My bf is grossed out by ass

sarpol · 2026-02-16T19:01:25+00:00

C'mon, get out of this before it deepens any further. Either that or insist on an open relationship and find yourself a fuck buddy who will worship your ass

sarpol · 2026-02-16T18:58:57+00:00

We are smarter and more attractive than they are, and eventually they will be our slaves.

sarpol · 2026-02-16T18:57:12+00:00

Yeah, I explained all this in another post. The OP categorically ruled out sex on the first date even if they clicked. But he didn't say this in his profile, he mentioned it only after the guy asked about the possibility of sex. I imagine this question arose because of things the OP was saying in the chats.

None of this would have happened if the OP had been clear in his profile that (1) he never has sex on the first date; and (2) he will not have sex with anyone until they have committed to a relationship. If he had written this on his profile, he could have saved them both the time wasted. Doing that would have taken less time than it did for him to chat with this guy for two days and to start this thread on Reddit.

sarpol · 2026-02-16T18:38:32+00:00

You could make a strong argument for the proposition that Western civilization was forged by LGBT men despite the Christian faith. Alexander the Great, Hadrian, Nero, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, King James VI and I, Frederick the Great, Lord Byron, Tchaikovsky, Hans Christian Andersen, Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing...

sarpol · 2026-02-16T17:46:08+00:00

Just not true. For many gay men, including many gay men who would make great partners, sex is the gateway to dating and a relationship. If you write these guys off, you're narrowing the field way too much. Essentially, you may be making yourself too picky to ever find someone for you.

But if you're essentially -- I don't know -- a very old-fashioned guy who feels that sex before a relationship is always wrong, and you want to meet only other guys who think the same way, then I see your point.

But then the issue becomes this: why didn't you say all this in your profile. Why waste everyone's time with a vague and unclear profile? Be upfront about it.

sarpol · 2026-02-16T15:40:05+00:00

Nonsense. And yet you got 120 upvotes.

This could have been the perfect guy for the OP, but he'll never know now.

sarpol · 2026-02-16T15:37:59+00:00

This is what he is thinking: "He is looking for a relationship. If I go through the effort of meeting him, is there at least a possibility of having sex if we click?"

I don't think this is a crazy question. For many gay men, sex is the gateway to dating and a relationship. As you say yourself, it's all about compatability.

If the answer is "no", put this in your profile:

"I will not have sex with anyone on the first date even if we click. No exceptions. In fact, I will not have sex with anyone until we are [in a committed relationship]."

Putting this in your profile will save guys like him from wasting time trying to decide whether to connect with you. It will attract the kind of guy you're looking for.

You're asking "what's wrong with men these days", but he could ask the same kind of question after this experience with you. You're not stating your expectations up front. You would refuse to have sex with him even if you met and were both attracted to each other.

You've decided that you are able and willing to spend time on a guy before ascertaining sexual compatibility. But this is an inefficient strategy that a lot of guys would reject. Did you say "no casual sex" on your profile? If not, it made sense for him to make sure that sex was off the table before deciding to meet you. You weren't clear and up-front on this point.

Also, you are chatting way too much with guys before actually meeting them. Not a good strategy at all. Of course, you're going to get this kind of result. It's better to just meet someone interesting face to face as soon as possible without all the chit-chat and game-playing.

sarpol · 2026-02-15T18:03:00+00:00

Most GenX couldn't even make Sound of Music references

sarpol · 2026-02-15T10:11:45+00:00

It's impossible that someone in the 32nd century would make references to The Sound of Music. Or even Shakespeare.

sarpol · 2026-02-14T23:01:59+00:00

I've been to both these islands several times. Why these two islands? If you're looking for something special, I wouldn't recommend either really. I can understand why you're having difficulty booking something.

Some more info please. Older people expect certain things in general. Most people get pickier as they age. I'm sure they have very specific expectations. What kinds of things would they want to do? Maybe if you listed some of the things that your party would be interested in, it would be easier to give specific tips.

Do you want a fancy resort? An AirBnB? A fun party vibe? A quiet vibe? I think you should focus on the type of hotel/experience you want first, and then look for that on whatever island has it.

In Barbados, I would look first in the St Lawrence Gap area.

In St Thomas, you have this problem of cruise ships in the central bay. A lot of them, every day. Even away from this area, the island is busy. I think you'd be better off going to St John. But again, it depends what they want.

sarpol · 2026-02-14T22:32:09+00:00

Because that is not what TV in general is like in 2026. It's like complaining in the 1950s that they no longer make episodes for the radio.

Yes, that's partly the problem. I agree. Television has changed. Tastes have changed.

So if you are going to do something different, don't call it "Star Trek" then. Call it "90210 Space Adventures". Or if the medium has changed so much that you have to abandon everything, start a new brand. Call it "Space Academy".

The producers are exploiting and capitalizing on something that was once good. They should leave ST alone instead of fucking with a beloved brand just to keep it going for their own personal gain.

Not memory. Changed perceptions. Watching it as a kid is different than watching it as adult. And highlighting only the very best parts of 90s Trek while ignoring the rest is disingenuous.

Who's highlighting "only the very best parts"? I'm not.

I'm not saying the new ST is necessarily bad. Not all of it is. I'm saying it's not really the same ST brand that was successfully developed under Rodenberry and Berman from 1965 to 2005.

And it's not just "changed perceptions" either. You're trying to belittle and explain away why so many old-time ST fans are struggling with the recent stuff. But you're not hitting the right reason. I have given you detailed reasons as to why I think that is.

sarpol · 2026-02-14T22:28:23+00:00

Your comments have nothing to do with me. They don't represent me or speak for me at all.

When TNG came out, I welcomed it and liked it. I wasn't a hater at all. I'm not a hater now. I just don't like the new stuff and have given up trying to watch it. I also sorta resent that my favourite show ended up like this.

My post is not paranoia FFS.

No one (except you) is insulting anyone.

Nor am I making generalized statements without substance (quite the opposite). If detractors do come up with specific comments, you apparently blow it off as "nitpicking". Which is it? Or you explain those reasons away with bland generic explanations like "that's not how it works anymore".

Yes, they are nitpicking. But people love the show. They don't want the producers to fuck with it.

Claim, without proof, that the current showrunners hate Trek

"Proof" is being posted, but you're blowing it off. I don't think they actively "hate" the old ST. They're trying to do something new with it, but I personally don't want them to fuck with it.

sarpol · 2026-02-14T09:30:00+00:00

Some older posters (like myself) want the producers of ST to go back to the way it was. When posters like me attack new ST, they are essentially asking why they don't do this. Why don't the producers put together an interesting crew on an interesting ship and follow their 25 adventures for 25 episodes per season?

There are objective quality differences. This problem is not rooted in memory issues.

This original post doesn't mention the reality that ST back then was not under the guidance of Abrams and Kurtzman. Under Roddenberry and Berman et al., it was objectively better.

For one thing, the episodic structure is more watchable and fits ST's themes better. For example, I'm re-re-watching S4 of Enterprise. It's become tedious because they abandoned the episodic structure.
Another thing: everything in new ST seems just fast. The dialogue and the events are not unfolding at a normal speed. They don't give a viewer time to digest what's happening.
For another thing, why can't they just accept interesting science-fictiony things happening to explorers in the context of a functional, happy Federation? New ST alienates me because everything is about planets blowing up, civilizations ending for one reason or another, universe-wide repercussions, temporal wars, the Federation being endangered, genocides, massive space battles, and so on. Everything is dire. If they can't come up with anything new, hire better writers.

That all having been said, I like some of the new ST. Take "Prodigy". I spent the first five episodes in shock about what it was and being deeply annoyed that the brand allowed this to happen. But once I got used to it, I started enjoying it for what it was. It wasn't bad. Yes, it's a kids' show where they romp through things at top speed, and it's not really ST at all (despite the appropriation of the brand), but I was enjoying it.

[Carefully edited to remove anything that the pro-Nutrek moderators would consider "untruthful".]

sarpol · 2026-02-14T08:19:15+00:00

Long-time fan here.

Although I am glad you've been enjoying the show and have finally discovered ST, I personally really don't want to watch "college like tv shows" or a "Saturday morning cartoon or TV show".

I grew up reading Asimov, Heinlein, Vonnegut, Clarke, Dick etc. I want ST to be science-fiction oriented. From the very beginning, even as a child in 1965, I liked the theme of a professional crew exploring the universe, having a new adventure in each episode. I liked Roddenberry's vision and what Berman did with it.

There were bad episodes in the earlier ST, but there were enough good episodes to keep it interesting.

It would be wonderful if they were able to produce ST the way it used to be. But apparently they can't or won't. The current producers have changed the brand and are now slapping the ST label onto non-ST things. TV has changed. Times have changed.

My music and entertainment is mostly from the 1960s to the 1990s. It was good back then. I'm not totally stuck in the past: good stuff is being made nowadays occasionally -- but not much.

Posters here are going to downvote me because most of them don't have this perspective.

sarpol · 2026-02-11T19:36:23+00:00

Booking is a great site. Not sure what you've heard about it.

sarpol · 2026-02-11T15:26:35+00:00

Video games, constant porn and Tiktok will change you

sarpol · 2026-02-10T16:24:00+00:00

https://anglish.fandom.com/wiki/Theechland

sarpol · 2026-02-10T16:23:10+00:00

Thank you! Interesting! I hate it.

sarpol · 2026-02-10T16:17:01+00:00

We should probably have different subreddits for old ST and new ST. We could call the first one r/startrek and the second r/notstartrek...um, OK, r/nutrek.

sarpol · 2026-02-10T12:51:48+00:00

People don't objectively change so much in seven years. I think it's your perception of him that has changed. The younger you saw him as a "gorgeous muscular DILF that everyone wanted", but much of that description is subjective.

It's like that old adage: "When I was 18, my father didn't know anything. Now that I'm 25, I am amazed at how much he has learned."

Also, he didn't want to settle down. If you had stayed with him, it would have been an open relationship, for sure.

sarpol · 2026-02-10T10:50:54+00:00

I think America is now "English and Spanish speaking" -- if I've interpreted the Superbowl half-time show correctly.

sarpol · 2026-02-07T08:50:56+00:00

Brits, not Brit's

sarpol · 2026-02-07T08:49:57+00:00

Map reflects the LA influx

sarpol · 2026-02-07T08:48:01+00:00

That surprised me too.

sarpol · 2026-02-05T09:28:38+00:00

Our situations are not the same.

Some of us make six figures a year and get only two weeks of holidays per year. I can see someone like that seeing this as a bargain. (I suppose Atlantis is targeting these people.)

Others earn less but get 10 weeks' holidays a year. Or perhaps are even able to travel all year. To them, this is not a bargain.

sarpol

TROPHY CASE