holefucker

22 hours ago, Nay80 said:

(based in north England here) i asked at my clinic a few times about DoxyPeP and they say they won't roll it out in the UK because they are concerned that certain infections will evolve to be resilient to doxycycline, and that's the main drug they use to treat them.

I'm not sure about the US or the rest of Europe, but in the UK you can get doxycycline dirt cheap from online pharmacies if you buy it as "malaria prophylaxis". 

On 5/16/2023 at 6:41 PM, kotcas said:

thank you!  any clue about places to go?

The Laboratory on Thursdays or Fridays. Also, the Bull bar at 3am any night of the week and especially weekends. 

On 8/11/2022 at 3:05 AM, BootmanLA said:

Hate to point this out to your doctor, but 25 out of 200 is 12.5%, not 25%.

I know all the mantras about non-judgmental, it's a virus not a punishment, all that stuff, and yeah, I generally agree, but: how fucking stupid does someone have to be to essentially waste a dose of a very, very short-supply vaccine by doing something like this? I'm not suggesting no one should have sex for 28 days after getting vaccinated, but come on, people: the current spread, inconvenient as it may be to acknowledge, is at sex parties, group sex events, bathhouses, and other places where there's a significant number of sexual partners in contact with each other. If a man is determined to do that and refuse to hold off for a while to let the vaccine begin to confer immunity, skip the damn vaccine and let someone else have the shot.  (and I'm directing this at your doctor's patient, not you, obviously).

The vaccine reduces symptoms, so is especially worth getting if you're going to be having a lot of sex. 

I got it, having gotten the vaccine seemingly after contracting it but before having any symptoms. Honestly, it was almost nothing, possibly because the vaccine reduced symptoms. No fever, no flu-like symptoms. Three lesions on my face that could easily pass for bad acne spots, two on my arms and one on my back. That's it. One on my arm was bigger and definitely unusual looking. They all scabbed over in a few days. 

Star Trek. The two best things to ever come out of these franchises were The Wrath of Khan and The Empire Strikes Back, and TWOK > TESB.

Also Merritt Butrick was hot!

So apparently some video went viral on Twitter a couple of days ago of a guy taking 75 loads. But all I can see on Twitter is hundreds and hundreds of memes about it and I can't find the video itself. Does anyone have a link to this video? Did he get spooked by the attention and take it down? Or does it in fact not really exist? 

I've fucked dozens of asses at Lab in Berlin. Most taken is 12 in SBN London recently. 

3 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

It may well be idiotic of Americans to, as you say, "lump everyone non-white into one category and call them people of color." I'm not defending that.

But to the extent that we do this idiotic thing: Ted Cruz is not "mostly white" simply because one parent is (50% is not "mostly"). Under our admittedly (for the sake of this discussion) "idiotic" classifications, Cruz's father was absolutely a person of color. Ditto Geraldo Rivera, whose father was Puerto Rican, an ethnicity we "idiotic" Americans absolutely consider a person of color.

And of course, I get the racism inherent in classifying only "pure" (insofar as people can tell) "white" people as authentically white, while recognizing anyone of mixed ancestry as a "person of color". It's unquestionably racist. But no more so than deciding that someone with one white grandparent is "white". Put another way: if it's illegitimate to call someone with one parent who was unquestionably black a "person of color" or "black" because of that ancestry, it's equally illegitimate to call someone with one unquestionably white parent a "white person". If you want to argue we're all, with few exceptions, rather a mixed lot, you won't get much argument here.

Let's be specific about Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz's father comes from Cuba, and he has parents from Cuba and the Canary Islands, which is a part of Spain. I'm not saying there aren't minorities in the Canary Islands, but as I've been there many times I can assure you that the vast majority of the population looks white. Now according to this article: [think before following links] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00125.x 62-78% of the Canary Islands gene pool is Iberian - i.e. white. Obviously this will vary between individuals. And according to this: [think before following links] https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004488, 72% of the Cuban genome is European, and again you will have more or less than that in individuals. Suffice it to say that this is higher than the US, and just like the US there will have been social barriers to European Cubans mixing with non-white Cubans, especially prior to 1939 when Rafael Cruz was born. So I grant you that a certain percentage of Rafael Cruz's DNA could be non-white, but let's have a look at him:

Would you really say that this man could be 50% non-white? Or even 30% non-white? I think most people would not detect any non-white at all, but even if you assume he's 75% white, then that makes Ted Cruz 87.5% white, which is exactly the same as Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minister. So yes, I'd call him mostly, in fact overwhelmingly white. If his name were Ted Cruise you wouldn't even question it. 

I think sexual monogamy is basically unnatural and against the instincts of men, both gay and straight. This is why so many men cheat. I don't see it as being any different to flagellating yourself - it's an outdated idea bound up with religion that serves no useful purpose. It's one step away from castrating yourself. 

3 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I'll also add: this is a reverse variation of the "one drop of black blood" that marked all mixed-race people in the US as "black", because you're suggesting that as long as someone in Central or South America has some white ancestry, they're white. 

Not at all. But as we've already established the very concept of race is almost nonsensical, then how do you define white? Generally speaking if someone looks white and is mostly white, then they can legitimately call themselves white. Ted Cruz is mostly white. So is Geraldo Rivera. I've never heard anyone say British PM Boris Johnson isn't white just because he's 13% Turkish (and his real surname is Kemal). 

What is it with the American idiocy about race? Is there anything in the world MORE racist than lumping everyone non-white into one category and calling them 'people of color', or insisting that if you have one drop of non-white blood them you're a 'person of color'? 

2 hours ago, ErosWired said:

DNA studies of the population of Mexico in recent years do not bear out any notion of any sense of European racial purity. From a demographic standpoint, roughly 62% of Mexicans are mestizos, whose identity mixes European, Amerindian, and African heritage. Another 30% identify strongly with Amerindian cultures, not only the major Aztec and Maya influences, but also the more than 60 distinct Amerindian cultures within Mexico’s borders.

I suspect that many people who imagine themselves lily-white might be startled at the results of a test of their DNA. I had such a test done to get a sense of my ancestry, and hoped for evidence to support a family assumption of Native American ancestry along one line. The result: White as a sheet, and all by way of the British Isles. But DNA can also take you further back in time - I could also see links to France, to Italy, to Scandinavia - I may be the descendant of Britons, but I’m also the descendant of their Norman, Roman, and Viking invaders.

Populations don’t remain segregated. People fuck. And some people will fuck anybody. Thereby, race inevitably becomes a dubious distinction.

But really, it never was anything but an artificial construct, devised to leverage social power. Name any other species that is divided by race. Humans are the only ones that stupid.

I agree. Race is an idiotic obsession society has that makes little sense. But I do object to picking out Hispanics who are white and stating that it's wrong for them to identify as white, when apparently it's ok for people with Irish or Dutch names who look white but might have 15% sub-saharan African DNA to identify as white. It just seems a bit racist to me to deny to people with Spanish names what is granted to people with Irish names. 

1 hour ago, BlackDude said:

Antonio Banderas is from Spain. No one considers him a “person of color” although I could argue that there are many people from Spain and Portugal who are due to the Moors who once inhabited the area.

The problem is many people from Spanish speaking countries in the Americas think they are white/European. You have dark skinned folks from former slave colonies and slave holding areas that were first inhabited by Indians thinking they are white and extensions of the Spanish monarchy. I don’t get why people are so offended by their own lineage. 

You can erase the history, but it still remains!

Yet to make your point you cite people like Geraldo Rivera and Ted Cruz who are clearly white and who happen to have Spanish names. Maybe you should accept that a huge proportion of the population of Central and South America are of European descent and are therefore white. 

On 9/5/2021 at 2:29 AM, BootmanLA said:

Lyndon Johnson once observed to Bill Moyers, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." The Hispanic people you're talking about lump themselves into that "lowest white man" group to avoid being tagged as a person of color.

Considerable numbers of Hispanics (especially Cubans) and Asians figure they're better off throwing in their lot with the white majority that looks down on them, rather than with the white minority that doesn't and which is allied with black people and other minorities who don't, in large measure because they think they'll benefit by association. 

The USA is literally the only place in the world where a sizeable amount of the population thinks that being Hispanic makes you a 'person of color'. 

The American attitude to "Hispanics" is one of the dumbest things in the whole world. It's also incredibly racist. Apparently, according to Americans, every single person south of the Rio Grande is a person of color, and they all get lumped into the same category as if they're all the same race or something. Never mind the fact that Buenos Aires might be the whitest city in the world, or that Latin America is more diverse than the US. Apparently if you come from a Spanish speaking country you're a minority, so that Antonio Banderas, a Spanish man who is as white as it gets, was categorized as a "man of color" when nominated for an Oscar.

I went to one in Berlin and, to be quite honest, but there was definitely no screening process for the tops!

The correct answer is Picard - the greatest character in all the Star Trek franchise, and possibly in all of science fiction.

The last one, whose name I will not utter, is a festering abomination. 

Fucked probably at least 30 asses in one night in the Laboratory in Berlin and at Hardon in London. 

3 hours ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

Well they don’t have to be. In the past I’ve had sex with: Republicans, racists, Islamic fundamentalists, etc. In this particular case I drew a line, but I’d also add: It wasn’t remotely spontaneous. I’ve taken and given cock in plenty of situations where I’m sure that the person’s beliefs would horrify me. 
 

But when I know? Honestly I don’t want to have a meal with people who think that, in that case in particular, black men are inferior.  So why would I fuck them? Or let them fuck me? It’s not a bathhouse or darkroom scenario where some guy blurted out MAGA unexpectedly. 

Did you know he was an Islamic fundamentalist before you had sex with him? 

21 minutes ago, takingdeepanal said:

You mean instead of allowing 5-6 million to slowly starve to death as they were totally blockaded, plus another 1 million of your own people and perhaps another 2 million Allied personnel and another 250,000+ POWs if there was an invasion of the Japanese mainland?

Also, bear in mind that firebombing killed 250,000+ in one night when Tokyo was partially flattened.

So he was a good man because he killed 200,000 innocent civilians instead of killing millions. Got it. 

Did you know that killing a single innocent civilian is a war crime under the Geneva conventions? 

14 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

While I don't disagree that Carter is probably the MOST decent human being we've had since WW2, I think it's a question of degree, and what you consider 'decent'. 

Truman was pretty decent. In fact, he was so decent that when he stepped down as president, he had no source of support (because he believed it would demean the presidency to either give paid speeches or sit on corporate boards). Eisenhower, though he was from the opposite party, thought that was appalling and pushed Congress to create the first presidential pension.

Eisenhower himself was pretty decent. We now know he'd had a long-time affair, but he kept it very discreet.

I can forgive Ford for pardoning Nixon - it was an earlier, simpler time, and I think a public fight over indicting Nixon for his crimes and the spectacle of a former president already forced to resign sitting trial in federal court would have really damaged the nation. 

And I think GHW Bush was fairly decent as well. Certainly the last GOP president who even could be considered for that adjective.

I'm afraid that that whole episode where he vaporized 200,000 innocent civilians lowers my opinion of Truman. 

11 hours ago, nospokenword said:

Trump is the worst American president in my lifetime, but I think Reagan is second worst. Trickle down economics, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Denying science (let's not forget that Reagan ignored the AIDS crisis and as a result many gay men died). The Republican party has been evil since Goldwater started the neoliberal movement. The only decent republicans in the past 100 years were Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush. I guess Ford wasn't bad (but he sucks for pardoning Nixon). Any LGBTQI2S+ that support Trump are acting against themselves and the community.

In my opinion the only decent human being who has become president since WW2 is Carter. And he got booted after one term. 

I've recently developed a new appreciation for Chris Evans. (The American one, not the British one!)

6 minutes ago, C10H15N said:

He is the perfect bull in the entrenched political and fake news ivory tower china shop. He's wrecking their shit and I love it.

It's like he was genetically engineered for this role.  What surprises me is just how well he's doing as President.  I never would have expected that. 

Yeah, I'm going to vote for him this time.  In my lifetime, politics has never been this much fun.  

It could be argued that choosing a political leader because he's entertaining is rather like making a career politician the star attraction at a comedy club. I don't think that in either case it's going to turn out well. 

This forum is all about sexual freedom. If he likes getting pissed on by hookers it's his own business. It's the least objectionable thing about him. 

I'd have to see his dick before I could make a final decision.