The secrets of online masters

Every dom/master/S is different, of course, so broad categorizations are sometimes less than useful. Yet I continue to be surprised by the large number of sub/slave/M boys online who don't seem to understand what makes a master tick, and especially what makes an online master act the way he does.

Sure, there are primary motivations involved like a dominant personality, an ability to take charge, and sometimes some non-sexual influences (some of the best subs are powerful business types who never get to "let go" and let other people be in charge in their daily lives, and conversely, some dominants are stuck in jobs or life situations that are usually highly controlled, making them want to act out the power trip when they get the chance).

That's not what I mean, though. Most online masters (and, to a lesser extent, real-world doms) fall into one of two categories, primarily driven there by an unspoken secret about the online BDSM world:

Most online sub boys are fakes.

I don't say this in judgment or scorn. It's hard to be gay, it's hard to come out of the closet, and it's harder to come out in the leather world. I don't doubt that most online subs want to be real subs, but when it comes to choosing between the safety and relative anonymity of hot online chat, or the real risk of putting their well-being in the hands of another, most of them choose chat most of the time.

And, you know, good for them -- you can't pick up a copy of Larry Townsend's The Leatherman's Handbook at your neighborhood 7-11, and they need to learn and explore safely somehow.

The problem, though, is that most dominant men are not newbies. They're experienced leathermen. Most of us are happy to guide novices and answer questions, but that's not all we're seeking. Sure, being "Dear Leather Abby" is fun and worthwhile, but we want actual play time with actual boys. That's what we seek. Personally, I'm not looking for in-person action from every boy I chat with, nor will I refuse to chat with a boy in whom I'm not sexually interested. There is a BDSM community, and we have a responsibility to each other to share safety and knowledge so fewer people have to learn things the hard way.

Most "sub" guys figure this out within a month or two. They find out that the "hot chats" they crave are growing fewer and farther between, largely because the dominant men they want to talk to aren't interested in cyber-only relationships. And so the sub stops saying he's looking for "cyber" or "phone" or "cam2cam" or whatever, and just starts saying he's submissive or a slave candidate.

That would be the normal progression for an exploring sub, too, but most of them aren't really ready or looking for in-person action. They're just implying that they are because they can't get the fantasy chat they want if they explicitly say they're only after fantasy chat. So they start making noises about in-person meetings, or that they're obeying orders, even as they're doing nothing but jacking off.

When it gets to the point where the master expects to see some results of the relationship -- evidence of obeyed orders, meeting in person, or whatever -- the sub clams up. Sometimes he stops talking, sometimes he completely vanishes only to reappear a few weeks later with a different online nickname, and sometimes he makes up some completely implausible story that explains why he's doing everything you told him to do except those things which would produce tangible proof of obedience.

A smaller-scale version is when you're chatting with a boy about BDSM and he suddenly -- and I mean suddenly, in the middle of a back-and-forth dialogue -- stops responding for the rest of the day (or night, or week). It's as if you were talking on the phone, and while you were in mid-sentence, he puts the phone down without saying "hold on," and walks away, and stays away for hours or days. That almost always means the boy was just jacking off to your chat, and once he came, he had no more "need" for you so he just walked away. On the larger scale, a dom and sub can build what the dom thinks is a relationship, sometimes for months, before the sub (who was never doing what he said he was anyway) finally walks away because he can't fake it anymore.

The real shit is that you can't tell which boys are real and which are faking it with any reliability. Some are really bad at faking it, and they're easy for experienced masters to spot. Others grow really good at it. Even if you're sure this boy is the one, it can fall apart quite suddenly weeks down the road, with no warning whatsoever.

Masters who've been online for a while know all of this. Many of them give up altogether, and I sympathize with them. I spent about 3 years avoiding public rooms on gay.com because I got so tired of the vapid fakes. But knowing all this, the online masters generally tend to fall into two groups:

• Indifferent. The master knows the boy is overwhelmingly likely to be a fake who'll never do anything in person (at least not with him), so he chooses not to care. He gives orders that he would not give otherwise, like having a suit-wearing corporate boy "slave" write "SLAVE" on his forehead with indelible marker, or to bind himself in ways that aren't necessarily good for self-bondage, or whatever.
  
  The master knows the boy isn't going to actually do these things anyway, something confirmed when the "slave" quickly agrees to orders that would, if followed, cause serious problems for him. The master knows it's just cyber-fantasy, even if neither party says so, so he gets outrageous to get his rocks off and the boy's as well. And if the boy was for real? Eventually he'll refuse one of these orders, and the master declares him "fake" and cuts him loose.



• Or Insecure. The dom believes, or wants to believe, that the boy is real, but has a strong suspicion (driven by experience) that he's being played. Real slavery and service is usually more "boring" than hot fantasy chat. (You would not believe how many boys have told me they want to be kept 24/7 in a cage, but who can't even seem to pay attention to a chat for ten minutes. They'd go absolutely insane if they got their wish.) The master, realizing that other temptations might draw his new boy away from him, reacts oppressively to keep him in place until the "danger zone" has been cleared.
  
  This is a problem with in-person service, too -- new slaves are often kept isolated for a while, not allowed time alone outside the house or to have a job, because the master is concerned that the slave training is so harsh that the boy will walk away if he has a "chance." The concept is similar to that of military basic training -- they immerse you in the new life quickly and cut off contact with the outside world for several weeks until you've learned and acclimated. You're not allowed contact with your family or friends, and you're not allowed to leave, until your brain is rewired as a soldier. It's because they know that if new trainees could leave, a huge number of them would, and it's the same with becoming a slave. It's a rougher transition than most boys anticipate, and after a few days, most of them want out -- even if, a week later, they'll realize they just needed to wait it out.
  
  And so, as with indifferent masters, the insecure ones wind up giving extreme orders, this time with the goal of making the boy prove his commitment and getting himself in deeper as a slave so he won't easily back out. Having been burned many times before, the master suspects any sign of incongruity as evidence of fakery, and responds harshly with difficult orders, or by cutting the boy loose to "cut his losses."

Most online masters share a combination of these traits at different times, depending on the boy, the situation, and their mood. The more a boy appears to be screwing him over, the more most masters will respond by falling into one or the other of these patterns.

If you're a prospective sub boy and you've gotten this far, you're probably wondering, "Fuck, sir, how do I avoid this?" I don't have all the answers, but these are mine:

• Be reliable. I said that earlier, but it's important. You trigger the fake/BS detector by being inconsistent: saying things that don't agree with what you previously said, not following through on what you said you'd do, saying you did things when other information makes it extremely unlikely that you actually did them, and so on.



• Be honest. You don't have to tell a master your real name and social security number (although one boy I have been thinking very highly of said he did that once under orders), but if you can't obey an order, you have to tell your master exactly why, and be prepared for the consequences. If you don't trust a guy online enough to tell him personal information, then you tell him exactly that. If he then chooses not to continue, boy, there's nothing you can do about that. You must be true to yourself, even at the cost of a potential master. Telling him something false because you think he wants to hear it is the same thing as building a house on a shaky foundation. Someday the whole thing will collapse.



• Keep talking. If something goes wrong, tell your master what went wrong, just as soon as you know it. Tell him what happened, why it happened (as best as you can figure out), and see what happens next. If you disobey him and then stop talking because you fear you've disappointed him, you are exponentially compounding your error. If you can't handle the consequences of something you did wrong, tell him that too. Online masters usually can't see your body language, tone of voice, or facial expression, and you have to communicate what's going on with you even more so your master can make the best decisions.
  
  To pick a fictional example, your master may tell you that if you don't obey a certain order, you will be required to jump into a public swimming pool with all your clothes on in the middle of the day. He might view this as a public embarrassment, suitable punishment for violation of some other order that might have proved embarrassing. However, if you are the brother of the Wicked Witch of the West, being submerged in water would melt you, and you would die a painful death. This is very likely not what your master had in mind -- but if you never told him that water would kill you, how would he possibly know?
  
  If Oz isn't your thing, imagine being told to smear peanut butter on part of your body when your master doesn't know you're allergic to nuts, or something similar. Masters can only make good decisions when given good information. If that didn't happen, the solution is more and better information, not hiding in a castle until it blows over.

The best way to make a smooth dom/sub relationship is to be the boy you want to be -- the boy that you're describing yourself to be. The more trut you build, the stronger the foundation your relationship has when something does go wrong (and it always does, even couples married for 60 years have fights) and the better you are able to weather it. If the whole relationship was built on fiction, a slight breeze will collapse it.

Now, this is a lopsided arrangement. The master must also be honest and reliable, but since he is the one making the decisions, he has more need of information than the slave does. In the last example, the slave won't be smearing peanut butter on the master against the master's will or without his consent, so it doesn't matter if the slave knows about the master's nut allergies or not. It only matters if the slave cooks for the master or something similar. Some slaves also find it alluring to not know as much about their online masters as they could, since it provides more of an air of mystery, and most masters know that.

This doesn't allow the master to be dishonest in anything more than little white lies ("Remember how I said I'd let you cum tonight? I lied; you stay horny a while longer"), but it does mean that the master doesn't have to communicate as much to the slave as the slave does to the master. The master has to tell the slave what he needs to know, of course, but the slave has to tell the master what the master might need to know. In a relationship with more equal and bi-directional decision making, the flow of information would be more equal and bi-directional as well. In BDSM, where one partner is in charge, that partner needs all of the information available.

Like I said way back in 1855 when I started writing this, I don't have the answers for everyone, but I believe in these principles, and I try to live them. I hope they're useful to you, too. I can't really see how being less reliable or less communicative could help anyone's relationship, BDSM or not, but I find these things crucial in online BDSM explorations. If you wonder why online masters act the way they do, maybe this explains some of it.

On reliability

I was surprised, and slightly pleased, to talk to a new boy from a nearby state last week. He approached me because he'd been reading this blog, and although he should probably be doing more constructive things (like getting tied up), he appeared to be scared to death just to say "hello," which was both charming and frustrating.

(I know I've mentioned this before, but there are few things more annoying in gay.com chat than someone who reads my profile, finds the password to "open the chat window," and then types nothing but the password over and over again. As if the act of opening a window suddenly means I have something to say to someone I don't know. Once again, boys, the password opens the chat window. Once it's open, you actually have to say things if you want a response.)

Anyway. One of the questions this boy asked, being completely new to BDSM, was what he could do to get started. I never know how to answer that; knowing enough to know that you have a submissive interest is a good start, but you'll have to find someone to explore it with, someone you trust enough to know what the rules are and to obey them.

But I should have answered the broader question of "what can a boy do to please online sirs" a little bit more clearly, so here it is:

Be reliable.

Honest to God, boys, you have no idea how many guys online professing to be "subs" or "slaves" or "boys" are complete flakes. It ranges from the standard chat problem of the boy stopping all responses in the middle of the chat with no warning, to the flat-out dishonesty of guys who post fake pictures, say they're doing things that they're not doing, and say they intend to do something that they never do.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. If you can't do something, don't tell a sir that you "will" do it or "are" doing it. If you say you are going to do something, do it. If you say you won't do something, don't do that thing.

If something comes up that forces a change, especially if it's outside your control, say so as quickly as you know it. Circumstances change, and everyone has bad days. You can't foresee everything that might go wrong. But when something goes wrong, say so now, not three days after you didn't do the thing you said you'd do. Fix errors. Set realistic expectations, and if you can't honor them, reset the expectations.

Some people are going to read this and think I'm talking directly to them, but I'm not. This is general advice. A lot of the responsibility of a BDSM relationship rests on the shoulders of the dominant, and the best thing a submissive guy can do to help him out is to be reliable. Don't make the dom wonder if what you said is true or not, or if you'll do what you said you would do. Make sure that your word is your bond.

I can't think of a single thing a boy can do that will help him explore his sexuality more than this. Other than "look like Brad Pitt and have low standards," but that's not something everyone can do. Everyone can be reliable.

Personality conflict

I just had a somewhat angry chat with a boy who felt that this was directed squarely at him.

He has reason to feel that way. Some of the circumstances described there directly fit his actions, and actions speak louder than words.

But the problem with seeing yourself in blind items is that you tend not to expand your worldview appropriately. While the circumstances of that item fit his actions, they also exactly fit the actions of at least two other local boys this year. They loosely fit probably a dozen more with slight variations.

Actions speak louder than words, so when you say you'll do things that you had no intention of doing, you don't get to be hurt when others call you on your bullshit. If you screwed up, fix it. If you were misunderstood, clear it up. If you were lying, apologize and stop lying.

If you're just a jerk, it doesn't matter, because you're not going to change any of it anyway.

On bondage

As if life in the BDSM community isn't complicated enough already, I've been reminded of late that, by and large, there are two different groups of guys into bondage—that is, into being tied up—and if you don't know which guy is in which camp, you're going to run into trouble.

• The pure bondage boys love bondage for its own sake. The feeling of tight restraint is extremely sensual to them, and they're content to be securely tied, or shackled, or taped, or mummified, for hours on end, just wriggling in place and feeling the lack of movement.

• The submissive boys view bondage as part of the process of giving up control to a man. They view being restrained as just part of service—making themselves fully available to the master, being kept from interfering with his wishes, being "stored" until needed, or just being bound for the master's amusement.

Now, ideally, a master will find a boy who fits into both camps—who loves to serve and loves being bound jsut for its own sake. But in reality, a lot of boys are only in it for one reason or the other, and that's important to know:

• "Pure bondage" boys are often not submissive at all. You can tie them up for days on end and make them happy, but they don't want to say "Sir" or "Master," don't want to crawl around, and otherwise want to be treated as equals. They value your creativity and friendship, which can be very nice, but the concept of "serving" doesn't turn them on.

• Submissive boys, on the other hand, view bondage as just an extension of the master's will or desires. They'll accept almost anything you require of them (within limits), but they want to serve and be "used." If you leave them alone in bondage for hours on end, or even for 15-20 minutes, they'll get bored. That's because they're not interested in the bondage for its own sake, only for your sake.

Sure, there are exceptions and cross-overs and all that, but you'll have a miserable time being dominant with a pure bondage guy, just as you'll have a miserable time applying creative bondage to a boy who only wants to kneel and serve. The more you know about what turns on your partner, the more fun you'll both have.

On communication

Another one of those things that shouldn't need to be spelled out, but:

If you're normally from around here, but out-of-state for the summer or winter or whatever, I'm perfectly sympathetic to your protestations that you wish you were here, you'd really rather be here submitting, you're going to be a complete servant/slave when you get back here, etc.

If you then return to town and blow off chat for a week, you're a shallow wanker who's been lying about his intentions to stimulate your fantasies while you were away. There's nothing wrong with consensual online fantasy, as long as you make clear that's what you're doing. When you pretend you're making real plans and you're not, that's what we call "lying."

Basically, if you can't be bothered to double-click a line in a chat window in two weeks to touch base with the guy you made plans with all summer, you are a wank, and you shouldn't act surprised when people treat you like the wank that you've demonstrated yourself to be.

Also, just FYI: when chat programs have a botguard on that require you to type a password, then typing the password merely opens the chat window. You still have to chat about things. Opening a chat window by typing the botguard password does not mean the guy on the other end suddenly has something to say to you.

Just in case that wasn't clear.

On limits

More than once this year, I've had a conversation with a sub boy that goes something like this:

[sub boy]: I want to try all kinds of things, but I'm not sure I want to do _______.

[me]: Well, I don't know about that. I'm kind of fond of _______ and would probably want it on the table.

[sub boy:] Then I guess you don't respect limits! (leaves in a huff)

Well, no, you incredibly moronic newbie. It means I absolutely respect limits and that you don't know what they are.

Limits on a scene are set by all involved parties in agreement. This is especially important to understand in BDSM because the submissive partner is likely to be tied up, or otherwise restrained, and therefore physically unable to prevent the dominant partner from doing things. That, after all, is a large part of what bondage is about—voluntarily giving up control to someone else so he can do what he wants without your input, or taking control of someone who has given that control to you (rather than asking him what he wants you to do).

Let us take the simple example of a sub who, for reasons that are all his own, does not want his socks removed at any time. Once he is tied up, the dom can, of course, peel the sub's socks off at any time, and there's nothing the sub can do about it. If it's really important to him for some reason that this not happen, he must get the dom to agree that it is a limit.

If the sub just says something like "I don't want you to remove my socks" or "I hope you don't pull my socks off," that's expressing a want, not setting a limit. If the sub says "My socks have to stay on, and that's a limit for me," then it's a limit, and the dom has only two options:

• Agree to the limit and leave the sub's socks on at all times, or
• Refuse the limit and therefore refuse to play with the sub

That's it. Those are the only options. The dom may not say he'll respect a limit and then refuse to do so; the sub may not unilaterally impose a "limit" and expect it to be obeyed. All partners must agree to what is and is not available to do, and if they cannot agree, they don't play.

So, sub boys, when you say "I don't want _______," that's good to know. If you're saying that you will not play if _______ might happen, then I have to decide if I'm willing to play with you under those limits. The dom can always refuse to do things he doesn't want to do, but the sub cannot impose a laundry list of rules and demand that the dom adhere to them without prior agreement. The conversation snippet above is limit negotiation, not refusal. Learn to understand English; it's very helpful in these circumstances. The only really bad sessions I've ever had have been with guys who did not express their ideas of the limits clearly, but thought I understood.

I'm open to a wide variety of limits for sub boys, even in my favorite areas, but I do tend to require that there be few of them (aside from safety, which is assumed as a limit). I've even had sessions with both "no oral" and "no anal" limits, but those were the only limits, and that left plenty of room for creativity. I wouldn't agree to sessions with hugely broad limits like "no bondage" or "no removing any clothes," but as long as there aren't many limits and the sub has the goal of removing them as he goes along, I'm sympathetic.

But: it is the sub's job to propose limits, not the dom's. I'm not going to present you with a "menu" of things I might want to do, so that you can pick and choose from it like you're ordering at Hell's Kitchen. If you want to submit, you want me to do what I want to do. If there are things you can't handle, you need to list them up front, and get me to agree to them. It's usually not that difficult, but it's your job as the sub. If you are incredibly ticklish on the soles of your feet and cannot withstand any tickling there before you pass out, you have to tell me before you're tied up and I think about tickling you, not try to communicate it while you're bound, gagged, and realize the tickling is about to start.

If you don't mention it, it's fair game. If you mention it and I don't agree, and you still agree to play, it's fair game. If we agree it's a limit, then it's a limit and it will not be happening, even if I talk about it, even if I act like I want you to change your mind, even if I look like I'm about to do it anyway. I'm not. The reason limits work is that they are absolute and without exception. That's why it's important to get them clearly defined before the session starts.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

The death of irony

Or of self-awareness, take your pick. Actual chat transcript from Saturday night/Sunday morning, only very lightly edited to hide the identity of yet another clueless local guy:

5/6/07 2:19 AM : Private Chat started with [name removed]
5/6/07 2:19 AM : {Buzzer1} question (if you have a moment)?
5/6/07 2:19 AM : {[name removed]} I am protected by Chattage BotShield. Please answer the following question: "What is the last word of this sentence?"
5/6/07 2:19 AM : {Buzzer1} sentence
5/6/07 2:19 AM : {[name removed]} Your answer has been accepted by Chattage BotShield.
5/6/07 2:21 AM : {Buzzer1} if not, it's no biggie
5/6/07 3:22 AM :  Private Chat started with [name removed]
5/6/07 3:22 AM : {Buzzer1} do you have time for a question?
5/6/07 3:22 AM : {[name removed]} This member is not accepting private messages from you. Your message was not received.

My question, by the way, was why he had removed his picture and personal info from his profile, since I'd noticed him online weeks ago and now suddenly found him online without those things. I periodically do the same thing, and I was interested in his motivations, since his profile had indicated that he's 18, and most younger guys don't seem to have problems posting pics - so why post then remove them? Not only did I get no answer, I was blocked before I could even ask it.

So the same guy is online tonight, with his picture and stuff restored, and guess what his bio line says?

[name removed]: m[18] norman...IS there anybody who is not shallow?

Asks the guy who blocked me for asking if I could ask a question.Are you starting to understand why I find the local scene next-to-hopeless?

So what's going on?

Oh, not much. I've been revisiting some other BDSM-related interests while away from the chat rooms.

I connected with at least one BDSM boy I knew from back in the #irc days, and learned that having known someone a long time ago is no promise he won't be as shallow and manipulative as the current crop of gay.com chat whores. Sigh.

I'm re-reading excellent older fiction by Robert Payne and Larry Townsend, but some of those stories I almost have memorized. :-)

In the "stretch your mind" bit, I've had a couple of hypnoslaves in the past few weeks, but it's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else - they're straight. (A couple of others were fakers, which I should have expected, but I didn't have much emotional investment in them.)

I'm 40 now, and I've been a BDSM dominant for close to 20 of those years; it's been suggested that I give no recognition at all to people who profess an understanding or interest in BDSM yet fail to call me "Sir." I'm considering that, too. I don't have all the answers, and I don't wear leather much, but by God I've earned the right to do so if I choose. Humility does not always avail one with today's shallow gay boys.

Oh, and the local boy to whom I was talking? I still think he is sweet, but he's not ready. He's chosen not to pursue things by inaction, and I respect his choice, though he talked a better game than he was ready to play.

So...what next? Fiction from me? IML? Letting some people who aren't on the permanent black list back in? (I got E-mail from one of those a few weeks ago. I didn't reply.) Dunno. We'll see how things go.

Thanks to a little bird...

...I learn that the asshole mentioned in a previous post is back on gay.com after deleting his last profile within a day of my post.

His new profile is here.

Oops! Just a few hours later, that one's gone too. The little shit really doesn't like being exposed, does he?

Update: Now he's here - any guesses if this one lasts longer than 6 hours?

A couple of clarifications

Since I've heard a few things from people since the last post, let's make a couple of things clearer.

• I haven't abandoned the internets; I'm just not hanging out in chat. I still get and send E-mail, read news, all that fun stuff. I even write blog posts, see? I've just given up on the idea that introducing myself to guys on most chat services and believing that their genuine is worth my time.



• You may still see me "online" from time to time, but probably not chatting. I still have a gay.com premium membership, and whenever I'm on there to read news or use other features, I understand it says I'm "online." I also understand you can't chat with me that way, though. I have to pop on from time to time to take care of various things or send messages that I couldn't send before I gave up on the vapid chatness.

And, by the way, if you idiots were more interested in actually conversing than in this stupid "ha ha, I saw you online" gotcha crap, maybe it would have been worth talking to you. Morons.

Signing out.

I noted last time that it's been more than two years since I went into a public chat room on gay.com, and that I don't miss it. I have, however, continued to use gay.com, as well as AIM, Yahoo, and MSN for private messages.

I might as well have been beating my face with a rock. It would have been less painful and taken less time.

I have real and true friends that I've met through gay.com and other IM services, but they're a tiny, tiny minority of those to whom I chat. Most of them are "fakes or flakes," to use an old cliché that normally I would despise, but I have nothing better. Guys who play here refuse to admit that they know me. Half the guys who chat are nothing but picture trolls. They won't help their own friends (and I mean guys other than me) if it's inconvenient or cracks their closet open even slightly.

About a year ago, I wrote about a local boy whom I called "Boy." He was collared and in chastity both by my wishes and his own request. That had to end because of external obligations, but he had an infection I couldn't be around at the time the devices had to come off, so I had to ask someone else to go remove the collar and chastity device from him. I haven't seen him since, tho I've chatted with him often. Last fall, I had to check him because he had talked about coming out here to play ten separate times, and yet every time it managed not to happen at the last minute for some reason, ranging from similar external obligations to skipping out on a scheduled play session because, 3 hours before, "I just didn't feel like it."

Even with this, he's talked about wanting long-term (6-9 months) chastity before - it's only that he "can't" do it. He can't do his work or meet external obligations if he's in a CB-3000, he said - too many risks, too uncomfortable for his work and exercise, etc.

Saturday night, in chat, he idly mentioned that he's "in talks" to enter long-term chastity. With another dom. Using a much heavier, much less comfortable device. So, like so many other things, it turns out he actually can do it - just not with me.

And that's just it for me. That's the last straw. I'm tired of talking to guys and feeling bad when the chat ends, so bad that I wish I'd never started it in the first place. I'm tired of realizing I can't trust anyone online.

I've been talking with an extremely sweet local college boy who wants to be a slave. For the most part, it's been wonderful. I really like him and think that he likes me as well - that he likes me and not just the idea of sex in bondage, which is 99% of what I get from guys online. But he's newly out and very scared of it, and right now may not be his time for submission. After the way everyone else has turned out in the past few months, I'm pretty sure that if this is not his time, and I find out after 2-3 sessions, I would not be able to handle it. On top of everything else, that would push me over the edge.

So I'm out. I cleaned out the gay.com profile, and I'm offline there and on the other IM services until further notice. I'm not saying how long, but we're not talking a break of a few days. With a few exceptions (and you know who you are because I've talked to you today or you're a big goofball from an island somewhere far away), you people bring me nothing but pain and misery. While that just may be a hobby for you while you're in your land of self-absorption, it hurts me, and I'm not signing up for any more of it.

See ya around.

Why believing chat boys is a bad idea

So I get up this morning after 5 hrs sleep because my schedule is fucked. I put the spare computer on gay.com to see if any friends are there, and I see a new name, "Billy_The_kid_".

I click on the guy's pic, and he's 18 and looking cocky, and his bio line says "I've two six guns, meaning I can take 12 of you trolls out that bother me. Who'll be first?" Aside from the attitude and adverb problems, he lists his location as "Cheesecake Factory." So now, despite the warning signs, I'm interested for a few reasons:

• My late grandmother, a noted nutcase, insisted we were related to William Bonney (Billy the Kid). Or maybe it was Jesse James; I sometimes don't remember which parts of her nuttiness were toasted and which were plain.



• The actual restaurant chain, The Cheesecake Factory, just opened its first restaurant in my area a few months ago. They always have long lines because they have a huge menu of creative entrees (and a lot of cheesecake). The chain's slogan is "Something for Everyone!" This is not true - there's nothing for me. I have dietary restrictions (unrelated to weight, in case you're wondering), and I can't eat very much of a common dietary element or, well, I might die. You can think of it like a nut allergy if you want - it's not, but it's similar. I won't die instantly if I eat any of it, but if I eat too much of it, it's bad news. Ain't no cheesecake on earth worth that.
  
  I have to know how much of this common ingredient is in food or I can't eat it, but The Cheesecake Factory refuses to disclose nutritional information, saying only that they "use only the freshest and finest ingredients available." Fresh poisons are still poisons.
  
  I don't expect the cheesecake to be low-fat, but I have to know how much of my sensitivity ingredient is in anything before I eat it. If his location of "Cheesecake Factory" is real, meaning he works at the restaurant, I wanted to put that bug in his ear.



• Even if it wasn't real, and if it had anything to do with actual cheesecake, at the time I sent the message, the brand-new 2007 season of America's Test Kitchen was starting on the local public TV station. It's from the editor's of Cook's Illustrated magazine (possibly the best food magazine around), and the subject of this 2007 premiere was - low-fat cheesecake. Just seemed like too much of a coincidence not to mention if the location had anything to do with actual cheesecake, and didn't mean "cheesecake" in the slang sense of "I'm hot shit and I know it and I'm better than you because of it."

Of course, it was the last one that he meant. Here's a complete transcript of the chat:

[10:37 AM] [Buzzer1] cheesecake factory? really?

[10:37 AM] [billy_the_kid_] Sorry : I am busy or away



[10:45 AM] [billy_the_kid_] get lost you porker ass freak

You have to wonder how much of a rich and complex world fools like this guy miss because all he thinks about is how undeserving other people are of seeing his cock.

As of this weekend, it's been two years since I went into a public gay.com chat room, and it's not hard to see why I don't miss it in the slightest.