Act Acting » Acting School » Wearing each others clothes

Wearing each others clothes

Question:

I read most of the posts on this thread and I can’t resist asking this: Any of you heard of or described anyone as "bi-sexual acting"? Kirk

Response:

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ————–5008638943FA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit mr. hardass wrote: > On 5 Jun 1997 16:18:05 GMT, bike7…@aol.com (Bike7125) wrote: > > It’s nice after all this time to have someone in my life again to care about who cares for me, too. > And PLEASE let that be the last word on the subject. > It was a great discussion. But, now, let’s focus on what brings us > together, rather than what splits us apart.

OK, I’ll call a truce if they will.  Attached below is my peace offering. ————–5008638943FA Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="BOOTS.JPG" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BOOTS.JPG" <encoded_portion_removed> M3fSrPbmJvyrF8VWXlRWV2XyZd8W3bjG3af/AGegAP/Z ————–5008638943FA–

Response:

(Ignoring all the whining.) I had to get some infamous Business Casual clothes for a meeting offsite today. (Everything I have seems to be either tennis shirts, flannel shirts, and jeans, or IBM / EDS clone suits and ties, so I asked my buddy for some help.)  I buy GQ and Details and even Out on occasion, and I just can’t see me wearing any of that stuff. I suspect that I’m a closet JC Penney kind of guy rather than Armani and whatever. Even the International Male stuff, I guess I only like a few things besides their underwear, so I know I don’t know what I’m doing. On the other hand practically whenever I wear something he’s bought me or that’s his, women at work or that I know at the straight bar I sometimes hang out at unfailingly compliment me on what I’m wearing. We had my pants picked out (wow, I now own a pair of Dockers) and some other stuff. We then looked at some shirts that were on sale. I finally looked at a couple likely suspects and brought one over to him and said ‘Do I like this one or not?’ and he really laughed and looked around and picked a different one and said ‘I think you like this one lots better.’ The two women waiting on us had a great time double checking with him about what I bought to make sure it was okay. It’s pretty clear by now to both of us that we’re going to be spending the rest of our lives together or so; we’ve been planning where we ultimately will settle down  after our respective careers have gotten all they can out of rotational assignments all over the place. It’s still an occasional shock to find that a buddy I used to hang around with and have beers with ends up being my LT partner. We had a quiet evening after we got home, we watched the NBA playoffs (oh my God am I sick of basketball), repaired some electronic equipment, and began the task of cleaning the place up for when his son comes out to visit. ("Look, do you want him to think his Daddy lives like ths?!") It’s nice after all this time to have someone in my life again to care about who cares for me, too.

Response:

oooh!  Your’re so smart, and rich and butch.  Do you feel superior now? Come on give him a break –  he and his roommate have a thing going and he wanted to share it.  That’s it.   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Rich wrote: > Bike7125 wrote: > >  If you haven’t seen  mindless lustful maneating military camp followers > > in action and seen the wreckage they leave behind, I suggest you best not > > compare me to them and wait until you know what you’re talking about. > Let’s see … I was in the Marine Corps for three years.  Does that > qualify me? > > The fact that you could have read my experience with that sailor … > Sorry to say, man, one experience does not a sweeping generalization > make. > > … suggests you’re more interested in just finding  something wrong with me to bitch at … > But it’s so easy! > > I am amazed, however, at the folks out there whose lives seem consumed > > with dissecting me and what I write. I guess I’m glad I have a job. > I’m an attorney that makes mid six figures; I guess I’m glad I have a > job too.  And three postings hardly qualifies as "consumed." > > This whole sack of bullshit has taken on a life of its own and reminds me of the reason I decided over ten years ago that, hey, I might be gay, but I sure can’t put up with all the hyperanalytical, lefthanded bitchiness from the Friends of Dorothy. > I don’t think I know anyone named Dorothy  And I’m right-handed. > >  My days over arguing the correct pronunciation of "basil" are long over > > (that I care about, because I cook pretty well actually); I never really > > did care about all the movies Bette Davis was in. How the Mets are doing > > and who’s going to win the College World Series are bigger concerns of > > mine. > Stereotyping … how sad.  You’re no less a homophobe than a straight > person that thinks we all lisp and design interiors. > > I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve received that have been very supportive or even contributed other guys’ experiences in the area I originally wrote about (REMEMBER? This didn’t start out as some vituperation in the pages of The Advocate, but a simple, joyful expression of an experience I wanted to share with other folks with I thought similar interests) and as the nastiness has continued … > I haven’t seen any posting that’s been nasty.  I think everyone involved > has been fairly straight-forward in setting out their points of view. > It’s called discussion.  YOU’RE the only one who has bordered on nasty > … Unlike you, none of US has made a sweeping indictment of a whole > segment of the gay community.  None of us has postulated that YOU’RE > less of a man because you have an underwear fixation, although you’ve > done so with gays who like opera or like to cook. > What is it they say? — "Character assassination is the last refuge of a > foundering argument"? > >> Fortunately you guys can’t even come close, so if that’s your mission in life, I’m sorry to disappoint you. > We’re sorry to disappoint YOU, but it appears that our mission has been > to to try to educate you. > > I guess my whole experience with this thing has done nothing more than reinforce all my prejudices … > Well at least you can admit to being prejudiced ….

Response:

Bike7125 <bike7…@aol.com> wrote in article <19970531152000.LAA26…@ladder02.news.aol.com>… > Oh please, they sure use "gay acting" now don’t they?

I don’t know who "they" are, but yes, I’ve heard the term.  It’s used mostly by clueless straights who characterize gay behavior by the stereotypes they’ve been socialized with.  And yes, I’ve also heard the term "gay acting" used by equally clueless gays who likewise think that to be really gay, you have to fall into a common predefined set of behaviors and attitudes. > Are you all about through beating this to death, or do > we need to wait for William F. Buckley to do a wrapup > commentary?

I don’t think anything has been beaten to death.  True, most of the people in this newsgroup read articles with one hand, and they are probably bored with such commentary.  And you certainly will want to minimize your embarrassing messages.  But the rest of us who have real lives outside our pet fetish can certainly engage in talk that’s a bit more serious.

Response:

On 29 May 1997 14:01:18 GMT, bike7…@aol.com (Bike7125) wrote: >Huh? Guess I left that out, or something. >I said we’re both straight acting to the max. I sure am not straight. He’s >straight but I think he’s in love with me (and certainly vice versa!) and >not yet sure how to deal with it. I don’t think he’s ever been with a man >before, and I’ve never been with a woman. >I think we’re still trying to figure all that out. I hope we can. >Sorry for the confusion, and of course the nasty little bits of sarcasm >make me so glad I bothered to share any of this with you. But that’s the >sort of catty bullshit that I hate about women and nearly all gay men.

Ouch,         High – fiving Bike7125 !!!! Harsh, but justified!

Response:

It’s really pretty ridiculous that the discussion is so far off the beam because some people chose to either psychoanalyze me or preach PC at me or both while ignoring the point of the note, which was just to share how hot I find it is to share clothes with my significant other. He loves the underwear I bought him and wears nothing but what I bought him under his uniform (BDUs) or anything else. He looked really hot Sunday walking around in a par of Undergear white boxer briefs while he was getting dressed for a softball game. The waistband of the underwear sticks up above the waistline of his baseball pants and looks really hot when he walks around barechested with just his stiirrup socks on. Of course looking at his chest isn’t as good as rubbing oil on it and his neck and shoulders and back.

Response:

You guys crack me up.  If you haven’t seen  mindless lustful maneating military camp followers in action and seen the wreckage they leave behind, I suggest you best not compare me to them and wait until you know what you’re talking about. The fact that you could have read my experience with that sailor and could still go on to compare my ‘Gee, it’s neat when he picks out one of his shirts for me to wear and don’t that underwear I bought look great on him’ fetish to the emotional disaster area left behind in that (only one of many exposures) incident suggests you’re more interested in just finding something wrong with me to bitch at than actually reading what I say, all of it, and thinking about it. I cheerfully admit (and never said any different! I mean, hey, that was the point of the freaking original note that I’m so sorry now I wrote!) I enjoy my little perversion even to the point of writing you all about it. Don’t worry, I’ve learned my lesson. I am amazed, however, at the folks out there whose lives seem consumed with dissecting me and what I write. I guess I’m glad I have a job. This whole sack of bullshit has taken on a life of its own and reminds me of the reason I decided over ten years ago that, hey, I might be gay, but I sure can’t put up with all the hyperanalytical, lefthanded bitchiness from the Friends of Dorothy.  And Toto, too.  My days over arguing the correct pronunciation of "basil" are long over (that I care about, because I cook pretty well actually); I never really did care about all the movies Bette Davis was in. How the Mets are doing and who’s going to win the College World Series are bigger concerns of mine. I’m also now faced with the horrifying prospect of having to learn all about auto racing, which I’ll endure because my guy really follows it, and also, I met half those guys last fall and that Jeff Gordon and a few of the others are real lookers. They’re also really nice guys, not like some of the SOBs we keep hearing about in basketball. I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve received that have been very supportive or even contributed other guys’ experiences in the area I originally wrote about (REMEMBER? This didn’t start out as some vituperation in the pages of The Advocate, but a simple, joyful expression of an experience I wanted to share with other folks with I thought similar interests) and as the nastiness has continued, just notes along the lines of "Buck up, bunky, don’t let those guys get you down". Fortunately you guys can’t even come close, so if that’s your mission in life, I’m sorry to disappoint you. I guess my whole experience with this thing has done nothing more than reinforce all my prejudices and the jaundiced view in which I’ve see what constitutes the "gay community", and to validate my decision to set myself apart from it as far as I can. It’s kinda sad, though.

Response:

it seems to me that the only people who have problems with the term "straight-acting" (which is a very clear, easily understandable one) are people who  aren’t, and are pissed-off at those who can be/are …just my feelings on the subject

Response:

Bike7125 wrote: >  If you haven’t seen  mindless lustful maneating military camp followers > in action and seen the wreckage they leave behind, I suggest you best not > compare me to them and wait until you know what you’re talking about.

Let’s see … I was in the Marine Corps for three years.  Does that qualify me? > The fact that you could have read my experience with that sailor …

Sorry to say, man, one experience does not a sweeping generalization make. > … suggests you’re more interested in just finding  something wrong with me to bitch at …

But it’s so easy! > I am amazed, however, at the folks out there whose lives seem consumed > with dissecting me and what I write. I guess I’m glad I have a job.

I’m an attorney that makes mid six figures; I guess I’m glad I have a job too.  And three postings hardly qualifies as "consumed." > This whole sack of bullshit has taken on a life of its own and reminds me of the reason I decided over ten years ago that, hey, I might be gay, but I sure can’t put up with all the hyperanalytical, lefthanded bitchiness from the Friends of Dorothy.

I don’t think I know anyone named Dorothy  And I’m right-handed. >  My days over arguing the correct pronunciation of "basil" are long over > (that I care about, because I cook pretty well actually); I never really > did care about all the movies Bette Davis was in. How the Mets are doing > and who’s going to win the College World Series are bigger concerns of > mine.

Stereotyping … how sad.  You’re no less a homophobe than a straight person that thinks we all lisp and design interiors. > I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve received that have been very supportive or even contributed other guys’ experiences in the area I originally wrote about (REMEMBER? This didn’t start out as some vituperation in the pages of The Advocate, but a simple, joyful expression of an experience I wanted to share with other folks with I thought similar interests) and as the nastiness has continued …

I haven’t seen any posting that’s been nasty.  I think everyone involved has been fairly straight-forward in setting out their points of view. It’s called discussion.  YOU’RE the only one who has bordered on nasty … Unlike you, none of US has made a sweeping indictment of a whole segment of the gay community.  None of us has postulated that YOU’RE less of a man because you have an underwear fixation, although you’ve done so with gays who like opera or like to cook. What is it they say? — "Character assassination is the last refuge of a foundering argument"? >> Fortunately you guys can’t even come close, so if that’s your mission in life, I’m sorry to disappoint you.

We’re sorry to disappoint YOU, but it appears that our mission has been to to try to educate you. > I guess my whole experience with this thing has done nothing more than reinforce all my prejudices …

Well at least you can admit to being prejudiced ….

Response:

BoxrDude wrote: > it seems to me that the only people who have problems with the term > "straight-acting" (which is a very clear, easily understandable one) are > people who  aren’t, and are pissed-off at those who can be/are > …just my feelings on the subject

Not really.  I’m 6′2", 236lb.  I bench 375, squat 500.  I played football and rowed crew in college, served 3 years in the Marine Corps, don’t lisp or say "Mary."  I scratch myself, spit, and couldn’t name a Judy Garland song (except for stuff from the Wizzard of Oz) if you paid me lots of money.  My objection is to the term. It infers a value judgment.  It equates — and not incorrectly so — "straight-acting" with masculine (and all those attributes).  But because "gay" is pretty much the opposite of "straight", it ALSO therefore infers that "gay-acting" means feminine.  It therefore, in one swipe, denigrates the whole class of gays. Think of it in racial terms.  As an African-American, how would you feel if you saw an ad that said "GBM, 24, seeks white-acting partner …" ?? A better term would just be masculine, or something along those lines. For example, it’s east to change a personal ad from "GMW, 24, seeks straight-acting friend" to "GWM, 24, seeks masculine friend."  The meaning stays the same, it’s very clear and understandable (seemingly a concern of BoxrDude) but avoids the value judgement. Hey, I have to admit that I’ve used the term before myself, and that guys of this type are my clear preference. But one day somebody gave me the same shit I’m giving Bike1275, and after I thought about it for a while it dawned on me that he was right.

Response:

Re: r…@twomonks.com It seems to me that you are simply talking about *your* preference of terminology – you feel "Masculine" and "Straight-acting" will be taken to mean the same thing – well, then, just what is wrong with Straight-acting? Or – do you also feel it is worng for someone to refer to themself as "Masculine" – because it implies someone else isnt?  I know how *I* mean the term "straight-acting", and am relatively comfortable that Bike1275 meant it the same way, and I’m also relatively comfortable with the fact that you, and the vast majority of the people who read his post, knew what he meant.  I also know that I dont use the term to imply ANYTHING about ANYONE else. No where is it written, or implied, that anyone who isnt "staright-acting" is any less for it – and it seems to me that any secure person would not read anything into it that isnt there.  I also dont see it as a value judgement – when a person uses it about themself, there is no involvment of anyone else, its not like he referred to someone other than himself.   Anyhow….my point is, if a guy calls himslef "Masculine", or "Straight-Acting" (which you see mean the same thing) – its not a commentary on anyone otehr than the person using the term — and consequently, shouldnt be a problem.

Response:

Bike7125 wrote: > On a sidenote, I’ve never been more or less turned on by military uniforms > than anything else. I must admit to a marked fetish for baseball and > football uniforms, and some other gear but not to the point of obsession > where it doesn’t even matter what the guy’s like in the uniform.

don’t forget wrestler uniforms/singlets.  those are the best.  ;-)  like at http://www.geocities.com/westhollywood/2425/wrstlgal.html. > But since I’m an insensitive malajusted bastard or whatever I am, I > suppose that’s immaterial.

we all got our problems.  don’t let the dicks get you down.

Response:

Bike7125 <bike7…@aol.com> wrote in article <19970530123800.IAA03…@ladder02.news.aol.com>… > With both of us needing to maintain our security > clearances, and of course him in the service itself, > I don’t think pictures would be the world’s greatest > idea; lord knows whose hands they could fall into on > the Internet.

Then not too bright to bring it up in the first place, since the "witch hunts" are far from over, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the military hasn’t already started a pattern match on you two… > I can see I’m going to burn for using the wicked term > "straight acting".  And the person who pointed out there > are effeminate straight men and masculine gay men is of > course right, although I have to tell you in my > experience most of the effeminate straight men were gay > that had not come to terms with it.

I won’t contest your past experience, other than to say it is evidently limited. > Anyhow, the biggest drawback to having two types such > as us interact is that it takes 4x as long for us to > figure what the other’s feeling.

From what you have written, that’s not surprising.  The first step in knowing the other’s feelings are knowing your own.  You might start by not defining yourself in terms of what you *aren’t*, but instead what you *are.*

Response:

Bike7125 <bike7…@aol.com> wrote in article <19970530050000.BAA15…@ladder02.news.aol.com>… > I mean no denigration of anyone else, but it is a > convenient stereotypical way to refer to and classify > my sets of behaviors and preferences, which include > going to ball games rather than bars, country music > rather than opera, not referring to other men as > ‘Mary’, being closemouthed about my feelings instead > of pumping them out of my aorta, not owning a piece of > designer anything clothing, and reading Baseball > Weekly, Scientific American, Sports Illustrated, and > Baseball America rather than GQ and Architecture Digest. > God forgive me for using the shorthand. Have a nice day.

I guess you really aren’t to blame for such overt stupidity.  Chances are you live (like most people) in an area where the only gays you have seen are the excessively flamboyant types who meet each and every stereotypical expectation you have. The blame really goes to the silent and hidden majority of gayfolk who don’t openly present themselves and their lives to the public so they know the tremendous range of expression, behavior, and experience we as gays have.  And I should say that "the public" is *both* gay and straight society.  If more of us were more open about who and what we were, people like you, Bike7125, wouldn’t make such idiotic statements. It may be a regional thing, but I found some irony lurking in your litany above.  Where I live (Rochester, New York) many of the gays I know aren’t at the local bars, but on the many baseball, soccer, and other sporting teams in town.  No mystery there– if you want to find men, sporting events are an obvious place.  Country music is, unfortunately, also big with local fags.  And maybe it’s because Rochester is a technology-driven kinda town, but most of the queers I know don’t have GQ or Architectural Digest on their tables.  They have EE Times, Integrated System Design, and Software Development.  Oh, and Sports Illustrated is also pretty common, but most gays I know toss out the swimsuit edition and just lust over the rest. I’m sorry you apparently live in an area where the only visible gay community matches your stereotypes.  Fortunately, the world is a big place.

Response:

With both of us needing to maintain our security clearances, and of course him in the service itself, I don’t think pictures would be the world’s greatest idea; lord knows whose hands they could fall into on the Internet. I’ve received a lot of warm and wonderful personal replies to me about this posting with some sharing experiences of their own along these lines. I can see I’m going to burn for using the wicked term "straight acting". And the person who pointed out there are effeminate straight men and masculine gay men is of course right, although I have to tell you in my experience most of the effeminate straight men were gay that had not come to terms with it. One guy I went to high school was outrageously effeminate and paid dearly for it in the various ways teenagers like to torture their own when they scent a victim. I just assumed it from day one since junior high school that he was and it made no difference to me, we were very close friends. When I was 19 and finally figured out I was gay I came out to him and he astonished me by claiming he was straight. It was not for a few more years that he finally admitted he was gay. Anyhow, the biggest drawback to having two types such as us interact is that it takes 4x as long for us to figure what the other’s feeling.

Response:

Bike7125 wrote: > [writing about being taken to task for using the term straight-acting."] > I mean no denigration of anyone else, but it is a convenient streotypical way to refer to and classify my sets of behaviors and preferences, which include going to ball games rather than bars, country music rather than opera, not referring to other men as ‘Mary’, being closemouthed about my feelings instead of pumping them out of my aorta, not owning a piece of designer anything clothing, and reading Baseball Weekly, Scientific > American, Sports Illustrated, and Baseball America rather than GQ and Architecture Digest. > God forgive me for using the shorthand. Have a nice day.

We’ll overlook the fact that a lot of straight people listen to opera, that a lot of effeminate gay men go two stepping to country music, and that a lot of straight men read GQ. Instead, let’s talk about how stereotypically "faggy" it is for you to spend time shopping for special designer underwear and then trade it with your "straight" roomate.  Yeah, THAT’S straight acting. And I thought you prided yourself on the fact that you don’t own "a piece of designer anything clothing"?

Response:

On a sidenote, I’ve never been more or less turned on by military uniforms than anything else. I must admit to a marked fetish for baseball and football uniforms, and some other gear but not to the point of obsession where it doesn’t even matter what the guy’s like in the uniform. I’ve of course worked with military folks for years but I’ve never been in love with one before. Professional reserve and a constant awareness of how stupid and inappropriate (and wrong) it would be have protected me against putting my hand in the cookie jar or even thinking about it. It’s almost certain that if I had met him in any connection with work, I would have earmarked him as off limits. I have always kept a clear demarkation between my personal life and work and especially in this context. In exploring the specifics of the ins and outs of all this, I’m kind of astonished at the number of guys obsessed with the idea or actuality of getting it on with some member of the military to the exclusion of all else (like is he a nice guy? is he attractive as a person? let alone ‘can you see yourself spending the rest of your life with this guy?’). It kind of gives me the creeps. It makes me feel guilty for even having a fetish about athletic gear. A number of years ago I ran into a young kid at a gay bar who had his dogtags hanging out, and I took him aside and strongly advised him to put em away. He looked miserable, and we sat and talked for a while and it comes to be that he just got off a lengthy tour and had actually shown up at this same bar with probably a goodly number of the same guys, but in uniform. Guys were hanging all over him and buying him drinks etc all night. Poor kid comes in next night in civvies and is ignored all to hell. I had come there to get away from my straight roommate and his obnoxious girlfriend (they were both obnoxious) while they spent the night boinking their brains out, and in any case wasn’t looking to pick anyone up least of all some hurt, vulnerable kid, but at least we talked a while till he felt better. I’ve never forgotten that and to this day get a little nauseous hearing about all the guys who come up with plots to get Marines or sailors or other service guys in bed and who view that as sort of collecting trophies. But since I’m an insensitive malajusted bastard or whatever I am, I suppose that’s immaterial.

Response:

In article <19970529140101.KAA26…@ladder02.news.aol.com>, bike7…@aol.com writes… >I think we’re still trying to figure all that out. I hope we can. >Sorry for the confusion, and of course the nasty little bits of sarcasm >make me so glad I bothered to share any of this with you. But that’s the >sort of catty bullshit that I hate about women and nearly all gay men.

Run,  don’t walk,  to the nearest psychotherapist. You need to get over your hatred of women and of gay men. That includes those hateful messages you play in your head when you think of yourself and your boyfriend as the pretentious fags you are. It is  called internalized homophobia, and you are a textbook example. Before you have any relationship you need to know why you think "straight acting to the max"  is positive.

Response:

John Passaniti (jp…@frontiernet.net) wrote:

: You are right that "straight-acting" is pejorative.  But even more than : that, it is just plain stupid.  I know straight men who range from : hyper-butch to effeminate; from strictly avoiding even accidentally : touching another man to guys who can’t keep their hands off you ("I’m a : hugger!").  Straights enjoy quite a wide range of behavior– certainly just : as wide as gays– and so saying someone is "straight-acting" really says : next to nothing. Thank you!  There’s a somewhat universal human tendency to look at members of a group one doesn’t belong to as some sort of Borg–"*We’re individuals, *they’re* all alike."  This is technically known as the fallacy of out-group homogeneity.  It’s frequently accompanied by an equally illusory tendency to explain everything that someone in a group that one doesn’t belong to does in terms of that person’s membership in the group.  "Str**ght *ct*ng" is based on both fallacies: that there’s one way all straight men behave (usually conceived as similar to the way male characters on 1950s TV shows behaved) and that they behave that way *because* they’re attracted to women and not to men. This kind of reasoning easily leads to nonsense: if you take the common list of characteristics that people label as "straight acting" and take their opposites as "gay acting," you wiud up classifying more gay men as ":straight acting" rather than "gay acting."  Using the term "straight-acting" amounts to adopting the perspective of a rather clueless straight man who doesn’t know (or, more likely, doesn’t *think* he knows) any gay men.  But straight men don’t use the term themselves, so why adopt their perspective?

Response:

Bike7125 wrote: > Huh? Guess I left that out, or something. > I said we’re both straight acting to the max. I sure am not straight. He’s > straight but I think he’s in love with me (and certainly vice versa!) and > not yet sure how to deal with it. I don’t think he’s ever been with a man > before, and I’ve never been with a woman. > I think we’re still trying to figure all that out. I hope we can. > Sorry for the confusion, and of course the nasty little bits of sarcasm > make me so glad I bothered to share any of this with you. But that’s the > sort of catty bullshit that I hate about women and nearly all gay men.

There’s nothing catty about it, man.  You didn’t say you were both "straight-acting;" you said straight.  There’s a difference.  You can’t blame us because you goofed and left out a key word or two. And you still need to qualify calling him straight in your last post. If he’s into trading underwear with you and is developing some love interest in you, he ain’t that straight. I won’t even bother to take you to task for using a pejorative phrase like "straight-acting" and what that says about your self-perception as a gay man; it would be lost on you.

Response:

Actually, his sweaty, grass and clay stained baseball uniform and the little outfit he wears when he referees football on the weekends (a busy boy!) are what do me in! ;)

Response:

Great sounds real hot, and good for you! But better than posting any more words to tantalize us by, how about a picture or two to share with the rest of us. Bet you guys look great in each others underwear! ARC

Response:

Huh? Guess I left that out, or something. I said we’re both straight acting to the max. I sure am not straight. He’s straight but I think he’s in love with me (and certainly vice versa!) and not yet sure how to deal with it. I don’t think he’s ever been with a man before, and I’ve never been with a woman. I think we’re still trying to figure all that out. I hope we can. Sorry for the confusion, and of course the nasty little bits of sarcasm make me so glad I bothered to share any of this with you. But that’s the sort of catty bullshit that I hate about women and nearly all gay men.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Rich wrote: > Bike7125 wrote: > > [about sharing clothes, especially underwear, with his roommate] > OK, let me see if I have this right.  You’re stright, and he’s straight. > But you’re 39 and have never slept with a woman (which begs the question > as to whether you’ve slept with a guy). > And you buy him underwear from International Male. > And he’s got you wearing a pair of his. > And you, obviously, get off on the whole situation. > And you’re STRAIGHT?  I have news for you, friend … you’re in denial. > I had to share this with you guys.

(high fiving Rich)

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply