hntnhole

We're seeing increasingly strident unrest at many Universities/Colleges throughout the country lately, and the issue has become urgent. What presents as anti-"Jewish" demonstrations, is - as I see it - misplaced anger. While the plight of the Palestinians is truly desperate and only getting worse by the day, and the perpetrators of that outrage are obviously guilty of inhumanity and worse, blaming "The Jews" is misplaced, reactionary, and poorly-thought-out - as I see it. The blame doesn't lie with "The Jews" - it lies with the Government of Israel, and particularly with a soulless and utterly corrupt Prime Minister, devoted only to saving his own political skin, which is a completely different issue. He has resisted calls for elections, invents every conceivable excuse for postponing them, because he knows his "war plan" to murder as many Palestinians as possible is a crime against humanity, and not supported by a clear majority of the voting public in Israel. The "eye-for-an-eye" equation of antiquity has morphed, in this depraved P.M.'s limited vision, into visiting that which The Jews suffered in the last century, upon the Palestinian population, a handful of which deserve punishment, with the vast majority of these people remaining innocent of the October attack. I don't have any issue with students everywhere protesting the actions of the Israeli Government, steeping in it's hateful inhumanity. I completely support Bernie Sanders in his stand against allowing one penny of US funds to be used in any way to further this atrocity against men, women, children, babies, that have in no way injured the State of Israel. I well remember the anti-war demonstrations of the last enormous folly of US foreign policy, (when the Draft-Dodger-in-Chief's father hired a quack doctor to diagnose his worthless p.o.s. son with "bone spurs"). That greasy-headed McNamara, with his policy of "containment" is worthy only of contempt, and Westmoreland should have refused to carry out his President's orders, including the "carpet-bombing" of neighboring non-combatant countries. We're seeing parallel examples of misguided and tragic policies today in the Levant, by an equally depraved PM. Making this distinction clear - "Jews" vs the Israeli Government - is critical to the US as well, since it is the US who is Israel's chief ally. Anything else is nothing less than hideously Hitler-esque, and could cost a kind and decent man his re-election.

Assuming the "extended" family (i.e. cousins, second-cousins, etc), none at all. To the OP, I am not in contact with any family (cousins, 1st or more) members, and haven't been for decades, and I miss them not one whit. I have one sibling, who is completely non-judgmental, and supportive of who her brother is. I hear from her family (i.e. her kids) never - which is fine with me. I do have a fairly extensive "chosen" family, who I am very regularly in contact with, and that's all I need to fulfill the "family" need.

That's partially true, with the exception of current office-holders. When a politician has held office, and is seeking reelection, we have his/her voting record to judge them by; what they've actually done, as well as (admittedly the far less weighty) what they say they're going to do.

There is a way to participate, and remain unbothered by insincere stirring-of-the-pot remarks. At the top of the home page, there are a number of things we can click on, one of which is entitled "other". Click on that, and a dropdown will appear, offering a number of choices, one of which is "ignore'. If you "ignore" some particularly offensive participant, you will no longer see the objectional content, (unless it's quoted in a reply by some other guy), and it will be easier to avoid paying attention to the unwanted content from that particular member. I'm hoping you won't abandon the thread, since - at least for some of us - the discourse on many widely-ranging, thought-provoking subjects is important to most of us. Your input is well worth the read and consideration. Some time ago, I blocked one guy whose input was never worth the time (to me) it took to read, and that's that. Please keep participating.

The word "religion" carries a connotation of the Western belief-system, which has served us ill for centuries - about 20 of them. I don't consider Buddhism in that same "basket of deporables" (remember that one?). That particular belief-system is based on decent human behavior, rather than killing off those who don't believe in one singular dogma based on magic.

Agreed - and that applies to any "belief-system" (usually cloaked in religious dogma) that causes separation rather than unity. A while ago, the boy-blunder Speaker of the House was supposedly quoted as believing that he might be able to bring about "the end times" - as in the Old (anciently old) Testament. He's allowed to believe what he wants to believe in (religiously), but no one is allowed to force their magical delusions on everyone else. The Magaroids are getting really close to the dogmatic beliefs of other ancient belief-systems that depend on magical illusions from the ancient past. Yet, some of we humans still cling to that which divides us, in the belief that they will be spared the apocalypse, if and when it happens.

We need another choice added to the 7 choices at the bottom r.h. corner: How about PERFECTION ???

Not at all. You and the the other guy made a deal, and he was the one who broke the agreement. HE's the jerk (I would have used the word "asshole", but I like them too much to denigrate them)

I enjoy the aural aspect of Breeding Hole ... but I'm hardly loud about it. Much prefer bending over the bottom's back and whispering truly filthy Breedtalk in his ear ... no matter how jammed the darkroom is. When they respond in kind, it's appreciated - even if just communicated in grunts and groans of pleasure. When I'm done, sometimes I'll tell the next guy in line something like "that's really good Hole ..."

I reckon it's just more of the "talk is cheap" stuff. What I don't get is, why would a guy say/post that he's into something, when he's not? And then go on to complain about how tough it is to get laid ... Why not just say what you mean, and mean what you say? I don't get it either, which is only one of the reasons I don't bother with the fuck-apps anymore.

I tend to look for the "better" rather than the "non-better", but that's just my bent. When all is said and done, the actual words don't really matter; it's what the intent happens to be that matters. Language - just like a hammer or screwdriver - is our most commonly used "tool" to communicate with others. It's the intent behind the words that's either reinforcing or negative. I see these efforts at making language relating to those of us that are sexually different from the majority as efforts to make language itself less able to be interpreted as negative in connotation. I'll bet that we've all heard Black Americans use a word amongst themselves that would get non-Af/Am's asses kicked if they used the word, and justifiably so. Sure, I'm pleased to know that one of our organizations has taken this step, which can only be interpreted as a step forward, but it won't make the kettle boil over either. It's all in how the language is used that's so important.

Agreed. I don't necessarily care for all the references to the latest pop star, all of that, but it's worth putting up with to watch the rest. And, I'm familiar enough with guys that don't look like me to know that his ass is covered with coarse, black hair, and would be as tasty as any. I do enjoy most of the guests though, however once his show is over, I turn on Netflix, or just turn the tv off. "Some of them have a very DISTANT (if any relation) to law ...." I'll say - lots of the stuff about the latest pop star doesn't interest me at all, but he does, which makes him flash those pearlies. I don't really care for The Woman In Black though - constant, incessant self-promotion tends to turn me off.

Guilty as charged !! To the rest, I'd love to rut in his Hole while he ruts in yours ... and you may have noticed that he doesn't wear a gold ring on his finger either. There must be some reason he's divorced. I must have been doing some guy in the corner when they handed out the "gaydar" - I have almost none - but I know what I like. And, don't forget the ex-wrestler who is an occasional guest on the preceding (week days) show .... grrrrrrrrr ...

Wellllll .... if he works there, and depends on his wages at all, then toeing the "party line" isn't all that surprising. That said, I hope with all my heart (and Cock) that he's 100% correct !!! How was "Sloppy Sunday" last night ???

None taken, none intended. Merely an oblique reference to a regrettable misuse of the term.

They're probably not all as thoughtless as their fingers imply. The state of public education has been deteriorating for years. That said, you're right: it's a bit of a task to excuse some of the poor usage these days ....

Thanks, as always, for that comprehensive explanation.

Thanks for that interesting and important link. As a kid, one of my mothers cousins fits the descriptors in the article. We never knew what/why/how he was different, we just knew he was, and we were not to make fun of him, treat him any differently than any other person. I remember he held a number of low-skill jobs, dishwasher at restaurants, etc. He kept to himself, but attended family gatherings, and none of us kids (or, presumably the adults) knew quite how to interact with him. He was a gentle kind of guy, quiet, kept himself in the background, and we kids seemed to just accept that he was different in some way, and left it at that. Kids don't understand these kinds of abnormalities, but it's not tough to be kind to those folks either. At (extended) family gatherings I was always asked to play requests (piano), and he always asked for a piece called Bumble Boogie - finally I told my mom to go downtown and buy the sheet music*, so he could have his request played too. It seemed like such a simple thing to do for him, and he always appreciated it. Now, I can't even remember how that dull piece even began .... but it served it's purpose back then. *I would have gladly taken my bike and done it myself, but I was forbidden to ride my bike downtown, despite having done it any number of times on the sly. Some things we learn really early on .....

Well said. Often, cloaking the 'message' in 'descriptors' is how some guys are able to excuse their mental/sexual demons. It's a shame that any guy feels the need to do that, but .... Which, at least to my mind, is the entire point. The sexual "connection" doesn't happen every time, but it is worth the effort every time.

Well, neither have I. It was only something I could come up with at the moment that might possibly be helpful. Not the best tool for me either, but - at least a notion that might lead to another more useful one.

And, of course, remembering to put some dough in the "offering" plate every Sunday ... When I was in high school, had my first job, my dad (who was on a couple of the church boards) had the "pledge" discussion with me. I was treated to an oration of how crucial it was to The Lord that we pledge to give X amount every Sunday, so the institution could "plan" for "expenditures" etc, blah blah blah. I countered with something like "God will provide for whatever is needed, right?". NOOOO .... was the reply: it's your responsibility to maintain the (huge 19th Century paeon to Institutionalized Lutheranism) physical plant, the pastor needs a new car, blah blah blah. The intersection of what "The Lord" said and the real world, was definitely in conflict (this was well after the beating I caught for laughing at some inanity during the service), and since I was heading off to school shortly, I turned the tables on dad, using the same phrase he'd used on me a million times: "We'll see ..." No, I didn't "pledge" any amount. As I recall, I took the pledge envelope apart, and made a paper airplane .....

Please understand that unobstructed fucking with other men is the focus, not the issue of whether or not to seek/avoid illness. As most of us understand the term, "Breeding" implies a Top pumping his sperm up a willing bottom's ass, not what might or might not be included in that sperm. Thus, there is no connotation to spreading illness, only to "connecting" sexually with other men that feel the same sense of need. The issue of whether or not to willfully spread illness is an ancillary subject, with some in favor, some not, and worthy of discussion within certain threads, without any implied support or lack of it by the site. Breeding Zone is a treasured website by those of us that use it, to exchange ideas pertaining to our particular lusts, myriad ways, means, methods of expressing that lovely requirement in our lives.

I'm assuming you mean whether or not they've showered recently.

Of course we do. The point, however, is the balance of an effective treatment against serious illness, versus what some experience as a very limited alteration of a daily bodily function. Completely correct, of course. No Deity is going to send a burning chariot for any of us (meaning the entirety of humanity) to take us to "Heaven". Thus, every one of us has to make choices, and implicit in that requirement is that we educate ourselves on the various ramifications of x course of action or y course of action. Some argue for x course, some argue for y course, but in the end, only each individual guy has to come up with his answer. Maybe graphing it out for ourselves would be useful: X course of action = X number of points. Y course of action = Y number of points. Include all the facets we can think of, including just how important wanton sex is, compared to all the other facets of our lives. Add up all the numbers, and see where it leads. What it all boils down to is, only we can truthfully answer the questions we put to ourselves. No one else can do it for us. Not friends, not medical folks, not Deities, not Governments, only we, our own selves can make these decisions. Once that introspection has been entered into, decisions made, there are no cultural/religious obligations we feel compelled to honor (other than basic decency towards our fellow humans, of course). Honesty counts, most particularly with ourselves.

Thanks, Rillion, for that interesting perspective. Given that the Electoral College was established in 1787*, when no women were allowed to vote, let alone the enslaved "property" in Southern States, or Native Americans, it may be that institutionalized slavery affected the institution of the Electoral College, I would maintain that the Amendment was aimed at those who could legally vote, namely Caucasian landowners, regardless of their level of education. A common practice at the time was for underage Caucasian boys to take up a trade (farming, animal husbandry, small business, shop keepers, etc.) and when they had achieved enough success to purchase property, they were also allowed to vote. Even Caucasians who did not own property were excluded from voting, which inequity (for Caucasians, of course) was addressed through the E.C., thus providing some small measure of "voice" only to Caucasian males within the electoral system. *with certain Constitutional Amendments to that Act at various points since. I still think it's an anachronism that should have been thrown out many years ago. Given that the E.C. was used to attempt a revolution in the US very recently, it's clearly time to advance the voting process into the current Century. Thanks for adding your perspective.