tallslenderguy

Fun question. To me it's the other ingredients in semen that matter, the ones that can get absorbed and facilitate bonding... but i did a look up on the topic, looking for some real info beyond speculation, this is what i found... answer from a medical doctor with link, not sure how reliable the source is. "I see you have inquired – “How long can semen live in the anus before dying, and what's the possibility of getting pregnant if some seamen leak into the vagina from the anus?” Please see, the sperms in the semen can live for some time where ever there is some moisture and warmth etc, and the ansus provides both moisture and warmth so sperms can live there for some time. The actual duration they may remain alive in the anus may vary from situation to situation or person to person but they can remain alive there for few to several hours." [think before following links] https://www.justanswer.com/medical/hz7yl-semen-live-anus-dying-what-s.html

In the absence of gays on this site giving their reasons for voting for Trump (not just voting republican, but voting for Trump?), just read the results of this AP pole along with the article writers take: "It isn’t just Trump’s margin of victory that shows his dominance of the party. It’s that most Republican voters in South Carolina share his entire worldview. The Associate Press’s “VoteCast” voter survey showed, at least in its early results, that around six in 10 GOP voters in the Palmetto State oppose continued U.S. aid to Ukraine. That was bad news for Haley, and striking in a state with a strong military tradition. Around seven in 10 GOP voters in the state accept Trump’s argument that the various investigations into his conduct are attempts to undermine him, according to the survey. Given those numbers, it’s no surprise that around 6 in 10 Republicans here consider themselves to be supporters of the MAGA movement. The GOP, for good or ill, is Trump’s party now." [think before following links] https://news.yahoo.com/five-takeaways-south-carolina-gop-032128253.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=0_00 The hardest part of me to wrap my brain around (and it's all hard) is Trumps comments about Putin and the Ukraine. Trumps recently reiterated comments that he'd actually encourage Putin to invade any country, let alone an ally, is just so categorically insane to me. It also strikes me as un conservative and un republican? i can still hear Regan saying: "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall." It seems to me the new sentiment is to allow Putin to rebuild it. It does remind me of another war in another era where Republicans were more isolationist, WW2. FDR had to be sideways in his efforts to support the efforts against Hitlers attempt possess and subjugate Europe. To me, Putin has from the beginning copied many of Hitlers strategies, almost like he has Hitlers play book in his back pocket for reference. It wasn't until Japan devastated Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the US (because of Japan), that the US even ventured into the war. i do not understand the isolationist ideals that so many republicans hold. How would a Putin take over of Ukraine possibly benefit the US? Pulling support from a country that wants independence and seems so contrary to American ideals, but even if one takes an "America first' attitude, it still seems against our self interest to encourage dictators to have their way in the world.

Yep... i think with many, "raunch" is often code for feces. To me, his "deflection" would be further evidence of that. i believe 'Scat' is still pretty universally gross and disgusting to most, and he's likely feeling insecure about disclosing that info. i wouldn't include any of the things the OP mentioned as "raunch." Well, maybe strong smells, man musk multiplied? Spit also comes to mind, and some are into vomit. i was at a gay resort in PS a couple of years ago and was playing with a guy. He asked if He could spit in my mouth, and i demurred, that has not appeal to me and strikes me as gross and aggressive (vs assertive). It's obvious to me that my response is emotional when i consider where my mouth and tongue will go and where they have been lol. He sort of proved that when He spat on His cock and offered me the 'package' deal, and i didn't hesitate to put the whole thing in my mouth with desire.

affirmation?

but still has an authentic voiceover. [think before following links] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGOmqfMKhXk

About a half hour ago. my regular FB Who breeds me a couple of times a week for going on 4 years. We're really fortunate, we simply have great chemistry. Usually we're done in 30-40 minutes, but for some reason He was full of fire today. He's a Muscle Guy and pounds hard, so i'm usually gaped and sloppy at about the 15 minute mark, then i fluctuate between conquered and squeezing HIs Cock with my hole. Holes totally sloppy now and will be for most of the night. i don't know, He's super vocal when i'm giving Him oral, but i'm the one making all the noise when He's fucking me... can't help it, so i don't know how much He likes fucking a sloppy hole? So i go back and forth between just giving in and squeezing, giving Him both. We're obviously doing it right, because He keeps coming back and i'm feeling the bliss of having my ass pounded for an hour.

i didn't expect that they would be.

It's a shame this kind of conservative isn't prominent, or as influential as those against gender identity in the Republican party. May i ask what are some of the conservative factors that cause You to choose to be Republican?

You state "I'm not super informed...." i appreciate your honesty and openness, i believe this is a complex topic and i believe oversimplification leads to conflict, not negotiation that leads to compromise. Here's some information and i'd be interested to know your sources when you state what "D" is actually doing and what "R" is actually doing? I.e., substantiation. "Biden's infrastructure law has begun 40,000 projects. ...more than $400 billion in projects has been announced, covering 40,000 projects in more than 4,500 communities in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and Native American tribal areas." [think before following links] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bidens-infrastructure-law-has-begun-40000-projects-will-it-help-him-2024-2023-11-10/ "How Trump's $1 Trillion Infrastructure Pledge Added Up? Donald Trump campaigned on a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. “We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals,” he said in his 2016 election night victory speech. “And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.” ...But the subject “just never seemed to be the priority it was indicated it would be,” Adler said. The Trump administration’s record on infrastructure is marked instead by over-hype and under-delivery. The $1 trillion (later $1.5 trillion) package boiled down to a series of White House budget sketches, proposing to use $200 billion as an incentive for private investors, states and localities to put up the remaining $800 billion. ...“I think we’ll look back on these four years as a missed opportunity,” said Adie Tomer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. “This administration has been a major letdown for nearly all state and local officials and advocates.”" [think before following links] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-16/what-did-all-those-infrastructure-weeks-add-up-to?embedded-checkout=true Comments like this from a presidential candidate do not make me feel the least bit "secure." "Addressing crowds during the rally in South Carolina, Mr Trump said he had made his comments about Russia during a meeting of leaders of Nato countries. He recalled that the leader of a "big country" had presented a hypothetical situation in which he was not meeting his financial obligations within Nato and had come under attack from Moscow. Mr Trump said the leader had asked if the US would come to his country's aid in that scenario, which prompted him to issue a rebuke. "I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'... 'No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.'"" [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447

Some of us live in smaller towns or areas where sex is not as available. Palm Springs is a go too for me, several gay hotels, clothing optional, never have to leave the site if you don't want to. Though half the population of PS is gay lol, so the whole city is great. Ft Lauderdale , to me, is the east coast equivalent of PS. i also have wanted to venture into Mexico, but as a total bottom i have concerns about douching with the water in a country where the water may make you sick. i've read of some guys getting sick that way, so wherever a bottom goes, that should be a consideration.

To me, a Man has two "cocks," His inner cock and His physical Cock. The one that matters the most to me is His inner Cock. His need/desire to penetrate, fuck, orgasm, inseminate are all a part of His Cock, His inner Cock drives His physical Cock, and can make all the difference in the world.

Idk, depends of what Your friend is looking for? Off the cuff, i'd go to a major university that has an arts department dedicated to film/media production and talk to some hungry students pursuing careers and need a project?

"Breeding" is a term used from hetero culture. Like many terms we borrow from straights, there is common meaning, and some meaning that doesn't fit. Like some others, the meaning of breeding goes well beyond the physical for me. Sometimes when i am looking at a Tops profile and Cock pic on a site, i can feel penetrated and bred just looking at His Cock. i'm obviously deeply aware of and into 'mind fuck' (and mind breeding). i think a Man can inseminate another man with more than His physical seed. There's even evidence (from hetero research) that absorbed semen has a bonding effect on the brain. Though i extrapolate and speculate here, i believe that a man can also absorb a Mans planted semen and that it can have a bonding affect the bottoms brain as well. But beyond the physical, i have felt both penetrated and bred by some Mens desire/need/intent. i have felt them plant a part of Their Self in me and have felt impregnated by some Men, even without physical sex.

One of the things i despise about politics in general is pandering for power. Very few elected on either side of the divide are immune, more often than not it seems their compass and tiller follow the wind that fills their sails. People from either 'side' can come up with plethora examples where an elected official does not represent them, even if they voted for them. i sure can. Politics, and people, are not simply blue or red. i really do believe that most politics come down to voting for the person who at least leans towards some of ones individual ideals, and/or against ideals one may find unacceptable, or even reprehensible. i'm not voting for Joe Biden (i think the democratic party could offer better), i am voting against Donald Trump. i wish things were more simple, clear cut. They are not. Since BZ is a largely gay forum below is an offering of evidence substantiating how Biden came out in favor of gay rights... and also notes how he apparently, priorly, opposed them. Biden's length of time in office covers a time span where homosexuality went from being listed as a psychological disorder by the APA in 1973. It's noteworthy that our national (political) legal system took another 30 years to decriminalize homosexuality through a supreme court decision Lawrence vs Texas. It took almost 40 years for that to translate into equal rights. One could argue that Biden was a hypocrite, or one could argue that Biden changed along with society... that he actually was a representative of gay people in this respect. i lean towards the latter. But either way, i have rights today that i didn't have, and he supported those rights at the highest level. "Few living Americans have spent as much time under the cameras of political talk shows as Joe Biden, but no pre-presidential broadcast appearance of his is as memorable as one visit to NBC’s “Meet the Press” ten years ago this week. Biden was asked by anchor David Gregory on May 4, 2012, whether he had rethought his longstanding opposition to same-sex marriage. “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden responded. “Who do you love? And will you be loyal to the person you love? And that’s what people are finding out is what all marriages, at their root, are about, whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.” The world took notice in a way it rarely does when a vice president speaks. Biden told Gregory he was not setting new White House policy, but regardless, what he said appeared to undermine his assertion in a 2008 vice presidential debate that “Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.” Now as the two men sought reelection, Biden had placed the ticket in a vise with no appealing escape. Obama could force Biden to back down from heartfelt comments made on national television. He could embrace the position his running mate had intrepidly staked out first on his own, at the risk of appearing he was following rather than leading. Or he could acknowledge that he was at peace with the idea of his governing partner being to the left of him on the era’s most fraught social issue." [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/06/joe-biden-gay-marriage-00030367

lol, yeah, shoulda been clearer on that one

Maybe i misunderstand Your question? This is what i wrote: "Personally, i don't see Trump as one putting on calculated heirs and acts. i think he's a loose cannon and that he shoots from the hip." i meant i see Trump as a loose cannon at best, not Biden. Possibly a cognitive assessment should be part of any medical examination for someone running for office. i was pretty stupid at age 21 lol. There is a common misconception that age is a cause of cognitive decline. While age is not an uncommon correlation it is not causative. There are 80 year olds who can run circles around 30 year olds and vice versa (consider Professor Noam Chomsky, still an intellectual giant at age 95... i sure wouldn't want to match wits with Him. It's an ageist cultural stereotype.

Sorry, my mind is in a whirl over this election and the general state of the world, so i keep thinking about this stuff and want to put it out there as well as i can, engage, discuss. Social discourse is a factor of social change, so i think what we are doing here is important. One of the dangers i see when society starts dividing into emotionally based generalized groups like "red" and "blue" is i think it helps foster, nurture and sustain the delusion of absolutism. i think one of the ways it does that is by keeping it hidden as a source of extremities like war, genocide, enslavement, etc.. i think strongly held differences and convictions can be a source of individual and social growth if and when we eschew a generalized emotional disposition of absolutism. i think one can be an absolutist anything, religious, political, moral. i think when we lose the ability to say: "i strongly believe_____________, and these are my reasons, but i know it's possible for me to be wrong, so i'm listening (i.e., i am open, not an "absolutist"). That doesn't mean one is without strongly held convictions that motivate one's choices and actions in life, but it does mean one is open to correction, and i think more importantly, open to compromise. It's an ongoing difficult and complex proposition to "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."

^^This^^ (i hope it's okay that i targeted/quoted, what to me, was a central point?) This, to me, identifies a major cause of our polarization that seems to be becoming more extreme in our country. We've reduced ourselves to "red" or "blue," when i suspect the vast majority of us have points of agreement with either side. For instance, this thread was started by a person who identifies as "republican" and "gay." He obviously has that in common with many of us. What i'd like to know and understand is the reasons why those who identify and vote as republicans choose to do so? i'd also like to know and understand their process of choosing what's more important? Clearly, there is a very strong element in the republican party that is anti gay, and i cannot help but assume gay republicans know that, so i'd like to understand what policies gay republicans have that keeps them voting republican? i do not love or agree with everything the democratic party does by a long shot, but as one who has been arrested for being gay and prosecuted as a felon using a 100 year old sodomy law by a republican politician, i know first hand what that kind of policy can mean.

Personally, i don't see Trump as one putting on calculated heirs and acts. i think he's a loose cannon and that he shoots from the hip. I think what we see with him is what we get. But some of his supporters try to present him as calculated, and i wonder if that is why there are intelligent people who support Trump? Because they believe he's not a loose cannon, but a calculated, well aimed gun? Here's an example to me of attempt at reasonable explanation for another 'shot' from Trump which some see as from a "loose cannon" and others explain as a 'well aimed gun' ( using my analogy): "In remarks the Times said were not part of Trump’s planned speech but which did repeat a story he has often told, the former president said: “One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ “I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want. You’ve got to pay. You’ve got to pay your bills. And the money came flowing in.” Amid fierce controversy over remarks the Biden White House called “appalling and unhinged”, another Republican hawk in the Senate, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, told the Times: “Give me a break – I mean, it’s Trump.” Graham, who has vacillated from warning that Trump will “destroy” the Republican party to full-throated support, added: “All I can say is while Trump was president nobody invaded anybody. I think the point here is to, in his way, to get people to pay.”" [think before following links] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/12/trump-nato-russia-comments-republicans

Weirdly, yes. It's not as though there isn't precedent, on both sides, for running and electing a president who has early signs of declining cognitive function. Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Regan come to mind. We know a lot more now about dementia, and it's causes, than we did with either of those presidents. In an acute care setting, like where i work as a critical care nurse, if we are caring for patient with signs of dementia, we perform a test like a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCa) as a first step. With someone in a position of power, like a world leader, there's other more extensive (and expensive),definitive tests, that can be done: CAT, MRI, PET. Each shows different physiological signs that can better diagnose cognitive decline. Even with all those tests though, signs and symptoms are different for each person. It's not a cut and dried diagnosis. There can be waxing and waning. One of the things that delays diagnosis is when one is in a familiar setting, they can go a long time (apparently) functioning from habit patterns. Take that person out of that familiar environment, and the signs start presenting. It's complicated stuff. Some areas of the brain can be just as sharp as ever, while others are not. Memory loss, the ability to recall, is often one of the first signs of decline, while the ability to reason can still be fully intact. All we can do from the outside is play armchair doctor, no one, not even a trained doctor, can make a definitive diagnosis without standardized tests... though, with both Trump and Biden, if they were patients in my care, i'd be ordering tests. To me, Roosevelt, Regan and Biden all present/presented similar signs that would, in my opinion, call for tests for cognitive decline. Trump has similar signs to me, but more outstanding is he also presents with psychiatric signs that i don't see in the other three. i do not wonder about the other three being sociopaths, but i do with Trump. i'd like to see him evaluated and i'd also like to see Biden evaluated for cognitive decline. i think he's a loose cannon at best. But that's me. i think the benefit of discussions like this can be to parse out the reasons behind why and how we vote and choose our leaders. i think it's a mistake to impugn ones character or intelligence because chose Trump or Biden. i think there are intelligent people on both sides and that discussion devolves when we start name calling. Wouldn't it be great if all candidates for political office had to first qualify mentally? i wish that was the case. "If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets." And many of us do "cast nets" (aka "votes"), but only in the stocked pond the power structure dictates.

Excerpt from a (long) article: Who Voted for Hitler "You could say that although Hitler came to power by means of an election and then a negotiation, his success in voters’ and politicians’ minds resulted directly from his willingness to engage in undemocratic, often violent, actions. Hitler served eight months of a five-year sentence for the attempted putsch in 1923. And rather than denigrate him in people’s minds, it elevated him. He was seen for the next two decades not so much as a dangerous criminal, but rather as a man of action. It was as if the people of Germany weren’t looking for a democratic leader after all, but for one who might present them with an alternative to democracy. A Führer, it turns out, could offer the people something they craved very deeply, a sense of totality that embodies democracy by denying it." [think before following links] https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-hitler-nazi-fascism/

From what i can ascertain, rawTOP started this section on BZ on May 2010 with a post tilled: "Post political discussions in this forum" Generally speaking, BZ is a discussion forum that, to me, stands out as wonderfully unique and unusual in the gay community precisely because we can discuss things here that depart from the usual. i , for one, appreciate anyone who will "elaborate on why" when they state a position, be it Top, bottom, versatile, queer, trans, republican, democrat, libertarian, liberal, conservative...ad infinitum. To me, all of those terms are just starting places, labels that need elaboration to determine their detailed contents. Without that elaboration, at best, one gets defined by the reader. i would suggest, even argue, that it is through elaboration that we find common ground that can thwart the polarizing effects of generalizations. Generalizations, catch phrases, are used by unscrupulous manipulators to gain and maintain position and power where very few elite 'win' and the majority on both 'sides' lose. i believe it is through sincere scrutiny and elaboration that we uncover substance, what is real. Open discussion, i think, helps us find causes where we can work together, while oversimplification leads to decisions and actions based on absolutist notions that do not reflect the majority.

i've wondered the same things and think it's maybe a more complex question with influences that are not always conscious? i'm not hyper masculine, but i'm not feminine or stereotypically 'fem' either. For me, wearing lingerie or lace panties is not an independent desire, it's connected to the lust/need of my Top. When a Top sees me that way and it evokes a primal lust in Him, i'm in. When i consider it though, it's not role play or me just doing it for Him, it's responsive, His need/desire evokes something in me, He doesn't make me that way, nor am i just putting on an act for His sake. It's real, but not something i feel or want independently.

my first 'dildo'at age 7 was an enema nozzle, and vaseline was what was in the medicine cabinet as lube for such things. It's all i knew. When i was a teen, it was Vaseline Intensive Care hand lotion (read: whatever was available). In more recent days, i've used Elbow Grease or silicon lubes... or actually, i make it available for Tops. i am usually naked and ass up on my bed presenting for walk in fucking. i have a towel at the bottom of the bed with a couple of containers of lube for Him to use. my sheets are covered with silicon stains, no matter how much i wash them. The last 4 years i have one particular FB Who breeds me a couple of times a week, the last year or so He has gotten away from using lube at all, just sits on the towel unused. He hovers over my hole and lets His spit flow down onto my hole, or He just puts the tip of His cock on my hole and pushes in with nothing. Prepping gets my juices flowing, and they are more than enough lube. Sometimes i think too much? i've inserted a tampon in my hole after i clean out to absorb some of that slippery natural lube thinking it will feel better to the Top if there is more friction? idk, every Guy has individual desire. Also, after so much use, my hole is more designed for penetration than for retention. i'm always semi open and, though i always feel it, a Guy can penetrate me pretty easily in one long, deep thrust if He wants. Lately, my FB just puts the tip of His Cock against my hole and pushes in, much of the time without spit or lube.

i've posted a hetero study on BZ before that looked at the bonding effects of of sperm on the brain. i speculate that, since the colon is highly absorptive, that a bottom who absorbs a Tops semen ends up with similar bonding effects. For me, it's not a desire to conceive a baby, rather it's the bonding effect that i love. Breeding strikes me as a possessing process whereby a Top can sort of possess His bottom by breeding Him. The more He seeds Him, the more He possesses, sort of addicts the bottom to Him and His seed. i don't want a baby, but i think more than that happens from sex, that mating, bonding takes place as well, and to me that is the bigger deal. i don't think my speculation is far fetched. For instance, conquering armies have a history of breeding their conquered armies... men included. There's an assertion of dominance, control, ownership. Though, for me, the distinction ends there. With mating, i like the affection, love factors vs. the force or bullying that happens with war. i see/feel a mix though. i have felt and loved what feels like a pounding by a Top when fucking me, like His thrusting, pounding energy when fucking me is a sort of fucking me into submission.