Haus Weston

[Guest cajeff]

Does anyone know how to get a hold of Haus Weston?

AOL email no longer working.

[Guest Aaron Lawrence]

Pardon my asking, but would you want to? He's a really sweet guy, but he's also straight. We did a scene in a porn video together.

 

--Aaron

[Guest Skeptic]

That explains it, cajeff. The poor guy either died of shame, or just decided to give up being gay-for-pay forever. Who could blame him?

[Rod Hagen]

LAST EDITED ON May-18-00 AT 02:11AM (EST)[p]Still defiant on the whole "playing straight" issue Skeptic? Apparently my diatribe a couple months ago that ranged from Kinsey scales to the old joke about gay guy's, and gay guy's only, sporting borners that taste like shit, was not a life-changing rant; for you anyway. Shame, some may never understand that gay-for-pay is an oximoron right up their with fighting-for-peace or fucking-for-virginity.

 

CAjeff, perhaps if you contact the studios he worked for, look on the back of his video boxes, they might help you. Best of luck finding this gay actor.

[Guest Skeptic]

Rod, I vaguely remember your long and interesting rant from a while back, (and was even going to address it, I believe); but later readings made me so confused about what your point actually was that my post would have had many, many more clarification questions in it than 'replies' to the issues raised. It seemed too daunting a task at the time.

 

Let me just cut to the chase on this occasion.

 

I like to suck off really macho straight guys with big uncut dicks. (As many another poster here will attest, this ain't exactly an arcane and exotic sexual pastime.) I utterly dismiss as simplistic and naive the shopworn notion that every seemingly heterosexual man who has sex with another man (in whatever way and playing whichever 'role') is somehow, deep down, a gay guy who's unable or willing to come out of the closet. (In other words--though still in a phallic context--sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.) Kinsey's sliding-scale continuum of hetero to homo was, I believe, a measure of self-reported BEHAVIOR. Apart from recently raised doubts about both the methodology (and even motives) of some aspects of his famous report, Kinsey's conclusions have hardly anything to do with what YOU seem to be talking about: innate sexual PREFERENCE.

 

While Aaron Lawrence (more of whom anon) is determined to look only seventeen years, eleven months and twenty-odd days old (judging from the faux-chicken pix of him that abound here & in print), you, Rod--at least in the photo recently vouchsafed us by Hooboy--are plainly mature enough to have observed that there really & truly exists the sort of guy commonly known as trade.

 

Why does this rankle you so? Why is it important for you to believe that such a guy is secretly gay? And wouldn't you agree that whatever a guy thinks about and/or looks at while he's whacking off is rather more indicative of his sexual preference than any probes into his psyche, whether conducted by you or by me? That's why I always say: tell me honestly what someone whacks off to, and I'll tell you what his true 'sexuality' is.

 

I think I've reported elsewhere and earlier that I have, among my sexual playmates, happily (and unhappily) married men, several of whom I've been blowing for decades. While I like to think that their fantasy life (and masturbatory imagery) includes vivid, if fleeting, memories of getting world-class head from me, I know full well that the 'movies' normally running in their heads are the sort John Stagliano, not William Higgins, would turn out. Even twenty-five years or more of steady contact with me (and, no doubt, other gifted cocksuckers) hasn't moved these guys even a single percentile from the hetero to the homo end of a sexual PREFERENCE continuum.

 

But maybe that's not what you were talking about. How can I tell what you (or the likes of Aaron Lawrence) are deploring here, since the commonly used 'gay-for-pay' label has always confused me anyway? Fundamentally perjorative, it seems to describe guys (particularly porn actors) who want to create the impression that they are, in fact, gay, when they are not--while, at the same time, implying that they are, instead, a lot gayer than they think. Or are you talking about guys like Ryan Idol or Kris Lord, self-professed straights accused of slumming in gaydom? Now which posture (or imposture) is it? Either? Both? And which, if separate, is the more egregious fault?

 

Having GAY SEX for pay (and even enjoying it) is a concept I can readily grasp, and--as I've just argued--is simply NOT determinative of innate sexual orientation. Guys who enter into this activity (and who have the proper physical credentials) are just what I'm looking for. Someone who's 'gay for pay'--i.e. a factitious faggot? Feh! He'd be about as appealing to me as Aaron Lawrence is. (Nothing factitious there, folks.)

 

Aprops of the suburban hustlerette and his 'reply' to cajeff's request for information about Haus Weston--that particular posting managed to distill into just 26 words virually everything I find so utterly loathsome about this creature's head--from the smarminess of his 'pardon me for asking' to the screen-credit self-promo and the proposterous implication that cajeff couldn't possibly be interested in having sex with someone who thinks of himself as straight. And to top off this patronizingly feline performance, the usually advice-laden Aaron doesn't even offer a HINT about how poor, misguided cajeff could find the object of his desire!

 

Finally, I note (without prejudice) that gay-for-pay putdowns are most often advanced by parties who are anything but disinterested. "Buy gay!" and "Let's not spend our gay pennies on these exploitative homophobes!" are cries heard far more often from purveyors (male escorts who are 'proudly' gay) than from their targeted clientele. Needless to say, this tends to distort any argument offered in an otherwise worthwhile discussion.

 

Meanwhile, I hope that cajeff locates Haus Weston (whoever & wherever he may be), and that they have a grand old time together (once they've secured Aaron's blessing--if not Dr. Laura's--on their admittedly perverse encounter).

[Rod Hagen]

LAST EDITED ON May-18-00 AT 07:13PM (EST)[p]Because I disagree with you I am not mature? That's convenient (for you).

 

850 words is "cutting to the chase"? Skeptic, you are just too articulate for words. Good thing you never entered journalism.

 

I don't deplore the Gay-for-Payers, I just don't believe their line, and feel sorry for men like you who fall for it. Despite your implication I am not critisizing the validity of "Trade" out of a fear of fiscal-competition, I do fine thank you, but rather just out of conviction.

 

Despite what you think, Kinsey's study was not simply a description of self-reported behavior. I suggest that you refer to the literature, and then an early post where I explained exactly what his study entailed and why it is very appropriate in this discussion. (also, you are quite wrong, the only part of his study that has been called into question within the science community, is the infamous 10% that people extrapolated from it to quantify the percentage of gay people in the US. And developing a percentage was certainly not an intention of his study. Further studies of the sort indicate that perhaps 6-7%, not 10%, of the population is Gay).

 

Skeptic, it's actually "preference" that has little bearing in a discussion of sexual behavior, because there's more to sexuality than who you would like to fuck vs. who you are being paid to fuck.

 

If they aren't later fantasizing about the blow job you gave them, they weren't enjoying it at the time. What are you doing wrong? :-)

 

Here's the rub, if I was a porn actor and hired to do straight porn, I would. I must be a hypocrite, because fucking a woman doesn't make me straight, so why does fucking a gay man make someone with a wife, a dog and a picket fence at least somewhat gay?

 

Because applied standards of straight or gay acting (Trade, gruff, hustler at Stellas vs. clean and well-advertised escort) or living a gay or straight life (fireman with kids with house in suburbs vs fag in fabulously decorated chelsea apartment) are NOT accurate measures of how Gay or straight someone is because sexuality is about SEX, not lifestyle.

 

I fantasize primarily abouut men, I fuck primarily men, I identify as Gay, and I am attracted, to Men. Guess what all that means? I am gay, and so, to a some degree, must your Gay-for-pay boys be.

 

Sexuality is biological, not sociological, that is what you and your ilk fail to understand. Yet I am the naive one!

[Guest Skeptic]

Rod, try as I may, I just don't understand what point you've been trying to make in these posts--the one from a while ago & the two today--about identifying sex-workers as 'straight' or 'gay.' I'm not a stupid person, and I don't think you are either. So why do we seem to be talking past each other in these bewildering exchanges?

 

This much is clear: we both know what trade is, and it's trade I like to have sex with. Is there something wrong with that?

 

If you'd just answer that one question--without recourse, if possible, to Kinsey or phrases like 'gay-for-pay' (since I can't seem to grasp the significance of either here, or how they relate to my sex life)--then maybe I'd finally get it.

 

If you don't care to pursue the matter, that's OK, too. But if you do (or someone else who gets your drift chooses to jump in), please try to stick to terms and concepts that fall within the limits of my understanding as I sincerely confess them, and you must by now perceive them.

 

BTW, apart from all that, where and when did I suggest that you weren't 'mature enough' to agree (or even disagree) with anything I have to say?

 

If you want, I'll hunt down your original post and try again to follow your reasoning; but I have no idea of where, or even if, it's archived.

(Daddy, are you there?)

[Rod Hagen]

>This much is clear: we

>both know what trade is,

>and it's trade I like

>to have sex with.

>Is there something wrong with

>that?

 

Wrong, no. Sad, yes. And I despise the men who are playing you and men like you for suckers. They are not straight.

 

>that you weren't 'mature enough'

>to agree (or even disagree)

>with anything I have to

>say?

"Rod--at least in the photo recently

vouchsafed us by Hooboy--are plainly mature enough to have observed that there really & truly exists the sort of guy commonly known as trade."

 

The term exists, but the men, and the premise behind the term, are myths.

[Rod Hagen]

LAST EDITED ON May-18-00 AT 10:00PM (EST)[p]double post, sorry.

[Guest Skeptic]

Oh, I see. Well, that's simple (and familiar) enough for me to get.

 

Grateful as I am for your condolences, I'm still not sure how these apparently despicable guys are ripping me off. You mean they're not giving me what I'm paying for? I'm not really getting what I want? I've been going down on a myth for all these years?

 

And what about the post that got this going--Aaron's charming message to cajeff? Are we to take it that someone who writes an advice column here (dealing, presumably, with just such issues) disagrees with the proposition that all men who participate regularly in homosexual acts are homosexuals, whether they consider themselves heterosexual or not?

 

Still waiting to find out where I doubted your maturity. . . That picture Hooboy recently posted as yours wasn't a myth, too, was it?

[Rod Hagen]

LAST EDITED ON May-19-00 AT 03:00AM (EST)[p]Skeptic, I certainly was not coming to AAL's defence. He is an adult and can do that himself. Just took the opportunity to try to talk some sense into you.

 

That effort continues on Boston Guy's "What does it mean to be GAY" also in the Lounge. Enjoy boys. :-)

[Guest Skeptic]

OK, Rod, I can see this 'dialogue' is going nowhere. It's not that I haven't tried to engage you point by point (more or less) in the posts that make up the better part of this now-hijacked thread, but your most recent side-stepping shows me how futile it is. Anyway, Boston Guy has now opened a new thread as a result of all our tangled verbiage here, and I've already made my first and last contribution to it. While I appreciate your efforts to 'talk sense' to me about how I find sexual gratification, I leave it to others who've read this entire thread and BG's newer one to decide what is 'sense' and what is just 'talking.' As you say, enjoy yourselves.

[Rod Hagen]

LAST EDITED ON May-19-00 AT 07:59PM (EST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-19-00 AT 07:42 PM (EST)

 

You KNOW that I sidestepped nothing. I simply pointed, after your now second-to-last post where you first stated that you were finished with this discussion, to where this converstation (Boston Guy's Thread) was continuing without you. Why do you often resort to insults and diversions? Knock it off, you are a smart guy and a good writer, you don't need them.

 

And it's not as if you haven't made a hobby of hijacking threads here.

[Bilbo]

I agree with Rod that the men Skeptic is seeing are not what we would call totally hetero. If so, they couldn't get it up for him. However, I also seem to remember that Kensey's view on preference was not an either or toggle, it was a continuum. I haven't looked in on BG's thread yet, but we always seem to forget that there is such a person (and I actually sometimes think that they are in the majority) as a bisexual!

The reason I am a little iffy about the nonreciprocal part of these transactions, while it is admittedly none of my business, is that it encourages what I perceive as a negative self image on the parts of both parties involved. But, unless one of Skeptic's playmates takes this several steps further and starts gaybashing, it IS none of my business.

[Bilbo]

As far as highjacking or not highjacking threads is concerned, I once tried BostonGuy's suggestion that someone try to start up a thread simply for the daily gossip so that we would quit highjacking. The only people who contributed to it were myself, Hoo and DaddyIT. So obviously we are going to continue highjacking and we might as well enjoy it.