In this episode of Cubs Out Loud, the cubs roll the dice on the topic of tabletop gaming. Listen in as the guys throw their cards on the table about what games they enjoy, what they like and don’t like about tabletop and card gaming. From the groans when someone mentions Monopoly to the joy and excitement of Exploding Kittens, have some fun gathering around for a great gaming adventure.

Introduction Topics

What’s Going On?

Jeff: AGDQ

Damon: Fuck You, Mother Nature!

Chester: Travel!

Gary: Ick

Did I Do That?

Chester: My first 5K! 

Feedback:

Facebook Likes:

Brady Adams

Mathew Scheuring (Shoo-ring)

Jake Dzadon (Zay-duhn)

Joshua Vijiyakumar

Facebook Comment:

Chester Beltowski: I’m listening to episode COL398: Bud Sex and I am laughing my ass off at the “old fluids” bit, man I wish I was on the show for this! BTW Damon, the “wall” you were describing can be considered anthropologically significant.

YouTube Subscribers:

Chels m

PAPAxPALPATlNE

Maxx Dennis

Adam Medina

Email:

From right after Christmas…

Hi, guys.  I’m about 2 months behind in listening to your podcast, and I’m having a problem with Chester’s “I’ll Tumbl For You” links.  Whenever I try to open one (current example), I get “The URL you requested could not be found.”  I tried following Chester’s “The Cub Up There” blog back to the date of the show (slow-scrolling thru 2 months of backlog), but I couldn’t find anything there that looked like what he described on the show.

Is it possible that Chester deletes his Tumblr posts after the “Cubs Out Loud” podcast?

Keep ’em coming, & merry holidays,

Henry

Atlanta, Ga.

From after COL398 ‘Bud Sex’

Hi there cubs!

First of all, Happy New Year and thanks for having Hadrian read those stories a few episodes ago! It definitely made the cold weather somewhat warmer Second, I just finished listening to the Bud Sex episode you just released. I also briefly read the scientific journal article afterward. Being that you have indirectly summoned the COL scientist (thanks for the title, Jeff), I considered writing about a few things relevant to the discussion.

Defining/measuring sexual orientation: A few of you mentioned the Kinsey scale to define sexual orientation. As revolutionary as this scale was back in the 50s, it does not represent sexual orientation accurately. Consider it more of a legacy instrument than a good one to define and measure sexual orientation. More recent models have proposed at least 3 dimensions to sexual orientation that can explain most of what we observe: identity, behavior, attraction.

        Identity refers to how you define yourself, in this case, sexually. If you identify as gay, bi, straight, queer, etc. that is your identity.

        Behavior refers to what people do sexually. In other words, who are people having sex with?

        Attraction refers to the gender you are attracted to.

Further, imagine that these 3 dimensions can be measured on a scale (for example, 1 to 10) instead of a “yes” or “no.” For example, I identify as gay (10) and do not identify as bi (0), straight (0), or queer (0); I have only had sex with men (10) and I have not had sex with women (0); and I feel very attracted to men (9) and a little attracted to women (3).  Now, based on our understanding of sexual orientation with these 3 dimensions we can conceive the existence of men who identify as straight, have sex with men and women at different levels, and feel attracted to both males and females at different levels. That is what sociologists, anthropologists, and the community at large may consider MSM, brojob, or bud-sex dude. Consider also those guys who identify as gay (8-10), who have only had sex with women because of social expectations or other reasons, and may be attracted to men way more than to women. I have met bears who were married, had kids, ended up getting a divo[...]