tallslenderguy

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.

As a total bottom, this question is the bane of my existence when it comes to random hooking up. i find what Tops want is close enough to 50/50 that it's impossible to know and be ready for what a random Top likes. i can be either and, while i feel more bottom/sub when i am smooth, it's not a strict identity thing with me. I.e., i can do either and will happily go with what turns my Top on. Hairy is definitely easier. If smooth, i use hair remover so there isn't stubble and it's silky smooth... but that's hard to maintain. Also, shaving for me i get ingrown hairs, and that doesn't look good at all. i find a little fuzz is easier and softer to maintain. Still looks smooth, and is to touch because it's not stubble. The hairy or smooth question has both visual and a tactile factors.

i believe there are two primary kinds of degradation. One type is generic, general. The vibe is mean, forceful, bullying. i know there are those who want this on both sides of the D/s, Top/bottom dynamic. The second type of degradation is personal, individual, not a one size fits all approach. Your question applies to race since You ask about "words for white guys/caucasion." It's only going to be degrading if race is a factor for him. To me, where the degradation comes in is in his wanting to please You and being willing to do things You both consider degrading in order for You do be pleased. It doesn't have to be mean. As a matter of fact, i believe affectionate degradation is far more powerful than mean or forceful degradation. If You want to include the race distinction, maybe pair it with something else like "boy." The distinction is he is a boy and You are a Man, which in most cultures would be degrading for a grown guy to be considered a boy in a relationship. Maybe pair that with "white boy" and contrast that with what ever color You are "_______ Man."

Yeah.. and our city council meetings are videoed and posted on youtube, which is pretty convenient. Though i've personally talked to my ward person. i think you make a good point about possibly being able to have more affect at a local level.

As i see it, democracy is about restricting and controlling government power. Supposedly the people get to vote for people who represent them and their values. Laws that are enacted and tax dollars allocated should benefit 'the people.' Of course, there's infinite variations of people and we've ended up with two grossly united, polarized groups. The 'choices' we end up with on either side tend to bring out my inner conspiracy paranoid crazy, wondering who's really in charge? It sure as hell isn't "the people" of the republic. i cannot think of a politician i could say actually 'represents' me, or even most of the people i know and associate with. It seems to me most people vote against, not for, a power structure that sort of exercises and maintains a few generally held standards.

i know the comparison to nazi Germany is to often casually used, but i see so many similarities between Trump and Hitler, as well as their ardent followers. That concerns me. If possible, it seems to me that Trump has gone to an all new and lower level in his second campaign. His personality feeds off of attention and approval, and he gets plenty of both. Trump and his followers reflect each other, and it seems the only restrictions they have is whatever they can get away with. To me, that's a scary prospect if they gain power once again. i believe they will be even bolder and more outrageous if they get a second go round.

"HairFuror" is my favorite (so far), apt on so many levels.

Given Biden's lack of support, that doesn't strike me as a "crazy" way to use your vote. Interesting MIT study done prior to Trumps election offers some insight i think: "This study investigated the cognitive processing of true and false political information. Specifically, it examined the impact of source credibility on the assessment of veracity when information comes from a polarizing source (Experiment 1), and effectiveness of explanations when they come from one's own political party or an opposition party (Experiment 2). These experiments were conducted prior to the 2016 Presidential election. Participants rated their belief in factual and incorrect statements that President Trump made on the campaign trail; facts were subsequently affirmed and misinformation retracted. Participants then re-rated their belief immediately or after a delay. Experiment 1 found that (i) if information was attributed to Trump, Republican supporters of Trump believed it more than if it was presented without attribution, whereas the opposite was true for Democrats and (ii) although Trump supporters reduced their belief in misinformation items following a correction, they did not change their voting preferences. Experiment 2 revealed that the explanation's source had relatively little impact, and belief updating was more influenced by perceived credibility of the individual initially purporting the information. These findings suggest that people use political figures as a heuristic to guide evaluation of what is true or false, yet do not necessarily insist on veracity as a prerequisite for supporting political candidates." [think before following links] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5383823/ heu·ris·tic /hyo͝oˈristik/ adjective 1. enabling someone to discover or learn something for themselves. "a “hands-on” or interactive heuristic approach to learning" 2. COMPUTING proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by rules that are only loosely defined. noun (source: Oxford languages)

❤️ i concur with those who encourage keeping an open heart. It seems common, almost the rule, for guys to have inaccessible hearts. i've spent much of my life trying to practice openness and vulnerability. Early on i learned the difference between that and wearing my heart on my sleeve, and it can be a fine balance. To me, living is connecting with other human beings, and i think intimate connection is the greatest, strongest and most intense, rewarding connection/s that we can have. i think part of the suffering we experience from loss of a love bond is because we have unrealistic expectations. i don't know if our nature is wired to preserve the feelings we have with "love" or it's a culturally conditioned expectation, i suspect it's a combination. But it seems to me it's the disappointed expectation that a love bond should last, endure, that hurts us, not the experience of love itself. So, what we need to learn is to appreciate love while we have it vs trying to force it beyond its real lifetime? idk, i'm thinking out loud on this one... not making absolute or universal judgements here, i know it's complex.

i know, it's says so right there in the Bible.

Wow, i think there are some great and thoughtful responses here. i'll throw my hat(s) into the ring as well. Some random thoughts. i think religious belief is emotional, not rational. Oh sure, there's all sorts of rationale used by the religious... they even have a name for it "apologetics," (and there's a lot to apologize for), but i think religions power is emotionally driven. If it's rooted in emotion, scientific education is not necessarily going to undo that. Ethnocentricity drives entire nations to war and killing those who believe otherwise. i think religion is just a form of ethnocentricity that i think also has precepts woven into culture in general, even the parts that claim to be secular. i don't think university and education necessarily trump emotional disposition. One of my sons is literally a rocket scientist working at NASA, the other has two masters degrees, one of them is in writing and rhetoric. They're both brilliant, and both of them disowned me as "rebelling against 'God'" when i stepped away from fundamentalism, came out to them as gay and divorced their mom. In their defense, we home schooled both of them and they were given strong religious roots. i think they are slowly seeing, but it's hard. i was raised fundamentalist christian. i knew i am attracted to males from an early age. At puberty when i put a name on it (homosexuality), it never occurred to me that i could accept being gay. i knew what 'God' had to say about Guys fucking guys, and who was i to disagree? i believed it was a choice. It's way more complex than that, but it took me 40 years to process out of the emotional disposition that those beliefs were not "God." They were peoples ideas about 'God.' Look at some of the comments and see how many allude to the bible as a source of what 'God" or "Jesus" said. The bible is a self authorizing document. We don't accept that kind of authority with other stuff, but somehow, the bible often gets a pass as an authoritative resource when quoting guys like Jesus. We say "Jesus taught love," but we're basing that on what a self authorizing book has written in it. Not only are the many denominations of Judeo-Christian based on individual peoples read of their scriptures... the scriptures themselves are individual peoples writings. Say this stuff to a fundamentalist (fundamentalist anything), and watch them glaze over. Or, vehemently insist that you just don't see. Because, it's not a matter of belief based on rationale, it's conditioned emotional disposition rationalized.

Many of us (most?) grow up in cultures where straight is the expected default setting for everyone. Cultural norms and expectations are only a reflection of who and how some are. There are tons of people in relationships they got into because that's how things are supposed to work. How we've been conditioned to believe life should be often does not aline with reality. i'm speculating, but it's possible your wife may have married you and had sex as part of the paid price for admission to get some of the other elements that marriage includes, and you may have done the same. Not necessarily purposely or consciously, like it was planned. Many of our decisions (i think most) in life are not based on rational knowledge and understanding of our needs and wants, but based on how we feel. Typical: Q: "Why'd you get married." A: "We fell in love." Who ever enters a relationship based on identifying mutual needs/desires that make the relationship compatible and sustainable? Nah, we enter marriage contracts base on something we "fell" into lol, only to discover once we are committed that "falling into" is a tenuos (at best) foundation on which to build or maintain a relationship.

Neuroplasticity is complex and an emerging science... so i'm speculating. Since the brain is connected to our sex drive and function, i figure neuroplasticity also figures in. The brain can form new neural pathways to accommodate demand and need. Also, new pathways can be formed working with existing ones. Sort of like exercising muscles, lifting weight, makes the muscle bigger (if only it worked that way with the cock?). When pleasure centers are involved, there's the added 'trigger' of wanting to repeat that pleasure. For instance, we know that sugar lights up the same area of the brain as cocain does, so their can be a similar addictive response to repeat that pleasure. Speculating, i 'd think that Top or bottoms would both experience strengthened neural pathways for their particular position. i don't think there would be a discriminating factor between the two? Yes, we are born with neuroplasticity. A newborns neuroplasticity is enormous, new pathways grow at leaps and bounds. What more recent science has discovered is the ability of the brain to build new pathways does not go away with age, it is not as substantial, but it is still there. Sorry it took a bit to reply... working yesterday and today, so catching this before i leave for work.

i don't think there is evidence that can definitively prove one is "born a bottom." Who can even remember back to birth lol? i get it though. As far back as i can remember i've been bottom. Is there a physical, brain factor that makes us bottom? idk There are definitely psychological factors for me. i also believe that the more i have bottomed, the more that has been reinforced in me? i suspect neuroplasticity plays a part, that the pleasure response i have to receiving a Mans cock gets triggered and exercised every time i get fucked and those neurons multiply and become stronger in my brain reinforcing my being bottom. It doesn't matter to me though, i love the dynamic of opposites and love those who 'feel' like they were born Top, whether They can prove it or not is not an issue for me, the fact that They want/need to put Their cock, orgasm and seed in me is what evokes the craving bottom in me.

"The video, which Mr. Trump first posted to Truth Social last Friday and then played before taking the stage at several rallies in Iowa over the weekend, is called “God Made Trump.” In starkly religious, almost messianic tones, it depicts the former president as the vessel of a higher power sent to save the nation." [think before following links] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/us/politics/trump-god-video-pastors-iowa.html

Just left. Have been fighting the flu, mostly over it but still have the cough. Didn't matter, still wanted Him badly when He texted me. Good 40 minutes of hard, raw sex. i love every square inch of His body, so my mouth was all over Him for at least 15 minutes, then He flips and pounds me the rest of the time. Sometimes i can tell when He comes, others i can't till after, He always leaves me cum sloppy. When He's done, i always feel worked over, pounded. it's an awesome, totally worked, relaxed feeling. in 4 years of couple of times fucking, i have never come once with Him, which is perfect by me, His orgasm in me leaves me so fucking satisfied.

Just wow.