KinshipLab

No different than Feb 25, 2026 in America. I encourage everyone to try this experiment: look for a moment in a conversation when someone asserts something, could be something you agree with but more likely you’ll notice it if you don’t agree. Just ask them how they know that. Would love to hear what people say about how they know what they know.

My group attractions have changed over time, but I’ve usually had them AND they were rarely if ever so absolute that I couldn't see beauty outside my focus. I’m white. My first group attractions were to white men, then black men, then Jewish men, then middle eastern men, then South Asian men, then Latino guys, now more recently white guys. It’s never been something that excludes other races from appreciation or consideration for mating.

Hi @tobetrained, you may be conflating corporations, which describe the legal structure and method of recognizing profit and loss, with companies, which may or may not be organized as a corporation and which relate much more to the assets, value creation, and cost of value. This distinction may clarify why @Rillion rightly raises the inherent connection between corporations and governments. I’m enjoying this discussion but highly confused as to why anyone would trust a government - especially the Federal Government - to champion all people’s interests equally be they rich or poor. The Federal Government was founded by the war-bond elites in alliance with the slave-owning elites to ensure that the states didn’t default on their war bonds, using the Federal Governments brute force to derisk their investments. In all states, there were restrictions on voter eligibility to secure elite property by confiscating (taxing) money and spending it on armies that could put down rebellions of poor taxpayers e.g., whiskey rebellion, slave revolts, etc. certainly things have evolved, but it’s useful to remember the foundation we’re building on.

I wonder how much all of the Economic Impact Payments from all of the COVID-justified debt-balloon acts like CARES, ARP, yaddah are worth in today’s $? I wonder how many people noticed what a small percentage of the stimulus was going to “the people”?

I’ve taken to asking tops I’ve never connected with if they could help reshape my hole so I can last as long as they need me to last. Most get excited by the idea and certainly get that it’s in their interests for me not to break before they are satisfied. Once that happens, it’s easier to achieve my goal of creating freedom and joy for a fucker. I have moved on from thinking it’s best to self-abnegate proactively, as I’ve been fucked by enough top pleasers to know that they get joy from giving me joy. In general, two pleasers coupling requires an enormous amount of emotional intelligence to back out of going with the first thing that comes out of the others’ mouth, really peeling back whether the scene is playing out to either one’s excitements or just an image ricocheting between two mirrors.

FWIW despite misinterpretations of my point I stand firmly in the camp of more assfucking :-), better luck for me at saunas and sex clubs than at ABSs but I’ve definitely added them to the repertoire and looking forward to finding more raw fun there

It seems that Liberals are the new Catholics when it comes to being born into a state of guilt.

Last time I was in Portland I got 5 loads in my ass at the sauna and flew them in me to the East Coast

I didn't direct that at your comment @tobetrained. I felt that I was elucidating under-pondered aspects of current thinking that would support your point. I enjoy reading your commentaries @tobetrained partly because you seem to explore when intentions and outcomes diverge. I appreciate arguments that are essentially hypotheses (well represented in this blog) that simply provide a semblance of logic without any test of whether the logic is supported by facts or works in the real world. I find arguments that report real-world tests or case studies to be much more interesting, and I find arguments that actively look for the unintended consequences to be even more credible and interesting. @tobetrained, thanks for adding some of those juicier, less pat elements to your prose.

I can see why a fucker would be in the position less often of having to find pleasure in a situation that is less than ideal. Although I couldn't statistically confirm it, it seems that lots of gays have noticed that holes outnumber fuckers, and as a result, it would seem to be logically quicker for a fucker to find a hole than a hole to find a fucker. I bet most holes have to spend more time looking to be successful in getting a good fuck, especially if you are a less photogenic hole or a hole that falls further from the statistically most attractive qualities. I wonder if there are any statistics about that. I appreciate the comment, but I would argue that it's exactly the OPPOSITE of prioritizing everything EXCEPT the primal, uninhibited man-to-man fucking. My comment STARTED with the fact that I want to be fucked, and the whole side thing is a way to wreak enjoyment out of a less-than-ideal situation. I think a better alternative scenario to consider after spending a certain amount of time seeking and either not finding an available fucker or getting fucked until one runs out of fuckers or being at a party where fuckers are outnumbered by holes is 1) to continue looking for a fucker, in which diminishing returns are likely; or 2) to discover other ways to enjoy a less-than-ideal sexual environment. There is of course the option to exit the sexual environment and return to non-sexual spaces and pursuits. I find that part of the pleasure in remaining in sexual environments rather than leaving them is for me at least the lack of constraints on intimate behavior, increased likelihood of nudity, uninhibited conversation, etc. But maybe I need to spend more time studying my game and removing obstacles that prevent me from having men in my ass as much as possible. I am definitely open to that :-).

Any recommendations on cam sites/groups for gay sex? Thanks.

There is another layer: the artificial creation of indivisible blocks of space that are subject to centralized extraction that are too juicy for psychopaths to ignore. The premise of this conundrum is that instruments of government can be built to do ONLY good without inherently being empowered to also do evil. It is also premised on the idea that human nature would magically change so that the pool of humans would somehow be GOOD. Another way to manage the projection of evil is to stop building political structures that subject large groups of people to the rule of a single psychopath. Smaller scale government would not change human nature but WOULD limit the extractive tools available to any one psychopath. Anyone who builds a new bureaucracy for GOOD should go in with eyes open that psychopaths will see this new instrument as a juicy banana to subvert

Two other severe problems with this whole topic: 1) people tend to overfit socially centric issues to “science” and ignore other variables that rightly affect the rules of the game. Those who think a “solution” should be derived solely from “science” are abusing science by treating it as a sacred arbiter of conflict and increasing the likelihood that it will be corrupted to politics. They are also underusing the skill of sound judgement. 2) The scale and scope of Federal government and the use of Federal tax money drives us to the least empowering method of spending energy on the topic. In this scenario, I have 1/340,000,000th of stake in the matter, $0.53 of my annual tax assessment is used to subsidize leagues in Alabama, Vermont, and all the states ideologically in between. Instead of letting this be a decentralized decision for each team and league to make with their own resources, it gets marketed to people as something they should have an opinion on but which leaves them with nothing to do but execute against central policy. While I definitely feel the pain of individuals, for reasons of not having the connection of thought and action be completely broken in two, I’d prefer to see each league pay for itself and navigate the complexities of decision-making at a “team-sweat-equity,” “paid-for-by” so ownership-rule-making alignment. The continued usurpment by the Federal government of local flavor and initiative has completely recast people as passive complainers trying to hijack others’ leeway with one-size-fits-all policy and tiny amounts of tax money confiscated from people of whom a significant minority will be opposed to the policy.

It’s dull because for whatever reason, explorations of how to create futures have been dumbed down to how to spend other peoples money. This framing crowds out all participants but critics and passive observers, driving the topic away from creation and self-empowerment and toward bickering about the size of someone else’s slice.

There is a critical qualifier that frequently goes below the radar so that a comparison of “individual” versus “collective” becomes almost non-sensical. To make any sense of the balance, you must determine whether the collective was voluntary or involuntary. Since this distinction is often obscured in commentary, we lose a lot of nuance in simplistic working agreements that collectivism is “left” and “individualism” is “right.” It REALLY matters when someone’s agency is removed from the equation. It allows people to retain the silly notion that big things can be done only if the government imposes a single solution on everyone. Rhetoric long ago hypnotized those involved in civil discourse to think democracy looked like voting and then imposing the majority decision on all. Real democracy may look much more like a population of individuals exposing their opinions, which enables voluntary coalitions to form around not only the majority views (forced on 100% of the population) but also minority coalitions, who can use their energy to advance their goals. If you’re tempted to argue that crises sometimes necessitate 100% alignment, then you should also concede that non-critical conditions do NOT necessitate involuntary adherence to majority votes. The issue hiding behind the ridiculous divide between “collectivists” and “individualists” is centric to “autonomy.” Under what conditions should someone or some group have the right to curtail someone’s autonomy?

As someone almost religiously awed by cock-and-cum-in-ass and to a lesser extent mouth-cock, I hated the sterile idea of a side. I would never try to hook up with a side, but I HAVE come to appreciate sides as a fallback in group sex when I feel a connection but not a sexual compatibility with an awesome guy. It’s at best a fallback but given typically uneven top-to-bottom ratios in generaland the exacerbation of unevenness when the top minority gangbangs a bottom, it’s useful to open the aperture of sexual enjoyment when you’re spending time with cool guys who are not sexually compatible

was very happy to discover how many hunky young raw fuckers have daddy issues, would love to connect, feel you push in to my unprotected hole, liquefy my core, and bring me into your DNA club. currently living in DC, screen name mostly the same on hookup apps.

depends upon who's fucking me and who i'm with, nothing worse than offering myself in a manner considered unsexy. that being said, I def have fetishes, so excited when I can connect with a fucker that shares both my fetish and the desire to cum inside my unprotected hole. here's a pic of a load I took from a top who shared my fetish for spandex but also wanted a hole in my swim shorts right over my rectum. Would be fun to connect with raw fuckers who like to fuck in spandex, or nylon athletic gear, or leather; but if you aren't into gear, would rather present hole uncovered by fetish and unprotected.

happy that there are younger guys that are into older bottoms, but both excite the hell out of me.

Even Mozart's Requiem was finished by his student Franz Xaver Sussmayr. @rawrawraw76 has so many great stories that AI could probably do a decent job of channeling his writing style. Love the idea.

What beautiful writing, linking the yearnings of the heart, dick, and ass and fusing them together so excitingly and profoundly, transforming a load shot into an unprotected hole from jizzjoy into destiny itself. I thought I would love Juan and want to revel in his conquest of Daniel FOREVER, until I peeked ahead to Logan and Felix and their story, which keeps evidence mounting that you are able to titillate us by creating characters with raw desire to act out nasty gay impulses and transcend stereotype to achieve authentic connection. Thanks for sharing your talent @DomTopTwnk!.

If my sex life were to be as a palindrome, as an 18-year old I took my first three loads from delegates to the 1987 Democratic convention. May my last three loads come from delegates to a future convention of Republicans, or whatever party exists to carry the torch of the right to help this two-winged country to continue to fly, and not in circles.

I am wary of raising this topic, but I think my breaking point with this simple phrase has finally arrived. Before I make my point, I do strongly agree that tribes misunderstand and mistreat each other and that powerful tribes take things from smaller weaker and sometimes from bigger stronger tribes and that this is an ugly quality of human nature. There is, however, an invisible and to-be-celebrated quality that needs to be part of the story. Anybody who has “privilege” today, be they white black red brown purple or yellow, is likely to have had ancestors who acted not only in their short term interests but in the interests of their future generations to build wealth and social and political mechanisms to insure its transfer to future generations. BTW I do NOT think this quality is exclusive to any one race. I would also say that this quality can coexist with a willingness to treat people of other races unfairly, depends on the individual. If I were someone who had a consciousness and looked beyond my immediate family of children and nephews / nieces to find good stewards for my efforts to build fortunes and good societies, I would look for people who demonstrated skill and motivation to protect and build personal and social assets. I would pray for the wisdom to see beyond the surface in selecting stewards, but I would be unlikely to choose a steward who thought their time was well spent complaining about others’ fortune rather than cultivating their own abilities to sustain themselves and pay it forward. I think these variables play a huge role in the perception of “privilege,” and if we as faggots with our typical choice to exit the gene pool benefit less from a long view, then we can at least hope that 25th century faggots benefit from their ancestors’ efforts to pass on “privilege.” I will close this diatribe with a reminder that I utterly concede that in many instances tribes have treated each other unjustly and that many fortunes have been built with injustice. But to me, failing to acknowledge the positive aspects of a multi-generational consciousness is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The solution for privilege is NOT in my view to entrust people who have only a me-consciousness with “equitable” portions of wealth they didn’t earn but instead to do a better job of expanding multi-generational consciousness and expanding knowledge of self-sufficiency. In parallel, helping those who have built muscle for personal and societal wealth building to see past the surface to identify truly worthy stewards of great wisdom.

While this statement seems correct when applied to the context of the immediate future in which the winning party drives government, it seems to neglect the reality of building new parties, which often require long periods out of power before they gain the influence to win. It also seems to conflate an average Joe picking the winning horse versus an average Joe “winning.”

Nice 😉. Adding another pithy favorite, though may be dated now: Q: What’s the difference between Democrats and Republicans? A: Democrats want the poor to be corrupt too.