ErosWired

While we frequently talk of getting a boner, or about how some Top ‘boned’ a bottom. The human penis does not, of course, contain one. A good thing, too, because a lot of us would probably end up with perforated bowels the way some Tops go at it. The walrus (Obodenus rosmarus) penis, however, does contain one, called a baculum, and it’s the longest of any land mammal, up to 25 in/63cm long. It’s worth mentioning also that the average bull walrus weighs around 3,000 lb./1,360 kg, and they probably like to be on top, but it really doesn’t matter since they only copulate in the freezing waters of the Arctic. Actually, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense that they would need a penis bone, because try keeping an erection when you’re up to your neck in ice-cold water. They probably wouldn’t find us sexy anyway. I mean, look at their underwear models.

I’d be very surprised if the owner actually agreed to do any of that, most especially locking you in a device you could not escape from. The liability for him would render it out of the question. Even with you asking for it, even if you were to sign some sort of liability waiver that would release him from harm no matter what some fucker did to you when helpless, I still can’t imagine any proprietor being willing to stick his neck out that far. Plus, if he did it for you, everybody else would want something too and he’d end up doing nothing else all fucking day but arranging men’s fantasies, and he’s got a facility to run. Bondage 101: Never let yourself be put into inescapable bondage by someone you don’t know very, very well. The fantasy is tempting, but the risk is very high. Your kink dom friend doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There’s no reason whatsoever to use a padlock on stocks - once they’re secured you’re not getting out on your own. And no bondage of any kind should be employed without a quick-release method for emergencies. Having to send to find someone to bring back a key is out of the question.

At the same place I bent over the table they had a pair if trees with chains attached for four-point bondage. It was a little tricky to do on your own, but I would go out their and snap my wrist and ankle cuffs into them and wait spreadeagled. And they did come. And they did fuck me, and suck me off, and molest me in all kinds of ways. And they seldom offered to let me go. They just did their thing and moved along and left me there for the next. The thing about sexual fantasy tropes is that if you provide a real opportunity for men to actually enact them, they usually will.

Because it’s not about wanting oblivion, or even about just wanting sex. There’s a complex psychology at play that seeks to compensate for strong feelings of powerlessness and/or dissatisfaction in life, coupled with low self-esteem. A desire emerges, in desperation, to take action to take control of life circumstances in a way that will remove perceived barriers to satisfaction. At the same time, the self-esteem deficit produces an impulse to desperately seek acceptance from others in any form, and while sexual intercourse can be taken as a positive acceptance, this approach to it carries significant risk that it will be a negative acceptance, laden with denigration and abuse. But for someone desperate for any kind of acceptance, this is better than nothing or outright rejection, so he continues to seek it out. There is nothing rational about this lifestyle. No element if it, no justification for it, can withstand sensible, level-headed scrutiny that considers the person’s well-being. The fact that people are nonetheless driven to attempt it in spite of the obvious risks and inevitable consequences suggests that it originates from a psychological state that would likely benefit from therapy before the person embarks on a course of individual self-destruction.

You omitted the fourth possibility: That his self-destructive lifestyle led to exactly that, and he perished from overdose, asphyxiation, exsanguination, blunt trauma, or some other premature fatal outcome. For all we know, his corpse ended up in a suitcase somewhere. That happened to a gay man in my town years ago when he went off to a city to do his thing. Suicide cannot be ruled out, if a person awakens one day to the realization that he has intentionally destroyed everything he had going for him. The bottom line is that however attractive the prospect may sound, it isn’t sustainable, not even if you’re independently wealthy. The body and mind can take only so much abuse before they break. Debilitating disease becomes increasingly statistically likely, approaching certainty, the longer unsafe sex is practiced without mitigation. And time is the great leveler. Such a lifestyle is inherently short-sighted, because even if it can be maintained (and survived) somehow for a period of years, a day will inevitably come when age makes it unfeasible. At that point, the person will find he has nothing on which to anchor the rest of his life; he has made no provision, and has ruined any prospects. Only misery awaits. One if the most popular posters on this forum is so because he chronicles his descent into self-destruction, and is lionized for it, praised, and encouraged. It sickens me that so many men here are willing to upvote the tragic downfall of another human being.

Be careful what you ask for? 😉 Walking around with a dildo of any length, or girth, for any length of time isn’t going to do anything to “hollow out” your hole inside. You’re already “hollow”. The tissues that expand to accommodate the dildo are very elastic and somewhat mobile by design in order to manage the passage of masses of material of various sizes and densities on their way outward. It doesn’t matter how long you leave the dildo in, your internal structures are going to generally return to their ready state. That 11” dildo, because of its length, is going to straighten out the S-bend in your Sigmoid colon, but it’s not going to stay straightened out, and you wouldn’t want it to. As soon as you pull the dildo out it will go back to its ‘S’ shape again. You can, however, modify the flexibility of some tissues, particularly the anal ring, through prolonged stretching. Under all but regular extreme stretching (say, daily forearm fisting) the anus will still be able to return to a closed state, but will have gained the capacity to stretch widely without trauma. The rectum itself can already accommodate a certain volume, and is composed of a different type of muscle tissue, so you can’t expect to work it the same way. I’m not sure what the effect of regular or prolonged deep penetration with large-girth objects is on the sphincter at the sigmoid junction. My own experience suggests that it does reduce the resistance of the sphincter to large penetration, but I also get the sense that it retracts to a normal state after a period of rest. You want it to do that, because it helps regulate your bowel movements. Whatever you practice, always bear in mind that you’re using your cunt as a dual-purpose orifice, and cunting is not the more important of the two with respect to your overall health.

I have to concur with @BootmanLA - given the situation as you describe it, it’s hard to picture a scenario in which you could act on your inclination and it end well. Speaking to a counselor or therapist may be helpful in finding ways to move past this potential quagmire in your life and relationship and seek fulfilling relationships that are achievable, sustainable and realistic.

There need be no connection between Bondage/Domination and Sadism/Masochism. When you combine the two concepts in a description of a community’s lifestyle, you’re basically working with a Venn diagram of two discrete but overlapping circles. There are some people who incorporate both in their play, and some practices that inherently combine aspects of both, but there’s neither any rule that says they have to be practiced together, nor that it’s not normal to inhabit one circle exclusive of the other. I’m principally Bondage//Domination oriented. I started my BDSM experience as a bondage sub. I didn’t go into it seeking pain, I just ended up encountering it because of the highly varied nature of the Dominants I served, and because my submissive nature lent itself to the kind of submission that accepted increasingly adverse Dominance. In the end, I allowed myself to suffer some significant pain, and ultimately gave my body into the physical ownership of a genuine Sadist. But at no time was I ever a masochist in the actual sense of the word. I never enjoyed pain, never sought it. There were always levels and types pf pain that were absolutely not acceptable to me - I could take a flogging, but no way was anybody going to lash me with a singletail whip. I ultimately allowed needles through my nuts, but having my cockhead nailed to a board? Never going to happen. Sharp pain to my nipples shuts me right down. Any pain that would be so severe as to draw my mind completely out of a sexualized space and fully into a pain space was, and is, out of the question. So there’s absolutely nothing wrong or unusual about you finding your impulses driven solely by the concepts of being constrained and Dominated, but not having a desire to be hurt. You just don’t occupy the second circle. That’s fine, because there are plenty of Dominants whose drive is to control, but not to hurt.

People - Read the question. The OP is asking for comment from Sadists, NOT from masochists wanting to gush about how much they want a Sadist to hurt them. To the OP: Although I am not myself a Sadist, I was owned and trained by one for six years, and believe I can reliably speak to your question on his behalf to an extent. His practices on me were exclusively sexual in nature, sometimes overtly, sometimes subtly, but always demonstrating his access to my intimate, vulnerable center. He delighted in things that reached deep inside me where he couldn’t physically reach, like electro, or deep sounding with irritating lubes, or CBT that ached rather than stung. He spent long amounts of time stretching out tortures so that he could enjoy watching my face and the reactions in my body as he gradually flattened my balls in a press, or whipped my cock with a thin cane or used a device to slowly drive a foot-long dildo up my ass. One of his favorite pastimes was needles, which he used on my cock, and ultimately through each of my nuts. But the thing that he seemed to most relish was his efforts at shaping my mind to his will, which is what all of his sexual torture of me was aimed at. His ultimate goal was to debase me into a being so sexually submissive to men that any man could manipulate me intimately at will. He focused his effort at last on being able to force me to have a dry orgasm whenever he said “Cum”. He succeeded completely, and would say it sometimes 20 times in quick succession, until I was begging him in tears not to make me cum again. And then he would, because he could. By the end, he told me simply, “Your sex is public property.” He proved it by letting other people fuck me, and torture me sexually in public demonstrations. The thing was, though, and this one thing I cannot properly explain about his Sadism, is that he himself, over all that time, only fucked me three times; it may be that each of those times was only to cement a sense of his control in my mind, not because he was satisfying a sexual desire of his own. In that sense, he was a pure Sadist, who took pleasure not just in my suffering, but through the exquisite suffering that he could only achieve by his wholesale, thorough, systematic deconstruction of my intimate sex. And he took pleasure in that suffering for its own sake. He could be as kind as he was mercilessly cruel, and he was brilliant. I have never met anyone else like him.

This didn’t get an answer earlier, so I’ll give one. The original post was made weeks ago, and I can only hope that the proposed event did not actually take place. Of course it wouldn’t look like his testicles “died” naturally - they don’t. Nobody’s balls just wither and fall off. There is no way to explain losing your nuts except by either a horrible (and usually bizarre) accident, or intentional removal. If you’re not a surgeon, you have no business whatsoever attempting to castrate someone, whether he asks you to or not. The life-altering and/or life-threatening complications are potentially profound. Testicles aren’t just for sperm production, they’re glands, and their loss has significant impacts quite aside from sterility. No one should contemplate their removal without extensive consultation with a doctor about the consequences, and the life changes that will ensue as a result. Now and again guys pop up with this self-destructive fetish, and in my experience the more you question them, the less they’ve thought about the reality of it. In some ways it’s akin to bugchasing for HIV in the sense that the buyer’s remorse is extremely shitty. It’s also - and note this especially - not condoned as a practice by any legitimate BDSM practitioner in the lifestyle who adheres to the principle of Safe, Sane and Consensual (that is, almost all of them). Letting some non-doctor Dom take off your nuts is neither safe nor sane, and no ethical medical professional would do so in this fashion. There are men who, for various psychological reasons, genuinely feel dysphoric about their testicles, and this very small minority can and do pursue removal with a full understanding of the consequences, and live their lives accordingly, satisfied with their choice. But this is not the way to go about it.

I think the question isn’t well stated, because it asks what to do in terms of rejecting the messager, which implicates a certain approach to etiquette because of the way human beings react to rejection. But a message of “Hey” doesn’t necessarily constitute sufficient personal engagement such that the sender could be said to be rejected any more than accepted by a response. It’s more a question of whether or not we acknowledge the messenger. I’m not sure these options that express a level of interest are on the mark. If I receive a random message of “Hey” on Grindr, I will almost certainly know nothing about the sender on which to base a decision whether to reply without making the effort to investigate his profile or (if I were shallow) at least judge him by his profile pic. If someone sends me a communication with no more information about his interest or intentions than “Hey”, he is placing the entire burden of the communication on me, and I feel under no obligation to take up the burden that he himself is unwilling to. In order to know if I have any interest in the person - or more to the point, to know if the person is genuinely looking to fuck me - I need to know two things: What does he want, and has he read my profile to see if I can offer it. I can only get that information if he supplies it. Therefore, my reply to “Hey”, if I reply at all, is “Hey.” It acknowledges receipt of the message and presents an opportunity to provide more information. At this point, however, senders of “Hey” usually fail to take advantage of the opportunity and instead respond with some form of “What’s up?” Again, burden thrown back onto me. At this point I still have zero information about this person on which to base a rejection without acceding to his implicit demand that I check out his profile. So I have the choice of either being blunt as an anvil and telling him that what’s up is that I’m taking cock if he’s interested; or replying “Not much, how about you” which usually leads to either “I’m horny” or “I’m bored”. In the first case, tiresome negotiations ensue which only occasionally result in fucking, because a man who can’t muster more effort than to write “Hey” isn’t likely to get off his ass to come to my room. In the second case, he never hears from me again; if a dude is incapable of stimulating his own mind, I’m not going to bother trying to stimulate his body. But over the time that I’ve used Grindr, I’ve gradually found that the great preponderance of “Hey” messages end up being wastes of time by lazy or inconsiderate people with little or no genuine interest. More than that, very frequently if I receive a message of “Hey” and I reply, I will then receive no answer at all, leaving me to wonder why the idiot bothered me in the first place. So, what is my obligation to respond to such messages? I have no obligation. Were the message a directed communication with considered and composed content, it would be another matter, and etiquette would dictate a reply. But if you want to talk to me, generally you’re going to have to do better than “Hey”. And “Sup” gets ignored 100%.

Years ago I did it a handful of times. All in all I found it a very un-real experience, and unsatisfying. Depending on the software or platform (back then) sometimes the only way you knew eyes were on you was when a number on your screen increased or decreased. I always found it annoying to have to try to read and respond to text-based interaction because it forced me to stay close enough to a computer to read it, and I would have to stop the action to type a reply. It was particularly bothersome when someone wanted me to ejaculate on cue, or to ejaculate just exactly in the perfect position for him to get the view he wanted. In the end, I was left feeling objectified and used in a wholly negative way, often without ever knowing if the person on the other end got anything out of me exposing my intimacy or not; at least when an anonymous stranger I never set eyes on fucks my cunt in a hotel room, I have some clue whether or not he enjoyed himself. Back then, at the beginning of my foray into sex with men, I was still young enough that I could attempt camming without looking ridiculous. Now, I suspect any self-respecting webcam would short itself out before it would consent to broadcast me, and I wouldn’t blame it one bit.

Alligators are perfectly harmless as long as you sit on top of them and hold their mouths shut. And don’t annoy them while they’re playing frisbee.

In terms of the actual legal jeopardy you might face from this guy, I suspect you’re more on target about him wanting an opportunity to have something to say on social media, to be a magnet for sympathy, and to raise outrage. Actually going to the effort to instigate court proceedings against someone on a charge of rape is a serious matter that requires proof - something he does not have - without which he will find it difficult to get the state to prosecute a case. Also, depending on what he says about you, he may be opening himself up for a suit for libel/defamation of character. If he is going out there telling people you raped him, that is untrue. If, on the other hand, the kiss you gave was unconsensual and amounted to sexual assault, and he only claims that you sexually assaulted him, that would be a true statement and you would have no claim for libel or defamation. His having your license plate number is not persuasive; he could have followed you out of the grocery and seen you get into your car. The fact that he might have any personal information about you at all connecting you to your Grindr account does not equate to proof of sexual assault five years after the fact unless you had been so unwise as to discuss the incident over electronic media. In order to make a case for libel/defamation stick you might have to prove that he acted with actual malice, but on the other hand it might not come to that - defending against such a lawsuit is usually a considerable expense for the defendant, whereas the plaintiff may be able to find a firm willing to file the suit on contingency. The mere threat of the suit may be sufficient to chill the behavior of someone who is acting out without a legitimate reason. I am not an attorney of any kind, by the way, I just have a little grounding in laws that relate to communications. Others here can no doubt speak to this with greater authority. Here’s a general article on defamation in the #metoo context: [think before following links] https://www.loubar.org/UserFiles/files/bar-briefs/2021/6-June/Bar Briefs_June'21_Defamation Law in MeToo_Abrams_p22.pdf

One observation about that - this “do unto others” concept common to many faiths is specifically in the sense of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. The concept is that a person should act toward other individuals in ways that will inspire positive reciprocity. Compare that with The Satanic Bible, the tenets of which are slanted slightly differently, and can be broadly interpreted as “do unto others as they do unto you”. The difference appears subtle, but it is potentially profound. In the first case, performing the instruction always sets the stage for positive reciprocity, resulting in a positive feedback loop. This can happen as well in the second case, but - if the person does unto the other as the other did negatively unto him, a negative feedback loop can be instigated. Therefore, the second “do unto others” case has a significant flaw that renders it inferior as a social construct.

The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a heav’n of hell, a hell of heav’n. 😉

The willingness to accept that one may be wrong about anything at any time is, as you say, the absolute foundation of science. As soon as a scientist becomes immovable in his assertion that he knows the answer to something beyond all possible doubt, he ceases to be a true scientist. For this reason, I have yet to encounter an atheist who is a true scientist. Every atheist I have ever met is absolutely, unshakably adamant that God does not exist, cannot exist, and nothing can possibly prove the contrary. Now, in fairness, the same can be said of most religious believers, but most religious believers don’t attempt to use science to prop up their belief in the way atheists do. Atheists can no more prove that God does not exist than religious people can prove that he does, but the atheists attempt to dodge the point by claiming that it’s invalid to try to prove that something doesn’t exist. Which you do: It does nothing of the kind. The interpretation of the spectrometer reading does not rely on data taken from what exists outside the jar, only from what exists inside the jar, and the properties exhibited by those contents. The absence of bands signifying the presence of oxygen provide proof of its absence. Reading the surrounding atmosphere would contaminate the study sample and result in erroneous data; indeed, the jar would likely have to be examined in a vacuum chamber of some sort to eliminate false readings. But we can play it your way if you like. If my hypothesis is that oxygen is absent from the jar, I am testing to try to achieve a result that, if I am correct, can be taken as true, or positive. So even though the presence is negative, the hypothesis is positive. Now, apply that to the atheist’s hypothesis that God does not exist, and you realize that you’re testing for the positive result of the hypothesis. Exactly my point. Chaucer didn’t have a spectrometer; the fact that it hadn’t been invented yet had zero bearing on the existence of oxygen. It simply hadn’t been created to give him the ability to see the evidence of it. It hadn’t been created yet. We don’t have a device that would allow us to see any evidence that any higher plane of being exists - yet. Anyone who claims to know that we never will is talking out his ass, because he can’t possibly predict the future. He’s only speaking on the basis of his belief, because he does not, in fact, actually know. Nor can he. None of his syllogistic reasoning of philosophical deduction amounts to knowledge of the presently unknowable. But that doesn’t stop most atheists - or indeed most religious zealots - from trying, because they share a common trait, one that all scientists have to remain vigilant against: Arrogance. The insistance that they are right, no matter what. This is my take on that. I can’t prove that God exists, but if I’ve lived my life as if God does, and upon my death I simply go *~poof~* into oblivion, I’ve still lived a life I could be proud of. But if I’ve lived my life as if God doesn’t, and upon my death I find myself standing in front of God in spite of my arrogance, I’m going to have some explaining to do. For me, the calculus is pretty simple - err on the side of belief.

John Milton did it first, of course, and did it best: Here at least we shall be free; the Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: Here we may reign secure, and in my choice to reign is worth ambition though in Hell; Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven. - Paradise Lost, Book I, lines 258-63

I was in my mid-40s when that bang happened. You don't have to be a "young stud". Yes, I just bent over the table and waited. The campground has a place set aside in the woods with tables and gloryholes surrounded by tall wooden fences that they call "Fort Dix" (yes) and I spent many an hour there bent over the tables as men passed through. On that particular occasion, it all worked out because another guy sat next to me at the table giving oral and hardening them up, then forwarding them over to my ass. You never know what you're going to get. You just have to go in prepared to be happy with the adventure, whatever happens, and open for opportunity. Just realize that the opportunities don't just materialize - you make them. You're not going to get fucked if you're not bent over the table in the first place. Even if you are, you're not going to get every cock that passes by. You may get few takers, or traffic might be light, but just by being there you've already won half the game. Be patient, and don't give up, even if some young stud comes and bends over across the table from you and seems to be getting all the fun - outlast him. Don't forget the insect repellent, and a flashlight.

I am not a practitioner of the philosophy under discussion. Although I am a Christian, I have largely abandoned organized religion in favor of a personal spirituality, an ardent faith in science, and a pursuit of rational thought. To that end, I feel inclined here to rather cheekily play the Devil's Advocate. The critique that follows is not meant as critical of any adherent of the practice, but rather as an opportunity to flesh out and deepen understanding and interpretation. Let us examine the Nine Satanic Statements from LaVey's Satanic Bible: 1. [Lucifer (name substituted)] represents indulgence, instead of abstinence! An analysis of the tenets of the philosophy of the movement show that the underlying factor behind most principles is gratification of one's impulses, under the rationale that denial of any natural impulse is a bad and harmful thing. The caveat is usually "with harm to none", but there is little acknowledgment of the inevitable contradiction encountered when two persons' impulses conflict. The philosophy at that point is recursive, falling back upon the self; when in doubt, the self prevails. Note items 4-6. 2. [Lucifer] represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams! The emphasis here is on "vital", interpreted as physical, rather than spiritual. This assumes that a person's spiritual needs are not vital to his well-being, because there is nothing to be spiritual about. Yet the spiritual aspect of human beings is inarguably a vital component of their lives. This movement purports to reject anything that cannot be proven, which dovetails nicely with an emphasis on the physical. But the idea that you cannot prove a negative is untrue: I can hypothesize that oxygen does not exist within a jar on the table. If I apply a spectrometer I can confirm that, indeed, the jar contains no oxygen. Oxygen, however, is physical, and as we interface with the physical, we can test for it. In the Middle Ages - not so much. Try explaining oxygen to Chaucer. Smoke, vapors, humours, even, fine if he can smell them, but show him a jar full of oxygen and the jar is empty. Take the lid off - still empty. Apply the spectrometer (be prepared to be burned as a sorcerer) - still empty, because you can't see it. The jar could have been full of God as far as he knew, or could prove. Today? Same. Can you see the Fourth Dimension (Euclidean, not Minkowski)? Nope. And you never will, because your brain isn't wired for it. But it's there. So is the Fifth. Ask most any theoretical physicist or higher mathematician. If you believe in science or math, that is. Because you'll have to take it on faith until further notice, since we can't absolutely prove or disprove it with our senses. Kind of like a deity. A claim that a deity exists is on an equal footing with a claim that it does not. You either take it on faith, or you don't, but not taking it on faith in the absence of proof isn't science - it's just another form of belief. 3. [Lucifer] represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit! 'The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man / knows himself to be a fool.' - William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act V, Scene I I will not defile the wisdom any further than necessary. 4. [Lucifer] represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates! The deserving and the ungrateful - as judged by...? In item 6 below, we see the emphasis on personal responsibility, a natural outgrowth of the movement's emphasis on all things gravitating toward the individual self. This responsibility would seem to include judgment of others, and the granting or withholding of favor accordingly. This would at first seem to be in direct contradiction of expressions of tolerance and openness in accepting others' choices to live and love as they wish nonjudgmentally, but by not judging someone negatively, they have de facto judged them positively. They cannot claim neutrality, because they do qualify their acceptance with conditions; ergo, they judge. With the movement's emphasis on the self as the final arbiter of choice, that places the individual in a sort of vigilante position with regard to deciding who's deserving and who's an ingrate, and on what arbitrary terms. 5. [Lucifer] represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek! The claim that this movement derives from a rational foundation, even from a place of Social Darwinism, gets very murky here. Revenge has practical social utility only when designed as a deterrent to future behavior, not as a means to settle a score or obtain justice; yet it appeals to the same impulse regardless of the motivation. In an individual driven by an ethos that holds the gratification of personal impulse as the highest imperative, vengeance is default rather than strategic, and perpetuates cycles of negativity, violence and hate that adversely affect both individuals and societies. This is not a rational philosophy. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. 6. [Lucifer represents responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires! The individual assigns the responsibility to be responsible to the self, but not necessary responsible to others for the self's actions. Personal judgment again comes into play - any other whose intersection with the individual frustrates the individual's impulse gratification is eligible for negative classification (as, one presumes among a number of choices, psychic vampires). Taking responsibility for fulfilling one's own needs and desires is not necessarily the same thing, or even compatible, with taking responsibility as a member of one's community or society. Hedonists are not, in general, the sort of people who sacrifice their time or deny themselves personal pleasures in order to make sure the hungry are fed or the naked are clothed, when they themselves get nothing out of the arrangement. Moreover, those who assume self-responsibility tend to believe that others should do the same, and take a dim view of anyone who, in their view, is not pulling his own weight. This is consistent with a Social Darwinistic might-is-right, survivial-of-the-fittest view that only the strong deserve to thrive. 7. [Lucifer] represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all! Much has been made in these posts of the "scientific" and humanistic basis of the movement, but the fact that many adherents to not actually believe in a devil or are actually atheists does not mean the movement is based on science, or that its tenets are simply rational. Rather, science is evoked to rationalize many of its foundational principles, and that is something different. But parse the statement above for its core expression and you get: "[Lucifer] represents man as ... the most vicious animal of all" because of his "intellectual development". Yet the adherents to the movement A) claim to embrace what [Lucifer] represents while at the same time doing it with the intellectual sanction of science. The point of the statement is that the movement seeks to treat the individual solely as an animal being, beholden only to its biological, physical needs and impulses. This presumes that every impulse one feels is natural, positive, and necessary, and should be indulged. It ignores the reality that there are 8 billion such individuals on the planet all trying to do the same thing simultaneously. It also ignores the reality that it acknowledges, that humans are not merely animals, but have a divine spiritual and intellectual component. While this component may have resulted in some of the worst of man's horrors, it has also resulted in some of the greatest of man's achievements, the most sublime of his arts. It might be argued, indeed, that it is man's baser impulses, rather than his higher, that have wrought more ill. To wit: 8. Sarah Palin represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification! The movement embraces the Seven Deadly Sins as though they were not called that for a reason. Let's list them: Pride - dangerously corrupt selfishness, putting one's own desires, urges, wants, and whims before the welfare of others Greed - an inordinate desire to acquire or possess Lust - unbridled desire, such as for sex, money, or power Envy - a sad or resentful covetousness towards the traits or possessions of someone else Gluttony - overindulgence and overconsumption of anything to the point of waste Wrath - uncontrolled feelings of anger, rage, and even hatred, vengeance-seeking Sloth - a failure to do things that one should do Each of these may lead to physical, mental or emotional gratification in the moment, but over time or in excess, each is likely to lead the individual to adverse consequences. In this, the movement is short-sighted, and a decision to pursue short-term satisfaction with little regard to the consequences is not rational. 9. Sarah Palin has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years! Oddly enough, I had been under the impression it was Jesus. But then, the Devil would say that; he's all about envy.

Measured by this particular thread, then, we’re doomed. But if I might suggest, you could therefore make the most of the situation and replace “we’re doomed” with “we’re fucked”.

I think we have to assume, for those who have listed multiple ‘nothing better than this” items, that either A) each subsequent item supersedes and invalidates the previous one, or B) the poster didn’t get the point of the exercise.

For the record - currently, ‘sexual addiction’ is not recognized as an actual addiction by the American Psychiatric Association (the most recent version of the DSM-V, published in March of this year, does not recognize a diagnosis of sexual addiction); by the World Health Organization (its International Classification of Diseases -ICD- includes ‘compulsive sexual behavior disorder’ but does not use an addiction model; or by the Chinese Society of Psychiatry (the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders does not include sexual addiction as a diagnosis). The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, and neuroscientists studying sexuality have all taken positions within the last 5-6 years that they find no evidence to support a classification of sexual addiction as a mental health disorder. There is some speculation based on animal studies in the laboratory that compulsive sexual behavior may share mechanisms similar to those of true addictive behaviors, but these assertions are not widely accepted as a basis for the categorization of the behavior as a disorder. So for all you guys talking about how you’re addicts to sex - you’re not actually addicts in the way people get addicted to drugs. You may be obsessive about sex, you may feel it as a compulsion, but if you’re saying “I can’t help doing it, I’m addicted” - you might want to take a closer look at your motivations. Because if you’re not actually addicted…what’s the actual reason you keep doing it?

Tell your regular doctor that this urologist’s performance was unacceptable and that you would like a different referral. If he insists on knowing why, tell him that the urologist attempted to apply his personal moral standards to your healthcare under the guise of s flimsy medical pretext, and that you have zero confidence in the man’s ability to objectively treat you. It’s your body - you should never settle for substandard medical care.

I’ve been taken out in the open with an audience many times, including my personal-best gangbang, which took place bent over a picnic table in the woods. There’s no better place for it than a gay campground, of which there are several scattered around the U.S. The one I know well is Camp Buckwood south of Indianapolis. I’ll never forget one particular long, rough breeding I took with an audience of about a dozen men just after sunset - there had been a party where they handed out those fluorescent ring necklaces, and all the guys wearing them took them off and gathered them together to set in a pile on the table near my head so they could watch my facial expressions while I took cock.