PozBearWI

I never anticipated grandpa would steal a key, or that his boy would not grab it back...

Plus Mr Lewis is unabashedly a horny old man; not afraid to be himself.  

Interesting story.  What I find odd is that the young guy doesn't just exit.  He is clearly finding the whole thing interesting when saying "no" would in fact be the easier option.  But adding the landlord to the game is quite an interesting twist.  I'm looking forward to the story unfolding.  @Justinrain another captivating story.  I'm of course imagining the young man as you....  🙂

I read it but don't relate.  I am not one to intentionally inflict pain.  I suspect the field of true sadists is (thankfully) relatively small.  

Condoms I carry expired in 1987....

13 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

More information is needed in order to answer this accurately, but in any event, only YOU can decide what you "SHOULD" do. Asking someone else what you should do, in a matter of extremely personal choices, is simply handing control of your life over to random strangers on the internet. That's a dumb thing to do.

You don't say whether you and your wife still have sex, or whether such sex, if any, is unprotected. You don't say whether she's aware that you are (apparently) bisexual, or whether she's aware you want to bottom for guys, bareback or not.

The more she knows, the less you have to protect her directly. But if you and she are still having sex, that sex is unprotected, and she doesn't know that you're gay/bi or she doesn't know you bottom with men, you really, seriously need to consider PrEP.

It's one thing if she knows and runs conscious risks herself. It's another thing entirely if you're putting her at risk for HIV without telling her. 

Adding to @BootmanLA post, infections for other STI's are on the rise, so your outside play if unknown exposes her to not only HIV (if you're not on PrEP) but a host of other popular STI's.

Yes, both.  Of course the GOP is the more seriously corrupted party.  But that doesn't mean there aren't other issues.  

On 2/26/2023 at 10:58 AM, tallslenderguy said:

If i moved to Florida, it would primarily be because i'd wanna be regularly seeded by You, and all that that means.

Indeed, the ONLY reason I would move to Florida would be to be seeded by you two...

8 minutes ago, evilqueerpig said:

Of course, I'll be accused of inflammatory behavior but I refuse to sit idly by while Right Wing zealots work to undermine democracy and make this a GQP Taliban,  To the QUEER community, be prepared to rise up again for Stonewall 2.0 may be upon us.  My age and health might prevent me from being an active participant but my BIG MOUTH will not be silenced.

EQP man it would be shocking if you sat idly by.  I think there are more of us concerned about extreme behaviors on either end of the political spectrum.  Those extremes seem to be feeding each other while many of us doing what we can to attenuate those extremes.  

Perhaps it is my age.  I've seen our social pendulum swing in three quarters of a century.  In recent times I still see polling numbers spouted which seem typically off by more points than their "margin of error".  (I think @BootmanLA has a more complete history on stuff like this; I believe because the issues are more pronounced in the south.)

As far as those of us in this conversation; we seem to be aligned with the same end.  And it will take many paths to get there (wherever there turns out to be),

🙂 the context here of course fiction...  a lovely fuckbud in your dreams.  of course.  LOL

Indeed those opposing CRT seem to lack critical thinking skills.   🙂

I've had a few UD Poz repeat fuck buds over the years.  I have gotten used to hearing "take my poz cum".  And honestly it doesn't matter.  Not on PrEP.  If it happens it happens.  

Most I've driven was about 2.5 hours away.

20 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Indeed.

Back in 2016, I was happy to support Hillary Clinton, even though I understand a lot of generally progressive people had issues with some aspect of her candidacy - issues that were largely ginned up by her opponents, rather than being true "issues". What I could never grasp is how so many people who ordinarily would have held their noses and voted for the Democrat anyway, failed to do so or in some cases even switched sides to vote for Mango Mussolini.

I did a lot of detailed analysis of the trifecta of states she lost that are widely considered to have tipped the election to Trump (WI, MI, and PA). The biggest takeaway is that a lot of Obama support simply failed to turn out to vote for Clinton. Partly that might be that people thought she had the election in the bag. Partly it may have been old-fashioned misogyny - people have hated her since her days in Arkansas as the governor's wife - because she was an ambitious woman.

But if anyone has any doubts as to how things would be different if she'd been president: We wouldn't have any of the three turds that Trump put on the Supreme Court, for one thing. I don't think even Mitch McConnell would have blocked a viable Clinton nominee for four years for Scalia's seat. Kennedy might not have resigned, but he was among the more tolerable conservative votes on the Court. And Ginsburg might well have resigned early enough that McConnell wouldn't have had to block her replacement. In other words, we might well have had Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and at least two, maybe three other progressives/liberals on the Court instead of six conservatives and just three liberals.

We wouldn't be wondering if these people were going to reverse Roe. We wouldn't be wondering if these people were going to reverse Obergefell. We wouldn't be looking at further gutting of the Voting Rights Act. We wouldn't be looking at gutting almost all firearms laws. And we almost certainly wouldn't be looking at the incredibly insane Independent State Legislature cases.

How anyone can justify failing to vote against this kind of crap is beyond me.

Well said @BootmanLA.  I wonder though how other social and geopolitical fronts might have evolved?  We would still be in the Iran deal, and we would not have left the Climate Accord.  Had there been neonazi gatherings, the president would not be describing them as very fine people.  And I doubt Jan 6th would have happened.  The benefit of 2020 hindsight.  From that starting point though; what might have been the social direction?

While I don't want to condone slurs against me or anyone else; I certainly don't want to outlaw them.  I would rather be insulted than not be spoken to at all.  I don't want to elect someone because of their gender.  Or sexual orientation.  Or religion.  IMO many people believe in silly stuff (I am of no religion, nor party, I also don't believe in the Easter Bunny; until there is verification of life on other planets, I am content to just not know.)  But I certainly don't want to outlaw those.  But we we don't TALK; then nothing moves forward.  I would rather we truly explore our social challenges together.  We'll understand each other better.  We can choose not to demean each other; but when we do we can also choose to take that as information about ours or another's thinking.  Critical thinking might be a victim of our reactions to topics and words we find uncomfortable.  

@BlackDude Yup I am there with you.  I don't support any political party largely for the reasons you list.  My personal motto is that I vote for people not parties.

I like how it is unfolding too....

1 hour ago, NEDenver said:

No.  If their priority is to funnel resources from the bottom 99% of society to the top 1%, they're evil.  If they're pretending it's not happening or something else is more important, they're stupid.  "It's more important that gay people can't teach in schools than that I can eat and have a roof over my head."  Stupid.

That funneling for many is the side effect of their goals and party leadership.  Party leadership is likely NOT the elected ones, but those who paid to get them elected (Big Pharma, The oligarchs).  But indeed there are a number of R's who are in it only for the $$, not for any social benefit save their own self interests.  There are others who were taught from babyhood that us queers are the evil ones, and hold onto that like their next meal depended upon it.

5 hours ago, NEDenver said:

Republicans (conservatives elsewhere also) are best understood using the Republican dichotomy:  All Republicans are either stupid or evil.  Then you just need to figure out for any Republican which category they fall into.  And then, really, because they serve no other purpose, you have to decide if you’re willing to fuck a guy who is stupid or evil.

Or, perhaps, they're neither stupid nor evil.  Perhaps they just have differing priorities than most of us here.  

Every single response has answered that.  I'll conclude that english is not your native language or you ignored much of your early education. 

Neither PARTY has done a fucking thing for any of us.  Parties have one purpose, to carry a banner for their agenda and to promote election of people to follow that.  

If you think I am trying to be "kind" you are delusional.  

50 minutes ago, evilqueerpig said:

We DO have the Democratic party to thank for HIV/AIDS funding and the question STILL hasn't been answered!

What part of "Parties give us nothing" is confusing???  It was NOT the Democratic Party that gave us AIDS funding, it was Congress; although mostly democratic votes.  And that more because of straight children getting AIDS than us.

12 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I partly agree. But I think there are a few problems prohibiting the R's fixing their problems.

First, there's a hard core of support for Mango Mussolini that will not turn out to vote if he's pushed out of the running - ESPECIALLY if he continues ranting that he's been cheated by machines or mail-in vote fraud or stuffed ballot boxes or whatever. Call that chunk of the R electorate the "Trump Chumps". They didn't vote before 2016 and probably won't vote if he's not on the ballot.

Second, there's a divide between those in the party who think the problem is their positions - a minority within the R's - and those who think the problem is just Trump being Trump. These latter ones are the ones who try to placate Trump while also boosting DeSantis, Haley, or whomever - hoping another far-right candidate without Trump's criminal baggage will be able to defeat a Democrat. The former - those who recognize the party has lost its collective mind - aren't in sufficient number to see that a more moderate nominee gets the nod.

The base is composed of far-right fascist types - who earnestly push for extreme positions - and the Trump Chumps, who don't have much of an opinion on anything except that Trump is their guy, regardless of what his positions are. What that tells me is that no one but Trump is going to unify that base; anyone else taking the lead is going to see a big chunk of the base stay home - the millions of older, first-time voters in 2016 and 2020 who voted for Trump and only Trump.

That's why I think the party has to die in order for a new party to arise on the right. The Whigs had to die after the 1852 election debacle which they lost, 254-42 in the electoral college, in order for their remnants, the Free Soil Party, and others to create the new Republican Party. We're coming up, I think, on something similar - not necessarily by 2024, but in my lifetime.

I observe those things as well.  As I wrote, "We'll see".  Odd that you would "partly agree" with that...

@evilqueerpig you must know that parties, in and of themselves, do absolutely nothing for any of us.  Parties lobby for self interest.  Thus it is equally true that the Democratic party as also done nothing for any of us.  

Our government(s) are who we should look to for services, productive legislation.  Most seem lump government into a single pot rather than more accurately pay attention to local government (which has the most impact on ones home life), the county government, state government and finally Federal government.  Each layer interacts with us as Americans.  Only one layer deals with all of us; but each layer is important and has affects us.  

@evilqueerpig I believe all of us in this recent thread are more in agreement than not.  Society is always in a state of flux.  Observable by myself in my comparatively long life; but also in studying history.  The advances we've made since Stonewall are pretty impressive; with AIDS at end helping us (and the whole of society with medical advances).  There are still plenty of people who would squelch all the advances LGB people have made since stonewall.  (yes I know I left out T, however while I am in agreement with the overall cause; I can't support much of the early youth push on this topic; nor do I buy in to redefining gender by how a person feels than how we were born).  And some politicians are seeking traction by getting that element of our society to support them.  Nikki isn't gaining much traction but we will see in the coming weeks if that changes.  

On 2/18/2023 at 12:23 PM, BootmanLA said:

With all due respect, Jim, I don't think the GOP can ever come back to the center. The base of the party is now what the GOP caters to - they sowed the wind, and now reap the whirlwind - and I don't think it can be rehabilitated. About the only thing I think that will work is a long series of crushing defeats in national elections, which will cause the party implode so that a new center-right party might emerge.

As it stands, because of our party primary system - where in most states, the GOP party candidate with the most votes in the primary wins, even if they lack a majority - means that the most extreme candidate wins. Not only is the "base" of the party the largest contingent within it, but they're also considerably more likely to vote in primaries than moderates are. And with Emperor Angry Dorito's iron grip on most of the party's testicles, people who buck his populistic bullshit get spurned by the party almost immediately. Ask Liz Cheney - Liz Fucking Cheney, daughter of one of the most powerful and right-wing VP's we've ever had - how opposing Trump works out.

In the Democratic party, while we have that same issue in a few jurisdictions, our "base" is fairly diverse. It's church-going Black Americans, secular Jews, higher-educated Whites, LGBT people and their allies, and so forth - with no one group's issues dominating things the way the GOP base's cultural issues dominate theirs. So we get a handful of far-left people and a lot more center-left ones.

We'll see.  If R's stay so far right then I imagine we'll finally see a viable third party emerge.  But of course, this is only conjecture.  

Obviously the R's are recognizing their pattern of defeat in popular elections.  Will they do something or does the orange clown have to pass away first?  Again, we'll see.  

Both parties actively court me as I am a locally elected official.  I am not inclined to join either one although I do vote for more Democrat leaning candidates than not.  Locally the choice is sometimes R or nothing.  I am thankful every day to live in a municipality where parties are not allowed in.  We are incorporated as a non partisan municipality - I suspect influenced by the early 20th century Teddy Roosevelt trial.  

I am more interested in other parts of them than a ring...  unless perhaps it is their anal ring...