longtime lurker

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!
 

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!
 

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...

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...

You can always stuff your valuables down your bathing suit, and make people think its the "family jewels" ?

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.

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.

Creative Marriages: Jean Cocteau and Jean Marais (before the Disney versions, there was Cocteau's "La belle et la bête" a wonderful black and white film without CGI, using only film editing 'tricks' to create a fully magical fairy tale back in 1946, still listed today on Rotten Tomatoes at 95% FRESH!)

 
This remains one of my all time favorite films, along with Cocteau's otherworldly "Orphée" (1950)
 
TruHart1

Harvey Weinstein apologized the day his story broke: “I cannot be more remorseful about the people I hurt.”

Women In Love is a very earthy movie. Aside from the lengthy nude wrestling scene, we also have Alan Bates "making love" to all of the foliage...
 
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HCdr8iUPXY0/VGYX7dfzqwI/AAAAAAACgVY/IlzE95zBxnw/s1600/alan%2Bbates%2Bnaked%2B3.gif
 
Kinda predating the nude dude in James Broughton's Dreamwood doing the same. Now... James Broughton made some groovy "experimental" cinema. A must own DVD is Kino's Big Joy, a nifty biography on him. Lots of extras and outtakes along with the documentary. Watched that one more than once, so it is worth purchasing rather than renting.
 
What I like about the first wave of gay storylines that hit Hollywood in the late sixties (before all of the "normal stuff" like Sunday Bloody Sunday and Casey Donovan in Boys In The Sand) is how all over the place it is. Like The Killing of Sister George... and The Fox, The Sergeant and Reflections in a Golden Eye. Those movies were pretty depressing though. More amusing, in a very bad but campy way, is The Staircase with Rex Harrison and Richard Burton. Those two were fighting over Liz Taylor in Cleopatra some six years earlier, but here they were just simply... fighting. The scene of Harrison mocking Burton as he rises naked from the bathtub clearly shows they were playing gay-for-pay in the worse sense.

... and Strangers On the Train, also with Farley Granger. Robert Walker's Bruno to Farley's "Guy" (what a guy!): "I like you..." In addition, Judith Anderson's Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca. Yet these were not exactly "stellar" gay characters to be proud of.
 
Another curio though... Hitchcock did have the comic team "Charters & Caldicott" sharing a bed in The Lady Vanishes. Then again, that film was British (a bit more gay friendly) while the others were made later in prudish Hollywood.
 

Thank you. Speaking only for myself, I'm a professional. I was paid for my time, and I consulted on issues like hair, fashion, and sexual finishing.
 
And frankly, I wish Spacey had hired me. He's always had bad hair, and he's never been good at denial.
 

 
Maybe a little bit of Steven's Sensitivity Training could have helped him avoid this mess.

I thought men on here were paying for time spent together.

'The Advocate' knew about Kevin Spacey's encounter with teen, but didn't speak. Here's why
USA Today NetworkBruce Steele, The Citizen-Times Opinion Published 5:00 a.m. ET Oct. 31, 2017
My magazine had a 'no outing' policy and we stood by it...
 
This is not how we wanted Kevin Spacey to come out as openly gay. When I was an editor at Out magazine and The Advocate in the 1990s and early 2000s, the magazines asked Spacey's publicists for interviews many, many times, typically getting no response at all.
 
Behind the scenes, I had long known Spacey was gay, or at least bisexual, in part because my friend Anthony Rapp had told me his story of a sexual pass Spacey made at him in 1986, when Rapp was 14 and Spacey was about 26. Rapp told me that in the mid 1990s, and we even printed his account of the encounter in The Advocate in 2001, with Spacey's name redacted, as BuzzFeed journalist Adam Vary reported in his thorough and eloquent report published Sunday night.
 
(Responding within minutes to the BuzzFeed publication, Spacey said he was "beyond horrified to hear (Rapp's) story." He did not deny it happened but said, "I honestly do not remember the encounter," nevertheless offering "the sincerest apology.")[/url]
Unlike Esquire (in 1997), the gay and lesbian magazines for which I worked never outed Spacey. At Out magazine, we repeatedly told everyone that the name of the magazine was an adjective, not a verb. We did not out people, preferring to give them the time and space to make that decision themselves, a healthier route to honesty on both sides. We were happy to pave the way, and often did, starting with Rupert Everett's coming out interview on the cover of Out's second issue in 1992.
 
At The Advocate, I had the honor to do coming out interviews with many people, famous and not so famous, including an NFL football player (Esera Tuaolo), an "American Idol" finalist (Jim Verraros) and actors such as Robert Gant. My predecessor as The Advocate's editor in chief, Judy Wieder, interviewed many more, including George Michael and Rosie O'Donnell.
 
But as Wieder describes in her new memoir, "Random Events Tend to Cluster" (Lisa Hagan Books), The Advocate had developed a "no outing" policy before I joined the staff, and we stuck to it. We cajoled, befriended and pressured, but we did not report on anyone's sexuality without their cooperation. Just as each of us had reached the decision to come out in our own time, celebrities needed the same opportunity, even if it took them years and years.
 
The result of a healthful, self-motivated decision to come out is often a stronger, more powerful person on the other side. In Wieder's memoir, she recounts our conversation about putting Nathan Lane on the cover in 1999. "I think he's waited too long" to deserve the cover, Wieder argues, but she changes her mind when I tell her what changed his mind: the murder of Matthew Shepard. Lane got the cover and gave an emotionally charged interview.
 
Obviously the situation is not the same with Kevin Spacey. Despite the Esquire story, Spacey has kept his private life extremely private throughout his career. Despite the Hollywood truism that "everybody knows" who's gay within entertainment and media circles, Spacey didn't flaunt his "secret" — unless you consider taking your mom to the Academy Awards a kind of declaration.
 
Of course, many close friends knew of Rapp's encounter with the actor in the 1980s, including some of us in the media. But what could be done with that story? There were only two people in the room, they had never met again and no parade of additional accusers was forthcoming — so, right or wrong, we told ourselves we could not report it.
 
In keeping with The Advocate's "no outing" policy, when Rapp related the entire incident to writer Dennis Hensley in 2001, we removed Spacey's name and identifying details. Rapp understood the decision, and he didn't share the story again via the news media until now.
 
Why now? That's an easy one. The Harvey Weinstein scandal and the resulting opening up of the media to legitimate accusations of unwanted sexual advances changed the rules, and Rapp felt compelled to share his story again, this time with names and dates.
 
His decision was not "to simply air a grievance," he told BuzzFeed, "but to try to shine another light on the decades of behavior that have been allowed to continue because many people, including myself, being silent. … I'm feeling really awake to the moment that we're living in, and I'm hopeful that this can make a difference."
 
It's a hope shared by many. The media's willingness now to report on behavior it long made excuses to avoid (and I don't exclude myself from that) is one thing. The real victory will be when the behavior itself is stopped, even behind the closed doors of hotel rooms and New York bedrooms like Spacey's.
 
In a statement clearly prepared in advance — he knew the story was coming — Spacey said the account "encouraged me to address other things about my life," alluding to "other stories out there about me." He asserted simply, "I now choose to live as a gay man."
 
As he asserted in his Twitter statement, Spacey may well not recall the encounter Rapp describes. It was more than 30 years ago, and Rapp says Spacey was drunk at the time. Whether what happened to Rapp was a singular mistake or a pattern of behavior may come to light in time, along with those "other stories" to which Spacey alluded.
 
The result all these revelations, and the decades of back story about what is told and what is withheld, both in Spacey's case and in Weinstein's and in so many others, should be a moral reckoning for the media. It reaches well beyond sexual misconduct. When immoral behavior of any kind is known to reporters and editors, what is our responsibility to "out" that behavior?
 
Clearly we have long erred, in certain cases, on the side of withholding until the evidence is irrefutable. That's not a sustainable standard.
 
What Rapp's revelation and Spacey's response prove is that even one person, with the story of one night, can make a difference. I will long ponder what we didn't do in 2001, I hope with concrete results about what we can do in 2017.
 
-- Bruce Steele is the planning editor at the Asheville Citizen-Times, where this piece first appeared.

Oh please, don't tell me you guys can't get a little woody over this chestnut! (In this movie, she had Paul Lynde for a father. At least he accomplished something in regards to "kids".)
 

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.

Often there is shrinkage on the beach or in public places, so the cockring just insures your package is "front and center".... My days of "public sex are long over... Too old for that shit, and in Trumps America wouldnt want to be caught for public lewdness or indecent exposure. That's why I love the sex clubs. As long as the proprietor "pays off" the law, the place will be safe and protected. Although a club I once attended in NYC got raided, and we were made to leave NAKED into the street in the winter time. That wasnt FUN....

i like 'em all, but i have a special place in my heart where "activities' take place unencumbered and unembarrassed!

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.

Only the guys with saggy manboobs wear those.
 
THIS is a much cuter option
 

So 1000% true, but for me, that wrapping is a jock , briefs or thong, not jeans and a hoodie.... (YES they do walk around in that)

Those pics gave me a woody.

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.