BannedWord

Like many other things, though, it depends on where you are in Philly. South Philly for the most part is fine. Center City and the Gayborhood is fairly safe. But there are certainly parts of North Philly and West Philly I know I wouldn't step into as a former resident and sometimes visitor now. Same with parts of Bucks County or Montgomery County -- Levittown has parts that aren't super great, but would you really say New Hope (also Bucks County) is unsafe? On the whole, a heck of a lot more robberies, murders, auto-thefts and car-jackings occur in the city by a larger proportion than the surrounding counties (Camden City being an exception).

Perfectly put. The TLC Series "90-day Fiancé" shows more about the process of obtaining the spousal visa for marriage, after which the Permanent Residency status (Green Card) can be issued. Immigration can often tell if a marriage is truly a sham and many times will probe further in order to deny status. My point was that OP's situation didn't appear to be an enduring foundation, and his partner is simply burying his head and convincing himself that things are fine despite no sex at home. I'm wondering what the over/under is for that situation inside pf say two years. 😃

I can empathize with a bit of both sides in all of this. But foremost, what I quoted in your description -- the partner knows about everything and joins in -- doesn't really meet the connotation of 'cheating'. We all come at things from a different life experience and while it's regrettable to you if you and your partner were sexual with others, his relationship isn't yours and it seems like the OP's partner started this off by not being considerate of the OP's needs as well. I've lost count of the number of guys in sexless relationships who have stepped out on their partner. I view that as on them entirely. It's their wish to stay or leave. But like you, it sounds like their relationship is like the gay equivalent of a Green Card marriage: Looks convincing in public but in private it's devoid of most anything normal including sex. And the cheating is just a symptom of the real dysfunction. If one party has no interest in sex and the other is totally horned...what else will go wrong? I admit I've cheated. Wasn't married but was dating and she became a boner-killer after a certain period because she demanded that we jump into marriage. Dating her felt more like an obligation, so I ended up hooking up with someone else, had a much better time (she was flighty, but the sex was good), but I also knew things weren't working and I quickly broke things off with the person I was dating. Still friends with both of them. But when you know it's going that way and you aren't fulfilled, it's probably time to rethink it. Unless the idea of you or your partner fucking around provides an erotic edge to your situation.

Not to "me too" this thread, but this is something I've always found odd about the dark rooms I've visited: The big condom fishbowl at the entrance. Is this really something that they honestly expect to be used, or is this just meant to appease the public and health officials who'd otherwise want to shut down these places? If I'm taking one, I'm generally using it as a balloon or for other purposes.

Dude wants to be forced, without consent. Bottom-line. He needs an aggressive top who will force him to close the deal. Or a used car salesman. But the truly fucked up part is that he actually wants consensual non-consent (CNC) and he should look that up and admit that. He needs someone to whom he can say "I don't care what you want, you'll have to be a man and take it from me without my consent and without the security of safe words." But I can see the OP as pulling that on the wrong guy who doesn't take kindly to being jerked around by what he believes is another flake, and lashes out by hurting and beating him severely (or worse). Then? It probably isn't rape but aggravated battery. Or manslaughter? @rambo13645, you really want to think that one through, it's not going to be like a porn scene if it goes down badly. Unless you'd like to be found somewhere left for dead...if you're lucky. @ErosWired generally has excellent insight to these things.

I read it the same way @ErosWired. Why not just cut through the BS and tell the top that you crave him bareback straightaway? The OP's comment seemed like he was playing coy and ultimately being a cock tease if he wanted bareback and the top indulged that desire. Do that with the wrong top it won't be his load you're worried about but your own safety. People have gotten badly beaten for that sort of game.

Because I'm bi and not homophobic about guys at all, I would (and have) welcomed those advances from guys when those have happened. From one perspective, if a bi/gay guys is approaching you and hits on you with the notion of a blow job, guys should be taking it as a compliment that someone thinks you're hot enough that he wants your cock and load in his mouth. It may be difficult for guys to come to the realization that straight versus gay is a spectrum and there is a lot of grey shade between those two extremes. Helping someone who either hasn't experienced that grey area or didn't know or appreciate the pleasure/love/lust he might get from another guy takes some courage from the guy making the approach and should be applauded. I wonder if there are more guys who, when pressed to admit it, have had a change of mind and preference by having had that experience. Or those guys that knew they were somehow different but hadn't had the opportunity to explore...are they happy it happened versus freaked out?

That's the rub, isn't it? It's difficult to set that line immediately to both avoid SPAM and encourage conversation. It does detract from the overall experience, but I agree that with the increase in levels the messages restrictions should become less restrictive. If you've posted 50 messages or responded to say 50 discussions, it should stand to reason that you aren't here to propagate SPAM. I'd welcome some leniency in order to enhance and encourage the discussions. I'd be simply guessing if I said that the criteria are probably not advertised to avoid people just upping their post count by Replying "Me too" or "I agree" or the like on posts?

I'll never know personally what your experiences are. But I can listen, I can understand, and given the chance, I can stand beside you and help. I think a lot of us share the dim view taken toward how blacks are treated in general as compared to whites. But I think we can agree that we haven't done enough to help level the playing field and providing the same opportunities to everyone. Maybe that is where more dialogue needs to begin and continue? Thanks for saying that @hntnhole. The problems are being shown to us daily, but I don't think we've achieved that will as a people to stand together and create the right foundation to work on a solution. I feel as if everything done politically is just a dog and pony show every four years to give platitudes and get votes but never really address the actual problem. We need to stand together and turn those words (and platitudes) into specific actions.

Let's be clear: I'm not maligning the work of all journalists. The majority of media in this country is owned or controlled by under a dozen corporations. In the cases of CNN, MSNBC and others, the journalistic slant has leaned largely left. For Fox News, Newsmax and others it's largely right. The is no longer a centrist outlet that focuses on "news" without some level of political bias, and for decades, the 3 major networks have had a more liberal treatment. Here's a link that shows the overall slanting of the media as a scatter diagram. [think before following links] https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_Button So as I prefer to cite source material, I'm presenting this as backup. I also worked for several years for a major global news gathering organization whom I'll not mention here, but which had been maligned for it's lack of the use of "terrorists" or "terrorism" to describe acts that would reasonably be inferred to meet that definition. They maintained that injecting the term created a "bias" (admittedly, it can be viewed as incendiary), and to date they rank as among the most middle-lined, factually reliable and objective sources, even using the chart I cite. So trust me when I also state that I know from whence I speak as well and that I highly respected our journalists across the globe who reported at great personal costs. But in that vein, I'm certainly not bleating on because I've seen and read what journalistic integrity is and can be. And sadly, for a lot of those out there, they have been co-opted. After all, you cited Fox News and conversely MSNBC (and to a degree CNN) are the foils where they show as skewing left. Most of them are guilty of analysis/opinion across the spectrum, right or left. The organizations you cite -- AP, Reuters, BBC -- all set the right examples. Maybe you were taught journalistic ethics, and kudos that you were. But I'm not optimistic and -- yes -- "deeply cynical" given the lack of objectivity and the trading of news with 'analysis' or 'opinion'.

Again, I'm not inferring anything. I'd sincerely doubt that McConnell or whoever the majority leader is would ever be able to get away with 3-4 years of a vacancy. And the comment on substances is another low blow but I've seen this from you before. Let's keep this civil please. So a few things on this: 1. There is a difference between the interpretation of The Constitution and legislation from the bench. I'd suggest the framers intended The Constitution to 'evolve' but were insightful enough to understand that SCOTUS isn't there to pass laws but only to determine if they're in line with the Constitution. Congress legislates. Executive does...well, for #45 and #46, both have tried to contort the Constitution through Executive Orders, so thankfully there are legal remedies. 2. I never once said I was an "originalist". There are a lot of areas where the laws haven't caught up with the technology. Press evolves. It's not even just national or local media, but in the Internet age, it's also independent parties who are reporting. But if we consider all of them under the same broad brush, they should all be held to the same standards of truthfulness. Thankfully we have laws about that was well to address the false accusations that have come to light against people like Kyle Rittenhouse and Nick Sandmann by CNN and others reporting conjecture as fact. That certain made Sandmann one of CNN's highest-paid, I'd hope everyone starts to heed that lesson versus a rush to judgment. 3. I disagree the "right-wing" (I'm libertarian, thank you) is against evolution meanings since they've had to rule on items that weren't even in the minds of the original framers. 4. You do you with FOX News or CNN or MSNBC or whoever. Can we agree that all of them -- without exception -- have run derelict of their mission to "report news" and moved to providing opinion over facts? I firmly believe that we lost that when the Equal-Time rule was abolished. Ever since, media has taken their hard turns to out-do each other in how radically they can appeal. Can you point to any recent 8-1 SCOTUS decisions to support this? Both sides have written dissenting opinions, including John Roberts. It's clear that you have a name for anyone who doesn't agree with your views, I haven't heard one for Kagan, Sotomayor or Breyer yet to give an equal treatment, so I doubt there's any chance of agreement at any point in the future. So this post will be my last response since I'm not in the business of trying to convince the unconvinceable. Handmaiden? Really? Tell us how you really feel. 😉 Of course it's political. We can agree that I'd much rather have a justice like Breyer since I'm a moderate and libertarian. I never thought Breyer was pushing an agenda in the same way we can say that other appointees have, on both sides of the aisle. And you're simply quoting the far left. What's your point? You know, we disagree here and almost certainly will never agree since there is no longer a media outlet who could be disabused of reporting all-opinion. Instead, we get two or more different versions of their agendas. If it's CNN, we get the war as sponsored by Applebee's, or MSNBC and Al Sharpton (anyone remember Tawana Brawley) or FOX News (Tucker Carlson's comments on siding with Russia made some time ago). None of them are 'correct' or more correct than any other and all are selective on what they report of how they angle it. Find one truly objective source. You can't. And we're all worse off and more divided as a country as a result of it. Good luck to you.

The guy closest to my age when he started fooling around with me will to this day forever claim he's straight as a damn arrow. He's also a scout troop leader now, so I can only imagine those in his troop.

Yeah...I guess I didn't get the Iron Curtain in the majority of cases. But if they were going out and we dated during that time, sex was bound to come up and quite a few said "don't really care if you don't mind". I lost my hetero-virginity to someone who was just getting done with her period, so that wasn't about to stop us. Perhaps that early experience either made me a little more kinky, or didn't bother me to the point that most guys would get squeamish. You mean you've never cruised through a stop sign even once in your life? 😃

Ok, so a couple points in here. (Views expressed in links do not necessarily reflect those of the person posting as disclaimer going forward) 1. This was not about Marc Thiessen's article, so let's not derail. I used that only as a pointer to substantiate that she would have been, in fact, the first black female to be nominated. 2. It seems that your litmus test to whether a justice is qualified is whether they tow a purely liberal/Democrat line. Bush 41 presented a candidate for justice, it happened to be Clarence Thomas. I don't know where you've concluded that Thomas is outside the mainstream, but let's keep in mind that SCOTUS isn't an activism wing of the government but rather one that examines the Constitutionality of actions and rulings set before it that it accepts. It cites legal precedent, There is a Legislative branch for making laws, that isn't SCOTUS' remit. If we're basing this upon putting forth the best choice for a justice irrespective of politics, Preet Bharara (I'll let you look him up, apparently my providing a link will mean I'm promoting a view, dare-say I not do that) would be an excellent candidate based on what he's done in Southern District of New York as a prosecutor. No one is touching that one though because it would be the first "Asian American" justice. 3. I was not about making this political in the discussion, and was attempting to keep it lined that way. For all the squeaking in the wheel here, it'll still be Kagan, Sotomayor, and the replacement to Breyer who tend to side more liberally, and often John Roberts tends to side that way as well despite being appointed by Bush 43. So this doesn't make much difference on composition which is why I'm not looking to make this political. 4. Merrick Garland. Yeah, thank heavens he wasn't appointed. The man is a walking civil rights disaster. Look at the student rape case in Virginia and Garland's responses that we start clamping down on parents, of all people, who are outraged by the decisions that school boards have made and are often making. Viewing parents as terrorists!?!? WTF? Sorry man, but where you have problems with him not being appointed to SCOTUS, I have problems with his actions as Attorney General. 5. Again, to your last point on her 'forgettableness' as a judge, please go back to my point in #1 above. Perhaps I shouldn't have cited ANY article to introduce this, but I was looking (quickly, I'll add) for some citation about the circumstance. Unfortunately it was an Op-Ed, but at least in WaPo. I'll do better next time. Like citing an MSNBC page. 🤣😂

If you get beyond that I'm not a vampire and not going down when a woman is menstruating, there's a lot of women who are totally down for fucking during their period if the guy doesn't mind things being fairly messy. And sometimes you're both horny enough that you really both want to get off. It's also not that ovulating time of the month, so if pregnancy is the concern, it's relatively safe. (Caveat that I'm not a doctor or play one on TV) Given that, the question is how thoroughly one really needs to clean out if you just want to fuck and aren't Mandingo-sized? Or to pardon the pun, are we resorting to being gentlemen and pushing your stool in? 😂🤣 I personally haven't had someone have a need to completely evacuate their colon worth of multiple days of fecal matter just to be down to fuck. Is that the minority experience here?

Fair points. Of course, no one remembers Janice Rogers Brown. If Biden wants credit for nominating the first female black justice to the Supreme Court, we should fairly ask why he blocked Brown's nomination when George W. Bush proposed it in 2003 and kept threatening in several instances beyond that. Unfortunately, that doesn't get much traction as a focal story. And it isn't about it just being a black woman, it's about Biden playing to a 'woke' agenda. [think before following links] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/01/biden-black-woman-janice-rogers-brown/

I was going to say that in a darkroom, no one can really tell unless you can fully adjust your vision to low-light. I cannot. But if you're going to do the darkroom bit, you probably don't really care who or what you're fucking as a top anyway, so it doesn't much matter then. And that's basically how I've felt going into a darkroom -- you're not there to be selective, you're there to get off. But given the luxury of light and vision and a clear option to see what I'd be fucking...yeah, that's when it matters. I totally get your point on it, the question is more for distinguishing whether someone's a cum dumpster or they're going to be selection to get fucked by as a bottom. My point was more aligned to having the choice between a pushy bottom and just not getting off at all, I've mostly gone for the latter. If I'm not into him, being pushy isn't going to suddenly make me say, "Oh alright, I don't have anyone else, fine I'll fuck you then."

There's a saying that the woman holds the key to sex, but the man holds the key to love. Maybe that's true, but in a way I think it's pure heteronormative bullshit designed to manipulate us away from other options. If we got past the pretentiousness about why sex needs to happen in a prescribed order or "he won't respect me" or "he'll think I'm a slut if I fuck him right away", there'd probably be a lot more happier men and women. Men like sex. We enjoy sex. Heck, some of us are even young enough to remember sex. 😂🤣 But I'm too old to even want to play the game of how long we need to wait to move to that level. You had me up until this. My question would be "do they really?" I don't think every guy wants to be the 'Jerk Alpha male' you're describing in degrading their partner, male or female because in a way it implies that it's all about his pleasure, forget anyone else's. If that's what you're equating to Alpha male...ok then. I also don't think everyone you consider a 'faggot' (or 'fagot' (sic ) ) will act or respond in the same way. While it might be your experience, it falls in the category of "your mileage may vary". I'm certainly not a beta male, but if you equate this to the BDSM world, there is such a thing as 'aftercare' and 'safe words'. I get more than a bit concerned with the mention of rape in any context and I don't know that everyone subscribes to the same treatment of faggots.

And there's a whole bunch less pretense in just getting to sex that is...refreshing. For guys, it's sex, fun, and fulfillment, and orgasm is cathartic. No bitchiness about "well I didn't get off" or "what about me" or the notion of withholding sex in order to manipulate guys into getting what the other wants. I reckon this is a big part of why guys just give up or you have the whole "MGTOW" (Men going their own way) movement among guys that have just had it with female entitlement psychology. Sorry...not to get lost on a tangent there and not meant to be female bashing. Anyway...we were discussing that men, even effeminate ones, tend to be less about the games and chase and manipulation and at least approach it all from a similar standpoint: It's about mutual gratification, not about trying to use 'pussy' as power. And I've probably pissed off a whole bunch of people who might disagree with all of that, so feel free to comment on why. 😀

If we turn the question a bit and just said whether I've rejected the opportunity to fuck a guy for those who are Versatile/Top inclined (only bottom when that chemistry exists), people being pushy or insistent on being fucked comes across to me as a turn-off. So I guess my resolve must be pretty decent. Yes, I've rejected cock, and no, I haven't gone back on the decision afterward. Generally, it's not me being the recipient of the cock however.

This really grinds my gears too. Kissing with someone that really knows how to kiss is exceptionally hot for me. It enhances the experience and easily gets me more and more turned on. Kind of like how alcohol can be a social lubricant, kissing for me is that sexual lubricant. If they won't do it, I'm almost immediately disinterested. I think I've heard nearly every excuse why for the anti-kissing argument: I only share that with my girlfriend/wife/fiancee. Then what are you doing with me? Go home to them unless they're not doing it for you. It's too intimate. So you'll take a guy's cock in your mouth and swallow his cum but kissing is too intimate?!? WTF? I don't want to get attached. Good, neither do I, especially if you won't. Do you really think a tongue is going to make you more attached than sucking a dick? It's just weird. And are you in the closet so far that stepping out on her for cock is heteronormative in your world but kissing isn't? It's a step too far. 🙄 Making out is too far, but taking my cock and my load up your hole isn't?!? I don't like kissing. Geez, I hope we get to this part of the dialogue before I finish my first drink and pick up a second round. I get it, some people don't. But I'd really be interested in what turns you off about it not because I want to force it on you but because I want to know what is going through your head and what else you can't handle before we accidentally go there. Like how far in the closet are you really? Your mileage may vary and I either pissed off a ton of people, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds a hot makeout session a great prelude to...more. I'm reminded of the Monty Python film (The Meaning of Life) where when the observing class is being asked how do you get a woman aroused for penetration, everyone has the same answer and John Cleese responds, "You don't have to go leaping straight for the clitoris like a bull at a gate. Give her a kiss, boy." Same with the dick.

I think the "super cheap" line kinda resonates on that one. I know there's been some improvement since this video was made, but...its Cleveland: The Mistake on the Lake. I somehow can't see it becoming a gay Mecca. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzgAjjuqZM

I probably should have spelled out more that my remark was tongue-in-cheek and meant to be so ridiculous as to be laughable. Otherwise, we really agree on our respective perspectives far, far more than disagree. Especially with Biden's commitment to have a black, female Supreme Court nominee. Heck, let's go for her being a lesbian cripple and we get every EEOC base covered in one shot. 😂🤣😂 (Yes, that was intended to be a joke because in candor he's really exploiting race and gender as an issue in the selection process by contorting the process of selection and creating an artificially limited selection pool).

Dolt, @BootmanLA? Is that needed? Can we be kind? I totally grant that the government can (and does) do things that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We have a judiciary for those times when potential legal conflicts arise. Where he might be coming from is whether or not those powers go so far as to legislate from the bench (which is why there is a legislative branch). I almost thought he had crossed minimalist with anarchist. I can't imagine what that would look like. "I'm an anarchist, but only on X topic"? 🤣