BannedWord

OK, so I did some digging on this and provide the information without warranty or interpretation. Follow any legal guidance you may deem necessary for your protection. For Skype, there are some items under General Provisions for the Broadcast Terms of Service. I've highlighted one section that stands out. Making it a bit unclear as to whether a group chat of "eight naked men on a weekend video call" would cross the boundary of obscenity. Not trying to be alarmist but something to consider. Your mileage may vary.

Since we're talking about TV weather 'guys' (you'll see why the quotes in a moment), there is a dude on the local cable news channel in Sarasota, Justin Mosley. If you couldn't tell before this happened, he was totally outed after this one. It's precious. [think before following links] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1AhnWAhHc However, I actually like his forecasts as they're the most accurate and he explains things very well at a local level here so it's relatable. The video has been around in several forms for years, this is just one of the versions of it, and it's been included in a ton of blooper reels. If you don't laugh at this, I'll be praying for you.

I guess the first question should be "what are those standards and rules"? What do they specifically spell out as a prohibited behavior or violation of the AUP (Acceptable Use Policy)? G+ went away because perhaps 7 or 8 people actually used it toward the end (exaggerating, but you get the point). Its time had since passed, and it just cost more to maintain than its real worth to users. Eight naked men on a weekend video call sounds like a good bit to fun though. 🤣

🤣😂 This. ❤️ Part of me still wishes the Internet was still this arcane to weed out those who shouldn't have ever been here. The difference between then and now is like the chasm between a massive darkroom and Disney World. Thank you for the trip down memory lane.

I'm not going to presume this is your 'considered decision'. Let's begin with your first 3 words: "I said no." Whatever happened after that, you withdrew your consent. "I didn't say no so it wasn't really rape"...but you already said no from the start, and you indicated that you wanted condoms only. They violated that, and you, and you indicated they "tied (you) up". At that point, you weren't in a position where you could freely consent because you were (to some degree) incapacitated or not in full control of your faculties. It's clearly too late to take any PEP and you already have decided to have other encounters, but no is no. If I told you that I was going to brand you with a hot iron and you indicated "No permanent marks", then forcibly restrained you, heated a hot brand, and pressed it into your flesh leaving burns, would you say that after previously saying "no" that because you didn't/couldn't say no again that you would have consented to that? I think you'd see that differently, but it's a very similar situation. I won't pretend to know anything about the laws in The Netherlands, but you probably had grounds to make a case for rape. Presuming what you said is factual and not just a hot story for titillation.

"It's not you, it's me." Sorry to hear, but it seems he recognizes what would have inevitably happened. Good luck searching for someone who won't mistreat your feelings.

This particular article may be enlightening. A lot of different factors can impact the color and even taste of sperm including what you eat. Anyone of a certain age who watched "Sex & The City" will recall the episode about "funky spunk" and Kim Cattrall's answer to it which was wheat grass. [think before following links] https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/semen-color-chart#semen-color-chart The chart will give indications of underlying conditions like prostatitis, urine, metals, even jaundice and STIs.

This is definitely true from personal experience. I needed to do a cardiac catheterization a couple years back, and as part of the lead-up work, along with my regimen of prostate meds, Cialis (using for the prostate indication), and HBP meds, my cardiologist threw in a vasodilator to test. Along comes a vasovagal reaction which sent my BP down significantly and instantly into pass-out range. I understand only a bit about how poppers work, but they're contraindicated for anything to do with the Big-3 ED drugs. [think before following links] https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/amyl-nitrite-inhalation-route/side-effects/drg-20061803?p=1 Since I'm normally prone to vasovagal reactions from stress and extreme exertion (not running marathons in my future for a lot of reasons, heart valve leakage congenitally being just one), I'm pretty sure I'll heed the warnings.

It's fine, I'm in the same boat, plus I've had to put some people on ignore for the time-being. (kinda tired of the "everyone but him is wrong" responses, and really have no more fucks to give). I'll throw a like on yours when I get some more back. But to your point, I do not expect to just be the cacophony chorus because we all see and have seen things differently. I've worked hard, earned my way, overcame racial biases, and seen or experienced some shit and am better off for it all. Your mileage may vary. We might agree to disagree, but I viewed the OP's question at face value: A fetish. Not much different than something like race play or Nazi uniforms, or teacher/student or the like. If it was a test of the overall tolerance of this community, we all failed by viewing and immediately conflating it as (ahem) another poster attempted to project. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Or a fetish is just a fetish, however strange others may feel that to be. I stand by my stance on where and who suddenly turned a fetish into a referendum on politics. I'd think the same if we were joking about AOC, though that might be really funny. Thanks for keeping this civil, Barelover666. I'll leave this discussion with one of the best quoted retorts from a great movie and agree as the responder did that, "No, it's awful. Oh my, it's awful." "You're just absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong? It must be nice to always believe you know better. To think you're always the smartest person in the room." No one's the smartest person in the room, nor always right, least of all me. Cheers! Exit stage right. (oops, pun intended)

Well, I'd say he gave you "more than a tip". LOL

Conservative (small-c) - I'm to the right of most people here. I accept that. Pretty sure I'm not 'fuckable' to most here if I even say I'm conservative, and that's cool too (I probably wouldn't want to fuck them either if I knew that side of them, so it plays both ways). So I've been a local activist as well. My perspective from that experience to accomplish what you're asking: Do your research. Determine what represents your views, your community's. Educate yourself on issues and facts. Ask questions. Demand answers and accountability. If they try to deflect your question, point out their deflections. Support those who represent those views. Grass roots efforts work, I've done it before for a local candidate going up against a very Trump-like blow-hard (we won). Vote. Get others to vote. Talk about your candidate but not to push down another as if "you're an idiot for supporting so-and-so". That only gets the vitriol started. That's what worked for us, and it brought a lot of good people around and made them recognize their votes mattered. Oh, rooting out corruption in the political systems is always a good thing. I mentioned in another post that I brought a class-action against a Board of Elections to ensure transparency and fair voting (many precincts only had 60% of ballots while others had 102%, and we brought close to 90% of registered voters to the polls, so chaos ensued). Suing a County isn't easy and many of us took a lot of grief over it, but the result mattered and we got everything we wanted when we settled. I'm putting all of those out there as background so y'all don't think I'm some right-wing nutcase trying to convince you to to abandon your own beliefs. I'm a realist, and those of us who did all of this ranged from staunch conservatives to Sanders-type Democrats. We did what mattered. I'll respectfully ask this. What's wrong with asking everyone to be more civil, regardless of political leaning? Serious question. I really don't care if you're liberal, progressive, moderate, conservative, MAGA, socialist or communist. When someone denigrates another's rights to their views, no matter how incorrect you think they are, they're no better than those they denigrate. We all need to be more civil toward each other.

Directions?!? I would have thought that any Top could provide those to a willing bottom. LOL (obviously kidding, but I'm sure they appreciate the public service, and I hope you're getting a discount from the proprietor).

It started, as @SeanBrah originally said, as a "fetish". Please see below. Initially my comments were pretty even-handed and conciliatory. So I asked the Rodney King question of whether we could coexist even if we had differing political viewpoints. And we can see where that went. I won't reiterate it here, y'all can scroll back for yourselves to that point. Look, we're never going to reach any agreement on our politics, that much has been made clear in any political discussion here. My question initially was whether there is any common-ground. Hell, @SeanBrah had his point pretty well proven out: You're not into it. That point seemed dead back on page 4 of the comments: First at 4, Live at 5, Dead at 6. Geez, it'll be buried by 10 or 11. If the dude wants to be humiliated by someone in a MAGA hat, or someone else wants breath play with a dude wearing a Hilary Clinton mask, great for them. But don't think that y'all didn't start it, and it had to get moved to a political forum. Perhaps best for anyone with diverse political leanings to stay clear of the LGBT Politics Forum from what a few of us have seen. Glad we added fuel to the vitriol. Peace, out.

I'm originally from Philly. Here's how well that works. South Philadelphia = Sou Fluffia Water ice = Wooder ice Eagles = Iggles Beautiful = Bee-You-Tee-Full Police = Pleese I need to unlearn speaking through my nose and shift to the back of the throat. Every. Single. Time.

Your mileage may vary. 😃 I reckon from the OP's original comments that there was a significant difference in the relationship. If you're in a hotel room or bathhouse and meeting anonymously, I'd find it difficult to believe anyone is doing a conversational screening based on politics or religion: "So Anonymous Cocksman, do you think Gavin Newsome is a true-talent or a complete twat?" Yeah, somehow doubt that ever happens. "And what are your thoughts on the economy?" Yeah, I'll give you what everyone's been getting from the economy, no reach-arounds just like in real life. 😂

I'm Vers/Top so my bottoming is rare. And I'm not a Trans/TS/TV or any other permutation of appliance, but I respect those who are and am totally down to breed wherever they may like it (hugely turned on by FtMs since I'm also bi). So if someone has a pussy and wants me to fuck it, no need to ask me twice. The only issue I've ever had has been "what do you call it" because quite a few FtMs don't want it to be considered as a "pussy". So what's the right term?

This is precisely why I despise typing on a mobile (iPhone) keyboard, I've never caught the hang of typing with two thumbs and I'm afraid in a few generations we'll evolve to malformed fingers and massive but precise thumbs. I make more mistakes that way and end up recorrecting. The only thing worse is that I have auto-correct on my laptops.

It isn't about just me. That type of statement is much like Disney stating that they'll do everything in their power to change a law rather than leaving those decisions to the people who have and should have a voice in that: Voters. It's not up to a corporation receiving highly favorable tax treatments to think they have any right as an entity to change the will of voters. It's also not up to me pushing to "make sure he doesn't come back". It's up to 2 things: The Law and the will of a majority of the country. The voters have spoken on that count. If he truly broke the law, indict him, bring him to trial, and adjudicate it. You'd get no argument from me. But if we are talking about "incompetence", how happy are you with the state of the country right now? Because even most Democrats aren't and the country's level of consumer confidence is reaching lows, VIX (Volatility Index) has increased by about 100%, people don't feel safer, are becoming a LOT poorer, Hispanics have given him lower approval ratings than even whites (seems they don't like how he's handling the border either), the list just goes on. Not even mentioning the recent coverage in The NY Times that a poll of 50 influential Democrats suggest that Biden should not run in '24. Even CNN, MSNBC and the major networks as well as NYT and WaPo are starting to talk about how bad things have gotten under Biden. Maybe I didn't love Trump, but based on the way things are now, I'll take a few mean tweets versus this. 😃 If you think about it for a moment, up to this point Biden has had a very friendly press corps who've been willing to toss him mostly softball questions, and it's been a long time since he's held a press conference (126 days). Compare that to the same hostility that his predecessor encountered -- while you may not like the approach, the man held his ground and stood up to take the questions. I don't have any confidence that Biden could even do that given that the guy flubs up reading a teleprompter much of the time. It's World Elder Abuse Day today. The kindest thing anyone could do for Mr. Biden is ensure he steps down.

@ErosWired is absolutely right. Please don't take my prior post to mean anything beyond putting the "is he gay" and "is he interested in me for some reason" issues to rest with responses. Once you have those answers, it's time for him to decide what, if anything, he wants to do with that information. Everything you've described paints him into a position of being conflicted. But unlike ErosWired's comment, I'll stop short of laying any/blame/fault/concern solely at your feet. There are two parties in this interaction. If you want to resign yourself to being the side-piece, you're doing yourself a huge disservice. Don't lock out other possibilities while you await this guy to figure out who he is and how you figure into his equation. He needs to figure into yours.

Thanks for this. Interesting stuff. The one survey was structured, in a nutshell and I'll paraphrase, upon asking 'if all White Nationalists are white'. And the results were statistically significant that they were. I'm joking in a sense, but when I read through it, it was focused on a fairly white nationalist profile to get its results. Also, the fact that the author spends so much time postulating a position before presenting the data suggests that his approach to get his data is more focused on validating his own opinion. So I get how he want about it, but that he also outsourced his data collection to Amazon MTurk -- you can look up how MTurk sources workers and provides services through crowd-sourced labor -- isn't very 'scientific' in nature. The second survey from Politico -- which isn't exactly a non-politically-biased source: [think before following links] https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politico-media-bias ...and is about 6.5 years dated (back to the 2016 primaries). And...oh! He's a Political Sci professor at UMass Amherst teaching, what else, 'authoritarianism'. His subsequent writings have been beating this drum for some time. I think this may have been the survey you were seeking since he's been a frequent guest on NPR. Nonetheless, I credit that he's said some interesting observations, with which I agree with a few. Not sure I agree with all, but he makes a couple of good points. I wish he'd done similar research oriented toward Democratic candidates, but that I couldn't find from him. Would have liked to have compared the perception/reality on Hillary Clinton. One thing that is notable is that it was clear on "who" aligned with a candidate based on their authoritarian views, but it made no specific statements on whether that candidate was authoritarian in nature. Interesting stuff though.

Just so we're clear, on a lot of this we'll disagree on politics because of our viewpoints and that's ok. I noticed that the mods moved this over to the Politics Forum to account for this not really being a "fetish" topic any longer. We Libertarians aren't all that way. A lot of us are far more realistic that the society needs guardrails and social safety nets and the like as population has grown. But do we need better accountability and transparency on what is spent and where it goes? Fewer $1.5T Omnibus spending bills that have $1.4T of unrelated spending in them? Libertarians just believe that government isn't always the best manager of those funds and they're often applied more efficiently if they're handled as public-private partnerships. Railroads are a great example where privatization hasn't worked. At the same media sources that squelched the Hunter Biden laptop story before the '20 election, and the NY Post was among the only outlets to cover the details, all the while Twitter and most social media squelched the story or locked any account that would mention it. 15 months later? NYT goes, "Oh, yeah, whoops, that story WAS true." We talk about making tougher gun laws, yet Biden's son literally lied on a firearms application to purchase a firearm. So rules for thee and not for me? Please. The media largely swings to the left, so does social media, and 86% of journalists identify as "liberal". I'm glad that works well for you now. As for the January 6th hearings, watch them if you like. I'm disappointed that we've turned the country into a Congressional Kangaroo court for what's largely been a show trial, produced by a former ABC News producer, and harping on Trump nearly 1.5 years after he's left office. He's gone, move along, you're all in office now so do something other than bleating on about the prior 4 years. I've switched it all off because it's so lopsided and we've seen the movie. "Cheetoh-man bad." We get it. Sure, we can talk about one demonstration on January 6th. But can we also talk about the nationwide riots that the media covered as "peaceful protests" that cost around 50+ people their lives and caused over $2B in property damage and why nothing was ever done about that? Or why BLM gets a pass on its use of 'charitable funds' to buy and flip real estate? Wait, wait, wait...so far to the right?!? Dude, not sure where you're getting that, but I reckon that most of the country is trying to pull it back from the far left -- you know, the left where narco-terrorists can just walk across the border but the FBI is hunting down parents for objecting at school board meetings? Let's agree to disagree here as the people I see more and more are getting tired of reacting to woke social policies that don't represent the larger majority of fairly moderate values, regardless of political party. I'll agree that the MAGA section of the party is further right than the rest of the country, and that Trump still exerts an over-influence upon activist voters...if you'll agree that Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar and AOC and those like her represent an equal existential threat on the left, or that our Energy Secretary has been a disaster. We have a party in power that when asked about critical issues continues to change the topic and never answer, or launches into a Green New Deal lecture, or tells people who are struggling because of a $1 increase in gas prices that they should go and buy $60K electric cars. It's tone deaf, out of touch, and about as uncaring as Marie Antoinette offering up cake. I'd love to know when you jumped ship, that might make for interesting conversation. The Democratic Party hasn't in my view been on the side of anyone other than themselves and the political elite for a long time, and Republicans haven't been all that much better. The current generation has blinders on when it comes to key issues like crime, the economy, and things that matter to Americans in general. On gun violence, their answers are to disarm those who legally have guns so that criminals can run more amok. Really? And as for free and fair elections, I witnessed election fraud at a local level. I witnessed firsthand what happened when people tried to prevent it from happening again. I brought suit against a county board of elections to ensure there were fair elections because it hadn't happened previously. And as a result things changed. As a registered "Democrat". So yeah, I witnessed it, I know how it looks. There were potentially some irregularities in the 2020 election, but that's over and we need to move on while ensuring that we have free and fair elections, whether or not things happened or the '20 election had issues. Peace, friend.

That describes nearly everyone in politics, my friend. It's all a great lie. At least AOC makes for a funny meme (no, I wouldn't fuck her with anyone's dick).

And it's become that way with the Democrats and progressives as a result of cancel culture, social media censoring, media coverage, the list goes on. So the extremes of both sides are equally guilty. I really do try to look at multiple perspectives to every issue, and many of them can be challenging, especially when they're misrepresented by both sides. People aren't worried about gay or trans issues as much as the issues that impact everyone: The economy. War in Ukraine. Foreign Policy. Supply Chain. Affordable housing. How the price of gasoline affects everything. Whether Biden knows where he is, what day it is, or if he'll screw up reading the teleprompter. Look at the polls and they'll tell you the same thing. Latest one I saw had 87% of respondents worried about the economy, over 75% worried about crime. I'm sure all of this could make an interesting debate over a couple of beers, but the point I'll leave with is this: If you look at the general population -- GOP, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents -- we're all largely centrist and moderate. It's like watching the pendulum swing left & right but realizing that the pendulum shows the extent to which it will go before it swings back. Everything is actually controlled by the fulcrum, the pendulum is only taking that energy and applying it while the fulcrum remains largely anchored toward that center where it comes to rest. No. There are/were no good Nazis. But history told us a few things about the Nazis and their strategy: Silence dissent. Disarm citizens. Indoctrinate. Control the media. Make citizens dependent on the government. Let's hope the fulcrum comes back to the center before we end up down that path, because a lot of people see things going in that direction. Peace.

Oh snap! That's a great idea. I did this once when I suspected that a friend was struggling with his sexual identity -- we had mutual friends who were straight, and he gave off very gay vibes to others (and certainly to me). We'd get together as friends, and he wanted to go into NYC one Saturday afternoon/evening. I was dying to find out the answer to the question without actually putting him in an uncomfortable situation and asking him outright. Since I once lived in The Village, I had an idea. After an early dinner, I took him up into my old stomping grounds and made it a point to pass by Ty's on Christopher Street and said, "Hey, let's get a beer." I ordered and watched the scenery with him as we chatted, then he excused himself to the men's room. A few minutes later, my question was answered when he saw someone he liked back there and grabbed his package and felt him up. BINGO! For those saying he might have been putting on a show, he bugged me to go back several times. For me, that was his coming out moment. @tallslenderguy and @hntnhole I think have a great idea here. If nothing else, you get there and it makes the whole topic very easy to bring up. And if he observes it's not a mixed (male/female) crowd, you can at least use that to broach the topic of "well, didn't know if that would bother you, because (you're) gay too." Great way to get to an inflection point.

I for one would be interested in seeing that, not because I believe it's remotely true but because I'd like to better understand how they developed and identified the subset and phrased the questions to get their responses. Thanks.