ErosWired

Like I said, you're obviously a connoisseur. "not too warm" - Now that's interesting...having mentioned that I recall an ass being a bit cold, it makes me wonder how an ass can be appreciably hotter or colder than 98.6° inside. I could meet all those criteria (possibly aside from the thick thighs, depending on how thick 'thick' is) but I have no idea how I would regulate how hot my cunt is. I can tell you this, though, from having taken a 10" icicle before - that is not the way. Note to self: Pack the quick-read meat thermometer on your next hosting trip.

Do you mean that good ass feels a certain way versus bad ass, or just that ass feels really good? In either case, what does it feel like to you? I’ve fucked maybe a total of five asses before I gave it up totally, but I remember that among those five, one felt rubbery, one felt a little like sandpaper, and one felt hollow and empty and a little cold. For a man such as yourself, a connoisseur of ass, I imagine your experience has given you moments you could compare to another sensation. Tops have said I feel like warm, wet velvet. One said I felt like fucking a cloud. The ass you fuck must feel like something. Do they all feel the good the same way to you? The same amount of good?

Hoo, me? 🦉 I’m a cumdump. When do people mostly use cumdumps? Think it through.

@rawTOP is a developer in the process of constructing a large, connected, coordinated network of websites to host adult content, including porn, adult-oriented social media, and, as I understand it, hookup resources sophisticated and configurable enough to make BBRTS look like Manhunt. His vision is wide-ranging, planning services for generalized as well as specialized interests such as watersports. There’s a tremendous amount of ground to cover. Developing for the web in this day and age is a lot like trying to build a sand castle on a conveyor belt from the back of a galloping horse. Everything is constantly shifting and changing, and keeping everything working - especially when you’re building novel infrastructure - is a major challenge. RawTOP is also working with one arm being twisted behind his back as legislators on the Right keep popping up with proposed laws to try to force him to require unworkable (and unconstitutional) things like age verification) that would make it impossible to do business, and existing bad law like FOSTA/SESTA limiting what he can do. Another element he is trying to work around is escaping the controls if content moderators and the content censorship imposed by financial institutions, etc. This requires working with new forms of distributed interconnection, such as Nostr. There may be things that are unfamiliar or confusing, and there may be a learning curve for end users, but the Net is always changing. Add to all of this the fact that he recently had a health issue from which he is still recovering, and it becomes clear why we still see a work-in-progress. He is extraordinarily busy, and if he cannot find the time to stop and explain himself to everyone’s immediate satisfaction I think we must excuse him. I had the privilege of assisting him with a small aspect of his development last year, and was given an opportunity to peek behind the curtain, as it were. The potential is encouraging. If your activity causes you to stumble through a gap in the curtain and you get a glimpse of what’s happening in the construction zone, consider that a bonus. *Note that I am speaking from my own observations and not as a representative of @rawTOP or the S3X Network. I invite correction of any error or misrepresentation.

I will also add that, if your meds compliance is so outstanding that you miss one dose a year and this doctor is blaming your blip on you being lax with your medication, I would ditch her immediately as your physician on account of her gross incompetence. She obviously has no idea what is going on with your case or your body, and God only knows what she’s got written on your chart. But she’s plainly demonstrated that she is not competent to manage your care, and as your life is in the balance I would give her no further opportunity to fuck it up. In a place the size of Berlin I imagine there are a number of qualified professionals, and I’m sure your regular doctor can provide you a referral if they don’t take patients directly.

There is not going to be any significant difference if you take your meds within a three-hour variable window, unless you’re taking a med that must be taken timed around a meal. My first med, Atripla, was like that, and it was a majestic royal pain in the ass. No, your med is not going to work forever, and yes, no matter what you do you will have to change medication eventually. But that’s a good thing, because pharmaceutical companies are constantly working on better, more effective formulations with fewer side effects, and novel approaches. I have been on five different meds since I started, all but one of which has been an improvement over the one before. When my doctor says something better has come along, I’ll try that. In time, if you never ever changed, the Enemy Virus in your system would eventually adapt to the medication, develop resistance, and then it would be useless to you. Imagine that you never, ever changed any of your passwords - eventually some hacker is going to crack them, and you’ll be screwed. You change meds partly for the same reason you change passwords. As to your lifestyle: On this site we primarily discuss a sexually active (if not promiscuous) lifestyle that advocates unprotected intercourse. That lifestyle carries certain inherent health risks that can be reduced, but cannot be eliminated, and some of those unavoidable risks carry potentially serious consequences. Many of us consider the rewards of this lifestyle to be great enough that they are worth even a grave consequence. There is no great reward without great risk. Only you (and not your doctor) can decide whether the value of what the lifestyle would bring you would be worth the potentially serious consequence, and only you can weigh the degree of that risk and decide whether it is tolerable for you. Yes, I got HIV and as a result AIDS very nearly claimed my life. I have to live with the disease now for the rest of my days, and that sucks seriously. But - I am also a veteran of a 34-load gangbang, multiple 20+ load weekends, and have been cunted by now nearly 1,100 men by my count. And so very much more. My sexual life has been colorful and adventurous, and I have lived it. I will at least have little to regret that I did not try.

The first question I would ask you is, are you taking your medication as prescribed, regularly, without missing doses? Or are you being lax about it? You ask us if you’re downplaying HIV, but your actions will tell us more than your words. If you are taking your medication as prescribed, without fail, find another doctor. This one is being irrational. On the other hand, if you were being totally irresponsible and non-compliant taking your meds - in other words, downplaying HIV - then pay attention to her. She may be exaggerating the risks a bit, but she may be doing so in an attempt to startle you into compliance, since plain information hasn’t gotten through to you. I am extremely meds-compliant. I have missed exactly two daily doses of ART in the nine years since I started. When I called for my most recent refill and mentioned this to the pharmacist, she said, “Wow, we need to introduce you to some of our other patients.” And in spite of that, I get blips in my viral load count. It just happens, for various reasons. Regardless, your doctor is not wrong that you could get reinfected with a meds-resistant strain of HIV, but this is true regardless of your meds adherence. If the strain of HIV resistant to your ART, it’s going to bypass it whether you’re taking it or not, and the meds won’t be a barrier. The reason you’re at risk for it is that you fuck bare, and you fuck people of unknown status. It’s also why you’re at risk for STDs like syphilis. This doctor sounds as though her belief standard is that prevention trumps all risk, and she would rather see you curtail your sexual choice - or not fuck at all - to ensure that you remain disease-free on her watch. She fails to understand that your body belongs to you, not her, and you alone decide what risks you are willing to take with it. She does not sound very sex-positive, nor understanding of gay lifestyles, and you might be better served by a gay doctor who understands you better. Many members here attest to having such physicians. If you elect to keep this doctor, I suggest you do two things: 1) Take your damn meds. Every. Single. Day. No excuses. Do whatever it takes to make sure you get that pill in you every day without fail. 2) Tell the doctor, politely, something to the effect of: Thank you for your earnest advice. I appreciate your concern for my well-being. I have listened very carefully, and understand the risks to me as you have explained them, and there will be no need to repeat it. I will conduct my life in a way that seems best to me, and continue to count on your care, whatever may happen.

This is insightful, and I think likely correct. A movement to promote respectful conduct has instead become a source of condemnation and shaming to the point that people are now afraid to act upon natural attraction. I’ve noticed of late increasingly that what would once have simply been observed as a man’s attraction to a woman is now seen as ‘creepy’ - that is, any attraction not specifically wanted is therefore creepy and wrong. I’m just hoping I’m dead before civilization becomes unrecognizable.

A friend of mine recently told me, “Our generation (GenX) is the last generation capable of entertaining themselves.” She was speaking in the context of reading books and other activities that require long investments of attention and more cognitive or physical effort, but she may be right. What happens if suddenly there were no electricity? I know my GenZ kids would find things to do because we live in a more rural area and we emphasized other things, but I can see many having a significant problem. Something that underscores this is the increasing frequency of times when I’ll get a hit on one of the apps saying, ‘wyd’, and I tell them what I’m doing, then ask ‘How about you?” And they reply, “Bored.” So they’ve lost the skills to stimulate themselves offline, and now they’re growing so oversaturated and desensitized to what they find online that nothing online stimulates them either. When one watches pornography, many find that it takes increasingly extreme depictions to elicit the same level of titillation, just like drug use, until at last there’s nothing available with the power to move them, and the dull hunger becomes impossible to relieve. I fear a gradual increase of anxiety, impulsiveness, and even violence over time as humanity’s addiction to online content becomes unmanageable.

Again, though, everything you describe is a function of the internet culture. You enjoy flirting with actual people you happen to meet, but when it comes to looking, you’re talking about who you are and aren’t interested in in terms of profiles - hot, fake egocentric, egomaniacal would-be porn starlets and influencers? Those are online avatars, not real human beings. Of course you don’t like them. They’re not even fuckable.

Three events, I think, were pivotal in setting the trajectory that brought me to where I am now: 1) In my first years in college, I had no idea there was a gay world, and knew nothing about male-on-male sex save that somehow people did it. I only had a strange, pressing curiosity that for some reason was so string that it overcame my stick-up-the-ass straight-arrow reservations and led me to my first-ever visit to an adult bookstore, where I purchased my first gay porn DVD. This was in 1987. The film was William Higgins’ Hot Rods, with one of the most notorious scenes in the history of all-male action: the Lazy Susan Six-Way. I was changed forever. I still have a copy of the restored version on DVD. 2) Many years later, after the end if my marriage and after I had begun experimenting with some standard same-sex experiences, I met a man in Louisville who, for the first time, began to objectify me, and Dominate me. Ultimately he would take me to a leather bar and jack me off in front of a group of onlookers, take me to the private residence of friends and perform sexual acts on me as they watched (and videoed), and finally required me to take his friend who he called over to fuck me. He introduced me to my role as a submissive male. I do not remember his name. He had a schnauzer named Pete. 3) In 2010, after I had been immersed in the BDSM world for a few years, I received a reply to my profile on Recon, and was surprised to see that the Dominant lived not far from me, even in this remote locale. He wanted a scene in which he would cut off all my clothes. That meeting would introduce me to my Master, an experimental Sadist who would own me for the next six years, possess a Deed to my body and my sex, and conduct an elaborate series of experiments focused on Pavlovian conditioning with the goal of determining whether he could make a permanent change to intensify my perception of my role as a make sexual submissive. He fully succeeded. Had any of these three events not occurred, I believe my mind would not be shaped as it now is, in the unshakable conviction that my value as a sexual being lies only in my utility as an object for men to satisfy their appetites, and that I have a positive obligation to make my body available to them for that use. The rational part of my mind may argue that that there are reasons to believe that may not be so, but the fact remains that the influence of those three factors has been strong enough to completely subdue reason in favor of belief. Because of them, I do not need reason to tell me what I am - I know what I am.

Go back over what you wrote: • You can find porn anywhere (because it’s online) • Nobody seems to care about meeting people (they interact virtually online) • They expect you to respond instantly (they get instant gratification online) • They immediately start searching for next (the online market never closes, is n their pocket, and searching is simple) • Instagram, Twitter (people are living through electronic avatars of themselves that we call profiles) • Many of them have OnlyFans (Do-it-yourself pornstars, made possible by the internet. Why just have sex when you could also be making (usually very little) money on it?) It’s the internet. Everything you mentioned points back to the way the internet has changed the way people interact. Sex isn’t easy. Hooking up requires an investment of time and energy, and it isn’t an even playing field - some people have inherent advantages and disadvantages, and trying to compete is relatively difficult and complicated, for most people. Online seems to make everything easier, less harsh, less demanding, less personal. So I don’t think it’s that millennials are any less sexy than anyone else, they have just emerged into a world in which humanity has been trapped in an electronic fishbowl of its own design, and now they can only swim in small, unsatisfying circles.

It depends on the society, but in general, the preponderance of the people living in it at the time. That is why many laws have as their test whether they would meet the standards of a reasonable person in the contemporary context. Someone always does decide, because these questions must be settled in order for society to function when there are two contradictory standards. One standard held by some may say that sex with boys under age 16 is fine and good. Another standard says the opposite. Both cannot be accepted, because it would lead to irreconcilable conflict, and potentially violence. Therefore, societies choose, in the main, the latter. Who makes this choice? In the end, the majority of the people who have to live under the rule of behavior. This is true of all values at the societal level. Individuals may have different views of value and morality, but the individual’s beliefs do not necessarily trump those of the society in which he is a member. Americans in particular are overfond of the notion that the individual is paramount, and that the rights and choices of an individual must always prevail. But this is not only not so, it cannot be so; there are currently over 330 million individuals, many of whom want the exact same thing at the same time, for themselves, and it is not possible. We concede our individual priority in all manner of things, every day. I am not saying that a man may not stand on the street and claim to be Jesus, nor that a man may not decry the fact that he is not permitted to bugger six-year-old boys. What I am saying is that his freedom is to choose what he will say - but that his choice may not be accepted when he says it. It is incumbent upon him to use his knowledge, wisdom and discretion in the exercise of his freedom within the proper context for the place, time, and society in which he lives. If he fails to do so, then he may experience adverse consequences, not because he spoke, but because what he chose to express causes his fellows to find it necessary to prevent him from taking an action he seems likely to take, in order to protect him from being a danger to himself or others. The society, once it has determined that paedophilia is unacceptable, cannot afford to sit idly by when a man speaks of his desire to act on it; if they wait until he has actually acted, it will be too late to safeguard their interest. The man who believes himself Christ Reborn is very likely alone in that opinion, and thus in the view of most everyone around him, suffering from a malady affecting his mind. A developed society should not leave its members who are ill and in need of help to wander the streets, but should take action to see to their care. Indeed, it might properly be argued that this man is not even exercising a free speech right at all, if the speech coming from his mouth is being generated by a mind unable to make sound choices about what to say. If he were instead speaking gibberish, would we simply say, “It is his right to stand there and speak so”? No. We would take him away to the hospital.

Goggles. Suuuuuuuure. In her book Enough, about her tenure as a Trump aide in the White House, Cassidy Hutchinson writes about how he refused to wear a mask during the pandemic because they got “covered in bronzer”. So we ask, if she says this was so, and he says it was not, who do we believe? The man who told a documented 30,573 lies in four years in office? I think not. Indeed, I think nothing that comes out of his mouth should be trusted ever again, including his last breath. Someone is going to have to make sure he’s dead, lest they accidentally bury him alive.

True, but if a man stands on a public streetcorner in town and start shouting his opinion or belief that men should be allowed to fuck young boys, I think you’ll find the police will bring it to a halt. If you stand in the middle of the town square at publicly announce that it is your opinion that the mayor should have a bullet put through his head, that might be construed as a threat against an elected public official, and gain you an interview with the authorities. If you stand on the streetcorner and insist loudly and persistently enough that, in your opinion, you are the Risen Christ, you may find yourself invited to an interview of a different sort. In any case, for purposes of this broader discussion, I’m not really talking about standing on the streetcorner and speaking. I’m talking about the fact that so many people are assuming that internet platforms are the equivalent of a public streetcorner, when they are not. Access to an internet platform from which to speak is a privilege, not a right, and, one which many people take for granted because they mistakenly assume it’s free, just like going outside and standing on the sidewalk. In fact, companies host the infrastructure that enables this form of expression. Without access to their proprietary property and systems, their capital and effort, we would not have the ability to communicate this way. It is only because they choose to permit access free of charge (electing to get their revenue from alternative sources like advertising) that many people have any access at all, and they could change that at any time. If tomorrow RawTOP decided that Breedingzone membership would henceforth be by paid subscription of $30/month, ErosWired would be making no more posts here. Because the tech firms that provide this open opportunity by doing so facilitate harmful communications, and are making a profit from doing so (and the absolutely are), they bear a responsibility to mitigate the harms that their capitalist endeavor brings to the society. Thus we have debate over the fact that Meta and X have both cut the staff from their divisions that are supposed to moderate content. It does not require a constitutional amendment (I am quite familiar with the process, thank you) for a platform to moderate its content, and indeed there are laws that currently mandate that some content may not be carried. We may not place advertisements that traffic human beings, for instance, and I think you’ll probably find that standing on any streetcorner and announcing that you’re looking for an underaged person to fuck will get you silenced - and hauled into the station - just as quickly. It does not require a constitutional amendment for those responsible for hosting our online public discourse to decide to make it a place where people speak civilly and responsibly to one another. Our speech on these platforms isn’t “free” - it’s subject to the Terms Of Service we agree to for every site we log onto, whether we pay to log onto it or not. We are not standing in an open public space and breathing free air here; we are in an electronic space in a private company’s electronic property, and the condition of our being here is that we have agreed to do what we’re told, or leave and speak no more. Do not imagine that ‘free’ means ‘unfettered’ or unlimited’. Sure, you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences if you say certain things. What many people now seem to think is that they should have the right to speak without consequences, and I suspect this is a direct result of the lack of accountability for bad action online - people have been getting away with saying anything they want online without paying a price for it, and now they think it’s a right. But it’s not. We just haven’t figured out how to hold people accountable for their actions online yet.

No, it isn’t. The First Amendment guarantees that the Federal Government cannot force you to speak or prevent you from speaking, save under certain circumstances where other rights to life and liberty are considered paramount. But outside of that, we absolutely can and do constrain each other’s speech. If you come into my house, I can tell you I don’t want to hear one word about Donald Trump (I don’t), and if you insist on talking about him, you will be shown the door. The owner of a private restaurant need not put up with some loudmouth asshole raving about a stolen election if he’s disturbing the other diners. A man has no right to stand up in the middle of a church service and proclaim that the Devil is God - he can expect to be tossed out on his ear. We even have a ubiquitous phrase in our language we use for the purpose of telling each other to quit saying things: Shut up. Now, the big issue with constraining harmful speech - and words can be dangerous - is prior restraint; proscribing before the fact what can and cannot be said. There are specific protections for the press against prior restraint, because the society recognized that that’s draconian. But it doesn’t mean that just because you aren’t prevented from letting something out of your mouth that there won’t be a consequence for doing so. A person isn’t free to say false things about another person that may result in harms to that person. Talking (or writing) smack can get you sued for slander, libel, defamation of character, and you can lose that case because there are some things you are simply not allowed to say because they are false. Not all speech is equal. Not all ideas are equal. What is good for a society is a measurable set of metrics based on whether its members are able to live and thrive in peace and without undue conflict and danger. So there are some things that people do and say that simply are not good to do and say when the benefit of the whole must be considered, and those excesses cannot be allowed to go unchecked. We call such actions offenses, or at their worst, crimes. Speech is not a harmless act - on the contrary, speech is powerful, or we would not guard it so zealously. But not all speech is equally good to say, and because it can have power for great ill, some speech reaches the level of offense…and some reaches the level of crime. Responsible speech deserves to be defended by the blood of patriots; malicious slander and self-serving, deceptive falsehoods do not.

It’s obviously an applied substance. If one looks closely at the skin approaching the eyes, the hairline, and the ears in most photographs and live televised appearances, one can discern a marked shift to pale pink. This is consistent with the result when full-coverage theatrical makeup is poorly applied, for instance, when an actor is meant to appear green-skinned. Radiation does not miss these areas. On top of this, there have been references in the media, quoted from knowledgeable sources, about his “bronzer” - a word for what he applies to his skin. ”Bronzer”. He lies to himself, too.

Not only an almost perfect Domination fucking in bondage, but the verbal adds exactly the right edge to the scene: “You missed this, didn’t you?” tells us this isn’t the first time he’s submitted to this man, and “I’m going to leave you here [bound] and come back for seconds” tells us this isn’t over. I’ve been used just like this many times by Dominants for various acts, but ironically never for a simple fucking. Bucket-list item.

Given the location, that’s just begging to get re-irritated from simple friction against clothing. You might consider a light gauze wrapping just until it’s no longer inflamed. Be aware that having tested positive for syphilis, you may test positive for syphilis antibodies for a long time. The antibodies can linger in your system for many years, tripping up blood tests and returning a false positive on an RPR test. If that’s the case, you can expect to have an FTA test run to confirm or rule out an actual re-infection. I’ve had a false positive on every test - like, six or eight of them - since I actually got and was cured of it.

Again, the freedom is not unlimited. Yes, we are free to criticize the government, its policies, its practices, its officers, the laws upon which it is based. We are free to call for change - within the system. The system without which we wouldn’t have the freedom to speak. We are not free to rally and foment discord among our countrymen with the intent of overthrowing the very system that guarantees that freedom. The civil rights movement was not an attempted coup d’etat, and when expression presents a real and present danger to persons and property, it is stopped. You may may make a public speech about whatever you want in a National Park - but only in a specific place chosen by the Park Superintendent, and it doesn’t have to be where anyone can hear you, or at a time you find convenient. That’s because all the rest of the citizens have a vested right to the enjoyment of the peace and tranquility of their park without having to listen to you rant. You have a right to speak - you don’t have a right to be listened to. I agree that bad ideas thrive in silence, just as noxious weeds thrive in an untended garden. But the best idea is not to give them a chance to take root in the garden to begin with. You don’t wait until an invasive pest has infested your garden before you root it out, you don’t give it a place to grow at all. Fox ‘News’, unmoderated X, Truth Social, and other such ‘truth tellers’ are basically greenhouses for invasive weeds that spread their insidious seed on the wind like dandelions. Yes, on an individual level you fight false facts with true ones, but you can’t do that at the scale it’s proliferating. You’re also assuming you can overpower someone’s belief, and that simply isn’t so. For some people it doesn’t matter how good your information is, because none of it’s going to make it past their ears. So you can’t just say and let everyone lie and deceive all they want in the name of free speech. Lies, deceit and hate speech are an acid that corrodes, weakens and damages the foundations of a civil society; truth does not, even when it leads to disagreement. I would submit that not everything that comes out of a person’s mouth qualifies as ‘speech’ that should be given protected status - some of it is simply noise - all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You tell us that no one is allowed to speculate on a mental health diagnosis of another person, yet you do precisely that, declaring decisively that he is not on the Autism spectrum, and on the basis of a single diagnostic factor, that Autistic people find it difficult to lie. In fact, you are quite correct that Trump is plainly not Autistic, for many reasons, and that we Autistics are honest by default, often to our disadvantage. You are also correct that professionals in mental health do not offer diagnoses of persons who they have not formally examined and systematically diagnosed, and you are correct that mental health diagnoses are a private health matter. There are instances, however, where an individual’s condition becomes a public concern, not the least of which is when he is trying to obtain the office by which to wield power over the entire nation. We the people have a vested interest in knowing whether the man is mentally fit to be entrusted with such power over us. The fact that the oaths and rules of the mental health profession prohibit them from speaking to this is yet another example of how Trump has weaponized the norms and decencies of civil society against itself to further his perverse goals. It is therefore necessary that others who are knowledgeable but not bound by those oaths speak aloud the truth that is in plain sight - Donald Trump is mentally ill. His psyche is patently unbalanced by any conventional measure, speaking scientifically or philosophically. He is a pathological liar - irrefutably documented - and that fact alone sets him outside the range of normative human cognition. But it isn’t limited to that. His very public speech and actions provide ample evidence, not just to trained professionals, but to everyone, that something is very, very wrong with the man. On this site, men like to say, “Let us make up our own mind.” So I won’t ask you to listen to my view of it. Instead, I’ll give you the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, a widely accepted tool for screening individuals to determine whether they are psychopaths. The checklist has 20 items, and is scored by giving a 0 if the item does not apply to the individual, a 1 if it applies to a certain extent, or a 2 if it fully applies to the individual. A score of 30 or higher suggests clinical psychopathy in the individual. Apply it to Donald Trump, and make up your own mind. *Note: The Hare Checklist is not determinatively diagnostic, but merely a tool for screening. Diagnosis can only be performed by a clinical professional. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist • Glibness/superficial charm • Grandiose sense of self-worth • Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom • Pathological lying • Conning/manipulative • Lack of remorse or guilt • Shallow affect (i.e., reduced emotional responses) • Callous/lack of empathy • Parasitic lifestyle • Poor behavioral controls • Promiscuous sexual behavior • Early behavioral problems • Lack of realistic, long-term goals • Impulsivity • Irresponsibility • Failure to accept responsibility for one's own actions • Many short-term marital relationships • Juvenile delinquency • Revocation of conditional release (from prison) • Criminal versatility (i.e., commits diverse types of crimes)

@blackrobe - for clarification, did you mean to say illegally abused and raped? Because one can’t really be legally raped… @nate88 - I do not judge anyone’s feeling about his own experience, nor propose to make him feel that he should feel any particular way about it. I am very glad for anyone who came through such experiences at a young age unscathed; would that it were so for everyone. It isn’t. But the fact that some have come through relatively unharmed (I think “most” is probably debatable) doesn’t mean it isn’t lamentable that so many adults evidently saw fit to take sexual advantage of boys too young to consent. I wouldn’t tell the boys they should feel bad about it - but the adult men responsible? Fuck yes, they should feel bad about it. It was a crime. They should never have done it. They were just lucky if they didn’t damage someone for life.

It would be a usable sample of the specific cohort, if you could identify the factors that define this grouping of sex-positive, hyper-sexual men as opposed to their peers. In other words, if I were to study a population of 1,000 black sheep, the results might be revealing concerning black sheep even if not necessarily applicable to sheep in general. In this case, the numbers are only sufficient to raise a question, not answer one, because we have no control group data for comparison.

A minor cannot consent to sex under the law. That’s why it’s called the “age of consent”. These encounters are by definition not consensual. We don’t justify sexual molestation of children retroactively because it didn’t happen to have led to lasting harm; even if we did, it would still be impermissible to do it because of those cases that demonstrate the potential that it can damage a life. You can’t un-ring the bell.

It cannot be used often enough. Trump is reported by his former wife Ivana to have kept and read a copy of My New Order, a collected volume of Hitler’s speeches. That’s why he so freely denies having read Mein Kampf. But it is in that book that we see Hitler’s deep conviction about the Big Lie:“…in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation…” This is Trump’s modus operandi. Whether he got it from Hitler or not, it’s the same vile, cynical, duplicitous philosophy that inspired arguably the most evil man who ever lived. And what makes this so very dangerous is that it’s true. If Trump came up with it on his own (which I personally don’t think he has the intellect for) that damns him doubly, because the evil is utterly his own. Imagine, just for a moment, a world in which the name ‘Trump’ eclipses the name ‘Hitler’ as the epitome of human evil. Imagine that before you vote. How ironic that Trump is a German surname (originally Drumpf), and his paternal Grandfather emigrated from that country. But if this one becomes a tyrant, it will be America’s fault and shame, not Germany’s.