tallslenderguy

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.

i tried accessing the article you linked, it does not exist anymore? i think technology has helped create and sustain immediate gratification. Many of the guys online are not there for relationship, they are there to scratch and itch. There used to be a commercial in the US for a fast food hamburger store (Burger King). The whole premise of the commercial was "have it your way... special orders don't upset us, all we ask is that you let us serve it your way...." The commercial was telling people all they had to do was drive through they didn't have to dress or 'prep', even take off their sweats or slippers, just get in the car and whatever they wanted would be magically handed to them as they drove past. my point is, apps and technology cater to and nurture instant gratification. Push a button, get an instant response. When computers first became more common, things like internet porn were in their infancy. Modems were very slow and the porn would buffer every few seconds, "streaming" was not a thing, 'cotius interuptus" was the norm online and cruising locals were still commonly employed in their useful purpose. And really, cruising prior to technological hook-up, also catered to instant gratification. i think it just more often resulted in sex because you had to be there. i used to have a lot of 'cottage' (restroom) sex. There was sometimes a GH, sometimes not. i cannot count the number of cocks that fucked me under a stall wall or through a GH. But i also encountered plenty of guys who were there just to masturbate, some would touch you, others not. I.e, there were all the varities, closeted, uncloseted, and everywhere in between. The difference? Proximity. The people were the same: desires, needs, variety. But we didn't have the ether dividing us, or the ether to overcome? We had to physically occupy the same space, and technology has removed that factor. i don't know that it has to do so much with the age of the person, but rather the age in which we exist?

Wow, just seeing this great conversation, but i have to get ready and go to work... i look forward to being off and joining. Just a quick short: i go to the gym every other day, and consistently am often the only one without a phone and without ear buds or headphones on. Even in potentially social settings, we end up being isolated from each other by technology.

i don't see Top, bottom or versatile as "good" or "bad." i see it as a state of being, part of ones nature. Knowing oneself, owning who you are, being able to be open and articulate. i see sex as a form of communication, connection, and i think it takes two to communicate, connect. That can be just physical, through a hole in the wall, or it can involve opening and connecting souls along with bodies. Chemistry is natural, but it's difficult to realize/experience chemistry when both are not self aware and do not know how to express who and how they are. i think some form of mutual communication is necessary to discover chemistry.

As a healthcare professional on a critical care unit, i have witnessed that easily 85% of the patients we care for on our unit have diseases related to diet and 'lifestyle.' As others have noted, given your rationale, these too would have to be included. The reality is most of these diseases are preventable and caused by what we eat and lack of exercise. i'm talking evidence based stuff here, i have a computer full of published medical journal studies on the topic and have certification through Cornell University on reversal and prevention of disease process through diet. Not pinging on you. Most people have little to no idea about how deadly the Standard American Diet (SAD lol) is. i also have studies on healthy cultures that have progressed and copied the Western diet and now have the diseases to go with it. Thing is, most of us are just doing what comes natural, eating to satisfy our appetite, not for our health. When i tell my patients they can likely reverse their type two diabetes, they light up until i explain why they have it and what foods they love that causes it. Suddenly, insulin doesn't seem so bad or expensive.

When You are writing a reply, go up to the top of Your response frame and you will see a paint brush, click on that and it will give You a whole color pallet to paint with. Highlight the text You want to "paint" and then click on the color.

^^This!!^^ i don't think many guys delve into the psychology behind their sexuality, but i still think it a major factor whether one is aware of it or not. To me, the driving force behind who and how we are is the bigger part of sex. i think there are enough general things we have in common that we end up with general descriptors like "Top, bottom, versatile, Dom, sub, etc.." But i believe those are just labels, that we have to open the individual package to get to the real ingredients. Those may have similar ingredients in common, but no two guys are alike. To me, an advantage of an ongoing dynamic is it lends it self to exploring and getting to know the details of a person. i look at hook up sex like fast food and relational sex as (potentially) a gourmet meal. It's not a perfect analogy, but makes for distinction. Though, having said that, i have experienced some profound hook up sex where the chemistry was so profound the bond was almost instant and strong. But that's pretty exceptional in my experience. i find it usually takes time to get into the deeper layers. For instance, when i try to explain to a potential hook up that "i don't have a cock," and sometimes attach a pic where i'm tucked for visual emphasis, they either think i'm nullo or a transperson. When i further explain that: "yes, i have a penis, but i don't have a "cock," many guys tend to glaze over and take on a "whatever" attitude. Then i lose a big portion of guys when i try to put it in heteronormative terms that: "i'm like a guy with a clit and a pussy." Even if i hasten to add that i am not a transperson or even fem, those words trigger conditioned responses in a lot of guys. Some of my perspective comes from years of being married to a woman (my story is all over BZ, i won't go into detail here) where we were both bottom and sub, but i felt constrained by my conditioning to play the role of a top, even though it went against my wiring/nature. i learned how to do it pretty well because i could relate to her in many ways... not to being a woman, but to being a bottom with some sub thrown in. i'd go down on her clit, but she did not want to cum that way. She'd literally beg me to penetrate and fuck her when she got to the point of orgasm from having her clit used. i can relate. i have a FB Who has been breeding me a couple of times a week for 4 years and He likes to suck on my penis, but never to make me cum. Out of 100's of fucks, He has never made me cum from touching my penis... He just uses it to make me hornier for His Cock. When He first wanted to suck me, i hedged and told Him i'm total bottom... but He doesn't see me as having a "cock" or "dick," He only thinks of it as a means to make and keep me horny for His Cock and His Orgasm... which is perfect for me. my ideal relationship is one where there is one Cock and one hole for it. Only He has seed, only He fucks, only He has an orgasm from Cock use. my seed and orgasm are the ones He plants inside of me.

Speculating here. i experience something similar. looking back, i think i was pretty faggoty as a little kid, but i 'became' more masculine as a survival/coping mechanism. I.e., social/cultural realities caused me to adapt my behavior and appearance. It's the nurture/nature question, which i think is impossible to answer absolutely, certainly not anecdotally. So much of conditioning is under the radar, unconscious. i think a lot of that conditioning, especially if one is older, assigns a lot of attributes to women that result in attitudes and notions that are also under the radar. i think it's those things that you may be "feeling." The makeup and clothes are secondary, they trigger other conditioned feelings associated with them, or with being a woman. In this case, that you are an object (i think the anonymity of GH's cater to objectification?) and (depending on other factors) 'designed/born/created/naturally, etc., " inclined to need/want to be penetrated, fucked and inseminated... all stuff that is culturally associated with women.

Asian, especially Vietnamese and Thai. Mexican. i grew up in SoCal in a Hispanic neighborhood, Mexican is a staple for me.

Ditto those who would not segregate HIV from other forms of disease that we don't question the cost of treating. Personally, i think healthcare should not be a for profit venture. Beef up the NIH and research that result in new treatments can then be produced at cost, not for a profit. HIV PREVENTION DRUG: BILLIONS IN CORPORATE PROFITS AFTER MILLIONS IN TAXPAYER INVESTMENTS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS "...this treatment was developed as a result of investments made by the American taxpayers through the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The problem is that Gilead, the company that now sells this drug, charges astronomical prices. When Truvada was first approved in 2004, Gilead charged about $800 per month, again, for this life- saving drug. Since then, Gilead raised the price of this drug over and over and over and over and over again. It now charges about $2,000 for just one month or about $70 per pill. Think about that, lifesaving drug. In the same period, Gilead has made massive windfalls on this treatment, more than $36 billion in revenues. Let me say that one more time. They made more than $36 billion on this drug alone. How can Gilead do this? How can our system allow a company to take a drug treatment that was developed with taxpayer funds and abuse this monopoly to charge such astronomical prices? This life- saving treatment would not exist but for the research funded by the CDC and NIH. So how can our system let a company charge prices that are so outrageous, making $36 billion while there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who need this drug? " [think before following links] [think before following links] https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20190516/109486/HHRG-116-GO00-Transcript-20190516.pdf {mosads}Truvada costs approximately $6 per month to make, but Gilead Sciences charges up to $2,000 per month to consumers. Unlike HIV treatment drugs, HIV prevention drugs are not covered by the Ryan White Care Act, so there are significant barriers that prevent vulnerable communities from taking the drug.