longtime lurker

Yes, I understood. It just gave me an excuse to talk about obscure movies on this thread.

I agree with virtually everything you stated, but the wording here can be given added context. I saw a documentary once made in the UK (can't remember the title) when one guy stated that he never cared about the gay marriage issue. He was fine with multiple partners. Yet he understood that it was important to have equal rights and, thus, have an option not granted before in his life time. However monogamy is not a cut and dry thing. Yes, some of it is institutionalized: regardless of how nebulous many biblical passages are (a.k.a. men mentioned with multiple wives and multiple women for "recreation"), conservative religious heterosexuals make full time commitment to partnerships that don't allow others intimately other than the two involved, often "for the sake of the children" (which we all know is silly), into a big deal. However there are many people both gay and "straight" that want the comfort of a longtime partner. Call it a need for stability? Maybe a romantic notion of having a significant other who will complete one's self? Also the older you get, the lonelier you get. When not successful seeking that one night stand, you do want somebody to fall back on. Also sex is best when your partner knows you better on an intellectual and emotional level. There are many, many of both "orientations" who are less interested in "getting to know you" than just a "blow and go", an instant "release". That is fine. To each their own. Yet not everybody wants to maintain their independence and keep a wall up forever. A lot of homophobia, internalized or whatever, still stems from your outside environment's tolerance for anybody different than other members of your "pack". Many (but not all) of the most outspoken leaders of Gay Liberation in the 1970s were blessed by friends, if not families, who supported them being whatever they wanted to be. Many of the communities that begat these movements were in city centers like San Francisco and Greenwich Village, NYC. (Another great vintage documentary from 1970 involved an interview with two transgenders saying that, at least in the ghetto where they lived in San Francisco, they didn't have to worry about being shot. You can watch it here: https://archive.org/details/casftm_000001) Having confidence because those around you have confidence in you being yourself makes a HUGE difference. Sadly I grew up with a family with intense hatred towards all gays and lesbians. My mother was the worst, but she is deceased and, while it is not good to dwell on those who no longer have control over you, the damage is already done and there are scars that will never heal. I recently saw another movie... yeah, I am going to reference some OLD stuff here. It was a romantic gay drama called A VERY NATURAL THING, directed by Christopher Larkin and you can find a grainy copy on YouTube (possibly with adult verification since there are some brief nude scenes). What I found interesting about it is that the year it was filmed, 1973, was post-Stonewall with marches getting bigger in the streets and new confidence that never existed before, but also no AIDS epidemic yet either and Anita Bryant hadn't gotten started (not that many found her especially scary to begin with, provided there were enough pies to throw) and the main character teaches high school students in NYC. Director Larkin's goal was to create a gay version of LOVE STORY with men questioning: Do I want a long term partner or is this something that has been forced on me by "traditional hetero-normal society"? The character of David was initially a monk, being Catholic and questioning his sexuality, then accepts who he is and no longer thinks God is "mad at me". He starts exploring what he enjoys physically. He has a good friend whom he isn't sexual with, but has great talks with in figuring out who he is. Then he finds a guy he hopes is Mister Right, but this guy clearly doesn't want "marriage". (There is a key scene of the two attending a heterosexual wedding in a church.) They try to stay together by being more "open" and attend a group orgy on Fire Island, but neither is comfortable with the situation. Many reading here would have no issues there, but you have to understand that this character was, after all, a celibate monk once and is still green behind the ears with the whole "comfort with strangers" routine. He is also awkward in his first trip to a bath house after his emotional break up. Later he becomes so cynical that a new guy he meets who wants the same thing he originally did (a long-term commitment) has to convince him to stop trying to find "the perfect" monogamous relationship and just accept things as they come. In short, David got too caught up in his mind over analyzing what he wanted. I don't know. I guess there is no point to this elephantine post. Except we all want different things and I only HALF agree that monogamy is a reflection of homophobia. With that said, there is a pride parade shown in that movie where one guy says he is now happy he can have any partners he wants along with "as many as I want" without being judged.

I was even older than you, @Gar1eth. (Not by too much though.) Amusingly my first time mutually touching another guy naked, but not necessarily "going all the way", involved somebody found on Masseurfinder. When I visited his place, he answered the door in his robe: "Just so I have this straight. Am I really going to be the first guy you have ever touched?" After my "yes", he rolled his eyes and grinned "lucky me". I'm not normal though. A combination of childhood abuse (non-sexual though) resulting in me even avoiding doctors touching me, very angry homophobic family members and co-workers, too many years lost caring for a parent with a stroke and being a teen at the height of the AIDS epidemic (and all of the anti-gay sentiment nationwide) all had their impact, although probably the real reason was low esteem that required many years to get over and still hasn't completely. Normal people "lose it" in their teens and twenties. Yet I finally made up for lost time after I realized it wasn't that big of a deal. Even learned quickly that I was, um, versatile.

A lot of shows performed in front of a live audience tended to look rather rehearsed. This may explain why so many recent shows have stopped in order to get better performances and remove the "stagey" feel. There had always been comedy shows shot like movies with just a camera crew before, yet the trend of virtually all being done this way really took after Friends and Seinfeld, which probably marked a climax in staged live performances. Practically all sitcoms are done differently today, although the performances can still be "stagey" at times. Also working against it to a degree was the fact that the actresses were all veterans with so much stage and TV experience. This was wonderful in many ways since they were all in peak performance. Yet they may have been TOO professional to come across as genuine "average" ladies you would actually meet living together in Miami. I have to agree with the "ewww" thing, because women going to sperm banks is really no big deal, but the 1980s really was a very repressed decade compared to today. You have to count the forward-moving blessings with this show. It was, after all, among the first to feature a same sex marriage (Blanche's brother Clayton). Then there was the speech from Blanche to Rose, who thought she might have HIV from a blood transfusion, that AIDS "is a not a bad person disease"; this episode being among the first to also show heterosexuals subject to it as equally as gays. It was a very liberal show, even more so than All In The Family a decade and a half before it.

This line is so awful in taste and sensitivity (typical 80s), but it is so rapid fire that you can't help but laugh. "All right... girls, I want to present Blanche Devereaux's latest creation!! I took an 84 year old woman and made her look like a 65 year old drag queen. Then I said to myself, 'Blanche, too much rouge'..."

It always amazed me how this show managed so many jokes in a mere five minutes of time, something that hadn't been achieved since the Jack Benny Program went off the air... on the radio!

I finally got around to seeing Wakefield Poole's Boys In The Sand (1971), although we are getting into porn territory here. Of course, this is artsy porn with pretty cinematography and multiple exposures. Likely to put some viewers here to sleep when the sex isn't going on. Poole's subsequent Bijou, from the following year, is even more avant garde. That one you can't just see on Pornhub. You have to get it on DVD. My favorite movie of the early seventies sex explosion is Radley Metzger's Score. It is a masterpiece in hilarious dialogue, garish Eastmancolor and swinging Nixon Era kitsch... and a really great movie to be savored multiple times for the little things you overlook the first time. Two couples in scenic Yugoslavia have affairs with each other, but not the opposite genders: wife seduces wife and husband seduces husband. It is available in R rated and X rated versions, the latter is the one I have watched. The scenes with Casey Donovan (also in Boys In The Sand) and Gerald Grant together are almost as explicit as anything you see on GayTube today, but done very tastefully and artistically with fascinating camera angles. Most enjoyable are the ladies scenes, merely due to the dialogue. Sweet innocent Betsy (Lynn Lowry) is a bit embarrassed watching Elvira (Claire Wilbur) get it on with the telephone repair man and leaves early. Later on the telephone, Elvia insists to Betsy "Do you think we do that kind of thing all the time?" Betsy must be thinking she is talking about sex with strangers in general, but Elvira is fondling a pair of plastic breasts on her kitchen counter as she talks. Elvira obviously means heterosexual sex with strangers. This begins her seduction of Betsy, the wholesome Catholic girl. Of course, a nun's outfit is later worn! Well... if this sounds like your kind of movie, here's a fairly tame teaser:

Gee, I guess The Gay Life is more shallow that I ever realized, worse than The Catty Teenage Girl Life. All about looks? They discuss an "average" category that many "fall into and simply means that the person is average in most areas, including body weight, height, and hairiness", but don't offer it as part of the voting process. The only category that is "semi-hairy" is Wolf and I am definitely not that. More like an over-the-hill Twink, only I am disqualified for not being plucked hairless. There is no question which type I am most attracted to, even though I judge people by their personalities rather than body type and that determines the level of intimacy for me (a.k.a. I am OK with over-weight Chubs and others if they are polite). Yet there is something about a "thin OR athletic" Otter present with hairy chest exposed, since it is the species that first "de-flowered" me...

Ahhhh... the great Arthurian island of low hanging fruit. Sometimes the fruit there is low hanging and sometimes not. I think you should explain all the joys of fun-in-the-sun-with-no-tanlines. At least nobody has pockets to hide your keys in when they wish to steal your car. How was it that Al Jolson sang it? Every morn' my memories stray Across the sea where flying fishes play. And as the night is falling I find that I'm recalling That blissful all-enthralling day.

This reminds me of an old sitcom joke used often in the 1970s. The husband asks the wife "what's the first thing we are going to do on our vacation?" She responds "Lose our travelers checks." Put your keys in a bag with all of your necessities: water bottle, bar of soap, suntan lotion and any other "protection" in case you get lucky doing more than applying lotion to others. Then hope for the best. Or invest in one of those vehicles you just key numbers in to unlock. At the "clothing optional" beaches, nobody walks around with their keys although some sport fancy rings in strategic places.

Adds new texture to that Best Picture winner, American Beauty. The neo-Nazi military daddy of all daddies was both revolted by and desired "neighbor" Kevin at the same time, then shot him!

OK. Me bad. Yet there were years building up to The Great Revelation. Guess we can argue the same for Kevin too, now that more stories are coming out.

Since he's allegedly guilty of doing this more than once, it isn't over. However... I feel his corpse is being driven over so many times that he's flatter than any roadkill. Not that I am making any excuses, mind you, but he did apologize. All gays are required to apologize, after all. If you are straight and doing far worse, either Miramax or Murdoch will pay off your legal fees in hush money or you can become president of the United States. 1986 was a year full of closets. Back then, Jerry Falwell was overjoyed that AIDS was taking its toll on "them" and nothing was done about it in Washington. After Rock Hudson's death, Liz Taylor played to a city of crickets. Of course, Top Gun had to have the mandatory heterosexual bedroom scene involving Kelly McGillis to prove Tom Cruise wasn't... you know.

It can be out in the open on this side of the Atlantic as well, but it depends on the time of day. It must be after the Prude Police Patrol is gone, none of whom wear uniforms but report to those who do as "concerned citizens" with nothing else to be concerned about.

I just pretend to be shy. It helps to score. Also I use the line "this is my first time in a place like this and I don't know what kind of premature accidents may happen". This gets strangers all the more curious.

Why not? They are all doing it with women against their will. Trump and half of the power men on Fox News. (Yes... and also Weinstein.) The only people you are having fun with are those who want to have fun with you.

I don't know why exactly... unless they don't want to draw too much unwanted attention to the place. I think both of you, @nynakedtop and @jjkrkwood, probably favor the nudie beaches and all-male nudie campgrounds (and Florida has at least three of them) over both bath houses and "clubs". Granted, the extracurricular activities tend to be more discrete at the beaches. If for nothing else, there is a great deal of fashion on display... in C-rings, that is. I never realized how many guys wore them until I visited a "clothing optional" sea shore, not to mention how many different kinds. Often they get so glittery in the sunlight, that guys walking many yards away are giving you unintentional Morse code.

Ahhhh... but part of the fun involves what is hidden underneath all of the holiday wrapping. Ha ha!

I recently found out that you are correct about the smaller "clubs", often defined as "gentlemen clubs". In Orlando (Florida), for example, you have the big bath house, nicknamed Club "O", that has you in a towel or nothing at all (but your locker/room key bracelet). That place consists of lockers, rooms, huge fitness center, lounge (clothes worn there), small cafeteria room, spa, steam room, gang shower, giant pool, outdoor hot-tub, "man cave" (in which the crowd watching in their towels is greater than the actual number doing anything there), theater with plenty of seating (but no Shakespeare), dark room and a restroom facility with all the mouthwash you need for any unexpected after tastes. Then you have the Clubs 1000 and 3018 in Altamonte Springs and Kissimmee respectively, much cheaper than the bathhouse with only $5 one-month membership fee plus $6-15 day visits depending on the day and discount. In other words, practically McDonald's prices. Only visited the former, which mostly consists of a clean restroom, a very nice lounge with refreshments and wi-fi (must wear clothes there), lockers and clean dimly lit play areas, both open and private rooms with locks at no extra charge. The guy in the office shows you around and is very friendly, while you are pretty much on your own figuring out the other place. The protocol is that you wear whatever you feel comfortable with and disrobe once you find a buddy. Even though they have back door entrances (designed for the secretive and the shy), they expect you to come casually dressed but not sleezy (tank tops not allowed). In a curious way, these may be better experiences for some reading here than the bath house due to a smaller crowd that isn't there to waste time "window shopping" for several hours. Also everybody tends to be friendlier and less aloof in the more intimate, less Grand Central Station-like, surroundings.

Much of the fuss concerns how your bits compare to everybody else's bits. Some of us are showers and some of us are growers. Yet those who may be tiny can still be mighty. Think of it like comparing whale sharks and macko sharks.

You see plenty of young guys in both bath houses and beaches, but I do agree that there is lot more focus on "apps" and phones when you are younger than older and, yes, a lot of time is wasted. Again, I tend to view the bath house experience much like a nudist beach experience, with all of the bodies on display and everybody is pretty much equal. The key difference with the latter is that everybody is on their best behavior. There are parts of a beach where mostly men hang out and some activity goes on, usually in dune areas or in tents/large umbrellas. Yet there is always plenty of caution, just like a restroom or public park. Nobody wants to get into trouble for public indecency. The bath house and the "club" are safe areas where you won't be judged for doing anything... or nothing. If you spend the extra amount on a room instead of a locker, you and your buddy won't have a potential audience even though whatever you do has probably been seen there before. Many, many times before. Probably the most common thing guys do is fondle themselves rather than each other. One advantage over the online stuff is that you have to talk to people regardless or at least make facial expressions. I have to laugh when I entered the sauna at a bath house and one guy was getting "orally" serviced. He was so nice. "Care to join me? This guy is very talented at what he does." I didn't because I was too gosh-darn-shy, but I started talking with him anyway. Everything seemed so... well... natural. Obviously something you won't see happening at the grocery in front of the produce, but still...

I only went to a bath house one time last year, but it was a very nice experience and I will certainly go back if the prices are low enough. Often there are discount days. Everybody I talked to was willing to talk back. Of course, best times for socialization are when food is served on special days, Sundays often, and parties like the "drop the towels" red light ones held one Friday per month at some places. No, I did not go the "back end" route with anybody in my one visit, but there was plenty of free "protection" if I did. Nobody will do anything with you that you do not want to do; everybody was respectful of boundaries with me at least. Generally there is no booze or drugs allowed to make people disrespectful. Like the nude beach, the bath house is a great place to get over your inhibitions regarding your body image, due to the wide variety of types. There will always be somebody there who shares the same "statistics" you have: muscular, over-weight, scrawny, tattooed, handicapped, over 80, just reached acceptable 18, etc. Chances are, the more attracted you are to somebody, the less attracted they will be with you since they likely spend as much time in the mirror checking themselves out as they do looking at others. I know... I am being stereotypical here. Don't take me literally. There are plenty of friendly Adonis types who will be willing to bro-bond with you, as long you make the polite attempt and approach them. Don't rule anybody out. If somebody isn't attractive to you, but finds you attractive, always be polite and at least talk to them or accept some mutual touching. You don't have to do much to indicate how far things go. Remember that only the blessed few will be able to maintain their sexy looks forever. Bottom line: both the bath house and the gay "club" are far easier hook up places than Craigslist or any other online site. Also everybody showers at the bath house and they provide plenty of mouth wash and, of course, "protection".

Much can be said of the hot tropics and Pre-Code Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer combined... Ramon Novarro and Dorothy Janis in THE PAGAN. Jump past the 9:20 mark when she studies the muscle in his arm and gets all giggly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZKXpoiTHjc Clark Gable and Jean Harlow in RED DUST... rub a dub dub. Mary Astor maintains her composure. Of course, Maureen O'Sullivan and Johnny Weissmuller in TARZAN AND HIS MATE. Odd music choice dubbed in over the nudie swim.

... or jump to the 50:00 mark. This must be the one Harry did after Clash of the Titans.

I should have been more straight-to-the-point earlier. I agree that the AI business is very bogus because you have to utilize certain stereotypes in order for it to work. It is like saying blacks are supposed to have bigger lips so they can eat watermelon better. In the 1940s, the Kinsey reports claimed that the majority tends to be "in between" homosexual and heterosexual somewhere on a grid. Later in the post-McCarthy '50s, Masters & Johnson had statistics claiming the number of homosexuals and bisexuals in America was far fewer than the Kinsey studies a decade earlier. Some think it is because Alfred Kinsey himself was bisexual and probably wanted the majority to be like him, but I think it is due to that post-WW2 period when study of sex was brand new and the researchers were great with subjects' privacy contrasting to a far less tolerant and more repressive period when the subjects were less trusting and less honest (i.e. better to be heterosexual in all your reporting). What this study here might confirm is whether or not a person would be more open about being gay with others and accepting certain cultural aspects in appearance to fit in with a still segregated against group.