality and total lack of reason on the Left…and one major reason I hold them to be a political and civil danger. Stray away from the herd…or the approved dogma…and it’s off to the guillotine, gas chamber, re-eduaction camp, gulag or rural rice paddies with the non-comformists.
And they call gay moderates and conservatives self-loathing?….
#31: Did you agree before or after the owner of Manhunt gave money to the McCain campaign?
Did they try to force him off the board (I refuse to click on the link to Towleroad or any other GayLeft sites)?
And, assuming it were allowed, how many gay marriages would result from hookups formed at Manhunt?
Reading between lines of the object-groveling oozing out of Manhunt, his feet didn’t even touch the ground as he was sumarily-ejected out of the boardroom.
It’s pathetic how desparetely the remaining board-members (incuding his business partner) are attempting to re-legitimise their Leftist-Fag credentials by trumpeting how many times they were arrested at this-and-that demonstartion, and their “Shock” at discovering a Log Cabin Republican **gasp** in their midst.
They pedal porn, casual sex, and feature members’ profiles in excruciatinglly-gynecological detail with clear consciences; yet $2300 to a Republican and they go fratricidal within 24-hrs. and retreat in full-grovel-mode in the face of a few “offended” horny gay Dhimmicrats (who probably don’t vote anyway).
So Ted, the guy gives money to McCain’s campaign and some who don’t like it end their memberships and take their money elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with either action, it’s his right to give money to whoever he wants, and customers are free to leave if they disagree. Are you against free choice? Have you ever chosen not to purchase a product or keep your money from going to a business that supports something you are very much against? It’s herd mentality when liberals do it, but when the right does, it’s ok because you are shopping as your conscience directs you to? There’s people on here that won’t even click on the link to a site they disagree with and you attack liberals who choose where their money goes?
Then the board asks him to step down, a business decision. I guess “let the market speak” is only true when it works in favor of a corporation you support?
The big H strikes again on a “rational” conservative site, what a surprise.
Indeed it does, Dave, since it would involve gay liberals like yourself who namecall religious groups for doing their own boycotting and who whine and cry about people being fired because of their political affiliation suddenly saying that both are totally OK, as you do here.
In addition, given that gay Democrats like yourself have called politicians who support marriage bans, both state and Federal, as well as employment discrimination against gays, “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, your supposed opposition to such things among Republicans is even greater hypocrisy.
I disagree that the websites make gay life any more fractured than the alternatives for meeting guys, namely bars and clubs. In fact, I think the posturing, preeening, alcohol-induced sensory overload to make me shut down and withdraw into myself far more than any ISP based meeting would. Maybe it’s because I loathe the gay scene and want to reach out to guys without having to deal with the nonsense. As much as I wish for it, there has yet to be a “block” or “delete” button for people in real life, and so much of the time in bars I spend being defensive or otherwise having to “shoot down” unwanted approaches. Perhaps it’s because I don’t drink that I prefer an online chat, followed up with coffee in a neutral, safe 3rd location. The point I guess I am making is that if one is a filthy, lecherous skank, that will come out even without an internet connection; those nasty specimens were the ones who kept bathhouses and sex-clubs in business. Much like we 2nd Amendment believers are wont to say: Guns don’t kill people, people do. You see what I mean.
The big H strikes again on a “rational†conservative site, what a surprise.
Unfortunately, Dave, it is gay liberals like yourself who throw hissy fits when people are fired or forced out because of their political beliefs, as well as when groups like the AFA carry out boycotts.
Now, as is obvious, you believe both are acceptable when you practice them.
Very, very, very good post, Dan. Well done.