site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   25658 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 11, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The Unwitting Ethnographer: On Pride Flags and Plausible Deniability

I did not set out to do anthropology. I set out to have a beer. The other regular haunts near my flat skewed geriatric, and while I can happily talk to a septuagenarian about buses, I was in the mood for music that did not predate the Falklands. The bar I wandered into had a younger crowd, a decent playlist, and discrete details I somehow failed to parse until much later. Pride flags on the walls. A very large pride flag by the door. A clientele that could only be described as statistically enriched for men in nice shoes.

I was nursing a Tennent's when one of the patrons approached the bar and ordered what appeared to be a small chemistry set worth of brightly colored shots. The logistics fascinated me: he deployed some kind of carrying apparatus that locked under the shot glasses at the rim, allowing safe transport of the entire collection. The British have always been quiet pioneers of Applied Alcoholism, and the field has clearly advanced beyond what I learned in medical school.

"Hey handsome," he said, noticing my interest. "Sorry if I end up spilling any of this on you." I assured him this would be fine, since spilled alcohol represents free alcohol, which represents savings. "I wouldn't mind licking it off you, if you know what I mean."

I experienced a sudden cutaneous vasodilation, a blush, which I hoped was obscured by my facial hair and the ambient lighting. The complexion probably helps.

His companion laughed, but the interaction quickly resolved into a gesture of goodwill. They offered me one of the shots. Morbid curiosity being a powerful motivator, I accepted. The taste was not unpleasant. Upon turning to share this assessment with the group, I was met with expectant looks. "It wasn't bad," I offered. "I could see myself drinking this." "If you think this wasn't bad," a different member of the group replied, "then you'll probably like antifreeze."

I answered, mostly sober at that point, that I had not yet tried antifreeze but remained open-minded.

Etiquette required reciprocation. Also, heterosexual uncertainty suggested that free liquor in a gay bar might have exchange rates I was not qualified to negotiate, so I bought two shots and took them over. The bartender had hinted that the recipients did not like Gordon’s, which I could respect as a principled position. The group received the offering warmly, then kept me at the table as if a recruitable stray cat had decided to sit in their sunbeam.

Cast and setting

There were six of them, give or take my blood alcohol level. Most looked like ordinary men dressed for a Saturday night, with more piercings and better grooming. The one who had flirted at the bar was the outlier. Wife-beater, small tattoos scattered like confetti, a bull ring large enough to restrain mythological fauna. Call him FG, for Flamboyant Gent. His friend with the quick laugh was slight and balding. SG. The third I spoke with most was conventionally handsome and soft-edged in a way that suggests many women have fallen for him and then discovered the plot twist. HG, for Hetero-passing Gent.

I clarified my presence, attributing it to a combination of cultural unfamiliarity and severe myopia. FG gestured towards the numerous pride flags. I claimed to have interpreted them as generic contemporary decor. He then indicated the very large flag by the entrance, to which I could only plead a fundamental lack of situational awareness.

They inquired about my purpose in a city not famed for its nightlife. I gave my standard exposition: I am a doctor, recently relocated from a Small Scottish Town (SST). This news was met with uniform approval. My subsequent anecdote about drunken misadventures in SST was also successful, though their perspective on such small communities was predictably negative. A lot of them disclosed that they had grown up in nearly indistinguishable SSTs, and hadn't enjoyed it. The low-anonymity, high-surveillance environment of a small town is likely a suboptimal habitat for a gay man.

They were all locals. They were also colleagues, sort of. Not mine, yet. Two worked in the biochemistry lab at the same trust where I work in psychiatry. The third did something nearby in clinical science that I forgot as the evening progressed.

We found common ground commiserating over the state of the NHS circa 2025. FG complained about ill-conceived sample requests from junior doctors at inconvenient hours. I reassured him that psychiatry was a low-impact requester; my biochemistry screens were routine and rarely urgent. This professional courtesy earned me an offer of expedited service for future lithium level checks, which I noted for potential future use.

I was also offered, variously, two blowjobs, a rimjob, and a golden shower. I declined with gratitude. It is good to be desired. It is also good to have boundaries.

(As wise men have said: if you're struggling on the local dating apps, it might not be your fault and there's hope for you yet. But if you go to a gay bar and don't get hit on, it might be time to see if monasteries are recruiting)

At one point I unlocked my phone to show photos from Dover. This triggered knowing looks. “So, you are not gay, are you?” Correct. They explained that no gay man would casually open his gallery in public. Too high a risk of unexpected appearances. I learned something.

"Such a shame," FG added, "especially when you're dressed like that." My attire, a polo shirt under a pullover, was chosen for its extreme neutrality. I suppose this can create its own kind of allure through sheer demureness.

I was informed of some romantic tension. SG and HG both had crushes on each other, but neither would make a move. Were they both bottoms? I tentatively asked. Nah, one's a bottom, but the other is a verse.

When they heard FG explaining this to me, HG claimed that he had, in fact, tried to kiss SG, but had been rebuffed. SG was affronted and explained that it hadn't been a good time, he'd been chewing on a chicken tender when the former had attempted to tongue-punch him in the tonsils. They both laughed, and began making up for wasted time. Ah, young love, don't you love to see it?

By now the ethnographer in me, who had apparently decided to write this post retroactively, began asking questions. I apologized for being nosy, but they laughed it off. The answers, heavily paraphrased and possibly misremembered after several Tennent’s, were as follows:

Q1. Poppers

How common are poppers in actual practice? FG looked at me like I had asked how common forks are at dinner. The table consensus: some had used them, none were evangelists. They shared two cautionary fables about people who treated poppers as shooters or aerosolized them and died. The bartender volunteered that poppers slowed time and elongated orgasms.

An unexpected corollary was also disclosed: a high incidence of incontinence issues among the group, to the point where coffee consumption was a calculated risk. They then fielded a surprising counter-query: Does applying sugar to a prolapsed anus aid in its reduction? I admitted that while the technique was vaguely familiar from medical lore, if I tried to put it into practice on the wards, the nurses would have me up in front of the GMC or the police in short order.

Q2. Cleanliness protocols

Do people douche before anal sex? After some deliberation, the consensus was no, not routinely. Diet was preferred. Eat fiber, manage timing, accept that risk can be reduced but not eliminated. You get used to it. I shared that several heterosexual experiments of mine had ended with olfactory regret. They said that in a male-male context the polite response would be to send the man to the shower or call for a reschedule. I said that if I tried that with a woman I would be killed, slowly, and possibly correctly.

Q3. Closeted and bi men

How often do you encounter men who are closeted or who identify as bi? FG avoids them. Too messy, too much drama, too many norm mismatches, and in his experience too much reluctance to test for STIs. Others nodded. This was not about identity policing. It was about risk management.

Q4. Grindr

Grindr, yes or no? A unanimous no. The people on it were described as crazy in the technical sense. Word of mouth, mutual friends, and the bar network work better. I said I had expected at least one notification during the evening. I declined to explain how I know the sound.

Q5. PrEP and HIV risk

Are you on PrEP? Only FG. He is meticulous about screening and uses PrEP as insurance. He also thinks gay men are unfairly blamed for both HIV and monkeypox, and claimed that heterosexuals now acquire both at higher rates while gay men are just more honest and tested more. I had strong reservations about that claim, and made a note to check later. It was not the time for a literature review in a bar where I had been offered a golden shower five minutes earlier.

Q6. Bug chasers

Do bug chasers still exist? Only FG had even heard of them, and he is slightly older. He said the phenomenon is almost extinct, and was already rare when he came out. He explained the idea for the younger men, who reacted with the combination of curiosity and horror that usually attends bad Victorian surgery.

Q7. Baths

Do people have sex in the baths? Yes, says FG, wistfully reminiscing about a visit to San Francisco.

Is it hygienic? Probably not, he confides. But much like swimming in a kiddie pool, you have to have your faith in the antiseptic properties of chlorine.

Q8. Straight people in gay spaces

Is my presence in a gay bar objectionable?

Not you, you seem like a nice and open-minded lad. But in general?

They gave a quick lesson in ecological progression. A gay bar/night club opens and serves a mostly LGBT clientele. Straight women discover it is a space where they can be drunk and loud without constant male attention (they're very popular for hen-dos). Straight men discover that straight women are there. The venue drifts toward generic nightlife. Even worse, some of these men are alleged to be rather bigoted, and FG said he wasn't willing to take the risk of being socked in the face for merely kissing a partner on the dance floor.

According to him, the only reliable counterpressure is to make the environment clearly and unambiguously queer. Sex in dark corners and in toilets tends to discourage straight tourists and is conveniently hard to legislate away without awkward free speech arguments. They mentioned the only other gay bar nearby, owned by a man who is both gay and loudly hostile to trans people. They had taken their business elsewhere.

My new friends left early. Sunday shifts wait for no man. I stayed until closing and fell in love at a distance with a woman who was almost certainly a lesbian and possibly autistic. Short hair, noise-cancelling earphones in, a single beer, a one-handed game controller, a dog’s full attention, an older man attempting conversation and doing no visible damage. I did not ask for her number. In a Hollywood version of this evening I would mature, learn a lesson about acceptance, and end with a chaste coffee. In the realistic version I walked home slightly drunk, slightly wiser, and extremely grateful that a bar full of men who had no reason to be kind to me were kind anyway.

Methods, such as they were:

This was opportunistic qualitative sampling. The ethnographer was three drinks in and had accepted a blue shot of unknown pedigree. The participants were friendly and practiced at explaining themselves to outsiders. There was music. There were interruptions. Recall bias is certain. Social desirability bias is probable. My notes consist of the phrases I kept repeating to myself while walking home and the sentences that reappeared in my head the next morning like uninvited guests. If you want preregistration and a codebook, you will be disappointed.

He also thinks gay men are unfairly blamed for both HIV and monkeypox, and claimed that heterosexuals now acquire both at higher rates while gay men are just more honest and tested more.

Have you investigated this claim?

I knew for a fact that it wasn't true, at least on a per capita basis. I didn't see the point in challenging him, since he seemed highly conscientious and was taking reasonable precautions.

Gay men have more average partners, and per act of anal intercourse, have OOMs higher risk of spreading or catching an infection. Without any moral judgment intended, doing stuff up the butt is dangerous in a way PIV sex isn't, it's not built for such activities. I genuinely don't judge, if I were gay, I'd be having gay sex too, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the practice.

https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics

MSM accounted for 67% (21,400) of the 31,800 estimated new HIV infections in 2022 and 87% of estimated infections among all males. In 2022, as compared to 2018, the annual number of HIV infections among MSM decreased 10%.

People who acquired HIV through heterosexual contact accounted for 22% (7,000) of the 31,800 estimated new HIV infections in 2022. Men reporting heterosexual contact accounted for 6% (2,100) of estimated new HIV infections, while women reporting heterosexual contact accounted for 15% (4,900) of estimated new HIV infections. In 2022, as compared to 2018, the annual number of HIV infections among people who acquired HIV through heterosexual contact decreased 11%.

https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/poxvirus/mpox/cases-data/technical-report/report-2.html

Recent sexual history was defined as any sex and/or close intimate contact in the three weeks preceding symptom onset. Among 7,378 people with data on both recent sexual history and gender, 78.9% (n=5,820) reported man-to-man sexual contact (Figure 4). We note this proportion is lower than values previously reported for “male-to-male sexual contact” because this updated proportion better accounts for data variations by jurisdictions and is based on more complete data, resulting in more accurate estimates. Some jurisdictions also report sexual orientation to the CDC. Among 4,460 cases with known sexual orientation and gender, 4,159 (93.3%) were gay or bisexual men, 242 (5.4%) were straight or heterosexual men, and 59 (1.3%) were straight, lesbian, or bisexual women (Figure 5).

@5433a since you'd previously asked me the same question.

What's your instance on refusing to allow MSM to donate blood?

https://www.themotte.org/post/787/smallscale-question-sunday-for-december-10/169499?context=8#context

As for blood donations, there exists an optimal threshold for how strictly one wishes to screen blood. I'm sure the cost-benefit analysis today, with robust screening, makes it eminently sensible to forbid those at exceptionally high risk of contagious blood borne disease. But if I'm bleeding to death and there's nothing better available, I would accept potentially contaminated blood, yes, even with 1970s medicine. Dying in a decade beats dying today.

(It turns out I've been here so long I really do already have a comment about everything)

In short, it depends on the base rates, the degree of shortage, and the accuracy of screening tools. I don't think excluding MSM for their HIV risk makes sense these days (since you can test them and screen the blood) and my understanding is that it's not policy in many places.

Screening tests can have false negatives. Perhaps there has been some large, recent improvement, but not that long ago the situation was so dire that blood from MSM that had been tested and found negative was still more likely to be contaminated with blood-born pathogens than non-MSM blood because the base rate was just that much higher.

My issue is claiming, without precise data, whether or not MSMs should be blanket banned from blood donation. I believe I am qualified to make a decision here, if I were to dive deeper into said numbers and do a principled cost-benefit analysis. However, what would the point be? I'm sure more qualified people have already done so. Blood is always in acute shortage, and everyone is desperate to get as much of it in stock as they can without compromising safety more than it helps.

Sure. I'm just noting that the more qualified people did run the numbers, and even with screening tests denying donations from MSM was a good call - at least 10 years ago. It's possible there are better tests, or better HIV suppression medicine these days that might change the math.

Almost all Western nations have lifted blanket restrictions for MSM donating blood. Iceland just removed theirs at the beginning of July. I believe it's just Greece and Croatia left, which probably tells you something about the Greeks.

Based on some quick Googling, there didn't appear to be any significant changes in technology between 2011, when the rules started being relaxed, to what we see today. The retrovirals were available well before then. I take it back, I could probably have done a better job than these regulators, they seem too risk averse. At least they've moved on by now!

More comments

It's possible there are better tests, or better HIV suppression medicine these days that might change the math.

Or cultural changes more willing to suffer the consequences, and/or less willing to produce that particular kind of stigmatization.

They explained that no gay man would casually open his gallery in public. Too high a risk of unexpected appearances.

The day of my city's Pride parade, I was standing on a street which hosts the city's second-biggest gay bar (and which hasn't undergone mission drift, devolving into yet another drag queen theme park ride for straight women) surrounded by hundreds of LGBT people. Me and my friends were standing in a circle drinking cans, when I glanced at the next group over. One of the men was holding his unlocked phone at about shoulder height, and I could see that he had WhatsApp open and had just sent someone else a photo of his rectum.

I couldn't help but laugh. He was making zero effort to be discreet. His friend noticed me laughing and I just shrugged and was like, come on dude, that's funny.

Maybe he just found goatse and was sharing it with his friends.

It was definitely not goatse.

I would be shocked if the guy sending the rectum photo had anywhere near the stretch of goatse.

He did not.

I find this pretty interesting. I have kind of a retrograde idea of sexuality. When I was young, I was very pretty. Something of a Twink I guess you could say. Looking like this colors your psychology. I used to be called Angelina behind my back as a kid because I had big lips. And as I got older, I realize that there was some small part of me that was interested in men. But it wasn’t the same way that I would obsess over a girl. It was the idea, always in general terms. It was never romantic either. But I never ever took the effort to come out in any way - because functionally I never did anything that was gay. Of course people around you have a ‘gaydar’ but to this day, I’ve never explicitly and publicly mentioned it. I would even say out of principle I’ve decided not to publicly describe my sexuality at all. As a side note, It’s pretty infuriating that historians get to decide some dead person’s sexuality. It’s very, very complicated. I still don’t like calling myself bisexual (even if objectively true) because I feel i am more nuanced. it feels like when people anthromorphize animals to make some point about human behavior. Yes there is real world evidence I did these things, but can’t I choose how I define it?

To a significant other I might mention my experimentation in my teen years - and while that goes over pretty well with liberal women, it’s an eye opener. I never thought about it as the primary motivating factor behind hiding it, but it is real that women think of bisexual men as less than (especially if you are passive). I think women are off-put by the idea of man acting in the feminine role - and have a hard time really processing that, especially when it involves the person you find attractive.

But all that said, I always acted ‘closeted’ - and that’s the way I liked it. I’d get horny in bed, get my fantasy over with, and go back to normal. It was just this little part of myself that I indulged every once in a great while. I did wind up having gay sex a few times and I enjoyed it. I had a tryst in Milan with a guy with a boat.

But that was when I was 19 and now I’m 28. I’m a man with a job and a 401k. I’m not smooth and beautiful anymore - and the whole thing felt like a facsimile for the feminine.

It’s awful but some part of me wishes for community around this. I am at a point where I can build a life and get married, but this old part of me still exists - disconnected from what I am now. Protestant conversation therapy shouldn’t exist probably, but why not have programs to assist me in choosing to live my life as if this didn’t happen? Why tell people this essentialist idea that they are something forever and always - when, at least when you have two genders you are interested in, you can always neglect one? There’s always a chance that I wake up like Phillip morris, but I don’t think I will. I want to actively choose to never indulge in it as I grow old. Can my gay experiences not be a fun teenage experience à la the summer of love? Doesn’t seem to be a lot of room for that in the culture that’s been cultivated over last 15 years ish.

This is a podcast about being gay with your dad

I think the only challenge with building a community around this is that you have too much nuance to fit into simple boxes, and people basically always put others into simple boxes. You're just assigned to whatever cluster you seem to be the closest to, even if your internal processes are entirely different.

A better solution would be for people to treat other people as more complex beings in general, rather than just slapping labels on them based on limited information.

That said, I do believe that all the important bits aren't in the facts but in how they're interpreted. In this case:

that they are something forever and always

This is just the tendency for people to model others, and a sort of laziness which makes them not want to update their beliefs about others. Perhaps they even get uncomfortable when people are more fluid than fixed, simply because we don't like changing out minds. You might be gay, you might not be gay, only you really know. Your experiences could be sexuality, they could also be fetishism, and they could be something else entirely. Theory has to fit reality, but reality has no need to conform to theory. There's zero needs to label yourself in any way, or even to be consistent. What I think you dislike is the fact that other people will judge you and put you in boxes which you do not fit into.

Edit: I relied as if your comment was a top-level post. I don't know if this makes any meaningful difference or not

This is not a podcast. Did you copy that post from somewhere?

It’s a cumtown reference, whose gay jokes made me more comfortable with my identity

That's a joke, like saying "thank you for coming to my TED talk".

Yeah, but people that have listened to cum town will know exactly where it comes from. I genuinely think listening to that podcast helps me contextualize how non-serious this stuff is

I for one didn't. Write like everyone.. something. There's a rule. Sorry, phoneposting.

But not every cultural reference needs to be explained. You understood his post, except for one reference tacked onto the end. And that's fine.

That's quite true. And I think my pointing out that here's one for whom it's a complete dud isn't exactly a problem either.

Fair enough. I guess I wrongly assumed that there was a pretty big intersection between people who’ve listened and forum readers here, especially since it was so transgressive during its early run.

From morbid curiosity, I browse /r/redscarepodcast on a regular basis. Very interesting specimens on that sub.

That means I know as much about Cumtown as a well-adjusted person can through sheer cultural osmosis. I don't really do podcasts in general.

I'm a cum boy. I think there's at least 5 other regular posters that are too.

Maybe there is and you're right. I'm just one data point, as it were.

I keep hearing about it, but I refuse to try it out because the name is so gross.

Protestant conversation therapy shouldn’t exist probably, but why not have programs to assist me in choosing to live my life as if this didn’t happen

Conversion therapy worked for me… granted there were no Protestants involved.

Seconding, please elaborate!

You'd be amazed what you can accomplish with a few electrodes...

Have you written more about this?

No, I have not.

I am unwilling to go into particularly great detail, even with strangers on the internet, as it is a rather... personal subject. I suppose I brought it up though.

I had the guidance of a priest overseeing it, who doubled as a spiritual director. I remember a lot of talk therapy focused on inculcating a more normative masculinity(which included attraction to women, but also the general idea of it- I learned to like sports as well). I had a therapy workbook by someone Dutch... Van Ardweg I think? There wasn't a lot of specific focus on sex and sexuality- I was discouraged from thinking about it too much- but the idea of sexual activity with another male went from appealing to buzzkill. I did have to catalogue my attraction to women and was supposed to do it by recording- something to do with a normal, male voice. There were other exercises aimed at perceiving myself as male, too. The key theory was something about disruptive relationships to masculinity and the need to establish heteronormativity; I don't think it would even have been without the intertwined ideas about gender roles and all that.

If you have more specific questions you're welcome to ask but I might not answer.

Were you attracted to women before on any level?

I don’t see how conversion therapy can work unless you start off at least a little bit bi. There’s something just neurological different about gay vs straight brains and you can’t change that through therapy anymore than you can fix epilepsy. I also find the flip side - e.g. straight men watching gay porn and “turning gay” because straight porn became too boring - to be similarly questionable.

How did you get started? I mean, the grandparent comment sounded like he wouldn't mind availing himself of this, if it is the One Weird Trick. How would he be able to access the therapy that you were able to receive?

Convert to Catholicism and take an uber-conservative priest as a spiritual director?

I’ve heard that courage international is similar to what I had but in a group setting.

Huh, I always heard that Courage was just nofap for Catholics who were Gay.

That’s certainly possible; I went through individually with an FSSP priest who recommended it but I didn’t try it.

I still don’t like calling myself bisexual (even if objectively true) because I feel i am more nuanced. it feels like when people anthromorphize animals to make some point about human behavior. Yes there is real world evidence I did these things, but can’t I choose how I define it?

I am a simple man, if another man has sex with men at a rate >0 without duress or deprivation, I'd call them bi.

The reason I specify a lack of duress or deprivation, other than the obvious of rape, is that men often have sex with other men when deprived of opportunities to get the fairer sex. Think prison, or boys only boarding school.

I was in a boys only school, albeit not a boarding one, and I never got it on with my bros.

(I say this without any moral condemnation, at all, it's just a question of labels)

Of course, there are all kinds of edge cases, what if they didn't know someone was a man? Wiser men than me have ended up in Thailand drunk off their tits, and didn't realize their partner was a lady boy. Or what if they're post-op trans?

I agree with you that retroactively labeling people in the historical sense is a questionable task. Many cultures, particularly the Romans or Greeks, had models of sexuality that don't cleanly match onto our own. Even when it was two men, the question of who was on top versus the bottom was very important. The latter was condemned, the former condemned weaker, tolerated or extolled as virtuous depending on the exact moment in time.

Even today, the Turkish army excludes people bottoming from the mandatory draft, but doesn't allow tops to use the same excuse. There are doctors working for the government whose job it is to look at pictures of people getting their backs blown out, while having to decide if that counts.

Of course, there are all kinds of edge cases, what if they didn't know someone was a man? Wiser men than me have ended up in Thailand drunk off their tits, and didn't realize their partner was a lady boy. Or what if they're post-op trans?

If they look like women, and if they don't have a dick (or you're unaware of it due to drunkenness), how is that an edge case? And what about the reverse - a man having a passable trans male partner? Are both scenarios gay/bi?

I think it's easier to just think of it as, if you're a man and only attracted to male characteristics, e.g. penis, body hair, muscles, general masculinity, etc. you're gay, if you're only attracted to female characteristics, e.g. vagina, breasts, small waist/large hips, you're straight. If you're attracted to both, you're bi, past a certain fuzzy point (being attracted to tall women is fine, but being attracted to tall, muscular, hairy women with small hips and deep voices starts getting a bit sus). You're not suddenly gay for being attracted to a drawing of a woman if the artist later goes "ha, I actually intended it to be a male, it just looks like a drawing of a woman!".

I agree with you that retroactively labeling people in the historical sense is a questionable task. Many cultures, particularly the Romans or Greeks, had models of sexuality that don't cleanly match onto our own. Even when it was two men, the question of who was on top versus the bottom was very important. The latter was condemned, the former condemned weaker, tolerated or extolled as virtuous depending on the exact moment in time.

There does seem to be this universal male anxiety over "does liking/doing X make me less of a man?" though. In modern times this seems to have become "am I gay for liking/doing X" which adds an layer of worry over things Romans or Greeks wouldn't have cared about, like being the dominant partner of a younger male of lesser social status. Although the Romans thought having a goatee or touching your head with your finger was effeminate, so maybe it evens out.

Even today, the Turkish army excludes people bottoming from the mandatory draft, but doesn't allow tops to use the same excuse. There are doctors working for the government whose job it is to look at pictures of people getting their backs blown out, while having to decide if that counts.

I wonder if AI makes this easier, although I presume there are simpler ways for the committed pacifist and/or coward to get out of it.

I remember my grandfather saying that in the US military during the war there were countless easy ways for someone smart to avoid actual front line combat, but they had to join first so as to allow the military the plausible deniability central to conscription; it is important for the fighting plebs to believe that nobody is “getting away with it” lest overall morale suffer. He hated those people, even though after a relatively minor injury he sat out much of the war.

I’ve heard that dodging the draft in Vietnam by pretending to be gay was doable as long as you pretended to be playing along.

If they're using AI for this purpose, well, that would be unusually forward thinking for the Turkish military. It probably doesn't take long for a military psychiatrist to take a look at an image, and trust me, we've seen much worse so it's not an onerous task.

I have never needed to dodge a draft, but I could see worse options on the table. Paying a gay man a few bucks to put on a condom and stick it in? Do you even have to pay? On the topic of AI, I'm sure it would be possible to deepfake it.

FG gestured towards the numerous pride flags. I claimed to have interpreted them as generic contemporary decor. He then indicated the very large flag by the entrance, to which I could only plead a fundamental lack of situational awareness.

Given the proliferation in enemy areas of huge pride flags at the door of every imaginable type of establishment, the misunderstanding should be perfectly normal. In fact I now have to wonder how actual explicitly LGB establishments can now directly advertise themselves as such.

A Pride flag plus a "Black Lives Matter" sign is pretty much obligatory for every business in a "hipster" neighborhood. Just means "We support $CURRENT_THING". Reminds me of Havel's greengrocer.

Even the shitty dive bar near me has a pride flag in the window. And practically every establishment claims to be "black/woman/lgbt owned" for social credit points. If you live in a Blue area, the gay bars really have to try to stand out.

I work in an office building. There are a few open office sections with many employees in each one. At least two have pride flags. We design electronics and software for said electronics.

A local restraunt has outdoor seating with a pride banner wrapped around the barrier separating it from the public sidewalk. It must be hundreds of feet of the stuff. I met the owner and as best I can tell he isn't gay. The clientele are the regular mix of people in the area. Not a gay venue by any means. But inexplicably covered in pride.

In the gay bar near my apartment, the bathrooms are downstairs. At the top of the stairs is a little dispenser from which you can get free condoms and little sachets of lubricant.

I'd say the majority of straight bars I've been in have vending machines in the bathrooms for this. Maybe not lube, but that's just knowing your audience.

Yes, but in this particular gay bar the condoms and lube are given away for free in common areas, as opposed to being available for sale in the toilets.

Indeed. If I saw a parade's worth of Progress Pride flags, I would think "must be a mainline protestant church."

In fact I now have to wonder how actual explicitly LGB establishments can now directly advertise themselves as such.

Internet.

There's some flaming bars that will literally have rainbows draped from every awning and at every curtain, every wall bright pink, but especially these days there's a lot of very boring-looking bars that will have a surprisingly deep event lists. (And, albeit more rarely, some flame-on looking bars that'll have an event list that looks like an Applebee's.)

enemy areas

This is, on one level, my actual impression of many places. I live in a blue state, so casual pride flags happen. But once you get above a certain threshold of rainbow density in a nominally public place, it’s clear that there’s a dynamic of deliberate hostility to those of us with other convictions.

Still, I’d not open with that phrase on the Motte. Mistake theory is not altogether dead here, the way it usually is there.

I’ll admit, I’ve seen political signage and iconography on both sides that’s starting to get disturbingly close to the murals in Belfast that demarcate Catholic and Protestant neighborhoods.

Ah, thé pride flag and the Republican pride flag(although granted the thin blue line/thin red line/etc are usually separate flags). The Protestants who have discovered sacred heart month. The ‘y’all means all’ murals. The ‘in this house we believe’ signs. The maga flags. The bumper stickers saying ‘stand for the flag, kneel for the cross’.

Please explain (and ideally provide pictures).

In Northern Ireland during the Troubles (a period of civil war waged by clandestine paramilitaries roughly along religious sectarian lines), neighborhoods in the major cities would have large political murals on buildings and walls that marked the area as either Protestant or Catholic. This is a region where walking into the wrong neighborhood could get you shot.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I mean - please explain what political signage and iconography you see today, and please provide pictures thereof if possible.

This is a region where walking into the wrong neighborhood could get you shot.

Well we still have the murals and your chances of being shot have gone way down. Though FYI seeing which colours the kerbs are painted or which flags are on the lampposts is probably easier as there aren't that many murals, you may have to walk a while to work out where you are if relying on murals alone.

You chances of being shot in the wrong region weren't zero, but they weren't massive even at the height of the Troubles. I was on the Falls road (Catholic area) a fair bit even though I was Protestant. Without checking where someone keeps their toaster, or talking to them about schooling you can't tell a Catholic from a Protestant in general just by looking. Hence the old joke about a Jew being stopped by Paramilitaries.

Without checking where someone keeps their toaster

Where do protestants keep their toasters?

In the cupboard as opposed to out on the counter. Popularized by Derry Girls where a Catholic girls school and a Protestant Boys school are attempting to find commonalities.

@Lewis2

https://ce-wp-site-content.s3.ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2022/08/13232530/MHROL34Q4K5PCNG5AE53V5QUTI.jpg

More comments

Where do they keep their toaster?

Care to tell the old joke? I’m not sure how I’d google it…

A Jewish man is walking through Belfast one night when he gets stopped by two men in balaclavas with Armalites.

One of the men asks in a thick Belfast accent "Prod or Taig?" The Jewish man looks confused. "What?" "Are you a Protestant or are you a Catholic?" the other man asks in an even thicker accent. The Jewish man says "Well, I'm a Jew". The first paramilitary gives a long suffering sigh. "Yes, but are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?"

That's the joke.

I have heard a different version which plays off it:

A man is walking home late at night in Belfast. Suddenly he's pulled into a dark alley and feels a knife at his throat! A hoarse voice whispers into his ear, "Are ye Protestant or Catholic?" Thinking quickly, wondering how to answer to save his life, the man has an inspiration. "Neither! I'm Jewish!" he says. "Well now, I'm the luckiest Arab in Belfast, so I am!" says the attacker.

Edit: I see my near namesake beat me to it!

Edit Edit: There is also a version where it's an atheist and the final question is: "Yes but is it the Protestant God or the Catholic God that you don't believe in?"

"Are you a Catholic or a Protestant?"
"Neither. I'm Jewish."
"Sure, sure, but are you Catholic Jewish or Protestant Jewish?"

I'm not much into mistake theory, but what does annoy me about the "enemy areas" phrase is the consensus-building. @phailyoor's enemies are not the same as my enemies. I'd be fine with it if he wrote "Given the proliferation in areas controlled by my enemies,...".

I completely agree. I am conservative while strongly disliking MAGA and as a result pretty much everywhere else I go online it is very clear that I am the outsider and there is nothing I hate more than "as we all agree" style posts. Part of why I like the Motte so much is that it is one of the few places I feel closer to the median, like I actually belong, and one of the things I would like for my space is to not replicate the indignities of enemy territory but with the sign reversed.

I remember when my hotel had a gay pride flag flying alongside the American flag and the state flag. Definitely made me feel worse about working there; it was like I was under enemy occupation.

Thankfully, it has since been replaced with a Canadian flag. Woke may not be dead, but it is surely in retreat.

Location, word of mouth, I assume.

They said that in a male-male context the polite response would be to send the man to the shower or call for a reschedule. I said that if I tried that with a woman I would be killed, slowly, and possibly correctly.

Depends on how well you know each other. I've had a "wait that's not lube any more" moment with my wife that could only be fixed with a shower and a reschedule.

Let's just say that when I did disclose it, a long time later, it went about as well as I expected. Your wife sounds far more amenable to critique than the average.

Oof. Hm. Never tried anal sex and it's not my kind of thing, but I've never gotten the impression that the women I've seen would be exceptionally angry about it.

If anything, women I've dated have been more interested in sexual cleanliness than me, particularly for themselves. I'm not sure, "you stink" would be considered a wonderful thing to say, but I don't have any doubt that I could express what was going on and it would all be okay in the end, even if feelings were hurt in the moment.

This wasn't even anal sex. The aroma hit me during doggy :(

What's worse is that, like you said, the lady in question was far more of a freak about fastidious cleaning than I ever was.

Oh, that's a different story! Anal accidents happen, but not washing your anogenital area before sex and then acting offended when called out on it is just shitty behavior, no pun intended.

Oh, yeah, I had the same experience a long time ago. It happens, I guess.

We really do need the bidet in the west. I have basically trained my digestive system to be almost perfectly regular, and I shower every time I have a bowel movement so I can keep things clean.

This made me remember that the topic of bidets did come up during our conversation. Both FG and I agreed that they were the mark of civilization, and that TP was a barbaric practice.

He added comments about having a hairy ass that I will not reproduce, at the moment.

But you end up with your posterior dripping wet. Wat do? It just didn't seem practical to me when I tried it.

You can wait a few seconds to let the worst of it drip off. Or you can take some TP and dab off the moisture!

I have a butt that can be called a hairy one. TP leaves me with swamp ass far more often than a bidet does.

More comments

Seconding @Muninn. Once you get a bidet installed, you will hate having to do without when away from home.

We really do need the bidet in the west.

Boy do I have some news for you! Hooks up to your existing water line so all it needs is a nearby outlet and you're good to go. Utterly life changing and I have no idea how folks endure the barbarity of making do with the standard bogroll.

He also thinks gay men are unfairly blamed for both HIV and monkeypox, and claimed that heterosexuals now acquire both at higher rates while gay men are just more honest and tested more. I had strong reservations about that claim, and made a note to check later.

My understanding is that it's a 13 52 kind of situation. On a per capita basis gay men are way more likely to catch and spread it, but in absolute numbers there are more heterosexual cases because they are the vast majority of the population. If you're outnumbered 20 to 1 then you can have up to 19x the incidence rate and still have fewer total cases.

Also, you are misunderstanding 13 52. 13 52 means 13% of the population does 52% of the murders. That is higher both on a per capita basis and on an absolute basis than any other group, by the necessity of percentage math.

I was pointing towards the general concept (disproportionately high rate of incidence) not the specific numbers involved. I suppose 13 52 is a minority -> majority not a minority -> higher minority, so maybe a bad example.

According to the CDC website, 67% of new HIV cases are to gay men and 55% of total existing cases. So it's more of a 1.5/55 scenario than a 13/52.

Great write-up as usual. I'm surprised at how stereotypically gay these lads were, you really got lucky from an ethnographic POV.

I clarified my presence, attributing it to a combination of cultural unfamiliarity and severe myopia. FG gestured towards the numerous pride flags. I claimed to have interpreted them as generic contemporary decor. He then indicated the very large flag by the entrance, to which I could only plead a fundamental lack of situational awareness.

Wouldn't this also be affected by Pride celebration? Where I live even the burrito place will be covered in pride flags for a good two months in summer, and a big greasy burrito full of beans is probably not the kind of food you'd want as a gay man looking for a hook-up.

I was also offered, variously, two blowjobs, a rimjob, and a golden shower. I declined with gratitude. It is good to be desired. It is also good to have boundaries.

I'm grateful that no gay man has ever been this crude with me in person. At worst they've just asked me to go home with them and the rest was implied, or made suggestive innuendos.

I declined to explain how I know the sound.

You could just have said you had a gay roommate or something like that. Declining just invites more questions and idle speculation.

How often do you encounter men who are closeted or who identify as bi? FG avoids them. Too messy, too much drama, too many norm mismatches, and in his experience too much reluctance to test for STIs. Others nodded. This was not about identity policing. It was about risk management.

Closeted men is perfectly valid, but bisexuals? That's not risk management, that's bigotry (pun intended?). And they contradicted themselves anyway, they were offering to hook-up with you despite you having clearly stated you were heterosexual from the get-go, so they were hoping you were at least a little bi-curious.

But from your description of these gents I do get it in one sense. They basically want someone of that's "culturally gay" like them, for whom offering a golden shower to a stranger over a couple of drinks is normal behavior.

Sex in dark corners and in toilets tends to discourage straight tourists and is conveniently hard to legislate away without awkward free speech arguments.

As far as I know sex in a public lavatory is illegal in the UK regardless of the sex of the participants. I would assume a pub (i.e. a public house) counts? I know straight people who've had sex in a bar toilet, so there's no argument to be made that it's an exclusively homosexual act.

In any case, your talk with these gents made me understand the perspective of some more intolerant people. That "gay culture" seems to be purposefully designed to be repulsive. I understand that being a pick-me isn't helpful, and that loud gays were the ones that paved away for LGBT rights while the polite, respectful homophile movement accomplished little... but still I feel like I've had the most headway with conservatives when I explained that deep down we just want to be free to live the same lives straight people do. Popper-inhaling, incontinent, promiscuous people who go to bath houses and have sex in the corner of a bar where anybody can come in and have a drink, well, I have little defense of that beyond my general liberal principles.

still I feel like I've had the most headway with conservatives when I explained that deep down we just want to be free to live the same lives straight people do

I think the "we" is doing a lot of work here. I don't dispute that that's how you want to live your life, but I expect your desire might be quite far removed from what the median gay man wants.

they were offering to hook-up with you despite you having clearly stated you were heterosexual from the get-go

Among the gay men I've met personally, "turning" a straight man was by far the most common sexual fantasy. Many straight men have similar fantasies about "turning" lesbians.

The idea of it is hotter than the reality. I've been a couple people's "exception", as a pretty and feminine looking guy.

It's not really worth it. They don't know what they're doing.

I feel this is heavily confounded by the fact that most "fantasies" are trivially achievable by gay men!

Catching the eye of a hot stranger in a park and going at it behind at a bush? That's Tuesday?

Threesomes? Only barrier is scheduling conflict.

In a toilet? Did you bring a wet wipe?

So just about the only desire that remains even somewhat fantastical is the forbidden fruit.

That's part of it, but it's also just really common for a gay guy's first crush (and fairly common for first half-dozen crushes) to be straight guys, or closeted het-passing guys. Unless you join a LGBT org early, it's hard to avoid. That doesn't necessarily impact your tastes once you grow up a bit, but it's definitely something can throw a curveball in.

It's true. Most straight men's fantasies reside only in their heads, and there they shall remain.

I'm grateful that no gay man has ever been this crude with me in person.

Gay Scots don't beat around the bush.

If I see them again, I must ask about their opinion on kilts.

Closeted men is perfectly valid, but bisexuals? That's not risk management, that's bigotry (pun intended?).

I think that can be the case if they're applying to everyone, but a lot of people who call themselves bi are like barely bi. Heck, a lot of people who call themselves bi are basically not bisexual at all outside of "shrugs, I'd do a guy/girl if I found them attractive I guess" types who also can't name a single same sex person they've ever found attractive. I imagine a lot of them are way less comfortable with sexuality and a lot more "boring" to sleep with.

But definitely going after a straight guy to see if he's down for a lay as well comes off as an odd contradiction here.

Popper-inhaling, incontinent, promiscuous people who go to bath houses and have sex in the corner of a bar where anybody can come in and have a drink, well, I have little defense of that beyond my general liberal principles.

Eh, I think a lot of that is just because it's two men involved and they tend to be a lot more openly sexual in general. Women complain all the time in a similar manner about straight guys, so it tracks that two guys together are gonna be pretty nuts.

sex in a public lavatory is illegal in the UK

It’s very gay-coded in the UK because it’s associated with cottaging. If you complained about going to a gay bar and finding two men having sex in the loo, people would laugh at you. If you persisted they would call you a bigot.

This and the IRA (who put bombs in them) are the two reasons Britain doesn’t have nearly enough public loos.

This and the IRA (who put bombs in them) are the two reasons Britain doesn’t have nearly enough public loos.

I just had a great idea for a comedy sketch.

I will try and scoop you:

Closeted IRA member during the dying days of the Troubles

Never got laid, not interested in the revolutionary lassies

FeelsBadMan

Boss suggests bombing a big loyalist music festival

Hide bomb in anus, because it's easier that way.

Meet cutie

We're both drunk and decide to get some action in the porta-potty

Oh shit, not that hole

Mfw I become a martyr, but die a virgin

Closeted men is perfectly valid, but bisexuals? That's not risk management, that's bigotry (pun intended?).

I'm intrigued you feel that way. My understanding is that the same suspicion is even more common among trans women, and that bisexual men are seen as flaky, exploratory sorts whose bisexuality is a fig leaf, who are trans chasing, and would never be caught dead actually dating a trans woman in public. Actually, I'm intrigued in general that you've talked a lot about your concerns about dating and chasers have never come up.

There's many different kinds of bisexual men and you can't paint them all with the same brush. Some are mostly into women and occasionally will top men, some will only bottom for men but top women, some are 99% attracted to women but there's this one guy that takes their fancy, some are just hypersexual and will do anything with anyone. I've known chasers to be bisexual, straight or gay (the latter being into trans men), and I've known bisexual men who didn't want anything to do with trans women. I think trans women would avoid a lot of heartache if they stop being obsessed with dating 110% straight masculine guys and went for the guys that are fine meeting them for a coffee date in broad daylight instead.

My experience with chasers has been that they make themselves known in the first 5 minutes of conversation so it's never been an issue I guess?

I think trans women would avoid a lot of heartache if they stop being obsessed with dating 110% straight masculine guys and went for the guys that are fine meeting them for a coffee date in broad daylight instead.

Well, the complaint I've heard is that even this doesn't protect you. You might go on a nice set of public dates, but still get played by someone who's using you as an exploratory vessel for bicuriosity and isn't actually interested in a full-on relationship -- or even sex, when things get down to it. "This has been fun, but I've decided this isn't for me/I'm still exploring my sexuality" is a common type of breakup or rejection I've heard complaints about; one acquantance insisted on showing me a screenshot of the breakup text and then, sighing, said "I hate bi men."

That said, most trans women I've known or seen with a partner in public were, or wanted to be, in a relationship with another transgender person. I have no data, so maybe the reality is more complicated.

I guess there’s a big difference between a bi guy who’s secure in his bisexuality and has had relationships with both men and women, and one that’s still figuring things out. The former seems to use “pansexual” or “queer” as a label more often I’ve found? I can totally see why bicurious guys would be a problem though, and I don’t think I’d want to date one.

I’d date a trans man for sure if we’re compatible. It’s not that I’d be more attracted to one, but it makes things easier when you have a shared experience over things like dysphoria and the other person just gets it. Plus you don’t have to worry about them transitioning to a woman (which is weirdly common among men willing to openly date trans women).

To answer both your and @urquan 's question:

I know the Grindr sound because of a prank video I saw somewhere online. The prankster would clock someone as likely gay, and then play the matching notification sound standing close to them. I think they used women in some scenes, to minimize the assumption it was them. You'd see a lot of men jump and pat their pockets. Including quite a few who definitely didn't look it to my untrained eye.

Wouldn't this also be affected by Pride celebration?

Possibly. I wasn't keeping track, but since this happened literally this weekend, I guess some of the decor might have stayed up.

Closeted men is perfectly valid, but bisexuals? That's not risk management, that's bigotry (pun intended?). And they contradicted themselves anyway, they were offering to hook-up with you despite you having clearly stated you were heterosexual from the get-go, so they were hoping you were at least a little bi-curious.

The majority of the offers came before the phone gallery bit. I'm sure that FG still made more moves, but they were clearly in the "haha, just kidding. Unless...?" tier.

As far as I know sex in a public lavatory is illegal in the UK regardless of the sex of the participants. I would assume a pub (i.e. a public house) counts? I know straight people who've had sex in a bar toilet, so there's no argument to be made that it's an exclusively homosexual act.

His explanation covered both clubs and bars. I think the sex in dimly lit corners applied more to the former.

While sex in a loo might be illegal, I sincerely doubt anyone ever gets charged!

In any case, your talk with these gents made me understand the perspective of some more intolerant people. That "gay culture" seems to be purposefully designed to be repulsive. I understand that being a pick-me isn't helpful, and that loud gays were the ones that paved away for LGBT rights while the polite, respectful homophile movement accomplished little.

FG was by far the most forward. The rest of them, beyond the usual compliments and offers, seemed normal, for lack of a better word. In other contexts, I might have suspected they were gay, but I wouldn't have strong confidence in that notion. They seemed to act like anyone else out for a drink with friends.

Popper-inhaling, incontinent, promiscuous people who go to bath houses and have sex in the corner of a bar where anybody can come in and have a drink, well, I have little defense of that beyond my general liberal principles.

I am generally liberal, and I think that's enough here. If they want to do all of that, with other consenting adults, then it's none of my business! As a straight man, if I could get away with the sex bit, I'd definitely go for it. Sadly women don't seem quite so keen. Gay sexuality is male sexuality, without the constraints of needing women to indulge in it or to provide the civilizing influence.

The poppers and incontinence? Not as pleasing to my sensibilities, but I will defend their right to do as they wish.

I sincerely doubt anyone ever gets charged

George Michael excepted, although it was rather a different time.

The prankster would clock someone as likely gay, and then play the matching notification sound standing close to them. I think they used women in some scenes, to minimize the assumption it was them. You'd see a lot of men jump and pat their pockets. Including quite a few who definitely didn't look it to my untrained eye.

That's hilarious, do you have the link? Reminds me of this Jeopardy contestant who mispelled "Tinder".

I did try and look for a link before I wrote that! Unfortunately, couldn't find the exact video.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=QzL-4tkCX9A

This gets the gist across, even if it's a disgusting YouTube short.

That "gay culture" seems to be purposefully designed to be repulsive.

I don't believe that it was "designed" to be anything. It's simply male sexuality in its most natural and unrestrained form.

Do you know how straight men would act if women were as DTF as men are? Hooooo boy.

I don't believe that it was "designed" to be anything. It's simply male sexuality in its most natural and unrestrained form.

Yup. Gay male sexuality is just pure-strain male sexuality, free from the fetters of women's preferences and demands.

So too is lesbian sexuality unmodified female sexuality, and lesbian bed death is a common thing.

Lesbians are interesting. They certainly have a much lower libido than men on average, which is what results in LBD, but at the same time I think they are noticeably more "aggressive" in their tastes than straight women. I recall there being a debate at Michfest in years past over whether public displays of BDSM should be allowed, or whether that would be politically compromising because it would be reinforcing patriarchal power dynamics. In the occasional conversations I've had with lesbians, they often seem to be quite self-conscious about restraining their natural desires around other women, because they don't want to violate the "rules of the sisterhood".

So I get the impression that straight female sexuality might truly be a unique phenomenon unto itself, and it has similarities with lesbian sexuality but also some notable differences.

I once saw a complaint that all the women in pornos acted like men, which seemed to me to be onto something but not quite right. Years later I finally managed to articulate it - the women in pornos act like men think they would act if they were hot women. So...

Do you know how straight men would act if women were as DTF as men are? Hooooo boy.

Basically like they do in porn.

Despite the entertainment value of missing literal rainbow flags, I'll note outright that you did a lot better reading social signals than I did the first three or five times I went to one, and I had about the same level of interest in a casual hookup.

At one point I unlocked my phone to show photos from Dover. This triggered knowing looks. “So, you are not gay, are you?” Correct. They explained that no gay man would casually open his gallery in public. Too high a risk of unexpected appearances.

Fair. Not 100% accurately, mostly because some are paranoid enough to have separate phones or be really aggressive about separating files, but yeah, even people who aren't on the meat market'll often have some less-than-audience-friendly photos on their phones.

"Such a shame," FG added, "especially when you're dressed like that." My attire, a polo shirt under a pullover, was chosen for its extreme neutrality. I suppose this can create its own kind of allure through sheer demureness.

You might be surprised. I'm not the best person to ask about appearances, but there's a good part of gay society where that'd come across as pretty strong masc top signal.

How common are poppers in actual practice? FG looked at me like I had asked how common forks are at dinner. The table consensus: some had used them, none were evangelists.

Sounds about right. My impression's that they were a lot more popular in the 80s, and still had a decent number of strong advocates in the 90s, but even when I was a young bi they'd started to get the same sort reputation whippits did (if far less dangerous). Technically a high, but dumb and risky even by the standards of drugs.

I think there's also some mechanical explanations, in addition to the safety and reputational concerns, though. A lot of by-gay-for-gay literature even into the 90s emphasize them (or similar materials like 'vcr tape cleaner') not for improving climax, but as a muscle relaxant. Improved availability of tools and toys to get certain muscles more trained for certain things, and more expectations for tops to properly manage speed, may have made that aspect a lot less universally valuable.

But they've still got a following for that purpose, and that following has long a litany of first-hand bad experiences (bad headaches) and second-hand horror stories (oh boy, chemical burns).

Do people douche before anal sex? After some deliberation, the consensus was no, not routinely. Diet was preferred. Eat fiber, manage timing, accept that risk can be reduced but not eliminated.

Huh. Wonder how much of that's a genuine geographic or cultural difference, or something tied to the specifics of how UK bars work rather than US sphere stuff, rather than 'oh, that's just a bidet/enema/lotta shower time, not a douche'. It's always been something some people can't stand at all, and definitely not my idea of fun, but it's something I've been hard-pressed to be comfortable without even when pretty confident about diet control.

How often do you encounter men who are closeted or who identify as bi? FG avoids them. Too messy, too much drama, too many norm mismatches, and in his experience too much reluctance to test for STIs. Others nodded. This was not about identity policing. It was about risk management.

From the bi guy side, that's somewhat glossing over the less charitable reasons: there's a lot of gay stereotypes about bi guys as just wanting side pieces, or wanting some fucc in the short time before they settle down with a woman/beard later. But it's not wrong, and people fitting those stereotypes do exist.

Are you on PrEP? Only FG. He is meticulous about screening and uses PrEP as insurance.

You're starting to see that a bit more, but not surprised it's both uncommon and mostly not young gays in your sample. I'm not convinced it's a good decision at larger scales -- a lot of the fresh-out-of-high-school gay guys think it's like complete immunity, rather than 'just' an order of magnitude reduction -- but then again I probably put nowhere near FG's value on sex, so hard to make a serious analysis.

((In the US, they're starting to push it to the point of having advertisements on bus stops and park benches in my local area... and I'm not in an especially gay or even urban space.))

Do bug chasers still exist? Only FG had even heard of them, and he is slightly older.

Yeah, they were incredibly rare ten or even twenty years ago, and probably reflected a bunch of conditions that aren't likely to show up again: the whole thing screams of sublimated fears over having to choose between certain infection and complete abstinence not just from sex but even casual exposure in gay spaces. You do still get some people taking incredibly stupid risks, but they're usually more just going 'max bodycount'.

Do people have sex in the baths. Yes, says FG, wistfully reminiscing about a visit to San Francisco.

Speaking of which: ugh, that's a sphere I'm glad I have no information about.

According to him, the only reliable counterpressure is to make the environment clearly and unambiguously queer. Sex in dark corners and in toilets tends to discourage straight tourists and is conveniently hard to legislate away without awkward free speech arguments.

In the US, you'll sometimes see jokes about it as equivalent to keeping rent down by firing gunshots off at the street corner. Probably not a turn of phrase that'd be appreciated or understood in the UK, though. I think there's more motivation toward low-grade exhibitionism, since a lot of these habits were common back when (or where) straight guys wouldn't enter a gay bar for a sorority worth of women, but fear of gay spaces getting rolled over by a tidal wave of straights is definitely a thing and not an unreasonable fear.

They mentioned the only other gay bar nearby, owned by a man who is both gay and loudly hostile to trans people. They had taken their business elsewhere.

Oh, boy, that's it's own separate ball of wax. Tbf, there's a lot of complex tradeoffs where the new demographic has some compatibility issues with the standard demos at the same time that it is partly your old clients. But there's also lot of older gay guys that are somewhere between weirded out by and grossed out by trans women as pretty much everything that gay men weren't supposed to do, or just don't like it, and that's a lot more controversial an issue in the field.

In the US, they're starting to push it to the point of having advertisements on bus stops and park benches in my local area... and I'm not in an especially gay or even urban space.

I pass a prep billboard on my daily commute and I spend at least a few minutes a week thinking about the demographic/regional dynamics involved and how deliberate it may or may not have been.

Edit: that was unnecessarily vague, I was hurrying.

The billboard is in the ambiguously industrial/lower-working-class/gentrifying border between a mid-size Southern city and one of its slowly-absorbed suburbs/satellites. A "neighborhood in transition," one might say. The area is poorer and blacker than the main city, and socially if not politically conservative on average. The sign features a black guy at the prettier end of handsome without crossing into effeminate, and some phrase about staying safe. Demographically correct but a bit socially off, perhaps in that way of ignoring any stigma by the sign being 'generic'?

Nobody I work with actually lives around here and I'm not going to ask one of the attendants at the nearby gas station or Asian market "hey, what do you think of that sign up there?" so on the ground reporting remains as yet untold.

I assume prep billboards are funded by grants to ‘raise awareness’ and ‘destigmatize’ and have little or nothing to do with the people who view them.

You might be surprised. I'm not the best person to ask about appearances, but there's a good part of gay society where that'd come across as pretty strong masc top signal.

What is an honest straight man who is a zero on the Kinsey scale supposed to do? Go topless? I suspect that would make things worse, heh.

What else do I have in my wardrobe? Hawaiian shirt? I can see where that leads.. Barely worn suits? Probably means I'm closeted and looking for fun on a business trip I'm sure.

I mean, I can't blame them, I was an interloper in a gay bar. That is a strong signal of... something. Poor situational awareness, a liberal worldview, a love of cheap drinks? Pick your poison.

Yeah, they were incredibly rare ten or even twenty years ago, and probably reflected a bunch of conditions that aren't likely to show up again: the whole thing screams of sublimated fears over having to choose between certain infection and complete abstinence not just from sex but even casual exposure in gay spaces.

FG framed it in a manner I've heard before: Back in the day, you're all but guaranteed to get it, unless you give up on the gay lifestyle altogether. Why not just get it out of the way?

Hang on, another memory unlocked. He told me that he had met three potential partners who were HIV positive. I think he said two of them were on PrEP, and he might have slept with them. The other wasn't, and thus was rebuffed. I think this is what prompted the tirade about HIV and monkeypox. He said that man was being an idiot, and worsening general societal perception of the gays, as well as being a risk to their lifestyle.

Oh, boy, that's it's own separate ball of wax. Tbf, there's a lot of complex tradeoffs where the new demographic has some compatibility issues with the standard demos at the same time that it is partly your old clients. But there's also lot of older gay guys that are somewhere between weirded out by and grossed out by trans women as pretty much everything that gay men weren't supposed to do, or just don't like it, and that's a lot more controversial an issue in the field.

Interesting. I'm not too surprised by the existence of conservative or reactionary gay men. These guys seemed to be very liberal in outlook, they were friends with the trans bartender, so I guess they took the concept of LGBT solidarity more seriously!

Poor situational awareness, a liberal worldview, a love of cheap drinks?

[D] All of the above.

No actual D involved, but you're right, all of those seem to be a running theme in my stories.

Hawaiian shirt? I can see where that leads..

You don't look like a big fat party animal to me

What is an honest straight man who is a zero on the Kinsey scale supposed to do?

Fair. If I had to come up with the no-gay-guy-would-wear-this setup, it'd probably involve an emphasis on frumpy and especially too-large clothing, but that's neither actionable nor useful advice for anyone in the real world.

FG framed it in a manner I've heard before: Back in the day, you're all but guaranteed to get it, unless you give up on the gay lifestyle altogether. Why not just get it out of the way?

Yeah, something like that, but eroticized as someone permanently taking you and making it impossible to go back. Not just for lifestyle-as-in-baths-and-chemsex, but even lifestyle-as-in-meeting-up-with-gays-for-parchessi: remember that it took until the late 1980s for official medical advice to say you couldn't transmit HIV by casual contact, and longer for a lot of people including gay guys to actually believe it.

He told me that he had met three potential partners who were HIV positive. I think he said two of them were on PrEP, and he might have slept with them. The other wasn't, and thus was rebuffed. I think this is what prompted the tirade about HIV and monkeypox. He said that man was being an idiot, and worsening general societal perception of the gays, as well as being a risk to their lifestyle.

There's been a long-standing presence of these sorta pragmatists, and while HIV gave them a lot more political capital (even when they were guessing), they've probably had more impact than my respectability politics side. I'm not sure how well the math works out in the long run, though.

I'm also confused about either the specific policies or a communication issue. My impression was that US medical advice is to actively test people for HIV first and never give PrEP to HIV positive people, and that the UK was similar. Are these people using PrEP as a byword for any oral anti-HIV medication, and they're really on ART (but then they're unusually medtechnical group, so that'd be a weird conflation)? Is FG assuming anyone without known HIV status is positive, and these guys are 'just' unknown status, so PrEP is more reasonable? Am I behind the curve on the literature, here? Am I ahead of the curve, and people giving out PrEP doing so in conditions that probably aren't helping?

I'm not too surprised by the existence of conservative or reactionary gay men. These guys seemed to be very liberal in outlook, they were friends with the trans bartender, so I guess they took the concept of LGBT solidarity more seriously!

Some of them are generally-conservative or reactionary, at least by local standards, but I've also seen it from older lefties who just have that topic as their exception, too, in the same way that a lot of TERFs are bog-standard feminists otherwise. But the solidarity arguments are still pretty strong for anyone that's seen a cis crossdresser called a fag, too, even if the actual policy proposals don't necessarily follow.

no-gay-guy-would-wear-this setup

One of those "Federal Breast Inspector" T-shirts.

PrEP is definitely not given to people who are known to be positive, I presume FG was using it as a shorthand for any antiretroviral. I was too drunk to notice the issue back then.

Hm. That's the third time in a week I've seen the topics overlap, but at least in my neck of the woods it's not something people treat as interchangeable. Might put some feelers out to figure out of that's just a linguistic change or if people are getting genuinely confused on the matter.

Fair. If I had to come up with the no-gay-guy-would-wear-this setup, it'd probably involve an emphasis on frumpy and especially too-large clothing, but that's neither actionable nor useful advice for anyone in the real world.

Don't tell the President!

it'd probably involve an emphasis on frumpy and especially too-large clothing

Hey, you don't have to call me out like that!

Yeah, something like that, but eroticized as someone permanently taking you and making it impossible to go back.

Holy crap, are virginity, the "breeding" kink, and pozzed culture linked psychologically?

Hey, you don't have to call me out like that!

If it helps, drawing from personal experience myself.

Holy crap, are virginity, the "breeding" kink, and pozzed culture linked psychologically?

To some extent and some forms, yeah. Strictly speaking the infection version only ties you to the culture of the infecting actor (whether infection is literal HIV or vampirism or latex monster), where pregnancy or virginity loss draws a permanent connection to a specific person, but I'm not sure they're even distinct on that point from inside the fantasy. You see it a decent amount in kink, even in pretty free-use-styled kink across a variety of genders and orientations: A/B/O with mating bites are female-reader coded and a lot of slavery-themed stuff with these conventions are gay-for-gay-themed, but assigned mate is overwhelmingly het guy-oriented.

In the extreme case, womb markers for pregnancy and biohazard markers for poz-themed stuff has a lot of parallels.

It's not the only driver even for those kinks, and there's a lot that doesn't get remotely near it (eg, glory hole isn't about the tops being interchangeable, but it's definitely about impermanence), but it's a really non-obvious bit that explains a lot where present.

Despite the entertainment value of missing literal rainbow flags, I'll note outright that you did a lot better reading social signals than I did the first three or five times I went to one, and I had about the same level of interest in a casual hookup.

Okay, now you've piqued my curiosity.

even people who aren't on the meat market'll often have some less-than-audience-friendly photos on their phones.

This is kind of a straight person thing too. I recall seeing memes a few years ago joking about "not opening your gallery in front of strangers." And, really, the era we're living in often involves an exchange of nudes for people in an intimate relationship, so it wouldn't be especially surprising for a straight man to have dirty pics of his wife or his girlfriend on his phone -- though probably an order of magnitude fewer of them. Straight women are maybe? less likely, but I doubt it's unheard of. And both of them might just have dirty pics of themselves in their photos, you have to take them to send them!

From the bi guy side, that's somewhat glossing over the less charitable reasons: there's a lot of gay stereotypes about bi guys as just wanting side pieces, or wanting some fucc in the short time before they settle down with a woman/beard later. But it's not wrong, and people fitting those stereotypes do exist.

The same stereotype works in the opposite direction -- straight women have concerns about bisexual men for the exact same reason. As self_made_human has realized, getting sexual attention from gay men is trivial, and so is both easy to obtain and less valuable per-interaction. So madonna/whoring your mindset and searching for disposable sexual attention from men (whores) while seeking out reliable partnership with women (madonnas) is something you can do, if you're so inclined.

The other thing is that gay men, particularly ones who are interested in companionship more than disposability, often feel trapped by the expectations of gay dating, and are jealous of straight men for whom long-term commitment, exclusivity, and broad social acceptance feel like table stakes. So bisexual men can be "traitors": taking from gay men whatever they can get from them and then fleeing to the arms of a woman when one arises.

This has been somewhat sexualized lately, with the "femboy bf"/"femboy hooters" meme culture which prompts great recrimination in the ongoing femininine-man/trans-woman civil war, but of course that also comes with the corollary memes of "breaking up with my femboy bf because I met a real woman." (I have no idea what the actual prevalence of this stuff is, I'm just way too extremely online.)

Intriguingly, this pattern seems to mirror many complaints about women's sexual behavior from men, and women's complaints about the sexual behavior of extremely attractive straight men: if sexual attention is abundant, using it for temporary affirmation while utterly disposing of your partners' interests and needs is a real possibility. Turns out, sex is not tennis.

In the US, they're starting to push it to the point of having advertisements on bus stops and park benches in my local area... and I'm not in an especially gay or even urban space.

I saw a bunch when I visited DC with my girlfriend. Interestingly, they were generally framed as "use PrEP to protect him" not yourself, like that Simpsons meme about Maggie.

Okay, now you've piqued my curiosity.

I'm afraid it's not very interesting: I was just at the 'willing-to-buy-gay-porn' level of confidence, had completely missed the (then-much-rarer) high school and college actually-social gay environments like whatever-they-called-GSAs back then or marching band, didn't drink alcohol or go to straight bars, and was pretty terminally clueless, so fish out of water is understating things. Absolutely unprepared and uninterested in a hookup, no actual gay friends, and no clue what the expected behavior was beyond hanky code horror stories, and I've got a face for radio and so little self-confidence I wasn't even bring that well. The whole train of logic was just 'gay and bi guys meet in bars, I'm a bi guy, so if I want to talk with other gay and bi guys I should learn how to go to bars'.

First time I showed up alone ten minutes after opening, bought a whole pizza and a diet coke, and had absolutely no idea what was going on. Nobody else there but the staff, and in retrospect they thought either I was stood up by a cheap date or about to run away from home, but about the only context I had was a couple years in high school having worked a family diner so took a hovering and constantly-asking-if-I-was-ok waiter as trying to get an extra dollar tip on a bad night.

The second was later enough in the day there were actually other clients there, but I'm still absolutely clueless and after how badly the first time went I brought a book, so when a guy sat next to me and ordered me a drink I said nope, and while I'd like to pretend that's to avoid leading someone on, I also still genuinely had trouble with the taste of beer and wine, and also had all the various then-prominent stories about never accepting drinks from strangers. And then went back to my book when he didn't start talking anything else. And then went on like that for a good thirty-plus minutes. Third was pretty much the same thing. In retrospect, some of the people on try three were probably trying to flirt, but in terms of social skill I’m not just answering how my day was with actual details of my actual day, but I’m not following up with questions back. I remember one guy complimenting my shirt, and telling him where I bought it.

Fourth was karaoke night. So you've got all that, and now people are much more drunk, and it's loud enough I couldn't hear most of what was going on anyway. Fifth was quieter (though not as dead as the first time) and finally had someone on staff read me the riot act/facts of life.

In some ways, I was pretty lucky that it went that particular failure mode -- despite a pretty subtle appearance and name, the place both oriented toward older crowds and was... much more high-energy than I would have been ready for, so to speak: karaoke night was the shallow end. But I'm glad that there's other options on both 'dating' and homosocial environments options now.

The other thing is that gay men, particularly ones who are interested in companionship more than disposability, often feel trapped by the expectations of gay dating, and are jealous of straight men for whom long-term commitment, exclusivity, and broad social acceptance feel like table stakes. So bisexual men can be "traitors": taking from gay men whatever they can get from them and then fleeing to the arms of a woman when one arises.

Yeah, that's fair. There's a lot of gay guys -- even gay guys that self-identify as sluts -- that want their (primary) relationships to be a lot more serious than a lot of natural equilibrium ends up, and that's a hard problem to solve and an easy problem to get jealous over.

This has been somewhat sexualized lately, with the "femboy bf"/"femboy hooters" meme culture which prompts great recrimination in the ongoing femininine-man/trans-woman civil war, but of course that also comes with the corollary memes of "breaking up with my femboy bf because I met a real woman." (I have no idea what the actual prevalence of this stuff is, I'm just way too extremely online.)

Heh. I have a rough time telling how much of that's bisexual or closeted gay rather than prescriptive when it comes to its heterosexuality or just trans chaser, but it's definitely a thing with variations on both sides of the orientation aisles (for an undeniably gay version: himbo hooters). And there's definitely a whole variety of stuff that's spread around the fantasy of either being so attractive or fucking so well that you redefine what's desirable for someone. ((for furries, jarlium has some great stuff on those themes.))

And, of course, top shortages definitely don't help.

I saw a bunch when I visited DC with my girlfriend. Interestingly, they were generally framed as "use PrEP to protect him" not yourself, like that Simpsons meme about Maggie.

... I'm still a bit weirded out by that variation. I dunno if it's just my misreading it entirely, or if it's intended as a statement for people with open relationships to protect their primary partner, or what, but it seems like it's inviting people to bad understandings of what PrEP does. But probably something the CDC expects to be more effective.

The second was later enough in the day there were actually other clients there, but I'm still absolutely clueless and after how badly the first time went I brought a book, so when a guy sat next to me and ordered me a drink I said nope

Uff da, been there with the book.

I'm glad that on a couple other "just how oblivious can I be" occasions I had thoughtful friends nearby that recognized how dire the situation and coached me before it was too late and the opportunity lost.

My God man, showing up right after open and buying a whole pizza. I literally laughed out loud.

Good god, the level of obliviousness was off the charts haha. If it's not too late, I can send you an autism diagnosis in the mail.

Fifth was quieter (though not as dead as the first time) and finally had someone on staff read me the riot act/facts of life.

Maybe I'm just too sheltered, but I'm not quite sure what you're insinuating here.

I have a rough time telling how much of that's bisexual or closeted gay rather than prescriptive when it comes to its heterosexuality or just trans chaser, but it's definitely a thing

I have no clue, either. But my read is that the "I'm a femboy and I fuck better than your girlfriend" is a strikingly common fantasy. Yeah, that line may have been used on me once. My take is that straight men are unbothered.

That said, the "I'll just go gay/date a femboy/date trans women" thing seems to have a little purchase, but only in the way that Trump wanting to buy Greenland is. It's a memetic negotiation tactic, a way of asserting "I have power over you no matter what you do!" I don't think the femboys or the trans women have actually been consulted. (But neither was Greenland.)

But also straight men need to be real careful lest they start assuming that twinky femboys are drama-free sex machines.

... I'm still a bit weirded out by that variation. I dunno if it's just my misreading it entirely, or if it's intended as a statement for people with open relationships to protect their primary partner, or what, but it seems like it's inviting people to bad understandings of what PrEP does.

I also thought it was weird, and commented on it at the time. Apparently this wasn't a CDC thing, it was Montgomery county public health. So in the NIH's backyard, though not with any affiliation.

I thought I had taken pictures of the posters, but I guess I took fewer pictures in Maryland than I thought. I did find Montgomery county's website for the overall HIV public health program, though, which has a similar banner, depicting two men and reading "Do it for HIM". Weirdly, the FAQs page for the program has a man hugging two elderly women with the phrase, "do it for THEM" which is mildly funny but also kind of seems to rebut the interpretation that this is advertising PrEP for protecting your partner. ("Do it for your mom?") Another page has a banner with a lesbian couple reading "Do it for HER" -- is HIV a big issue for lesbians? I remember seeing all of these variations at Metro stations in Maryland.

What's particularly strange is this seems to be the overall campaign for HIV prevention, treatment, and testing, but the banners I recall specifically were advertising PrEP. So maybe this was a situation of a generalized campaign being applied to a specific health intervention in a rather silly way -- "get tested for your wife, get treated for your mom, get PrEP for yourself" I guess seems reasonable, but the way in which all the posters I saw were about prophylaxis in particular just didn't make a lot of sense.

Maybe I'm just too sheltered, but I'm not quite sure what you're insinuating here.

I mean it pretty literally: an employee sat down, explained what I was doing wrong, what the expectations for that specific space was, what likely failure modes I'd encounter if I continued as I was doing, and some alternative approaches.

I dunno what the guy's specific job was, but one of the older employees sat down and gave a ten or fifteen minute spiel, starting with the simple stuff like explaining what someone buying you a drink meant (only strictly speaking requires a conversation, but impolite to accept if you aren't looking for something more, with expectations of reciprocity, and how the tab worked under those circumstances) and how to handle it if the drink was unacceptable but the company wasn't (tell the bartender or waiter when you order your first drink that you're a teetotaler, even if you're not), that customers purchasing less than two beers worth were going to unspecified issues (hint hint), normal don't leave drinks unattended and know your limits for alcohol when you do drink. Eventually, what I'd missed about the name (a marijuana reference), what event nights were active for 'mostly' social stuff (poker or betting on watch football) and which were much more heavy on either hookups or otherwise might be a little too ribald for me (here's a flier; yes several include drag and/or guys in glorified speedos), and other spaces that might be easier to get friends to go to the bar with (admittedly, not very helpful given three of the recs were explicitly political orgs).

I have no idea how many of those conventions were even common back then and I'm sure many aren't common now.

But my read is that the "I'm a femboy and I fuck better than your girlfriend" is a strikingly common fantasy.

Uh... yeah. One of my first crushes was on a straight guy, and it wasn't the only such crush, add in a general shortage of tops, and there's a lot of reasons it works as a fantasy. And while I've never pursued it, you only really need one or two closeted guys for it to feel like it could work.

That said, the "I'll just go gay/date a femboy/date trans women" thing seems to have a little purchase, but only in the way that Trump wanting to buy Greenland is. It's a memetic negotiation tactic, a way of asserting "I have power over you no matter what you do!"

Maybe? I dunno how much of it's kidding on the square. A lot of soccons have looked at the number of younger generations self-identifying as bi and then not doing anything about it, but there's other explanations for that behavior that could end up changing pretty fast.

But that may just be me assuming many other people share my interests, and there definitely are starting to be people who try to take that approach and get surprised to find out exactly how poorly it works in practice.

But also straight men need to be real careful lest they start assuming that twinky femboys are drama-free sex machines.

Hah! Fair point. Even 'always up for sex' isn't anywhere near realistic, and that's assuming a lot of frot that straight or 'straight' guys aren't probably gonna be feeling. And it's very much just a different sort of drama, and not even that different, rather than as overt a difference in quantity as a lot of straight guys expect.

Hell, some of the times you don't even avoid the shoe-explosion.

What's particularly strange is this seems to be the overall campaign for HIV prevention, treatment, and testing, but the banners I recall specifically were advertising PrEP.

Interesting. I'll have to put some feelers out; this seems like the sorta thing where everyone involved was sure they were just presenting the most palatable experience, but by the end of the game of telephone it's somewhere between useless (like dental dams, PrEP for lesbians is probably not a high impact field: I think there's been literally one case of cisF/cisF HIV transmission through oral sex documented) and actively counterproductive (expecting partners to use a drug they can't get and wouldn't be helped by).

"Hey handsome," he said, noticing my interest. "Sorry if I end up spilling any of this on you." I assured him this would be fine, since spilled alcohol represents free alcohol, which represents savings. "I wouldn't mind licking it off you, if you know what I mean."

That's... pretty damn forward.

At one point I unlocked my phone to show photos from Dover. This triggered knowing looks. “So, you are not gay, are you?” Correct. They explained that no gay man would casually open his gallery in public. Too high a risk of unexpected appearances. I learned something.

This seems like a great opportunity to use the "hide" function in the Photos app.

I said I had expected at least one notification during the evening. I declined to explain how I know the sound.

Such a tease, self_made_human, such a tease.

How often do you encounter men who are closeted or who identify as bi? FG avoids them. Too messy, too much drama, too many norm mismatches, and in his experience too much reluctance to test for STIs.

Hm. This seems to suggest to me that the big problem with this group is that they're cheating on women. In particular, STI testing is relatively uncommon among men who date women, and there's a lot of friction to start if you've never done it before. Or, if finding the answer would mean a messy obligation to disclose a compromising health detail to an intimate partner.

In the realistic version I walked home slightly drunk, slightly wiser, and extremely grateful that a bar full of men who had no reason to be kind to me were kind anyway.

I guess it seems to me that they had every reason to be kind to you -- at least some of them found you attractive. You were offered multiple sex acts. Even after they clarified that you were straight, FG still flirted with you: "Such a shame," FG added, "especially when you're dressed like that." FG in particular seems like he had "elder gay" energy, and a kind of leadership over the group, and he specifically had something for you.

And even then, you came from related fields, and could talk about work. So you built a kind of camaraderie on that detail.

It also sounds like their objection to straight men in the bar was about them talking to women there, and you said you did none of that, and even slightly judged a man who was trying to do so. You went to a gay bar and let men flirt with you, and let them down easy... of course they liked you! For the same reason that women who try to be vague and polite when they reject men tend to prolong the interaction. The door could always be more open than you're saying. And gay men are quite reluctant to take "I'm straight" as an answer. "I'm bi" is an invitation to participation in adultery, "I'm straight" is a challenge.

Apparently late July/August has been "how are the _____ doing sexually?" time on the motte. And, as usual, I have no bloody clue how lesbians are doing, except that the one lesbian I was friends with in college was interested in gender transition. I think they prefer it that way.

This seems like a great opportunity to use the "hide" function in the Photos app.

There's some advantages to knowing op-sec, but there's also some strong advantages to recognizing when future you might be (probably) drunk or half-asleep, thinking with the wrong head, and making bad decisions otherwise, and recognizing that future you will not maintain the right level of op-sec and changing habits around that.

((That's not even just a photo concern. iOS will quite happily take screenshots if you hit the power and voldown button, and boy can you believe how easy it is to get accidental screenshots of stuff you don't want to be sharing with the hets.))

This seems to suggest to me that the big problem with this group is that they're cheating on women. In particular, STI testing is relatively uncommon among men who date women, and there's a lot of friction to start if you've never done it before. Or, if finding the answer would mean a messy obligation to disclose a compromising health detail to an intimate partner.

In practice, yeah, the problems that come with guys cheating on a woman with a guy is still some of the motivation. And there's a lot of other gay stereotypes about bi or closeted men, some of them moderately well-founded. The steelman is that even bi or closested gay guys who don't have and aren't looking for a woman still have some pretty significantly different behaviors than out gays do, and put different expectations on their romantic (or not-romantic) partners.

Trivially, if you're with someone that's not out, in their social environment, it puts a significant onus on you to dial down the flame lest you out them in turn. In gay social spaces, they're likely to be a lot less happy with a lot of more flamboyant behavior. Even without all of the frictions and concerns that a positive STI test result would bring to a het relationship, just getting a test done at all even knowing you're clean still involves a) talking to a professional about your sexual history, and b) doing something that's overwhelmingly advertised as important for the gay guys while you're talking to a professional about your sexual history, and having done it knowing that the professionals don't care about anything but the next break, that's really awkward from the closet.

Some of that's just blaming specific person or relationship issues on the identifiable trait -- especially in these fields, there's a lot of dramatically different expectations for how serious a hook-up's going to be open to becoming, even if I've seen almost every possible combination and direction for bi-on-gay pairs. ((Though there's some fuzziness on the edges of that. I'm not gonna say that bi guys are universally happier with the idea of a threesome, because that's probably not even remotely true. But even and maybe especially closeted gay guys will put a remarkable amount of effort into having a woman tangentially involved in ways that most out gay men will run away from.))

At a deeper level, I think there's some level of 'seen the elephant' involved in really coming to terms with being gay, specifically. But I can't say for sure, because I haven't been there.

getting a test done at all even knowing you're clean still involves a) talking to a professional about your sexual history

In Ireland, you can send off for free STI tests in the post. They arrive in discreet packaging, you pop your blood, urine and stool samples in a postage-paid envelope, and less than a week later you log into a portal and it tells you the results. I think it's a brilliant idea and wish it was the norm everywhere. I'd love to know how much of the transmission of STIs is ultimately downstream of people being too embarrassed to discuss their sex lives with doctors.

That's true. Looking it up, there's a few services offering something similar in the US, albeit generally for much more limited sets of diseases or limited to specific states or demographics (or both). I was under the impression that most of them wanted to include 'professional counseling' as part of the service, but it does look like some of them are just taking the 'ship a spit-test to everybody' approach. I dunno that I'd put anywhere near as much trust in it as in the standard full-spectrum-professional result, but a) I don't have a typical risk analysis here and b) I've been out of the dating game long enough to not be familiar with current norms.

That's... pretty damn forward.

Oh no, he made it clear he'd be perfectly happy bending me backwards. Sadly, my yoga days are behind me.

This seems like a great opportunity to use the "hide" function in the Photos app.

My thoughts exactly. I wanted to give these guys a lesson in opsec.

I guess it seems to me that they had every reason to be kind to you -- at least some of them found you attractive. You were offered multiple sex acts. Even after they clarified that you were straight, FG still flirted with you: "Such a shame," FG added, "especially when you're dressed like that." FG in particular seems like he had "elder gay" energy, and a kind of leadership over the group, and he specifically had something for you.

Really? You're telling me this now for the first time. And here I was thinking he was being polite.

FG actually looked a lot older than he really was. I think he claimed he was 35? I was thrown off by the gray hair. I'm presuming he wasn't lying about his age.

A lot of memories are finally coming back to me:

They'd asked me how old I was. The answer made them gasp, "you're a baby!" Like, come on, I'm on the wrong side of 25. The youngest was HG, who I thought was younger than me, and I think he said he was 32. I was going to add the topic of twink death to my list of nosy questions, but FG straight up told me that gay men hit a wall after 30. That answered things.

(Am I a twink? Goodness, I hope not. Perhaps @Corvos can answer that, he's seen me in person, even if he's straight)

It also sounds like their objection to straight men in the bar was about them talking to women there, and you said you did none of that, and even slightly judged a man who was trying to do so.

A lack of opportunity rather than interest! The first two people I thought were women were actually trans. I think a total of two natal women walked in, one left while I was still in conversation. The last one? You know how that ended.

I didn't mean to judge the old dude. He owned the dog, it had a rather painful looking wound on its back, and he wasn't trying to hit on the lesbian woman - he was telling her the story of how it happened. He was telling quite a few other people the same story too.

I'm sure that me being attractive had some bearing on their friendliness, but I don't think it really explains the whole story. Even the men who didn't make a move were perfectly welcoming. There's just something about me that has people opening up (it's a good trait to have in a shrink), and their behavior wasn't out of the ordinary (well...) when it comes to having good conversations with other pub goers.

It also seemed to me that their objection to straight men in gay spaces wasn't just the fact that were straight, or after women but other things:

  • They dilute the pool of available gay men.

  • They react negatively to being taken for gay men even if it's literally a gay club. I imagine the average chav wouldn't be as polite as me.

  • They have the potential to get violent even if the gay men are being gay without involving them. I can believe it.

For the same reason that women who try to be vague and polite when they reject men tend to prolong the interaction. The door could always be more open than you're saying. And gay men are quite reluctant to take "I'm straight" as an answer. "I'm bi" is an invitation to participation in adultery, "I'm straight" is a challenge.

I was indirectly exploring that with my questions about closeted men and bi men. I think that the gay men who actually get a kick out of "converting" straight men are a minority in practice. Sure, they definitely exist, but I doubt they're representative. In a similar manner, most straight men would bang a lesbian chick and brag, but you don't see the majority of us trying.

I think if I'd reacted negatively to FG's attempts at flirtation, instead of taking it in good cheer, he'd probably have desisted.

Apparently late July/August has been "how are the _____ doing sexually?" time on the motte. And, as usual, I have no bloody clue how lesbians are doing, except that the one lesbian I was friends with in college was interested in gender transition. I think they prefer it that way.

Neither do I. I assume they're working on project cars, or playing roller derby. I don't think I know a single lesbian, personally or online.

I was going to add the topic of twink death to my list of nosy questions, but FG straight up told me that gay men hit a wall after 30. That answered things.

This is a lie. Twink death is a spook. It only happens to those who stop taking care of themselves.

What happens is there's a point where you can no longer effortlessly be a twink. And a lot of twinks, unused to making actual effort, let it fall by the wayside.

(Am I a twink? Goodness, I hope not. Perhaps @Corvos can answer that, he's seen me in person, even if he's straight)

I refuse to answer, on the grounds that you're taller than me and I don't like the implications :P

They'd asked me how old I was. The answer made them gasp, "you're a baby!" Like, come on, I'm on the wrong side of 25. The youngest was HG, who I thought was younger than me, and I think he said he was 32. I was going to add the topic of twink death to my list of nosy questions, but FG straight up told me that gay men hit a wall after 30. That answered things.

Interesting. Perhaps this relates to their non-use of Grindr: my understanding is that, like with straight people, young gay men are very app-oriented and non-commital. "Sleep around in the most friction-less (cough) way in your 20s" seems to be a pretty broad strategy for people who can pull it off.

Even the men who didn't make a move were perfectly welcoming. There's just something about me that has people opening up (it's a good trait to have in a shrink)

Ah, fair enough. Not her scene, obviously, but my mother is the same way. She used to think of herself as an introvert, but I have been telling her most of my adult life how she's extremely extroverted, and people love talking to her. She talks about how when she meets someone who seems gruff or closed-off, she makes it a mission to get them to laugh.

I think if I'd reacted negatively to FG's attempts at flirtation, instead of taking it in good cheer, he'd probably have desisted.

I guess this was my point -- you made it easy to keep going, and that made you fun to talk to!

poppers

I've tried poppers exactly once. The high from poppers is 1:1, 100% indistinguishable with the high of standing up too quickly. The one minor difference is that standing up too quickly isn't followed with ten minutes of your heart going BOOM... BOOM... BOOM and then two hours of an absolutely pounding headache.

I had strong reservations about that claim, and made a note to check later.

Did you follow up?

I've tried poppers exactly once. The high from poppers is 1:1, 100% indistinguishable with the high of standing up too quickly. The one minor difference is that standing up too quickly isn't followed with ten minutes of your heart going BOOM... BOOM... BOOM and then two hours of an absolutely pounding headache.

I'm putting away all of my inclination to ever give that a try.

Did you follow up?

I know for a fact it's not true! I very much don't need a literature review to be sure.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats