tallslenderguy

i don't believe there is a standard, one size fits all definition for any of us, that we use labels like "Top, bottom, versatile, Dom, sub, etc.," as a starting place to convey who and how we are, but we can only find out what that means to the individual employing those labels is we ask them, communicate. That said, i wanted to throw it out to the community and get a discussion going on what you perceive and identify as "Top," what does it mean to you? For me, i think the number one attribute i associate with Top is He is a penetrator. That can have a very involved list beyond physical. For instance, i see "Cock" as much more than a penis. i also associate the energy and drive to use that cock as part of the cock as well. In that context, as a bottom, i see myself as having a penis, but not having a cock because i have no desire or need to penetrate another. A close second to that would be i am attracted to a Top's desire to be in control. Not in a forceful or mean way, just that They want to be in control sexually, take the reins, the lead. What got me thinking about this is i have had a FB for about four years. The first couple of years it was all fucking. Then one day He wanted to try sucking me. At first i was hesitant, but i really like the Guy and so i let Him. The one thing that made it okay for me is He just seemed to enjoy sucking me, but has never made me cum that way. i actually like when a Top uses my penis to edge and make me more horny, but then redirects that horniness to His cock and His orgasm. i actually love that. my FB doesn't really communicate well, very quiet despite endless effort on my part to communicate, i've just learned to accept Him as He is. Next, He got to a place where He wanted me to suck Him. i actually really enjoyed this because He was very verbal when getting sucked, tho only time i got much feed back at all. He's a very quiet fucker. So, for me, His verbal expressions of pleasure when i suck Him still felt "Top" to me, even though i was doing all the work. Then He threw me another curve and wanted me to rim Him. i love a Mans ass, but it's typically all a visual thing for me. i have not desire or need to fuck or penetrate, and i perceive rimming as a Top desire/need. But i compromised... which i think is a bad thing in a sexual relationship, i think sex should always be based on mutual desire in order to sustain it, but that's just me. But i like this Guy, so i did it. Long story short, now when we get together about 70% of the time is me giving Him oral, and mostly eating his ass, and the other day he expressed that he wished i would "stick my dick in." I've been feeling that energy from him, that he was wanting me to go further and fuck him, but he finally expressed it verbally. He's young and Bi. i think i'm probably the only guy he's been with sexually and that he's still learning about his sexuality? idk, but despite my clarity all along about being bottom and not doing those things, it's like he just glazes over and doesn't really get what i am saying. i came right out and told him (again for the hundredth time) that i am not wired that way... he just doesn't get it. i told him he needed to find a top, and even suggested i know someone who'd be happy to Top him, but he seemed hesitant, which sort of reinforces my thought that i'm the only guy he's been with. That is an example though. He's one of only a few guys i have ever rimmed, and now i see he is more centered on his hole and that feels bottom to me and i sort of wish i had never agreed to rim him, because now that is mostly what he wants. He always ends fucking and breeding me, but the energy feels different.

i appreciate you sharing your question and perspective, because a lot of gay guys were born in an era or setting where they were conditioned to feel/believe condoms were "the standard." For many gay men, wearing condoms was never the "standard," and didn't really become a prevalent consideration until the advent of HIV and AIDS. All the other STD's were around and prevalent in the gay community prior to HIV, but condoms were mostly a straight thing for preventing pregnancy... not avoiding STD's. I.e, historically speaking, gay men using condoms for sex is the "new standard." Here's an excerpt from and link to a study on the topic (it's old, done in 1993, but still has some relevant info?): One note i didn't think of was the 10% of gays who used condoms prior to HIV used them for "hygiene" not STD's. "Even though the uptake of condoms by homosexual and bisexual males definitely ranks as one of the most dramatic health protective behavioral changes ever recorded, HIV prevention campaigns nonetheless continue to encourage these men to use condoms during anal intercourse. Maybe 10% of gay men used condoms prior to 1980, and then primarily for reasons of hygiene, but 78% of gay and bisexual men use them for anal intercourse by 1987 and were regularly used by 50% of all men engaging in anal sex." [think before following links] [think before following links] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8110858/

i love your response. i see you as part of the solution, and i think you are spot on with this. we struggle and finally find place of self acceptance, only to find the world is still largely the same place, whether it's the gay community part of 'the world' or church, or __________. It's so fascinating, we don't even think about it, but after that struggle of coming to a place of self acceptance, we transfer that self acceptance, then our feelings (more than our cognition) wonder that others have not come to that place of accepting our self. To me, what you express is maturity. As you note, all people experience this, it's not a gay or straight thing, it's a people thing. To me the question and challenge becomes how we respond. For me, it makes me more aware and helps me to see when i am doing this and it helps me keep my eyes open to spot it when it happens instead of just going on automatic pilot.

First off, i'm sorry for the marks and effects "blatant rejections" have caused with you. Truly. Apparently being gay is not a cure for ego or ethnocentricity that leads to such notions and attitudes. i've thought and wondered about this through the years, especially after processing out of a religion that had conditioned me from an early age to think of my gay self as "sick and sinful." i found a lot of gay guys with religious backgrounds end up in a similar religious setting that accepts, and even affirms, their being gay, but still keeps a lot of the same ideas and attitudes. i believe a lack of inclusion can often, though, be traced back to ego/ethnocentricity. There seems to be an almost natural inclination for us to treat our own ideas, notions, feelings as universal reality. Even after we leave Kansas and realize there's a whole other world out there, it often just broadens the scope of our ego/ethnocentricity. And, i think a lot of those centricity's fly under the radar, that our self is not aware of them, that we derive a sense of security from what we feel we know. It takes a whole lot more effort to live with our eyes and ears open, always looking and listening to see and hear what is vs reaching a conclusion and applying it universally. And, as a consequence, we miss seeing and being able to accept and connect with the "bisexual" (or_________), in front of us because we cling to our ego/ethnocentric ideas over what our eyes and ears reveal in the moment. ❤️

i'm a tall skinny white guy, and i like the fact that Kamala is a woman, Indian and Black. For me, it has nothing to do with credibility, but perspective. She will bring diversity and perspective to the office, and i think that's an asset. Credibility is a different topic to me, though i do find Trump to be incredible.

Here's Kamala Harris' family tree with pics, starting with her parents. [think before following links] https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a61676033/kamala-harris-family-tree-explained/

Here's an excerpt from the Rachel Scott interview with Trump where he suggested that Harris is "suddenly black." Scott quoted several of Trumps past remarks, calling him out and asking why black people should vote for him, and he totally deflected the question and called her "rude" for quoting his racist and inflammatory remarks. This is classic Trump, he does not know what it means to be accountable for his remarks or actions. It seems he will say or do anything for power. He has no shame. He shamelessly compares himself to Abraham Lincoln. He has absolutely no boundaries. Link is below if you want to watch the interview. "The Republican presidential nominee made the comments during a sit-down interview in Chicago with three prominent Black journalists at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) annual convention. The more than 30-minute interview began with Rachel Scott of ABC News addressing the “elephant in the room.” Trump’s appearance had divided the conference, and a co-chair had quit after it was announced. Scott challenged Trump with a litany of his past statements. "A lot of people did not think it was appropriate for you to be here today,” she said. "You have used words like 'animal' and 'rabid' to describe Black district attorneys,” she continued. “You have attacked Black journalists, calling them 'a loser,' saying that the questions that they asked are quote 'stupid' and 'racist.' You've had dinner with a white supremacist at your Mar-a-Lago resort. So my question, sir, now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you: Why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?" Trump replied: “I don't think I've ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner.” He went on to call Scott’s question “nasty” and “rude” while touting that he had been “the best president for the Black population since Abraham Lincoln."" [think before following links] https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-falsely-questions-kamala-harriss-race-and-calls-out-interviewer-as-rude-at-nabj-convention-212512988.html?.tsrc=1013&ncid=crm_-1353366-20240801-1&bt_user_id=MkkiN%2Bl3KTAgN8d7m%2FeyeYDlpuOixjgxu51JNmEfgvA4%2FX13q%2BHEer4jebJmy4QQGBsG5ItIealRQ6BAWHX9Ypf0sxOZrdVzoTHwAL5RCxK9MZX4LE2ZHOX70QYoZ64m&bt_ts=1722515544583

Ditto what pretty much everyone else has already said. Clearly, you care about this person, but a healthy relationship involves two parties that each care about the other, so there really is no "relationship" to "maintain" at this point. A clear boundary that you can set with him is no contact unless he decides to get into some sort of rehab situation where he truly wants to quit. i'm a critical care nurse, and we all cringe on the unit where i work when we get patients who use meth... i got one last night a couple hours before my shift ended. They had a cervical collar on, several broken ribs, and a list of other broken bones after getting hit by a train. By their account, they were "running from demons who were chasing them away from Jesus." i've never had a meth patient that could be reasoned with. i my experience, the drug has this consistent effect of making the user hyper-self-centered to where no one else matters. In my experience, you cannot engage or connect with someone strung out on meth, you only exist to be used by them.

What i really love is all of the choices we have... good, descent choices.

i'm increasingly excited and encouraged by the turn the democratic party has recently taken in it's offering of presidential candidates. The more i see of Harris and learn about her, the more i like her. She's both seasoned and fresh, something i think our country wants and needs. And now, i see one of the top possibilities for her running mate is Mark Kelly. Wow. He would round out the ticket beautifully i think. A true and accomplished citizen of our country, yet relatively new to politics and a background that brings some wonderful perspective, and i think balance, to the ticket. Here's some info on him: "Kelly’s third career would not bring much to the ticket. He’s a neophyte politician, a first-term senator just beginning to create a record. Even so, his mind-bending first and second careers as a Navy fighter pilot and a NASA astronaut are his ticket to ride. They earned him entrée to the U.S. Senate in his initial run for office. Kelly fought in aerial combat. He flew multiple space missions. He married a U.S. congresswoman and then devoted his life to her rehabilitation after she was shot in the head and nearly killed. He has become an evangelist for better gun laws and a safer country, even as he owns guns and shoots for recreation. Any of that would seem exceptional, but there’s something more about him that makes him not only a powerful antidote to what ails Harris and today’s Democratic Party, but also makes him a formidable foe to Republicans. His mom and dad were cops. And they have helped set the mood for the 2024 election. This is a law-and-order election that favors the Dad party – the Republicans. We’re tapped out on Mom, who sees every malcontent as victim and every victim as child who must be swaddled and smooched by Mom’s generous big government. We’re done with that. We’re done with all the word play and feel-good therapy. It doesn’t work, for starters. It makes the country more angry and more divided. We can’t afford it, and there are larger problems on the horizon that need our attention. There is no way the son of two police officers from West Orange, New Jersey, is ever going to denigrate cops." [think before following links] https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-doesnt-scare-republicans-090715646.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&segment_id=DY_VTO&ncid=crm_19908-1202929-20240728-0&bt_user_id=C4RLkmcnGyjK347zfz6rIDVdbWOml9OT%2F4QGUDtfsvkhPP7%2BbDqVfAPJ15Lu2Rv%2B&bt_ts=1722177976791

For me, the question of Biden vs Trump was a much more basic question than the bills they support or help get passed (though those are certainly important). To me the choice was whether to have a loose canon vs a secured canon in the White House. From where i sit, Trump is an egomaniacal, power hungry toddler. i don't think he has the desire or capacity to serve. He wants to dictate, not serve. it never ceases to amaze, scare and discourage me that there are so many people willing to put him in power.

Not into self stretching, that's a desire i connect to from a Top, here's a pic a Top took of me after inserting.

It's probably easier to count the number of honest, true claims Trump makes. As of January 2021, according to the Washington Post fact checker, Trump had made 30,573 false claims over four years. Here's just a few. Donald Trump stated on June 8, 2024 in a Truth Social post: Lower insulin prices were the work of the Trump administration, not “Crooked Joe Biden. He had NOTHING to do with it.” By Jacob Gardenswartz • July 12, 2024 Donald Trump stated on June 6, 2024 in a campaign rally: Joe Biden’s immigration order limiting asylum is “pro-child trafficking.” By Maria Ramirez Uribe • June 20, 2024 Donald Trump stated on June 15, 2024 in remarks in Detroit: Crime statistics “no longer include data from 30% of the country including the biggest and most violent cities.” By Louis Jacobson • June 18, 2024 Donald Trump stated on June 2, 2024 in an interview on "Fox & Friends": Joe Biden wants “to quadruple your taxes.” By Louis Jacobson • June 4, 2024 Donald Trump stated on May 10, 2024 in a Truth Social post: “Biden wants to immediately stop all aid to Israel.” By Amy Sherman • May 15, 2024 Donald Trump stated on May 2, 2024 in remarks to reporters: “I’m not allowed to testify” because of a gag order. By Amy Sherman • May 3, 2024 Donald Trump stated on April 16, 2024 in statement to the media in New York City: “This trial that I have now, that’s a Biden trial.” By Amy Sherman • April 19, 2024 Donald Trump stated on April 8, 2024 in a video posted on Truth Social: "All legal scholars, both sides, wanted, and in fact demanded” that Roe v. Wade be overturned. By Louis Jacobson • April 10, 2024 Donald Trump stated on April 2, 2024 in a speech: "Crime is down in Venezuela by 67% because they're taking their gangs and their criminals and depositing them very nicely into the United States.” By Maria Ramirez Uribe • April 10, 2024 Donald Trump stated on April 8, 2024 in a video posted on Truth Social: Democrats support abortion measures that result in the “execution” of babies “after birth.” By Louis Jacobson • April 8, 2024 Donald Trump stated on March 22, 2024 in a Truth Social post: The New York civil fraud judgment against Trump and a plan to seize Trump-owned property “is simply a 'taking.' Much like what is done in communist countries." By Amy Sherman • March 25, 2024 Donald Trump stated on March 16, 2024 in a rally in Vandalia, Ohio: "Your Social Security will be destroyed by the people coming in. There's too many of them. It's not sustainable." By Louis Jacobson • March 20, 2024 Donald Trump stated on March 9, 2024 in a speech: “Biden has implemented a formal policy that illegal aliens who intrude into the United States are granted immunity from deportation.” By Maria Ramirez Uribe • March 15, 2024 Donald Trump stated on March 9, 2024 in a rally in Rome, Georgia: "In February alone, nearly 1 million jobs held by native-born Americans disappeared." By Louis Jacobson • March 12, 2024 Donald Trump stated on March 2, 2024 in a speech: “Eighty-two percent of the country understands that (the 2020 election) was a rigged election.” By Paul Specht • March 7, 2024 Donald Trump stated on February 16, 2024 in a statement to the media: President Joe Biden “directed New York AG Witch Hunt” into Donald Trump’s real estate. By Louis Jacobson • February 20, 2024 Donald Trump stated on January 11, 2024 in a campaign ad: “Haley’s plan cuts Social Security benefits for 82% of Americans.” By Samantha Putterman • January 18, 2024 Donald Trump stated on January 15, 2024 in a speech after the Iowa caucus: “This is the third time we’ve won but this is the biggest win” in Iowa caucus. By Amy Sherman • January 16, 2024 Donald Trump stated on January 3, 2024 in a TV ad: Nikki Haley “opposed Trump’s border wall” and “Trump’s travel ban.” By Maria Briceño • January 5, 2024 Donald Trump stated on December 16, 2023 in a rally in New Hampshire: “They want to make our Army tanks all electric.” By Amy Sherman • December 21, 2023 Donald Trump stated on December 4, 2023 in a Truth Social post: The Lincoln Project is “using A.I. (Artificial Intelligence)” in its “television commercials.” By Loreben Tuquero • December 19, 2023 Donald Trump stated on December 2, 2023 in a speech in Iowa: “With the historic Abraham Accords, I even made peace in the Middle East.” By Amy Sherman • December 5, 2023 Donald Trump stated on November 11, 2023 in a rally in New Hampshire: New Hampshire has “a worse drug problem per capita than any other state." By Amy Sherman • November 15, 2023 Donald Trump stated on November 8, 2023 in a rally in Hialeah: “Just like the Cuban regime, the Biden administration is trying to put their political opponents in jail, shutting down free speech.” By Maria Briceño • November 15, 2023 Donald Trump stated on October 7, 2023 in a news release: "Sadly, American taxpayer dollars helped fund these attacks, which many reports are saying came from the Biden administration.” By Louis Jacobson • October 11, 2023 Donald Trump stated on September 27, 2023 in a speech in Michigan: When I took office, “the auto industry was on its knees gasping its last breath.” Trump administration “tariffs and taxes saved the American auto industry from extinction." By Louis Jacobson • October 5, 2023 Donald Trump stated on July 24, 2023 in a campaign video: “Under ‘Crooked Joe’ Biden, there has been a catastrophic increase in shortages of essential medicines.” By Michelle Andrews • October 2, 2023 Donald Trump stated on September 17, 2023 in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press": The price of "bacon is up five times" under President Joe Biden. By Louis Jacobson • September 18, 2023

i don't think it's actual, well thought out, rational validation many look for or even understand cognitively. i think most of what passes for validation or affirmation is often false. The saying: "image is everything" comes to mind (there was even a clever ad campaign for Canon cameras that used it). We are subtly, and not so subtly, conditioned from early age to behave in a fashion that gets us approval and affirmation. Whether it's who and how we are, i think, often is pushed to the side... or even unknown. Approval, validation, affirmation are often given to a projected image and the real person remains afraid and unseen, unknown. Instead, many live on image approval and validation, which proves unsubstantial long run, because the real person remains hidden and alone. i don't think much of what passes as validation is rational, but emotional and unsubstantial... a fix of sorts, self medication. i know, i'm a ray of sunshine lol. It's a big topic for me because i am forever looking to connect with the real person, to hopefully help them feel safe and wanted enough that they feel free to show me their real self. Not an easy feat. People are afraid, and people often don't even know their hidden parts, or how to articulate them.

lol, yeah, totally get both sides of this discussion. The emotional, sexual side of my brain says: "Cock pic equals Top." The rational, experienced side of my brain knows better. i don't think there is a simple, one size fits all answer to this query. Are there guys out there who purposely mislead, sort of a 'bait and switch' approach? Absolutely!!. Anyone who's been living in gay hook up culture for awhile can attest to this. But they do not represent all gay bottoms. Reality is, there are infinite variations of who and how we are, no two alike, even though we have enough similarities that we group and categorize each other. And profiles on gay sites? They are the bane of my existence lol. i'm one of those guys who writes a book, especially on sites that are (supposedly) geared more towards relationship than simple hookup. But again, we're all different, and even if the site is supposed to be relationship oriented, that does not mean guys looking for a hook up are not going to show up and effect the environment with hook up attitudes and approach. i encounter and identify a broader list of guys online profiles (and this list does not begin to be exhaustive, there is no such thing in an infinite universe, it's just longer). i don't see most profiles as misleading, though they are a definite category, to me, most are simply clueless or purposely hiding for one of many reasons. 1) Guys who have a 'profile' with virtually no information, just a screen name, no pics, profile, not even the little boxes like "Top, bottom, versatile" checked. i'm amazed how many of these there are. 2) Guys who have one of the little boxes ("Top, bottom, versatile") checked, and nothing else. 3). Guys who have one of the boxes checked and a pic 4) Guys who have no boxes checked and a face pic 5) Guys who have no boxes checked, a face pic and a paragraph telling us in broken English that they are "serious," looking for 'the love of their life" or "Ltr." (i'm convinced most of these guys are scammers who all seem to follow the same script). 6) See number 5, but with amazing, sexy pics, the proverbial bated hook. 7) Guys who have no boxes checked, and a short written profile with no pics, saying absolutely nothing of value like: "i never know what to write, ask me anything," (they don't seem to connect that most of us ask questions in response to some form of substance). Or "looking for fun" (with no hint given as to what they consider "fun"). 8). See 7, but a box is checked, may or may not have a pic. 9) Guys with, boxes checked, face and body pics and long descriptive profiles explaining who and how they are and what they want. 10) See 9, but everything except the face pic. 11). See 9 and 10, but the pics are not theirs or the pics are 10 years old.

i'm proud of Biden's decision to leave the race. i do not think it was a cut and dried decision. The fact that He stayed the course as long as He did speaks to His character and strength. His choice to drop out equally speaks to His character and strength. i believe He set His ego aside for the good of the country, yet another sharp contrast to His opponent. i'm also encouraged by the part members of the democratic party played in making the change happen. To me, Biden clearly has the intelligence and background to be president. Just as clearly is His (admitted) frailty. We're talking about one of the hardest, most demanding jobs on earth, a four year marathon. i don't doubt Biden's ability to do the job today, i was less confident about His ability to strongly carry the burdens of this country for another four years. i was fully prepared to vote for the Biden administration. Aging presidents with health issues is nothing new to the highest office in the country. Off the cuff, FDR and Ronald Regan come to mind. Both were in decline the last couple of years of their presidency. Our country survived both, and would likely have survived any issues Biden might have faced. It's time for Trump to do the same, to step down for the same reasons and more. But, of course, that's not going to happen. From where i sit, Trump is, and always has been, all about his ego and wanting power. i don't believe the good of the country has never been his concern. i also do not see the same strength of character or resolve in the republican party. There were members wanting and pressuring Trump to step down, but they clearly did not have the strength or resolve to make it happen. The power structure that supports Trump scares me even more than Trump. Trump wants power and to have his ego stroked, the power structure supporting him wants Project 2025, not Trump.

Glad to read that, nor am i. me eiither. Skin color or family origin are not on my criteria list of potential presidential candidates. Personally, i don't think they should be for anyone. Political agenda, character, intelligence seem a lot more relevant to me.

Here's some info on Kamal Harris for those wanting to round out their knowledge of her. i'm really liking the way she is comporting herself... it's so nice to see someone running for the office with a quick wit. And background in the political arena. i like that she is not a complete outsider, but brings minority perspectives as a woman, black and Indian American. Really feeling positive about a presidential candidate that have not felt in years. [think before following links] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kamala-Harris

You are sure right... at least, for this bottom. i have a FB Who i think is embarrassed by how fast He cums? idk, but He always fucks through it and keeps fucking... or maybe He just cums more than once. i've told Him that it doesn't matter to me how quickly or slowly He cums, what matters to me is that His pleasure is complete. i don't want Him worrying about that sort of thing, i'm connecting to His pleasure and desire/need. i do love it when a Top tells me when He is cumming in some way. It doesn't always have to be with words, as You note, with some it's obvious, but with some it's almost like they hide it and i don't know until they pull out and i finger myself and find Their seed.

It seems to me, on a gay site called "Breeding Zone," "rear mongering" would be a good thing? Sorry, i couldn't resist. Am guessing you meant to write "fear mongering." i do not think i'm a fear mongerer because i see similarities, parallels between Hitler and Trump, and try to parse those out by citing studies or articles that look to identify those similarities. Do i think they are one and the same? No. Do i think there are valid comparisons? Oh yeah. From where i sit, Trump is not as open about his specific goals and agenda as Hitler. Hitler clearly identified the Jewish people as a target (then later added in Gypsies, homosexuals and Jehovahs witnesses?). Trump has identified those people who opposed him as targets for vengeance. i don't see Trump standing for anything specific other than him being in power. His big deal seems more self focused and on getting and retaining a position of power. To me, that makes him different than Hitler. Hitler had some very specific agenda that he implemented once he had power. To me, Trump seems less dedicated to any specific agenda other than having and retaining power. my concern with him is the people backing him, those who help put him in power. i believe as long as he perceives he is in charge, gets his monumental ego stroked, he will implement agenda of supporters, like the religious right and Project 2025, in order to retain his power.

"Again De Berg is alive to rhymes with Hitler. “There were a lot of National Socialists interviewed after the war who said, well, yeah, OK, Hitler was saying all these extreme things but we realised he was a mass politician and we thought that he was just saying things that he didn’t really mean, that he was just exaggerating a little bit. Someone said the demands in Mein Kampf we took as the dogmas in the Bible – no one thought that these things would be fulfilled 100%. “The same is true, dangerously, with the things that Trump says. In his rallies he outlined a whole range of very problematic things that he would do when he was going to be president, but that doesn’t mean all people literally believe that. I don’t think they literally believed that he was going to build this big concrete wall between Mexico and the United States. Many of them thought, unconsciously, what he’s really saying is he will protect America’s traditional identity. “And that – to use a posh phrase – interpretative openness means that both the more extreme followers and the less extreme or ‘moderate’ followers can recognise themselves in the speaker’s words. That made Hitler and makes Trump so difficult.” Trump’s incoherent, meandering and zigzagging mode of speech adds to the effect. “Trump goes from the FBI to a judge to the Democrats to communists and so on. You can then say, well, clearly this guy is an intellectual nitwit, he can’t talk in a logical, argumentative way. He could but he realises that this vague way of tying all these people together actually gives different sections of the electorate different things they can identify with. Some might not like the FBI, others might not like immigrants and so on.” Trump made more than 30,000 false or misleading claims during his four years as president, according to a count by the Washington Post. Perhaps the most egregious is “the big lie” that he, not Joe Biden, won the 2020 presidential election, only for it to be stolen due to widespread fraud. De Berg writes in his book: “The idea behind the concept of the big lie is that if an untruth is sufficiently extreme, people are likely to accept it if only because they cannot bring themselves to believe that anyone could lie in such an outrageous manner. “It was Hitler who came up with the concept, writing in Mein Kampf that ‘the great masses of the people … more easily fall victim to a big lie [große Lüge] than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.’”" [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/03/donald-trump-hitler-similarities

i found it hard to believe when Trump became popular enough to get elected in 2016... i think a lot of people were as shocked as i was. Political movements have a way of surfacing folk who might live closeted lives because of fear, but if someone who espouses similar ideology gains a position of power, closet doors are flung open and we discover an element of our society that truly exists. It sure happened in Germany back in the 1930's and 40's... the parallels seem profound to me.

Seems the notion of increasing volume is an urban legend. For what it's worth, here's a medical source of info with references. What is normal semen volume? According to a 2010 World Health Organization study, which looked at semen volume worldwide, the range of semen volume is between 0.8 milliliters to 7.6 milliliters, and the average is between 3 and 5 milliliters. This amount changes as the male ages, and peak semen volume is produced between ages 30-35, and volume is lowest once men reach 55 years and older. Why do men want to increase semen volume? Most men associate semen volume with fertility, and it has been purported that men who wanted to have more progeny, especially male ones, may have a better chance if they had more semen. Men feel more masculine if they ejaculate more semen and believe it would increase their and their partner’s sexual pleasure. Unfortunately, due to these facts, dozens of companies make the wrong claim that their pills can increase semen volumes. Semen volume and masculinity Masculinity is in the brain rather than in the semen. Although porn stars seem to ejaculate more, more semen does not indicate more sexual prowess. In addition, most of what is seen in porn films may be cameral or angle trickery and may not be accurate. Semen volume and sexual pleasure The volume of ejaculation is not linked to sexual pleasure for the male or the female partner. Ejaculation and orgasm are not prolonged if the penis takes longer to release the increased volume of semen. This claim, thus, is also false. Confusion over sperm count and semen volume Most men mistakenly believe that increased semen volume would mean increased fertility. Sperm makes up only 1 to 10% of semen. The proportion of sperm rise with a more extended period of abstinence from sexual intercourse or masturbation. Is it possible to increase semen volume? There is probably no way to increase semen volume by popping pills. In addition, most men cannot measure their actual semen volume. Some physicians suggest that adequate water and fluid intake may maximize the semen volume, but this “increase” will also be within normal limits. References [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.cambridge.org/ [think before following links] [think before following links] http://sexuality.about.com/od/malesexualanatomy/a/Increase-Semen-Volume.htm [think before following links] [think before following links] http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/semenandsperm.htm [think before following links] [think before following links] http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241547789_eng.pdf [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.news-medical.net/health/Increasing-Semen-Volume.aspx

Benedict Cumberbatch... especially in the Sherlock series where the script flirts endlessly that he's gay and is crushing on Watson (played by Martin Freeman)... it's so much fun and subtly sexy.

Trump is the king of rhetoric, it's pretty much all that comes out of his mouth... and it's obviously effective with his followers. This is an interesting study/analysis of Trumps calculated techniques. Here's an excerpt from the study: "Donald Trump did a “very good” job: A rhetorical analysis of candidate Trump’s campaign speeches" done by Carolin Mohan (link below) "Almost twenty years before Trump’s announcement, political discourse in the United States made a serious shift. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich took office in November 1994 halfway through the first term of President Bill Clinton. During his tenure as Speaker, Gingrich circulated a memo via his political action committee, GOPAC, to freshman Republican representatives. The memo was titled “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and it encouraged the young lawmakers to use words with negative connotations when referring to their opponents, the Democrats. The letter states that “sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast” and that the reader should “remember that creating a difference helps you.” Contrasting words are listed in separated blocks and include word suggestions such as “reform,” “we/us/our,”“building,” “destroy,” “pathetic,” and “greed” (“Language: A Key Mechanism of Control”).). This kind of speak-first, substantiate-later rhetorical approach exploited a loophole in audience reception. Then-Washington editor of The Nation David Corn contends in his 2005 article “Gingrich-izing Public Broadcasting” that the point of the memo was to “turn name-calling into a strategic political tool” (Corn). Today, Gingrich’s strategy can be found at the roots of many politicians’ communication playbooks, most notably that of President Donald Trump. What sets the analysis of these speeches apart from the current deluge of Trump analyses is that I started from scratch. Personal biases aside, and Trump’s eccentricities ignored, I looked only at the words with which the speeches were sculpted by Trump and no doubt a battalion of communications specialists. This is not to say that Trump’s eccentric approach to his speeches is unimportant: quite the opposite. ... candidate Trump’s promise for immediate, opposite, and broad-stroke change was hot and unstoppable. Trump invokes these promises in each of his speeches, including those studied in this analysis. The speeches are surprisingly devoid of sophisticated policy detail, but this is not uncommon. In order to make their policy plans more accessible to audiences that may not understand the intricacies of government functions, presidents have “dumbed-down” their public language over time, according to Caroline Jones in the Brown Political Review. Additionally, perhaps to give his speeches a semblance of coherence, Trump punctuates his strings of simple and often empty language (e.g., references to unsubstantiated numbers, numerous spontaneous subject shifts, shallow dives into these subjects) with powerful statements on virtually every hot topic being discussed within the public sphere. He uses networks of these powerful statements to associate with them different meanings that lean more in his favor, and consequently uses them to invoke this same meaning when he repeats phrases associated with the issues. Examples include several phrases and words that are often picked up by Trump’s rally audiences and chanted, such as “lock her up,” “build the wall,” and “U.S.A.” These chants symbolize different things to different members of the audience; however, under the same name, the audience believes they are of the same mind and beliefs and that these beliefs are factual and valid. In reality, these phrases are merely words that often bear no weight in lawmaking and make empty promises to people that yearn for quick and tangible change." [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/honors201019/632/