stevenkesslar

Which is, in and of itself, a wonderful testament to the film's ambiguity, even among its creators. When I said above I don't want to read the book, it may have sounded like a slam on Aciman. It was not meant that way at all. He came up with a beautiful creation, and left it open to interpretation. I guess I agree with Ivory's interpretation. If Ivory sees it as a story about first love, which the quote I gave of him above suggests, you can't really do Elio's First Love, Part Two. Beyond that, some of Ivory's bitchiness about full frontal nudity suggests he might have preferred a more explicit expression of Gay first love. And beyond that, I was wondering how - in the real world - Ivory and Guadagnino would work together after Ivory's comments. These things tend to blow over when money is involved, of course. But perhaps Ivory just isn't interested in taking the story further. It can be taken as a story about how first love feels - while you are feeling it. That's sort of where I'm at, by saying I don't want to read the book. And Guadagnino reinforced that by grounding the movie in a very personal, visceral, "in the moment" perspective. In one of the interviews Aciman was asked (I think by a Gay interviewer) whether a Straight man can authentically write a Gay character. That's a great example of a context in which the word "authentic" is just like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Aciman answered the way I would - that of course you don't have to be a person to try to get in their head and heart. There is always empathy and imagination. His book proves it. Having said that, this may be an area where sexual orientation does make a difference. I said above that during the year of my life between marriage to a woman and coming out as Gay, I would say to Gay men that I'm "bisexual," and they would say, "No, you're confused." As I was writing that, I was thinking how that dates me. Arguably, in the world of Timothee Chalamet, sexual orientation will be a much more fluid thing. But if CMBYN generates a series of artsy movies on the theme of Elio's Adventures In Bisexuality, I'll probably lose interest. Maybe it's just that I grew up around people like Lady Kockwood, and I'm a stubborn old bitch. But I like having my Gay culture, thank you. So for me, whatever Aciman himself intended, it was a beautiful coming out movie. Elio's story will always be about a young Gay god that belongs in the pantheon of Gay classics.

No shit? Well that really sucks. I was gonna hire Elio for Kenny on his birthday. He really wants to try out that reverse cowboy.

Just to be clear about my comment, it has nothing to do with the author of the book. If what I posted made it sound like I believe Aciman thought Elio was ruined, then I apologize for not being clear. I was referring to the article posted by TruHart a few posts up, written by a guy named Dan Callahan. I quoted the last two paragraphs of that article verbatim. I mostly liked the article, and I assume Callahan may have been taking minor journalistic license with the word "ruined." But he used the word "ruined" twice, as in: "They won’t ever forget what they felt for each other, and maybe you could say that their lives will be ruined because of that." I think the meaning in that context is pretty clear. I certainly don't think it was the Director's intention to say Elio was ruined. And my understanding is Elio's Dad's "speech" toward the end is lifted pretty much verbatim from the book. So I don't think either the director or author mean "ruined." I think the father's words speak for both of them - that the nature of love and becoming is both joy and pain. I thought that was what made the movie beautiful. The end shot clearly had to be intended to say that all this - the joy, the pain, the intensity, the longing - is what it means to be a real human. It's what it means to love. Maybe you could say that means you feel "wrecked," but not ruined. That theme in the movie reminded me of the 1993 movie Shadowlands. There was a scene in that I always liked and remember, a Zenlike sort of scene. Check out the line at 1:30 in this clip. Debra Winger's character is dying, and Anthony Hopkins talks about how he's trying to "manage" the idea of losing her. Winger's retort. "I think it can be better than that. What I'm trying to say is that ... the pain then is part of the happiness now. That's the deal." When I first saw Shadowlands, that was a revelation to me. I think there's some of that in the father's "speech" to Elio, and in the fireplace scene. As I said above, my guess is that the creators of this masterpiece wanted to leave enough ambiguity to let each of us put our own imprint on it. For me, the notion that this is as good as it will ever get for Elio is ridiculous. My view is it's the opening act. If they are going to do sequels, I assume that is the Director's intention as well. Maybe we'll get the cum shot in the sequel. It would sure make Kenny happy. One can always hope.

Paul is only half right about the churches being able to do the job of providing for a sick 30 year old guy without health insurance. If the example Wolf Blitzer gave was taking care of a 16 year old boy who wrestles and got addicted to opioids, I'm pretty sure most priests would be up for that. http://www.barrycrimmins.com/images/news/crimmins-9159-3.jpg But a 30 year old? I'm not so sure. We may have to let him die. Of course, I'm only talking about Mexican priests. That kinda shit never happens here in the US.

So these are the last two paragraphs from the article hyperlinked by TruHart: "Aciman is married to a woman, and he doesn’t believe in labeling sexuality. Guadagnino is gay. Elio and Oliver both seem bisexual, but Elio is likely going to move more toward women as he gets older, while Oliver is probably going to move toward men when he feels like he can. They won’t ever forget what they felt for each other, and maybe you could say that their lives will be ruined because of that. But maybe what Call Me by Your Name (both novel and film) is saying is that you are lucky if you can have your life ruined by a love affair, if you can feel something with that much intensity. Something of that intensity wasn’t meant to last. But that close-up of Hammer’s face where Oliver tries to smile expresses the grief over that realization as profoundly as any human facial expression I’ve ever seen." One of the things I liked about the movie, which was very much reflected in my binge reading of 26 pages of reactions, is that beauty and art are in the eye of the beholder. Different people took very different meanings or nuances out of the film. The author of this article suggests, for example, that Elio's Mom "not only knows what is happening but ... understands that Oliver is more in love with her son than Elio is with him." Try to prove that theory based on the actual script. That's part of what I loved about it, and why I was delighted that Ivory won an Oscar. It was a subtle film. And it seemed more designed to start a conversation and exploration than to end it. Having said that, the notion that "you are lucky if you can have your life ruined by a love affair" when you are 17 is a bridge too far for me. I've talked to a couple people who read the book after seeing the movie, and I learned enough about the structure of the book that I decided I don't really want to read it. I'd rather view this movie the way the director seemed to intend it: a story about being able to be vulnerable, very much in the moment, and let yourself go. The idea of Elio looking back on and revisiting his affair decades later doesn't much appeal to me. Lord knows it took me a very long time to figure that out as a Gay man. If Elio could pull it off for the first time as a 17 year old, good for him. I'd like to imagine the experience in the movie opened him, just like Elio's father described in that great scene, and better things and deeper love are still to come. But the idea that the experience ruined him, or this is a once in a lifetime magical love affair? Forget that! Both times I saw the movie it struck me that Elio's Mom and Dad probably had the kind of love that Elio and Oliver could have had - if they decided to hunker down and spend a lifetime building it. That's a different thing than a Summer dive into the pool, no matter how deep the water is. Regarding the issue of Gay sex, what I also find interesting and a bit ironic is that the real world actions and statements and even conflicts of the chief designers of this movie echo some of the conflicts written into the movie they created: which is to say, the conflict between an idealized relationship that lasts for a Summer and starts off maturity, and a mature relationship that lasts a lifetime. For example, here's Ivory present day bitching and moaning: The screenwriter has expressed disappointment in the past over the film’s lack of full frontal male nudity, but he flat out criticizes director Luca Guadagnino for the choice in a new interview with The Guardian. “When Luca says he never thought of putting nudity in, that is totally untrue,” Ivory said. “He sat in this very room where I am sitting now, talking about how he would do it, so when he says that it was a conscious aesthetic decision not to – well, that’s just bullshit.” http://www.indiewire.com/2018/03/james-ivory-luca-guadagnino-full-frontal-call-me-by-your-name-chalemet-hammer-penis-1201944399/ But then here's a very different Ivory describing why he kept his own lifelong love relationship with Merchant under wraps: "Ivory himself is gay. His relationship with his producing partner Ismail Merchant, which began when they met in the early 60s, lasted until Merchant died during surgery in 2005 at the age of 68. Though the pair had been making films for more than four decades – often with their friend and favourite screenwriter, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, who died in 2013 – any references to their personal life together were only ever made discreetly and euphemistically by the press, if at all. Even with the release in 1987 of Maurice, they batted away any prying questions about their private lives. When I ask Ivory why this was, he comes as close to calling me a blasted fool as someone so urbane can. “Well, you just wouldn’t,” he splutters. “That is not something that an Indian Muslim would ever say publicly or in print. Ever! You have to remember that Ismail was an Indian citizen living in Bombay, with a deeply conservative Muslim family there. It’s not the sort of thing he was going to broadcast. Since we were so close and lived most of our lives together, I wasn’t about to undermine him.” https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/mar/27/james-ivory-ismail-merchant-love-secret-call-me-by-your-name-nudity The latter version of Ivory sounds exactly like how a mature couple who are sensitive and in it for keeps, and operating in a homophobic industry, might feel. I don't begrudge Ivory any of his choices. I deeply admire his choices. So it's all well and good now to say they should have actually had that reverse cowboy fuck scene Kenny and I longed for. But I can understand why a Gay Director who wants his movie to work at the box office with a mass audience, and wants to get more directing jobs, might be a little concerned about going there. There's a difference between intensity and maturity. The movie definitely captured the first between Oliver and Elio. It only hinted at the latter. The other word I like that Hammer used in one of the interviews in this 26 pages was "duality." The fact that a two hour movie about "Gay love" also was able to incorporate "Straight love" on the part of both "Gay" characters was also interesting. It was also a bit unrealistic, perhaps. I spent about one year of my life calling myself "bisexual," and most Gay men's reaction when I said that was, "No, you're just confused." Eventually, most people - like the Director, the screen writer, and the author of the book - settle down, and have to be one or the other. I'm rambling, but what I loved about the movie was that it felt like it was about "becoming" and possibility. It certainly did not feel like it was about Elio being ruined.

Well thanks guys! I'm late to this party. I first saw CMBYN about a month ago, and have now seen it twice. I just took the time to binge read 26 pages of comments on this thread, and watched a number of the attached videos. You've proven there is a wisdom of crowds. I've thought about the movie a lot, and had a number of long discussions about it. It was really fun to read everybody's comments and takes. The first time I saw it was with Dane Scott, who is of course quite out, as well as emotional and intuitive. The second time was with a client who is married and deeply closeted and has very limited opportunities to let out his inner Gay. I think it is a testament to the movie's brilliance that all three of us are very different people and we were all simply emotionally floored. It's a movie that keeps giving - whether you are out and completely comfortable in your sexuality, or closeted. It evokes something deep and longing, judging from the reactions of the people I've seen it with and talked to after I saw it. I'd almost say it's like the mythology the movie itself portrays - about something fleeting and beautiful and maybe not quite real, but that we still all long for - whether it's the joy and pain of first love, or that scene with the "too good to be true" father. I don't really think it matters if it's too good to be true, any more than it matters whether the statue of David is too good to be true. I had no problem suspending disbelief and getting into the feel of the movie, even though I agree with many of you that Chalamet's acting was brilliant and Hammer's was merely good. I think the film just resonates deeply in terms of what people want to feel, and how we wish or idealize life and love could be. I cut and pasted a few comments that stood out to me over the course of the 26 pages I just binge read. God is that true! My sister-in-law got the movie even though she didn't see it, based on my description. The phrase she used is it's a movie about "becoming who you are." How nice to have a sweet movie where nothing much really happens, other than a sweet and beautiful young Gay man becomes who he is! From the Guardian interview of James Ivory: "Ivory’s script has scooped most of the big prizes, including a Bafta and a Writers Guild of America award, but he sounds dazed when asked to reflect on its success. “Its wide appeal is still something of a mystery to me. And it really is adored, especially by young women and older people. Married couples come up to me on the street in New York – often in their 70s or 80s – and they rave about the movie. I guess it’s an unabashed first-love idea everyone can identify with. The sexual orientation of the characters doesn’t mean as much as the emotion of the story.” Again, how true! As I was watching the movie, I kept wondering: is this a movie about how a 17 year old would experience first love, or how an 80 year old man might recall or idealize first love? The answer could be both, and more. I loved the subtlety of the script (except for the peach, of course) and how it gradually kept pushing deeper into an emotionally raw and deep well of feeling that moved so many people. I'd argue it might have helped that they had no budget to work with, because there were no green screens or special effects to get in the way of the actors' emotions. This is a year in which we (maybe) learned that mass audiences are willing to experience horror and comic book adventure through the eyes of Black protagonists, and action heroism through the eyes of wonder women. Wouldn't it be great if a mass audience could view the wonder and pain of first love through the eyes of a young Gay man? I'm still not sure Hollywood or our culture is at that point, but CMBYN offers the promise that it is getting there. Thank you, LoveNDino, for all the interesting pieces and videos you posted. This video in particular was really interesting. It made me feel that if the Oscars screwed up, it was in not giving Guadagnino a Best Director nomination. Perhaps part of the reason is that it may not have been a technically complex movie, as the video explained. He shot the film to be emotionally accessible, and I think that really worked. Like I said, I agree with some of the comments on Hammer's limitations. But my guess is that Guadagnino knew exactly what he was doing, and he picked his actors to be able to inhabit their characters' souls. Chalamet had to be the emotionally expressive powerhouse, and he was. My guess is Hammer as a person and actor isn't all that different than Oliver - whether you want to praise him as seductive and sexy or criticize him as aloof or shallow. I suspect Guadagnino judged that the chemistry and longing between Chalamet and Hammer would power the movie to the depths he wanted, and I think it did. The thing I enjoyed a lot watching the movie several times and that the video LoveNDino posted talked about from a technical standpoint was how visceral and visual and in the moment it was. I think if James Ivory had directed it, it would have been a very different movie. One of my favorite movies is Ivory's Remains Of The Day, which I see as being about unrelenting emotional repression. Guadagnino did a great job of doing almost the opposite: he gradually and lovingly pealed back emotional layers, and took the audience along with him. I loved it. The one criticism I have is about the sex - or lack of Gay sex. The lack of full frontal nudity didn't bother me at all. Right or wrong, it was clearly a contract provision for both lead actors. I don't think they showed full frontal female nudity either (there were breasts, but not pussy). What did bother me was the cut away when Oliver and Ellio finally got it on. Here's an interview in which Guadagnino talks about his artistic choice: http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/call-me-by-your-name-sex-scene-luca-guadagnino-1201910219/ "Guadagnino was prepared for backlash about the lack of gay sex in the film. Speaking after a showing at the New York Film Festival earlier this year, he summed up his reason with characteristic flair. “To put our gaze upon their lovemaking would have been a sort of unkind intrusion,” the director said in Italian-accented English. “I think that their love is in all things, so when we gaze towards the window and we see the trees, there is a sense of witnessing that. Interesting argument, but I don't really buy it. I'm with TruthBTold on this one: The words "visual" and "visceral" and "in the moment" are all good ones to describe the Director's overriding intent, which I think he pulled off masterfully. That's true whether it was about Hammer drinking apricot juice, or Chalamet cumming into a peach, or fucking his sorta girlfriend. All of that was pulled off beautifully and very explicitly, but without actual dick shots. Since the point was to be visceral and visual and in the moment, it does seem odd that at the key moment - when it comes to the 17 year old horned up kid finally getting it on with the man he's lusting for - somehow Guadagnino suddenly decided to be "romantic" or "artistic" about it. I'm suspicious that it had to do with fears about studio funding, or audience reception, or even the actors' own fears about having to have an explicit Gay sex scene on their resume. It just didn't make sense. For comparative purposes, here's one of the "sex" scenes from Ivory's Maurice, which I thought worked beautifully. You didn't really need to focus on Elio and Oliver's hard cocks. Their longing eyes and lusting lips would have worked just fine. Either would have been sexier and more fulfilling than a tree! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh4OrFm3Cgs

So for purposes of putting all this in perspective, let's talk about the relative safety of PV and SF, both of which I know pretty well. And in order to not make anyone sound like an insensitive jerk, for purposes of this post I'll simply refer to two people who post here as my liberal friend and my conservative friend. My liberal friend, who lives in SF, tells me regularly about how bad the drug problem is, and how unsafe he feels walking on the streets. And how there are needles and broken glass everywhere, like from cars being broken into by drug addicts. My memory sucks, but at one point I recall he went off on a rant about how sick he is of the cops having to show up when people are overdosing, and how much money it costs, and how it might actually make more sense to just let them overdose and die. It was kind of funny in a dark comedy way, and kind of sad. So then I go down to PV with my conservative friend, and we are sitting on the balcony of an oceanfront condo, and I ask him to read the special issue of TIME that was dedicated entirely to photos and text about the nationwide opioid epidemic. A lot of the photos were of addicts in San Francisco. I mentioned that my liberal friend was at the point of feeling like we spend so much time and money rescuing the same people who are addicts and who keep overdosing - which is what TIME talked about as well - that maybe we should just let them overdose. And my conservative friend went into a rant about how he agrees with with my liberal friend. Maybe we should just let them overdose and die. So it's interesting that two people I know well, who have very different political orientations, are both fed up enough with the day to day manifestations of the nationwide opioid epidemic that they basically seem to be able to agree to something that seems inhumane - just let addicts die on the street, instead of trying to save them so they can overdose again. The numbers about what it costs to treat the addiction are horrific. Except for the fact that the numbers about what it costs to not treat the addiction are horrific, too. It's a nightmare. I don't want to turn this thread into one on opioids. But I lived in SF for over a decade, and I loved it. Given what I hear and read about the way it is now, if I was given a choice between a week in my friend's condo South of Market in SF, and a week in the oceanfront condo in the Zona Romantica of Puerto Vallarta, I would take Puerto Vallarta in a heartbeat.

Don't worry, your dick is safe. I prefer the young, Mexican variety, to be honest. And my doctor told me going down on a bad hombre is an excellent cure for logorrhea. So I guess you're safe from that as well.

Can't we just build The Wall around San Francisco? It's cheaper than one having to cover the whole US/Mexico border. And that way Trump can argue he kept all those San Francisco liberals out of the real part of the United States? :eek:

To each his own. I prefer to be drunk on love.

I did open the link. If I read it correctly, based on the coded colors - yellow, orange, and red - the other parts of the world in which the State Dept. advises Americans to exercise caution, reconsider travel, or not travel are basically most of the rest of the world. That includes all of Central America, most of South America and Africa, and seemingly most of Western Europe and Asia. Bangcock appears to be safe. Bon voyage, BVB. And don't do anything I wouldn't do. http://www.xtasis.org/foro/images/smilies/paja.gif http://www.xtasis.org/foro/images/smilies/paja.gif http://www.xtasis.org/foro/images/smilies/paja.gif And as far as your four points go, why do you always have to make everything so complicated? Really, what I said can be summarized neatly as follows: 1. I am a pathetic, aging, and graceless whore. 2. Shockingly, this fact does not surprise anyone. As further proof of these assertions, I of course just had to go to Trip Advisor and see if I could find pictures of Jorge's older son. I have bad news to report. The pictures I could find of him are at least a few years old. So it borders on jail bait, which it isn't. Sadly, the pictures are also not entirely representative. As it turns out, as the years has passed our young Mexican stallion (on the right in the second photo) has ripened, dropped the glasses, and gained probably 10 lbs. or more in muscle. Regardless, I think the photos communicate the point I was making well enough. So, I suppose it's just as well that you won't be coming to Palm Springs, or going to Puerto Vallarta. But for any of you who do go to Puerto Vallarta, I feel I must warn you to exercise extreme caution, and to avoid Jorge's Shrimp Shack. And if you still insist on going, and happen to visit on one of the nights that Jorge's older son is working, please take this piece of advice as deadly serious. Whatever you do, do not make the kid smile. If you do, you may or may not come home in a coffin. But you will definitely be filled with lust, and die of heartache.

More grist for the mill about Puerto Vallarta, with the intention of making the point of how safe it is: https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g150793-d1498724-r210181264-Casa_Naranjo-Puerto_Vallarta.html That is an old review of a good restaurant in PV in which a Gay guy alleges that he was the victim of discrimination in a restaurant, mostly based on non-verbal perceptions like the owner was "glaring" at them and "didn't appear happy" to serve a group of Gay guys. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and based on the thoughtful response on the part of the family that owns the restaurant, I'd say it's much ado about nothing. Epigonos and I discussed this recently while in PV because we ended up eating at Casa Naranjo, because the restaurant on the same block we planned to eat at - Chenandos - was unexpectedly closed due to a family vacation. Chenandos is also a family-run restaurant with marvelous food. If you want to talk about hate crimes, the crime I hate is that the owner's two sons, who are both waiters, are strikingly handsome and obviously Straight. Therefore, after multiple visits, I have still not been able to think of a way to convince them to let me suck their cocks. Which is practically criminal. While we are on the subject, the far bigger crime, in my humble opinion, is being committed at Jorge's Shrimp Shack, another small family run establishment. The older of the owner's two sons, both of whom are young adults and work as waiters, is one of the most strikingly handsome and friendly Mexican young men I have ever met. He always remembers us and welcomes us when we visit. He has also obviously been hitting the gym lately. That crime is compounded by the fact that he was wearing the restaurant's signature black t-shirt, when in fact it would have been far more gracious for him to have at least been shirtless. Frankly, I think the hospitable thing to do would be to simply dress the kid in a skimpy thong. Epigonos agreed, and offered that he hopes the kid has a small cock, since one wishes that no mere mortal is cursed with absolute physical perfection. As it happens, all these restaurants are located just far enough off the beaten path, on darker cobblestone streets mostly inhabited by locals, so that many Americans might not feel comfortable walking to them. Which reminds me of the time at the Grande Luxxe in Nuevo Vallarta, which is essentially a gated community for rich Americans, Canadians , and Mexicans, when we ran into two buff young cops from Idaho and their wives, who had visited PV's central town square the previous night, and wanted to know whether it would have been safe to walk a block or two from the square before getting back in their taxi. Which is a question that it seemed only a White cop from Idaho would ask. Because in 15 years of experience I'd argue it's ridiculously safe to walk anywhere in or outside Centro in Puerto Vallarta. But places like the Grand Luxxe in Nuevo Vallarta are options for rich Americans who'd rather play it very safe and try to avoid feeling like they are actually in Mexico. So, to sum up, the worst and most hateful that it gets based on my years of experience is you read an old review that alleges some Gay guys were glared at. The best it gets is you have an abundance of riches, with awesome restaurants with delicious food run by local families with ridiculously handsome and friendly sons serving you. The only crime is that they aren't strippers, and that I can't have them for my dessert. Que lastima!

Okay, this can go on and on. Just to restate it, I agree with your basic point: Mexico can be dangerous, and don't go there without awareness of the risk. Then again, going to a Gay club or high school in Florida can get you killed. If we want to do rant (sorry, Charlie), I'll echo two of the favorite rants Epigonos and I do down in PV: 1. The number of Mexicans killed in the drug wars is shameful, and part of the shame is on the United States, the primary consumer of those drugs: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-staggering-death-toll-of-mexicos-drug-war/ Mexico estimated 164,000 Mexicans died of cartel-related homicides between 2007 and 2014. This is not part of my reality in PV, any more than opioid addiction in West Virginia or drug-related gang deaths in Chicago (my home town) are part of my reality in Palm Springs. 2. The number of Mexicans who die or are killed trying to get into the US is shameful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexico–United_States_border Thankfully, the number is way lower than the cartel wars. The number peaked in years when the US economy was strong and more people tried to get in to get jobs. That's one of many reasons I wish everyone could agree on a legal and safe way to let immigrants in. It's not like Mexicans have nothing to do with these problems. They are the ones who buy the guns, sell the drugs, and kill people. But we in America are complicit. So while it's a bad thing that a Gay guy in PV ends up with a bullet in his leg because of a hate crime, and a bomb goes off on a boat in Playa Del Carmen, I put it in the context of the big picture. I'm personally less worried about Mexicans in PV being ungracious hosts, and more worried about my country being an ungracious neighbor.

Why is everybody here such a god damn academic? Loosen up, folks. I mean, aren't there other things you can find that you like in these places?

I agree with your basic point, which is that anybody going to Mexico should be aware of the risk. And avoid it if they don't feel comfortable with the risk. As I said, 3 of the top 5 most dangerous cities in the world are in Mexico. Just like anybody who wants to go to a Gay bar or Gay bath house in New Orleans or Brazil, suck cock and fuck all night, and walk home alone to my hotel in the middle of the night should be aware of the risk. Not that I would ever do that, of course. http://www.xtasis.org/foro/images/smilies/paja.gif http://www.xtasis.org/foro/images/smilies/paja.gif http://www.xtasis.org/foro/images/smilies/paja.gif But to be clear, I did not say Mexico is just as safe as Palm Springs. I said Mexico is as safe as the US, on average. I did say that Puerto Vallarta is probably safer than Los Angeles, and I stand by that. I'm not going to vouch for Los Cabos or other areas known as cartel hot spots. Epigonos and I spent a wonderful week in Morelia about a decade ago and we both refer to it affectionately as one of of our favorites cities in Mexico. Then a few years after we were there La Familia set off a bomb in the beautiful central square and several innocent Mexicans died. It was a tragedy. Speaking of Michoacan, if you can pry yourself away from those stripper cocks you love to suck on down there in Florida, BVB, you are welcome to join me in implementing my "guns for cocks" (sorry, but I'm calling it pistolas para pingas) initiative. http://www.xtasis.org/foro/images/smilies/helado.gif http://www.xtasis.org/foro/images/smilies/helado.gif http://www.xtasis.org/foro/images/smilies/helado.gif I had an interesting cock sucking adventure with Epigonos in a stripper bar and sex hotel with an armed guard in Acapulco years ago. But, frankly, he's getting a bit old for that kind of thing. http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1515858.1384379146!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/fbcartel-2-web.jpg And, please, stay out of the high schools and Gay clubs down there in Florida, okay? One of the items on my bucket list before I die is to suck your cock, BVB. And I heard some of those places down there in Florida are kind of dangerous.

Not even close to her best. The soundtrack is a little bit off on this YouTube version. But with Liza and Judy, I'd overlook anything. National treasures.

I'll just add to what Benjamin, Lance, and Epigonos said, and characteristically add a list. http://www.businessinsider.com/most-violent-cities-in-the-world-2018-3#42-detroit-had-3969-homicides-per-100000-residents-9 Mexico's has 3 of the 5 most dangerous cities on the list: Los Cabos, Acapulco, and Tijuana. Then again, the US has a number of cities on the list: St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans. Epigonos and I spent years going to Acapulco, and nothing ever happened. Other than sex, of course. I was in Cabo about a year ago and nothing happened. Generally my impression is that the cartels target other cartel members and are smart enough to leave tourists (i.e. their customers) alone. Innocents get caught in the crossfire sometimes, but that happens to native Mexicans in the border cities in Mexico on the above list, who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. The freak out story from PV that happened several years ago was when some cartel members intruded on an after-hours party at a prominent restaurant, La Leche, and kidnapped members of another cartel celebrating there. Again, it is the exception that proves the rule: the criminals tend to target and kill each other, just like what happens here in the US. If you've read my posts on gun control, Mexico and the US have almost exactly the same average rate of national gun deaths. In both cases they are unacceptably high - roughly about 10 per 100,000 people, which is 3 or 4 or 5 times higher than the typical places people here travel to, like Canada or European countries. But it's all about location, location, location in each country. Puerto Vallarta is probably safer than Los Angeles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate I've never experienced homophobia or hate crimes in PV, which is what it sounds like this boils down to. There's always one asshole in the crowd. And in this case it was an asshole with a gun. Chalk up Reason 4,784,392 for more gun control. If Mexicans in PV target American or Canadian tourists, it is generally with warmth, hospitality, and kindness. Not hate. It's my second home and I love the place and the culture. As always, I'm willing to take one for the team. As a result of this hate crime, I'm floating a proposal that no Mexican male can buy a gun until he successfully sucks my cock, proving that he has a tolerance for Gays and Gay behavior. I'll let you guys know if I need help on lobbying or implementation of this exciting new initiative. En serio? What exactly do you mean?

And while we are speaking about tough broads, I'd be careful, Benjamin. I'm not sure if you are man enough to handle Shuck. She's gonna try to flip you. We don't need one less hot Gay escort, ya know?

Are you guys kidding? Chicago and Cabaret are my two favorite movies/musicals ever. Granted, maybe Zellweger is no Judy Garland. For that matter, Liza Minnelli is no Judy Garland. Who cares?

Confirming what her daughter Liza said about her. Despite popular portrayal of her as shrinking or weak, she was a tough broad.

Es la calidad, no la cantidad. Think about it.

I think I can speak for other escorts attending on this matter. With all due respect for diversity and cultural differences and blah blah blah .... Keep your fucking knife away from our eggs. Otherwise you won't have to worry about attending any other party. Ever again.

Happy birthday sexy.

Why do I have to do all the work around here? I guess somebody is going to have to translate for Oliver's imagination. The party is like Oliver's fountain of youth. It provides him with a rare opportunity to - well, you know - spurt, gush, and bathe in the milk of human kindness. He is, after all, at that point in life where bathing in the creamy milk of youth does depend on the kindness of strangers. At the party, Oliver is like a randy young boy again. No doubt he is thinking he will elope with Tristan Baldwin and run off to Thailand or some romantic paradise by 2019. This would of course leave an enormous hole in his wake, one so gaping that not even our young hero Tristan could fill it. Fact is, the beloved old slut will always be just that, and he will always be the host of the most fabulous Palm Springs pool party ever ... Even when he is only sporting his embarrassingly bulging (and spotlessly dry) pink thong. Sorry to squash the enticing rumors. But I don't want anyone to get the impression this party transcends Oliver, or that it has anything to do with horny young bucks. It's more like an Elks Club gathering. And you don't even have to bring your dentures. Nobody likes teeth marks. So please, don't worry about Oliver. I can assure everyone he's been prone to these fits of fantasy, at least since the first time I met him in 1943.

You are always welcome down here in Puerto Vallarta. Of course, that makes no sense. Why would I want to share my future fiancé with Epigonos? Anyhoo, just noticed this post. Happy belated birthday from both of us, sweetie. It's always warm, fun, and sexy where you are. See you in Palm Springs.