Baht Simpson

Gay men are men. The clue is in the title.

There have been males on Tiktok prancing around and pretending to be gay for increased likes. That's the world we live in now.

That's much more the case now but in the past there were obviously very good reasons for not publically admitting you were gay. These days it's mostly limited to certain countries with anti-gay laws. In the West it's more a matter of choice and I don't think it's necessarily always internalised homophobia.

So gay men who act straight are straight? Or does it only apply the other way around?

An additional wife?

Congratulations outing yourself as a homophobe, although we already knew that. Perhaps some of the other homophobes here will come out of the closet now.

What a dreadful thing thing to say.

The Gautama Buddha says to walk away from suffering.

Well said cavallerio, but being gay isn't a lifestyle choice, it's a sexual orientation, like being straight. And, to be honest I too feel pretty uncomfortable with overt displays of desire in film and on t.v., but after 60 odd years of watching straight snogging on screen I've become rather inured to it.

And a flat joke. : )

It's just weird that you think that showing that it's o.k. to be gay is promoting that people should be gay. Sexuality doesn't work like that. If someone is straight and they decide they want to be gay it's just pretending, they're still not gay. Only a fool would think otherwise. Same the other way around. If a gay person decides they'd rather be straight they're just deluding themselves. That's the problem with gay conversion therapy, it doesn't work.

That kids want to be gay or trans because it's cool rather than them better understanding their sexual orientation or identity.

Interesting. And what evidence do you have of this?

Yes, but what I would say is, if they have reasonable suspicion that this is the case then revealing that might narrow down the search for the killer. It's dreadful stuff though.

Clearly. He engages in the same way the others do.

Who are you to tell people what they should say and do?

Well, yes and no, Mike. The rich stay rich by not wasting money on things of poor value, which could include some health insurance. The extremely wealthy perhaps can't even be bothered to think about it and just get the top cover. Us mortals have to think about it. If Elon Musk got ill I doubt he'd be thinking, "Thank God I've got Cigna, Premium plus." Lol

What?

I think once you get to a certain age there's a tipping point where medical insurance loses most of its value. This is probably around 70 when premiums become inordinately high. I know this reflects the increased risk but if you've enough to self-insure then this becomes the better option imo. It does depend on current health and lifestyle though.

I think it's a moot point. If I was super-rich would I buy health insurance or self-insure? On the one hand having the best available cover would provide good access to expensive medical procedures. On the other hand why would I waste money when I could probably buy my own hospital? Lol. Not that it applies to us here.

Exactly this. Many drivers lack roadcraft. This is particularly evident in reading the flow of traffic and pedestrians.

Sure: "There is still a continuing debate in New Zealand on the differences between subjective (i.e. the person’s own viewpoint) and objective (i.e. a reasonable person’s viewpoint) recklessness, and which “type” of recklessness should be required. However, it is clear that recklessness, not just a lack of reasonable care, is the standard required to breach a reasonable care condition. In Roberts v State Insurance General Manager [1974] 2 NZLR 312 (NZSC), it was argued that an insured motorcycle owner was reckless for leaving his broken down motorcycle on the side of the road, though he was planning to come back and collect it. The motorcycle was subsequently stolen. While the insurance company accepted that the required standard was recklessness, they argued that the insured could have taken a number of alternative steps, such as pushing the motorcycle along the road, or asking local authorities for help, in order to reduce the risk of theft. In other words, the insured had not taken all reasonable steps under the insurance policy, to safeguard the motorcycle from loss. The Court rejected this argument. In applying the test of Fraser outlined by Diplock LJ, the Court noted the insured had not contemplated that his motorcycle could be stolen, and had actually made arrangements to collect the motorcycle (albeit, the day after it had broken down). In summing up the decision, McMullin J held: He [the insured] neither appreciated the risk that his motor cycle might be stolen and chose to ignore it nor did he act in a grossly negligent way. His claim for indemnity ought to have succeeded." https://mccawlewis.co.nz/publications/reasonable-recklessless-a-guide-to-reasonable-care-conditions/ Insurance is of course good in many cases but you need to be aware of what could happen.

As I understand it, it is prudent to take BP readings for surgical dental work as there have been patients who have had heart attacks in the chair. It may be an insurance issue if they are seen to be negligent by not checking.

Perhaps ruse is a bit strong but the fact remains that reasonable care especially is subjective and is a deliberately broad term and has been used unfairly in the past to deny claims. It's as well to be aware of that.

When Wallace Stevens punched Hemingway in Key West, he broke his hand in two places.