All Activity

Bareback: Someone else's cum. Condom: Ben Gay 🙂 (KIDDING!)

Yes, and Yes and Yes and Yes, I was 8 he was 13

Aso, this vid… [think before following links] https://barebackbastards.com/33653/bug-chaser-finally-gives-his-body-to-hiv/?playlist=5768

I guess I missed out. Or I was blindfolded in a sling! 🙂 I miss them too.

I separated this out @tallslenderguy cuz I think we're going down a dual-topic path. Whether more or less extreme, wasn't really what I was trying to get to. But yes, it's more. However, you state above "the 'group' they represent is presenting as much smaller and more extreme." This is purely a progressive-left view of the world. I don't think facts show it. I want to try and use some data to flesh out -- concepts are one thing, but here we're assuming trends and other things to support ideas. To do this, I looked over like 20 polling outfits form the last 2 weeks to find a middle ground -- I won't even use the word "average" -- which also had a lot of detail. So, YouGov has an on-going tracker for this purpose. This particular one is sponsored by The Economist. It used to have a slight R-lean, more recently it's been a slight D-lean. But neither lean was terrible for an opinion poll. These results are not that different from others I've scanned in the last 6 months. Nov 7-10 for reg voters: Trump approval: 42% Do you think the Republican Party is too extreme: yes = 48% Do you think the Democratic Party is too extreme: yes= 48% (not a typo, same) Congressional blame for shutdown: Dem=34%, Rep=36%, Both=24% We are simply in two worlds. There is no real reduction of gain for either side. It's all marginal and it's not moving. Trump's approval is down but not massively in modern terms. It's still 85% among Reps -- so what's shrinking? Remember, off-year elections are less about ideological shifts of voters and more about who turns out to vote. This hits the sitting President's party regardless of who is in the White House. But right, on gerrymandering Reps are doing a lot. And Dems are responding. But this is nothing new. Dems had the House locked up by gerrymandering throughout the late 20th century. It's actually why Reps NOW are doing what they're doing: they grew up in that era and were pissed at Dem gerrymandering, as Dems are pissed now. Example: in 1984, Reagan won the Presidential race by 59%-41% of pop vote, Dems led House with 52% of pop vote but, due to gerrymandering, took 58% of seats.

Short of setting up a meeting via one of the hookup sites, how does one go about getting the attention of one of these horny truckers?

Yea location sucks for sure at times, I have always been jealous of those that live in areas where they can easily hookup with black men. Very very hard for me where I live, and 99% of the time they are just younger guys wanted a BJ and thats it, and just think I am sick for begging to drink their piss. 😞

After I tried watersports for the first time, I went to a local sex club (RIP). After getting sufficiently wasted, I knelt next to the urinals. Almost immediately, a BBC put in my mouth and gave me a bladder full of wasn’t looking for BBC, just a great bonus!

Aquafore

Read The Poz Hotel on this site. I promise, it’ll feed your fetish!

I’m keen:) total bottom though here so happy to be joining group sessions. Take any loads, drink piss and swallow spits 🙂

Where I live its like black men population: 2. Chance they are the type to let me drink down their piss and cum? 0%. No other pairing fascinates me more or turns me on more than black and white

@tallslenderguy You said, "To me, the Amazon example has echos of trickle down economics?” This is an issue of words-on-a-screen vs. face-to-face. I’d bet a million billion quadrillion rupees we’d be on the same page in the latter (not necessarily in agreement, but…you know). But as for trickledown economics, I’m referencing the exact opposite! In terms of income disparity, I had over-simplified. Yes, it has effects and I didn’t intend to imply otherwise. The issue I’m trying to bring up are the causes. If you don’t grasp the cause, your solution may be ineffectual or flawed, either immediately or over time. Maybe clearer if I had said, ‘but the growth over the last decade of income disparity is, by definition, not an innate state. We need to look at the causes and not just the effects, and our role in them.’ In so doing, The fed wrote the article (I had linked above) to articulate how and where that incremental wealth was coming from by looking at corporate profits – as more profitable companies pay their employees and board members more in various compensation. Amazon being a case study of that. I’m not sure if that clears it up or if I’m restating the confusion?? Let me know. I change my bet, though, to million billion quadrillion gagillion rupees. Again, as far as trickledown economics, this is the exact opposite re: Amazon and the like. And, to your question, I’m not taking a side in this. I’m only trying to articulate a cause so if we discuss solutions, that convo has a baseline (more below). The success Amazon and the like have is driven by people like you -- and 10s of millions more like you -- who use their service. They provided you a service you want. But that has led to their participation, if not key player, in the income disparity problem (as well as the affordability problem). So, what’s a solution to the problem? Do you incentivize for better outcomes, or do you penalize success? As an example of incentive: maybe the government offers a tax credit for buying local, and purchases go through a centralized system to lower your adjusted income regardless of other deductions? Consumer spending is ~two-thirds of our economy so it’s not a ‘David v. Goliath’ issue, to use your phrase. Maybe the government creates a tax assessed to companies who have centralized employees in a few places while collecting revenue from everywhere. This would be deferred to state small business divisions, which fund/support local businesses. The businesses being assessed the tax can reduce this tax by remote or more corporate branch offices around the country or outright building more self-sustaining local businesses. This would additionally help the affordability issue by re-dispersing jobs around the country. Or do you just tax the rich? A form of populism and class warfare. Or just tax the corporation blindly – which they always pass on to the consumer anyway. I’m not saying any of those ideas are even viable. They’re just illustrative of an incentive vs. a penalty. Is it clear the difference? Incentive are about working with everyone in the context of the real world. Quite frankly, penalties are the manifestation of populist hate. You said, “i also believe we are all connected. That means i affect others, but it also means they affect me.” I agree wholeheartedly. But we need to be more holistic about what connectedness means. It’s not only our time and our words, but also our choices – which includes where we spend our money. Charities agree very much to this notion, right?

I really miss the Denver Swim Club and Midtowne Spa Denver, I fucked way more than a thousand holes at each of them, in the 8 years I lived there. It's really hard for me to imagine that Denver no longer has a bathhouse, they were both packed every weekend with guys fucking each other, when I lived there.

The one word answer is New York.

It's not a feeling, it's a fact. You're jamming something big and hard into a soft and easily damaged internal organ. It's violence that he welcomes, but violence nonetheless.

God do I miss Club Z! 🙂 I used to live in Seattle as well. Thank you for sharing. It's really hard to estimate this number lol