tallslenderguy

Some interesting discussion/opinion about what goes on in the current White House.

As a bottom, i love the intent when a Top goes balls deep to breed, There are so many ways a Top can communicate while He is fucking, and my favorite is when He obviously is fucking to open and breed. i love it when a Top tells me He is breeding me too. to me it adds another layer, but balls deep plants His seed past the "second hole" which ensures i can absorb every bit of Him, which i love. I work to hold all His seed in, i have if i lose any of Him after. So, i'm grateful for an intentional breeder ❤️

Seems that way to me too. i haven't tried the BHouses in Pdx since before covid, and even then, it was getting progressively slower when it comes to fucking. There's a couple of ABS where i live, and when i'd go to them, i could get 4-6 horny guys fucking me in a short period of time, no one hour drive. If i want more, i go to Palm Springs or Lauderdale, and agree, much easier to find guys who wanna fuck in both those places. i'm in a small town, so i feel really fortunate to have a FB who seems to want to breed almost daily. He even calls me when i'm at work, so i we seem to be in a symbiotic situation, which helps keep me from being desperate lol

i live in Oregon (11 years), about an hour south of Portland (Pdx) and i've not encountered what @NWUSHorny has. i've even had a few Guys Who drove from Pdx to breed me. I haven't been to the bath houses in Pdx since before Covid, and then only to Hawks. my results were always mixed, i get a lot more cock at a local ABS than a BH. my experience has been an ABS is one of the few left overs of gay cruising irl. i've never really experienced the quantity of fuckers in Pdx that would make the hour trip worth it to me, so i may have experienced what @NWUSHornydescribes about Pdx inadvertently. If i want more, i do a sexcation at a gay resort in Palm Springs or Mexico. The last 6 years, i've been lucky to have a local FB Who breeds me 3-4x a week, so i am not desperate lol. i do view this as social evolution, which is never clean, easy or concise. i see society moving to more individual sensitivity and commerce is ever playing catch up. It's a lot more profitable to have a once size fits all venue than create a gazillion different venues to try and accommodate every individual. i think it comes down to the consumer to clarify what they are looking for and do their best in the current culture to find it. i'm painfully blunt about who i am and what i am looking for on any apps/profiles, though i occasionally still get the guy who doesn't read the profile before contacting me. Given @NWUSHornyexperience, i don't see myself driving North any time soon... at least, not for sex.

There is still a big stigma attached to gay sex that runs through society. We learned a few years ago that a person can get sick and die, just going to a restaurant or the grocery store (covid). But people still went to the grocery store. Humans can catch all sorts of diseases from each other while in close proximity that happens with sex. No one asks a potential fuck mate if they have a cold or the flu. Those are sicknesses too, but they are not stigmatized, even though they can make you feel like hell, even kill you, with much worse symptoms than most STD's. And just like many STD's a person can be contagious without even knowing they are sick. No one asks for test results that prove they are flu negative before having sex. Or: "how often do you get tested for the flu virus." Some of us get flu shots, or take PrEP or make sure we are undetectable. All practical stuff that can be done to combat the realities of pathogens.

Aggressive and assertive are not the same thing. i understand some like aggressive, force, bullying, being treated like meat, etc., etc.. But that is an individual choice, We're all individuals and there is no standard Top, bottom or versatile, those are just labels we use to identify, we only learn each others individual interpretations of those labels through communication and experiencing each other. i have a gym sculpted, solid muscled FB Who's been breeding me 3-4x a week for six years. He's big and strong and pounds me hard when He fucks, but he is not aggressive, He's assertive. He's sensitive and affectionate in an assertive way. He has told me that He loves to "bitch" me. The way He touches and holds me while He is fucking me is very controlling, but not in an aggressive way. He is not mean or forceful, not a bully. i identify as bottom with a fair amount of sub. There are a lot of tops/doms who would disagree, and there are tops/doms who have loved and wanted me, and would reject the guy who just wants to be meat or trash. Again, we're all different. To me, the 22 year old you describe is an immature, selfish, clueless kid. Personally, i would not give him the time of day. Bottoming for me is not solely about the physical act, it's about connecting with another guy who wants to penetrate, fuck and breed me as much as i want Him to penetrate, fuck and breed me. It's the exercise of mutual need/want. my perception of a top/dom who has to force or bully is they are weak and insecure, trying to prove something to their self. This is only my take, i'm not turning it into a universal standard. This is why i won't have sex with this kind of guy, we are not compatible and i will not submit to him because sex with him would not be connection with him, and that is a big part of sex for me.

Just left... fucking awesome. Totally pregnant now.

Not yet, but in another hour my sweet FB is coming over. i'm a bit amazed at how i feel about Him coming over to fuck me after 6 years of 2-4x a week breeding. It just never gets old with Him. It's totally just a FB thing, we don't really have anything else in common, but damn the fuck chemistry we have blows me away. It may just be me lol. i'm easy, convenient. He's Bi but i don't think He's had a GF for a couple of years now. i got pretty freaky with Him yesterday, not sure what He thinks or feels about what i wrote about yesterday, but He seemed to like it. i find myself connecting with Him in unexpected ways. It's really good.

i need to look back and read your posts so i can learn from your examples of how to "consider "us" for a change."

About 15 minutes ago., my FB. For six years now, always leave my back door open for Him and am waiting for Him naked and ass up. The last year or so, we start with Him standing at the edge of my bed and me feasting on His awesome cock. Then He likes to suck me, and He's gotten really good at it. It's not something i usually do, but He's into it and i love His pleasure, so i end up getting hard... and lately He ends up presenting his "booty" for me to eat and fuck. i think He likes having His ass eaten as much as He likes getting fucked. i don't breed Him, i want to stay very horny for His orgasm. It's a psychological thing with me i guess, i love having one orgasm between us (His) and to receive His orgasm into me is like His orgasm becomes my orgasm. He's bred me close to 1000 times now and i do not feel any want for my own orgasm, i love the bond of sharing His orgasm. He's not very vocal, well, very expressive when i'm sucking or fucking Him, but in terms of talking about sex in between having it, He's very shy. Every once in a while He let's His thoughts slip though, and i've mentioned before that He told me once that He "loves to bitch me." He has this gentle way of Man handling me that makes me feel very possessed, controlled.... "bitched" i guess? He'll hold my waist in a way, and lately He reaches under and holds my chest as though i have breasts. He's Bi, so idk, He might have some sort of fantasy going on in His head? He got me some lacy things to wear, and really likes that, though i'm far from fem lol (well, some of the sounds i make when getting fucked may be? it's involuntary). Then i've gotten a few things, and He gets pretty primal when He comes in and sees me wearing the stuff, and hell, i love His primal lust. So i got an idea and bought a bra and some silicon breasts that i think is made for Trans people? idk, but i put them on today and some lingerie over it and then was lying on my stomach when He came in today. The idea was to surprise Him. Without getting up, i asked Him if He would just fuck me and He was totally game. About a third of the way He reached under to hold my chest like He usually does and got two good hands full lol. He said: "Oh Wow!, and started pounding me and kissing my neck. i think He liked it.

This morning. A surprise, He had an appointment before work and it finished early, so He called and asked if i wanted to "have some fun?" Before and after He fucks, He is the definition of casual and easy... while He is fucking, He is anything but. I wonder if He saves all of His focus and intensity for sex? Which automatically surfaces my own intensity and lust. a decided dance where connect and blend. He is a very cummer, sometimes lets out the smallest of sighs. i've learned to listen for it. i've also developed the ability to feel when His seed leaves His body and enters mine, something i never had before. because i am usually so sensually overwhelmed. But the longevity of this FB, probably close to 1000 breeds now, has resulted in a more detailed experience and knowing. He shyly smiles as He leaves and comments: "now you get to have Me in you the rest of the day."

Just left about 15 minutes ago, He likes to fuck before going to the gym. If i do that it's a challenge to hold His seed in lol, but since i don't cum in Him, He has not experienced that. He's got a bit of kink in Him, and i've mentioned before that He gets really turned on if i wear lacy lingerie stuff, which will probably always feel awkward for me. i think i must look ridiculous, but He gets very turned on and lusty... so yeah, i'm Amazon's best lingerie customer now. i've also mentioned how He reaches under and holds my chest when He's pounding me, and i confess that drives me pretty wild, not sure why? He's mentioned before that He loves to "bitch" me, so maybe it's related? Idk, He's shy about saying things, so i just pick up the occasional comment. But i got this crazy idea last night, based on how He likes to reach under when i'm on my stomach and hold my chest. i went online and bought a bra that Trans people use, that has pockets for boobs, and got a set of those too. i'm going to try wearing it next time He wants to fuck and then just be lying on my stomach when He comes in and ask Him to please fuck me to start, He'll see the strap, which i suspect He'll like, but then when He reaches under to hold my chest, He'll get two big handfuls . The boobs came already and their pretty realistic feeling, well, sort of. i suspect it will surprise Him and maybe turn Him on... can't have Him too turned on lol, i love His lust and making Him feel good. Or, it might just be a fail, but worth a try. 🙂

You and i, and anyone reading this, have access to the same resources. Your and my reads are very different. i think you mis-read and mis-label me and a lot of the stuff i post. For instance, i do not think the video i posted that started this exchange as extreme or alarmist. i think we've reached an impasse, that neither of us is going to convince the other. We each have agreed a few times, but generally we disagree. Neither of us has persuaded the other. You or i or anyone can look at any of these points and investigate them individually, we've reached different conclusions. i think the current president and, those he has surrounded himself with, is fascist in desire and intent, and that terms like "fascist" and "oligarchy" fit. my read of you is you do not. We both have access to the same resources. i think the current president is narcissistic, sociopathic and nihilist. Again, i don't think you see him, and those he surrounds himself with, similarly. You have all of the same reasons and sources available to you that i do, but your read of them is different from mine. If you had any inclination to, generally, agree, there are far better resources and arguments than me. From the way you express your self (e.g. "...but as I've tried to get across...."), I suspect we both have felt like we are beating our proverbial heads against a wall with each other. i've "simply dislike[d]" many politicians and political acts in my lifetime, trump and his cohorts strike me as "extreme." i am expressing my outrage by participating in protests, writing to my representatives and posting stuff like i have on BZ. i see the house on fire, and you seem to just see a fire in the fireplace.

This afternoon. He was soooooooo good, i moaned a lot and got full of His seed and pregnant with Him. Then after i helped Him find the floor joist for a new 3/4 wall i've hired Him and His brother to install.

Okay, this helps me understand you much better. i'm not convinced that we cannot make things better and i somehow never managed to connect that your approach would be laiz a faire. i also continue to suspect i am not making myself clear with you (either? lol) in how i am presenting this. i do not mean to present this as a all or nothing proposition, but more as an ongoing refining or evolutionary process. i do not believe i am being manipulated (my words, not yours) by the "outrage machines," but believe i am independently outraged lol. i think i end up identifying money as a tool of corruption, but i do not believe that money itself is 'the root of all evil.' Nor have i ever meant to suggest "removing money from the equation," rather looking for ways to manage it so one representative or candidate does not have a financial advantage over another. So my goal is not so much limiting money as a support, rather looking for a way to give everyone an equal voice... which is probably impossible, but i still think it's a worthy goal, that we can do better than doing nothing at all. i'm not ignorant of the fact that xyz corp has more money that Joe Smith, thus has more ability to put up billboards with propaganda, exploit AI, etc.. Mr Senator knows this too. Mr Billionaire is in better position to buy favor from existing or future politicians than i am, because a politician may want more than what my vote can provide. So i'm really looking for ways to attract and police? for honesty and integrity. i'm outraged by a president taking a gift of a jet, or tearing down a chunk of the White House, or____________, and then our supposed checks and balances not working. And yeah, i do associate money as part of the corrupting factor and i believe we need to find ways to reduce things like grift.

Many things in life "cannot be proven." One cannot prove that their car will start every time they push the start button, but millions of people rely daily on the perception that their car will start when they push the start button... even though their are surely times a car is not going to start. But, it's a reliable assumption that's still exercised by millions daily with perceived benefit that results in them continuing to push buttons. i never suggested that "any donor to the Republicans [is] just cravenly greedy." "This is an assumption." But "for instance," Musk paid millions of dollars to the trump campaign to get trump elected. Coincidentally, Musk ended up with a powerful position (DOGE) and influence when trump did get elected. If one had the money and resources, one could study this seeking some sort of "proof" that Musk did or didn't donate for a perceived benefit. In studies there's always a section where the funders and investigators declare whether there is a conflict of interest... because studies that "prove" a premise can be manipulated by the... "cravenly greedy?" lol. my "simplified" premise is that money buys influence. i believe that is a tried and true, rational belief that society runs on. Are there exceptions? Sure. As to "voters get to have the final say." i cannot remember who said it, but i think it was Senator Ron Wyden in an interview yesterday, so paraphrasing: "the average voters soap box is not equivalent to the billionaires bank account." i prefaced my "simplified" when i posit my belief that big money buys political influence, but that is not to say it is a simple knot to untie. i think it is true that more money spent does not automatically result in getting elected. There are so many factors in how said money is spent to influence the vote. Re: "buying influence is a crap shoot." Maybe, sometimes more than others. Musk is back at it, donating millions. One may think he's just a careless, ignorant gambler shooting craps. i think he is purposely buying influence because it seems apparent that he thinks it pays off. i do not think one can prove either assertion. No, the idea is not to "instill a two-party system," but to work towards (money is only one factor) a level playing field. i envision a process more centrist because it would be more inclusive. i think money is a major factor in the (primarily) two party system we currently have. i do wonder how it might effect an election if all those running had the same amount of money to work with(money NOT the only factor, but a major one). "Isn't that the vote -- one person, one vote -- where this comes into play, exactly. In the last two elections, Dems have outspent Reps yet lost, the reverse has been true too. And sometimes the greater spender wins. Money doesn't guarantee electoral wins. So buying influence is a crap shoot and if it wasn't -- let's say a candidate or party is likely to win -- then they wouldn't need the money and be burdened by the influence you imply." "But this is an assumption." You do not have to "get across" the obvious. Of course "voter influence during an election is [also] driven by issues that are not limited to influence by campaigns." Though one could argue that campaigns try to identify and capitalize on those issues. "Influence and money already flow outside of campaigns, as people want to support their own thing" that's nothing new: "organized religion, ACLU, WWF, ACU, Citizens United, ad infinitum. OF COURSE, money is not the only factor in any of these advocacy organizations, but i think it can be argued money is a major factor in any influential organization. Advocacy organizations, corporate messaging, marketing and advertising are all social influencers. The goal is to prune, trim that influence when it comes to representative election and make it more dependent on engaging the individual voter. People will still go to church and be influenced on how to vote, or watch tv and be influenced by media, or donate to organizations that agree with their beliefs and desires. That's another topic also needs attention. Again, i reassert, to me reform is not just about campaigns and getting elected (or re-elected). It's also about the influence money plays with people in office. i do not think we should just leave things as they are, that the system that got us where we are today isn't working well. Do you agree or disagree with this? You write a great deal explaining how and why [you think] i am wrong, but when i ask you for your solution, you give the briefest of answers. i have asked for thoughts and opinions, i have not asked for "books." i'm as likely to read a book you suggest as you are likely to watch an entire video i post lol. Neither of us has managed to sway the other :-). Right or wrong, my perception of you is that you sort of like a movie critic criticizing my every production, which tends to put me in a continuous defensive position with you. Could you please provide your detailed solutions, or reasons why things should remain the same if you believe all is good?

Trying to simplify the complex (and i'm not sure that can be accomplished). To me it seems basic, money can buy influence in so many different ways. i think it's rational to say that people, SIG's, etc., give money to support and/ or influence a particular cause that they perceive will benefit them, on all sides of the political fence. "Musk was the biggest individual donor to political committees during the 2024 election cycle, spending roughly $290 million, mostly through his own super PAC, America PAC, in support of Trump." [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/31/elon-musk-2026-election-donations-00758992 my problem with this is i want the election system watered down to individuals, without one voice or group having a greater say or influence. As part of reform, i envision (simplistically) all donations for campaign use going into a central source that gets equally divided between those running. i know, this may have lots of holes in it, it's just a basic idea that i am juxtaposing against the current system. i've given money to a couple of political candidates, and the result is i get click bated constantly with what, to me, are deceptive "polls" that always end with "how much will you donate." At which point, i always leave, and i wonder how many feel the same way. It feels like selling vs selecting, and the highest bidder wins.

It was a franchise company. The owner ("Master Franchise Owner") had the rights to a couple of territories to sell franchises. He was a former bank president, a really good numbers guy, and he hired me for my business management background. He was close to bankruptcy after the first year, following the parent companies model didn't really work for him. i gave him a few suggestions and he asked me if i'd run the company and he could do the books, so i became the companies VP. He gave me complete freedom to run things, so i used a type of consensus model where everyone got a say, and i got voted against more than a few times lol. But it worked, it was a 15m a year business when i left. After 20 years, he came to me one day and told me he'd sold the company, back to the parent company. He also told me it was transferring the next day. They had stipulated in the purchase agreement that he was to keep the purchase underwraps while he worked out the details for 8 months. He really was a decent fellow, but myself and those who built the business felt betrayed. The business was essentially us, the people. The new company gave me a very large signing bonus if i'd stay at least a year, which i did no wanting to make a snap judgement. The new owner was an international company with over 200 offices worldwide. I doubted they'd allow me to use the same consensus management methods i'd used to build the business, but gave it a shot. i'd pushed back against the Master Company because i thought their franchise fees were too high, and that ended up building trust with the franchise owners, and everyone ended up more successful. The parent company dismantled the system over the next year, and i watched as each of the people who worked with me to build the business, left, as did i after my year was up. There's a lot more to the story, but when i left, i tried to do the same method with a different company. They didn't like it either and i left after two years, went back to school and earned a BSN, and have been a critical care nurse since then.

In my former life, the company i worked for helped people start businesses. A rationale they were given for creating a corporation was to protect their individual self and assets from liability. It was to 'create an entity" (sounds rather god like lol) to protect them as individual people.

Ah, damn. Well, i think that is sweetly romantic. Online scammers make me crazy. ❤️

Hey, cool discussion, thanks for starting it @Spider54. i think the distinction or "weird' is more individual than universal and that we reach that conclusion (and sustain it?) because we seek out people who share stuff like our desires and needs. i visited France and learned they eat mayonnaise on their pom frites (French fries), and my emotional, then cognitive response was: "weird." In their case, my desire for ketchup was not so much "weird" but "stupid, uncultured American" lol. Recently? i've found myself rejected because i'm tall and slender. To me, it should not get to that point, at least, not if they're approaching me... given my screen name. But i've encountered quite a few very fit, gym bodies guys who reject me because they want their partner to have a "big belly." Fit shaming? lol. Nah, because they're often super fit. Cognitively i can rationalize that they are individuals and there is nothing 'wrong' with their desire/need because it's different... or doesn't align with mine. But emotionally? my feelings don't necessarily or automatically agree with my rationale, and i may still feel inferior, or 'not good enough,' or something is 'wrong' with me, or_________, because part of the energy behind hook up is a desire/need for affirmation. Then another part of me says they're "weird" lol. The longer i live and ponder such stuff, the more i credit nurture over nature, though i think both factor in. And the more i go that direction, the more i identify and question culturally conditioned notions, norms that feed our desires. We are all conditioned to some degree or other by environment, and we all come into the world with genetic dispositions... and to further muddy up the waters, we (i think more often than not) cannot unequivocally identify why we are the way we are, let alone judge our position superior and those who are different as inferior or "weird." i consider myself fortunate because i have a FB who wants to breed me 3-4x a week, going on 6 years now. He's young, energetic, gym ripped and horny. i'm decidedly... opposite. But for some reason, our opposite desires complement each other and we apparently fill a need/desire in each other. And damn, life is fluid. All my profiles still read: that i'm "total bottom," but for the last year or so, we end up flip fucking almost every time... and i also end up eating his ass, even though i've long emotionally identified that as a "Top" desire. Weird.

Okay. 🙂

Arrrggghhh. i typed out a long reply, and trying to quote from another page, lost all of it. Damn. i need to go to the gym and i don't want to go through all of that again. Not trying to be a moving target, sorry i made you feel that way. i'm not trying to be a target or goal at all ;-). We agree (i think) that campaigns and elections are about way more than money. i think where we differ is i think money is a factor worth scrutiny and reform, while you seem to disagree? i like basing decisions on science as well. You cite a 2018 article from UF based on a 2016 study. i cited one from 2024 (i think, it was newer, i think the data went through 2020?). i looked some more and found a study published March 2025. i'm not a political scientist, but in medicine, "newer" is a factor when considering a study. As are qualities like size, replication, double blind, funding (i.e., conflict of interest). This study seems to have collected data from a longer period too. "The identification of the effect of campaign contributions on the behavior of elected representatives in Congress has proven to be a daunting task. This work does not prove the quid pro quo between donors and MCs. Existing studies credibly hypothesize that most of the favors to donors are buried in obscure microlegislation that remain outside the scrutiny of the public –and often, of the researcher (McKay, 2020). Though, this study shows for the first time a robust negative correlation between important legislative outcomes and the concentration of donations, for a period spanning decades of data. It also provides a general argument based on the concentration of contributions to each MC that sheds light on the association between donations and legislative activities. By reciprocating favors to donors, by seeking to secure their continued financial support, or simply by enjoying more leisure time as a result of feeling secure in their financial backing, MCs are less active in legislative activities related to the Congressional agenda and public policy. While further research is required to gain a deeper understanding of the specifics of this mechanism of influence, I believe these results show that the system of political donations distorts the incentives of MCs regarding their legislative effort." [think before following links] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272725000179

lol... you are conversing with a guy who is certified in preventing and reversing disease process through diet, so i cannot put "PepsiCo" and "health" on the same planet, they are at opposite ends of the universe.

No. This is a vast topic. i really do not know what you are thinking when you infer, then imply, my "selection set?" Whether intended or not, to assert what my "focus is" can give the impression that's all i'm aware of and that i'm in need of counsel lol. That happened earlier in the discussion when you asserted that i think/contend that "small dollar donations are better." Rather that asserting what i think or say (e.g., what my "focus is,"), maybe quote specifically what leads you to that impression of me and state it as your read of me vs telling me and others what my position is. That way i can more exactly say "yes, you read me correctly" or "no, that is not what i think or am trying to convey" and then i can further try to explain or clarify. i do not presume to have this in "focus." I think the focal point is too vast for focus, so naturally, It is easy to identify and express limitations when the focus is narrowed on a broad topic, eh? It seems to me that "express[ing] the limitations" is often "your focus." And i think that's fine, and part of the larger discussion, but only part. While i am biting off pieces for sake of discussion, i think it's obvious that there is other stuff on the plate. i do think there is merit to chipping away at this, i.e., that we can approach attempting to 'fix' this in steps. Given the divergent view points, i'd question the chances of any attempt at holistic approach towards consensus. i reiterate that i believe "campaign financing" is not only about how contributed money affects the ultimate list ("selection set?" ) of those who get to ultimately run for office, but also how that money affects the elected's decisions and representation after the campaign and election process. But clearly, there's "other stuff on the plate." The study i cited above (tis a ponderous tome) goes into other factors about that influences the resultant "selection set:" "...this paper also provides further evidence on the impact of demographic factors, such as candidate’s age, gender, party membership, and incumbency status, on electoral outcomes." Agreed. What do you propose as realistic, alternative?