Jake Angeli is hot ngl

[Close2MyBro]

41 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

Without a doubt. Show me a guy with a dozen guns in his house and I will show you an insecure, frightened man.

The “one perceived flaw” we’re talking about here isn’t a receding hairline or even (though this is borderline) owning a Nickelback album. It’s having a Nope-inducing character flaw like racism, bigotry, homophobia, or having performed an act of sedition against the nation. If you know a lot of guys who wouldn’t invalidate a sexual contact on that basis, I’m very sorry to hear it. A lack of a social conscience is also a serious flaw in a man’s character. I might suggest that you avoid those people; a man becomes known by the company he keeps.

This really isn't the right forum to argue social conscious, or hypocrisy for that matter. Using politics as a sexual filter is a recently "learned" behavior, and part of identity politics.

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

This really isn't the right forum to argue social conscious, or hypocrisy for that matter. Using politics as a sexual filter is a recently "learned" behavior, and part of identity politics.

That's such a steaming pile of shit that I'd suggest moving it to the Scat fetish forum.

This goes way beyond politics. Politics is, under normal circumstances, "What percentage of government spending should be on national defense vs. safety nets for the disadvantaged?". Politics is "What is the best way to ameliorate centuries of oppression on the basis of race without necessarily making it harder for disadvantaged people who identify with the majority race?" Politics is "Should education funding be hyper-localized (which results in wealthy areas getting better schools) or averaged out across a state or even across the country (which creates a disconnect between society and its schools)?" Politics is "Which societal benefits are best provided by the private sector via a regulated marketplace vs. which ones should be guaranteed by the government via public funding, and which of the latter should be directly provided by the government vs. which should be contracted out to private parties to administer and deliver?"

Politics is not "Jews will not replace us!" vs., well, anything. Politics is not "We refuse to accept the duly certified election results and demand that they be overturned and our highest office be awarded to the loser." Politics is not breaking into a public legislative building, disrupting the lawmaking activity going on therein, threatening the lives of the legislative leadership, vandalizing the building, or murdering a police officer. Those are not politics. Those are insurrection, sedition, and anarchy.

[Alias]

4 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

This really isn't the right forum to argue social conscious, or hypocrisy for that matter. Using politics as a sexual filter is a recently "learned" behavior, and part of identity politics.

A sexual political filter to me is "Porn that has black tops described as thugs and white  bottoms  described as innocent is racist," or "Porn like Boys Halfway House and Slam rush legitimize trafficking and exploitation."  This is actually a perfect place to have those conversations because they're nuanced and people can freely exchange ideas. 

 

Not finding fascists attractive is just expressing a preference.  There's nothing political about not wanting to have sex with someone who has personality traits you find grotesque and immoral. 

[BlackDude]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

That's such a steaming pile of shit that I'd suggest moving it to the Scat fetish forum.

This goes way beyond politics. Politics is, under normal circumstances, "What percentage of government spending should be on national defense vs. safety nets for the disadvantaged?". Politics is "What is the best way to ameliorate centuries of oppression on the basis of race without necessarily making it harder for disadvantaged people who identify with the majority race?" Politics is "Should education funding be hyper-localized (which results in wealthy areas getting better schools) or averaged out across a state or even across the country (which creates a disconnect between society and its schools)?" Politics is "Which societal benefits are best provided by the private sector via a regulated marketplace vs. which ones should be guaranteed by the government via public funding, and which of the latter should be directly provided by the government vs. which should be contracted out to private parties to administer and deliver?"

Politics is not "Jews will not replace us!" vs., well, anything. Politics is not "We refuse to accept the duly certified election results and demand that they be overturned and our highest office be awarded to the loser." Politics is not breaking into a public legislative building, disrupting the lawmaking activity going on therein, threatening the lives of the legislative leadership, vandalizing the building, or murdering a police officer. Those are not politics. Those are insurrection, sedition, and anarchy.

100%.

I also think if the “Gay Community” is going to have unity and some credibility to push forward in society as a whole, it has to get to a point where is has codes, morals and standards and enforces those codes like any other community. Those codes may be atypical from other communities, but codes of conduct, and punishment for violating those codes is Necessary.

If we are still at the point were any act, including open white supremacy and treason, can be overlooked “as long as you’re are a decent looking white guy,”  then you really don’t have a community. You just have a bunch of guys who want to fuck. Which is fine, just don’t fight for equality. 

[ErosWired]

10 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

This really isn't the right forum to argue social conscious, or hypocrisy for that matter. Using politics as a sexual filter is a recently "learned" behavior, and part of identity politics.

I assure you, my decision about whether I’m willing to fuck a racist traitor isn’t political, it’s visceral. I don’t disapprove of the man for his political views, I’m revolted by his vile character.

But why, in any case, is Breedingzone not the right forum to discuss having a social conscience? That comes into play in all sorts of discussions we have here, from topics like whether it’s ethical to slut one’s ass during a pandemic, to whether it’s okay to sabotage a condom, to questions of how much responsibility a poz man has to self-identify in the age of ART and U=U. Of course it’s appropriate.

[Alias]

10 hours ago, BlackDude said:

100%.

I also think if the “Gay Community” is going to have unity and some credibility to push forward in society as a whole, it has to get to a point where is has codes, morals and standards and enforces those codes like any other community. Those codes may be atypical from other communities, but codes of conduct, and punishment for violating those codes is Necessary.

If we are still at the point were any act, including open white supremacy and treason, can be overlooked “as long as you’re are a decent looking white guy,”  then you really don’t have a community. You just have a bunch of guys who want to fuck. Which is fine, just don’t fight for equality. 

It's an interesting question. I'm hesitant about the idea of the gay community as a concept. It exists in large part as a social and political community opposed to heterosexual stigmatization, not because anything else except that and wanting to have gay sex necessarily unites gay people. Even "gay" as an identity is of recent vintage. And if we police the boundaries of the community we're policing the boundaries of gay identity. 

Right wing gay men (or men who have sex with men, borrowing more neutral language from the social sciences)  have always existed, and they've always had a troubled relationship with others, existing on the margins of both worlds. But that was also true, more recently,  of barebackers and chemsex enthusiasts and the leathermen and so on.  I think they'll probably just build their own echo chamber and sexual networks that overlap at times but not always. 

The pluralist in me likes that idea, of a proliferation of subcultures and even maybe the disappearance of gay identity as such in a century or so. It also seems to be where society has been heading for a while. Or maybe it was always that way and new technology has just made it more obvious. 

 

[BlackDude]

6 hours ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

It's an interesting question. I'm hesitant about the idea of the gay community as a concept. It exists in large part as a social and political community opposed to heterosexual stigmatization, not because anything else except that and wanting to have gay sex necessarily unites gay people. Even "gay" as an identity is of recent vintage. And if we police the boundaries of the community we're policing the boundaries of gay identity. 

Right wing gay men (or men who have sex with men, borrowing more neutral language from the social sciences)  have always existed, and they've always had a troubled relationship with others, existing on the margins of both worlds. But that was also true, more recently,  of barebackers and chemsex enthusiasts and the leathermen and so on.  I think they'll probably just build their own echo chamber and sexual networks that overlap at times but not always. 

The pluralist in me likes that idea, of a proliferation of subcultures and even maybe the disappearance of gay identity as such in a century or so. It also seems to be where society has been heading for a while. Or maybe it was always that way and new technology has just made it more obvious. 

 

What you are saying makes since, however society at large has already decided that gays are a separate community for you through their codes of conduct and actions. This is why they have laws on the books that identify, protect and give tangibles to the gay community specifically.

[Alias]

2 hours ago, BlackDude said:

What you are saying makes since, however society at large has already decided that gays are a separate community for you through their codes of conduct and actions. This is why they have laws on the books that identify, protect and give tangibles to the gay community specifically.

I mean, some protection is offered on the basis of sexual orientation sure; can’t be fired for being gay, gay people can serve in the armed forces, marry, etc.  But that’s just a non discrimination principle. I don’t think there’s even anything in place to remediate past discrimination against gay people.  There’s no special accommodation, set asides or preferences in federal or state contracting or the like. 

And those same protections apply to straight people since you’re not protected because you’re gay, but because your sexual orientation can’t be a basis for discrimination. 
 

Community to my mind means something more than sexual orientation. That’s just a trait. It doesn’t say anything about your values, beliefs, lifestyle or even politics. 

[Guest hungandmean]

On 1/29/2021 at 1:55 AM, MichiganBottom82 said:

It's an interesting question. I'm hesitant about the idea of the gay community as a concept. It exists in large part as a social and political community opposed to heterosexual stigmatization, not because anything else except that and wanting to have gay sex necessarily unites gay people. Even "gay" as an identity is of recent vintage. And if we police the boundaries of the community we're policing the boundaries of gay identity. 

Right wing gay men (or men who have sex with men, borrowing more neutral language from the social sciences)  have always existed, and they've always had a troubled relationship with others, existing on the margins of both worlds. But that was also true, more recently,  of barebackers and chemsex enthusiasts and the leathermen and so on.  I think they'll probably just build their own echo chamber and sexual networks that overlap at times but not always. 

The pluralist in me likes that idea, of a proliferation of subcultures and even maybe the disappearance of gay identity as such in a century or so. It also seems to be where society has been heading for a while. Or maybe it was always that way and new technology has just made it more obvious. 

 

There's a huge difference here.

Men who exist within BDSM, Fetish, and fringe sexual groups in the queer community differentiate from Right Wing gay men in the fact that dudes who host horse parties, anon pnp gangbangs, bath house orgies, aren't showing up to organizations, when the weekends fun is over, that advocate harm for their own peer group.

This isn't about existing in the intersection between the respectability Neil Patrick Harris and Ellen give gay people, and the condemnation BBSLUT4POZLOADS69 would find in the mainstream community.

It's about the dude who's profile is BBSLUT4POZLOADS69 and then campaigns for a politician, or is a politician, that votes against gay marriage, or trans rights. 

You shouldn't be hesitant about a gay community, as a concept or a reality, because it is the only reason you enjoy any of the freedoms you do and all of the rights we all have could be gone in an instant. 

Long serving trans people recently lost the ability to serve in the US military during Trump and it just got reinstated. Gay marriage was legalized and repealed in the US, before being reinstated. 

If you feel as though your gay identity could disappear and you could move on from it all and everything would be okay then it says A FUCKTON about the other identities you have, and the protection they afford you.

 

[Alias]

5 hours ago, hungandmean said:

There's a huge difference here.

Men who exist within BDSM, Fetish, and fringe sexual groups in the queer community differentiate from Right Wing gay men in the fact that dudes who host horse parties, anon pnp gangbangs, bath house orgies, aren't showing up to organizations, when the weekends fun is over, that advocate harm for their own peer group.

This isn't about existing in the intersection between the respectability Neil Patrick Harris and Ellen give gay people, and the condemnation BBSLUT4POZLOADS69 would find in the mainstream community.

It's about the dude who's profile is BBSLUT4POZLOADS69 and then campaigns for a politician, or is a politician, that votes against gay marriage, or trans rights. 

You shouldn't be hesitant about a gay community, as a concept or a reality, because it is the only reason you enjoy any of the freedoms you do and all of the rights we all have could be gone in an instant. 

Long serving trans people recently lost the ability to serve in the US military during Trump and it just got reinstated. Gay marriage was legalized and repealed in the US, before being reinstated. 

If you feel as though your gay identity could disappear and you could move on from it all and everything would be okay then it says A FUCKTON about the other identities you have, and the protection they afford you.

 

The actual fascists sure. But ass fucking loving Nazis are a thankfully rare breed. On the other hand, there are publicly gay identifying conservatives who support LGBT rights.  As we become an increasingly polarized and partisan nation, it is actually more likely that they will exist, and the need for them becomes even more explicit.  

Look, I am a socialist.  Have been for a long time.  I think that Biden is essentially right wing.  I see more affinity between David Cameron and Barack Obama than the latter and Bernie Sanders.  Having said that, I try to be a realist about where people are, and where this country is. 

We are woefully unprepared for actual fascism in this country.  Gay people, in particular, have no idea what a really vicious anti-gay campaign would look like.  It is not marriage amendments. It is not bathroom access.  It is not military service.  It is the Supreme Court reversing the right to privacy (coming soon), followed by a host of state legislatures passing laws that equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and vigilante groups organizing around "anti-pedo" campaigns akin to what happened in Russia.

Do I agree with gay right wingers? Hell no.  Do I think that they can tone down the anti-gay politics of the right wing, and in fact did so throughout the Trump presidency? Yes.  Just look at what happened with Richard Grenell,  Wretched man, but openly gay, and that proved to be a bridge too far for the Romney campaign in the end.  For Trump, it was nothing, and it showed.  

We're moving towards a consensus on LGBT rights.  Not there yet, but when that happens (I think in about two decades, assuming trends hold), gay people will start to move politically.  Most of us are not black, or Jewish, or raised in white liberal environments.  Gay people raised in right wing households become left wing because the left wing is the only real option.  When that stops being the case (which is really the underlying project of the gay rights movement), expect to see more gay right wingers.      

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

On the other hand, there are publicly gay identifying conservatives who support LGBT rights.  As we become an increasingly polarized and partisan nation, it is actually more likely that they will exist, and the need for them becomes even more explicit.

Really? Because I can't name any. There are some who pretend to support LGBT rights - that loathsome prick Richard Grennell comes to mind - but he doesn't actually support LGBT rights; he just supports HIS personal right to fuck men while not giving a damn about what happens to gay men anywhere else, because that might affect his investments and his employability (or what's left of it). 

3 hours ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

We are woefully unprepared for actual fascism in this country.  Gay people, in particular, have no idea what a really vicious anti-gay campaign would look like.  It is not marriage amendments. It is not bathroom access.  It is not military service.  It is the Supreme Court reversing the right to privacy (coming soon), followed by a host of state legislatures passing laws that equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and vigilante groups organizing around "anti-pedo" campaigns akin to what happened in Russia.

It's possible that the Supreme Court might reverse the finding of a right to privacy (although I doubt seriously they'll go that far, explicitly). More likely, they'll keep slicing away at the REACH of that right to privacy. Luckily, the most recent LGBT rights cases hinged less on privacy rights and more specifically on the "on account of sex" line of cases, which essentially hold that treating gay men differently from straight men or straight women is, on its face, discrimination on the basis of sex. The justice who articulated that reasoning, so very clearly, just a year ago? Neil Gorsuch. And even with the replacement of the virago Ginsburg with the handmaiden Barrett, there still are enough votes to keep the essence of that ruling in place.

 

3 hours ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

Do I agree with gay right wingers? Hell no.  Do I think that they can tone down the anti-gay politics of the right wing, and in fact did so throughout the Trump presidency? Yes.  Just look at what happened with Richard Grenell,  Wretched man, but openly gay, and that proved to be a bridge too far for the Romney campaign in the end.  For Trump, it was nothing, and it showed.     

That's because Trump wasn't a right-winger; he was a grifter out to make money for himself and he figured the right wing were bigger marks than the leftists. Trump has never had any political beliefs of note outside his own racism; even his drive for lower taxes (and huge tax breaks for certain fields) were based solely on what they did for *him*. 

There was certainly a lot of quiet opposition to Grennell among the religious right base of the party, but those people are nothing if not politically expedient. Just as they gladly accepted one amoral promiscuous fornicating president who patronized prostitutes and paid off strippers and porn actresses, in order to keep the eye on their real prize - right-wing judges - they also accepted one gay man who otherwise presented as sexually neutral as an ambassador if it meant having a fig leaf of cover for their anti-gay bigotry. Notice that Aaron Schock never got back in the good graces of the Republicans, because he actually showed his sexuality dancing half naked in Palm Springs and hoovering all over the bodies of male strippers in a bar.

4 hours ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

We're moving towards a consensus on LGBT rights.  Not there yet, but when that happens (I think in about two decades, assuming trends hold), gay people will start to move politically.  Most of us are not black, or Jewish, or raised in white liberal environments.  Gay people raised in right wing households become left wing because the left wing is the only real option.  When that stops being the case (which is really the underlying project of the gay rights movement), expect to see more gay right wingers.      

As a country overall, sure. But the Trump base, the hard-core right wingers? They're vehemently anti-gay and will remain so. Gay people raised in right-wing households don't just become left wing because that's the only option; it's because being gay makes them question the underlying truth of what right-wingers say about gay people, and if THAT is wrong, what else might they be wrong about?

It's not just gays. That's the reason young people are increasingly identifying as no-religion even if they were brought up in a traditional faith environment: they see how the churches reject the people they know as good people, and it makes them question what else the church could be wrong about. I suspect there will always be a handful of right-wing nuts who identify as gay, but not more than that. You probably WILL see more "moderate" gays, as opposed to left-wing ones, but I just don't see any opening for pro-LGBT right wingers, especially as the right wing gets kookier and kookier.

[TightBott7]

It definitely gets sticky when politics rears its ugly head into sex...

[raw773]

Well today he pled guilty to a felony and prosecutors will recommend a sentence of 41-51 months. I wonder how hot he's gonna be in four years.

[Hairypiglet]

Just a nice little allegory on the topic of fucking the politically inept...

When I lived in Colorado there was this extremely hot Latinx Army vet with a huge dick and a cushy Wal-Mart IT job. Proverbial perfect catch that mom and dad would love. He wanted to go slow. Kinda made me swoon. Anyways, we're laying in bed watching a movie, clothes on, only made out a bit... conversation shifts to politics somehow and his family being immigrants, probably a tangent from my history as a born and bred Cali boy growing up in So.Cal. Brown communities. 

Finally he unapologetically says that he voted for Trump and firmly believes it was the right choice.

I told that mind-blowingly perfectly amazing piece of prime wagyu beef with an uncut PBR tall boy between his thighs to get out of my house because I don't care how fucking perfect you seem if you align politically in that way you can fuck right off away from me. I don't even want to give you time tied up victim to my paddles and fists.

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, raw773 said:

Well today he pled guilty to a felony and prosecutors will recommend a sentence of 41-51 months. I wonder how hot he's gonna be in four years.

As they say.... Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.