Yeah, it looks like she held steady on a couple of the r^b charts she was on last week, but for everything else, she fell completely off the charts. Looks like the BET gave her a little boost, but this single really isn't the right song coming off of a 7-8 year absence. She needed a good dance song to remind us of young Janet, and to show us she still has it. I hope reviews of those first tour dates are good to tide us over until the second single.
I had to go with Naked Kombat. I like the sex rounds in the end. Not only do I get to see amateur pornstars wrestle, they fuck afterwards.
I honestly feel like not a lot people care that most of the movies out right now are reboots and remakes. For me, it irks me. I think there's a lack of originality for screenwriters in Hollywood and a lack of risks being taken by producers. I WANT TO SEE MORE ORIGINAL SCREENPLAYS!
I could not have said it better myself. Perhaps if they were doing a bang up job with these remakes and reboots, I'd have a better opinion. But if you fail to make it better in any meaningful way, then what's the point? Straight porn is even worse. If I hear or see anymore titles like "This Ain't Happy Days" or "Not the Cosby's" I feel like I need to shove a fork in my eye. Can we get over all these parody movies of TV shows and films?
It's like there isn't a single new idea out there anymore in entertainment, period, no matter what type.
I just saw your reply before my post so THIS is my last one, lol.
Re-reading your post gave me a better understanding of what you meant by your feeling that equitable was something we end up with, and in that sense we agree. But I don't see equitable as something "settled upon" as if it were somehow less in value than the state of being equal. I believe that equal is a term best used with measurements like "the amount of water in that pool is equal to the amount in that pool." People are much more complex than that.
When a court renders a verdict, there is a winner and a loser. The winner is fine, as they both likely came in expecting or hoping to win. The loser either accepts that decision, thereby settling on their goal of winning (since they lost), or they challenge it via an appeal. For a variety of reasons, appeals aren't successful the overwhelming majority of the time, so eventually that "loser" has to face the fact that he is not going to get what he ultimately wanted. He has to settle / reconcile his goals with himself and accept the less than ideal outcome in order to move on. No loser who goes in expecting to win fully embraces an outcome contrary to what they expected (You thought you were right, no? Why waste the time and money to fight if you didn't believe you were right?) If one chooses not to challenge the decision, there's only one way forward. No matter how one justifies it to himself, and performs it, he does have to say "I embrace this opposing decision (my losing)" in order to move on. It does not mean you agree with it, but you do have to accept it. Once you have accepted it, you've settled.
A bank teller who allots 2 minutes of their time for every customer might feel justified in rejecting the customer with more complex business requiring 5 minutes, believing their service of 2 minutes to everyone to be fair since they all get the same amount of time. But that teller would be wrong. The only fair, equitable thing to do is to ensure each customer gets slightly different amounts of time, just as much as each customer needs, to complete their business. The teller's time distribution to each customer is unequal, but it's a most equitable way of servicing them all.
In your example, inequality and unfairness is introduced into the equation by the teller making a personal choice to discriminate on how his time is allocated. If he simply services everyone who walks in until the lobby service hours close (true equality), regardless of the amount of time per person, we have an equal outcome. The equality of outcome is assured when everyone with a legitimate claim for service for the day receives said service. (Issue may not be resolved, but you've seen someone, they have heard your issue, and they are working on getting it resolved.) That person who shows up 2 minutes before closing has no reasonable expectation of getting service, assuming they can even get in. Almost all places perform queue management and disallow entry if the office/business/service is not going to be able to service you before closing. And, yes, that means the teller might have to stay late some days if too many people are let in!
Nobody cares about the time allocation of the bank teller other than the bank teller, and perhaps the boss, if the teller sees only 2 customers all day.
I pretty much only concern myself with goals of equality, and an equal of outcome - as the outcome is the final say in most cases. If other aspects are unequal in order to get there, so be it. Everything involving humans is imperfect, but when push comes to shove, and a court decision or law is made, I want the decision to be viewed as equal for/by everyone.
This is not always the case, unfortunately. Things like divorce, child custody, spousal support, etc. are going to be highly judgmental/biased/subjective. One gets what their lawyer can get them, so make sure you have a good one!
quote author=Spintendo link=topic=34285.msg166418#msg166418 date=1436929266]
I think you may have it the other way around. Equal is what people strive for, but that concept of equal as I described it in the shoe parable is an unfair, hardly-acheivable state of affairs. Equitable is what people should strive for, and what they should hope to end up with, in all fairness.
I think it depends on the kind of person you are. I am a "the glass is half full type of person." I will always maximize my goal, to make sure I arrive at what is most acceptable to me in the end. On a test, I am aiming for 100%, not 90%. If I were a world class sprinter, I would look to break a record every time, so that if I don't achieve that, I have equaling the record as a viable fallback goal, in addition to simply winning or placing wherever I place as a possible outcome. I don't sell myself short mentally by setting a lower goal than the best possible positive outcome. The other side has already won part of the battle if I am not striving for my equal share. Spotting even that 0.00001% in goal setting is already mathematically assuring a negative, unequal outcome.
quote author=Spintendo link=topic=34285.msg166418#msg166418 date=1436929266]
I don't know of anyone who would define domestic partnerships as being an equitable solution to the issue of gay marriage. In fact, the argument posited by those supporting domestic partnerships was that they were "equal enough" to marriage, and in many ways they were equal. But they weren't an equitable (fair) solution.
I never thought of domestic partnerships as being equal. I would venture that many politicians who supported domestic partnerships knew in their heart that they were not fair or equitable, but those partnerships were the best result that they felt that they could get through their legislatures at the given time. Those legislators aimed for a realistic/politically achievable goal, not a goal of equality. "We can't get you gays marriage, but we might be able to get you domestic partnerships, how about that?" When they did achieve that, they essentially got no credit for doing so, because it wasn't what we, as a collective, wanted. To my knowledge, no judge ever struck down "domestic partnerships" on the basis of inequality, and so by default, from a legislative and judicial view, they were fair and equitable in those states that had them. Don't forget, many states had nothing for gays, so these "domestic partnership" states were a step up. Even the states that did have "gay marriage" failed to achieve true equality because that "gay marriage" wasn't recognized from state to state like "traditional marriage". Now, had legislators set true equality as their main goal, we may have had the outcome that we recently achieved much sooner, which is why I don't believe goals should be set for anything less than the maximum possible positive outcome, which in this case, was national marriage equality, and nothing less.
quote author=Spintendo link=topic=34285.msg166418#msg166418 date=1436929266]
You imply a distinction where none exists. As we in the industrialized world live by a system of laws, that legal system and its ramifications are, in effect, indistinguishable from everyday life.
I beg to differ. There is the legal system and then there is what is societally acceptable. If you ask all these supporters of the Confederate flag their feelings, I don't believe that you would hear from them that it is fair or just that the Confederate flag is now being relegated to history books and museums. (Amazon and Walmart have also joined in –no more Confederate paraphernalia for you!-- and so has TV Land ending even the broadcasting of "The Dukes of Hazzard" television show. They certainly wouldn't say that the effect is indistinguishable from everyday life given all these visible changes. One trip to their state capital grounds or even city hall reminds them visibly that that flag that was displayed proudly in their mind just a week or so ago is no longer allowed to be displayed on those grounds. I was in Charleston, SC about two months ago. The sight of all those Confederate flags all over the city is the one thing I remember most about the city. They were everywhere. I have a return trip in two weeks. I would imagine that everyday life now is much different than two months ago. I'd also wager that the city population as well as the entire state is pretty divided on whether the decision (Which was not a referendum for the citizens to vote on, mind you) to forbid display of the flag on state grounds is fair. Only time will make this new norm of "no flag" become a truly fair and accepted norm. But we're not there yet (very much in the beginning stages), despite what the governor, the legislature, and or judges might say and think. Gay Marriage (now simply, "Marriage") is in the same boat in terms of becoming a societal norm vs. simply being a "fair" and "equitable" judicial decree.
Dred Scott v. Sandford was a Supreme Court decision. Thankfully, society and humanity trumped that "fair" and "equitable" decree.
I like the discussion, and would love to continue it, but I recognize that we're off topic, and I will end my thoughts here in order to let this get back on topic.
Throuples anyone?
The pics came from the unrated dvd version that I have of the film. Perhaps you have an 'R' or somehow censored/cut version of the film. I remember it being hard to track down my uncensored copy in the U.S.
The interviews I remember from the time indicated that the actual sex was simulated – he wasn't fucking the woman on set, just pretending to -- but when he steps back, that it is Stephen Dorff's actual soft, condom covered cock.
I found a discussion on imdb that seems to reference the interview I remember from way back then. The director (Lee Daniels - of "Precious", "The Butler", and U.S. television's "Empire" fame) had discussions with the US ratings board to find out exactly what he could show and not get an X or NC17 rating. Apparently a soft, condom covered cock was ok for an 'R' rating.
Jeff Quinn. He was in a lot of popular Catalina/William Higgins films during the 1980's. My favorite is his scene with John Rocklin in Big Guns. The attached pic is from that scene, but it's for a Catalina Military Themed compilation. He was super sexy and masculine, and very much a great bottom or top.
Colt's Hog: The Leather File is the only thing that jumps to my head that may be something you'd like. It's mostly guys wearing leather, in leather environments, but it's basic gay sex….no BDSM oriented or special fetish oriented stuff. Colt now a days is full tilt fetish - e.g. "Armour or "Leatherbound", or no different from any other studio such as Titan, which generally uses older, built models, in titles such as "Fur Mountain" or "Manpower". Sadly, Colt isn't that leathery anymore, unfortunately.
We have what is likely a low quality version (based on file size) of it here:
https://www.gaytorrent.ru/details.php?id=07bd604997db262ec838d2ad2a166bec8207aa162c9a6434
I have done - and would do so again, In fact I just did so tonight. Sometimes you have to make do with what options you have at the moment. I didn't expect to meet anyone interesting at the hotel bar (work trip), and I wasn't bringing him back up to my room. It was a nice hotel, and restroom was nice. We were not interrupted for a solid 30 minutes or more.
Tent in the forest for me. As others have pointed out, sand gets everywhere and can be uncomfortable if you really get into it!
I am hooked on Leander from Tim Tales right now…
Cut out sodas and/or sugary drinks. You will be amazed at just how much a difference that one change makes!
I have never heard of ironing underclothing and socks. I am lazy enough as it is when it comes to ironing what I need to iron, so I definitely wouldn't be adding more stuff to iron, lol.
It's possible to have an absolutely honest and open dialogue about what each partner does outside a relationship, but I think that is not as common as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" approach usually used.
If you are with your partner because you are both kinky and love having adventurous, on the edge type sex, does either really want to know the intimate details of what the other is doing with an outside person or people? How would you react if he said, "We can't have sex tonight. I'm still sore from the 20 man orgy I went to last night." (I didn't react too well when I heard this, lol.)
Being totally open and honest works for some couples. For them, it is a way to allow them to stay together, while not forcing either party to give up anything they felt they need that they simply can't get from their partner. I have experience in that scenario. I have always been involved with kinky sex, but I was in a 7 year relationship with a decidedly vanilla, middle of the road type guy. We were perfect for one another in every other aspect except our outlook on sex. Rather than rule things out completely, we gave it a shot. He granted me my freedom to do what I like, and he would do the same, but if we did anything, we shared all the details with one another.
That was how he realized that what I liked didn't necessarily involve sex at all - more things like power, control, submission, domination, role play, and head games. Sometimes I even invited him to come witness what I did. It took a while, maybe 5 years into our relationship, but he came around to wanting to try things with me - especially bondage. Shortly after that, I had him begging me to tie him up, so he could be "allowed" to hear my stories.
In my case, being absolutely honest brought us to place we probably never would have gotten otherwise.
I like mine gently played with and licked. I'm not into anything rough being done with/to my balls. I do like playing with guys who like their balls played with roughly.
Good reporting on this here:
http://str8upgayporn.com/jarec-wentworth-donald-burns-extortion-trial-gay-porn/
It actually explains why seancody.com has had so many problems over the last two years. A lot of "dirt" / "tea" came out of this trial concerning what was happening with many of their popular models….
I watch straight porn too. I don't really focus on the woman though. Like some above said, it is great for getting out of a tired gay porn rut. Sometimes the themes and guys in gay porn all become one big blur, and straight porn is a great escape until something new comes along in gay porn. Some of the guys in straight porn are very hot. Jake Cruise was on to something with his Straight Guy For the Gay Eye Line. I'm not sure if he's still going those, but they focused mostly on the guy, even though it was straight sex being performed.
Some more Tops that I'd like to see bottom:
Dmitry Dickov - co-owner and model of Gayhoopla. Has an amazing ass.
James Jamesson - Next Door (?) - I want to see that red sea of ass crack hair parted and filled.
Bravo Delta - formerly of Cockyboys. Cute ass on him.
