commented on Caitlyn Jenner Debuts On the Cover of Vanity Fair
I'm with #1: Jenner has the resources and the fame to withstand the negative and difficult side of transitioning. But Jenner proudly and loudly supports the Republican Party - the party whose DNA is hard-coded to hate transgendered people (as well as gay people, minorities, brown people, poor people, etc.). Not one transgendered kid or youth in twenty will have the resources that Jenner has to overcome the difficulties he or she will face.
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Destructive Criticism
So much discussion of actual techniques and methods, which is all very good but really sort of academic.
Why doesn't he just give her feedback while it's happening? Like "okay, that feels like a 5. When you do that, it feels like a 7. That's great, more of that." There is seriously nothing worse than a sex partner who goes along with something THINKING that the other person is enjoying it (but in reality actually isn't) or vice versa. I wanna KNOW if it feels good, or if it doesn't.
Communication during sex is key. Doesn't happen in porn, but sex isn't porn. I
commented on Woman Sues Homosexuals in Federal Court—All Homosexuals
I mean, (1) she's got a standing problem - where's her injury? There's no generalized "they are sinners" standing; (2) her other standing problem is that she can't point to any specific "homosexuals alis gays" [sic] who caused her alleged harm; (3) she doesn't seek any specific remedy against anyone, which is a problem, given that courts are empowered to describe actual cases and controversies; (4) if she could get over (3) by making a declaratory relief claim (e.g. a declaration that "homosexuality is a sin"), it's still not specific relief for an injury to her.
So, quite apart from the nutcasery of the case, it's technically deficient in multiple ways . . . the question is, given there's no real defendant, will the court have the cojones to just dismiss it on its own motion?
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Lock Down
Frankly, I think Scruff/Grindr/Etc can be a bit of a steam valve, in the right circumstances. Start from the premise that you're both monogamous, and of strong enough willpower that no matter what porn superstar on said GPS-based mobile-phone social media applications wants you to come over and do him/be done by him, you'll resist.
In that case, getting your flirt on is not a bad thing at all (in moderation). Guys are guys, and guys want more sex with more guys, or at least want the CONCEPT of more sex with more guys. The apps give you the chance to flirt and enjoy the chase and get a few compliments ("You're so hot" "you and your BF make a hot couple" "I'd like to do X and Y and Z to you") with little to no consequence.
That said, if you're making your significant other insecure, then, well, you gotta cut it.
commented on The Supreme Court To Hear Gay Marriage Cases
@17 - the reason why Kennedy "bent over backwards" in the Windsor opinion to point out it just had to do with the Federal Government is because that's what the case was about. The Supremes don't decide issues that aren't before them, and he was making it clear that that was the only issue before them.
But seriously - if the conservatives had five votes to stop gay marriage, they would have taken any one of the four other circuit decisions in favor of gay marriage. They REJECTED those petitions. They don't have Kennedy. And if the liberals didn't have Kennedy, they would have voted to keep the stays in those circuits in place; they didn't. (Puzzlingly, Alito and Roberts didn't want to keep them in place, either). If there were enough votes to stop gay marriage, we'd know it by now. And, I suspect, if the liberals didn't have the Kennedy vote in hand, they wouldn't have taken up the 6th Circuit's case, on the rationale that it's better to have four states without gay marriage and a bunch of states that do, with no mess as the Lambda Legal attorney set out. (It takes four justices to vote to take a case, not five).
But I don't think the court would have let things get to the place they are without knowing where they're going to go, and without knowing the mess that will result if they don't overturn the 6th Circuit's opinion.
Dec 30, 2014
commented on Savage Love
My sister once said to me, "It's a good thing you're gay. You're short, most girls wouldn't go for you." (I'm 5'6''). And I know this statement to be completely true (as much as there are plenty of exceptions, as a general rule, women prefer taller guys).
But in the gay world? Exactly once I've had a guy tell me he thought I was cute/hot, but too short for him. I've dated/hooked up with guys way taller than me, and with guys shorter than me. I've never felt too short to hit on anyone, and for a while dated a guy who was 6'4''.
That said, however, online I feel compelled to say I'm 5'8''. Guys seem to have an online cutoff that they would never have in person. I've never, ever, had a guy see me in person and say, oh, you're shorter than I thought, this isn't going to work. It's not completely honest, but the arbitrary 5'6'' cut off is silly. Along with guys who say online "no one over 35" - as if they'd happily date/fuck a fat 35 year old but turn away a supermodel who was 36.
Aug 8, 2014
commented on And They Will Know We Are Christians by Our...
I'm finding it really hard to get upset about this. This is exactly the sort of thing the Jesus Goblins use against us: "Look, the gays DON'T just want civil marriage, they want to force churches to marry them and bury them and let them take communion." Yeah, it's sad and shitty, but what do you expect from Baptists?
but of course the gays always want to find a hill to die on.