I don't think Gramps is a prude. I don't have much insight into his views in this particular case, but I'm sure he has his reasons. At the same time, it's not hard to tease out why certain other posters abhor the idea of someone suggesting a sexual encounter with a man (and a very unorthodox and submissive one at that) ended without causing extreme mental anguish. It completely demolishes their entire premise that interacting with a man must, by definition, be a terrible, scarring event. Once you knock away their foundation that sex with a man is a supremely traumatic thing, they have nothing at all to stand on. The reasoning is not so much anti-gay as it is anti-man, but for obvious reasons, the impact is the same.
That looks like Josh Blue. Is that Libertas?
Anyway, what was the original banning about? I'm picking up that it must have been something interpreted as sexually explicit.
I don't think anyone should be banned unless they're flat out abusive and disruptive. Bar rules, you know? Conversations can go anywhere but the drunk asshole who starts throwin' 'bows has got to go. That being said, a lot of gays are over the top when it comes to bringing up sex. But I have no idea what happened.
Poll
