EZEtoGRU

I had a decent childhood. Traditional parents born in the 20's that had quite a backward value system. My brother and I weren't physically abused but dad was quite the disciplinarian. My childhood memories are mostly of being terrified of dad. I was totally in the closet with my family until I was 24-25 years old. I knew my parents were totally ill-equipped to handle the gay issue so I purposely chose to not tell them till after I was an adult. I handled the whole journey of coming to terms with my gayness on my own. Even after I told them, they were not particularly supportive or understanding. At least dad wasn't. Mom tried but still never really understood it. They always wanted to blame someone or something for me being gay. Dad died almost 3 years ago and I'm sure thought my being gay was an active choice until the day he died. I didn't hate my dad....nor did I love him I don't think. I did not cry at all when he died and I don't really miss him. Our relationship was always quite superficial.

My brother always chewed his food with his mouth open. I found it discusting. He's gone now but I don't miss his obnoxious chewing behavior.

In the end, it's all a word semantics game. Is PReP sex without condoms "safe", "unsafe", "safer", "protected", unprotected", "risky", "not risky"? It all depends on in relation to what. Participants of this behavior will argue that it is not unprotected sex to help themselves feel better about it. I wonder if their sex partner who caught gonorrhea from that sex encounter considers that he/she had protected/safer sex. I highly doubt it. I'm done posting on this topic. I highly value your input on this forum as well as that of latbear4blk so I have no issue with either of you generally. I do believe that PReP sex without condoms is risky, selfish, and irresponsible. Call me sex positive or sex negative. I don't really care.

I take no issue with the traditional meaning of sex positive. I am supportive of all the behaviors you described in your definition and I partake in several of them. However, I think that you are being naïve in believing that the definition you describe is the one that most people consider accurate in practice. You come off as an enabler of unsafe sex practices. Let's not mince words. Taking PReP and having sex without condoms is not "safer sex". In transitioning from using condoms for anal intercourse to now using PReP and no condoms could in no way be considered "safe" because: 1. PReP was never designed to be used just by itself. It was always supposed to be used with condoms. 2. Whilst one reduces the liklihood of HIV transmission with PReP only, the likelihood of catching and spreading other STI's goes up substantially when not using condoms. How on earth can this not be considered "unsafe". Is using PReP safer than taking no precautions at all? Sure it is.....but to pretend that it is not still risky behavior is selfish, uninformed, and dangerous.

Let's get real here. Sex positivity means many different things to many different people. It's kind of like the word "twink". If you ask 10 gay men what a "twink" is you'll likely get 10 different answers. Case in point: You think sex positive is this: QUOTE Sex positive does not, at all, have anything to do with safe practices. Being open to having 3somes is sex positive. Open to fetishes is sex positive. Open to BDSM is sex positive. Open to sex before marriage is sex positive. Open to hiring escorts is sex positive. Open to homosexual sex is sex positive as well. UNQUOTE Yet latbear4blk says this: QUOTE I am on PrEP, having lots of sex with no condoms (which is not unprotected sex, sex negative morons), and I think I am taking all the rational (to me) precautions. I would not say I am careless. Although I do not pretend to be the measurement for everyone else, I think I am representative of most PrEP users in this point. UNQUOTE He has established a clear link between sex positivity/negativity and safe/unsafe sex. He believes that sex without condoms is not unprotected sex. He believes sex negative people are morons. He believes his behavior is representative of most PReP users. On this point I agree with him. My point is that many PReP users have massaged the term "sex positive" into also meaning "I am positive about my decision to use PReP but not use condoms as I value my personal pleasure more than the possibility of my getting STI's and passing them onto my sex partners. I am open to taking more risky behavior when having sex and I feel good about it. I am sex positive" This is real and it is a thing. You may not wish to see it but it's there and it is pervasive.

LOL. What a complete load of crap. Amazing the lengths people will go to justify reckless behavior. Sex Positive = selfish, stupid, reckless sex that increases the risk of most STI transmissions to all involved. VS. Sex Negative = Taking more precautions towards having safer sex in order to lower one's risk versus the above example.....and then being ridiculed for it. It's a more responsible approach and almost certainly leads to a lower rate of STI transmission. Sex-positive proponents remind me of the prior proponents of sero-conversion parties of the early 2000's. Throw all caution to the wind and blast anyone that was still using condoms as being stupid. People are holding up PReP usage as an excuse to practice unsafe sex. Who cares if I get a whole battery of STI's and pass them on to countless other people in the interim. PReP was initially designed to be used in conjunction with other safer sex practices. Let's be honest here people and call a spade a spade.

People are less fearful of contracting HIV now...partly because of PrEP....but also because the treatments for HIV are so much better today. The end result is that condom use has declined. Therefore, the incidence of STI stats has gone up. Spend some time talking with Str8/bi male strippers. They openly confess that they rarely use condoms when having sex with women.

Yes. He is primarily the waiter now at Campus but apparently he is also available for lapdances. To me he does not look good at all now. Long stringy hair and too many tattoos.

I just wrapped up a visit to Montreal and managed to get to Campus on Monday evening. I arrived about 9:00pm and left just after midnight. There were four dancers although one of them never took the stage....but he was going back for lap dances. Long stage gaps of 15-25 minutes between dancers. Three of the four dancers were attractive and in good shape. The fourth guy was kind of pudgy and out of shape. The club had a steady stream of customers meandering in and out of the club the whole time. It never got truly busy but also never was empty whilst I was there. The waiter Suntory was also doing the occasional dance in the back. I went back with a brand new dancer (he said it was his first night) named Greg. He was attractive, muscular, and friendly. It was OK. Not sure I would repeat with him. In conclusion, it was a decent time. Friendly staff. How much can you expect on a monday night really?

Interesting. If they can't attract quality talent, it's never going to work. People will pay a $15-$20 cover/membership fee if the dancers are of a high standard. I hope they can turn it around....its still early days afterall. It would be nice to have another Miami option besides Twist.

I agree that the presence of drugs is everywhere. I guess I’m just saying it is (and always has been) much more pronounced at Campus.

Campus has been a drug den for many many years...at least 15 years and probably more. Perhaps Campus has become a place you can go to and have a reasonable time only on Friday/Saturday nights after 10:00pm. Weeknights and afternoons seem to have become dead zones for Campus. I remember when you could still have a decent time at Campus with dancers all afternoon. The afternoon line-up was never as good as the evening line-up but you could usually find something decent. Not anymore. That whole afternoon scene from 3-7PM seems to be gone.

I'm not surprised by the OP's Campus report. I was there in the spring and my experience was similar. There were only four dancers three of whom were entirely forgettable (I wouldn't accept a lapdance from any of them even if it was free). However, I did luck out that night as the fourth dancer was a stunning muscle guy. He was the only reason Campus was decent that night. I'm not sure what is behind the severe decline at Campus.

I think he's in complete meltdown territory. Inability to distinguish between facts and lies is a sure sign. I expect the white coats will be paying him a visit soon.

I recently spent a 4-day weekend in FTL. I went to Johnson's on the Thursday and Friday & Boardwalk on the Saturday and Sunday. First Johnson's. I arrived around 9:00pm each night. Good fun with a good selection of dancers. Lots of variety both in terms of ethnicity and also body type from fem twinks to macho Latinos and Europeans. No big muscle however. The vast majority of the dancers were good looking or very good looking. The bar was relatively quiet on Thursday and quite busy on Friday...although not packed. I had a good time on both nights hanging out with several Latino dancers I had met previously. Good solid night both nights. Whilst I used Uber all four night, I could see the parking options at Johnson's were quite limited. That could a problem for people planning to drive themselves to the bar. The two nights I went to the boardwalk I first ate at their outdoor café. Pretty good burgers/fries and obviously very convenient. Things at Boardwalk on Friday were fairly quiet at 9:00 pm but it got busy by 11:00pm. Dancer quality was quite varied. One very good looking dancer...a Colombian. Most of the rest were very average looking guys you wouldn't look twice at if you saw them on the street. A couple of the dancers appeared to be well into their 40's. I did not spend any time with any of the guys. The club itself is looking great. It has a very open and professional feel to it. Great sound and lighting. Why oh why did Boardwalk not take the opportunity of instituting a no-smoking policy inside when they did the renovation? Dancers walking up to talk with you whilst smoking is not a very good look these days IMHO. Same thing with several bartenders who chain-smoked the entire night.....nasty!! For heavens sake, they have a nice little patio bar outside in back where people could leave the main club for 5 minutes to have a cigarette. The smoking issue would be so easy to fix and cost them nothing. Both Boardwalk and Johnson's look nice but Johnson's wins the overall competition hands down. Johnson's has a much better quality of dancers and the no-smoking policy inside seals the deal. I see no reason to return to Boardwalk until they secure much more attractive dancer talent and also declare the inside bar to be no-smoking.

You'll be missed Rhoda! https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/valerie-harper-beloved-tv-icon-dies-at-80-after-a-long-battle-with-cancer/ar-AAGzSFM?ocid=spartanntp

Some people are only happy when they are miserable.

LOL. Funny how your story takes on a whole different meaning when you leave out the key fact of what actually happened. Thankfully, I have a very good memory so I remember your original story from years ago when you drove to Canada. The key part of the story that you left out was that you announced to the immigration official that you were entering Canada to engage in sex work. A non-Canadian cannot work in Canada without a valid work visa. It doesn't matter if you were going to work as an engineer, a software developer, or a sex-worker. You did not have a valid work visa for Canada. Essentially, you announced to the immigration official that you were going to engage in illegal work practices within Canada by working there without an approved work visa. Of course they wouldn't let you in. They wouldn't have been doing their job if they had let you in. The responsibility for your failure to gain entrance into Canada on that visit sits entirely with you. I so remember that thread from years ago as it was one of the most insane/crazy/whacked-out threads I had ever followed on this forum ever. It brought lots of entertainment to many of us at the time. For that, I truly thank you.

Not here in Michigan. It's supposed to go down to 58 degrees tonight. Bring on the Pumpkin Spice Latte I say!!

Misinformation from TBL again. This park is not one block from Stock Bar. It is next to the Berri-UQAM Metro(Check out a map) which is 4-5 blocks from Stock/Campus (depending on where in the park it took place). This incident had nothing to do with the strip clubs in The Village. You need to be more factual with your posts. BTW, when is your next trip to Montreal?

Bottom line: They're just not that into you OP...therefore they enquire and then fail to confirm at will. This will likely get worse rather than better as time marches on. Someone more resourceful (and realistically in touch with themselves) would have realized this line of work isn't for them and would have moved onto something more suitable years ago.

I only go to gay bars if they have strippers. Otherwise, I’m not really interested.

I was at Stock Bar three times over this past weekend. The guy on the left was not there on any of the three nights. I also subscribe to the Stock website and watch the show many nights. I have not seen him dancing there for probably at least 6 months. I don't know if he is dancing at Campus.

Same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. So boring. Moving on now.

Your post added zero value to the discussion at hand. We all know you love twinks and that you think Taboo and Montreal suck now. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.....but why on earth do you have to invade every thread on Montreal to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over? What exactly is achieved by doing that? Is the point to punish everyone else on the Montreal threads because you aren't happy with the scene any more? Sorry....but you are a killjoy and a downer. Time for a paradigm shift.