BootmanLA

Curious about your source for the poz guy living to be 100 years old. I'm not saying it's impossible, but...

In practical terms, there probably isn't much difference in more than 95% of cases. But speaking for how things actually work out, bisexual typically means "cisgendered" people - you are a man who likes men who have identified as male since birth, and women who have identified as female since birth. Pansexual would include transgendered individuals - accepting partners who are male but who were born with a vagina, or female but born with a penis and testicles. Pansexual people also tend to be more open and accepting of individuals like demisexuals, who need emotional attachment in order to feel physical/sexual interest (many people, both straight and LGBT, don't have the patience for demisexuals). Pansexual people, in my experience, are more open to ideas about gender and sexuality that are less mainstream. That's not a definitional difference; just a practical one that I've observed.

This right here renders most of your opinion moot and pointless, not because non-Americans can't have opinions about our government, but because you're unlikely actually reading any significant amount of real, factual news about our elections. Where to start with this ignorance? First, it's not just "a vote" in both houses of Congress. It requires a majority vote in the House to begin the proceeding and a 2/3 vote in the Senate to actually remove the official. Second, neither party has held 2/3 of the seats in the Senate since 1966, so anything likely to be decided on a party-line vote (as most impeachments now would be) is doomed to failure no matter which party has a (slim) majority in the Senate. Third, no Supreme Court justice has ever been removed for "political bias"" at all. Never happened. In fact, the only justice ever impeached by the House was Samuel Chase in 1805, and the Senate voted NOT to remove him. So your education is apparently as faulty as your logic and reasoning, such as they are. "People" didn't elect Trump, because he didn't get even a plurality of the people's vote. The Electoral College of the U.S. - a body of 538 individuals - selected Trump as President because we have a stupid, antiquated, ignorant system for choosing a President that is used virtually nowhere else in the world, and it's politically impossible to change it. As for your phobia about a religion, well, maybe that's what's scary to you. It's not scary to most people. And if anything, it was Trump's attacks on Hispanics, south of our border, and not his nutty idea to shut down Muslim immigration, that got him the bigot vote, of which you seem to be so proud. What's going on is the corruption of our political system, where states that are sometimes just barely Republican majority in terms of voters rig their voting districts so that their congressional delegations are 3/4 Republican or more. What's going on is the afore-mentioned insane Electoral College system we have, which keeps selecting Republican presidents despite the Republican candidate getting hundreds of thousands or millions fewer votes than his Democratic opponent. What we have, in other words, is a political system that does not actually recognize the will of the people in choosing its representatives - and that's without considering the antiquated, malapportioned, disgracefully un-democratic Senate.

Rape isn't about sex. It's a crime of violence. Calling rape a "sex crime" is like calling someone who assaults you with a shovel a "yard tool crime" - the point is the violence, not the means chosen. Now, the sex part is relevant, in that it's designed to humiliate, and to control a very intimate aspect of the victim's life. But again, it's not about "sex" or "sexual orientation" (gay vs straight). Straight people can be raped; gay people can be raped; bi people can be raped; asexual people can be raped; pansexual people can be raped. It's completely off-track to wonder about the orientation of the victim or the perpetrators (with the sole exception of when and if the victim was chosen specifically because of his/her orientation). And idiots wondering whether he was gay or not doesn't do anything to help him.

To clarify: I don't think there's anything wrong with messaging people who send a wink/oink/nod/woof/growl. The problem comes when one expects a response to the message and when one gets outraged when no reply is received.

I repeat my comment from earlier in the thread: sometimes a wink/oink/nod/growl/woof is just a general compliment, nothing more, and expecting/demanding it to mean more is a fool's errand.

Here's the thing, though: most representatives in government assume that they'll never get caught up in the laws they pass. They're generally happy to pass restrictions on behavior (by wide margins) and then proceed to break those restrictions themselves because they don't think they'll ever get caught.

I know plenty of high schoolers who could easily save up $100 from a single paycheck. $1,000 would take a few weeks, perhaps a few months, but it's still not out of range. Secondly, a LOT of porn consumers are not about to go down to their post office with ID and demonstrate to the government that they're purchasing porn. Aside from the general privacy issues involved, who's to say the government wouldn't keep a record of all such transactions, and if later these flash sticks are de-legalized, going after those who have them? Add in that many modern internet devices, including most tablets and phones, can't use flash drives. Most importantly, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

I get the sentiment, but things move from the "free" to "paid" categories all the time. Air for your tires at gas stations used to be free, until they realized people would pay 50 cents or more for the ability to top up a tire's pressure. Pay toilets used to be a big thing but have largely moved to a free (if restricted access) model for most businesses. There's a cost to delivering porn on the internet, in terms of servers, bandwidth, and the like, even before we calculate whether performers get paid or not. Those costs get covered somehow - frequently by advertising, although the "fans" model is gaining traction. Still, one way or the other, "free" comes at a cost, to someone, somewhere.

No more condescending than your declaration that this is "unnecessary". It's not your, or my, place to determine what the site owner thinks is necessary, especially on an issue that has been extensively discussed with him in multiple threads in this forum. New members have limited privileges, for a reason, and while the details of those privileges may change periodically, the overall concept isn't going away. As for the second statement I made: I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. The site's owner has determined that it's a good thing - and very much intended - that relatively new members have limited ability to interact with the site except by posting, which is a substantive way of proving one's bona fides for membership. I can't imagine why you think that this is "unintended" or that deterring potentially malicious behavior is a bad thing.

I think it's the prerogative of the site's owner, not random relatively new members, to decide what is "necessary" and what is "unnecessary". And I suspect the site's owner has also determined what sorts of deterrents are intended or not.

The problem isn't where the data is housed. Most attempts to ban porn (of whatever type) online aim to restrict the residents of X from accessing such content regardless of where it's housed, and because the website is "sending" the material into that jurisdiction, it's theoretically subject to local laws (to the extent such laws are constitutional, that is).

Honestly, these are medical training questions that should be addressed with your professors. Nobody here is likely to have a relevant, informed opinion about whether patient #1 might or might not hurt his mother, and nobody here is likely to have a relevant, informed opinion about the experiences of patient #2.

Here's the thing. There are apps like Grindr and BBRTS (and Scruff and Growlr and Adam4Adam and Recon and half a dozen or more others) that are heavily oriented towards personal connections between members (aka "hookup" apps). There's no way to say X is better than Y in this group of apps, because each has its own group of members, and for person A, the choices on X are better but for person B, the choices on Y are better. These things vary by region within a country as well as from country to country or continent to continent. But you almost always have to start with something like this - even if it's something popular only in the area/region you're headed - because this kind of app does the sorting and finding for you - typically by having profiles that are searchable. Something like Twitter, which is a general purpose communications app that is being used (by some) for sex-related stuff, is likely to have a much lower "success rate" because it's simply not designed for, say, finding profiles of versatile gay guys between 30 and 45 in X city. It's just not built for that. In addition, a huge portion of the sex-related content on Twitter is just promotions for OnlyFans and JustForFans sites and the like; but even the people who are simply somewhat exhibitionistic with no fan site to push are (in my experience) seldom looking just for a hookup - they want the attention that comes from a popular account, but they don't actually (for the most part) do much of anything with their fans, unless it's someone willing to do "content creation" with them. As you note, a lot of these apps are general purpose communications apps - Telegram, WhatsApp, Line - that may be useful for communicating once a connection has been made elsewhere. But they're essentially useless for finding potential partners for play or otherwise. They just are not designed - and have no useful features - for finding people to connect with unless you already have established the connection elsewhere. Think of them as like a private cell phone number you can share with anyone you meet elsewhere.

I think, for what it's worth, that most online users consider "oinks" (and, depending on the site, growls, woofs, taps, etc.) as not conversation, but more akin to catching someone's eye across the bar and smiling/nodding/otherwise acknowledging them. Sometimes, that can be the start of an actual conversation (whether online or in real life). Sometimes, it's nothing more than a casual flirting acknowledgment. Like so many things, context is usually lacking online that one might otherwise get in the real world. If the guy kept stealing glances at you, for instance, or otherwise catching your attention and signaling an intent to engage (in whatever), that's different from someone who smiles at you across the room but then focuses on other people and things. It's not the only, or first, way in which online contacts lack something compared with their offline counterparts. I'll also note that I sometimes woof/oink/growl at guys who are in a city or region I'm planning to visit, even if I'm not there at the moment. I may do the same for someone local even if there's no way I can meet up with him soon. (I do try to avoid doing that with anyone whose profile suggests that when they're online, they're looking for "NOW" - so as not to be accused of leading someone on.) So - accept it for what it is (presumably, a compliment). And recognize that having complimented you isn't an obligation on his part to do more.

Sadly, in this country, the only "right" that the right-wing considers absolute, unequivocal, and not subject to any limitations is the right to own and carry guns. Anything else is a right that is subject to restrictions, like free speech, free press, free association, and so forth (in the view of so-called "conservatives").

The fundamental problem is that (some of) those who want to protect children see no problem with erring on the side of blocking legal content for adults - in other words, if it comes down to a system that blocks everything potentially harmful to children from them, even if that system also blocks legitimate, legal content for adults, they're perfectly okay with that system. The problem, of course, is that such a system raises huge first amendment problems. When such systems are proposed, it's hard to rally opposition because the right wing has no problem labeling all such opposition as "pedophiles" and "groomers". It becomes a battle very few people are willing to fight. And even politicians who know better, who know it can't work the way they're proposing, will vote for it because there's literally no value in voting against it. If you oppose it, even for good reasons, you're targeted as anti-children, anti-family, and so forth. Especially this is a problem for prosecutor-types, many of whom know that these laws won't do much to solve the problem at hand but which cannot, politically, be opposed.

I don't think anyone but you could give an authoritative answer as to what the best "anything" is for you. Certainly, there are specific features which may be desirable to most people, but even then, if a particular feature means little or nothing to you, then it's irrelevant. My car has a sunroof. It's not something I ever use, so for me, it's meaningless. But for someone else, it might be essential. It could be, if you plan to use this in conjunction with a partner. Do you? If not, it's not a relevant feature. If you do, it might well be worth the dollars. The whole point of interchangeable dildos is so that you can use one that suits you. If you have an idea of what size cock you enjoy getting fucked by, start with that. It may be that if you use the machine regularly, you find that a steady fucking by that size is too much to handle - or conversely, you may get so accustomed to it that you want something larger eventually. You can always up or down size. Mine was custom-built by a friend, so I can't speak to particular brands. I would approach this the way I would approach buying an appliance with which I had little experience: compare a number of options, avoid both the low and high ends of the spectrum, and then hope for the best. Both are legitimate concerns. Sometimes machines will have noise ratings (in dB). But bear in mind that as long as you don't have it running for, say, hours on end, there's nothing stopping you from throwing a thick quilt over the motor section to help muffle the sound. As for "walking", get a silicone rubber mat to set it on. That should stick to a hard surface floor (wood, tile) or at least slow down any movement on carpet. And it may dampen any vibration sounds from the motor as well.

As an observer of the process, I would at least note the following: 1. "Reacting" to a post does not simply affect you (as the person reacting). It also affects the person who posted the information to which you are reacting. So, for instance, if you make a post, and I react with an "upvote" or a "like" to your post, that (internally to BZ) affects your status in certain respects, boosting your reputational score. 2. If the ability to react were unlimited, once a member gains that ability, he could go on to dramatically change the reputational score of anyone else, for better or worse. 3. And that, in turn, could open the floodgates for spammer-type activity across the site. Imagine these scenarios: 1. A determined malcontent reaches the ability to react to members. If his ability to react is unlimited, he could target a member (or members) with whom he has a beef, and use that person's profile to pull up every post he's ever made - and then downvote each post. If he creates two or three separate accounts with different handles, and repeats this process, the targeted user could go from a solid (and well-earned) reputational score to a much lower one in a heartbeat. That could, in turn, limit his own ability to interact on the system, and unless he knows to look, he may not even notice; if he does notice, he may have no idea why he suddenly can't do as much as he once did. 2. A determined disrupter creates an account (or two or three or more) and nurses each to the point that they can "react" in unlimited fashion. In turn, each one "likes" or "upvotes" every post by the other accounts involved, and very quickly the disrupter's accounts rise in ability to the point where the limits, if any, are meaningless. And then, when he's ready to cause whatever disruption he's got planned, he has multiple accounts with extensive posting privileges at his disposal. The essence of the current system is: prove yourself, before you're given much power. That's not an unreasonable approach given the sensitive nature of this site.

You've done your part - you conveyed the news to him. His response - ghosting, seeking treatment, whatever - is on him, you can't control it, and it's not worth expending any effort on, even the mild effort of being annoyed.

Don't assume I'm going to be disappearing. As RawTop suggests, there are options out there.

Please itemize those provisions, instead of merely making unsubstantiated allegations that they exist. In fact, in relevant part, the act says "Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law." It further states "Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action." That's about as iron-clad a protection for the "free exercise" clause I can imagine, unless you think that "free exercise" means that public officials can refuse to perform their job duties (for example, county clerks refusing to record same-sex marriages) on the grounds that it's against their religion to do so. So please - do detail for us the "provisions of this law" that "usurp the 'free exercise' clause." I am not sure why I should feel the need to be "intellectually honest" when several members of the current Supreme Court are anything but that, themselves, but even so: let's look at the central holding of the Dobbs decision you seem to think was correctly decided. The majority believes that for an unenumerated right to be recognized under the Constitution, it must have been "deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition;" intellectual honesty would require that interpretation of enumerated rights be viewed with the same lens. Indeed, the right wing of the Court specifically looks at the Eighth Amendment through that lens: if the founders' generation would not have considered a punishment cruel or unusual, in their view, we can't either. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, despite its clear implication that it's meant to be viewed in the light of an official militia, and despite the fact that high-powered weapons (of the day) were most definitely NOT allowed to be in private hands, the so-called "conservative" majority on this Court ignores history, ignores the text, and carries out its goal of allowing people to possess almost any sort of weapon they want, under almost any circumstances. Marriage has been recognized as a right since at least 1923, when the Supreme Court held (in Meyer v. Nebraska) that the Due Process Clause protected an array of rights - among them, the right to marry, establish a home, raise children, and so forth that had long been recognized under the common law. Meyer wasn't even about marriage, itself; the Court merely noted that it was long-established that such rights were protected under common law, and as such protected by the Due Process Clause. And even at the time, not all marriages were religious in nature; non-religious, civil marriages (not some bullshit second-class "civil unions") were recognized under federal law since the early 20th century at a minimum, and in many states long before that. So for at least a century, your statement that marriage is only a religious ceremony has been false. If there is no substantive difference under the law between how these "civil unions" would be treated compared with "married heterosexual couples", then there is also no reason to use different terms for the two. Calling one item a square and the other an equilateral rectangle - when they are, for definitive purposes, the exact same thing - serves no purpose whatsoever. And if they need different names because they are not, in fact, under the law, identical, then you have an equal protection problem.

Individual members cannot create "things" at this level. At the top level, there are what I call "Categories" - the broadest category level on this site. Those are things like "Reading Material" or "Bareback Porn" or "General". "Regional Hookup Forums" is the relevant category there. Members cannot create new categories like this. Within a "Category", there are "Forums." So within "Regional Hookup Forums" there are forums for several cities with large gay populations (and presumably, more BZ members), then forums for various regions of the United States, then Canada, and then moving on, to other continents. Members cannot create new forums like this, either. WITHIN a forum, members can generally create a new *topic* (see below). Within any particular forum, there may be "Subforums" - so, for instance, within the "United States: Texas" forum, there are subforums for "Dallas Metro Area" and "Austin Metro Area" and "Houston Metro Area". If a subforum exists that is relevant, BZ members can post within that subforum, rather than just within the larger forum. So a post about hooking up in Fort Worth, which is in the Dallas metro area, would go in that subforum, but one about hooking up in El Paso would go directly within the "United States: Texas" forum. That said: members cannot create new "subforums" either. At the bottom level, there are "topics" - also known as threads - where someone makes an initial post about something, and others can reply to that post. A "topic" or "thread" is the ONLY level of classification that ordinary members can create. For anything higher than that, the question is not "How do I...." but "I think a Forum/Subforum covering ABC region" would be useful for the members; would you be wiling to create it?"

The fact that they don't show their faces suggests that either (a) they have sensitive jobs and don't want to be associated with porn, or more likely, (b) their cock is the only physically redeeming aspect of their entire corpus. There are just not that many high-level lawyers, doctors, and so forth with 9-10 inch dicks who'd be professionally ruined if people knew what they had in their pants. (B) is the more likely answer in most cases.

Because topping for fucking is work. If a guy is fucking and he starts to lose stiffness, he may well lose the ability to keep penetrating, and then he's got to mentally go through the work to get himself hard again. Even soft cocks can be sucked, and even soft cocks are sensitive enough to enjoy getting sucked. The top has nothing to worry about except sitting back and enjoying himself. Moreover, unless the bottom has no gag reflex, it's quite possible for even an average cock to present a challenge to suck well. Such a top can hear the gagging sounds and imagine he's hung a lot better than he is. Unless the bottom's exceptionally tight, an average thickness 5"er is not going to find any obstacles in an average man's ass - especially not an American's ass, home of the 32-oz "medium" soda.