Lucky

Welcome back. I hope all is well.

Lurkers! Please excuse Mr. Suckates. He has a crush on me that has gone unrequited for far l too long, at least in his opinion. Don't let him stop you from joining in on the conversation here. Thankfully, it's not his board nor his place to say who get to post.

Hi Guys I was wondering if I could get you make your first post on the forums. Pick any topic that interests you, and tell us what you think. OR, you could respond to this post, and let us know how the board looks from a lurker's perspective. I am sure we'd be glad to have you participate. I know I would. xxl, I forgot to include you, and I am so sorry. Let us hear from you too.

Since I have been to Thailand so many times, I considered myself lucky to have found the Ambiance Hotel in Pattaya's Boystown. The prices were good, the hotel was clean, albeit simple, and you could bring boys to the room with no problem. I must have stayed there 8 times. But, the last time I noticed differences The staff was not as friendly, the bed cover had stains although it had clearly been sent to the wash. The stains were of the appearance, and in the location, that one could reasonably conclude that they were semen stains. On top of that, there was a serious bug problem. I didn't stay long. But I liked the location, and no other hotel of the original quality of the Ambiance, in Boystown, that allowed guests is on my llist. The owners who made the Ambiance such a success had bought a new place, which is nice, but not in Boystown or near anything I wanted to be near. So I come asking for advice. Has anyone stayed at the Ambiance lately? Can you suggest, from personal experience, another hotel? The fact is that I don't like Pattaya so much. I enjoy the gay beach at Jomtien, and occasionally I meet a lad who inspires my erotic nature. I could just stay in a luxury hotel in Bangkok, but I am already doing that. Pattaya is known for the youthfulness of its available boys. That's a problem for me as I like collegiate guys, and you can find one or two there. (Obviously I am not staying long.) And frankly, the boys can be generally categorized as scrawny. But, I enjoy the search for pearls as much as the next guy. If you can help me, I will photograph the cutest guy I hire and post it here, just for you.

I can identify with that.

Um, MsGuy, did you have that in your memory bank or did you Google it? If the former, I am so impressed. I feel like we are almost neighbors as I am reading Sycamore Row.

Not much good can be found about Air India online: http://www.mouthshut.com/product-reviews/Air-India-reviews-925004441

I am going nuts as I was sure I had read this here first, but I don't find it. The NY Daily News, among others, is reporting that former Full House TV cast member Blake McIver is now a studly muscled go-go dancer. I have no memory of him, but I would like to meet him. He could double date with Justin Bieber. He is openly gay though, unlike Justin. The News Report, and one more pic: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/blake-mciver-full-house-star-reveals-go-go-dancer-article-1.1501352

Without having read that, the impression I got of the Chelsea Hotel when I lived down the block was that of people spoiled by their talents and unwilling to do their part even toward their homes. Unreliable deadbeats, in other words. I hope my impressions were wrong.

That's an interesting reply, wayout. Thank you for sharing it. For me, if the commitment stems from love, then it is no burden or a minimal burden. I think the more you like the commitment itself, the easier it is to follow up. Is that not true for you? At work, my sense of responsibility had me keeping my commitments, but my sense of pride in my work was also a factor. Gay men have proven their value on commitments once the AIDS crisis started, and frankly, we showed the world that our commitments to our partners and friends were easily as reliable as theirs. Granted, commitments come in many forms...

Well, I assume that is your choice, so good for you. It isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway.

Perhaps it's just my age. Remember when older people used to wonder about "kids, today?" "Things aren't the way they were when I was young?" Comments like that tend to indicate that perhaps a person isn't aging as well as he might want to. Here's another sign of the times: bare feet on the airplane. I wouldn't want someone's barefeet on the armrest next to me. would you? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/travel/whose-feet-are-those-negotiating-air-travel-etiquette.html?src=dayp

Congratulations on making your relationship work. For some, it just comes naturally, for thers, it takes a lot of work. Most of us think it is worth it in the long run. As an aside, may I ask if you are practicing law now?

Um, MsGuy, I think you have the wrong gender pictured.

That's really not the question being discussed, but good for you.

Adam Smith: "I don't know if you would call this a "loophole," or instead fidelity to the contract: In my marriage, I ultimately concluded that the phrase "til death do us part" had in fact come to apply -- our relationship had died. This was only after long application to repair and revive it -- more than half a decade of working together with a couples shrink, and other things. Was that decision exploiting a loophole, or something else?" That's hard for anyone else to say. For me, the question would be one of conscience. If i could live with myself after I did this, then I probably did do everything humanly possible to save the situation. No one can ask for more. It's also possible for the other person to relieve you of any commitments made. And I don't think anyone expects you to destroy your own health in order to keep a commitment made to another person.

The trouble with commitment is that things change. And people often mix commitment with fidelity. I know that we could play lawyer games and find ways to say that commitment thing no longer exists. For me, it is basically a promise. I always try to keep my promises unless the other person relieves me of the commitment. And even then, if he were in danger, I'd try to honor it. The 'in sickness and in health" one is very hard. We see all of the time older couples staying together even as one's health falls apart. But I think it is a noble commitment, to be honored unless the person's health begins to damage the partner's health. You don't have to die to honor a commitment. These are major life events, usually between married folks. What about commitments made to friends?

mediamatters.org has provided one of the attorneys for Mathew's killers a forum to express his view on this book: The appellate attorney who represented an accomplice in the 1998 murder of gay University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard assailed author Stephen Jimenez's book suggesting that Shepard's murder was fueled by meth, not anti-gay hate. In a statement provided to Equality Matters, attorney Tim Newcomb - whom Jimenez lists as a source in The Book of Matt - responded to Jimenez's claim in a recent interview that Newcomb's criticism of the book is invalid because Newcomb was an appellate attorney and not involved in the Shepard case from the beginning. As a longtime resident of Laramie, the small college town where Shepard was brutally murdered, Newcomb said in his statement that unlike Jimenez, he has a long-standing familiarity with the tight-knight community: Unlike the author, who visited Laramie from New York a year and a half [after Shepard's murder], I was an attorney living in Laramie, and had been for several years, when Matthew was murdered. I mention that only because Laramie has few people and we tend to know of each other. Hidden truths behind notorious crimes are as rare as windless winters. Moreover, as the appellate attorney for Russell Henderson, Aaron McKinney's accomplice in Shepard's killing, Newcomb dealt with one of Jimenez's apparent sources, who claimed to know the "hidden truths" in the murder. In his statement, Newcomb described how -- like many of Jimenez's other sources -- this man put forth multiple shifting stories, including the theory that Shepard's murder wasn't motivated by homophobia: During the time I represented Russell, a man called his grandmother, saying he had been Matthew's lover and had his diary. I called him and asked if that was true. He told me it was, so I asked for a copy. His story shifted; his sister had the diary. I asked that she send me a copy. His story shifted again. She wouldn't show it to anyone because she feared for his life. I asked why he called Russell's grandmother then; eventually, he seemed to suggest that he didn't have enough money. Our conversation ended but I'm told he became a source for a recently published book rewriting Matthew's murder, claiming that McKinney did not target Matthew because he was gay. Newcomb remains convinced that anti-gay hate was the central motive for the crime. And unlike Jimenez, Newcomb can point to verifiable evidence supporting his theory. In his transcribed confession, McKinney derided Shepard as a "fag." Jimenez asserts that McKinney's claim of a homophobic motive was simply part of an effort to cover up an extensive meth underground in Laramie, concocted as a legal survival strategy in the weeks and months after the murder. But even after being sentenced to life in prison, McKinney continued to refer to himself as "homofobick [sic]." As Newcomb notes, McKinney defiantly stated years after the murder that "Matt Shepard needed killing," and that "[t]he night I did it, I did have hatred for homosexuals." Explaining why he targeted Shepard, McKinney said it was because "he was obviously gay. That played a part. His weakness. His frailty." Jimenez may wish to cast doubt on the reality of Shepard's murder as a hate crime, but his narrative is undermined by McKinney himself, who boasts of his status as "the poster child for hate-crime murders."

We have among us a poster who spent considerable time in India. Maybe he will chime in and tell us his experience. Personally, I have never had the desire to go there. But let's not forget what an adventurous traveler Totally Oz is. He will make the most of the situation, and he will use the experience so as not to make the same mistake twice. As far as I know, he plans to spend five weeks there, a place with no McDonalds! He will have to bathe in the dirty Ganges River. Oh well, it might beat getting sick in Cambodia. I just hope that he doesn't like beef. Jesting aside, I can't wait for the stories of his adventures to continue. Perhaps the worst has already happened and only good things wait for the rest of his visit. I hope so!

The NY Post columnist Adrea Peyser has lent what credibility she might have to author Stephen Jiminez. Not sure what credibility he has, but he has written an entire book to advance his theory that Mathew Shepard tried to exchange sex for crystal meth, a choice that led to his death. It's a shame that after 15 years someone is trying too make money off of a tragic death. And more of a shame that Jimenez claims to be gay himself. I hadn't heard of this book until now, but others have, and Jimenez is met with protests at various book signing events he creates. Amazon actually carries the book, and describes it thus: " The Book of Matt is a page-turning cautionary tale that humanizes and de-mythologizes Matthew while following the evidence where it leads, without regard to the politics that have long attended this American tragedy." So far, among 40 customer reviews, it gets 4 stars out of five. Amazon says that People magazine calls it "a gripping read." Even gay magazines are in on the praise: “Jimenez does a masterful job of unspooling this haunted narrative like a puzzle, giving you seemingly disparate pieces that take a while to form a larger picture... Anyone interested in the Matthew Shepard case needs to read this book.” – Jeff Walsh, Oasis Magazine, an online publication for LGBT youth "What if nearly everything you thought you knew about Matthew Shepard’s murder was wrong? What if our most fiercely held convictions about the circumstances of that fatal night of October 6, 1998, have obscured other, more critical, aspects of the case? . . . None of this is idle speculation; it’s the fruit of years of dogged investigation by journalist Stephen Jimenez, himself gay. In the course of his reporting, Jimenez interviewed over 100 subjects, including friends of Shepard and of his convicted killers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, as well as the killers themselves. . . . In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard’s sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe." — Aaron Hicklin, Editor-in-Chief of Out magazine, in The Advocate One of 7 unfavorable reviews has it thus: Before purchasing this work, please read this commentary ... This work, "The Book of Matt", attempts to show that Matt Shepherd was murdered as part of a methamphetamine related hit ... that Matt and his killers knew each other ... and were lovers. Strange that not of this speculation came out in the trial" It's all a mystery to me, but I have no plans to read the book. I think the facts came out a long time ago.

I think this indicates the fluidity of the situation.

One of the things I have enjoyed in the past are the discussions between various members of topics that carry a little more weight than some of our more light-hearted topics. Sadly, we see fewer of these. I think one reason is that there are members who simply don't want to get serious, which is fine. But sometimes they express that by participating in the thread without any real contribution other than to sabotage it. So, I would ask anyone who does not want to participate if they would refrain from doing so, My question is this: Does commitment mean anything anymore? So often commitment has meaning in the abstract, or when it is easy. But, when the going gets tough, people run. There are probably numerous examples, and i welcome you to suggest them, of how people find ways to avoid commitments they have made. Given the divorce rate in this country, it is clear that for some people marriage commitments are simply made tongue in cheek. Yet we hear of many instances of divorced partners helping out when the former spouse encounters trouble that you cannot make an absolute statement on that. So, how about starting with this one and going from there: I, Lucky, take you, Gorgeous, to be my lawfully wedded husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. That's a pretty firm commitment, so it seems. What do you see as loopholes? ( I realize that this may be the last post in this thread, but thanks for reading this far.)

Next time fly Air Pakistan!

HOW DOES ONE LEAVE HEATHROW MYSTERIOUSLY, ESPECIALLY IF ONE IS A BIG PLANE?

Contact travelguard.com. They will provide options on insurance, and, if you book within 14 days of making your first reservation, will cover pre-existing conditions.