BannedWord

When I lived back outside Philly, there were a couple ABS/AVS places north of the city that I sometimes frequented. I got to know a couple of the clerks, and one of them was definitely in play, often during business hours when things were slow. Smaller dude who was about 30 years my senior tended to be a really good cock-sucker and would take me into one of the booths where he'd put on porn using his key on the machine, and then spend a really good amount of time giving head. Sadly the place is no longer.

Note: I'm using @hntnhole's post, but my comments are more intended for and directed to the OP, @BoyStrangler. Ok, maybe I haven't been here that long, so your mileage may vary compared to my own. I've held the unenviable role of moderating other sites over time (I currently have moderation authority on another very large public forum to review reported content or TOS violations), and I can fairly state that it's actually a pretty thankless job. It's like going into work knowing that you're going to piss someone off no matter what you do. Invariably, you do the right thing for the right reasons and the site users will always want to countermand you for every decision. You don't want AI to take over this job when the job of artificial intelligence is black or white and humans can interpret the various grey shades between. Not your circus, not your monkeys, try your hand at creating your own very similar site and see how well you do. And like @hntnhole, I've had disagreements in opinion of certain people on the site, a few of whom might feel as if "they're always right, and you're always wrong". There's this wonderful function on the site that lets you force ignore all of their postings when you've had enough of it. Maybe not a bad idea to do that every so often to let things cool off, as they always will. But if that doesn't work out for you and you find yourself victimized in some way, try a hobby. Youtube has plenty of how-to videos, for instance "How to remove your own appendix", along with any number of cat videos and pimple popping. Try it out. And if you ever want to see true censorship, walk on over to Facebook sometime and meet their Ministry of Truth. That'll make this site seem like paradise. Agreed wholeheartedly. Of course there will be some [banned topics] for either legal or ethical reasons. The same way that Youtube doesn't show videos on animal vivisection -- not everything is suitable for consumption. One to keep in mind.

Here's two opposites: Wolf Hudson and Liam Riley. Wolf because he's hot as fuck to me and seems open to anything. Plus he's bi so it's likely a hot scene all around. Liam because he's this cute femme twink power-bottom, so he kinda satisfies this daddy/boi urge. And despite how small he is, he seems to take a power-fuck like a champ.

I did my Junior Prom and really disliked the frigid bitch (FB) I was setup with. So when Senior Year came, I was already checked out of anything involving my class (including choosing a school none of them were going to attend), and sure enough, FB was looking for a prom date. To which I said "fuck no, never again". Then someone had the bright idea of paying for the tickets in advance and trying to force pair myself and someone else. Again, I was livid at the arrangement and told them all I'm not going. I was told afterward that I really didn't miss anything other than having to hire a limo, get flowers, and pay for part of an afterparty at the beach. I had a blind date once. Turned out she could see.

And anything anecdotally won't hold any sort of scientific weight. Has the study participant kept a journal of every sexual encounter both before and after contracting the virus? Pretty doubtful, and how much weight and accuracy can that even carry? The only way I could even imagine such a study is by a "control group". Group A, potentially those already infected with the virus, is studied and subjected to several tests -- bloodwork, study of DNA, cellular level comparisons, the link -- and compared to a Group B, who has been on PrEP or not in the same type of risky sex (unprotected) situation as Group A. Are there any biological differences other than the presence of a viral level? Or is it all psychological that, as you say, the Group A participants have adjusted to the status and decided "(they) can't get any more infected"? I'd be interested in understanding that detail. Still, interesting crack at it as a first attempt.

It's been up for me for a while and a bunch of folks are chatting away. 🤷🏻‍♂️

So let me correct a few things, because you do not understand what I wrote and have gotten this completely wrong. I'll start with the most incendiary statement that my comments are disrespectful to trans people. And what you don't know about me here is, well, a lot. I have two trans (MtF) nieces. We often joke in good nature about the very tough road they had in their trans journey. I have nothing but respect for them, I love them with all of my being, and was crushed when one of them passed from illness last year. I'll get to why my comment meant no disrespect shortly. Pre-pubescent use of hormone blockers: There's one very notable and quite public example, and that's Jazz Jennings. [think before following links] https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/fascinating-facts-about-jazz-jennings-47309868 Now I made no distinction about the timing of "pre-pubescent", since it encompasses everything up to the point of puberty. Jazz' journey has been very well documented on TV at least in the US. Her later gender affirming surgery was fraught with complications, notably because of lack of development of certain parts that should have grown further as part of reassignment. And that came out very publicly as well. One example. Do we know enough about hormone blockers: [think before following links] https://www.statnews.com/2017/02/02/lupron-puberty-children-health-problems/ The article about cites the use of Lupron, which was given to many kids to help block the onset of puberty, and has been later cited as causing other health problems that were not expected nor foreseen. Would it have been prescribed if so? Probably not. Do we know enough or have we studied enough about the long term impacts of hormone blockers? Again, one example where it can be argued that "no, probably not". As happens often with medications, more so if an off-label indication is used (e.g. Cialis being used for people with enlarged prostates). Now to the statement that I made about "Hippo or Walrus or Bird". Suppose a child is say 5 -- and yes, this is happening and being covered in news stories and in social media -- and suddenly decides that they're a different gender. Or a princess. Or a Walrus, or anything else fanciful that a child's very active imagination can come up with at a young age. At that point, have they really psychologically matured enough to be making a life decision that will physically alter them forever if they proceed into gender affirming surgery? Think about that a moment. What did you want to be at say age 10? Are you that now? Chances are you aren't. So my example was tongue-in-cheek, but intended to show that people are tending to take very life altering decisions in a cavalier manner. [think before following links] https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/ That, again, is one example. Now, to your point of whether I'm making an argument about your personal views on religion, or whether I am trying to enforce my views on others, I've done no such thing. I've simply brought forth counter-arguments on the topic. And yes, we've veered afield from the original discussion of "religion" in this topic, and my own views on religion have very little bearing on either my positions or views or the information I've provided. I will thank you to know the difference between that, and not to infer that you know all about someone (you probably didn't know I had Trans relatives or was close with other trans people) or whether "you're right, he's wrong". This isn't about that or your inference of disrespecting anyone. Read what I've written about to understand the context. I don['t profess to understand what a trans person's journey is, I haven't taken that walk. But I'm raising some points that ultimately either could use some thought or might help the transition at the right juncture. Peace bro. I'm signing out on this because I've said all I need on the topic. Moderate me out if you'd like.

True. But you brought up a point that, if it weren't so bizarre AND true, wouldn't even need stating. You know, like the jar of 'peanut butter' that has the label stating "Warning: May contain nuts.". I agree there's nothing to block, but we have medical professionals, for example, who will do so anyway regardless of whether it actually does harm (despite their Hippocratic oath).

Not complicated in the US. If someone is sexually molested and not of consenting age (varies by state between 16 and 18), the offending party is subject to charges of Statutory Rape. The incident must be reported by medical personnel to law enforcement for investigation and action. That's especially true of this, rape or incest, or pregnancy to someone not of consenting age (though a lot of teen pregnancies don't get prosecuted because parents were aware and all parties consented). In the Ohio case, the doctor sending info to the press promptly shut down once people started asking about the offender who impregnated a 9 year old. They had a legal obligation to report it. Apparently that dawned on them when the topic was raised by several sources, among those being social media and the press. The notion behind hormone blockers is to use them before hormones start to develop so that the body's development is paused in that pre-hormonal state and the hormones of the opposite gender can be administered. It's prophylactic in nature. I agree it makes little sense, but that's some of the lunacy that is happening with people here. A recent news story here showed video of a 4 year old having a "gender reveal" party. He was a girl. 🤷‍♂️

We have had teachers and doctors and parents all come out supporting these types of things while kids are pre-pubescent. So I'd argue they're not safe. There are situations in which teachers have come out and said that they'd go to the extent of hiding a child's gender-change desires from parents and seek out medical help for them. All of that is really extreme, and we don't know or haven't studied the long-term effects of halting hormones at a child of that age. What does that do to them both physically and psychologically? I have some strong doubts that any child can truly comprehend before puberty whether they want to be a boy, girl, Hippo or Walrus or bird. Want to really give gender affirmation to a kid who thinks they're a bird? Force them to fly and let us know how that works out. (kidding, but there's a Babylon Bee piece that pokes fun at this). The trouble is that we don't hear enough of the stories where kids have later come out with major regrets about a trans decision, like a former FtM who had her breasts removed, and now that she realizes she's more aligned to being a female she faces as a loss that she'll never have "her own" breasts because of the decision. I'm not saying that ALL decisions are wrong, but it's really important that the person is psychologically prepared for the permanence of that decision. "You're losing your penis and getting a labia and vaginal canal, so things like orgasm are going to be a lot different. Are you sure you're ok with that?" Not a decision for someone who can't even vote or drink in this country. It's not like buying a toaster where you can just return it if you aren't satisfied. I'll take that 99.99999% of people will not agree with me 100% of the time. 😉

No, I really didn't intend to turn any argument into a personal one. That isn't me. As to the source, well, I was educated in a Catholic Prep school and did debating / extemporaneous as an activity. I don't reflect on that much as childhood was mostly a memory I'd prefer to forget. If you're saying that some people aren't fit to be parents -- ok, I buy that argument. When you need to get a license for your pet but any general fuck-up can be a parent, our values are somehow screwed up. The recent rulings in Ohio had built-in exceptions that permitted abortions for rape, incest, and other criminality. The recent case that was raised with the 10-year old who 'had to go to Indiana' raised a bunch more questions including the requirements that the activity be reported to law enforcement. The once-vocal doctor suddenly went silent once the topic of criminal reporting surfaced. If they'll focus on the underage victim, then focus on her and don't let up when it comes down to the act of how that happened and whether someone was criminally responsible for the statutory rape of a minor. No "Mary". I felt like something was missing in my life when I turned to the church. I had an excellent priest who was my catechism teacher, he set a great example for others. I moved from his parish and his time at that parish was up (he was given his own and greater responsibility, I simply moved and a commute for church didn't seem sustainable). I struggled afterward to find the same sense of community and the local parishes were very insular -- no room at the inn for the outsider. After that, I struggled to find that reason in my life to really march to that drum any longer. I also couldn't reconcile a number of the writings and inherent contradictions to that same definition of "God" that was taught in Christianity -- why in the Bible did we turn from a vindictive deity to an overwhelmingly accepting and forgiving one? If there was a God, why did he let such horrible things happen to those He would hold up as exemplary? It all seemed consistently inconsistent. So I simply stopped practicing the dogma and questioning more, and finding myself looking at the whole thing as an exercise that no longer held the same meaning for me. I have great friends who are Catholics and more broadly Christians, I don't generally join their services if invited or the opportunity presents, but I also find it very difficult to accept a lot of what religion tends to teach us. So I'll describe myself as skeptical and agnostic, perhaps seeking something on which to hang my hat or an explanation for everything -- such as why those who've had near death experiences all return from them with the same vision of what happened. But until there's a very compelling argument, I'm still questioning. I'm just not a practitioner until something convinces me. I know you probably meant that being cheeky, but wanted to explain it more fully anyway. 🙂

I actually didn't intend to make an abstract personal. Sorry about that one. I'm writing on my self-imposed lunch break. We've already had a couple discussions, hopefully you know that I don't view any of these as personal attacks as much as they're exchange of ideas. And thank...well...thankfully we can do that civilly. 🙂 Re: The 'Postpartum' discussion. No, I'm pro-choice "to a point". I've heard the most extreme supporters of choice suggest that the mother has a right to terminate the child after it has been born. That's when it does cross the line into infanticide: The child was born, was viable outside the womb, and its life was ended. Not a Caesarian section, but anything where the life is ended after the child is viable and out of the womb. That still leaves considerable leeway for circumstances. Remarkably, most Americans (can't speak to Netherlands or Europe) believe there should be an outer limit, after which the pregnancy should not be 'voluntarily terminated'. The figure I've heard was that 85% believed that after 15 weeks, abortion wasn't something they would agree with. I think that is reasonable. Your mileage may vary. I don't believe in all-or-nothing on either side. As to religion -- I'm a non-practicing Roman Catholic. If I believe in anything, it's the possibility of something beyond the life we're in now. If belief gives someone a sense of comfort or peace, I'm not so jaded to think that is awful. Whatever gets you through the night (or hard times) is alright.

I think we may have veered off the beaten path of religion on this one into a much darker area. If someone else made this as a statement, let's take that one off the table. My objection is one of instruction and one of medical practice. This is an area where I think we may be inflicting damages that could be avoided. 1. Instruction. At an appropriate age, where the child has the capacity to understand sexuality, is when instruction should be given. Not in Pre-K through 3rd grade. Let the parents give their kids "the talk" first and then perhaps delve off into the wide range of other topics they should know without any shame or religion or guilt inflicted on that. At age 6, I was probably way too innocent to comprehend any of that. 2. Medical advice and practice. I object to medical professionals (much less non-medical personnel) administering hormone blockers because at say age 5 a boy likes playing with dolls and thinks he should be a girl. What happens next year when he wants to be a super-hero or a walrus or elephant? "Nope, too late, you thought you should be a girl last year so we messed around with your hormones, too bad for you Jamie." Kidding, aside, we don't have enough experience with the impact of this on humans at that age, and what kid actually understands what they want to be before they fully understand themselves in the body they're in? If he/she wants to have gender affirming procedures later on when they're capable of understanding the ramifications, go for it. Pre-teen?!? WTF? No offense intended to anyone trans, but let the kid be a kid first, then grow from that innocence. And despite what any teacher might think, the parents should be involved in the decision until such time as the child can be emancipated. Sorry, think this needed to be said. Forget the religious guilt, I could give a toss about that and agree with your points on that one. (If someone wants to moderate this out, go for it, I probably offended tens of people somewhere in this.)

There is no moral or medical difference. Full stop. Neither should be occurring, not have I suggested there should be. So I'm not distinguishing a difference in behavior.

You're right. Totally missed that one. Too much multi-tasking of late. That's fair. But perhaps they aren't asking you to prove or disprove, but asking you to accept them in the same way that you're asking that they accept you. Just waiting for this one. I'd be willing to wager that, at least in this community, if I said that Donald Trump was the true personification of the devil, I'd get people to jump on that bandwagon. 😆 I'd also bet that if I replaced Trump with Joe Biden in that sentence, I'd be drawn and quartered. I actually agree with you on that one, and suspect that most people tend not to assign the right perspective to the actions of others. Especially so in politics. I'd say we agree more than we disagree here but perhaps on some different grounds. No single group should be disadvantaged. There needs to be more moderation that doesn't exist today. For instance, if we said that say abortion is a 'right', where does that end and infanticide begin? There are certain people on the extreme end of this who contend that it should be a right up to and postpartum. So what's the reasonable answer? If we say the Second Amendment is a right (which is actually is, Roe was just a legal decision), is it a right without any restrictions? It isn't. There are reasonable restrictions, and a vast majority of legal firearm owners. Two topics, there should be a reasonable moderation on either. Unfortunately, people have walked away from the notion of "love each other as I have loved you". I don't know if that is a fault of the organized religion or those who are practitioners. Is it the fault of the religion that there are priests who are 'minor attracted persons'? Is it that they have no outlet for those desires? Or is it just the people themselves? Open question -- not expressing an opinion. 🙂