hntnhole

Have to admit ..... I laughed .....

Really !!! That's EXCELLENT news - it's been dry as a desert over there, to the point a lot of guys just stopped going. The action used to get cranked up later at night, but hells bells - if it's starting earlier, fantastic !!! I'm not a "day-drinker", only went over there around 11pm - when the place was shoulder to shoulder with guys fucking each other. I reckon I'll just adjust my schedule a bit. Thanks for reporting the great news !!! (the snowbirds are starting to head back north now ... so maybe the really dirrrrrrty old regulars are turning up again?)

... knows that the better it is for the bottom, the better it will be for him - the Top.

As always, that's true. I think the historical "[banned word]" re: incest became an institutionalized, universally accepted notion well before any scientific knowledge developed re: mixing of genes, the possibility of serious lack of development in offspring, all of the negative implications that can come along with "brother/sister" incest. Obviously, that's not germane to same-sex incest, but the stigma carries over regardless. If gayness is passed on, and there are two brothers who are fortunate enough to have received that particular gift, where's the harm? But who's going to stick their nose into all this maelstrom of intensely personal issues? The Government? Hell no. In today's modern world, with all our scientific knowledge, some folks understand that the old rules simply don't apply to same-sex incest. The remaining issue though - potential emotional harm - still does remain valid. I can't judge what others do, and I'll bet that there's plenty of "exploring" that goes on between brothers, maybe brother/sister too. I don't know of a way to resolve this in light of modern knowledge.

Of course. Subject considered non grata.

This may not have anything to do with anything .... buuut .... Has everyone noticed that the Orange colored hairspray is gone now? T's hair is snow-white, eyebrows too. Could that be a hint that he's actually not planning to run/steal the office in '28 ??? Just as easily though, he may be planning to cancel elections completely.

Thanks, londaybaaz, for your response. That may be the case, however when two or more gay men get together for sex, it's virtually a universal expectation that some guy is going to suck some cock, at the very least. Sucking cock / fucking, getting fucked are the basic acts - it's the more rarified sexual acts that need to be mentioned. I think that sucking/fucking are the "default" acts that define gay sex. It's the more "advanced" sexual acts that need to be mentioned/discussed before the scene begins; for instance, any Bd/Sm action, Each guy has an equal measure of agency. I see that as only fair.

I know that entities of an "organized religion" (i.e. Lutheran, Catholic, etc) can be sued, but we can't bring a lawsuit against a "Religion". Only organizations of that religion, assuming such organizations have committed illegal acts or practices. In this context - acknowledging a state of marriage - why would any married person care if such and such a religion didn't recognize that status? If some rule of a "church" were broken or not acknowledged, go jump in the lake, clerics. Shake your sticks and rattle your knucklebones, clerics. As Bessie Smith sang: Then see if I Care.

First, my friend, you don't need to apologize to me or anyone else. Commentary offered in good faith is automatically accepted as being offered in that vein. You don't throw road apples at other folks, merely because you disagree with the point they're trying to make. There are a couple of guys on here whose submissions I simply never read, because they're only interested in trying to denigrate others. I wish they'd ignore what I offer, so they won't get so pissed off at what amounts to nothing but points of view. Here, we also have State-generated taxes (as well as local taxes), but those are seldom associated with what we think of as "earned" taxes - they're more "user" taxes. I think it's probably a Universal opinion that taxes are never "fair", considering what we get in return, but they're necessary to fix the roads, keep the fire departments afloat, pay the cops, all of that. Your point about taxes .... is something universally felt by citizens around the world; not just either of our countries. No one has ever liked paying taxes, but it seems to be a bane of our civilizations that taxes are always present. It seems that we need Governments, and they need taxes, so it's just something we have to put up with. Apparently, the Australian Dollar is worth 63 cents against the US dollar (at least today), so we're within less that 40 cents (in value) of being in the same boat. It seems the Universal Rub is we humans always want Government to pay for everything out of thin air - which will never happen. I agree that applying "vice" taxes - booze and cigarettes - are the most inefficient possible way to reduce use of those items in the population. Both are addictive, and folks will go without eating to keep their "habits" afloat. It's easy to say shit like "Just say no" - I think it was that ridiculous creature Nancy Reagan who coined the term back when her husband was cast in the role of President - apparently he thought it was just another movie. I always enjoy a well-supported position on current events, and if I get a bit more pointed in remarks that you'd (or other guys on here) like, I'm sorry it my thoughts were taken the wrong way. I enjoy the discourse on all kinds of subjects, and try to present a point in a fair, thought-out way. It's not my intention at all to pick fights, denigrate others; all of that is beneath us.

Oddly, I love to do it (rim) - but I don't care to have it done to me. There have been times I have allowed it, but .... never did anything for me.

I disagree. That may be the case in your country, but it isn't the case in the US. Here in the US, we're taxed on everything, no matter what level of financial security we enjoy or not. We're taxed annually on our income, on our property, there are sales taxes of every single thing we buy - from groceries to clothing, and everything else you can name. If taxation were voluntary, there wouldn't be any governments at all, including yours. It's when our contributions are simply taken away - for example, Social Security in the US - that troubles start. You may already know this, but for any readers that don't. taxes are collected (via withholdings from our paychecks) beginning with our very first job, and ending whenever we retire. It's only at retirement that US citizens can access their own earned money back, as SS monthly reimbursements on money we've earned from our very first day of employment. In my case, it was when I began delivering newspapers beginning in the 5th grade. Thus, any American citizen who is employed has a portion of their wages deducted by the Social Security Administration, and from the very first day they are employed until the very last day before retirement, with the understanding that the Government will invest our S.S. taxes, and we will not only get our principal back, it will be with a portion of decades worth of interest as well. That's only one of the taxation contrivances, and there are plenty of others. Of course, every other type of tax (sales tax, income tax, property tax for example) continues until the individual heads off to what you might call "their great reward in Heaven". More, the great majority of Americans do not quibble about paying their fair share, since we enjoy many benefits derived from taxation. My friend, I enjoy your commentary on many subjects, but on this one, you are very much mistaken. We want what we've been promised our entire lives, but more than what we're entitled to - what we've earned - would be unfair, just as chiseling on what we've earned would be unfair.

Thank for that interesting commentary, (I'll just say 'airplane", ok?). I don't think the rich are at all interested in taking a 'step down', as you mention. Nor do I think the wealthy are interested in meeting anyone 'half-way'. Further, I think the rich are more interested in keeping the 99% down than they are sharing their excess. That said, and to the point, I think those holding vast wealth close to their hearts need a transplant, in order to spread the largess around more equitably. If everyone gave 10% of their income to ameliorate the sorrows of the poor, those sorrows would disappear. But that has never happened, and it won't happen in the future, since the more resources a person, a family hoards, the more they crave. So the answer to your question is, of course it's easier for the rich to step down than it is for the poor to climb up. But it just doesn't happen unless there are some kind of benefits (i.e. tax write-offs) to compensate the wealthy if they actually part with some of their gold.

Since he's been referenced in this thread, I'd fuck E.K. in an eyeblink .... in the middle of a tornado .... on the deck of a sinking ship ..... swarming with R "undead" vampires .... and love it.

I can't recall which one just now - but one of the venereal diseases often causes skin problems, scarring, etc. Considering all the call girls, whores, prostitutes, loose tarts he's "been with" through the years, it's no surprise there's plenty to cover up on that corpulent bag of filth. I'm surprised he has any money left, after paying for all the "working girls".

The R's may put up Vance in the next cycle, but he's not bright enough to pull it off. Once the pestilence has left office, I think Vance will be reduced to a minor historical footnote. He has demonstrated absolutely nothing of note, other than taking all that money from a gay billionaire <polite cough> to get elected to the Senate. Trump wouldn't have a Veep that's at all capable of threatening his own position in any way. Only a dullard like Vance - or similar - would be acceptable to Rump.