Posts made by bi4smooth

@Kowmei

Another very interesting Forum topic resurrected from the Forum of old...

Personally, I try to avoid "direct causal relationships" from my childhood to my adult life. I think the "3D matrix" that makes up the formula that determines who and what we're attracted to (sexually, socially, and every other way) is so complex that no 1 piece is likely responsible for "all" of it...

To wit: yes, the absence of physical love or emotion from your parents likely will impact your desire for that later in life (wanting to fill a void, so to speak)... but your choice of who to fill that void is less likely tied to that than you would think.

I have worked as a counselor (church) for many people who have had "parental love" issues... some blamed that for their sex-addiction (mostly straight, tho some gay as well)... more than a majority of those people also fantasized about sex with a parent or parent-like person. (My point is: that's not a "gay" thing, that's a "human" thing!)

For me personally, I've always been attracted to men in their 30's and 40's... when I was a teen, I was attracted to them... when I was in my 30's and 40's I was attracted to them, and now in my late 50's I'm still lusting after guys in their 30's and 40's... My first "real" boyfriend (live-in) was 12 years older than me (22-34), and my current boyfriend is 20 years younger than me (58-38)!

I certainly agree with the generalized comment that mixed-generation relationships can be fraught with challenges... but people in relationships always change! It's only human! What makes a relationship work is how you adapt together to each others' changes. I've known plenty of same-aged relationships that have failed because "they changed" and they couldn't adjust... and I've known a few x-gen relationships that have lasted decades - because as they changed, they adjusted and accepted each other. IMHO, that's what LOVE is!

@Kowmei

I agree - this is a once-popular discussion area that I'd like to see return.

My own religious upbringing was more like a "comparative judeo-christian religions" course - we started out Methodist (because my dad was the choir director), then went Presbyterian because my mom liked the minister... I sang in that choir for many years. Then I started attending Catholic Mass because I'd joined a Boy Scout Troop there and I wanted to earn the religious "medal" in Scouts - so it was the Catholic one for me!

Meanwhile, my father ALSO was a choir director / sometimes fill-in cantor for one of the largest Jewish synagogues in the area. (One Passover, the normal cantor up and quit 2 days before the services... my dad filled in and no one was the wiser, until one old lady discovered that a "gentile" had been the cantor "that week" and had a hissy fit! It nearly cost the Rabbi his job!) Anyway, we would attend those services too...

At 58, I consider myself a pseudo-agnostic. I don't dis-believe in God, I just don't think the "real thing" is looking at me in particular to see how often I masturbate or what language I speak what words in... I think those parts of religion are primarily used to "control the masses" (which is fine when its messages like "don't eat pork because the trichinosis will eat your brains out", but less fine when its "you must eat fish on Fridays because the fishermen need more money" or "Vote for Candidate A because he's a better Christian than B")

So, I'm afraid I just don't have much of a place in my life for large-scale organized religion... I find it a "convenient" place for people with non-curious minds to go to explain that which they cannot explain otherwise. And I don't like "being controlled"... LOL

That said, I find the community and socialization of local churches to be (usually) refreshing and enjoyable experiences. I attend a Unitarian Universalist congregation these days, but also sometimes sing in a Baptist choir - admittedly solely for the music! - I say that, even though I haven't sung with them since 2020 (the pandemic ended choirs for those who successfully blend science and religion, don't ya know, LOL)...

I tried attending a local gay (MCC) church, but found the people there very judgemental and cliquish. I didn't want to expend the energy they were demanding to "fit in with the right people" ... my last day there, I told one of them that "if there are right-people and wrong-people in this Church, then I'm the wrong person for this Church"

Mind you, I don't "worship" Science either - most decent scientists will tell you: most of what we know scientifically is only "mostly right" - there is so much we DO NOT know yet, it'd be foolish to assume he have anything "completely" right ... and that is the nature of Science, after all: to question the things we "know" so as to discover where we've been wrong!

Remember, it was the "scientists" of the time who used leeches and "bloodletting" to cure the sick! Funny thing, we "modern people" were so sure those "stupid" people from the past were "dead wrong" (a pun, as their "treatments" often quickened their patient's pathway to death!) - but now, today, leeches are commonly used by modern medicine - especially in post-surgical recovery. They apparently DO help in re-establishing blood flow!

Anyway - that's why I call myself pseudo-agnostic - I'm literally always questioning things... even (especially) myself!

I would encourage you to stop and examine your motives here:

• are you interested in his being "out and proud" for his own benefit, or
• are you interested in his being "out and proud" to suit your own wishes and desires about him

I can't answer that - only you can. IMHO, the best way for you to make him be more comfortable with his own sexuality is to:

• Be comfortable with yours - without forcing it onto him
• Be accepting of his - regardless of whether it "goes" where you want it to go!

OK, so lets get down to "brass tacks" here:

• Regardless of whether they are legally valid in a court (and that would likely be different depending on which court it was heard in), the Site Owner has told content owners that he will take down posts here that infringe on their ownership rights.
• The Site Owner wants to avoid running afoul of the law - especially the idea that this site exists primarily to facilitate illegal sharing. As a precaution, the Site Owner has given content owners wide leeway, and has prohibited the discussion of avoiding, invaliding, or otherwise getting around the protections that he (the Site Owner) believes exist under the DMCA
• the opinion of the site owner is the only opinion that matters here - and it is his opinion that this topic is not allowed on his system

Please understand that:

• this is not your site - you are but a guest here
• your continued pursuit of this topic may well get your account suspended - you have been directed to the warnings already
• you are free to start your own site if you disagree (this isn't the Politics section, but much as Trump has done with Trump Social after being banned by Facebook & Twitter), but you have no "rights" here - we area all just guests on someone else's site!

@Kekkaishi said in English Words Pronunciation:

I have some words that I hear sometimes that are pronounced differently. Therefore I'm not sure what is the correct way to pronounce these words.
I will write the word and then the 2 variations phonetically for better understanding

Ideology: E-diology or I-dioloty

Either: E-ther or I-ther

Devisive: di-VI-sive or di-VAI-sive

Beyond: be-Yo-nd or be-O-nd

Resource -> re-So-rce or re-Zo-urce

So which is it?
thanks.

You have discovered why English is such a difficult language to learn...

In some examples, the different pronunciations have different meanings:

• read (verb, pronounced: red) is the past tense of read (verb, pronounced reed), which is to "look at and comprehend the meaning of written material"
  For example: He had read (red) "To Kill a Mockingbird" earlier that year, so he had no difficulty when he was asked to read (reed) it out loud in class.
• Plus, there is read (noun, pronounced reed) that is "someone's understanding of a topic or event"
  For example: The General's read (reed) on the battle was eventually proven correct"
• Then there's read (adjective, pronounced red) denoting a high level of understanding
  For example: He is well read (red) in the Greek Classical Poetry - making him a total bore at parties!
• And finally, there is the location on the board game Monopoly: Reading Railroad - (pronounced correctly as red-ding)

Then, there's the famous song from Gershwins' "Shall We Dance" called "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off" where the on-screen couple argues about English word pronunciations:

Things have come to a pretty pass
Our romance is growing flat,
For you like this and the other
While I go for this and that,
Goodness knows what the end will be
Oh I don't know where I'm at
It looks as if we two will never be one
Something must be done:
You say either and I say either,
You say neither and I say neither
Either, either neither, neither
Let's call the whole thing off.
You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto.
Let's call the whole thing off
But oh, if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart
So if you like pyjamas and I like pyjahmas,
I'll wear pyjamas and give up pyajahmas
For we know we need each other so we
Better call the whole thing off
Let's call the whole thing off.
You say laughter and I say larfter
You say after and I say arfter
Laughter, larfter after arfter
Let's call the whole thing off,
You like vanilla and I like vanella
You saspiralla, and I saspirella
Vanilla vanella chocolate strawberry
Let's call the whole thing off
But oh if we call the whole thing of then we must part
And oh, if we ever part, then that might break my heart
So if you go for oysters and I go for ersters
I'll order oysters and cancel the ersters
For we know we need each other so we
Better call the calling off off,
Let's call the whole thing off.
I say father, and you say pater,
I saw mother and you say mater
Pater, mater uncle, auntie let's call the whole thing off.
I like bananas and you like banahnahs
I say havana and I get havahnah
Bananas, banahnahs havana, havahnah
Go your way, I'll go mine
So if I go for scallops and you go for lobsters,
So all right no contest we'll order lobseter
For we know we need each other so we
Better call the calling off off,
Let's call the whole thing off.

@Virtuorgasm6 said in Gangbang fetish.:

I have always had a huge fetish for gangbangs. Let me also add that I am a completely versatile guy. When I say I have a fetish for gangbangs, I don't just mean as the bottom, but even as a top. The idea of multiple men using their bodies to pleasure one man is extremely arousing to me.

Now here's the problem. I'm recently dating someone. I really like the man and I love his energy. I don't want to ruin my prospects with him by bringing up orgies and gangbangs, but I do want to explore that side of myself with him.

What is a good way to bring this up?

It's actually good for couples to DISCUSS fantasies - that doesn't mean you're pressuring your partner to FULFILL those fantasies (and if you value the relationship, you'll understand - and put on hold - your fantasy if it's not something he's interested in).

To wit: how many couples have a "hall pass" celebrity? (Oh, Brad Pitt is my "hall pass" - if I ever meet him, I get to fuck him "free" and my partner has already agreed!)

MY partner and I met because he wanted to TRY bondage & blindfolds... it turned out he did NOT like it (tho I do...) So, we started dating - and we don't do bondage anymore.... I still love it, but he doesn't, so it's just fantasy right now... c'est la vie! He's a great guy, and the sex is good - with or without the bondage!

Really, darling - you're not supposed to mix alcohol and your anti-depressants! THIS is the result!

First of all, if you were requesting access to porn sites in the 1920s, those were called speakeasys There was no Internet in the 1920's... and porn was a Federal crime! (As was almost anything approaching being gay!)

But also, I'm not aware of any site that requires members to upload content.... share (aka seed), yes... upload new content, not so much.

Now let's let the alcohol wear off and take an extra pill or two of the happy-pills and maybe you'll talk like you have some sense again...

Aw hell, who are we kidding! ROFL!

There is no end to the ways stupid people can twist their religion to suit their own un-holy purposes!

Again, the more we learn about the relatively few examples of vote fraud that existed in 2016 & 2020 (the Trump Elections), the more the rationale of the Trumps in claiming massive fraud makes sense.

Newly reported (yes, by CNN) Matt Mowers, then an aide in the Trump White House, voted in the NH primary (as a NH resident) in Feb 2016, then turned around and registered to vote back in his original, home State of NJ in June - where he used his parents' address to register.

It's unclear which one was fraudulent - but based on preliminary research, it appears that BOTH may have been fraudulent:

• He had never been a NH resident
• By the time he re-registered in NJ, he was a full-time resident in DC

Again, IMHO, the Trumps knew how much fraud they'd committed themselves (not individually - and Trump himself is not responsible for this moron's behavior), so the only way they COULD have lost - given how many "extra" votes they'd arranged for - fraudulently - the only CONCEIVABLE way they could have LOST, would have been that the Democrats cheated even more!!!

In a typical year, the few hundred or so cases of prosecuted vote fraud are usually about 50/50 Democrat/Republican - after all, neither Party WANTS their people to commit fraud - these are lone actors (usually evangelists for the far right or left who think they're doing the right thing by cheating, because so much is at stake!)

But both 2016 and 2020 have been shown to be anomalous - far more Republican fraudsters have been found and prosecuted (so far - it is TRUE that, if the Dems were all brilliant and deceitful geniuses, they could have hidden all of their fraud, leaving mostly Republicans to get caught)...

Believing that is akin to believing that every other nation on the planet conspired to lie about COVID-19 - solely to ensure Pres. Trump's defeat in 2020!

It is notable that this electioneering genius (yes, that is sarcasm!) is currently a candidate for Congress in NH - where he actually does live now. (NOTE: It is possible that he lived - for real - in NH in 2016 and CNN just couldn't prove it... CNN isn't exactly known for their in-depth research when the preliminary evidence shows a REPUBLICAN did something wrong! Just because they're biased doesn't mean they are always wrong!)

Even if he DID live in NH in Feb 2016, changing and using his parents' address in NJ to vote again was most likely illegal & fraudulent. (Now, if he'd rented an apartment? That might be something different...)

The email that accompanies a DMCA takedown specifically tells you that there will be no ramifications - no penalties - against you.

If you feel you've been punished for a DMCA removal, then there may be a system issue - write the helpdesk

@lololulu19 said in Upload privileges revoked for 90 days?:

@fredfranco I think I have been hit with the same penalty.

I didn't have any DMCA issues for several months.. maybe even for over a year.. but 2 days ago I got 3 in less than an hour, and I can't upload anymore.

It seems that all torrents with the word "Staxus" in them have been removed from the system. Removing Staxus from the site is like removing Florida from the map of the USA.

Sigh...

Some of you act as-if you have an inherent RIGHT to download Staxus content without paying for it!

Having been a member here since 2008, I can tell you that this kind of thing is not new. (Look around: how much Bel Ami or Freshmen content do you see? There are other entire studios that are totally absent as well!)

The site owner has always made it clear: his intent is to provide a platform where people can share their porn, and their thoughts about porn, openly and freely. And when that sharing is demonstrably shown to be in violation of the law, he will abide by the law!

Why is it that you accept the rule about banning pedophilia, but you argue about the rule that says that a legitimate DMCA take down request will be honored?

Sometimes studios go through a "spate" of these things - there was a time when Corbin Fisher was actually SUING people who shared their content online!

Typically, these enforcement periods come and go - ebb and flow... in the meantime, find other porn you like!

This is yet another example of our hyper-partisan political environment getting out of hand.

Wanting someone dead because of their political views is despicable.

Personally, I hope Clarence Thomas (and any other Justice of the Supreme Court) dies the same way RBG did - at the natural end of a long and historically significant lifetime: revered by some, reviled by others, but as an honorable public servant who did their part.

@fredfranco said in Upload privileges revoked for 90 days?:

Hey guys!

Yesterday, I tried to upload a file via QTM a few times, but after all the torrent creation and images uploading was completed, the app simply didn't make any torrents at all, and the "upload" button then became enabled again for clicking, as I hadn't clicked on it the first time...

So I decided to upload it manually, but when I clicked on the "Upload" option on the website, it showed me the following message:

"Due to our receiving a multitude of takedown requests regarding material you have uploaded, your upload privileges are hereby revoked for 90 days."

I wasn't even aware of such rule! I've had "a multitude of takedown requests" many times after uploading several files by the same studio (sometimes by totally different ones) in a short period of time.

Anyway, I'd never been suspended because of this before. I haven't posted anything against the rules, they're all only DMCA takedowns...

Has anyone else ever had this issue?

Only a moderator will have the access to see why your rights have been curtailed in this manner. You ask for help in that way through the helpdesk:
https://www.gaytor.rent/helpdesk.php

@lololulu19

Your premise is off... you cannot "categorize" bisexuals any more than you can homosexuals!

In this forum alone, you likely have men like me, who:

• love smooth men, but not hairy men
• love thin, lithe men and women
• love intelligent, sarcastic, whimsical men and women

I could go on and on - deep into a diatribe into all the different kinds of things men like (or do not like) sexually...

But here's what I've taught my sons:

• Every man is "wired" a little differently - and there is no one, single, "right" way -- although there are many "wrong" ways (pedophilia, rape, public (unwanted) exposure - and others - are indeed "wrong" by our societal norms)
• As a man, you owe it to yourself to explore "how you're wired" - and that means experimentation.
• Fortunately, you have a near-flawless indicator built-in:
  If your penis gets hard, stays hard, and you have an amazing orgasm - it's probably something you're wired for....
  But, if you have to struggle to stay hard, or cannot reach an orgasm (yes, men CAN fake an orgasm!), then you're probably NOT "wired" for that...
  And, if either of these experiences are "repeatable" - then you're getting a good idea about what makes you tick!
• As you learn to "map" your own sexuality, also learn to accept it - because you don't get to choose it, it's just who you are... the earlier you accept this, the happier you will be (at least in your sex-life!)
• Remember though - your "sex map" is not a static, unchanging thing... it can (and likely will) change over time. (For example, at 20 you probably won't find 50 y/o men or women sexually attractive, but 30 years later, at 50, you likely will!)
• Finally: don't overthink it (or over-apply your mapping): if you can't get hard with her, it doesn't mean you're gay - only that you're not into her!

As an aside to readers here: I strongly believe in experimentation - I've known men who thought they were 100% straight - until they had their first m/m encounter! I've also known men who thought they were 100% gay, until they had a sexual encounter with a woman!

Even in the realm of most "kink" - my belief is "don't knock it 'til you've tried it!"

You are the left-wing "blinded by the light" liberal "heads" to @raphjd's right-wing "blinded by the dark" Trumpite "tails" (Note: "light" and "dark" are used here simply to highlight the concept of opposites - swap them if you like, the intended meaning is the same!)

You are as incapable of finding fault with Biden and his actions as @raphjd is with Trump's...

Which, honestly, makes you both look downright foolish to the majority of the 3 other readers of this forum! LOL

There's always chemical cremation - although 30 States outlaw its use on human remains.

When I die, I want my kids to just weigh down the carcass and drop me in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico! That way, every trip to the beach is a visit to my grave! LOL

Oh, and the fish will get a smorgasbord that will last for days, if not weeks!

@gerggently said in Dems who once decried "loose canon" Trump, now defending Biden "going off script":

Don't be afraid of a change, and you've likely noticed that the comments have not been retracted and WWIII isn't any closer.

Change for change's sake is dumb...
I re-iterate: if there was a policy change, it should have been announced in such a way that it didn't scare the pants off our allies! (They were blind-sided by the remark)

As for WW-3 being any closer, I'm glad you've got it all figured out... I'll sleep better knowing you already know the future, and the world will be safe because (even though) the old men "in charge" can't keep their dick in their pants and keep themselves from going off half-cocked!

</sarcasm=off>

I didn't unfollow them because of them differing in their views, I did so because they are stupid.

Who do you think you're convincing with that? You do know I'm capable of thinking more than one-layer deep (just ask @raphjd - he gets burned by it all the time!)...

You think they're stupid because they don't agree with your viewpoint!

Again, you are what you say you despise in the Trumpites!

Biden didn't set the ball rolling on regime change under the guidance of the dark arts masters at CIA, it was an appeal to the Russian people to make the change.

You'll get it someday, but you'll need to move beyond the stale talking heads who are ascribing motivation and intent where there is no evidence of it.

Are you getting your viewpoint from "talking heads", or just plain partisan apologists...
(NOTE: When your party is in power, they're apologists... when your party is NOT in power, they're... Trumpites? ROFL!)

For what it's worth, you're demonstrating behavior that is exactly like what you decry @raphjd for doing - that is, responding to what you THINK I'm writing, without (apparently) having actually read it!

Mind you - I'm not saying @raphjd doesn't actually do that - only that YOU are doing that here!

The whole COMPLAINT here is that Biden DID NOT HAVE a motivation or intent when he said it! He hadn't really thought it through at all! HE PULLED THAT COMMENT RIGHT OUTTA HIS ASS!

Not to be lost on anyone here: That's EXACTLY the Trump behavior that Biden ran AGAINST - claiming that HE would be better, more disciplined, more polished - because HE had so much experience!

PISH POSH! All that experience got us a feeble-minded old man who can't stop himself from sticking his foot in his mouth - which is the same behavior that made Trump an embarrassment (and a risk/threat) to begin with!

You may remember this: Former Rep Devin Nunes (R-CA) resigned from Congress in January to take the helm of Donald Trump's Media & Technology Group - the Trump company that would oversee the "Truth Social" app - designed to give Trump a platform aside from Twitter and Facebook, which had taken to censoring his ... er... imaginative, fact deficient, borderline delusional posts.

Launched a little over a month ago (Feb 21, 2022), Nunes (who once sued the owner of a Twitter account named "@DevinCow" - an account largely used to lampoon the Congressman. Shocker: the suit was dismissed as frivolous) has quickly learned that all the marketing in the world can't fix a broken app! As someone who has worked in tech for my entire career, I have one piece of advise for him: if you're going to run a tech company, high some GOOD tech people! (The site has struggled to scale, even though the base code is from Mastadon - a free and open-source platform that has proven to be quite scalable in the "right hands").

But tech hasn't been the whole problem:

• The "Truth Social" app was initially a hit! Signing up 872K users in the first week, but enthusiasm quickly waned - esp as many of the early users were using the platform to attack and make fun of the former President.
• Current statistics show about 50K hits per week on Apple's App Store - a 90% drop from the first week!
• The companion website initially had 6-million hits per week, but instead of growing, the visits to the site have fallen to under 1-million per week. (NOTE: The website cannot be used to post or read posts on the app, nor is the Android version of the app available yet)
• Launched as an "alternative" to the "heavy-handed" Twitter and Facebook, users were quickly confronted with terms of service that forbade users to: "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site".
  Truth Social also declares that it has the right to "suspend or terminate your account" and also "take appropriate legal action".
• Truth Social has blocked accounts for behavior it considers harmful or inappropriate, including creating accounts with parody names or complaining about the app.
• Truth Social also disclaims any responsibility for any post made on the platform (Section 230 anyone?)
• Needless to say, users' responses have been akin to: this is better than Twitter and Facebook.... how?

One more factoid: Axios reported that there were multiple official-looking accounts for entities, like: @NFL, @FoxSports, @ESPN and others. These "accounts" had legitimate-appearing links and logos, but were not created with the help - or even permission - of the named entities! Some were removed when the rightful owners of the service and trademarks complained.

Needless to say, The Donald is not pleased. Rumors around the TMTG water coolers is that Mr. Nunes is avoiding Mr. Trump, for fear of hearing those infamous words: YOU'RE FIRED!

Maybe he can run and get his old seat in Congress back?

@DamaDama said in Have you ever been caught masturbating?:

no, not ever because i have always been careful.

Assuming you mean accidentally caught...

I've been "caught" masturbating several times - on purpose tho!

Accidentally? not so much...

Dad Joke:
My Doctor told me I had to stop masturbating!
I asked why, and he said: "because I'm trying to examine you!"

@raphjd said in BREAKING: Matt Gaetz Claims He Has Contents Of Hunter Biden's Laptop, Attempts To Enter Into Record:

@bi4smooth

Papa Joe brags about using tax money to protect Hunter. It's on video.

A crackhead and criminal will say anything to keep out of trouble.

Of course, he's gonna claim some mysterious Russians stole his laptop, since 51 spies (the same ones that lied about Trump colluding with Russia) said it.

You are easily confused, aren't you...

If Joe Biden uses "personal" money to bail out his son, it's Government money - because he works for the Government... there are all kinds of controls and audits on how actual Government money is spent... and if it was spent on defending HUNTER Biden, I would think that'd have come out by now. (Of course, you can't prove a negative. I can't prove there are no angels on any heads of any pins - only that, under a microscope, we've never found one - yet!)

The person who claimed Russians stole the laptop is Hunter Biden - who, while he claims (and there is no evidence to the contrary) to be clean now, as the tale with his illegitimate child shows, he doesn't always remember what he did when he was using... not a credible witness, to be sure.

But the point(s) here aren't that Hunter Biden isn't a very "good guy" - the point is that you're trying to use the moral and physical failures of an apolitical son to sully the name & reputation of his father! And that's just wrong.

I'm dropping this thread because, as with your other Hunter Biden thread, you are just trying to throw mud at Joe Biden (who has his own foibles to attend to and atone for!), and are inappropriately using his apolitical family member as a weapon. That's just sad, immoral, and pitiful on your part.

Argue about it with someone else... (mic drop) I'm outta this one!