BannedWord

On 11/16/2021 at 4:41 PM, trainfan said:

I am wondering if anyone here has had the great fortune 

to interact with bookstore clerks while at the store.  I have 

not.

There is a hot older clerk at Adult Warehouse in Spokane

who I would like to blow.

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. 

On 9/4/2022 at 8:00 AM, hntnhole said:

Well, after reading through some of this thread, all I can say is:

1.  I've only found the moderators helpful when I had a question. 

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.

On 9/4/2022 at 8:00 AM, hntnhole said:

2.  There's exactly one person on BZ that I've "blocked" because there appears to me to be nothing but poison in his fingers.  I notice that portions of his texts are quoted, and thus visible to me, and that person is just as vitriolic today as he was before, regardless the issue.  When someone only uses it to prop up their deficit of self esteem, why even bother to engage? 

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.

On 9/4/2022 at 8:00 AM, hntnhole said:

3.  This site is of value to many of us.  There are all kinds of interesting, positive, well-meaning threads to read, contribute to, learn from, see what others perspectives are, and find something useful out of the exercise.  

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.

On 9/1/2022 at 12:51 PM, hntnhole said:

Fortunately, I managed to avoid that trap, and here's how I did it:

One of my mom's friends wanted me to take her frumpy oldest daughter to the prom...

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.

On 8/29/2022 at 5:47 PM, BootmanLA said:

I'd caution from drawing too many conclusions from this study.

For one thing, as the authors admit, they can only compare behavior from earlier in an infected state with that from later in an infected state. There's no ethical way to study how infection itself changes a person's sex drive from before infection to after infection, which is what most people seem to be reporting anecdotally.

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?

On 8/29/2022 at 5:47 PM, BootmanLA said:

Moreover, this presents a question of causality: is the advancing HIV infection/viral load physically causing people to have more frequent and riskier sex (the way rabies causes foaming at the mouth, for instance), or could it simply be that as guys become more accustomed to their HIV status, they relax about having sex and enjoying it more (and seeking more partners and riskier options) because the perceived danger of doing so has gone away?

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. 🤷🏻‍♂️

14 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

No, I responded to a (hysterical in my opinion) statement you made which I feel wasn't / couldn't be true about when a transgender child (prepubescent) in certain cases is prescribed hormone blockers. 

I tried to voice understanding for - in what to me seems an immensely difficult situation - the possibility that just before / at the start of puberty hormone blockers could be used to delay the onset of puberty where the body of the transgender youth would start to change in ways that can only be altered be more invasive surgery than necessary.

The parts of your contribution I feel are hysterical are the use of the word 'prepubescent' by which you imply it concerns younger children - not children at the onset of puberty - and that they're 'not safe' from teachers, doctors and parents like it is their intention to hurt or harm children in stead of helping kids - in, again: a VERY difficult and sensitive situation - who are transgender.

In this post you again assume it's harming the kids involved, when in fact doing nothing or waiting too long can also be harmful. I really feel you at the same time oversimplify and exaggerate matters which helps no one, least of all these children. 

Furthermore, when you compared being transgender with a wish to become a Hippo, a Walrus or a Bird it was very disrespectful to transgenders.

Like I have mentioned once or twice, these kids like all people who are transgender are in a difficult situation and although other people might not know how it feels from personal experience; the very least they can aspect from us is a genuine effort to empathise and a minimum of respect.

In retrospect I don't think it's very fair for someone (I think it was you) using their sensitive and vulnerable position in a conversation about religion

As someone who believes in 'more' - at leat in an afterlife-  you're not helping your case in convincing me there might be some kind of higher power. 
You are in stead giving an excellent example of my concern that a religious and dogmatic way of thinking can easily turn to 'evil', in this case by holding on to how things according to you should be in stead of being open to the needs of transgender people, apparently not even considering that medical professionals have the intention to help - not harm -  them.

It's like you are trying to impose your vision on them with the possible result that if such a (narrow-minded) vision would becomes law, all transgenders in your State or the US would be condemned to wait until they are grown-up and then face the choice for more invasive surgery than necessary and living with stronger physical gender-characteristics of the gender they are not.

That's cruel in my opinion and perhaps even abusive. 

If this is your reaction to my implying and stating that people who believe in the supernatural are insane, I apologise to the innocent people - especially transgenders and sexually abused girls who got pregnant - for them being dragged into this.

I will not for my statements directed at a vast majority of people believing in (a) God or Gods who I really feel should feel more secure about what they choose to believe, having such large numbers of people who agree with them.

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.

31 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Not what I said or meant and I think you know that.

If morals were easy everybody could do it.

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). 

2 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I don't know what the law says, neither in your or my country about this.

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.

2 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

That makes no sense, if a kid isn't on the threshold of the body starting to make hormones, hormone blockers have no effect.
There's no hormones to block.

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.

🤷‍♂️

20 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

If kids in the US hit puberty at age 5 so they might benefit from hormone-blockers you're really in trouble.
And perhaps you might want to have some government agency look into the use of growth hormones in beef and other animal products people and kids eat.

So I think that pre-teens are probably safe from this.

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).

20 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

When kids say between 12 - 17 are seriously feeling they aren't their birth gender it's tough. For them, for their parents and the medical people involved. 
I think in a no-win situation there can be said something in favour of using hormone-blockers to delay puberty and buy more time, for exactly the reason you give and try to make as sure as possible to not do anything that can't be reversed.

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.

20 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I've offended 95 % of Americans for believing in an imaginary friend and calling them loony.  
I think I like you.
For an amateur. 😉 

I'll take that 99.99999% of people will not agree with me 100% of the time. 😉 

18 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

You didn't?
And here I was thinking you were using debating techniques from religious / Christian indoctrinated people (the rhetorics etc.). How disappointing. 

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.

18 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

For some people I sometimes feel that there really should be no limit on the time a post-partum abortion should be allowed, nay obligatory. But then I remind myself I'm a Satanist, not a monster.
Even for people who use bombs, guns or other ways to violently articulate they are "pro life", I support admittance in a mental institution.

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. 

18 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I'd have to know at what point a woman reasonably can know she's pregnant to say anything intelligent on a fixed limit, and I'd allow for exceptions to the rule because I've heard about women - usually younger / barely out of puberty - who are surprised by going into labour having had completely no warning they where pregnant.
Which makes a good argument for sex-ed and making contraceptives availably to young people who are full of hormones and possibly less-filled with common sense as we all where at some point and if we're lucky sometimes still are. 

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.

18 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

As a non-practicing Roman Catholic is one of your given names Mary?
I've always found that a bit queer for the RC's in the south of my country, giving boys a girl's name.
And why did you stop practicing, are you that good at it now and have since been promoted to a professional?

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. 🙂 

3 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Nice use of rhetorical questions in your earlier post by the way, and compliments on making these questions about me and making an abstract argument personal.

Have you no pity with a totally outnumbered minority, you beast of beasts? 

Furthermore to prevent RSI by copy pasting every single line you've written, see above where the bold and italic lines are my responses to your interesting contribution to this conversation.

Hail yourself.

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.

1 hour ago, BareLover666 said:

How mentally damaging - yet more subtle - is it to teach boys and girls growing up that having sex, is a punishment from God for something their alleged first ancestors did, and that exploring sex with someone who's also a boy (or girl) is unnatural, a very grave sin or an 'objective disorder' in stead of it being very normal feelings of attraction, lust and falling in love?

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.)

18 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

What's the medical and moral difference in your view - between:

Person A. who believes he/she/they hears voices compelling to go on a killing spree, rape or violently attack people;

and:

Person B. who believes there's an entity nobody else can see or hear, that tells him/her/they to kill non-believers, restrict acces to health-care because those people shouldn't have been fucking with someone in the first place anyway?

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.

3 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

I think you missed the part where I said people who are certain of the existence of the supernatural, should really doubt more.
And grow a sense of humour. 

You're right. Totally missed that one. Too much multi-tasking of late.

3 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Yes.
My lack of thinking there are gods and such, can be disproved scientifically. 
Proving the absence of something cannot in way that's scientific in a verifiable way, so the 'burden of proof' lies with the believer.

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. 

6 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Besides illogical I think it can be harmful when we focus on a personification in stead of the responsibility and ethics of humans and the individual. 
I also experienced that good intentions turn to plain evil, when people are convinced their own ethical norms are the only valid ones, and too many of them can't be reasoned with because they hide behind texts thousands of years old, and their interpretations of the centuries iso listening to the needs of people right now.

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.

30 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

Often it does, when faith is so strong people think they know for sure one of these exists, combined with sets of rules on how to live that restrict the personal freedom and acces to healthcare for gay- and bisexual people.
It also often harms women when their rights are restricted based on such superstitions.  

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.

37 minutes ago, BareLover666 said:

I have no problems with symbols, ideals and rituals as long as these hurt no one.
So that's a good thought.

If people are inspired by someone who's dad was a carpenter who once told people to be nice, and not judge how other people live their life while hurting no-one I also have problem with that.
Brilliant idea actually, it's just such a shame I don't hear a lot of that coming out of churches and mosques. 

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. 🙂 

4 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

If you feel that the Devil, demons, angels or gods exist I really think you need to be able to seek professional mental help.
It has no place for grown men and women to believe in fairy tales...

I think most people are able to seek professional mental help. Whether they "need" it is a topic for debate. Even Freemasonry, a group that has long been speculated as having associations with Satanism, holds a requirement that you have a belief in a "supreme being". For just that one constituency, we could keep a lot of mental health professionals gainfully employed for quite some time if we take your statement as gospel. 😁

Does their belief interfere with your exercise of your own beliefs? Probably not. I could have belief in conspiracies that some would find incredulous...at least until they're actually proven. Is that so fundamentally different than your lack of belief in God or its accompaniments? Is it illogical to believe that someone or something is the personification of demons, angels, pure evil or the like? Does it harm you or anyone for someone else to believe in Jesus Christ or Mohammed or Buddha? 

Perhaps we could use the example of "Does Santa Claus exist?" As a single entity, no. As an ideal of generosity and the virtue of giving, yes, regardless of whether it is a single person. Perhaps that is what many or most tend to attribute to your idea of "God, Devil, demons and angels", though it doesn't exist in a firm and single individual or a very concise definition. 

Just a thought.

6 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The way I see it, kissing is part of that elusive "connection" that happens only occasionally.  I mean deep, tongue-down-the-throat kissing.  It's another way of demonstrating that the guy isn't just another Hole to rut in, there's  a deeper interaction available. 

Kissing - at least for me - is a metaphor:  my tongue in your mouth is directly akin to my Cock up your gut.  It implies a deeper connection than the physical mating.  

I, for one, cannot understand guys who'll take your cock in their mouth but get wigged out over your tongue there. If I'd meet anyone outside of a dark room situation, not kissing is a deal breaker and I lose interest. Shove your tongue in my mouth and have fun with that, and my hands will be finding their way around the rest of you.

8 hours ago, drscorpio said:

Here is a bit of the back story. During the time period that Sarah Palin was a candidate for US Vice-President, this forum was overrun by people wanting to turn every discussion to worship of the Christian name for the devil. The problem persisted despite warnings and bans. The replacement of the devil's name with her name was put in place at that time and really helped to curtail this problem. It's gotten a little outdated though; I doubt anyone under 25 remembers Palin outside of Alaskans.

Awww, "c'mon man!" 😃 If you've been around at least a little while you'll recall Lisa Ann in the role that everyone will remember her for:

[think before following links] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1310622/
"Who's Nailn' Paylin?" - A classic of Porn Parodies

"It's time to drill baby! Drill hard and drill deep. Come on ya tree hugging hippie! What'ya wait'n for, congressional approval?"
"Hey, wait a minute...I can see Russia from here!"
...and...
Fossils are a ruse by "Sarah Palin" (substitution) to trick mankind. Nice bit of irony coming full circle.

7 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Caution. People’s reaction yo poppers varies widely, especially if they’ve never been exposed before. My first introduction to poppers was at the hands of a Top who had me sniff them before I even knew what poppers were. The third time he put them to my nose I briefly blacked out. Fortunately, I was bound on a St. Andrew’s cross, so I couldn’t fall, but I came to very disoriented and alarmed. There’s a potential for your guy to have an unpleasant first experience with poppers that could shut down not only your session, but future action as well if he becomes frightened by it.

Let me echo ErosWired's comments. True poppers are actually amyl nitrite, and those are vasodilators. Inhaled, they very quickly open the blood vessels to blood flow. Blood pressure can drop very rapidly as a result, true of any vasodilator. So why is that important?

Certain people can be prone to having vasovagal reactions (I'm one of them), which can happen during certain exertion, stress, and other activities. The heart rate can speed greatly (tachycardia) and blood pressure can drop so low that you approach the point of passing out (as ErosWired described) or actually pass out. Hell, I've had that happen without amyl nitrite in the picture as a wide variety of events can cause it. Eventually -- usually minutes -- you'd come to, but it's worth a discussion about things before you even get to that point, or use them in the midst of play where heart rates and senses can be heightened. 

If your partner is generally healthy without history of heart or vascular issues, you should have no problem, and the upside of it would be that he'd likely loosen up to allow you to fuck him more easily. Still, even though a health discussion of current conditions and stats might be initially uncomfortable, it'd be a lot more awkward if he passes out and that's his introduction to all of this. Hope this helps at least one person.

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

There is a banned word, for instance, that means "forbidden", and that word is derived from one or more of the Polynesian languages. As a synonym for "forbidden", there really shouldn't be any problem with it.

This is almost like the same territory as the Sarah Palin problem. For instance, there is a women's fragrance from many years ago produced by a company called Dana Fragrances. With a minor change in spelling, it evokes what you're aiming at.

[think before following links] https://danaclassics.com/pages/tabu 
Or we could talk about the Gay Sports Bar on South 12th Street in Philly.

[think before following links] https://www.tabuphilly.com 
You get the general idea without my needing to say it. And no, I'm not intentionally gaming the system by depicting these but using as an illustrative example.

In fairness, I get it. RawTop needs to walk a tight wire with the discussion of topics and potential de facto censorship over which he has little control. Granted that it can also suppress discussion on other topics of a more academic nature, such as the discussion of what are now called "minor attracted persons". And if this feels more than a bit like trying to address "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince" from that specific period (since no one can pronounce that symbol), maybe it is, but with everything, we found ways to continue discussions while locating another method of reference.

3 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

I have a question:

May we equate the banned words (and their substitutions) with actual people to be banned?

For instance, the real, actual vapid person whose foul name appears in certain threads on BZ in place of an imaginary, wicked, hellish invention of Organized Religion, is actually running for Governor of the State of Alaska.  

Our brothers in Alaska need to be warned not to vote for Madame X (no connection to the famed Cadillac 16 of the same name) whose connection to the magical contrivance referenced directly above is clear and obvious.  Equally clear and obvious is the fact that her name appears in lieu of the actual invention of the universal enemy, O.R. 

If the answer is yes, then Mrs. Palin is forever banned to stay in the netherworld, and bother us no more.  Some other disgustment will be needed to substitute for the forbidden allegorical contrivance. 

Suggestions, anyone ???  

See, I actually was hoping to use this space to discuss Salman Rushdie's fourth book, "The Satanic Verses". 😂 Or perhaps the incestuous relationship that most members of Congress have with the pharmaceutical industry. 🤣

I know, I had to see if this would invoke the trigger to block the words.

5 hours ago, Bimarried001 said:

This is very interesting and understandable if it were just illegal words. But I’ve posted and just simply listed the name of another chat site used by many on here and that came up as a banned word. 
But regardless I try to stay within the rules even though they are vague. 

All I really want to [banned word] say is [banned word], [banned word], and even more so that [banned word] drives me [banned word]. And I've also been around [banned word] and surprised it really was banned. If they keep citing [banned word], [banned word], [banned word], and even [banned word], I may just need to go and [banned word] myself. 🤣😅

(Do this enough times, it makes for an interesting game of MadLibs)
(No, I didn't hit on every banned word on BZ, I'd be surprised if I knew that many. It's sarcasm.)

3 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

Why would you want to confess?

This is not the Catholic Church, nobody is going to offer forgiveness or redemption and as long as you have consensual sex with adults there's no fucking problem. imho.

True. But the discussions that emerge from it can be ever so entertaining and become fodder for future activities. If he wants to confess, nothing's stopping him in the Church of the Perpetual Breeder. 🤣😂

3 hours ago, 11bi11guy said:

All of my posts are true. I didn’t join this site because I wanted to write fiction or be an author; I joined this site because I wanted to confess.

Bless me for I have sinned, and oh it felt SO amazing that I want to go back and do it even more. 😄 😆

3 hours ago, hntnhole said:

2.  Sticking to the places where shameless men fuck each other removes the ability to feel shame, since every other man is practicing the same sexual license that you are.  It's the would-be "shamer" that gets laughed down.  The more numerous side of any altercation usually wins.  

Someone else called it a "keyboard warrior". I call it a troll. Pure and simple. Ignore, block, report, do what you like with them. Unfortunately this type of behavior appears to happen with impunity from the 'woke warrior' set who are generally onto the cause celebre of the moment, and disappear to troll elsewhere once they've inflicted their damage, emotional or otherwise. The more thought you give to those people, the more you sacrifice yourself, your values, and what matters to you. Don't let people do that to you. Fuck 'em.

Wait...they might actually like that so...yeah, handle it in any way you prefer that puts your conscience at ease and assigns zero value to their existence.