Getting Pounded by Kobe

[woodlawn]

RE:Curmudgeon Extraordinaire

 

[woodlawn]

>I don’t think it is nearly that black-and-white. California

>just enacted a domestic partnership law that is a major step

>towards equal marriage rights. This was done with just a

>majority of progressives in the legislature and obviously did

>not require the support of the Pat Robertson types.

 

But it did require the support of straight politicians, no?

 

 

>Forget

>the religious right and the people that are always going to

>hate us. They are a lost cause.

 

No doubt you are right. My concern is with their ability to influence others. Polls show, for example, that more than 60% of people who identify themselves as Republicans either support abortion on demand or support abortion rights with some restrictions. So why is it that Bush is appointing a bunch of pro-life judges?

 

 

>Many of them will do the right thing even if they

>don’t personally like the group of people in question.

 

If you believe that, I think you should ask yourself why all of the leading Democratic presidential candidates oppose same-sex marriage.

 

 

>it is just a matter

>of time before some kind of Federal legislation that will

>bring the redneck states in line.

 

As was done with affirmative action?

 

>Considering his relatively

>progressive beliefs, why would I be overly concerned about

>that anyway?

 

Have you thought about what he plans to do when his term is up? And what he will need to do in order to carry out those plans? Unless there is another recall, in order to be elected to anything else he will need to win a Republican primary.

[Rick Munroe]

>> (Most of my friends are actually straight, btw.)

>

>Do they know you're a hooker?

 

No, since I'm not a "hooker," but they all know I'm an escort, and since I often send them links to my reviews or to threads on this message board, they also thought it was very cool when I was named Escort of the Year (since a couple of them still remember the infamous 9th grade debacle when Carol Braun stole the class president election from me by promising everyone free sundaes at her father's Carvel). One of my friends, who lives in Indiana, doesn't care for all the talk about my ass (she says it's "too much information") but she and the others, men and women alike, all think that what Derek and I do is pretty neat-o.

[woodlawn]

>>> (Most of my friends are actually straight, btw.)

 

>>Do they know you're a hooker?

 

>No, since I'm not a "hooker," but they all know I'm an escort,

 

So it's only your gay friends who are kept in the dark? I recall you telling us in the not-too-distant past that you no longer disclose that information to gay friends because when you first did so they pretended to be okay with it but trashed you behind your back.

 

>the infamous 9th grade debacle when Carol Braun stole

>the class president election from me by promising everyone

>free sundaes at her father's Carvel).

 

And now she's running for the Democratic presidential nomination? If you were really her classmate that would make you just a tad older than I thought. Thanks for revealing that "tidbit."

 

[phage]

>But it did require the support of straight politicians, no?

 

Sure, but my point is that we can get enough reasonable people on our side without having to pander to or worry about the knuckleheads who will never support us no matter what we do or how we behave. The people who would learn about a tasteless comment on a gay message board (forget that it’s a hookers and ‘ho board) and think it represents all gay people are the same ones who see a clip from a gay pride parade and think it represents all gay people. There’s no reasoning with people that ignorant so why worry about winning them over?

 

 

>No doubt you are right. My concern is with their ability to

>influence others. Polls show, for example, that more than 60%

>of people who identify themselves as Republicans either

>support abortion on demand or support abortion rights with

>some restrictions. So why is it that Bush is appointing a

>bunch of pro-life judges?

 

A tangent here, but that is exactly my problem with gay Republicans and other GOP apologists. No matter how much they talk about the fact that not all Republicans are conservative religious whack-jobs, they seem to be firmly in control of that party and their leadership sucks up to them.

 

 

>If you believe that, I think you should ask yourself why all

>of the leading Democratic presidential candidates oppose

>same-sex marriage.

 

Perhaps, in this case, they believe that is the right thing to do, and the right thing isn’t always going to be what gay activists want. This is easy for me to accept because I happen to agree with them.

 

I think it is the wrong approach to keep pushing for marriage when the focus should be on domestic partnerships with ALL the same rights of marriage. Marriage has historical and religious connotations that simply make it too emotional of an issue. We should focus on the civil rights and responsibilities where religion has no place. Give the straight people the word ‘marriage.’ In time, the distinction will become meaningless.

 

 

>As was done with affirmative action?

 

That is what I was thinking. Is there a flaw to that logic?

 

 

>Have you thought about what he plans to do when his term is

>up? And what he will need to do in order to carry out those

>plans? Unless there is another recall, in order to be elected

>to anything else he will need to win a Republican primary.

 

Actually, I have thought about it and really don’t have a prediction. Assuming that he isn’t the flop that I think he will be, it will be interesting to see whether he sticks with his beliefs or panders to the extremists in his party. I think there is a better than even chance that, assuming he is a successful governor, he won’t have to pander. I don’t know the statistics, but I don’t believe that California is firmly in the control of the religious right. California Republicans seem to be more about the money. I could certainly be wrong on that one.

[Rick Munroe]

>So it's only your gay friends who are kept in the dark? I

>recall you telling us in the not-too-distant past that you no

>longer disclose that information to gay friends

 

I have very few gay friends and they all know what I do for a living. You're referring to something I said about no longer shouting it from the rooftop and telling everyone I meet. I don't consider everyone I meet to be my friend, although I do enjoy being intimate with strangers. }(

 

>And now she's running for the Democratic presidential

>nomination? If you were really her classmate that would make

>you just a tad older than I thought. Thanks for revealing

>that "tidbit."

 

Actually, the person you're referring to was named Carol Moseley when she was in 9th grade and her father, rather than owning an ice cream store, was a law enforcement officer. My Carol Braun was Jewish, chunky, and breathed through her mouth.

 

I'm afraid you've missed both bonus questions but, as usual, thanks for playing. :7

[trilingual]

>Actually, the point is that this board would be a good place

>to eschew if one really wants to avoid hearing about the kind

>of behavior that causes the straight world to hold gays in

>such contempt.

 

See? You DID get th point. In part. Yet in spite of being so obsessed with what the straight world thinks about our behavior (as if prostitution or other variant sexual behavior didn't exist in that world, too) you're STILL here exposing yourself to their opprobrium and ostracism! What's with that? You're such an obvious sick-o that you're just DYING to get caught, aren't you? So you can then go through some typical right-wing writhing with guilt number, no doubt. That'll be the the absolute zenith of your so-called closeted life.

 

By the way, this "straight world" you hang out in: Did you buy an E-ticket to it? if you did, you ought to ask for your money back, because I think you got taken for a ride to only the 'Right-wing Fundamentalist Land" part of that theme park. There's WAY more to the "straight world" than you've evidently been allowed to experience.

 

>Yes. As I understand it, it would only apply here if I, like

>you, were carrying around enough blubber to make it hard to

>get through a standard-size doorway.

 

And you aren't? And just for the record, I have no problem getting through any kind of doorway. Also, sweetums, it may come as a shock to you but some people are attracted to the more zaftig among us. (I'm not one of them, but I sure am grateful that there is such a surprising number of them!)

 

>Quite the contrary. I mean you're doing something that is

>viewed with disgust and contempt not merely by straight people

>but also, I venture to say, by most gays.

 

Oh, I doubt it. If that were true, this site and similar ones wouldn't be among the most visited on the Internet! And since you supposedly hang out almost exclusively with the "straight world," (or rather, one of its most intolerant subsets) I rather doubt that you're in a position to anoint yourself as the spokesperson of "most" gays. These days, I'd say you're a representative of a rather dwindling sub-species: the pathologically closeted gay. And that brings us back to the main point here: if what this site is about is so disgusting to you and and all the people whose opinion you value, why are you here? Why do you keep coming back here and risk exposure? Why are you consorting with such low-lifes? Huh?

 

>The part that denigrates "sex tourists" like you.

 

Well, I don't consider myself a sex tourist. I don't primarily travel for sex (in spite of any impression you may have gotten from reading my postings on a site devoted to commercial sex). When I do have sex in other countries, whether on a commercial basis or for free, it's with consenting adults, not minors. In Brazil and Argentina, the countries I visit most, that means someone over 18 who can also vote and sign contracts. (In my own case, my partners are almost all in their 20s or 30s and not in their teens.) Furthermore, adult commercial sex is NOT illegal in those countries, so no crime is being committed. Finally, no one is being exploited in these encounters. The guys work for themselves. (At least the ones I go with meet that description.) They haven't been shanghaied into prostitution, they aren't beholden to a pimp, they get all of the money their customers pay them, and they're free to come and go, to work or not to work. They're also free to turn me down as a client (I'm not the only client out there; they can choose their clients for themselves) and I'm certainly not in a position to force them to go with me. Being such a free market enthusiast, I'm sure you'll appreciate the fact that these men are engaging in one of the purest forms of capitalism: they have something someone else wants and they're willing to "share" or "lend" it for a fair market price! How can you not approve of that? }(

 

>If you find it hard to believe there are gay men and women who

>don't find rape amusing and don't care for sex tours, you'll

>have me convinced that you've spent the last few years on

>Mars, not Brazil.

 

Gosh, I didn't think we were talking about rape anymore, but as Doug69 (who I rarely agree with) so cogently pointed out, there is no proof at this point that Kobe Bryant raped anyone, nor has he been convicted of rape. Just because someone alleges that he raped her doesn't turn that into a fact. And I don't think anyone on this board or in this thread has condoned actual rape. They have questioned the veracity of the accuser, and they've acknowledged their own sexual fantasies, both of which are quite different than condoning rape. And as for sex tours, why do I keep getting the feeling that once again the pot is calling the kettle black? After all, you're hanging out and posting endlessly on a site that focuses on such things as commercial sex and sex tours (both illegal in the U.S., by the way).

 

>I'm sure you're qualified to talk about your own problem with

>self-hatred. I'm equally sure you lack the qualifications to

>analyze anyone else's problems.

 

Don't be too sure of anything, snookums!

 

>>Actually, quite a few people in my life DO know about my

>>involvement.

>

>And the others?

 

Obviously, they don't! Duh! But the people in my life who know about my involvement obviously are more than those who know about yours, at least officially. But just because you're filing your postings from the depths of your closet, don't assume that your straight acquaintances are ignorant of your proclivities. "Queer Eye" notwithstanding, straight people aren't as clueless as people like you think they are. Quite a lot of them will have accurately pegged you for what you are!

 

>And they have the added benefit of

>allowing you to conceal your own sexual predilections from a

>disapproving world while blasting others for their failure to

>be "open" about their sexuality.

 

Everyone who knows me knows about my sexuality. Most of those people are straight, since my friends, like much of the population of the planet, are predominantly straight. You'd be amazed how many straight people really don't care a whit about your sexuality. And the ones who do are not the kind of people I'd want as friends, anyway!

 

>

>>And now, why don't you go duck quietly back under your rock

>>before someone gets your IP address and e-mails it to the

>>entire straight world?

>

 

Who's making threats? I'm just pointing out an obvious danger to people like you, who are obsessed with what straight people think about them and are convinced that they will be cast into the well of opprobrium if discovered on a site like this! If you were healthy about this, you'd just stay away and not run the risk. But no, you keep coming back, like the moth to the flame. So if your name ever shows up on someone's list, like your good friend John Asscroft's, you'll only have yourself to blame, won't you? Because the only pointing a gun at your head to keep on posting here on this disgusting and dangerous site is YOU!

[woodlawn]

>See? You DID get th point. In part. Yet in spite of being

>so obsessed with what the straight world thinks about our

>behavior

 

I'm so obsessed with it that I've mentioned it in a grand total of one thread in the past month. But don't let facts get in the way of your tirade. Anyone who has watched you spend hour after hour in the same pointless, endless, insult-laden argument over Israel with Ad rian for the past few months knows that you pursue such quarrels for their own sake, certainly not because they involve any real exchange of information or ideas. You just enjoy yelling at people.

 

>What's with that?

> You're such an obvious sick-o that you're just DYING to get

>caught, aren't you?

 

Here we have yet another example of someone who has no qualifications to diagnose anything -- but plenty of time and not much to do -- using psychological buzzwords he's read in magazines as a means of hurling insults at a person whose crime has been to disagree with him. What's the problem today -- you're waiting for your pension check to arrive so you can go cruise the slums for needy kids and you can't think of anything else to do in the meantime?

 

>And you aren't? And just for the record, I have no problem

>getting through any kind of doorway. Also, sweetums, it may

>come as a shock to you but some people are attracted to the

>more zaftig among us.

 

That anyone would find a nasty, hateful creature like you attractive, fat or thin, would certainly come as a shock to me. You may look like Santa Claus, but you don't act like him.

 

>>Quite the contrary. I mean you're doing something that is

>>viewed with disgust and contempt not merely by straight

>people

>>but also, I venture to say, by most gays.

 

>Oh, I doubt it. If that were true, this site and similar ones

>wouldn't be among the most visited on the Internet!

 

I don't know how you picked up the delusion that this or any site containing reviews of male prostitutes is "among the most visited on the Internet." This seems to be part of your pattern of inventing "facts," just like the "fact" that, as you asserted, there have never been any problems of unit cohesion in the armed forces caused by the presence of gay men. Just some beatings and murders, but no actual "problems." Uh huh.

 

> And since

>you supposedly hang out almost exclusively with the "straight

>world,"

 

Another invention on your part. It isn't very original of you to make shit up and then yell at me or others for "saying" it.

 

>And that brings us back to the

>main point here: if what this site is about is so disgusting

>to you and and all the people whose opinion you value, why are

>you here? Why do you keep coming back here and risk exposure?

> Why are you consorting with such low-lifes?

 

 

You ever visit the sideshow at a county fair? The impulse is much the same.

 

>>The part that denigrates "sex tourists" like you.

 

>Well, I don't consider myself a sex tourist.

 

I know. But I didn't ask your opinion about it because I knew that you would respond with a long, turgid series of rationalizations. Which is exactly what you did anyway.

 

>Being such a free

>market enthusiast,

 

Me? I think you mean Ad rian. Or Doug. It appears you have so many arguments with so many different people that they are beginning to run together in your head.

 

>And

>I don't think anyone on this board or in this thread has

>condoned actual rape.

 

The type of hairsplitting argument you make above doesn't do anything for me. The author of this thread himself pointed out how the average person would react to his statement about the case. I agree with his assessment whether you do or not.

 

>And as for sex tours, why do I keep getting the feeling

>that once again the pot is calling the kettle black?

 

If I were to engage in the same kind of bullshit amateur psychoanalysis you do, I would probably theorize that your deep feelings of guilt about being what Doug has called an "old fat sexual predator" make you anxious to accuse others of the same thing so that you won't feel you are quite so abnormal. As it is, however, I just think you like to make shit up because you aren't bright enough to debate any issue without doing so.

 

 

>>I'm sure you're qualified to talk about your own problem

>with

>>self-hatred. I'm equally sure you lack the qualifications

>to

>>analyze anyone else's problems.

 

>Don't be too sure of anything, snookums!

 

I shouldn't be sure that you are qualified to talk about your own self-hatred, as you've done on this board many times? Okay, if you say so.

 

 

>Obviously, they don't! Duh! But the people in my life who

>know about my involvement obviously are more than those who

>know about yours, at least officially. But just because

>you're filing your postings from the depths of your closet,

>don't assume

 

It is you who are making assumptions. Based on one comment from me to the effect that I have the opportunity to hear what straights say about gays when they think none are present, you have created an elaborate imaginary life story for me. But of course, as with the famous ink blot test, the story you tell reflects only what goes on in your own head rather than anything about the creator of the test cards.

 

>Everyone who knows me knows about my sexuality.

 

>You'd

>be amazed how many straight people really don't care a whit

>about your sexuality.

 

How would you know? You just told us (above) that everyone who knows you knows about your sexuality. So all you know about their opinions is what they choose to tell you in the knowledge that you are gay. You have no way of knowing what any of them really thinks on the subject.

 

 

> And the ones who do are not the kind of

>people I'd want as friends, anyway!

 

 

I'm sure it's their loss. Who wouldn't want to befriend someone whose favorite pastimes are yelling at complete strangers on an Internet message board and hiring impoverished young guys for sex?

 

>>And now, why don't you go duck quietly back under your rock

>>>before someone gets your IP address and e-mails it to the

>>>entire straight world?

 

 

>Who's making threats?

 

You are. But since I'm not a law school dropout or a retired bureaucrat living on a pension, "someone" should know that I have both the skills and the resources to deal with anyone who tries to injure me.

[woodlawn]

>I have very few gay friends and they all know what I do for a

>living. You're referring to something I said about no longer

>shouting it from the rooftop and telling everyone I meet.

 

 

That does sound familiar, but I also seem to recall you telling us that the negative reaction of some of your gay friends is one reason you do not use a face picture in your ads.

 

>>And now she's running for the Democratic presidential

>>nomination? If you were really her classmate that would

>make

>>you just a tad older than I thought. Thanks for revealing

>>that "tidbit."

 

>Actually, the person you're referring to was named Carol

>Moseley when she was in 9th grade

 

Yes I know. But one doesn't usually refer to a woman who is or has been married by her maiden name, especially if she is far better known under her married name. If I wanted to convey to someone that Hilary Rodham Clinton had been my classmate, would I leave off the "Clinton"?

 

>and her father, rather than

>owning an ice cream store, was a law enforcement officer.

 

You seem to be mighty well acquainted with Amb. Braun for someone who doesn't actually know her.

 

> My

>Carol Braun was Jewish, chunky, and breathed through her

>mouth.

 

She sounds charming. Do you still see her at your reunions?

 

 

>I'm afraid you've missed both bonus questions but, as usual,

>thanks for playing.

 

Are there any perks that come with being a former classmate of a presidential candidate? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Rick Munroe]

>I also seem to recall you

>telling us that the negative reaction of some of your gay

>friends is one reason you do not use a face picture in your

>ads.

 

You recall wrong. It's to avoid the hassle of having to plan my mother's funeral when she commits harakiri after accidentally stumbling upon my face pic on an escort site while doing a search for "escargot." :o

 

>You seem to be mighty well acquainted with Amb. Braun for

>someone who doesn't actually know her.

 

Ever hear of google?

[trilingual]

>>Who's making threats?

>

>You are. But since I'm not a law school dropout or a retired

>bureaucrat living on a pension, "someone" should know that I

>have both the skills and the resources to deal with anyone who

>tries to injure me.

>

 

 

Yaaaawn! :o

[bluenix]

>

>It's to avoid the hassle of having to plan

>my mother's funeral when she commits harakiri after

>accidentally stumbling upon my face pic on an escort site

>while doing a search for "escargot." :o

 

OMG, you're part Japanese?!?!?

 

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/thumbs/blueman-84-thumb.gif

[Rick Munroe]

>OMG, you're part Japanese?!?!?

 

No; escargot is French, silly.

[bluenix]

>>OMG, you're part Japanese?!?!?

>

>No; escargot is French, silly.

 

 

 

 

 

My mistake!

 

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-126.gif

[Guest Oren]

the dancing gherkin is my all-time favourite!

[woodlawn]

>>I also seem to recall you

>>telling us that the negative reaction of some of your gay

>>friends is one reason you do not use a face picture in your

>>ads.

 

>You recall wrong.

 

No, I don't think I do.

 

 

>Its to avoid the hassle of having to plan

>my mother's funeral when she commits harakiri after

>accidentally stumbling upon my face pic on an escort site

>while doing a search for "escargot."

 

Your mother would be so mortified to learn you are hooking that she would actually stab herself in the throat (which is how Japanese ladies commit hara-kiri)? That's heavy. But wouldn't the funeral arrangements be made by your father?

 

>>You seem to be mighty well acquainted with Amb. Braun for

>>someone who doesn't actually know her.

 

>Ever hear of google?

 

Sure. But I've never heard of someone doing research on a presidential candidate's father's occupation unless he is either a journalist or being paid to do opposition research by a rival campaign.

[Rick Munroe]

>>You recall wrong.

>

>No, I don't think I do.

 

I know you are but what am I?

[woodlawn]

>>>You recall wrong.

 

>>No, I don't think I do.

 

>I know you are but what am I?

 

We all know what you are, Rick. It's not exactly a secret, is it?

[chrismac]

>We all know what you are, Rick. It's not exactly a secret, is

>it?

>

 

WE do? I don't. How many of us REALLY know Rick completely? We don't even know his real name :+

[woodlawn]

>>We all know what you are, Rick. It's not exactly a secret,

>is

>>it?

>>

 

>WE do? I don't. How many of us REALLY know Rick completely?

 

Who wants to? When he starts posting about his experiences in 9th grade, we are well past the point at which I have more information about him than I want.

 

>We

>don't even know his real name

 

So what? You have enough information about him to fuel your fantasies of fucking him, don't you? What else do you need?

[chrismac]

>So what? You have enough information about him to fuel your

>fantasies of fucking him, don't you? What else do you need?

 

Oh - I have no such fantasies about Rick in that regard. But I do enjoy his posts.

[woodlawn]

>Oh - I have no such fantasies about Rick in that regard. But I

>do enjoy his posts.

 

So what was the point, if any, of your comment? So far as I can see, you are never going to know "completely" anyone whom you are paying to act in a certain way toward you, because your business relationship is incompatible with a personal relationship. Anything else?

[chrismac]

>So what was the point, if any, of your comment? So far as I

>can see, you are never going to know "completely" anyone whom

>you are paying to act in a certain way toward you, because

>your business relationship is incompatible with a personal

>relationship. Anything else?

 

Just a direct response to your assertion that "we" all know what Rick is. I assume you were speaking for all of us, including myself (unless you employ the Royal "We"). We don't know everything that he is, nor for some, perhaps not even enough. You may certainly feel you know enough about him, but how can you speak for everyone?

 

That's all I meant. Nothing more, nothing less.