Breedmymancvnt

Without wanting to confuse the issues for my American friends, I suspect I may do precisely that since I'm an Australian and, although we are incredibly alike Americans (and very fond of you too...if a little exasperated with you too at times), but politics is an area where (for all of our similarities) we have some quite substantive differences in perception, philosophically, and in nuance. One of those nuances, perhaps, is that we use certain terms for the opposite of what Americans use them to describe. However, as one who is both active in, and highly interested in, politics both of the domestic Australian kind and internationally so find the subject irresistible. First, you may be pleased to know that, even though I'm very pro-US (even for an Australian), I seem often to frustrate both sides; indeed, sometimes am angrily warned to mind my own business and not presume to express opinion on the issues of import in US politics. This, I must admit, usually (in fact, always I think) happens in relation to only one issue: gun laws. Ironically, that is one issue on which I comment only if one of two circumstances arise: (1) if an American invites me to do so; or (2) if the discussion misrepresents Australia's gun laws. To address the question in the OP, I am of the right wing. In Australia, the main right-wing party is the Liberal Party (hence my lengthy explanation above) while the main left-wing party is the Labor Party; both fall mainly in the centre (as they used to be in the US too!). While Australians are less religious than Americans generally, the Liberal Party is a 'broad church' of social conservatives, economic 'dries' (monetarists or economic neocons), pro-business advocates, libertarians (in the American sense of the term, not the French) and plain old garden variety conservatives. The only sense in which I am "conservative" is "fiscal conservative" in precisely the same sense that C10H15N uses it. I do not consider myself a "social liberal" though; first, because the term doesn't really make sense in Australian terms (although, oddly, we use the phrase to describe the same people you would use it to describe...such is the level of American influence on our lexicon...remember, I am considerably both more political and more linguistically precise than the average Australian). Secondly, I advocate Government to be as small in size as possible and intervene only as much as is necessary to do those things citizens cannot do for themselves. I describe myself as a libertarian and, I strongly argue, apply the principle of small Government and interference only when necessary consistently across both economic and social issues. In Australia, we are still engaged in the same-sex marriage debate with a plebiscite in the next term of Parliament to decide the issue. Without trying to offend or be seen to be cynical, I argue the SSM debate, both in Australia and in the US, is a perfect illustration of how many on the right argue for less Government interference economically yet call for more Government regulation (to retain it at least) on the issue of SSM. Those of the left often argue for greater Government control over aspects of the economy, yet (quite correctly in my view) argue that Government has no role in preventing two consenting adults from defining their relationship as they see fit. Many SSM advocates, however, then go a step further which, in my view, is a step too far: they argue against the 'right' of people of faith to oppose same-sex unions on principle and suggest that anyone holding such a view must be a bigot. While most accept that churches ought not be forced to sanctify same-sex marriages if they object to doing so, some do not and many more would consider it discrimination if a person of faith declined to service a gay wedding ceremony; I do not provided it is not done with any vilification of the couple. That, to me, would be an overreach of Government. Even though I am an atheist myself, I respect others' right to hold opinions contrary to mine and to worship in accord with their conscience. To me, just as it would be wrong for them to vilify me as a Godless sodomite (or whatever), it would be equally wrong to vilify them for their beliefs...and even more wrong to hold them to account under law for doing nothing more than quietly exercising their faith. So...perhaps now you may be beginning to understand why I irritate both sides of American politics. Frankly, the religious wing of the Republicans would make it very uncomfortable for me to 'support' the Republicans yet I tend to favour Republican positions in foreign affairs (especially; collective defence being an example where individuals cannot protect themselves) and economically, although I'd strongly suggest both US parties are either largely fiscally illiterate or irresponsibly cowardly and cynical in regards to the US deficit. To be honest, i regard President Obama as probably the least qualified man ever to be elected to the Presidency and overall a weak President...were I an American, I would have voted for McCain (yet teared up when watching Obama's victory speech in Chicago; I have studied US history quite intently and one only had to have a vague understanding of it to be moved by the faces in the crowd that night) and have kept the recorded speech on my HDD to refer to occasionally. I must admit I really did not form a view in 2008; I really was unable to warm to Mitt Romney but did think he was treated appallingly by the media in that campaign. Having said that, it was always clear to me that Romney was the Republicans' least worst option for the nomination. Despite my overall view of President Obama being closer to negative than positive, I side with him strongly on the two issues which, it seems to me, most clearly delineate the Democrats and the Reoublicans in Obama's term On gun control, not only do I consider the American weakness on gun laws completely misguided, it honestly saddens me a great deal. The influence of the gun lobby on thr American body politic amazes and alarms me but, as much as I loathe to admit it, I surrendered any belief that the US can change on that subject after Sandy Hook. Obama, to his eternal credit, not only has refused to concede the argument and, even more critically, to concede the principle. I personally find his words and his demeanour after every mass shooting admirable. He maintains his dignity and the sadness he conveys over his impotence on an issue he dearly wishes to address is genuine. But what I admire most is how sparingly direct he is with Americans over who is to blame. Even though he cannot run again, it takes political courage to be as direct and as frank as he is with the electorate. As an aside, it has been fascinating as an Australian to observe Americans on this issue since Obama drew the (indisputable) success of Australia's gun law reform to the attention of the US public as a precedent worth following. John Howard, Australia's very conservative Prime Minister at the time of the Port Arthur massacre asked the then Leader of the Opposition Labor Party, Kym Beazley, to join him to campaign for tighter gun control. Against vociferous opposition from a small minority of boys and girls who liked their guns, they succeeded. Howard publicly acknowledged that Beazley could have ended the Howard Government had he decided to play cynical politics on the issue. He thanked him for that and has called the suite of legislative changes "the Howard-Beazley reforms" ever since. (Don't worry, such bipartisanship is as rare in Australia as it is in Washington DC.) But John Howard was attacked to his face by members of the NRA (having accepted their invitation to speak to explain his reforms; they presumably expected him to admit it was an error in hindsight because, when Howard instead explained that the reforms had succeeded on every measure they were designed to address and that the NRA was misleading Americans by suggesting otherwise), the audience ended his address early, accusing him of being "a traitor to conservatism". In the magical land of Conservativia, apparently one must wear a gun proudly even to bed,and one must never, ever admit it if they forget...so little kiddies can never, ever sense that they may be able to breathe if they're not always bearing arms! I myself have been warned repeatedly against my presumption to interfere in US politics, most recently by an invited guest at a policy forum of which I am a longtime member. In Melbourne, Australia, my home town if you were wondering. And "interfering", by the way, is defined as seeking to correct incorrect statements of fact; as querying what seemed to be logical non sequiturs in his position; and, finally (when we'd both long since become quite annoyed by the sight and sound of each other), asked how - in view of what he declared his most 'compelling' argument being that "most gun massacres in the US take place in declared 'gun free zones' " - had defined the said zone for his statistical analysis; was it a state? Or a city? Perhaps a defined region such as, say, New England? As I still had no response, I suggested "a kindergarten perhaps?" Suffice to say, he was not pleased. Nor was the moderator. Nor did I he ever respond. The second issue is 'ObamaCare'. Please do not misunderstand me: I do not consider Medicare, Australia's centralised, universal health insurance system even remotely close to perfect. There are many things I'd seek to fix tomorrow if I could; just the first one being the lack of a price point for patients is an incentive to overuse the service. That is one reason the increasing costs of the scheme threaten to swallow our Federal budget (though having our budget deficit and our level of net Government debt is an issue the US cannot even aspire to at present) but, given the choice between needing to trim the cost now and then, or accepting that the poorest 40% of the citizens of the wealthiest nation on Earth struggle for access to even the most rudimentary levels of health care which contributes to the US having a much lower life expectancy than, among others, Australia and Mexico. In that context, I cannot conceive how ANY American could think that could possibly be acceptable.

Sure. Message me and we'll find a way.

I have an enormous BB porn collection downloaded from sites like Sean Cody, Corbin Fisher, Chaos Men...and many, many others. Must admit: I have become quite partial to amateur BB porn (with Post Him becoming a virtual addiction!). I have been cataloging it recently with a view to sharing some; what's the best way? Is there a 'porn exchange' anyone trusts without risking viruses?

Mate, I first got fucked when I was in my mid-20s by an escort and his boyfriend. Bare. After that, most of my experiences were bareback. My first long term fuck was a guy in his 60s; most times I said "can we start using condoms?" He said "bare or no fucking" so I opted for his cum loads. My first real gay boyfriend picked me up at a gay party. We fucked bare that night, and without lube, almost every night for over 12 months. After we broke up, I didn't fuck bare for almost 15 years until I started a relationship with my neighbours' 18 yo son. After begging him to fuck me bare, it turned out he'd probably had more experience than me, though not BB. Long story short, Alex saw how much I loved being fucked bareback and begged me to reciprocate. After refusing until we were both tested, we fucked several nights a week for over a year. When he moved, I decided I enjoyed being barebacked too much to give it up again and would accept that, one day, I'd test positive. In the three years since, I have taken many loads, including many from high viral load poz guys; I love looking into their eyes as they're about to deliver their toxic load into me and seeing the mix of excitement and harmful lens as they prepare to ejaculate. They know I won't permit them to pull out; I want their load deep inside me. but I get tested every quarter and am still negative!

Hot. I had a similar experience a few weeks ago. A kid I've known at gym for several years (since he was 16 or 17). He s grown up now, still 21ish, has been asking me if he could party with me and friends. For a while I refused because Daniel's actually a really good kid who looks up to me. In the end, two factors overrode my preferred "stay away from it". One (to be honest) is that he's always been very attractive for me but now he's just gorgeous...black chest hair, muscles, the smoothest white complexion, rosy cheeks, gorgeous smile...Basically Daniel is the epitome of everything I love in a young guy. And he's very straight. Very much in love with his girlfriend, etc. So I let him come with me to a mate's place where he and his boyfriend put on wired orgies. Before we got there, Daniel made it clear he wanted to blast and fuck a guy; I expected him to chicken out of the fucking... When we got there, he asked if I could blast him and made it clear he was going to fuck me. I told him straight out that, as much as I wanted him to, I'd be staying pretty much sober and keeping an eye on him. My sobriety didn't last much longer than Daniel's; I blasted him, his reaction to his first shot was incredibly hot. But I stuck to my guns and directed him to some young guys and he fucked them beautifully. Major talent, young Daniel, with a beautiful thick veiny cock. Then I decided I could wait no more, blasted and had my hole spitroasted by two guys. Daniel saw my reaction to being fucked and blasted and begged me for some more and begged me to fuck him. I'm usually a total bottom but the tears of lusting for Daniel and his keenness to take cock. My mate's boyfriend complied. I blasted Daniel again and Nick pounded him mercilessly. Two other guys joined in, taking turns to seed Daniel's virgin hole. Nick called me to join, he's always wanted to fuck me. So Daniel and I were making out while about 10-12 guys were taking turns breeding Daniel and I. Eventually, I was piggy in the middle fucking Daniel while a series of guys fucked me. Daniel's first gay experience ever included him being double penetrated, something I've still never done. Suffice to say he and I must've taken 20 or so loads at least from 10 or so different guys. He stayed at my place for three days after war recovering. And, yes, we fucked every morning before I went to work and several times a night. Flip fucking like I've never flipped before. And my last loads were from Daniel Friday and Saturday night; my last loads delivered were in Daniel. i think I could get used to this!

For mine, Brandon from Sean Cody is still hard to beat. I actually think some of the new guys on CF are really hard to ignore too. Real obsession with young Kellan right now. As number 1 bottom: still Kurt Wilde....but he doesn't do bareback.