GermanFucker

Totally agree. I think I once paid 3.99 for an official DVD-rip from the HDK website which was on clearance or so. Just because I liked the late 90s / early 2000s stuff which was just so much more "real", because it was less polished and overproduced. I mostly bought it for the nostalgia. I still have happy memories of e.g. HDK and Active Duty, because they showed the same kind of sex I was having myself at the time. Today I sometimes watch the 4-minute "Latin Leche" clips or earlier stuff from Eric Videos on the usual porn aggregator sites. I just wouldn't pay for it. I mostly avoid US American porn productions. They are just so contrived. How many times can you recycle the old "stepbrother" trope? Also, in their search for bodily perfection, many actors fall into the trap of imitating each other (so they shave their hair in all the same places, have all the same sculpted eyebrows), which gets old quickly.

Well everybody is entitled to being a bad fuck... I mean, usually it's the one's cheating on their boyfriends who use condoms, because they cannot manage to take prep in secret without the BF finding out. If that's your deal, who am I to judge? Just stay clear of me. It just dishonesty that pisses me off. If you exchange preferences and agree to meet and one side then wants to alter the terms of the deal (thinking the other will agree because he's already made the effort to meet), that's just a shitty move and plain bad manners. Some guys are subs and will agree to anything (which I find submissive types usually boring). There are even tops that are pushovers and will relent. I just think that sets a bad precedent: Communicate clearly upfront and then stick to your promises. Just be a man, FFS.

Done that so many times. 😄

You want the real answer? The thought process is mostly TROLLING. Collins defines trolling as follows: "If you troll someone, you deliberately try to upset them or start an argument with them, especially by posting offensive or unkind things on the internet." I.e. the point is to be as outreageous as possible in order to elicit a (-n emotional) reaction. Even among sexual deviants there is a high likelyhood you encounter basically moral people (e.g.: Even if you enjoy swapping STDs, you wouldn't involve others who don't share your fetish), wo react either with outrage or are torn between being aroused and admitting to finding evil things enticing. Either way: a win for the troll, who by bragging about infecting others on purpose was sucessful in eliciting an emtional response. If you do a stylometric analysis of a number of these posts, you will find, that many of these stories come from the same real-life person, albeit posting under different aliases. Heck, there are many threads on this board where one troll is bascially talking to himself using 4 different aliases. Having been here on the forum for a decade, I remember users who presented themselves as alpha-pozzers and who were admired by many, only to be unmasked as total frauds 4 years later. So with most stories, you should better assume that they are fake. Just as I am sure there are a signifcant number of true stories here as well (I am probably deluding myself believing that I can spot the difference). I mentioned my friend who got pozzed on purpose by another guy. True story. But the other guy didn't brag about it on some internet forum. I have been to bareback gangbangs where the bottom ended up poz (not my doing). It's not like the this stuff isn't real. It's just waaaay more intricate and complicated in real life that some tall tales make it look.

I think that is the basic fallacy of καλοκἀγαθία : One assumes that someone pretty is also a good guy. And one is surpised when he's not. But in this case you know the ugly side of him right from the start. So, IMHO, to answer the question why some still find him attractive AS A WHOLE you have to look at the semiotics and psychology of audience reception theory. What kind of signals is he sending? And what makes one predispositioned to react to them? E.g.: Men who are anxious about their masculinity are more likely to support aggressive politics and to have voted for Trump: [think before following links] https://www.psypost.org/2021/01/men-who-are-anxious-about-their-masculinity-are-more-likely-to-support-aggressive-politics-and-to-have-voted-for-trump-59417 Precarious Manhood Predicts Support for Aggressive Policies and Politicians: [think before following links] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167220963577

If it is legal and fun, I will do it. Thing is: I'm a laid-back, no drama guy. If a teenager of legal age wants to get fucked by me I will tell him that I don't use condoms and don't pull out. If he's fine with that ... ah, who am I kidding, they are all fine with that. I don't stalk young kids (again, for the purpose of this message, this and similar terms always and without exception means: of legal age according to German Age of Consent laws) on Grindr, I don't fuck with their heads, I don't do powertrips (i've done so with older guys 20 and up). It's all about uninhibited fun. I enjoy their youth and they enjoy their breeding.

I think MichiganBottom has a point: you want to avoid the crazy. And one thing applies to both racial politics and sex: a laid-back live-and-let-live attitude is always better than fear and divisiveness.

You can say it: An uppity Irishman. It's all because of his Irish roots. They are known as troublemakers. Or am I missing something here...🤔

Disagree. Exhibit A: [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Meeks Case closed 😁 (But now I fear because he's multi-racial the next discussion would be if Maya Rudolph is black or white... 🤣 )

You have to keep in mind that I live in one of Germany's heavily urbanized western states. It would probably have increased my chances by quite a lot. There aren't so many Afro-Germans, being black is certainly still somewhat more "exotic" than in the US, so there is usually always more demand than there is supply 😉 On the other hand, this also means that my Afro-German and expat African-American buddies today live in a totally different environment than in the US, so I cannot speak to the problem of racism among gays in your specific US state. And I kinda regret that when I snuck onto the US Army bases in the vicinity as a 19 year old kid to fuck with African American soldiers (all hush-hush because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell), I didn't take the time to get to know them better (same for White and Latino soldiers). I don't think "whiteness" is wrong. An African-American friend of mine always jokingly mocks me for how very "white" I am and some of the white people shit I do. But I am at peace with my socialization. Just like he is a proud black man and I think that's what we find hot about each other. Being rooted in an identity doesn't have to be a negative thing. Personally I cannot understand how one could find the concept of white supremacy per se attractive in any way. But I do unterstand somewhat where you're coming from. When talking about the male human ape, we are all genetically conditioned to find an aggressive posture more attractive than a submissive posture. That is what the alt-right's concept of weaponizing identity is about: the fusing of tribalism with an agressive aesthetic. Franky I don't think the gay admirers princess snowflake a really "believe" much of anything. They certainly don't fawn over the beer-bellied rest of the mob and its ideological underpinnings. IMHO it is just the combination of the achetypical "warrior type" image with agressive action, that makes Angeli appear "hot". Not saying that his is not problematic in itself (the same thing has been used as a propaganda staple forever). I just think that it is far more subconcious (more "feeling" than "belief").

Disagree. That is just such a big city gay thing to say. That's true within a very limited context, but a failure of imagination when it comes to a multitude of substantially different life circumstances. If you're a young dumb kid from some farming town that hasn't even defined his own sexuality to himself and mistake a more experienced guy having fun with you for love, the last thing on your mind is safer sex and you will certainly make no such assumption. The burden of using one's brain should not be put on one party (i.e. the HIV-negative party) exclusively. IMHO the standard must always be: can I REASONABLY assume that the other guy is fully aware of all the implications of what is about to happen and is sufficiently informed to to know what he's doing? A guy that consciouly went to a gay sauna to take loads in the steam room. Sure. The 18year old high school senior getting bred behind the bleachers because curiosity got the better of him? Not so much. And that is wrong Do I agree that most cases of HIV transmission (i.e. accidents) and sex between sero-discordant partners (where no infection took place) should not be touched by the law? Sure. But at the same time extreme cases do exist, where legal scrutiny is valid. Take a friend of mine: Another guy pozzed him on purpose. Being unsuspecting, my friend did not doubt him when the other guy said he was neg, so my friend did not get tested in time. As a fast progressor he got cancer when his immune system collapsed. He's undetectable now, but the the combination of the cancer and agressive chemo have left him with a serious disability. His legs are basically fucked. I believe this example warrants legal consequences. Not because of the HIV, but because of the combination of lying, malicious intent and inflicting serious bodily harm. For these extreme cases there should be the appropriate legal tools. But again, these should be the same as with dangerous machinery, environmental toxins or other STDs. They shoud not be HIV-SPECIFIC.

As I have said mainy times before on this forum: I believe that there should be no special laws for HIV transmission, but that infliction of bodily harm should be penalized (or not) by the same legal standards no matter the cause of the bodily harm. In that a number of aspects needs to be considered: - impact on the person: HIV is a manageable disease, you can grow old with HIV no problem. Just like you can with an amputated foot. In most cases it makes no difference to the everyday quality of life. But there might still be areas where there are restrictions or stigmas. Being HIV positive can e.g. be a problem for a thoracic surgeon, just like missing one foot might be for a ballett dancer. - culpability of the "perpetrator": If you cut off you're neighbor's foot with an axe, that is certainly intentional and warrants a harsher sentence. If your neighbor loses his foot because he was your passenger in a car accident, where you failed to metion that you're drunk, you are at least negligent. In both cases - driving intoxicated and having unprotected sex when one party is aware of a clear and present transmission risk - disclosure is necessary. If not, one shouldn't complain if one is being sued for negligence. - informed consent: HIV criminalization laws sometimes even insisted on punishment, when both parties were fully aware in advance of the risks involved. Some laws required punishment even if the other party suffered no harm / no virus was transmitted, whereas in comparable circumstances that don't revolve around HIV it would not be punishable and merely considered a life lesson. Some laws required an unreasonable amount of disclosure, even if reasonably there is no risk of transmission at all. I believe all this is wrong. In short: Laws singling out HIV as a special case or HIV-positive persons as a special group are archaic and non-sensical. There should be no discrimination. But that means that there also should be no postive discriminations / priviledges for HIV. Inflicting a certain type of bodily harm as a result of a certain intention / state of mind should neither be judged harsher nor more lenient because HIV is involved. If a certain set of actions / failure to act is considered an accident when it comes to e.g. traffic, is should also be considered and accident when it comes to sex. If it is considered negligence in other contexts, it should be seen as the same when it comes to HIV. If there is malignant intent, you shouldn't go unpunished because you used a virus as a means of inflicting harm instead of an axe. So if decrimininalizing HIV means removing special HIV-specific laws from the books and instead using the same set of guidelines, rules and laws as with other life risks and infractions against one's bodily integrity, then I'm all for it. If it means a blanked exemption from liability in each and every case, then I disagree. As i said in other discussions here: If you say that intentionally pozzing unsuspecting others should never be punishable under ANY circumstances, because the other guy could have used prep or a condom, but at the same time think you should be able to sue your employer if poor working conditions give you cancer, than that is hypocrisy / a double standard (after all you could have found yourself a different job, right?). Each situation is different and we need to consider and weigh aspects like the actual outcome, intent / state of mind and level of consent. What we should not care about is whether we're talking about asbestos, syphillis or HIV.

Not this is a description I actually believe: - self-isolation due to post-traumatic stress. - loss of enjoyment of sex. - trust issues in general - depression and substance abuse With some other stories here; I'm not so sure. I personally never was in such situation. I once had a guy try to flip me over (at 6'8" and 300 pounds of pure muscle he was actually taller than me) and stick his dick in me. He wasn't trying to rape me, we just hadn't discussed roles before and it seemed like a fun idea to him at that moment. However he happened to catch me unawares, I suddenly just acted on instinct and almost broke his neck.

I think men fall into two categories: Attractive or not. To stay with the political theme: Corey Booker is broadly attractive, Ted Cruz is definitely not and there is nothing he can do about it. Once you're somewhat attractive, the rest is attitude, presentation and context (e.g. with all the barbershops closed in my state, I myself currently have to work the "Opie from Sons of Anarchy" angle very hard *LOL). Angeli certainly falls into the reasonably handsome category. I think the fact that some guys are fawning over him says more about those guys. If you are a beta / omega follower type personality, that's what pushes your buttons. And for all the progress we have made, many gays still have confidence issues. I once did an experiment: in my late 20 / early 30s I lived like 300 meters from the local university dorm building. I made two online profiles. The first described my relationship situation, where I work, medical status and showed a picture of my washboard abs. The second had no picture, and the text simply said, that I don't give a shit about you, that I just want to fuck and breed you, no condoms, no discussions, submit or fuck off. Let's just say, the response rate was about 1 - 20. After a few months I deleted the first profile. I think that if we empower each other and nurture our self-confidence, fewer guys will fall for such banal shows of masculinity as presented (not that there is anything wrong with shows of masculinity). But then, if we judge each other with the same number value system as Donald T. uses for his, pardon my French, bimbos, it's IMHO no surprise that many will look to guys that outwardly portray manliness and self-assuredness - even if they are, as evidence suggests - total snowflakes in real life.