unicorn

Yesterday, we went to a restaurant which had two bathrooms, both just individual single-use rooms. I didn't see the point of it, but one was marked male and one female. The male one was busy for 5 minutes, and I almost went into the women's one, when an employee came out, looking a little embarrassed. I didn't hear the toilet flushing, so I suspect he wasn't using the bathroom for its intended purpose. I gave him a bit of a glare. With single-use rooms, I don't see a point, other than potentially preventing two women from clogging up both rooms, when a man wants to do #1. I wouldn't have felt badly about using the one marked "women," since I was only there for #1, so wouldn't have been in for even 2 minutes.

It depends on what they complain about. If the women complain that the man acted inappropriately, he should be confronted. If he dressed as a woman, and was obviously just trying to blend in, and she was just being a bitch, then you might explain that the women's room includes those who were assigned male at birth, but identify as women.

The Darth Vader flower (Aristolocia salvadorensis) might also pertain to Putin?

I doubt these happy alien flowers would grow here in LA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calceolaria_uniflora

A flower Zelensky might send to Putin:

A flower an expecting couple might want:

Or a kissable flower?

Or Peter Peppers?

I just found out about this flower. Too bad we didn't think about this flower for our marriage, but maybe for our garden?

My hubbie and I were watching the new Netflix show Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, and I asked if the actress portraying the mother was Tori Spelling. He groaned and said "No, it's Chloë Sevigny...". I said I thought the two looked similar, and he replied "You think all women look alike." Well, maybe it's just a gay issue, but don't you think these two look pretty similar?

I attended a medical lecture regarding the RSV vaccine 2 weeks ago, and it wasn't extremely encouraging. There is some data potential recipients should know before agreeing to the vaccine (we're talking about the 60+ group, not for infants or pregnant mothers, which is a different kettle of fish). The absolute risk reduction to prevent one lower respiratory (lung) infection in adults is 0.26% (need to immunize 385 to prevent one serious infection), and the absolute risk reduction to prevent one hospitalization is 0.13% (need to immunize 770 to prevent one hospitalization). There was no significant difference in death. Also, muscle aches and flu-like symptoms were common, with risks of 44% and 51.6%. That being said, serious adverse reactions were rare, although about 1 in 2000 got Guillain–Barré syndrome, a fairly devastating neurological complication, and none of the placebo did (too rare to be called a significant difference). I'm not encouraging or discouraging getting it, but I think one should be aware of what the potential benefits and risks are before consenting. Also, the vaccine only appears to last one season. https://meridian.allenpress.com/jcphp/article/70/4/27/498435/Evidence-Based-Appraisal-of-Respiratory-Syncytial

Same for iPhones. Now that the 16 is out, I suspect the 15's aren't as expensive as they were last year.

Well, it looks as though most THC is about 15% these days. So 2% seems more like a placebo effect. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/about.html "...The potency (concentration or strength) of THC in cannabis is often shown as a percentage of THC by weight (or by volume of an oil). THC potency in dried cannabis has increased from an average of 3% in the 1980s to around 15% today. Some strains can have an average as high as 30% THC...". https://mjbizdaily.com/average-thc-potency-of-illicit-marijuana-flower-is-16-percent-dea-says/ "The average THC potency of illicit marijuana flower in the United States is 16%, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration...".

Well, I guess you believe everything George Santos and Donald Trump say, because you believe you have to accept as fact whatever others tell you. There are certainly tens of millions in your camp, who are active MAGA supporters. Obviously, there are matters of fact and matters of opinion. When Trump says "The election was stolen," I cannot read his mind to know whether he actually believes what he's saying (i.e. he's deluded), or he's intentionally fabricating (i.e. he's lying). But I do know that the statement is factually wrong, along with countless other factually incorrect statements he makes (Haitian immigrants eating pets, and so on). Although I'm pretty sure he's simply lying, I recognize that my belief that he's a liar is an opinion. I do know for a fact, however, that he makes tons of factually incorrect statements, whether it's due to delusional thinking or mendacity. If a man gets mind-blowing orgasms from men fucking him up the ass, it's simply a fact that he's not straight--not a matter of opinion, and regardless of what the man says. Many years ago, US Senator Lindsey Graham paid my husband good money for sex, so I know for a fact that, regardless of his statements to the contrary, he's not straight. I also strongly believe that he's lying when he says he is. That does not mean I need to confront anyone who says he's straight, even if I know what he's saying isn't true. What I do accept is the fact that this is the way he presents himself. However, if one looks up the definition of heterosexual today, 2024, one gets a pretty straight-forward (so to speak) definition: Facts are facts. I'm not so foolish as to believe everything a person tells me, even when there's firm as steel evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps my favorite drag queen is Ella Vaday. I love her/his beauty as a woman (in a non-sexual way) and as a man (in a sexual way).

You were right to put "straight" in quotes. Somehow, when I look up heterosexual in the dictionary, the definition of "Someone who likes a hard dick in his ass to give him a mind-blowing orgasm" doesn't pop up. I don't have any straight friends who get mind-blowing orgasms from taking dicks ups their asses. Actions speak larger than words. These people are bi or gay, not straight. If they really love the beauty of women, in a sexual way, that is, they're bi. If they enjoy the beauty of women the way I can enjoy the beauty of a field of flowers (in a non-sexual way), they're gay.

Once again, how a person identifies himself and his actual sexual orientation can be different. There are plenty of gay men who've identified as straight, and even married and/or had children. That doesn't make them straight or even bi. Some of us knew Epigonos from another board. He sadly passed away about 2 years ago. He grew up as a schoolteacher in the 60s and had to put up a straight front. He married and had kids, but never enjoyed sex with his wife, and came out with a vengeance in the '00s. Almost everyone knows about Anthony Perkins, who also married and had children. I never personally spoke with him, but those who did say that his wife was a "beard," and that the relationships he enjoyed was with men. Director Vicente Minnelli led an openly gay life in NYC before he moved to Hollywood, and then married and had children, including Liza Minnelli, who, interestingly enough, herself married a man who later came out as gay: Aussie songwriter and singer Peter Allen. Little Richard was another who married to keep up appearances, although he told Penthouse magazine in 1995 that he knew damn well he'd "been gay all his life." https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/gq-men-of-the-year-2010-little-richard-legend "...In recent years, he has developed a more liberal view of homosexuality. "I've been gay all my life and I know God is a God of love, not of hate," he told Penthouse in 1995...". I'm 100% gay, and therefore could no more enjoy sex with a woman than I could with an encyclopedia. Certainly, some male escorts advertise as straight, because there's obviously a segment of the gay hiring populace which gets off on the fantasy of seducing a straight man (or whatever other reasons they have). However, if the man truly enjoys the sex, he is not straight. Period. If a man who says he's straight then states you gave him great sex, either he's a great actor, or you can't tell when someone's acting, or he was never straight to begin with. I have zero delusions on being able to show a straight man a great time in the sack. Other people seem to get off on these delusions, however.

It's not too complicated for most people to understand. I paid them for the encounter. I don't think either expected anything else.