Wednesday, June 6, 2007

More Bits

1. It may not have been a good idea to do a double hookup/possible threeway just a day after this weekend's accident. I've been icing my back and neck today at work, but they're still pretty sore. That may mean that tonight's scheduled hookup is also not the best idea, but on the bright side, there's a reasonable chance the guy will flake out. Otherwise, I'll be up late making sure that the house is sufficiently clean. EFU is graduating from high school tomorrow night, and my parents will be spending the night chez nous.

2. Over at, there's been a lot of discussion about money, with the focus directed by a recent New York Times article that said, among other things, that one of the best ways to achieve financial prosperity is to get and keep a partner. This led to some whinging (Not on the part of the site owner: Lambchop himself never whinges, for which he is to be commended. He does sometimes use quotation marks inappropriately, but nobody's perfect, I reckon.) about how the NYT is rubbing the faces of the gays in their inability to find partners (I'm paraphrasing, some might say heavily). I've never understood why more gay men don't pursue non-romantic partnerships. I get that everyone wants the perfect relationship, where your emotional, social, sexual, and financial needs are all met by the same man, but who says you have to drink the Lifetime-television-for-women koolaid? Of course, lots of guys don't have partners because no one in his right mind would choose to live with them, but there are plenty of guys whom no one in his right mind would choose to date but who would still make great roommates and even friends. Some enterprising gay entrepreneur needs to start marketing this notion. Many of the legal structures already exist. You can certainly own property through a partnership or through a simple joint tenancy arrangement. You can also work more than two guys into this sort of thing, allowing you the possibility of three- or four-way relationships, without having to deal with all that drama that arises when somebody brings home crabs. For people who think that living with someone that you can't even have sex with is a painful notion, I have two thoughts: a) you can have sex with him if you like, and b) having to live with someone on a day-to-day basis might teach you things that would make you a more attractive partner and move you from the guy-whom-no-one-in-his-right-mind-would-want-to-live-with category to the guy-that-men-would-happily-enter-an-open-relationship-with-and-include-in-their-wills class. Or at least enable you to afford a better place to live.

3. The guy who was tied to my bed in the last post (J.) was having some shoulder and back issues. I worked on them a little bit, and I mentioned to him that I have a massage table now, and he'd expressed interest in getting a massage. I'd also told him that the other guy (R.) was interested in having his picture taken in positions that might be considered raunchy and that I'd try to forward some of the pictures to him. But R. and I never got around to either raunchy or photogenic, so I e-mailed J. to say that there were no pictures, but if he wanted a massage, I'd be happy to give him one. He wrote back to ask me for R.'s email address so he could "drop him a note." I happen to know that J. has no interest in R. and that the lack of interest is mutual, so I can only assume that J. was trying to annoy me. The e-mail made me laugh audibly, but I just replied "Dude. I am soooooo not interested in helping you hook up." I think that means that J. isn't going to be on my table (though he'll probably be tied to my bed again in about a year). His loss. I do feel bad about adding the extra letters to "so," however. What was I thinking?

4. One of the guys who responded to my CL ad sent me this picture of his backside. He told me that he's very submissive in bed but that he hasn't had sex in two years since he and his last dom parted ways (I didn't ask for details). He also told me that he was cool with making out and heavy nip play, but that I needed to wear a condom when he goes down on me, and that he can't handle anal and he especially can't handle being rimmed. Can you imagine having that ass in your bed and not being able to eat it? Well, I can't. Still, the making out and the heavy nip play seemed worth pursuing, and he's looking for a semi-regular dom, so I asked him whether anal was something he wanted to work up to, and he replied "yes, i do want to work up to have a cock up my man pussy. I would love that!!!!" [Yes: four explanation marks and inconsistent capitalization. Alas.] I'm not sure I'm up for training a sub, but if he follows through on coming over next week, then I'll play with him. I'm moderately intrigued by the notion of being the guy who first fucks (and rims: come on) him. I have no objection, on principle, to wearing a condom while I'm receiving head, but I do think it's unnecessary and that the guy who's insisting on it should supply the condom. After all, if he's that particular, he probably wants one that's flavored.

5. Do they still make flavored rubbers? I've been using the same brand and type of condom for so long that I don't even notice the other ones. Back when I was married, my then-wife's job involved condom regulation, and when we were on a trip to Basel (Swiss border town), we came upon a condom store, and she was like a kid in a candy shop. Highly appropriate, since they had condoms of different colors in candy jars. I think that colored condoms are entirely silly, but I was never very good at accessorizing.

6. My office's content filter now blocks me from seeing the pictures that I put on my site, though at least I can still post to it. The blockage is a nuisance, but the fact that the filter now blocks DurbanBud is a lot more of a nuisance. Especially given that I can still visit -- and see the pictures at -- Roids and Rants. Go figure.

7. Last night, after picking up EFU from her job (at 10:15), I stopped at McDonald's to get her a Filet-o-fish value meal, and I noticed that the first aid kit hanging from the wall had "'SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT'" printed on it. The single quotes inside the double quotes mean that it had double quotes when I saw it. I whipped out my cell phone (which really confused EFU) to take a picture so that I could send it to these good people, but when I downloaded it to my computer, the resolution wasn't good enough, so I couldn't. Now my food has lost its savor. I did manage to stop short of rending my garments, but only with great difficulty.

No comments: