hntnhole

I think I still have it ..... gave a ton of porn to buddies when I moved, but I think I kept that one ....

Agree with THAT .... neglecting the aural facet of rutting in Holes is cutting off .... well, the ears? to spite the face. It turns my crank but good to be in a darkroom, rutting in a Hole, and a voice of some unseen guy somewhere close by starts murmuring BreedTalk in my ear. The filthier the better.

So how cool is this: Guys from all over the world, exchanging tips on using specialized gear while fucking !!! BZ is just the best site around !!!

Yeah, found it, and a couple of others. Hardly my cup of whiskey. Thanks.

Ahhhhh ..... thanks for the tip. I seldom read those threads, so this was my first read of his posts. Thanks !!

I reckon so ..... through a speculum and then the second sphincter would definitely provide a well mixed series of sensations !!!

Well, maybe I'll try that sometime ... never hurts to broaden one's horizons, right? But, only after it's been in there long enough to get nice and warm. It would already be "hand-warmed" anyway. Did I mention I'm on the slim side* .... don't care for getting chilly at all. *ok - some might ungraciously say downright skinny ..... but at least the important parts aren't.

Depends on what kind of scene. For any Bd/Sm kind of action, I wear the hides - usually Leather 501's, sometimes just a full harness with appropriate accoutrements, rarely Full Dress. For hitting the fuckjoints, just 501's, some old engineers*, suggestive t-shirt, maybe a cap if it's chilly outside. *never wear fine boots to the backrooms or fuckjoints. They'll get stomped on, scuffed up like crazy.

I've always considered specula as tools to train Holes. I suppose they could be used as "Cock-sheaths" too, but I can't imagine it would be anywhere near as comfortable as a warm, wet, well-trained Hole. But, to each his own, right?

damn ... outta response doo-dad's ... again .... I'll have to catch up later, I guess. In the meantime, allow me to express how impressive Mr. BootmanLA's logic, construction of text, controlling the flow of his written argument is. As previously mentioned, I was in the publishing business, and would have hired him in an eyeblink merely for these attributes, let alone all of <polite cough> the other ones.

Not always. My life-partner and I made all the end-of-life decisions decades ago, had counsel draft all the legal documents many years before he became ill. And yes, his family did contest the decisions. And no, they did not prevail, since the documents had been created by our counsel in as iron-clad a fashion as possible, and many years before they were needed. I happen to have some dreaded cousins, who I absolutely know will try to cash in when I kick it. In my final arrangements.* I left each of them exactly $1.00 which demonstrates that 25 years ago, being of sound mind, body, blah blah blah, proves they were in my consciousness, my "thoughts & prayers" as well as my anticipations of their grasping greed in the future, and thus reflects my enduring love and disaffection when I'm outta here and cannot do that in-the-flesh. btw - that chess-move was suggested by counsel; I didn't come up with it. *and yes, they are turned out to be not only republikans, they're fukkin clerics !!!

#1. "Has been out ..." I'm assuming you mean 'out-of-the-closet', as in openly gay? If not, what do you mean? #2. "just a couple of years" If he's been out of the closet for 2 years, but doesn't need sex to be happy in a relationship, what does he need out of a relationship? Does that mean he's a-sexual? Does that mean he doesn't need "relationship" sex, but does need 'outside' sex with strangers? You call him your 'boyfriend', but there's no sex with him. That's not a "boyfriend" relationship, that's a "roommate" relationship - at best. Your question implies whether you should "cheat" or not. Cheat on what? There's nothing to cheat on in the first place. Relationships are two-way constructs. Each guy gives what the other needs, and gets what he needs. Give and take. Sharing. If he's your roommate, you're not cheating on anyone when you head out for sex. If he's your boyfriend, that implies a closer construct that would normally need an honest conversation to discuss needs being met and those not being met. There are tons of relationships like yours. They're called platonic relationships, and they're perfectly acceptable. One thing they're not called though, is "boyfriend". He treats you like a king, and that's great, but it's not meeting your sexual needs. Thus, whatever your relationship is, it's not giving you what you need. Have you discussed this issue with him? Does he know that you and he see the issue of sex differently? It sounds like you could be happy enough by heading out solo to get fucked, and that might be enough for you. That said, it would be far better for you to tell - tell him that you are unfulfilled in (at least) one important way, and you need to get the issue resolved. 1. The word "cheat" implies a previous commitment not to have outside sex. Is that the case? If so, then you should re-visit the subject with him, since it's not proving sufficient for your sexual needs. He must accept that your needs for getting fucked are equally valid as his for not having sex are. If he's not comfortable having sex, so be it. That's his choice, right? His reticence cannot be controlling of your needs though. That's entirely unfair to you, to the relationship, and eventually to him. 2. Would you be happy merely jacking off all by yourself? It doesn't sound like it, since you're already considering getting outside sex. I certainly wouldn't call it cheating though, since you're not having sex with him after 5 months. You don't mention whether or not you made any promises to him, so we can't comment on that issue. I think you should have a frank conversation with him, explain it all, and see how he handles this exceptionally odd "boyfriend" set-up. Then, you'll have your answer, and you won't have to carry the burden of "cheating" on someone you clearly care deeply about. Good luck !!

It didn't occur to me that could possibly happen. But then, lots of things don't occur to me, I guess. This is why I asked the question - I get to learn new things (however disappointing they are) from other guys that know more than I do about all of this. Really, NEDenver .... you're being overly polite. Chumphood is something those guys aspire to ....

Not any more, perhaps. Maybe it was one of the many that were washed away yesterday, with that terrible flooding in KY. Or, maybe one a bit further east, which area the storms are heading for in the next couple of days.

My apologies for being unclear. I am equally, if not more so, focused on guys that want (or will want) to get married at some point in the future. I'm hardly qualified to offer legal opinions - just asking questions, hoping other guys have a lot more to offer than questions. I didn't know , for instance, that recognition could be limited to a single State. But, now I do. Thanks for your reply.

Good news indeed. The question though, is why? Are guys limiting their sexual escapades because of the risk? Are guys having the same amount, and the same 'type' of sex regardless of the monkey business? Until we know those answers, we don't really know all that much yet.

Getting back to the original post: Since the right for two men to be legally married was established years ago, and thousands upon thousands of men have legally married, exactly what could Clancy take away? These extant marriages were entered into as fully legal marriages (at the time, and to this day). Isn't it legally impossible for the SCOTUS to declare these legally-performed marriages illegal? If worse comes to worse, maybe they could make it illegal for any new gay marriages to take place after X date, but can they touch the extant ones? So what if they were based on privacy rights recognized years ago: they're still legal marriages. Right? The difference between marriages and pregnancies (I mean, for the purposes of this thought-exercise) is that pregnancies end after 9 months at most, and marriages can last life-times. Even allowing existing marriages to continue until one of the partners passes, therefore ending the marriage*, and at the same time making new ones illegal - two entirely different answers to an absurdly perverse issue - is completely nuts .... right ??? Any legal-eagles (and also rawfuckers) here on BZ ? on the other hand, we could claim that although our partner-in-marriage has passed, the union still endures in heaven !!! There's nothing they could say to counter that !!!

Is a variation on the theme permitted? Don't forget that there are plenty of Tops that love eating a Hole they've just Bred - and even better, after a number of other, pervious Cocks have Bred it too. I can't think of a better way for a bottom to increase, deepen his satisfaction, than to add the sensation of taste to the sensation of being fucked full by multiple Cocks by oral cleaning-up of a Cock that has been rutting in his well-filled Hole.

Thanks, TotalTop, for posting that most interesting video. As one of those kids who never heard much more about the Civil War in public school other than the traditional "us vs them", every viewpoint is welcome and worthy of introspection. I would be interested to know more about the "cash flow" thought-train. I do know about the problems with status (s.o.f.) as new States in the West began to form, but there must be more to the cash-flow idea than travelers with their belongings. The land-purchases idea is one that could involve a decent chunk of change. Thanks again.

So Trip: one more thing: the Dolphin Democrats is a great resource, if you're inclined to vote Liberal. There's a meeting over at some brewery in O.P. a little later, near the O.P. Post office, but it might be too late to register for it. There are meetings regularly during election season ..... might kill two birds with one stone, as the saying goes .....

I'll take experience and skill over youth and beauty (i.e. beginners) any day. True, some young men possess both beauty and skill, but one seldom runs into them in the fuckjoints.

Of course. Whether it's this crippling of his intellectual capacity or that crippling - the result is the same. I wouldn't use the word "seem" though. These old men, subsumed by their firm belief in something intrinsically false, have actually said (vocal or via the written word) that they intend to proceed with the repressions based on the privacy rights. The way I see it, there's no "seeming" about it. They're gonna just do it, or die trying. I hope Whoever or Whatever is reading this last sentence ......

Yeah, I know so well. Another guy on here (I'll let him identify himself if he wants to) gave me some great advice on getting a shot via the Broward County Health Dept. The woman I spoke to regarding getting an appt for the shot was very nice, not a smidgeon of judgement, and while they're out of vacces just now, she offered to call me back when they get more. Can't really ask for more than that. But, I'm putting my regular schedule at the fuckjoints on pause until I do get it. This one seems to be really fast-moving (in areas where we seem to be more 'active' in practicing our proclivities), and I'm playing this one safe. But, this too shall pass at some point. I've almost got the garage cleaned up ... so there's that, anyway ...

Welllllllllllll ...... if I saw that in a backroom, I'd definitely 'cop' a feel ..... and do pardon the wordplay ......

Hang onto your seats, guys - for once, I'm actually not going to blame Cheeto-Head. I don't believe he possess the intelligence to actually "plan" something like that. He's hardly intelligent, he's merely clever - like every other conman. More, I don't think he gives a rats ass about anything other than his own fat ass. He's just too dull to plan out something like that himself. He's only able to take advantage of situations begun by others, as you point out. Rikers, baby !!!!