PozTalkAuthor

Hugs and cuddles are another field. That may be a need for intimacy, without building a true intimacy; cuddlers aren't necessarily related to sex. I am not so much into anonymous sex, bathhouses or such, but I guess anyone must feel free to do what they want to do. A top can't force another top to bottom, or vice-versa; a side, outercorser or whatever to call him, should not force someone to accept non-penetrative sex, and vice-versa, just say "no" and walk. And let me talk frankly: there are even people with certain disabilities or diseases who live sex in different ways as their penis, or anal cavity, can't simply be used. Those folks have the right to live their sexuality however they want, with no judgments. There are already many hetero stigmatizing us; let's avoid doing it against ourselves.

Always heard "side", but I honestly don't believe in pre-configured labels as sex is a continuous exploration field. For me, at least. Can I say, we have a body. God, nature, universe, whatever you want to call human origins, gave us feet, tongue, fingers, armpits, etc. A person is not just made of an ass or a cunt. Or a dick. We can explore ourselves and find pleasure in unexpected places. At that time I had not enough awareness about "versatile, side, dom, sub" I just said give and receive. But when I became poz I thought the penis option was no longer there. And what happens when you feel dangerous? You survive, you find strategies. And I discovered a world where ass and dick aren't the only pleasure generators. Now I always use a quite geeky metaphor: "if you think sex is penetration only, it's like claiming to use a PC just because you know to connect a USB cable correctly".

So, I have placed "undecided" on the poll because I honestly get VERY excited when I read incest-related stories on this site. Especially involving brothers, let alone TWINS (identical twins) they grow up together, sexual acts are experiences of their growth. With the enhancement too - I won't go on with the allusion, I let others guess, knowing me. Btw if I have placed UNDECIDED there, it's because incestuous relationships may turn insane. It is not a matter of procreating or not; it's because it can become an obsession! You're mine, I'm yours, I'm jealous, where do you go with whom... If incest happens with a healthy background, I would have nothing to judge. Healthy I mean, open sex life. You can have a boyfriend, and then have sex with [random family member] but if family member prevents you from exploring sex with others and vice-versa? That's insane. Toxic. Insane if it happens with a non-relative, worse if it comes from family member who claims genetics as a universal right. Then, another complex issue I've openly discussed with a person: if disability is involved and a mother/brother/sister/etc claim sex like "you could not be appreciated or desired by others, take me for this", it's even more insane. It's abuse. And abuse does not mean just non-consent; with vulnerability elements in discussion, consent can be "bought". So I call incest "a slippery slope". Then, before discovering I liked men, my crush for my twin sister, it's something I admit. Something I've joked with her too. But I've always been respectful and correct. And let some stories of incest, for what they are.

The problem is that kids are used to make people accept surveillance more and more. Who's the monster to oppose to something made in order to protect kids? But in order to "protect kids" as they claim to, they cut off trans people, BLIND people (I'm referring to selfies and face recognition), and of course they have potential access to every adult's sex habits/fantasies. I'm proudly supporting EFF - Electronic Frontier Foundation - in this battle. This philosophy of mass surveillance masked as kids protection, takes responsibilities off politicians and society in general: "we give simple solution to complex problem, ignoring the elephant in the room". Kids will continue to grow up in an environment without someone listening to them, being present with them, explaining things to them - yes, even consent, how their body works (spoiler: it's not teaching them masturbation as some fuckers say). Don't make me say further. "I'll give you a sweet if you open your legs for me"... Teaching sexual education to kids means teaching that their body must never be exchanged with some momentary pleasure -a sweet, a walk in the park, etc. The so called "great powers" have no interest in kids! Fuck, I talk like a conspiracy maker. But I'm using this language on purpose to make me understand better.

They have "invented" DEI with best intentions. But many (big or small) companies have faced it wrong, and the consequences have been even white folks saying "am I too white for the job", with consequences everyone knows. Btw if I have to find something positive in Trump? He's NOT hypocrite. He says his interests are money and territories, he doesn't care about the rest and doesn't hide it. Not to mention us tech folks who are working harder (me included) to defend tech sovereignty in the EU. Unreachable currently, but from something we have to start!

I take the ball in hand again for that matter of "progressive policies" ToBeTrained mentioned: I knew there was a word about the phenomenon you referred to, but I forgot it so I didn't call things by their name. When at work, in the enterteinment industry etc, the "diversity inclusion" policies are exaggerated, based on percentages. When you hire someone because of their underrepresented condition rather for a real professional value. Worse, an underrepresented person is hired but then has MARGINAL roles, is irrelevant for decision power. Etc. Well, the word is TOKENISM. This phenomenon causes frustration in people, and it ends up in hate speech in best cases. In the worst? They vote for anti-DEI politicians, they want to eliminate inclusion totally because they think inclusion is a problem, not the superficial dealing with the topic. Not calling things by their name, they fall into harmful traps. They say "woke", they say "DEI" is the problem. While the problem is performative activism, washing and tokenism.

Yes, I asked "why they voted this way?" because there are even women guiding far-right parties, even LGBT (I specifically talk about German Alice Weidel). I could say that Trump has made promises in decreasing taxes, trying to have big companies work in America rather than in China or abroad, but in the end, he's making everything more difficult in economy - not to talk about all the ICE stuff, promises to eliminate crime, by placing more people (officially with no regards) who commit crimes.

I've always wondered why some LGBT, black, people with disability, etc. choose to vote for far-right movements but maybe it's the wrong question: what do progressives WRONG, that's more complex to answer IMHO, our positions are fragile and we must try to gain people's trust again. Starting from self-criticism, by beginning to look around our "comfort zone". I don't mention Trump specifically because it's all over the world. Italy has Salvini and Vannacci, two pro-Trump/putin folks. Meloni, the prime-minister, is a woman, and is right-wing oriented; less extreme than the other two, but there she is. In France, Marine Le Pen is a woman, and is far-right. Last but not least, Alice Weidel from Germany is lesbian, married to a non-white woman, adopted 2 or 3 kids. And she's one leader of AFD, Alternative Für Deutschland far-right party (Elon Musk has attempted and attempts to pressure Europe to follow far-right). In UK there's Nigel Farage, in Hungary we know Orbân, south America has its far-right movements too. Not to talk about Santiago Abascal (Vox party) in Spain. Well, there are many, many women and LGBT folks voting for these. From my progressive point of view though, I think it's too easy, dramatically too easy, to pose this question: "why do they vote this way?" I think the question must be reversed: what did WE do wrong? If we want people's trust again, we should think back. Talking about inclusion in many perspectives, not thinking we're the only ones to have the correct way of thinking. One guy here has already brought the "diversity policies" in companies matter. I am not against the philosophy originating DEI itself, because most people self-claimed "pro-merit" are the ones who feel as their own human right, to discriminate someone for sex orientation, skin color, disability, HIV status, etc. The American army itself is pro-merit, against DEI, and if you are trans or HIV positive you have no longer chances. A white, hetero and neg, has more chances than another, for their anti-DEI policy. So? If extreme DEI is wrong, the other one is worse! The conflict exists, needless to pretend nothing; if I have to hire a programmer and have two candidates, but one free place only. And I have one white-hetero-cis without disabilities, and I have a [random underrepresented group] person. With SAME professional skills. I would make a mistake hiring the one """normal""" _because he's """normal""" and the same I'd be wrong to hire the other one _because_ they're [part of random underrepresented group]. Laws about diversity should consider this: "test abilities of both, put both on an apprentice period, then choose according to real merit". On the paper, both can write anything inside a resume or linkedin profile. But they can't lie if they face work head-on. The wrong way is forcing to hire percentages of underrepresented. If you have to hire 50 percent latinos and a Caucasian with suitable experience comes to your place, sending him away because then you overcome the percentage of caucasians, isn't appropriate. Same for the opposite. If you have already overcome the percentage of [underrepresented] and you have another one coming, while no """normalized""" ones with same skills, you should hire that one. I even know about companies who prefer paying penalties rather than hiring people with disability. Because there is no EDUCATION about it, percentages without awareness are just slogans. I also have to tell this. In 2022 I came out at work as HIV positive. No issue after that, but it's another story. But at yearly webinar/course on diversity and inclusion, I took the mic, brutally: you discuss about feeling comfortable in talking about religion, sexuality, disability, skin color. But which DEI program counts HIV? Who would feel comfortable to talk about health this way? Who is on ease when sharing they are under chemoterapy regime for cancer? Inclusion is complex, is not just made of charts and propaganda. Facts, folks. Facts. I almost covered half the webinar as the teacher had NOTHING MORE to say. I was hired for my skills in computer and security, not for my status and sex orientation; I kept it private for years. Gradually building trust, and coming out when I felt on ease to, not being obliged to. DEI should make you feel comfortable in being yourself REGARDLESS of who you are, not about hiring someone just for "diversity" criteria. Then, about progressive extremism vs. far-right, I'd suggest a book to read, for reflection: it's by Caroline Fourest, offended generation. I think it's in English as well. I hope, at least! And about far-right / politics, I think safety is the key they're pushing, and we must be aware it's a problem. Computer attacks, on-street attacks, my mother has been robbed a couple weeks ago; there are too many folks who do not follow the simple rules (even pissing on monuments), then far-right propaganda pushes on immigrants only, while this behaviour comes from anywhere. But with those problems at least perceived as urgent, far-right has found the simplest way to persuade people of being able to solve it. And they fell into the trap.