brnbk

I went with "God given", since space is limited in a poll line even though I must confess, I do not regret the use of the phrase. I would have preferred, the classical: 'gift of the gods', a term that has unfortunately become rare in English, because of WASP cultural influence, that often looks down upon the idea of gods as 'heathen' and the idea of one God as better and superior. The advantage of ascribing sexuality as a gift from the gods rather than a God is that, gods, unlike God, are more fluid; they can exist or not exist, they can be in the Universe or outside of it — it conveniently describes all the phenomena we experience but cannot explain. Sexuality as a gift from the gods could mean many things: I am grateful to have had sex, I am having sex coz the gods made me horny, I had sex coz the gods made the sun shine brightly and turned me into a sexual pig , I feel horny coz the moon was three quarters, last night. Sexuality that comes from something other than God or gods, could just be like dry or rough fucking — depending on one's perspective; and if you prefer that — that is perfectly fine as well. Again, apologize if your atheistic/agnostic or any other beliefs where hurt with my choice of words. I am getting better at these polls and hopefully will be able to figure out the right combo soon!

"Isn't this baby just beautiful" Who say that about themselves??

In many parts of the world, the primary Torture center for a homosexual tends to be his family: demands of marriage to produce children; demands of homosexual invisibility to protect family reputation, honor; demand to follow religious prescriptions against homosexual sex; refusal to recognize the gay significant other as a spouse etc. Given that Western societies especially the United States tends to be for more individual centric, how much of the "Family" do you think was — and is — responsible for the homophobia that gay men suffer from?

Dear Scorpio FF First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to read my thoughts and views seriously and taking the time to understand them, and enjoy them! I truly appreciate it, and I hope you will ask me the questions that u had in mind and not hold my 'response' against me, after I explain a bit. I am not a native English speaker and often speak languages other than English and end up making the mistakes that unfortunately is common among non native-English speakers. While I tend to express my thoughts, fairly legibly, when put in some effort; I tend to be terrible at expressing my feelings, often making grammatical and punctuation mistakes, with comical mistakes or end up coming across as harsh as cruel. My earlier response in the same post would testify to my poor English skills ( I am someone who escape from Asia, and neighbor! seems to know time it is time for you (U) to 'get you married, In most India or China, gay men do live under socially etc. ) I apologies if my word have hurt you, and I did not mean to suggest that you are a person devoid of empathy, when what I really wanted to say was that you where not being sympathetic to woke issues I went and re-read what I wrote, and: in response to your question, I answered saying, you where devoid of empathy i.e. to say, you where not understanding the woke philosophy and ideology. I can see how you could have misunderstood what I wrote as an attack, as usually, in present day US terminology and usage, calling a man 'devoid of empathy' is equal to calling him a godless heathen who does not understand the secular religion of compassion and understanding — not of individuals but of causes: social, political etc. I was hoping my response would come across as sharp ( sharp rebuttal - not a sharp rebuke!) but definitely not spiteful and am saddened that it has been received as such. I am sure you would not have had a stress response to what i had said had we been taking in person; the internet and the written text can sometimes be inferior mediums for communicating feelings as it is entirely through words. This particular miscommunication incident, has made me realize the importance of the ability to save a Draft on this site. I wrote, what i did, and hit send late at night and i think being able to save a Draft, will help us, write with a bit more more of thought to possible misunderstandings.

Absolutely. The East or West are just constructs, and even when we employ them to understand the world, the fact is we are all one human race horny race. There are lots of great things about the West, and as you rightly say the most important thing being sexual freedoms and LGBTQ rights. Gay men in many parts of Asia, East Europe and Africa live under terrible oppression of various shades! I am someone who escape from Asia to search for a freer gay life, and can personally attest for it. In Asia, every family member — and neighbor! seems to know time it is time for you (U) to 'get you married'( marriage of course only being to the opposite sex). In most India or China, gay men do live under socially oppressive structures and climates. While I have seen conservative parts of the West as well, I think the difference between the East and West is in the West, both the conservative and liberal parts have learnt to co-exist. On my way to mass I see a lot of openly gay, men and a newly opened rainbow restaurant. The Church does not feel the need to hunt gays anymore, or the gay to harm to the church. Sadly, the community in Asia hasn't evolved to let gays live in peace and thrive.

"Woke" as a term is used in Black Vernacular English to refers to the state of being conscious of race-based injustices and taking actions, especially political and social, and creating awareness about them. Woke in proper English would – roughly and perhaps awkwardly – be translated as: Awakened. Like the Buddhist Enlightenment, a person who learns about the true nature of the Maya of the material world through Buddhism, and becomes Enlightened; an Awakened i.e. Woke person learns about the social injustices in the world, and works towards correcting them. Fortunately or Unfortunately, since English is such a new language which doesn't have the pedigree of ancient languages like Chinese, Indian, Latin, Greek etc., new words can very easily be incorporated into it. A lot of time inaccurate usages of vernacular English( Chinese English, Black English, Hispanic i.e. a Spanish speaker's English), enters Standard English and becomes "acceptable usage", even if it grammatically incorrect or wrong/poor English. Words like Maya and Yoga, which are Indian in origin are now routinely used in English and grammatically incorrect phrases like say, "Say What" becomes recognized and part of some kind of Standard English i.e. acceptable usage. If you honestly read what you quoted, "....what I did with my husband each morning. I woke him" you will see a very real life examples of wokeness!. A man referring to another man as his husband, would have been considered inaccurate and wrong English and is one of the "woke changes" that anti-woke folks object to. In right-wing usage, the term "Woke" is ascribed to anyone, who brings up an issue of injustice against their non white-male group. Thus, blacks, women, gays, people of color, people with any disability, poorer classes in very rare usage etc., who complain or talk about their issues are considered having gone "woke" i.e. rogue against the White State, which is considered as the de-facto protector of white-"christian" norms and "civilization". Whites are not the only men hold such an exalted opinion of their culture; other races often do hold nationalistic and parochial views. For e.g. the Chinese and Indians are very proud of the Asian origins of civilization and often find it strange that Europeans lay claims to civilization, considering Asiatic cultures built civilizations for millennium before white Europeans made any recognizable contribution to it. What differentiates the Whites from the Eurasians IMO is the White Christian insistence that only their civilization and christian god, who they also assume to be some kind of WASP person, is the only civilization that has a right to exist – in contrast to the ancient civilization of the world lived in peace with each other. To answer your question: yes, you are devoid of empathy coz you seem to join the anti -woke brigade, who rarely have an intelligent objection to woke causes and their only complain to Wokeness is that it takes away from their existing "privileges". The world is truly oppressed by whiteness and only wokeness can secure our rights. Just as abortion ie reproductive rights of women disappeared from the legislative books of the United States, so can protections of gay men....

Thank you so much for the clarification, Viking. 🌹 Like the ancient god, Thor, you always bring clarity to the situation.🫂 I am going working on my story then and will try to post it, soon. My stories are not likely to include HIV, because it would super-complicate the plot and undermine the homophobia that I would like to focus the story on.

The answer to the question, would largely depend on when the bottom expressed his wishes. Did he state so before the sexual act or in the midst of coitus. If he stated so before the sex act, there should be a reasonable expectation that his wishes be respected. However, if he stated so, only after the sex act had begun, I am not sure how much can the Top be held guilty of the "crime". After all it depends on how much you are used to "withholding" If you are a devout religious man you probably would have been aware of the Official Gazette of the Church - 1952, which did clarify that the amplexum reservatum aka "Reserved Embrace" i.e. having sex but choosing not to ejaculate in one's partner was acceptable, and thus practiced it; you have restrain and know how to put it in practice in real life. However, if you are a non religious Top or someone who doesn't take religious doctrines from the early 50s seriously, can you really be blamed for a lack of restrain? I don't wish to suggest that Tops should never stop. Clearly, there are always instances when we have to stop in life and that applies to sex even in sex: Say, the bottom or even the top for that matter is feeling unwell, or the partner of a cheating bottom marches right into the bathhouse where his other half is enjoying life – would normally bring the sex to a halt. Choosing to bareback and then telling a Top not to cum in your ass, once the sex act has begun or at least is in swing half way is inconsiderate, unthoughtful, and micro-managing things. Do i think the Top should try to stop: Yes. Do I think he can or should be held liable in a court of law for not stopping, on charges such as rape or sexual assault - Nope. Good sex involves good boundaries between both the Top and bottom.

I am a bit confused and thought I would post this question so that others who have the confusion will also have their doubt cleared up. Is rape Fiction i.e. with the narrator/cartoonist, wanting to commit homosexual rape and successfully doing so (or at least half way) allowed on the site. From what I have read and understood, it is not allowed but I am not sure. I am wondering about the reasoning behind this view. After all drug usage, and incest stories - in appropriate forums is allowed on the site. Incest and drug use are both illegal and familial incest can said to be a crime at par with rape, to some degree. I would appreciate if the moderators could clarify if rape/forced-sex stories ever allowed on any of the forums here , say for e.g. in the Fetish Section - Hardcore Stories or in the Backroom stories?

He did exclude that option.

Would the role of a co-founder be like a Board Member of a corporation?

Options 2 and 4 would be the closest options for the situation you propose as both are scenarios that call for casual sex without barebacking. Option 2 would be if you choose to bareback only with your partner, but have condom sex with others; and Option 4 would be if you choose to bareback- rarely when having casual sex, and almost always use a condom.

the question basically tries to understand what barebacking- gay sex without condoms, and casual sex -sex without commitment and usually someone u might not necessarily know before hand, for eg a guy u run into in a book store, a sauna, a park, or an empty office, a male toilet etc. – mean to you. In hindsight, I should have added the option of "Undecided" as it allows people to express themselves, if the have some other option in mind - but often feel that doing so would make more likely to choose it, rather than the options presented. Which option you would have preferred to be added to the poll?

Is barebacking inseparable from casual sex, or can a Man indulge in one without the other? The decision to bareback i.e. have sex without condoms is often seen as synonymous with casual sex. However, a recent musing by one barebacker on the merits of barebacking, after a visit to his oh so freúndlich doctor is making me wonder what these terms mean to people. Can one bareback without having casual sex or does barebacking always include casual sex? Can a gay man realistically expect to have casual sex without barebacking? Are there guys who have casual sex and yet not bareback but use condoms?

From the sound of her views, it seems like she a strident person with strong views. Unfortunately, people with rigid views can be wrong. If you told her that u are fairly contentious in your medication regiment, as a medical professional she should think of other causes for your symptom —BLIP on viral load — instead of insisting or implying that you are lying. Sounds like she is put off by the fact that you have Syphilis a disease which still conjures negative connotations in the minds of some. It makes sense that you feel judged coz it does sound like she is Her value system does seem to include the maxim: do not have casual sex, as sex increases the risk of diseases. Does she realize though, that not everyone shares her value system. Even the great German thinker Martin Luther ended up marrying, as he could not endure being a priest, and ultimately rejected the idea that Lust was inherently evil. If you do meet her again or decide to continue as her patient do mention how even great Germans like Luther thought differently that her. Maybe it might open her mind? The flaw in her approach is that, as the doctor she assumes u might have the same value system as her OR that you should; and she does not give you options. She does not listen when you tell her about your actions and tries to put the fear of God/disease into you. There are no easy answers for questions about values as what might be stupid or unhealthy to some might be very attractive to other. Many Germans for e.g. might judge Sumo Wrestlers of Japan to be fat/obese/unhealthy however to a sumo wrestler, he is carrying on the traditions of a great sport. We all takes risks- more than nature requires. People who lives in cities are taking risk with the quality of air, food and life compared to someone in a rural areas. Workers in industries are taking risks compared to non industrial employees. I am told now, that even sitting in an office is unhealth as it leads to a sedentary lifestyle. Most of us do take risks, in that sense. Where is the risk justified, depends on the individual and his society. Football apparently brings with it the risk of concussion - is this doctor really going to tell her football player patient to stop playing football? Not likely. Sounds like you are confused about both your lifestyle choices i.e. barebacking as well as medical information regarding it : do HIV meds eventually stop working, and can you really get re-infected if you takes Meds as they have PrEP in them. A good place to start would be to gather all relevant medical information. how safe is barebacking for a HIV positive person, what are the risks of casual sex and barebacking etc, how well does PrEP protect people. Websites like the CDC offer fairly accurate information. For eg. on their website they say that Prep protects 99% but I am not sure if that rate is true for all prep users including HIV poz people. CDC - Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Print Posting here is great as well as there is some relevant information coming up from the great guys on here. I do believe there is some truth to the possible causes sited by EU Raw Bull. I do know that I once caught an infection coz some horny guys had a piss session in the Sauna of a YMCA gym that i had just joined and before I could do anything i got a serious hepatitis infection! So even going to a gym, can get u sick. Once u are clear about the information, you will be in a place to make a more informed decision. Life is short and each person has to decide what feels right for them. It is possible that you might decide that casual sex and its risk are not for you but you can choose to bareback in a monogamous relationship. I am surprised by your experience but not totally shocked. Capital cities of even western countries can be super conservative and can attract all sorts of government types, most are greedy and some add their version of godliness to the greed. It would be a pity if you cannot find a more gay friendly doctor especially in a large city like Berlin. You should never have to fear your doctor or their judgements. Hope you feel better soon!

Thank you, so much, for letting me know. Well, there is an incentive for me to reply to more threads/share my opinions with the world barebacking world. I was afraid often that I was too outspoken in my views and shouldn't be so vocal about them but doing so does seem to have an benefits.- an ability to offer more reactions.

Unfortunately, I believe there are limits to the amount of reactions one can do in a day . I am getting an error message "Sorry, you cannot add any more reactions today."

To answer this question, we need to first respect history and begin, by taking a good look at it. Medical sciences originated, and was practiced in the East(Egypt, India, Americas -Inca, Maya) for at least 3500 years before the West got a whiff of it. Asia and the Americas had made breakthroughs in medicine and invention, while Europe learnt and copied them. I am not suggesting that someone of Asian or American descent is necessarily more civilized than someone who traces their origins to Europe, as the reasons for the Asiatic origins of Civilization rather than European can be explained by the wonderful Truism - Necessity is the mother of Invention - White people lived in Europe and did not face the diverse climatic conditions that Asians and Americans had to conquer, and which required invention and medicine. In the past 250 years with the large scale migration of the Westerners into what was Eastern lands due to imperialism and colonization, the West adopted Medical Science and indeed became a pioneer in it. This was largely funded by the gold of the Indians and the colonies, almost much of it was mercilessly looted and helped the newly arrived European tribes to Americanize themselves and establish themselves into someone else's homeland. To add insult to Inquisition, native American tribes where systematically diseased out by the invading European tribes and eventually marginalized in their own Continent, without any compensation for their land, gold or civilization. The reason why I mention the history and tried to follow the money trail, is to make sure we understand that no "western government" – by which I think u mean the governments of US and Canada etc., – deserve any kind of opportunities to make money from medicine, diseasing people etc., as they have already made enough money through it. The wealth of the colonies was created by murder, loot and pandemica of its natives It is a well established fact that Aids became a full global crisis simply because the Republican and right wing government lead by Regan did not show any initiate to try to deal with this issues as the group that was predominantly affected in the United States by AIDS where gay men. HIV/Aids was seen as a punishment from the white Christian god who disapproved of sodomy and was initially even named "Gay-Related Immune Deficiency". I doubt if the government would have been so slow to act if pregnant women suddenly faced a health crisis, say in prenatal health; would the US government be blaming the inherent sinfulness of Women or even mother Eve, for it? or actually work within doctors to find a solution. The only reasons gays where treated differently from other citizen groups of the United States was because homosexuals where considered a threat to the established white family order of the US. Gay man when choosing to pursue the homosexual lifestyle in an assertive fashion threaten the social order of the United States. The operative word is in an assertive fashion i.e. refusing to follow the well established hypocrisy of the past of doing ones duties and having children, raising white christian children so as to create more WASP individuals. AIDS is not anyone's fault. least of all Aids victims. No human being is to blame for the harms done by a Virus. Gay men did not choose to become HIV positive. HIV is a virus and gay men are not to blame for it. Actually in Africa its straight people who are predominantly HIV positive. There are no sane arguments for the non treatment of HIV AIDS. the only arguments that favor a price for HIV Aids treatments are those rooted in plain bigotry towards gay or a Nazi like attitude towards human beings and medical science. The poor are human, with a christian soul and deserve treatment, just like anybody else.

I believe you are missing the point. Of course a guy who claims in a "Christian Church" that the Devil is a god, or God, can expected to be tossed out on his ear or perhaps spend a day in jail for disturbing the Sunday service. But does he have the right to state that and inform the church goers, that their belief in God, is mistaken is the question here. Many churchgoers might find his view distasteful and even violent, but how much freedom does this man have to express his beliefs is the hallmark of a civilized and truly free country. Not so long ago, maybe just a few years in some countries and a few decades in the States, if someone expressed their opinion or belief or desire that men should be allowed to fuck men, they would find the police rushing to bring it to a halt. My point is deciding which set of beliefs are correct or acceptable is difficult as standards and views change over time. In ancient Britain, a king could demand that his wife prove she had not committed adultery by passing through fire. In Islamic law and practice, a "marriage" conducted with a what we would consider an underage girl - under the age of 18 but has reached puberty is legal!! Some cases of free speech are easy to decide. Fucking young and I am assuming you meant -underage --boys would be clearly seen as offensive and criminal in most jurisdictions. However, if someone insists that his religion allowed a "marriage" to an underage girl... and that he should be allowed to at least state his religious practice, if not practice it... how should the State/powers that be react. Of course crimes such as calling for the murder of a mayor or a citizen is always a crime, but if someone wishes to inform the world that he is the next Christ or even the real Christ, shouldn't he have the right to it including informing on social media, gathering enough followers and setting up a new group/religion etc.? After all when the historical Christ set up His religion, did not the powers that be disapprove and demand His death! I am assuming the divine Masters claims must have assumed absurd to many people of His generation. Who decides what is true or false. Somethings are fairly easy and some moderately easy. For e.g. say on the contentious issues of vaccines, we can find the answers in health research and outcomes that can say wether vaccines are useful or not. This is a data driven question and has a relatively easy answer. However on question of society and morality and values and religion... Who decides what is acceptable?

Sorry, I think our discussion went a bit sideway - from the main topic , and unfortunately I cannot think of any book that has captured the whole history of this important topic. Most of knowledge about those times exists mainly in history and magazine articles. If i come across something, I will definitely let u know.

There isn't a whole lot of books out there, since the Jesuits and the Protestants did a superb job of burning native American libraries and temple records, and a whole lot is not known about it, at least in the English speaking world. Perhaps there are more historically accurate accounts in Spanish sources, but I am not sure. There is one book that I am currently reading that I think is worth a look, American Holocaust by David E Stannard. Maybe I might have to dive into it... and try to find out more..

You are most welcome! One of the challenges that you are going to have, just as I found out, is finding authentic material. The problem is for the past 500 years, the Europeans, both the protestant and the catholic "missionaries", where hell bent on getting their sorry & poor white ass out of Europe into this wealthy continent- America, and once they got here, systematically destroying all traces of American civilization, culture and identity and appropriating the wealth and the lands. The Native Americans after repeated programs of the Europeans, have lost a lot of their culture and civilizational knowledge and treasures and what we find now, is from us trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together. However, mercifully not all is lost...yet...

I don't intend to make you question the validity of your experience, but was just posing some questions for you to consider before you judged the man. 1) the harshness that you refer could just be a reflection of the racial injustice and deep oppression that native Americans have been subject to, but is largely ignored in the United States. 2) some dominant men do seem to like to spit on their bottoms. sometimes i find it so sexy, and sometimes I would be scared if someone did it to me, if i was not in the right mood, or rather did not "connect" with that person. 3) His associated actions seem to emphasize the warmth and welcome that Natives are know for. if he really had any kind of real racial animosity towards you, wouldn't he have left, rather than have sex with u? 4) Striking u sharply on ur back and ass, and grabbing u, are things that are unhelpful and can be excessive -depending on the context. The fact that he seemed to be more comfortable in a native American language and spoke in it rather than in English, while fucking you, tells me that there is also a cultural confusion. He obviously did not know enough English to realize that you did not quite trust him and that he probably should have asked you, or won your trust before engaging in such behaviours. Sounds like this noble native man assumed u where into him and wanted to try some masculine S/M dom-sub kink with you. However, since u had already become suspicious of him, in the beginning because of his language - that you urself admit you do no understand- the hook up made u feel strange. And as you rightly say,

yup. Since 2010, the United States has removed all anti-HIV discriminatory laws from the immigration process. wohoo! 🌹 Final Rule Removing HIV Infection from U.S. Immigration Screening : Additionally, effective January 4, 2010, CBP officers shall not consider a lack of HIV test results when making a determination of admissibility on an arriving immigrant or refugee.

Thanks for filling us in! I had no clue... about this disgusting policy. This is from their website - Canadian Government HIV Surveillance Alert General overview of the policy All permanent resident applicants who are 15 years of age or older, as well as children who have certain risk factors, such as having received blood or blood products, having a mother living with known HIV or showing failure to thrive are required to undergo an HIV test as part of the medical examination. As part of this medical examination, the responsible panel physician will provide post-test counselling to applicants who test positive for HIV as per the Canadian Panel Member Guide to Immigration Medical Examinations. The panel physician will have the applicant sign the Acknowledgement of HIV post-test counselling form [IMM 5728E (PDF, 528.39 KB)]. HIV positivity does not make a client inadmissible due to public health concern. In some cases, it may lead to inadmissibility if their health care costs would exceed the excessive demand threshold. Since when did having a HIV mom, make a child a "risk factor" to the Canadian government and Canada ! Such a discriminatory and stupid policy needs to be thrown in the dustbin right away. HIV Positive people contribute to society far more than what circumstances has challenged them with, and all these inflated costs are any way a big money gain for big pharma companies anyways and is not a sufficient reason to justify such a discriminatory policy. It reeks of Nazism- separating the abled from the disdifferently abled towards and end that could harm their well-being.