Another typical liberal word game in a lame attempt to insult.

@bi4smooth

Hey dumbass, you can watch the news on YouTube.

You can also watch videos of people discussing news articles/videos.

You can also watch Congress on YouTube.

You can watch police press conferences on YouTube.

But, be a cuntish Ms Feng Feng, as always.

yes, but you can also find videos of dogs and cats sleeping together (sleeping - get your mind out of the gutter) and how-to videos on how to masturbate a horse (for breeding, you filthy-minded whore!)

The point isn't that you can't find videos on YouTube, but that YouTube isn't -by itself- a source for verified news... um, in other words, it's not a news source (just a video source).

Hey dumbass, you can watch the news on YouTube.

You can also watch videos of people discussing news articles/videos.

You can also watch Congress on YouTube.

You can watch police press conferences on YouTube.

But, be a cuntish Ms Feng Feng, as always.

@raphjd Beautiful. Masks diminish oxygen intake by 20%. This is significant.

This would be significant, if it were true - but it is not.

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/health-issues/conditions/COVID-19/Pages/Mask-Mythbusters.aspx

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/verify/verify-masks-do-not-reduce-oxygen-intake-for-kids-local/77-edfed0c7-7514-4890-910a-ea148b23e6b4

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201103/dont-believe-the-myth-face-masks-dont-lower-oxygen-levels#1

https://www.uhhospitals.org/Healthy-at-UH/articles/2021/03/does-wearing-a-face-mask-limit-your-oxygen-intake

(for @raphjd, who thinks that YouTube is a news source)
Youtube Video

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/another-air-quality-monitor-demonstration-fails-to-show-masks-reduce-oxygen-to-children/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776928

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8014099/

https://abc7news.com/jama-masks-children-and-co2-pediatrics-face-mask-study/10866564/

I'm going to stop there... after all, I am quite certain that I WILL NOT CONVINCE YOU (@raphjd or @boltvolts), as this anti-mask thing has become a religion for you - and no amount of facts will convince you that you (or your cherry-picked) sources are wrong...

But for any reader who IS NOT a "true believer" in the anti-mask camp, or who may be interested in facts - there ya go!

Oxygen is critical not only for brain activity, but furnishes the fuel for the lymphatic system to produce leucocytes (white blood cells) that fight all infection, including virus, retrovirus, and yes, Covid.

This statement is true (well, I can't attest to the validity of the claim that reduced oxygen levels reduces leurocytres, or the effects on the immune system in general...), but its importance tracks back to the false assumption at the beginning, so its validity is actually immaterial.

It is criminal to require masks that according to the vast majority of medical professionals serve nothing to limit, prevent or curtail acquisition of a retrovirus or other virus.

This is laughable - I could list another 40 links to medical journals, medical societies, and medical school who all identify exactly HOW the masks stop the spread of COVID-19.

And where did the idea of a "retrovirus" come from? Are you conflating HIV (a retrovirus) and COVID-19 (a non-retrovirus)?

For the reader (since I'm certain @Boltvolts will assert my information is wrong on some level): a retrovirus is one that spreads within the body by inserting a DNA copy of itself into other cells (host cells) in order to replicate. While not unique to HIV, that is the most common retrovirus we've found (so far), and it is a rare form of viral replication.

Science Magazine has published studies where scientists have traced how and where COVID-19 spreads in the body and found traces of RNA and DNA in human chromosomes, BUT found that they were insufficient to cause illness - in their own words: "a biological dead-end."

Surgical masks are worn by surgeons to prevent not viral but bacterial infection in patients with opened tissues which are highly susceptible to bacterial sepsis.

ROFL - nothing like MIXING fact and fiction to make your fiction sound better. Surgical masks are worn by surgeons - along with other forms of PPE (like gloves and gowns) to protect both themselves AND their patients from any number of "elements" - the most common of which is blood splatter.

In the early days of HIV discovery, doctors "gowned up" (which included masks and face shields) because they believed those things would protect them from the HIV virus (yes, Virginia, they knew it was a virus by that time).

Doctors routinely wear (and wore) surgical masks when seeing patients during cold and flu season... not because those are bacterial infections!

Doctors and nurses routinely wear face masks today - look in the hospitals, and you'll find cloth ones, surgical ones, N95 ones, KN95 ones... these are medical professionals! You think they're wearing them because "they're in on the joke?"

Alcohol-based hand sanitizers add insult to injury, as they absorb directly into the bloodstream, and this is not your grandfather's moonshine stash alcohol, but a form toxic to the human organism.

Sigh - alcohol-based hand sanitizers (which is most of them) use the disinfectant nature of alcohol to kill virus and bacteria on the skin (and on surfaces)... BUT, because the alcohol content is well known, they generally use either denatured ethyl alcohol (which is the same kind of alcohol you find in drinks, but in a much higher concentration - BUT it also means there are additives that make it unpleasant to drink, sometimes lethally so) or isopropyl alcohol - which is also (purposefully) poisonous to drink.

https://sciencenotes.org/can-you-drink-hand-sanitizer/

WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS? The answers are 2-fold:

• Some additives assist in the effectiveness of the antiseptic action
• Some additives assist in offsetting the strong smell of the antiseptic chemicals
• Some additives assist in offsetting the drying effects of the alcohol (the alcohol binds with the water and other oils on the skin of your hands, and then quickly evaporates - so it's NOT your imagination - your hands ARE "dryer" after using hand sanitizer)
• Some additives are designed to make you very sick very quickly if digested - this is to prevent alcoholics from ingesting it for a "fix" (with the quick-action additives there to make them sick before they ingest ENOUGH to make the other additives LETHAL).

In the short run, alcohol based sanitizers dehydrate the blood, increasing blood pressure to force blood and circulate the already diminished white blood cells.

Again, a nice mix of truth and utter hogwash! Yes, as discussed above, hand sanitizers dehydrate your hands - and not just of water, but also other natural oils necessary to keep your skin healthy. (For the record: so does regular hand soap!)

The Internet is RIFE with new products designed to help offset this dryness... but dermatologists say that, in general, using a good moisturizer helps, and specialized formulations are not necessary. Further, most are "snake oil" - they don't do anything special, except drain your bank balance. However, moisturizer lotions do not "bring along" sufficient water to truly help re-moisturize your hands alone - so you should wet your hands (dampen them, anyway) for the moisturizer to have its best effect.

BUT - why are we talking about hand sanitizers in an article about masks?

• While we thought - in early 2020 - that COVID-19 was spread largely (even effectively) by surface contact, we now know that is untrue - it is a largely-respiratory, and mostly transmitted by aspiration, not shared contacts.
• There hasn't been a lot of "walk back" of "use hand sanitizer often" because .... why? Have Doctors recommend you keep your hands dirty? Improving the general hygiene of the general populace reduced the severity of cold & flu season last year, and if we keep it up, maybe this year too! (Dentists only DREAM of a similar motivation to "brushing and flossing regularly!" LOL)

Our immune systems are stimulated by physical proximity to other human beings, and diminish in isolation, making us more susceptible to disease and Covid also.

I'm skeptical of this statement. I searched Google for anything substantiating that claim, and found nothing - but in fairness, the results were overwhelmed by Google interpreting my query as "how does the immune system work"... I'd love to see some corroborating (scientific) article supporting this statement....

Don't believe the propaganda in circulation. There is an enormous economic motive in closure of small businesses, and that is massive giant finanacial interest control with the goal of a global economic system. Forget currency, it's over with. A system of work-based credits measured by body movements is patented by Bill Gates and signed off by 96 major economic force countries. We are on the brink of a global technocracy with utter control of every move we make. Don't believe it? Fine... put your head back in the sand and go to sleep again. You'll soon awaken to a nightmare you were not prepared for. Do what you want in life today. Tomorrow is already too late.

Conspiracy theory to me, religious-like belief to you...
"End of the world" and "Jesus and the Anti-Christ have already arrived" believers will also tell you the same: you'll be surprised when it turns out to be true!

So far, I'm batting a 1.000 for believing the apocalypse is not upon us... but you only have to miss ONE!

One final comment: What's with the long-single-line posting style? Did the Enter key on your keyboard fail?

How many kids have died of COVID-19?
Of the 73 million children in the U.S., fewer than 700 have died of COVID-19 during the course of the pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rauch puts the figure into context using the number of people who can typically fit into a sports venue.

"Think about it in terms of football stadiums," Rauch said. "In 100,000 kids, one of them is not going to make it with COVID. Everyone else who walked in is going to walk out."

About 50,000 children under 14 have died of all causes since the start of the pandemic, according to the CDC.

Removing content AFTER it has been published - without "prior restraint" allows them to be immune from prosecution for the posts' contents. THAT is the "Section 230" you Trumpites love to complain about - but it has nothing to do with what the DO NOT allow on their site! It has everything to do with not holding them liable for WHAT IS on their website.

You are right about not being liable for what they remove. When they remove half the conversation they are sometimes removing the factual information and leaving only that which complies with the editorial narrative they are trying to pass off as factual. Section 230 need to be modified to state that they are still not liable for what is posted on their site but they are liable for any editorial changes made to the content.

The issue is that a medium is used considerably more effectively by one viewpoint than another... Conservatives have RULED talk radio (and Cable TV) for decades.... we can't really complain THAT loudly when Liberals finally find a voice somewhere!

Liberals have a very strong and loud voice it is call the Main Stream Media.

How am I off topic when I simply replied to you?

But you go on, Ms Feng Feng.

Parler was taken down by AWS a subsiduary of Amazon because they didn't like what Parler contributors where allowed to say.

You're a moron. Parler.com is alive and well. Click the link and see for yourself. They were kicked off AWS (who was their hosting company) for being in violation of the Terms of Agreement - contracts they signed with Amazon.

Once they stopped whining about it, they were back up (even restored from backups) less than 6 hours after choosing a new hosting company! (AWS isn't magic - it's one of DOZENS of cloud hosting companies... the biggest, true, but just one)

They are editing content. That makes them publishers and should be able to be sued for the content they allow. You can censor speech and then claim to be not liable for what you allow.

Again, you're showing your complete lack of understanding of the legal concepts.

A "publisher" edits content PRIOR to making it available to others. (I invite YOU to consider the manpower necessary for ANY social media company to do that, much less the largest - Meta/Facebook!)

Removing content AFTER it has been published - without "prior restraint" allows them to be immune from prosecution for the posts' contents. THAT is the "Section 230" you Trumpites love to complain about - but it has nothing to do with what the DO NOT allow on their site! It has everything to do with not holding them liable for WHAT IS on their website.

Talk radio is governed but the FCC and have rules of conduct that the government imposes on them to protect speech. The reason it is dominated by conservatives is that is what people want to hear. Liberal talk news has failed to have and audience.

Agreed... and Conservative Cable TV has ratings that are HUGELY higher than Liberal Cable TV! I have no qualms about that!

The issue is that a medium is used considerably more effectively by one viewpoint than another... Conservatives have RULED talk radio (and Cable TV) for decades.... we can't really complain THAT loudly when Liberals finally find a voice somewhere!

@bi4smooth

Your beliefs are clear and your constantly spew them here.

People don't have rights, but businesses and governments do.

Your Russian propaganda news-feed must be offline... you're off topic...

Parler is perfectly within its rights to take down posts about Trump's taxes (leaked information), just as Facebook is perfectly within its rights to take down posts about Covid-19! In another thread, we're discussing FB being on trial - not for taking down a post, but for supposedly libeling the author! (NOTE: If the plaintiff wins here, the only thing FB will do is stop explaining WHY they removed a post - they won't stop removing them!)

Parler was taken down by AWS a subsiduary of Amazon because they didn't like what Parler contributors where allowed to say.

They are editing content. That makes them publishers and should be able to be sued for the content they allow. You can censor speech and then claim to be not liable for what you allow.

• This really isn't that much different (except that the shoe is on the other foot) than looking at talk-radio in the 80's and 90's - which was (and remains so) completely dominated by conservatives.*

Talk radio is governed but the FCC and have rules of conduct that the government imposes on them to protect speech. The reason it is dominated by conservatives is that is what people want to hear. Liberal talk news has failed to have and audience.

Your beliefs are clear and your constantly spew them here.

People don't have rights, but businesses and governments do.

@bi4smooth
I agree with your points but when the corporation is a way for the government to control your speech there is a problem.

Corporate MSM being the propaganda arm of the Democratic party
Social media who is the enforcement arm of said propaganda.

The political parties are not the Government. Fox News, as an admitted partner of the Republican Party, is well within its rights to broadcast stories - even false ones, like Tucker's latest rantings on the 2020 Election (well, latest may not be accurate - I don't watch Fox News on cable, as I don't have cable-tv! But, when it aired isn't the point!)

Parler is perfectly within its rights to take down posts about Trump's taxes (leaked information), just as Facebook is perfectly within its rights to take down posts about Covid-19! In another thread, we're discussing FB being on trial - not for taking down a post, but for supposedly libeling the author! (NOTE: If the plaintiff wins here, the only thing FB will do is stop explaining WHY they removed a post - they won't stop removing them!)

To be clear: they have no obligation to explain why they take down these posts: its their platform, they can "edit" it in any way they like! If YOU don't like it, use another platform!

This really isn't that much different (except that the shoe is on the other foot) than looking at talk-radio in the 80's and 90's - which was (and remains so) completely dominated by conservatives.

Look, if you want to compare "in league with" cable news, do you REALLY think MSNBC holds a candle to FOX? Ratings? Production quality? No way... but how about a different statistic: percent of the time MSM references a story LED by either cable network... you ALMOST NEVER hear CBS reference an MSNBC story, but they often reference a FOX one! (Not daily, mind you, but not that rare, either!)

This is "democracy in action" and this is also our society trying to figure out what's acceptable and what is not about a new communications technology (namely, the Internet).

It's messy... but we'll figure it out!

But the Government taking it over is NOT the best answer (it seldom, if EVER, is), and limiting people's freedoms isn't either!

Look: there has NEVER BEEN - in the history of human-kind - a lower "barrier to entry" in the ability to reach masses of people. Facebook - as a website - isn't even 20 years old yet! Same for Twitter (which turned 15 this year)! Do you not remember "GeoCities"? or "MySpace"? SnapChat just celebrated 10 years in business, and it looks as-if its "time in the Internet sunshine" has passed... who can predict the future?

I will reiterate here: I don't agree with how FB is handling itself - but that's a different thing from believing that they should be treated (limited) as-if they were a Governmental Body.

@bi4smooth

You believe that businesses have rights and people don't unless businesses (sometimes the government too) allow them to.

Thank you, once again @raphjd for that lucid and coherent explanation of what other people think... your clairvoyant abilities continue to astound us (or is that, confound us?)

What ever would I do in life, were it not for your clarifying my own thoughts for me!

Here's an idea: the next time you want to start a sentence with the words "you think" or "you believe" - think again! Erase that part and start over...

Corporate MSM being the propaganda arm of the Democratic party
Social media who is the enforcement arm of said propaganda.

You believe that businesses have rights and people don't unless businesses (sometimes the government too) allow them to.

@bi4smooth said in Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Mask Mandate For School Children Is Illegal:

The Government shouldn't be able to force everyone to get a vaccine, but your employer should have that right - even if your employer is the Government!

And you want us to believe that you don't believe that businesses have more "human rights" than people.

Dude, you've continuously suggested that businesses should be treated like governments - and when I say otherwise, you (as is your most common tactic) jump to this absurd statement that businesses have more rights than people... and this all ties back to your being butt-hurt because Facebook edited (or even censored - did your facebook get banned?) you, which you claim is a violation of your 1st Amendment Rights!

Again: NO - as has been discussed recently: the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with individuals, groups, businesses, or corporations limiting your speech... it SOLELY protects you from the Government limiting your speech... and Facebook IS NOT the Government!

Every time you say something about businesses, I just envision every dystopian movie/book/video game.

Yes, I agree - you are myopic when it comes to a business (like Facebook or Twitter) limiting your speech... but, as I've noted on here before:

• YOU are the Administrator here! Have you not EVER taken action against someone here because of something that they have posted?
• You represent the business of GT.ru, and when you take "editorial" action - whether in the Forum, or with regard to a torrent - you are doing so with the exact same rights as Facebook is when they alter or remove your posts (or Twitter, for that matter)!
• That you and Facebook and Twitter have different "trigger points" as to what you find objectionable on your platform is immaterial!

Just be honest, you believe that businesses should own us like chattel slavery. You're the modern-day Anthony Johnson.

Get hyperbolic much? I'm guessing this absurd jump is tied to my assertion that businesses DO have the right to require things like vaccinations or masks for their employees.

You CONTINUALLY suggest that YOUR FREEDOMS supersede the freedoms of others! But dude, it's a balance - and that's been a HUGE MAJORITY of what our COURTS have been asked to decide since the beginning!

• it is unreasonable for you to brandish a weapon (gun or otherwise) when my dog wanders into your yard to relieve itself?
• What if I led the don onto your property - knowing we (me and the dog) were unwanted?
• What if there were signs warning of dire consequences?
• What if...???
  And that's JUST the animal control courts!

But what makes US (Western Democracies) different is that we believe the Governments rule by consent of the governed... and we have put CONSTRAINTS on what the Government can and cannot do!

There are, of course, constraints on what PEOPLE (individuals, groups, businesses, etc) can do as well - but those are DIFFERENT! People have MORE RIGHTS than the Government!

If you don't like that, you can try living somewhere like N Korea - where the Government has no limits, and the leader is revered and considered infallible!

NOTE 1: Anthony Johnson was the black former indentured servant who refused to let one of his indentured servants go and the resulting court case gave the US (pre US actually) chattel slavery. At the time of the court case, Johnson had 4 white indentured servants and 1 black indentured servant. Casor became the first chattel slave in what was to become the US.

NOTE 2: John Punch was the 1st lifetime slave, as ordered by the court because he fled his IS master. His case is different because he illegally tried to break his IS contract. Also, in the court case, only he was a lifetime slave. Any spouse or offspring he may have had or later gotten would not be slaves, as well, as opposed to the Casor case. Punch's legal status was that of a lifetime IS, as opposed to Casor who was legal property. Punch retained some of his rights, Casor did not.

Thanks for the history lesson, but slavery pre-dates the discovery of America - by thousands of years (even the discovery by "native" tribes, much less by Whites) - and is mentioned (even "accepted") by the Jewish Torah, Christian Bible, and Islam's Koran... the idea that "slavery" is a "moral abomination" is relatively NEW in human history, and runs counter to religious dogma that was in place for millennia before...

NO! That is not a pro-slavery argument! That is a recognition that we HUMANS are constantly trying to improve ourselves... sometimes we make "progress", and sometimes not so much... but from that societal perspective, would we believe the same if the South had won the US Civil War and there was still a Confederacy?

The Government shouldn't be able to force everyone to get a vaccine, but your employer should have that right - even if your employer is the Government!

And you want us to believe that you don't believe that businesses have more "human rights" than people.

Every time you say something about businesses, I just envision every dystopian movie/book/video game.

Just be honest, you believe that businesses should own us like chattel slavery. You're the modern-day Anthony Johnson.

NOTE 1: Anthony Johnson was the black former indentured servant who refused to let one of his indentured servants go and the resulting court case gave the US (pre US actually) chattel slavery. At the time of the court case, Johnson had 4 white indentured servants and 1 black indentured servant. Casor became the first chattel slave in what was to become the US.

NOTE 2: John Punch was the 1st lifetime slave, as ordered by the court because he fled his IS master. His case is different because he illegally tried to break his IS contract. Also, in the court case, only he was a lifetime slave. Any spouse or offspring he may have had or later gotten would not be slaves, as well, as opposed to the Casor case. Punch's legal status was that of a lifetime IS, as opposed to Casor who was legal property. Punch retained some of his rights, Casor did not.

@bi4smooth
Being straight or gay is not a "lifestyle" and if you think that you are still pretending to be something and not being yourself.

Your vocabulary is insufficient here... perhaps you're confusing "lifestyle" with "orientation" or "desire"??? I don't know - but:

A "lifestyle" is how you choose to live... and that means it's a way of BEHAVING. I am trying to live a more active lifestyle as part of my "healthy living" initiative... that means I choose to do more active things: like walking and riding my new bicycle!

When I have been in relationships (including a 15-year marriage to one) with women, I have chosen to only have sex with them! That's a monogamous, straight, lifestyle! Straight in that I only had sex with women, or more grammatically correct: a woman! THAT woman! It does NOT mean I lost my attraction to men - or other women, for that matter - only that I choose to not act on those desires while I'm in a relationship!

Likewise, when I have been (as I am currently) in a relationship with a man, I chose (and currently choose) to only have sex with him! That's a monogamous, gay, lifestyle! Gay in that I only had (have) sex with men (him)! It doesn't mean I have lost my attraction to women - or to other men, for that matter - only that I choose to not act on those desires while I'm in this relationship!

There have been other times in my life that I've chosen to be monogamous... as well as times I have chosen NOT to be... But never - since the age of 12, and I first came to terms with the fact that I was neither gay nor straight - have I deluded myself into thinking my attraction to other people could be controlled or changed. This is the way "my wiring" works, and I'm fine with it.

My sexual desires (fantasies) do not change when I'm in a relationship - only my chosen behavior does! If you behave the same in a relationship as you did before the relationship, then that's you - and you should be you. But I'm glad I AM NOT dating you!

Or, perhaps you are of the misguided belief that my ex-wife didn't know I was pan-sexual? Before we even dated, much less had sex, got married, had kids, adopted more kids, and later got divorced!

Or, perhaps you thought I somehow hid my NINE CHILDREN and their mother from my former fiance? Or even my current boyfriend?

Or, maybe you, as so many others - ESPECIALLY GAY MEN, in my personal experience - want to force my sexual orientation into one of your neat & tidy little labels.

Mind you - I'm not saying I can (or do) choose to be straight or gay... it's not a "binary" equation!

I AM pansexual: my physical attraction goes either way, and my emotional attraction to someone does not depend on their sexual equipment! I have no difficulty being satisfied - sexually and emotionally - by a woman (as evidenced by a 15-year faithful marriage to one!); nor do I have any difficulty doing the same with a man (as evidenced by the 5-year relationship with a man - one that ended in tragedy, not divorce).

But more importantly, I am describing ME, and ONLY ME!

I do not have the HUBRIS (or gall!) to tell others what THEY should do! While I may be perfectly fine spending 15 years with a woman, and forsaking all others - including (especially?) men - while I was in that marriage; that doesn't mean YOU would (or should) be!
I might be equally fine trading in a wife for a husband... but that doesn't mean YOU should (or could) be!
I might be fine living monogamously when I'm in a relationship! But, that doesn't mean YOU should (or have to) be!

Maybe that is why you think of the government as your parent telling you how you should live your life.

You've got the wrong straw-man, my friend... I am no friend of big-government! As I've stated in another thread, I'm just as much against the NY Governor mandating masks in her State as I am against the FL Governor prohibiting mask requirements in his State! The pandemic's effects are not evenly distributed - and the best place to make decisions like that is in the LOCAL governments!

If NYC (or Jackonville, FL) is having a COVID-19 outbreak, they should be allowed to enact a local mask mandate, and to lift it when the danger passes. But the folks in Lake Placid (or Lake Panasoffkee) shouldn't have to mask up because there is an outbreak hundreds of miles away!

Now, if your stance is that we shouldn't have any kind of public-health response to COVID-19 - just let people do what they want to do - well, that's just anarchy... and I'm not an anarchist. We DO need SOME rules, otherwise society breaks down.

Again, my personally: I'd rather local mask mandates on an as-needed basis than a national (or state) wide vaccine mandate! But the vaccine question takes us back to the "your private employer is not the same as the government" argument.

The Government shouldn't be able to force everyone to get a vaccine, but your employer should have that right - even if your employer is the Government!

Want simpler answers? Go back to 2nd Grade! This is real-world stuff... this shit gets complicated FAST!

Maybe that is why you think of the government as your parent telling you how you should live your life.

@bi4smooth
No not at all. Does Bi 4 smooth mean you are a married man who like boys?

I used the name bi4smooth because:

• throughout my life, I have been self-described as bisexual, omnisexual, and pansexual... in 2008, when I created this account, I guess I was in a "bi" phase...
• The reality of my sexual proclivities... is none of your damned business?!?!
• I have been married once (to a woman) and engaged one other time (to a man)... in a cruel twist of fate, my ex-wife survives to this day, while my ex-fiance was taken from me before our marriage (by a medical mis-diagnosis)...

Since you are so intensely interested in my sex life, let me add:

• when I was married (to a woman), I led a "straight" lifestyle... as-in, I did not cheat on my wife (except in my fantasies)
• when I was engaged (to a man) I led a "gay" lifestyle.... as-in, I did not cheat on my man (except in my fantasies)
• 2 years ago, as I was single, I was open to dating men or women
• as-of a little over a year ago, I've been dating a man. Even though we're not "committed", I am currently monogamous with him (except in my fantasies)