longtime lurker

It has been ages since I have posted here and I'm not sure if I should even get involved in this discussion, but it is a lively discussion. OK. 9 in 10 posters here will give you the same basic line of advice: "Fall in love with The Experience, but not with The Provider". Write that line down and keep it on the back burner, "logically speaking", so that you don't over-analyze what can't always be analyzed so easily. Now... I will play the 10th poster and throw you a curve-ball. Life can be complicated. Human relationships can be complicated. I developed feelings for a masseur who doesn't just do "hands only" work with clients and, over years of contact with him (and I am talking seven years now), we have developed a relationship that has gotten much closer with feelings that have become mutual. Yes, there has been much activity occurring "off working hours". Of course, you can not be the jealous type in this kind of relationship because people must make a living at what they do best in a world where many need special tender loving care. In addition, you yourself may need to help out at times too as you would in ANY kind of relationship, especially during bad times like nationwide pandemics when clients become fewer in number and the rent needs covered. Think of "The Provider" in much the same way you would a physical therapist or psychiatrist addressing your needs and improving your life for the better. Sadly, the United States is still a very backward country in accepting all of this as it should be accepted. Then again, just being gay in the United States was considered a "mental disorder" as late as 1973, doing "gay" activities could get you in jail in multiple states as late as 2006 and same gender marriage (as well as so many other relationships of this kind) was strictly out of the question prior to 2015. Since you say you are still in your twenties, two of these events only happened in your own lifetime and, yes, much more progress needs to made. Most of us posting here have had to get over a great many, many family and environmental issues just to address our own needs. But... pardon me for getting off topic here. Back to you. If this fellow put you at ease and allowed you to experience things without judgement, then definitely revisit him again when you physically and financially can. Become a repeat client and view him as a potential friend first and foremost. You have already read some posts here mentioning wonderful friendships that have developed from these experiences and that is something that should never be overlooked. Don't fuss too much about the feelings part. After all, you only spent ONE visit with him! That is like having a blind date with a perfect stranger whom you know virtually nothing about outside those two hours or so. Maybe on that second visit a.k.a. "date", your feelings will change. Something that happens may change your perspective of him altogether. Again, go up to the line quoted above as a possible rule of thumb. Yet don't overlook what possibilities could happen in the future. Just take one day... and visit... at a time. View your developing emotions and relationships as a good thing and not a bad thing to be afraid of... and remember that there are many kinds to experience in life.

As Matt Baume mentions in his videos, Ursula was a rather specific case with the gay writer/lyricist being a fan of Divine. Going back into history through the darker days of yesteryear, there are a lot of interesting tidbits worth discussion here. Perhaps the most "straightened out" Disney feature is BAMBI, since the only villain is the off-camera "Man" and practically every forest critter except Friend Owl is blatantly matched up with a member of the opposite gender. Note that Flower the Skunk is the first of the trio of bro-buddies, before Thumper and Bambi, to get "twitterpated", just so we don't have to question his orientation any further! On the other hand, Flower is a good role model for social acceptance since he tells Thumper earlier in the film that Bambi "can call me Flower if he wants to... I don't mind." Therefore, I would suspect that, if there was some Pride March in the forest, Flower would be a supporter on the sidelines despite being happily married with a son named after our staring deer. Some of the 1930s Silly Symphonies like KING NEPTUNE (1932) have what we would now define as gay stereotypes. In this one example, a "flamboyant" pirate with blue ribbons in his hair gets the mug tossed over his face when he isn't singing masculine enough by his shipmates. This brings me to the pirate ship featured in PETER PAN two decades later. Captain Hook and his boyfriend-of-sorts Smee have so much to offer that I am surprised nobody has made a YouTube homage to the very gay jokes between them. I think one reason that film got passed during a very anti-gay, communist-phobic period without any questioning was due to the novel casting of Hans Conrad as the voice to both Hook and Mister Darling, the heteronormal father of the juvenile stars. Thus, two characters are related to each other on a subliminal level. Whether or not Peter himself is questioning his own orientation, we certainly have Wendy, the constantly jealous Tinker Bell, Tiger Lily and even the mermaids all displaying affection for him. Like Tommy Kirk in his later live-action films, he may have just not found The Right Girl yet... ahem. Much has been discussed of THE RELUCTANT DRAGON, the mostly live-action feature tour-of-the-studio with its extended animated "fairy" tale involving a rather flamboyant dragon and the very refined knight who deals with him. The upside down cake poem is a delight. Also FERDINAND THE BULL, although that follows the original book word for word. In many ways, Jock and Trusty in LADY AND THE TRAMP represent a perfect gay "marriage" of sorts. Although both offer to accept Lady as a possible partner when she is depressed after coming back from the pound and not feeling the love of Tramp who ran out on her, they are far more committed to each other. When Trusty potentially dies, Jock howls in mourning. Later, we see he survived and is wearing crutches. Jock says, in typical husband fashion as if he deals with Trusty daily, "there is no stopping him now" in telling his My Ol' Reliable speech. What makes PINOCCHIO particularly interesting is that there is only one female character who appears on screen during its entire duration: the Blue Fairy. Maybe Cleo the fish is female too, I guess, but it is hard to determine. Thus, you can stay focused on all of the male/male relationships. Fox and cat are definitely a couple, like Laurel and Hardy. Also Pleasure Island has no girls. I am sure there are plenty of other examples.

Yes... I know. I know. Corrected myself above. Silly me.

Well... I try to think positively until proven otherwise. Basically every post here will have an "on the other hand" response.

Or not fine... but I have to agree. This topic will kill everybody mentally more than it will physically. I do agree, in part, with the response to my post above about "slippery slopes" (even though I doubt individuals seeking a massage with one other individual will cause quite the same spike in cases as sporting events and rallies) and determining if you should take a risk out of necessity (a.k.a. shop for groceries) versus a "decide" issue (a.k.a. massage). Yet you can easily apply that same logic to driving a car. Should I risk death on the road and waste gasoline to go shop for groceries or visit a masseur? There is something that does bother me with the way these conversations morph over time. Sometimes certain phobias develop into prejudices and typecasting. A masseur is not just a random stranger you bump into who may or may not be carrying The Virus. Like a doctor, nurse, dentist and hair stylist who must touch as part of the profession, he does put a lot of effort into personal hygiene and worries a lot about spreading anything he might contract to his clients. Yes, it is "safest" to stay at home and not touch or be touched by anybody. Yet touching does become as "necessary" as getting food at the store. At least the masseur will try very, very hard to make the experience "safer" even if he can't promise it will be the "safest".

This is an interesting topic and one I have thought about a lot. As we all know, everything in life involves risk. Yes, you may suffer great tragedy if you dare to leave the confines of your quarantined home and come into contact with other humans. The only foolproof way of not catching anything is to avoid as much contact with the outside world as possible. Some of us have to work outside the home and are forced to be unsafe in the world, keeping our fingers crossed at all times. With that said... it may still be safer to visit a masseur than to visit Wal-Mart or pump for gas. At least you only need to worry about one person and, possibly, those he has been in contact with; that is, if he is sloppy in the way he cleans up after the previous client. It is unlikely he is swamped with them during this pandemic and many masseurs, I am guessing, are very selective and screen those they get. If he is serious about his occupation, he is more worried about catching something than you are. His very livelihood depends on him being in perfect health. I am sure he checks his temperature and keeps track of any possible symptoms regardless of whether or not he was able to recently get an official virus test. Remember too that both of you should be thoroughly showered with plenty of soap before and after, washing hands and face a lot. It might be fun if you also showered together and made sure all sensitive parts are mutually taken care of. Wearing masks certainly would help. Think of them like condoms as extra insurance, but... the two of you are consenting adults operating behind closed doors who must decide for yourselves if the situation is safe with or without them. I would just text the masseur ahead of time and discuss all of your concerns with him. No, it will not be the safest experience, but my guess is that he will try to make it as safe as he can, under the circumstances. Going to a store, I always feel like I am literally being "in contact" with millions of humans and all of their "residue", many of whom I find far less attractive than a masseur. No, you are not literally touching other people but you are touching a lot of things they are touching and breathing the same air indoors. Nobody stays six feet away from you regardless of signs posted, even though one in four will at least try. Most will wear masks like you, but children will be taking theirs off to talk and cough since they are children. Then you have those angry "Karens" who feel masks are a violation to their civil rights and will take them off when store personnel are not looking, although I have personally seen far more mask-less men than women in public. (YouTube videos of ladies in rage are far more popular online than those of men in rage.) I also seriously doubt that many of your fellow shoppers cleaned themselves thoroughly and checked their temperatures before invading your six foot domain like the masseur. Don't get me started about gas pumps. Yes, everybody is maintaining a lot of distance from each other and most gas stations are in the great outdoors. However, have you ever questioned how many hands have fondled that handle? Obviously I am not downgrading the situation and saying a massage is totally 100% safe. Just putting things into perspective.

Even better than a song that make you feel emotional (sad or happy or angry) is a song and singer that are wonderfully delirious in emotional delivery. I think 1969 was a particularly interesting year for such material, not all chart topping necessarily. Good to have a nice, slushy Phil Spector "Wall of Sound" to help you milk it all the way to the bank. No, your home is not the same as you remembered it. Most over the top of the entire bunch, recorded in November and officially released in 1970. A colossal hit because so many shrinks were playing it as therapy for their patients. Another late 69er released in '70. Can rain be related to crying? B.B. King is just plain exhausted. Note that I did refrain from using the Hollies' "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother"

The Generation Xers are still outnumbered by the other generations so the complaining and dumping didn't last as long or generate as much commotion as it did with the others. For example, there is a batch of them currently running for president in the one party: Corey Booker, Beto O'Rouke, Julián Castro, Andrew Yang, Kirsten Gillibrand and, being a bit younger than the others, Pete Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard. Yet only the 1982-born candidate, the "gay one", seems to have a voice loud enough to compete. In an amusing way, this is probably Generation X's biggest flaw. They were raised by parents either too focused on being "Me" during the "Me" Decade or neurotic Yuppies so they are more used to blending in with the furniture in order to avoid conflict. What amuses me so much about the playful videos in particular is that they are less about age and generation and more about Stubborn Personality versus Stubborn Personality. "I am right and therefore you aren't". The only real difference between generations is the technology and changing culture in their lives. Just as one generation was used to horses and another "horseless carriages", one is currently addicted to a box with a picture screen in front of their couch (i.e. television is dying, but it is a slow death since many raised on it are merely at retirement age but not dead yet) and another on electronic devices "glued" to their sides and struggling them to turn them off long enough to stay focused on more obvious concerns in life, including work. Yet we can not cookie cutter everybody the same way. It really boils down to how adaptable an individual is to other individuals.

As usual, many opinions merely represent personal experiences of Grumpy Old Men dealing with The Generation Gap. One of my grandfathers gave birth to a Baby Boomer in 1946 who died as a teenager and, therefore, he had few of that generation to relate to. Because he was very conservative minded, he pretty much disliked everybody in that age group due to all of the drugs and rock & roll influence. When Woodstock celebrated its 20th anniversary on a nightly news piece, he had an awful lot of anger to express. The only way of defining generations is by birth rate, but that is never consistent and countries differ as well. Although the Baby Boom is defined specifically to the years 1946 through 1964, there were earlier booms like the curious one in 1942 (Pearl Harbor encouraging many women to give a bit more "support" to their departing GIs) and in the 1920s, much of that generation shaping the Golden Age of Television of the 1950s-80s since they were the children raised on the Golden Age of Radio of the 1920-50s. According to https://www.infoplease.com/us/births/live-births-and-birth-rates-year , the rate of increase for 1965 was roughly the same as it was in 1940 at 19.4%, so I understand why many list that as the first official year of Generation X. The Pill certainly was helping that happen. Surprisingly, there has been more consistency since then, making the Baby Boom itself a rather special case study unlike other generations. 1989 saw a slightly stronger spike than usual, up to 16.2%, and that probably is the first official year we can attach to the Millennial generation, which likely gets split with another downturn in the birth rate by 2001-2002 even if those born at that time are more deserving of the term "millennial". 1989 is a very interesting year in many ways, marking the end of the Reagan presidency (which one of our current political parties glorifies like the Eisenhower Era) and the Cold War (Berlin Wall coming down). I think people were just having kids more often than usual due to a certain renewed optimism. There was an economic crash preceding it but the 1990s panned out quite the opposite of the 1930s and, again, I think attitude and confidence in new technologies helped because, at the bottom line, depressions and recessions are less about money itself but the emotional well being of a society at large regardless of how much money there is available. As many of us now recall, the 1990s was a decade full of parents buckling their tiny tots in mini-vans and shoving them off to day care centers becomes... alas... both parents had to work. Another interesting chart that makes my input more confusing: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/06/chart-of-the-week-big-drop-in-birth-rate-may-be-levelling-off/ Yes, as the OP states, we can all look up and know the parameters from the internet and other sources regarding categorization of generations. Sorry if I got too far off topic.

Speaking of everywhere else... the theatrical "golden age" of the 1970s had plenty of creative places, more so than today's online era. Radley Metzger's Barbara Broadcast was all heterosexual and lesbian in its scenes, but a lot of it happened in a high class restaurant and in the back kitchen. One particularly infamous scene involved C.J. Laing teasing Wade Nichols by doing the "golden shower" on a floor pan instead of using the ladies room. I must admit that her performance was quite impressive, thanks to the impish expression on her face. Of course, Wade is turned on and takes over her amidst many shots of steaming pots on the stoves. By the way, he was totally gay off screen but played "straight" in his screen roles. Sex with women was just acting to him, after all.

Saying it was my second least favorite among Best Pictures is not quite the same as saying it was my least favorite movie. I did not hate it completely. Saw it three times to try to change my mind. I preferred Coming Home over it, although that film may have only been slightly better. Thought the Cascades looked odd posing as the Appalachians. Not into deer hunting, but I later learned that no wapiti were killed in its making. One of them actually was a star in insurance TV commercials that same decade. Mostly it just felt too over the top in its method acting. Or maybe it was just me and my tastes. We can not love all of the same stuff. Braveheart just wasn't my cup of tea. Wings really had some outstanding aerial shots. Can only imagine how spectacular they were on a large movie screen compared to TV.

That article lost me. Too much colorful, windy talk even though I myself tend to be colorful and windy. I think the easiest way to analyze this movie's win is to compare it to what won 10 years ago, 20, years ago, 30 years ago, etc. In other words, compare it to... Slumdog Millionaire (it is sad that we only have this and Gandhi to represent "Bollywood") Shakespeare In Love (yeah, this is one we have ALL watched twice... although I hardly think Saving Private Ryan was all that better) Rain Man (who would of thought a feel good movie about two dudes driving long distance in a car would win? This one kept them White Bruthers though) The Deer Hunter (probably my second least favorite winner next to Braveheart) Oliver! (and 2001: A Space Odyssey was that year's First Man) Gigi (i.e. Arthur Freed musicals win as long as they are set in Paris) Hamlet (still liked Henry V better, but at least it marked Brit Hollywood's first win) You Can't Take It With You (the one Frank Capra comedy everybody today forgets) Wings (the first "gay"... no, they are only war buddies... winner. Benefit to that year is that Sunrise was considered a co-winner of sorts and the director there was quite gay) ... and, if there is a ten year cycle, next year's winner may be just a little more fondly remembered. Well... we don't remember Broadway Melody all that well except in That's Entertainment! compilations, but we also got Gone With The Wind, All The King's Men, Ben-Hur, Midnight Cowboy, Kramer Vs. Kramer, Driving Miss Daisy (hey, we are still discussing it!), American Beauty and The Hurt Locker.

Like the topics of God, UFOs and Sasquatch, everybody has strong opinions on this topic. I think there is some truth in it due to certain patterns and cycles that repeat in life (like the seasons of the year and the moon phases), but there is also a tendency for people to exaggerate and overly simplify things they read on the subject. Many see more in it then there really is. Also you are not born under just one "sign" but have a moon sign, Mercury sign, Venus sign and so forth that adds to your distinctive personality. Even if you share the same birthday and birth year with somebody else, you aren't exactly their "twin" since there may be different "ascendants", "house" positions and so forth that must be considered. Nobody fits into a cookie cutter mold, but you do notice some tendencies when comparing one "sun" sign with another. There is often a lot of discussion about "opposite" signs. They aren't really opposite since they do share some traits in common. For example, both Cancerians and Cappies (Capricorns) tend to be (tend to be, not ALWAYS) more introverted than extroverted and are more influenced by family matters than other signs. Speaking in very generalized terms, "sun" sign Cancerians are often sensitive, maternal (making sure everybody is well fed) and emotional while Cappies are often aloof, disciplined and sometimes too fussy about how others view them in public (please don't hug me in front of the neighbors). That is, unless the Cappie has a bunch of Cancer planets off shooting all of this on their chart and making them more affectionate than usual. Yet there was a study done years ago that cops pull over far fewer Cappies than any other sign because they look at every speed limit sign like it is some great work of art. They love lots of rules in their lives. Among the other "opposites" (and I use quotes here tongue-in-cheek): Virgos are the workaholics of the zodiac and Pisceans are the beatniks and hippies. Albert Einstein and Fred Rogers were both Pisceans and both were pretty far-out there. Taurus is the sign of the banker and construction worker, methodically trying to keep structures maintained and the garden bushes well pruned, while Scorpio is the sign of James Bond ready to blow up the joint. Leos think they are the kings and queens who should be treated as such since they are soooo above us all, while Aquarians were the ones responsible for Bastille Day, giving power to the masses. Damn socialists! Geminis are your typical used car salesmen and Sagittarians are the hopelessly honest customers that are persuaded to sign on the dotted line. In the famous Hans Christian Andersen tale, a Leo Emperor was tailored by two Geminis (note two of them) but only discovered he was naked when a Sagittarian kid in the crowd opened his big fat mouth. Then there's Aries and Libra, which are personified by these two cartoon wolves... [MEDIA=dailymotion]x4hp42q[/MEDIA]

We kept getting told "no, they aren't and top thinking of them in THAT way!" but some of us always knew there were other reasons why Ernie couldn't sleep. This is a classic sketch from 1971 that is open to considerable interpretation, thanks to its inflating balloon "climax".

Yeah... you hint at another long lasting stereotype that refuses to die. People who are attracted to their own gender must therefore behave or talk like the opposite gender. This is one that spans multiple cultures, including those that were traditionally more accepting of gay rights such as the native Americans with their male "squaws" doing domestic chores instead of hunting. Of course, in order for this stereotype to flourish, the genders themselves must be restricted to very strong stereotypical roles themselves. Women must be women (submissive, be barefoot and pregnant, and have little say in political/society affairs) and men must be men (fight the wars, make all of the laws and stone the women for adultery). There is plenty of THAT in followed-by-the-letter biblical passages that so many Americans today hold dear to their hearts. However I also think this stereotype comes and goes throughout history. Apparently during this last century, it was still pretty strong thanks to new media like movies, TV and radio mass producing the so-called "sissy" type in their comedy. Men in America had to be "macho" due to two world wars and the vast military industrial complex that followed. Nothing is ever cut and dry, but I have long suspected that the reason why so many older gay guys (50s and over, who were born into this environment) have picked up the smoking habit and can't stop is because they initially thought they could be more "masculine" by lowering their voices through nicotine. This video is interesting. I wonder if the "manly gay" is puffing quite a few when the cameras aren't rolling. I also wonder if the happily married man really has absolutely ZERO interest in other men or is simply convincing himself because he became a father and, therefore, must be 100% heterosexual?

The whole problem with "homosexual" is the "sexual" part. It qualifies as a clinical term if you are studying "sexual" behavior like some Kinsey/Masters & Johnson researcher. However we generally don't use "heterosexual" to describe a vast swarth of the population unless we are discussing what they do "sexually". You generally don't think of "sex" when observing a man and woman with children even though it is obvious that was involved at some point. When Blanche asks Sophia in Golden Girls "don't you Italians do anything besides hit?", her response is "no, we also make love and sing opera". Likewise, gays/LGBT do more than just be "sexual"... and many are less "sexual" than most "heterosexuals". When Ted Cruz was asked back in 2015 if he had any animosity towards "gays", he refused to give a "yes" or "no" answer but insisted on replying with the word "homo-sex-wual" repeatedly with the "sex" part emphasized. Sadly he could not stop thinking about what "they" do with their body parts. (He also said "look, I am a Christian and WE are taught to love everybody", which I guess was a roundabout way of saying that "we" as "Christians" are a separate species and he doesn't naturally love everybody unless taught to.) Yes, sex is a part of life but humans should not be judged strictly by that.

My, my, my! You are a stubborn one in your belief system. Stay out of India since there is no tellin' what they may do to you there. I myself am just 90% mentally ill, since I do occasionally eat fish. These days, there are so many soy products that taste enough like chicken, beef and pork that you can sometimes convince yourself that you are mentally sane. My parents gagged me with meat nonstop growing up (and often the bloodier the better was my now deceased mother's motto) and both my sister and I rebelled. They haven't locked her up yet, but I am just one step away from the loony bin.

I was kinda silly suggesting that, wasn't I? Believe me, you will NOT find many Hugh Jackmans in such places to worry about being compared to. You can easily work on making your body less "rotound", although it may seem more "rotound" to you than to others who are "rotound-er" than you, but don't shave off your hair. Bears and Otters are in much demand due to the manscaping overkill of recent years. The late great Burt Reynolds would never think of doing such a thing!

I enjoyed the read (but snipped it for re-posting). If it makes you feel any better, we have ALL been there. Maybe not the exact same circumstances, but so many of us had parental issues, many job changes, issues with our health and appearances. All I can say is Join The Club! We can't promise it will get any better. Many of us are STILL changing jobs and lifestyles despite being decades older than you. Some of us still haven't figured out what we want in life. These are not solutions, but merely suggestions to think about. Maybe help put things in perspective. Humorously you were once concerned about a car accident and never driving again, but you succeeded maintaining the taxi job for many years despite the recession and low pay. That is great! You are not TOO stubborn to try, try again. The family problem... yup, we have all suffered. Gradually you must learn the Bette Davis technique in Now Voyager of "meeting half way". It doesn't sound like you are in trouble with the law and you are pretty discreet in your wild and crazy sex life (that is, if you have one), so the prudes shouldn't be that embarrassed about you shaming the family. Most importantly, you will need to forgive your parents for all of their sins. They did not know any better when they thought you would be a "mini-ME" of themselves and you turned out differently. Reading between the lines, I sense that your mother is very proud of you but may not say that to your face. Don't knock Wal-Mart or other mainstream places you work at. Maybe Uber and flex driving for Amazon, delivering packages, are other possibilities due to your taxi experience even if these are just part-time side jobs on the side. Yet working at one location, like a major store or warehouse, at least gives you a social work life with others who won't try to pry into your private life but are nonetheless people you learn names to and can relate to on a day to day basis. Nobody will force you to go bar hopping with them or try to set you up on a blind date, but be as friendly as possible with everybody. Also there is more variety of races and religions in such locations (like Wal-Mart, Amazon, etc.) so you naturally will blend in. Make sure you brush up on some Spanish too, since there tends to be multiple languages as well. Do NOT work at a place where 1.) everybody resembles you in cultural background (you've been there, done that) or 2.) everybody is the same but different than you and, therefore, you are the outcast. Maybe you need some kind of schedule just to maintain a certain consistency. Each day, spend XX amount of time walking around the neighborhood. Spend XX amount of time every day lifting those $14 weights that you bought at Wal-Mart... maybe 25 times in the morning before you brush your teeth in the morning and 25 times before going to bed. Only eat XX amount each day for meals. Start out in small XX amounts dedicated to exercise and other needs, then slowly expand. For example, once you have done enough exercise consistently in your own private home with nobody watching you, then take the next leap and join a gym. Half the folks exercising there will be flabbier than you. Don't believe online pictures. Only a select few at your local gym look like Mario Lopez. By the way, have you ever been to a nudist place? Trust me, for every Adonis you see at a nude beach, there will be ten others you wish would keep their clothes ON. Yet that might be worth a trip to get over certain, um, inhibitions. Since you are online with this messageboard, I am guessing you won't object to joining a Meetup group (https://www.meetup.com/ ) in your area as well, one that shares similar interests as you. You can just join a group but not socialize with anybody until you are more comfortable. Just keep tabs on any get-togethers with that group. There are many kinds, such as groups of fellow cyclists, detective movie fans, fans of comic book super heroes, victims of oppressive Middle Eastern families and... surprise!... even male nude massage exchange. These latter groups tend to be more "private" (only fellow members know you are a member, but not all other eyes online) so the prudes in your family won't be bothered. If nothing else, you might find a new buddy to share, um, interests with.

There was a discussion recently (maybe Avalon started it?) about 1 in 3 (or 1 in 4?) male gay porn viewers being female. Reason: heterosexual porn is too focused on the female performers and not enough on the males to arouse heterosexual female viewers. Also the performances seem less forced in many cases since usually guys are cast who are genuinely attracted to each other and enjoy what they are doing. Not that heterosexual porn stars can't be, but quite often they do go-through-the-motions more than usual. Also many outspoken feminists tend to find heterosexual porn (often with the man on top and the woman submissive) more offensive but seldom bat an eye over the male gay material. This reminds me of the famous scene in The Kids Are All Right when Julianne Moore's character must watch all-guy material in order to get in-the-mood to have sex with Annette Bening. Most of the lesbian activities I've seen are in heterosexual porn since it doesn't seem to have a wide market like the male/female and male/male material. I have to say that it can be pretty hot if women are actually "into" each other. You don't think so much about "am I attracted to women's bodies?" if it looks convincing. Personally I am only turned off by close-ups of the vagina. During porn's early theatrical years, maybe less so in today's internet age, there was a lot of lesbian activity interspersed with male/female scenes and often done with more creativity. In the landmark Behind The Green Door, the best scene will always be the one with Marilyn Chambers being pleasured by a group of women rather than the racially offensive jungle rhythm session with Johnny Keyes and infamous trapeze act (in which you mostly just see a few penis shots and not the rest of the guys' bodies). Even more erotic are the lesbian scenes in the famous soft-core (and otherwise dreadfully boring) Emmanuelle. These, of course, are early films made when there were actual plots and dialogue in-between the sex scenes. Again, I've mentioned this one before here as a good one to "test the waters" (so to speak) since you get the best of both worlds: Radley Metzger's Score, another relic from the Nixon years, features a brief soft-core heterosexual scene and explicit hard-core male gay (Casey Donovan & Gerald Grant) and lesbian (Lynn Lowry & Claire Wilbur) scenes edited together in a lengthy, very cinematic sequence. You can tell the actresses are faking it due to on-set hostility but Casey and Gerald just can't get enough of each other... so, yes, many here will easily sit through this one. Plus it is a comedy with very sharp writing.

This one belongs on His Hairy Chest thread...

Only seen parts of My Own Private Idaho, so now you have me curious. I noticed some scenes in Gus Van Zant's Milk also resemble Fox and His Friends to a degree, especially all of the garish color in the swinging seventies outfits and settings. In the commentaries, it was revealed that this film was quite biographical, but not in the way you think. The characters were in reverse. Fassbinder himself was actually more like Peter Chatel's Eugene in real life, sticking to his higher class family and crowd, while his character more closely resembled his own boyfriends off camera like Armin Meier (most famous for his short scenes in Satan's Brew) and the before-mentioned El Hedi ben Salem. They, not Fassbinder, were the lower class guys trying to fit in who couldn't. Meier sadly committed suicide due to rejection, not unlike what happened in Milk when Harvey was too wrapped up in his politics to cater to Jack Lira (Diego Luna).

I know I am going way off topic here, but this reminds me of the evolution of nudist documentaries. Filmed 1932 (released '33) from mostly the back-end [MEDIA=dailymotion]x1qli03[/MEDIA] Meanwhile the Australians were accepting of some peekaboo frontals as long as they belonged to "wild men" 1954... just a montage of clips from the one title that caused the biggest ruckus at the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90x2rPcPEIQ 1965... finally the volleyballs were removed [MEDIA=dailymotion]x5dvz1j[/MEDIA]

I think that is a key reason: fewer military situations as well as less separation of genders in many other areas of American life. Gone too are the ol' swimming holes where "no girls are allowed". There are fewer nudist situations that are made mandatory today. Also there was a LOT of male "bro bonding" (showering together, even touching each other for curiosity sake, emotional brotherhood, etc.) for a long time. How many WW2 movies show soldiers being both naked and even more affectionate with each other than the girls they meet on furlough? Too many to count. Having sex with a woman was this big deal, since most average men saw fewer females in the flesh than they did other men. Nobody questioned anything until the 1970s when both Gay Liberation and Women's Liberation suddenly created this panic among men who were... unsure... about themselves. This panic has sadly shaped our political landscape and, while Millennials are more accepting of different "orientations" than their elders, they are also forced to hear about "orientation" over and over and over again. However I am going off tangent here. I really don't think younger guys are that fussy about being perceived as "gay", but... as you suggest... they are VERY fussy about appearances. I was very modest in my youth even though I was part of Generation X and not a good representation of my generation (i.e. had a very backward and hostile upbringing that created too many inhibitions). Yet I think many of us worry a lot more about fitting in with others by body "type". During the past few decades, practically every male model and actor has a distinct copycat shape that makes many average twentysomethings and even thirtysomesthings more self conscious about not measuring up. Of course, "manhood" size is very big deal. Easy solution: just get out to a nudist beach or bath house, because it is highly likely that you will see another body there no different than your own. Most of the young subjects being discussed here haven't had much experience yet. Give them time.

Sounds like Phil Bradley was the 1990s gay porn counterpart to 1950s John Gavin. "Don't hate me because I am too handsome for my own good and my costars have to do all the work."