longtime lurker

It is rumored (possibly in comments with close friends?) that she was aware of this cameo and more amused than bothered. It just has her walking a street and hardly recognizable. Some more recent post-VHS era posters of Adam & Yves spotlight a classic portrait of her as if she was a major star in it, but the vintage 1974 posters do not.

The intentions of this short video are noble, but the overall effect is downright weird. No girlfriend involved, which is often the case with those genuinely worried about "homos". If you are secure in your heterosexuality, why should it matter? Also what we are seeing here is a form of "assault" that could involve legal charges.

90% of the porn online is absolutely boring because it involves the same basic "acts" repeated over and over, much like grade Z westerns. There are only so many ways you can ride a horse and shoot a gun. I guess there are two criteria: the star's distinctive looks, if they are distinctive, and his performance (or hers... since we aren't all against the heterosexual stuff). Casey Donovan/Calvin Culver... yeah, he died over three decades ago, but he was the Douglas Fairbanks of the genre. They say all roads lead back to Rome. All gay porn leads back to Casey-Calvin, the one who did everything first. Wakefield Poole's Boys in the Sand was pretty daring stuff for its time, but my favorite will always be Radley Metzger's bisexual spouse-swapping screw-ball (errr... yeah) comedy Score. He manages to hold his own in a cast of five here (mostly four actually) as wide-eyed innocent Eddie a.k.a. please be tender with me since this is my first time with a guy and my wife and I haven't been doing much of it lately. Oh yes, the way things were in the summer of '72... Al Parker... if many here had a time machine and could go back to the swinging seventies to meet those who have passed on, a visit with Casey/Calvin would be like a visit to the Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower or Grand Canyon while Al is the pit-stop you make along the way. Aybars... I thinks his looks are better than his acting. That is, when he isn't manscaped. He is the perfect Otter as long as the razor is kept away, far-far-away. Yet he seems eager to please everybody in the limited stuff he did. Adam Russo... I can not lie. Those Gay Massage House videos from Icon Male are hysterical. Conner Habib... he sure likes to talk and talk and talk, but there are ways of keeping him quiet. Jamie Gillis... another deceased one, mostly in heterosexual material since he favored the ladies. Yet he always claimed that a body was just a body, so he had no inhibitions regarding brotherly luv. Zander Drum... an aging Bear who appeared in just one video online: Joe Gage Sex Files 7: Doctors And Dads. Makes me wonder if he was just part of the production crew who had to step in because the regular star scheduled didn't show up. Maybe he died? Failed a second screen test? I don't know. Doesn't do much in his solo "nurse assistant" performance accept stroke his patient, but the whole scene is so weirdly amusing that you can't stop viewing it multiple times... and wouldn't mind him helping you get over your hang-up "being with a dude". Billy Santoro... just watch the one with Phenix Saint involving the rinse cycle. I never understood why washing machines were reserved for heterosexual porn.

The TV show took great liberties with the books. For one thing, the guys in the cast all had access to blow-dryers. The late 1970s/early '80s recreating the late 1870s/early '80s was quite the groovy combination. Also I don't recall the originals having any story resembling the infamous Sylvia episode. Actually the original TV movie of 1974, with the same cast, was pretty close to that book, the third in the series. Going back to the original article, it is interesting that the 1953 editions changed the lines describing a land with "no people. Only Indians lived there" to "no settlers. Only Indians lived there". Already society was advancing. By then, Garth Williams had updated the illustrations to the Eisenhower Era (children's books were loaded with pictures by then), although the original Helen Sewill pictures have a nice woodcut style and are probably worth reviving. I find it interesting that the book Ferdinand the Bull is more even popular today than it was even in 1936. Every Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart and Target seem to have multiple copies in either paperback or hardback. Today, children are more familiar with the book than the Disney version, although we can blame the recent feature film for that. It is the most "gay friendly" of the bunch even if smelling flowers isn't what defines one's orientation. In the Disney cartoon of 1938, there was something slightly kinky about the bull licking the flower tattoo on the macho matador's chest. I am sure there were plenty of Disney animators still in the closet back then who enjoyed working on that scene. Seems like nobody has been able to kill Little Black Sambo, which keeps getting revived over and over and over again. That story never made any sense to me. Turning tigers into butter? Apparently the Brits of the Victorian Era (it was original published in 1899) thought everybody in Southeast Asia looked "black" to them.

A popular line I have heard many, many times by U.S. adults for many decades, my deceased mother among them, is "I am not concerned so much about what gays do behind closed doors. I just don't want to see them flaunting it." Basically "flaunting" means displaying any kind of affection resembling "heteronormal" behavior like kissing and holding hands that dominates popular culture in this country. I guess the same applies in other countries that have certain laws. However, it is important to note that these same countries that are viewed anti-gay also tend to be very strict about what even heterosexuals are allowed to do in public places.

Looks like Aybars.

Threads like these make for interesting reading, not because they provide any useful information but because they reflect the individual posters' personalities. Some take long term relationships very seriously while others want to always be "as free as the wind" and not tied down. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with "loving" or "crushing on" a masseur. After all, what the world needs now is love, sweet love. I don't agree necessarily that the feelings can't be mutual. You just can't approach this relationship like you do some others due to the two basic stumbling blocks: #1: Obviously this can't be an exclusive relationship. You can't be jealous of anybody else he is intimate with regardless of how far that intimacy goes. No, massage is not necessarily sexual but there is often as much touching involved as a doctor's visit. If you are seeking an all-exclusive "all or nothing at all" relationship, go to a dating app or a social activity to find somebody wanting the exact same thing you want. #2: He needs to get paid in order to maintain a roof over his head, unless this is just a side hobby like kite flying. Just remember this: you are likely to spend a LOT more money on a boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife or roommate than you ever would on a masseur.

I don't remember the exact percentages published regarding homosexuality vs. bisexuality vs. heterosexuality in America, but I am pretty certain that 1940s Kinsey had a higher percentage for homosexuality vs. 1960s Masters & Johnson due to how society became more repressed (post-McCarthy) during the in-between years. When answering an anonymous questionnaire, people were less honest about both their desires and what they did physically. Also Kinsey himself was bisexual, if happily married, while the latter pair was confident in their "heteronormality" and that added a certain bias to their work. Masters did try to "cure" homosexuals with conversion therapies in the late sixties and early seventies that he claimed were effective. Early on, he probably thought it was necessary, but I saw an A&E Biography show featuring him telling Tom Brokaw that he only did this for those who wanted to be converted. Remember too that it was viewed as a mental disorder until the seventies. Bottom line: human beings are social animals who must be accepted by their pack/herd/group. Likewise so much religion and social structure was established in an earlier agricultural time when it was important to produce as many children as possible. Only since the late 1990s, with some progress made in the '70s before the AIDS epidemic destroyed so much, were gays accepted as anything vaguely "normal". On another thread, it is suggested that most gay men lose their virginity in their late teens. That may be true if most interviewed are under 35 years in age and entered puberty since the 90s when some of the stigmas started to subside. If you asked many over that age, my suspicion is that "losing virginity" meant doing so with a female. Many who wanted their "first time" with a male had to wait until they were confident family members and employers wouldn't reject them if they knew. Even today, I still don't believe nearly enough "mainstream" Americans (leading The Pack) are that accepting of the LGBT even though many more are today than a decade or more back.

Maybe a higher percentage of that 90% only think they are heterosexual? Gotta think what your peers tell you to think... you know, be "normal". When Raquel Welch asks in Myra Breckinridge "what is normal?", Farrah Fawcett answers "Well... it's what everyone does". Not necessarily what everyone desires. There is so much that is offensive about this old movie, although audiences back in 1970 were disgusted about completely different scenes than modern viewers may be disgusted over. No doubt "the majority" that Farrah discusses agreed with Rusty's homophobic comments made while Mae West instructed him in song that "you gotta taste all of the fruit"... bananas included.

I liked him and already stated so a long, long time ago. No problem with a sense of humor and talk. However I am NOT getting involved in any discussion about it here. There is just too much intensity regarding likes and dislikes in both "spa" and "deli" that I just stick to Politics, Religion and War Issues.

Not to get all political here, but it is widely rumored that the White House internet doesn't have access to those particular three sites and we are all suffering the consequences of somebody not getting a proper "release" after going without for so long.

I won't post it here, but many of you can easily find the ultimate vintage "grazing in the grass" golden oldie, listed as "Early Casey Donovan Scene from CASEY (1971)" on Pornhub. I believe it was made just a month or so before the infamous, but less grassy, feature-length Boys In The Sand.

I saw the first video before, but not the second. He is a very articulate guy, but I too was curious about his "first time". Thanks to the second, we now know he spent the sixties in therapy, so his trip to the bath house was likely in the seventies when they became quite commonplace. However there are many of us who didn't have our "first time" until much, much later as well. Here is another that covers his parents' reaction to the October 31, 1969 cover of Time magazine. So post-1970 is about right.

Yeah... that line in the original post you responded to, "Not that many gays here care", did have too strong of a sting. The wording curiously and humorously made me think that the poster is "not" and others "are" as if it is somehow bad to be "gay". Obviously that was not the intention, but the choice of words was odd. Bottom line: many, many do care. They just aren't rich and only rich people are running Washington D.C. right now. On the plus side, the one you mentioned is certainly not one who will simply say "well... there's nothing I can do about it".

Well... we don’t know the two involved personally and are speculating a lot with our suggestions.

I am so sorry, but I can't help but comment here. Talk to him about "it". Do not ignore "it". To ignore "it" is to suggest "it" didn't mean anything to you and you didn't care about "it". Just tell him how much you enjoyed "it" during your last session, but hope he doesn't feel obligated to repeat "it" if he is not in the mood and that you fully understand that "it" is not experienced by just any other client of his. You will be happy with any time you spend with him even if it doesn't involve "it". Nonetheless you still want to thank him for "it" because "it" gave you this wonderful after glow and provided you the strength to endure the next few weeks of mundane life. He made "it" very special to you.

No, Oprah, this is nothing new. It is called a "lavender marriage". Only these two aren't working in Hollywood. I also don't think everybody "knows" at an early age. You may not even know what sex is or where your desires lie depending on where you are raised and how many authority figures and "friends" are manipulating your brain.

I've casually mentioned astrology in good humor here, but sometimes the reactions are way too intense and hostile. Perhaps I am at fault with my quirky wording and easily misunderstood. Maybe it is just that some posters here are as repulsed by it as a topic as they are of religion and politics. They may also be worried about being "typecast" a certain way based on birthdays. Yet anybody who investigates the topic with some interest soon learns that it isn't all about "sun signs". You could be a Libra with five major planets in Scorpio, so what does that make you? Also a sign is only "bad" if you view it as "bad". Most average people I meet OFF a messageboard (a.k.a. in real life face to face) are quite proud of their "signs". Some of the old text books that you must take with a grain of salt (and who says we must all take astrology seriously anyway?) tend to state that the "air" signs of Libra, Gemini and Aquarius are the most talkative and sociable. Dump one of them on a deserted island and it won't take long before faces are drawn on the coconuts just so there is somebody to talk to. These signs are traditionally not any "gayer" than the others, but they are more likely going to be "out" and about because they are less private than the "earth" and "water" signs and less ego-focused (sensitive to others' opinions of them) as the "fire" signs.

I didn't like that line either. It would have made more sense if he just said "I love my wife more than I have loved any man I have met", but he makes it seem like other men who happen to love men in the same way that he does his wife are inferior. Then he brings up religion, which is always determined by how individuals interpret ancient texts according to their own standards. When somebody says they are not judgmental of others, usually they are. (Believe it or not, some religious people are or were against all forms of sex, gay and heterosexual even though they generally fail to last as a group due to no kiddies being born a.k.a. the Harmony Society of the 19th century.) These guys look like they are in their 20s and 30s. Usually when you are around 30, you are at your most disciplined. Later in life you tend to get more restless and eager to broaden your horizons. Will they remain as disciplined by their 50s and the kiddies are all out of the nest? I guess the donuts analogy can be adapted two decades from now with the logic of "well, I can occasionally have one and not become diabetic. Maybe my wife won't mind if we both exercise on our attractions by having a third partner to share..." This is only an hour special. At first I thought it was a multi-episode series. This show would have been a big hit back in, say, 1980s post-AIDS and Jerry Falwell.

Awww thanks. I do get too "windy" though and lose track of thread conversations at times.

I just noticed that he uses the pronoun "we" a few too many times. Even though he doesn't discuss other people, he is constantly thinking about what others think. It is human nature to need to be accepted into a group. Humans are like ants in this way. Also it is human nature to categorize. Like Carl Linnaeus, we want a Latin name for everything so that we can maintain a sense of control in our immediate environment. We are deathly afraid of the unknown. There is so much fuss about "what I am supposed to do". Yes, if a semi truck is headed your way, you are "supposed to" get off the road or else you will get hit. However, if you want to label yourself gay instead of bisexual, you have to consider female anatomy and affection for females somehow wrong. What about accepting the fact that 75% of the world's population is likely bisexual with an attraction towards both genders? There is a natural curiosity towards one's own body that will prompt curiosity towards other bodies with either similar and radically different body parts. It may not stay consistent your entire life as certain curiosities come and go with both age and experience. Alas... a structured society built on breeding humans to compensate losses through wars and plagues (and many of the most conservative religions that pick and choose what kinds of intimacy is "moral" got rooted in rural rather than urban societies where it was important to have as many children as possible to help tend the goat herds) has forced a huge chunk of the population to think heterosexuality is the only proper way for intimacy. Many aspects of this has also filtered into the craniums of "out" gay men as well. You know you must be part of a group. Either you are with "them" or you are with "us". You even have a national rainbow flag! I am always tickled reading threads about clients falling in "love" with escorts and masseurs because everybody chimes in with the same opinions. "Oh NO, you can't do that!" Well... it depends on how you define "love". Also it depends on whether "falling in love" means you want to move into the same dwellings as this hard working guy, discover that he may not always be as hunky and sexy during non-working hours and decide if you can handle him being "intimate" with strangers you don't know, regardless if it just involves slapping lotion on a bare body in a more intimate fashion than a family doctor. Also, speaking of doctors, you can just as easily "fall in love" with them just as you would lawyers, psychiatrists and anybody else who is giving your service work. Who says "deli" and "spa" must be any different? Some subjects are just hard to measure with a yardstick or in accordance to all of the human experts who tell you "how it is". This includes anything involving the emotions. I guess... to get to the point (if I really have one), everybody analyzes and over analyzes. That is a good thing except that too much of the analysis is influenced by other peoples' opinions rather than objective reasoning. At least this author is aware of himself and is questioning "why" he has these feelings. He also questions "why" his relationships with men are not measuring up with this one woman. Perhaps his approach with men is different than his approach with women, whom he has told himself he is less attracted sexually to? Perhaps what he is trying to learn for himself is how to get beyond just physical attraction and find an emotional connection? That is clearly what he had with her.

As she appeared in a classic Vitaphone/Warner Bros. short back in 1929

He should do a similar shot wearing an uncovering bathrobe in the doorway as if to say "you are going to receive a therapeutic massage that will erase all of your worries."

Ha ha! This video is tailor made for you. Watch with caution...

I generally like... or don't like... performers and then change my mind after I learn more about them off-camera and off-stage. I found Henry Fonda boring in so many of his otherwise great Hollywood movies, but appreciated him after I learned more about his life. Then again, he wasn't kind to Charles Laughton on stage (The Caine Mutiny Court Marshall) but this brings up another issue: we have to judge all people as faulty and products of their very faulty times. I will always like Jack Benny because he treated Eddie "Rochester" Anderson equally among his cast regardless of any stock jokes on the air about dice gambling or spooks.