Henson

Two things. 1. If Darius is a single naval Lieutenant (O-3, analogous to a Captain in one of the other services) around 2006-2010, timing which fits perfectly, he has about an 80% chance of being sent to the sandbox at some point in his career regardless of his actual specialty. I know multiple submarine qualified LTs who were plucked from their normal shore duty assignments and sent to be powerpoint warriors in Iraq under the Individual Augmentee program. The good news is that he would most likely BE a powerpoint warrior in a remarkably frustrating staff job unless he is in the intelligence, civil engineering, medical, aviation, or special operations communities. 2. If Darius is to go to war in his own way, so too should Will. Make him a journalist. Send him to journalism or law school (or both), make him activist, and have him end up with a blog. He has the attitude and resources to seriously piss off a lot of governments. Think Glenn Greenwald.

An interesting nuance - what, exactly, does Triton manufacture, and how directly does it stand to profit from anything other than a general re-investment in the defense sector after the drawdown of the 1990's? More to the point, what projects is Triton involved in, and is it lobbying for war? Many other companies stand to make a LOT, and they are most definitely lobbying congress to go to war - a fact little realized at the time, but obvious when you look at the media coverage and the way congress voted. That hubris led to further nonsense like the ongoing F-35 saga and Lockheed Martin's (GOD I hate that company!) ongoing, intentional malfeasance in any number of projects they are involved in. Lockheed in particular has a business model of selling flawed products to the government and then charging a premium to clean up their own messes. I see it in my own sector (which interestingly is right where Triton sits, in subsurface warfare) and in every other government contract that company touches. Not all defense contractors are equal. Triton seems relatively politically inactive, and is focused on submarine warfare, not an area that grew as a result of the Iraq invasion. Halliburton and LMCO, on the other hand, are a whole different story. I think it's entirely fair to look beneath the hood of a company when your family is making a multi-million (or even billion) dollar investment in their product and, more importantly, their philosophy and business practices. It is not unreasonable for the family to ask, "What behavior are we really funding here - and should we?"

I found that to be the richest characterization in the entire story so far. No one ever really sees themselves. Besides, they were trying to get him to focus on them rather than the other way around. Of course that would be yawn-inducing. This is a guy who both doesn't much care for people poking into his privacy, and likes to control the agenda.

Is it really manipulative to mirror a bit of what you know your partner likes, as long as you don't lose yourself in the role? Dan Savage once told a group about a beautiful thing which happens in healthy relationships. You start out pretending that you're way more amazing than you are. Eventually your partner learns that you're just as human as the rest of us, but he pretends that you're still that idealized version of yourself - which motivates you to actually BE that better person. You do that for each other, and you literally make each other better by pretending you are. Now, obviously, that's different in many regards from what JJ is doing here, but is it really manipulative to present what you know your partner idealizes about you, especially early in a relationship? Is it unhealthy for either person? I think it can grow to an unhealthy level, just as anything else in life, but there's nothing wrong with doing things your partner (or crush) likes as long as it isn't all one-sided.

Meh. She'll just hit on him. In public.

Most people don't approach their personal lives from a perspective of constant consideration of legal liability.

Tantrums and petulance? Seems like a member of congress, so he's probably at least in his thirties.

I just read this thread from the beginning and it's some hilarious stuff. Hindsight is fun.

Do you guys know enough about Alex to hate him yet? I don't. I'm not even sure he's messed up. Maybe he's treating Wade the way he thinks he wants to be treated - with respect. Alex has done nothing that even approaches the level of fucked-up-in-the-head that is normal for the Hayes family.

Zach Tebow. Up with this, Will will not put. Let me say from experience that extreme fundamentalism is a great excuse for not banging girls. Find a nice lil church mouse who wants to save herself and you don't even have to pretend. I'm not proud of it, but it kept me safely closeted until I joined the navy and became a heathen.

My mother told me, on several occasions, that she did not treat the four of us equally - she treated us fairly. I'm not a parent, but I'm in the leadership of a noon-profit youth organization and have been involved in the high school band world for a long time. Not every kid is the same. If you're using a cookie cutter on them, you're doing it wrong.

Well, first I don't want you to feel like I'm arguing with you. I just was wondering if we weren't speaking from the same frame of reference, because that precision of language is important to understanding. To me, the connotation of the word monogamy lies in the long term commitment, the "settling down" that others referred to. I know a lot of people who date one person, and focus on one person, for a few weeks or months, but I'm not sure I'd categorize them as monogamous in the sense of the word I'm accustomed to. To me, monogamy implies that the person has found "the one." I'm starting to doubt you meant it quite that way. I'm an engineer, and we have periods at work where people will sit across from each other and "aggressively agree." They argue up a storm, never realizing that they fundamentally agree with each other. I was wondering if this may not be one of those times, is all... Don't be afraid of disagreement. It's from disagreements that solutions and innovations are born. After my 15 years of working in or with the military, you certainly won't hurt my feelings by telling me you have a different point of view. Given the typically spirited dialogue here I suspect most here would say the same.

Crossed wires here? I see a difference between long-term monogamy and serial monogamy.

I came of age in the gay culture you tried to describe. Dude - you have GOT to stop watching TV shows as though they were documentaries. I think it's a matter of extremes and outliers. Circuit boys are outliers, but so are the committed, 200% monogamous couples who chat it up with the bartender during the day when the bar is deserted (note that there are WAY LESS PEOPLE in the bar during that magical daylight hour when the committed couples come out to drink). The rest of us are somewhere in the middle: partying through our twenties, but not destructively; dating both seriously and not, trying to negotiate what our relationships mean in terms of balancing; learning to love the man more than the ideal of a "perfect" relationship itself; and eventually outgrowing party culture to take on responsibility. We party, life happens, and we move on.

Honestly, doesn't this speak to some level of authenticity? Let's be blunt - perfectly monogamous gay relationships are rare in an urban environment. I don't speak to the morality of this, it just is what it is. All of life is negotiation, and people - including these characters - have a right to negotiate the arrangements that are fulfilling for them. Not for you; for them. And I feel that the progression we've seen, where these men who were extraordinarily promiscuous in their day, settle down as age creeps up, rings true. It is infinitely more reasonable for an older, established man to find a monogamous, lifelong partner than it is for someone not-quite out of adolescence. I won't apologize for thinking that a strictly monogamous relationship may not be healthy at the age of 22. It leads to cases of the "I wonder if's" and the "I wish I would'ves," which in turn cause resentment. Let the young men in this story be young men. I'm confuzzled that anyone could read Mark's body of work to this point and anticipate that at any point a male/male primary couple in a story of his would be strictly monogamous.

Tim, I wrote my above post before I saw yours - it wasn't a reply to you. The short version is, I love the story, love the writing, and think Matt needs to give Wade a wakeup call. He needs to follow Will's advice, grow a set, and tell him, "hey, I love you. I'm always here for you. But until you get your shit together, quit bothering me and tearing my heart apart. It's not what you do to someone you love." ... and then fuck his way across Chicago.

I don't think Wade is irredeemable, or a lost cause. I just think he's being a shit, making horrible decisions, and deserves for Matt to grow a pair and dump his ass.

Gotta wonder how that conversation would've gone if Matt's ego weren't at a low point, and Wade hadn't worked things out so it would be had in the midst of afterglow. "Hey, I really love this guy. He's probably way better than you are for me, except the sex sucks. I'd still choose him over you though, if he were able to really come out. But you're cool, I guess."

I'll be a little more clear about the whole issue of Wade's behavior. I'm not excusing it. I still think he's acting like a shit. I'm just happy that 1. He realizes it, and 2. The other characters aren't excusing his behavior. For him to continue to be held in the same high esteem he was, for his judgment to be highly regarded by the other characters (especially Will) would strain credulity. But if he's just decided to give himself license to disregard duty and act selfishly for once, AND he's paying a price for it (both internal and external), I can accept that. He's human. Maybe it's about time his pedestal cracked. JP was never perfect, but is the most compelling character in all of their lives.

Don't get stuck on the six months. That's just a long enough period for the certainty to approach 100%. Most infected people are producing detectable antibodies within a couple weeks.

That's a very fair POV. He gets it, understands he's being a shit, even feels bad about it, but plows on anyway. I think we've all danced that dance. My concern is the sexual mismatch. Speaking from experience, that much of a mismatch is untenable over the long term in a couple where monogamy is desired or expected. Dude is treating Wade like a woman. I always said it takes a bottom to really know how to top well.

In the western world of today, HIV only really kills you if you never test and don't catch it, if you refuse to treat, or if it's paired with some other significant health problems. That said, 2002 is not the world of today when the subject is HIV. You guys are raising fair points, and the treatment that made my above statement reasonable was very, very new back then.

Disregarding, for the moment, who gave what to whom (because it really doesn't matter)... I'm with Matt. That information is personal. It belongs to you, and people you have sex with. No one else is entitled to it. Will's reaction was absolutely in character and what I would expect from him, but it is none of his business if his dad has HIV or not. And even if Wade is positive, my take here is that he blew it. Going back to Matt is a way of saying to him, "you are the second choice I had to settle for because you gave me cooties." That's no foundation on which to build a relationship. Their old relationship is gone - he destroyed it when he ditched Matt, and it won't come back. They will be the best of friends for life (if he doesn't fuck that up too) but it would take decades to rebuild the kind of trust that can be made into a true partnership, and even then it would be something different. Beautiful, perhaps, but more mature.

Felony... and yet do the same thing when you're positive for Hepatitis C, with actually WILL eventually kill you and is much easier to catch, and you cannot be charged. It is not reckless endangerment, and it shouldn't be a felony. Those stupid laws (and they are stupid) were a social reaction to the hysteria perpetuated in the late 80's, and the pendulum is slowly swinging back to match reality. Pointing to the law and using that asinine criminalization fad to heap even more stigma on positive people is stupid and counterproductive, and conveniently absolves the negative person from any responsibility whatsoever to take care of himself. Yes, positive people have a moral obligation to disclose their status. No, they are not trying to kill anyone if they don't. There's a moderate position in there somewhere which actually makes sense and will help people. Me? I assume everyone is positive, but doesn't know it yet - then I act accordingly. It's served me well so far. Frankly, I feel safer with the guy who tells me up front that he's positive than I do with the guy who swears he's negative, but who also hasn't been tested in 5 years. The guy who discloses to me is showing he's responsible, and he probably has his viral load suppressed, as opposed to the guy acting like an ostrich and pretending it could never happen to him - until he winds up sick with a 200,000+ viral load and a chain of broken lives in his wake.

The question isn't whether he CAN do something incredibly irresponsible because of a crush (even if it turns out ok in the end). Of course he's allowed to be human. The concern was whether that is characteristic of him (it's clearly not), and the question is what psychic price he's going to pay when he himself realizes how foolish and, more importantly, rude he was (even if, as I said before, it turns out well). When the crush ends, even if it turns into a mature relationship, will he let himself get away with this impulsive behavior, or will it trouble him? Since 9-11, we've watched him devolve rather than evolve.