tallslenderguy

1. i've had some great cum dump experiences, too many to count really. In a public venue, like an Adult theater, i've had experiences where many are shy or jacking off in a corner, but not hooking and i've experienced if i lie on a sofa or obviously present, that it can lead to a feeding frenzy lol. It often only takes one guy to start it off, but making it exhibitionist can help the more shy to participate and go for what they really want. 3. make it easy for the Top. I've done cum dump at home for most of my life, but i'm always the gate keeper. post an add without an address and screen potentials. i've found the longer apps are in use, the more difficult that has become. CL used to be a treasure trove for cum dump and i could line guys up one after the other. in more recent times, i will go to a gay resort if i just wanna do the open door hotel room scene. i've encountered a few tweakers that way, but nothing too serious, and it's a lot easier and safer vs a motel 6 or non gay locale. There are several gay resorts in Palm Springs that have worked for me CCBC comes to mind, where i just left my door ajar and had a pretty constant stream of cock and cum.

Reading all these posts the saying: "make love, not war" cums to mind. Yesterday then again about 2 hours ago. was outside doing yard work and my FB called. i'll stop anything and get ready to get bred by Him, He's such an awesome fucker. After i finished cutting the lawn and washing my car with His seed inside of me. i find everything goes better with cum.

I believe i've already answered this. i'm going to take a break on responding to you, i don't think we are managing to communicate. cheers

To me, you are doing the very thing you criticize. It seems to me that your "ogre" of choice is those you label "extreme" or part of "outrage culture" and they are your: "anything you dislike." Where i think we differ is, i believe that the trump administration is extreme? Yeah, i am outraged by a lot of what he and some of his cohorts do, say and how they act because i consider him/them to be extreme and i say so. i do not consider it "extreme" to call out their extremism and label it as such. i do not consider it outrageous to be outraged by extremism. Trump has literally said: "i hate democrats." That, coming from any president, is extreme by my estimation. Flipping off an autoworker at a Ford plant, to me, is extreme. Saying "quiet piggy" to a reporter is extreme. Shooting US citizens who are protesting is extreme. To me, the list of extremism from Trump is endless, and i do not want him or most of his administration, representing me or my country. As to the above topic, i read the copy and pasted article title as a question (not rhetorical). i actually had you in mind and was kind of hoping i'd found something more centrist that was posing the question and was discussing both sides, not making an assertion that Trump is building concentration camps, but examining the premiss that some take (i failed lol). An individual response to the term "concentration camp" is not universal. For instance, historian Dr Heather Cox Richardson, gathering from her perspective as a historian, is calling the detention centers "concentration camps." But she is also very careful to follow that up with the explanation that they are not the same as the Nazi extermination camps. She also offers an explanation as to why she believes they are concentration camps. The devil may or may not be in the details, not the label. If you would label her as "extreme," for her opinion, that would come off to me as vilification that you criticize others of indulging in. If you instead state: "that seems extreme to me and this is why i think that...." it would come off very differently to me as a reader. It seems to me that you often state your opinion as though it's truth, or fact. E.g., You labeled the opening article of this thread: "pure extremism." instead of saying: "In my opinion, the opening article of this thread is extremism." i appreciate in your last contribution you have modified "pure" (i don't think any of our opinions are "pure" lol) to "I find it extreme...", which to me is the more centrist approach. Stating or phrasing opinion as though it's obvious truth or fact, as i see it (lol), is one of the elements of extremism. i work hard to qualify that my assertions are my opinions, what "i think" or "to me," or"i believe" or, "as i see it," etc.. i often have to edit myself when i find myself stating something as though it's fact, when in truth, it's how i see or perceive a thing, but i do endeavor to always practice that qualification. i also find common ground with people who may see things opposite of me, when they take the similar stance and present their views as their opinion, not as some universal fact that should be obvious to everyone. There's a part of me that thinks/feels we agree on this, but we may get tangled up in the written word that lacks tone and visual cues? i do not consider it hateful to call out what i see as hate. i do not consider it extreme to be outraged or call out what i see as extreme or hate.

True, the above article is compiled using AI... with cited sources that any reader can access. i do not believe use of AI for compilation or analysis automatically vilifies the content. Still i think it's fine to point out AI compiled information, and it's pretty evident to anyone who reads the article and looks at the links. The conclusion that "this is pure extremism" strikes me as an extreme stance. i think there is a center approach to AI, and thought this AI generated info was somewhere in the middle ground and not "extremism." It summarizes: "Whether those facilities meet a strict, legal or historical definition of “concentration camps” depends on definitional and legal standards beyond the provided reporting; the term is being used intentionally by critics to convey scale, intent and moral judgment, while much of the empirical record cited consists of procurement documents, site lists and condition reports rather than a judicial finding equating the program with historical genocidal systems" Meanwhile, here's an opinion piece from The Guardian that has editorial controls, that corroborates some of the stated facts listed in the AI compiled article. "ICE currently incarcerates about 70,000 people on any given night, holding them across 224 detention facilities. The number has nearly doubled over the past year. But in recent weeks, as the Trump administration looks to accelerate its mass deportation agenda, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been scouting and purchasing huge facilities. With the $45bn in ICE funding that Congress appropriated in the “big, beautiful bill”, the agency now aims to use these new warehouses to capture and imprison vastly greater numbers of men, women and children. The new warehouse strategy represents an apparent shift in immigrant concentration and detention practices by the Trump administration, which has previously relied on smaller facilities. But the administration has already come under fire for the conditions in which it is housing the migrants it has captured – including those at a sprawling tent facility in Fort Bliss, Texas, and in the hastily assembled “Alligator Alcatraz” tent camp in the Everglades – as well as for the unsafe, unsanitary, diseased conditions reported in prisons like the Krome detention center in Miami and the infamous facility in Dilley, Texas, one of several that houses children. “These kids are very traumatized, many of them despondent and depressed,” said the US representative Joaquin Castro after visiting Dilley. Still, the extent of the abuses inside ICE’s detention camps is not well understood, in part because the Department of Homeland Security has taken steps to limit oversight. ICE has repeatedly refused members of Congress access to the facilities, in defiance of the law, and has gone to court to prevent House members from visiting the camps as they are entitled to do. It is worth asking what the DHS is trying to hide." [think before following links] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/17/ice-holds-people-in-disgusting-conditions-now-its-turning-warehouses-into-camps As to the use of AI in journalism, here's a piece from "Ethics and Journalism" that discusses some of the pros and cons. "Given the mass of information an AI bot can synthesize almost instantaneously, I can’t imagine ignoring it as a source, despite its obvious flaws. I liken its abilities to those of an erratic human, someone I’ve nonetheless found to be useful, if occasionally frustrating, in providing background information, suggesting story angles, and dishing about people and events that may turn out to be newsworthy. Such sources offer a lot to check out and confirm or debunk, even though you know they sometimes make things up–and quite often don’t even know they’re doing so. Just as with most human interviewees, you can’t rely on a chatbot as a single source. You have to factor out biases, verify all the purported factsthey assemble, and inform audiences, as far as possible, how you, and they, got the information. Of course, a chatbot can’t be held accountable for its choices and its errors. It’s important to remember that it’s not human. But, on the plus side, unlike human sources, chatbots are always available when you need them." [think before following links] https://ethicsandjournalism.org/2026/03/12/how-journalists-can-make-ai-work-for-them/

Even though you state you are not suggesting the post is inappropriate, i'm still sorry this caused you distress <3. One of my closest personal friends has similarly stopped consuming political news for what he also states as mental health reasons, so i never bring up anything political with him. i take a different stance in a public forum. The title and article are a complete, unedited, copy and paste from linked source. As i read it, they are not asserting "concentration camp" one way or the other, but rather examining the use of the label re the trump administrations approach to immigration. i thought it a good effort at being factual and non-biased, with citations of sources,

"Executive summary Researched February 14, 2026 Reporting from a mix of investigative outlets, opinion pages and advocacy sites shows a concerted, large-scale expansion of ICE detention capacity under the Trump administration—through tent cities, purchases of warehouses and unusually large contract vehicles—that critics and some journalists describe as a “network of concentration camps,” but the available reporting mixes policy facts, contested terminology and advocacy interpretations rather than offering a single, uncontested legal finding 1. What the documents and reporting say about construction and procurement Multiple outlets report that the administration and DHS/ICE are acquiring and converting warehouses and erecting tent “mega‑camps,” and that a Navy contract vehicle has been repurposed or enlarged to provide a large funding ceiling for related logistics and build‑out work—reporting that Migrant Insider and aggregators summarize as a jump to a roughly $55 billion ceiling for a Navy contract now supporting detention logistics [1][4][5]; Bloomberg and Couriernewsroom reporting independently catalogued at least 23 warehouse sites ICE has surveyed or targeted for conversion [6][2]. 2. Conditions on the ground and human costs being reported Investigative and local reporting documents overcrowded tent facilities, a rising detainee population (reported above 70,000) and multiple recent deaths in ICE custody that critics link to inadequate medical care and conditions at these sites, with one outlet calculating a rapid uptick in deaths in early 2026 and describing the tent city near El Paso as emblematic of the crisis [3][6]. 3. Why some journalists and commentators use the term “concentration camps” Commentators and advocacy outlets argue the term is appropriate because these facilities detain large numbers of noncitizens—often without criminal charges, with limited procedural protections—and because the scale and permanence of converted warehouses and tent cities resemble historical internment systems, an analogy made explicit in opinion pieces and activist reporting [7][8][9]. 4. What that label does and does not prove legally or historically The sources demonstrate forceful political and moral arguments for the label, but they do not cite a court or neutral legal authority definitively declaring a U.S. program to be legally equivalent to 20th‑century concentration camps; much of the evidence presented is procurement records, site surveys and descriptions of conditions, and the characterization therefore rests partly on analogy and political judgment rather than an established legal ruling in the materials provided [1][6][3]. 5. Political context, competing narratives and possible agendas Reporting comes from outlets with explicit political positions—Common Dreams, Migrant Insider, World Socialist Web Site and several advocacy or opinion platforms—which frame the facts to argue a moral emergency; conversely, government and pro‑administration voices (not included among the provided sources) dispute characterizations that would equate immigration detention with historical genocidal systems, so readers are looking at advocacy‑infused reporting and official denials in tension [5][7][10]. 6. Bottom line — is Trump “building concentration camps”? Based on the supplied reporting, the Trump administration is actively expanding mass‑detention capacity through tent camps, warehouse conversions and large contract vehicles that critics call a nationwide network of detention sites, and these programs have produced documented overcrowding and deaths that fuel the concentration‑camp label [2][6][3][1]. Whether those facilities meet a strict, legal or historical definition of “concentration camps” depends on definitional and legal standards beyond the provided reporting; the term is being used intentionally by critics to convey scale, intent and moral judgment, while much of the empirical record cited consists of procurement documents, site lists and condition reports rather than a judicial finding equating the program with historical genocidal systems" [think before following links] https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/is-trump-building-concentration-camps-b9f2bf

Right? So cool, professional medical information and sex positive.

Not sure why this didn't post the vid, but it's great medical info about bottoming 🙂 [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgcqvHImIPs

He left about a half hour ago. This was day six since i'd had my Sweet FB inside of me. i start to get twitchy on day three, i'm pretty sure i'm addicted to Him. i went to San Diego for 4 days to visit a friend... we sleep together, but we're platonic. He's a sadistic Dom, and i love Him dearly, but we are not sexually compatible. So, four days, then got back and two more days and i'm breaking out in a cold sweat wanting Him. i was washing dishes and preparing cocoa beans to go in my stone mill to make chocolate from scratch, and He called. Yeah, i dropped everything and got ready. God, it was so awesome. He had a huge nutt and was leaking out of me when He got up to shower, so i tasted some. sigh. i fee so good, and the chocolate is in the stone melange. All is right with the world. ❤️

i think many have responded to the question in the video title without watching the video. The video does not end with a definitive answer. The video raises a lot of points and questions in Harris' discussion of the topic with scholars who also reach different conclusions.

Gay culture has managed to refine the experience of pleasure and being desired. i think a lot of guys cognitively simplify sex down to 'just' pleasure, but i think the driving force is a combination of pleasure and wanting to be desired. One can get pleasure their self, but desire from another is missing. Hooking up gets both. i think (generally) men and women are wired differently when it comes to sex. i think men (more easily?) experience being desired during sex, and women perceive sex more like it's not their self that is being desired, but the pleasure they are giving. i think a lot of women have learned how to use sex to get other stuff they want and need. i think both are (sorta) getting what they want/need... the feeling of being desired, but they are getting it differently. Guys seem to be able to get that through multiple, simple connections ("hook ups"), whereas women seem to go for the same thing with one person ongoing. i know, this is way oversimplification of the complex. With women, things like babies factor in, as well as women historically being less socially powerful than men, so some women use sex in the power struggle, whereas some guys may not need or want that. i think with hook up sex, often what is being pursued is the intense feeling of being desired combined with pleasure, not some form of ongoing relationship. Maybe the question answers itself, guys are not interested in everything another guy may have to offer, just his cock or ass and his desire to use it. Then there are guys like me (and You? and others), who seem to have a different mix of both genders and want more or different than what a traditional woman wants or the type gay guy you describe.

idk if i'd call it a trend, but it seems more permissible? That maybe notions of beauty are becoming less central to attraction, that appearance is being modified as a reason to fuck? i think there's a lot that goes on with sex that remains unconscious or gets buried under the obvious pleasure that is derived. i think one of the drivers for gay sex is wanting to be desired... wanting to experience being desired by another guy. Desire can be felt intensely during sex. Being and feeling desired, i think, is a human need, i think it's at the core of "falling in love." i see hook up as a concise version of "falling in love," where we repeat the intense pleasure and affirmation in sex, over and over with lots of guys vs just one. But i think the root drive is similar to those looking for ltr with one person. Lots of sex with lots of guys gets the similar pleasure and affirmation that is traditionally sought in ltr. i think in hook up, the vehicle is less important than the destination. Though, we are all individuals still, so we're going to do things differently for infinite complex reasons. But i think there's also simple reasons behind some of our complexities. I.e., the gorgeous gym bodied, carefully crafted look is purposefully cultivated because that is that persons version of desirable. Depending on the need/desire of the moment, the package that the guy who responds with desire for him is wrapped in is less important than the actual desire. The "repugnant" guys repugnancy is less of a factor if he is carrying the requisite type of desire the gorgeous guy is craving. i think gay hook up culture has discovered? how to fill a need/desire at its most basic level.

Brilliant!!