@geobear40 said in Open relationship?:

@bi4smooth

If you have needs outside of your relationship then maybe you should rethink if that relationship is working for you. If I can't provide for my partners needs and wants and him for me then maybe the relationship is not working.

I feel that those types of relationships are selfish in a way. They don't want to settle and work toward a stable loving family they want to keep one toe in and keep their options open. They want to redefine what a relationship is to fit what they want to do. Call it something else and be happy in their chosen state. .

Those are your ideals - and just like your shoes, they won't fit everyone else... stick with the "I" statements and dispense with the "they" statements.... you have no right to speak for others, nor to judge (much less label) their relationships!

@geobear40 said in Fauci: Removing masks on airplanes 'not something we should even be considering':

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci said that taking masks off while on an airplane is "not something we should even be considering."

Fauci made the comments while on ABC's This Week on Sunday and was responding to a question from Jonathan Karl on a vaccine mandate for domestic air travel.

"We want to make sure people keep their masks on. I think the idea of taking masks off, in my mind, is really not something we should even be considering," Fauci said.

It is interesting that "in his mind" no data cited, no studies only in his mind and therefore we must comply for he is Science.

Actually, I think his remarks - and clarifying them as "in my mind" - were clearly stated as his opinions and not as "facts"...

I swear, between you and @raphjd - if Dr Fauci claimed the sun rose in the East, you'd claim he was lying or claiming someone else's research as his own!

@geobear40 said in Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks:

@bi4smooth
Have you read any of the papers that Dr. Atlas has explained the data from all over the world that directly contradict what Fauci and the CDC are claiming that they know what studies are true and which ones are outliers. How about you read the book "The Real Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health". Check out some of the 2000 footnotes which backup his premises.

It never hurts to expand your knowledge and see that what you are being spoon feed by the MSM and the CDC is not the only Science. Science is hypothesize, test write a paper and have your peers review and challenge the results. None of Fauci and the CDC edicts are allowed to be peer reviewed or challenged in anyway.

Neither Dr. Fauci nor Bill Gates speak for, or are voices of the CDC.

Yours is a common misconception...

• Dr Fauci is (since 1984) the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the NIH, not the CDC) and (since the post was established in 2019) the Chief Medical Advisor to the President.
• Dr. Fauci does not speak for, nor does he represent, nor is he employed by the CDC. He works for (but is not the head of) the NIH.
• To use an analogy, to claim that Dr Fauci speaks for the CDC is equivalent to claiming that Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North spoke for the US Army during Iran-Contra in the 1980's... to wit: neither Dr. Fauci nor Lt. Col. North are the heads of their agencies, and neither are actually affiliated with the agency to which you are attributing their authority.

I have not attributed the CDC's current mask policy (in favor of using even cloth masks to slow the spread of COVID-19) to Dr. Fauci... because the documents and guidelines come from the CDC, not the NIH.

For the record:

• The current head of the US CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) is headed by Dr. Rochelle Walensky
• The current (acting) head of the US NIH (National Institutes of Health) is Dr. Lawrence Tabak (a Dentist, not an MD)
• Dr. Tabak is the "boss" of Dr. Fauci, as Dr. Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is a part of the NIH
• The US CDC and US NIH are separate and distinct agencies, 2 of the 11 separate agencies in the US Department of Health & Human Services:
  Operating Divisions:
  Administration for Children and Families
  Administration for Community Living
  Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
  Food and Drug Administration
  Health Resources and Services Administration
  Indian Health Service
  National Institutes of Health
  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

So, long story short: demonize Dr Fauci all you like - he's not the CDC, and not affiliated with them in any way.
Demonize Bill Gates all you like - he's also not the CDC - just a rich guy using his considerable wealth to do things that HE THINKS will be good for humanity... you are free to disagree, but he has no more real influence on these things than Elon Musk, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, or the Koch brothers do! They're all just very VERY rich men, using their money they way they see fit... this is CAPITALISM - it comes with the territory!

@geobear40 said in Open relationship?:

@bi4smooth
You read a lot into my post.

It is my opinion. We still have that right to have different opinions in this country.

You may state your thoughts and I will respect them and I wish people would do the same for mine.

I'm sorry if you took offense, but while I certainly would not stand in judgement of you, should you declare that YOU couldn't be in an "open relationship"! When you're talking about yourself, I have no qualms about anything you believe about what's an acceptable relationship - FOR YOU!

But, when you make the blanket claim that all "open relationships" are just "friends with benefits" (or some other label that diminishes the value or importance of their relationship), I take offense.

Speak for yourself and we have no beef.
Attempt to re-label others based on your own beliefs, and we do, indeed have a beef.

With that said, if I misinterpreted your remarks (short as they were), I apologize.

I agree with the previous poster who indicated that it was a unique journey for each person... I share here in the hopes it helps someone out there who may find some similarities.

In my case, I had a really tough time when I was young... I knew I liked fucking girls, because I was fucking my neighbor... but then, I also started to fool around with some of the neighborhood GUYS! I mean, getting off was getting off! (And at that point, there was no anal sex! Just jerking and sucking and massaging...). I had heard the terms GAY and STRAIGHT (as well as many colorful, mostly derogatory, names for gays)... but none of those labels seemed to fit ME...

In HS, I was attacked once for being queer, but was "bailed out" when one of the girls I'd been fucking told the guy who was coming after me that I was a better lay than he was! (He was humiliated & beat the crap out of me anyway, but the queer "bashing" ended).

At the time (all thru HS), I was banging almost anyone who was willing to! Boy or girl, it all felt good! But I didn't "date" at all - it was all sex! (This was the 70's after all!)

To my parents, and anyone I wasn't having sex with, I was a model-geek! I got good grades, was in the Boy Scouts, sang in the church choir, you name it! I was a "good boy" - except to those "in the know" that I REALLY LIKED to FUCK!

In college, things changed: I had an actual GF as a freshman... but she cheated on me (broke my little heart!), and in "revenge" I fucked her brother... we kept fucking for over a year, but we never let her know.

I also joined a Frat - they didn't know anything, except I had been dating the one girl. However, I had also started a collection of gay porn magazines... and those got discovered... so I was force-ably "outed" to my fraternity - and they did NOT take it well: there was a vote on whether or not to allow me to remain a member... I barely won (though 2 years after, I was elected VP!)

Still, no one outside of the fraternity - ESPECIALLY my family - knew anything about my sexuality. Indeed, I had been "forced" to claim "bisexual" as a label by my Frat brothers, but it didn't feel right to me... I didn't "need" to be with both, it was more like I "could be" with EITHER!

When I graduated college and went to work in my first career job, I met a bartender at a hole-in-the-wall gay bar, and we became a couple - my first man-to-man love affair. We were in the process of breaking up - I was 25 by this time - when my younger brother got married in another state. I had originally planned to bring my BF as my guest to this thing, and come out to them then, but we were breaking up, so that fell through.... nonetheless, I was an emotional mess, so I wound up coming out to my mother... she could not understand how or why I couldn't just CHOOSE to be straight (I honestly think she STILL feels that today - and I'm 58 & she's 81!)

The rest of my family soon learned about me, and by the time I was 28 I was fully "out" - I made it a "requirement"(albeit, self-imposed) that I would never have sex with someone who wasn't aware that I had had sex with both men and women in my past.... I have kept that commitment to myself. I also finally found a label (I've been using since my late 20's) that I'm comfortable with: pansexual - defined (for me) as being physically attracted to either male or female bodies, and emotionally attracted to the person - irrespective of their body parts. (Or more succinctly: it's about the other person, not the toys they bring to the game!)

I have been accepted as "myself" by a huge majority of people who've learned about me... and rejected by a very few (which, I won't lie, hurt... sometimes, a lot)... my parents STILL keep hoping I'll "meet the right girl" - even when I'm dating (as I am now) a man. Some things will never change. But, how can I expect my parents to accept me "as-is" if I can't accept them "as-is" - even if all of us aren't fully comfortable with the others viewpoints!

Finally: my kids are all aware of my sexuality - it's come up when I have the "birds and the bees" discussion with them as teens.

@scummer60 said in How many times do you jerk off in a week?:

man, i get hard just looking at my cock sometimes! so, i jerk it whenever I'm horny ... and, for 61, that's about 3-5x week. If it still works I say pull it as many times as you can comfortably. (or sometimes uncomfortably!!!!)

Good job! 61 and still pounding the meat like that!

I'm 58 and still feel like I've done something wrong if I don't get off at least once a day!

I have a BF right now, so sometimes that's real sex instead of jerking off... but, as we don't live together, most days it's definitely still wanking!

@geobear40 said in Whiplash - CNN & CDC clash on "validity" of cloth masks:

@bi4smooth
You forgot to mention that the CDC like CNN is a politically motivated organization and they both favor the Liberal point of view. Both pick and choice science facts that follow their political narrative.

I disagree that the CDC is generally, innately, politically motivated.... indeed, until Trump tried to interfere with CDC published policies/findings in 2020, there were virtually NO claims of political agendas within that agency... NONE!

To be fair, Trump wasn't the first to apply politics to the CDC - prior congresses had prohibited, for example, the CDC to investigate tobacco, or guns, as a result of political lobbying... but those legislative "blocks" were far more transparent than Trump's lobbying within the CDC (through official WH channels) to "change the science" (in particular, about COVID)

That doesn't mean Biden hasn't followed Trump's lead and attempted to have an influence on them, either: Trump "broke the ice", and now that it's broken, it'll take a VERY LONG TIME for the CDC to truly regain its full credibility... and I agree that it's overall COVID-19 credibility is already damaged (but by the actions of the RIGHT, not of the LEFT).

BUT, that's why I suggested that the published (peer-reviewed) results from multiple countries health agencies be taken into accord... if most all of them agree (as they do about masks... at least until recently), then the science isn't likely tainted.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Not tainted does NOT mean unchanging! Our scientific understandings necessarily change over time, as we learn and discover more and new things!

Honestly, though - if you come back and claim that there is a world-wide conspiracy of liberals that control all of their health agencies, I will lose all faith that you can legitimately interpret scientific fact.

Not that my faith in you should be of any consequence to you, but.... just sayin'...

@geobear40 said in Open relationship?:

@edudorado
Or close friends who share expenses

I'm sorry, but insisting that non-monogamous relationships "are not real" is judgemental and pedantic... it's no different than straight people who once insisted that 2 men couldn't "actually love" one another the same way straight couples did!

Hogwash!

There are no simple rules that you can apply to all human relationships - some couples stop having sex in their 30's or 40s - when they want to stop having children; while others have sex well into their 80's (if not longer)!

No only are there perfectly healthy relationships that are non-monogamous, but some are "poly-amorous'" - that is, groups of 3 or more who all love each other and have sex with each other... some of these poly-amorous relationships are straight (men and women, with only heterosexual sex), some are gay (only men or only women), and some are bisexual (men and women, with sex occurring between ANY two being acceptable).

I happen to personally know a gay couple - now married - who have never had sex together (nor outside their relationship), and they are VERY happy together! (On a site dedicated to porn, I can understand if some of you are incredulous as to this claim, but they are real! I've known them for more than 15 years!)

I also had a relationship when i was younger, and we tried to make it an "open" relationship... we had a LOT of sex, both together, and with others... but it broke down when deceit crept in...

The discussion about child porn (including shota) is covered by the BANNED CONTENT link that's shown every time you upload content:

https://www.gaytorrent.ru/notallowed.php

Specifically banned (under types of porn banned):

• Child Exploitation or Underage Porn
• Shota (aka: shouta, shotacon, shotakon)

If the intent boils down to an existential choice between:

• a long, skinny dick, or
• a shorter, fat dick

I personally would choose the longer, skinny one... and I speak from experience, having been with a guy with a very thin, 9-inch+ cock; as well as a dude with a dick that looked like a crushed beer-can: about 4-5" in length, but much bigger around than I could accommodate!

But, I'm with the poster above: Give me a nice, average-dimensions cock any time! I want to feel him cum inside me, but I don't want my ass stretched, nor my intestines re-arranged to accommodate him!

@nomadtimm said in "The person below me" game.:

@andergarcia

Nope, never. Not really a sharing type of person.

TPBM is a virgin.

At 58? HELL NO, I'm not a virgin! I've had too many boys and girls in my bed!

TPBM has had sex in a public place (visible to others, even if they had to look closely!)

@nomadtimm said in THIS or THAT: the game:

@kgbagent Bears!! All day, every day!!!

Girth or Length?

Length! Too much of either is painful, but growth in girth hurts more, quicker!

Asses (specifically): smooth or hairy?

@emrebqr said in Hairy or smooth:

Smooth pube, Hairy body, is the best for me

For me, it's not the look so much as the smell... I TRIM (not shave) most of my body hair (what there is) - including public hair - because it flat SMELLS better!

I shave my face, my ass, and my balls - IMHO, those areas of skin "handle a blade" well enough - other areas, like armpits, legs, and chest tend to NOT handle shaving well - with "prickly" results, even if they stop getting ingrown hairs or cuts...

That's just my mileage... not saying its the same for anyone else...

... but I flat will not rim a hairy butt!!!

@eobox91103 said in Escorts:

... "I don't pay guys to have sex; I pay them to leave afterwards."

Literally ROFL! I love it!

I had a friend when I was younger who was a well-paid, well-sought-after escort (for men and women - he didn't care!)... he said it was like "renting a boat vs purchasing one" - a LOT less expensive overall, and you get the latest model each time you go back to the marina!

CNN is pushing an article HERE that attempts to change the "narrative" on masks.

It directly contradicts what the CDC has said (currently, still says) about the use of, efficacy of, and modality of wearing masks.

In summary, the CDC's guidance on mask-wearing is that it protects others more than it protects ourselves, as the mask "knocks down" our breath, and any respiratory "droplets" in the process. The mask reduces the "area" around us where our breath carries, while still allowing full oxygen and carbon-dioxide inhalation and exhalation (respectfully). To the CDC, it's about stopping the spread of those respiratory droplets, which is why cloth masks are just fine!

Now, here comes CNN - self-appointed lord and savior of all mankind - to say that no, cloth masks aren't good after all, despite what the CDC says. From the article:

Yet the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's most recent guidance on selecting, properly wearing, cleaning and storing face masks recommended people avoid N95 masks and instead choose masks with two or more layers of washable, breathable fabric -- which Wen called "a major mistake."

So now CNN - which has for many months been all "follow the science" has chosen to "pick and choose" the science they'll recommend - exactly what they claim the "other side" has been doing.

Some additional thoughts - admittedly unorganized...

• If the "goal" of the mask is to block nano-particles, then we need to start stocking up on military-style gas-masks!
• The CDC guidance is based on the idea that it's not about blocking particles so much as reducing their velocity... if they leave the mask and have no velocity, they fall to the ground (remember, the virus lives in these droplets, not "out on its own")...
• Since this virus is spread almost entirely by aerosol (respiratory), blocking the expiration of people's breath, along with keeping your distance - so those particles have a chance to fall - seems a reasonable approach!
• Even Drs and nurses will tell you: wearing a surgical mask all day is uncomfortable, but wearing an N95 mask (properly fitted) for hours on end is difficult, nearly unbearable!
• I'm all for requiring kids to wear masks in social places - including school - when those masks are simple, not overly restrictive, and meant to "block the spread."
• I'm totally against requiring kids to wear N95-style masks, esp if they're going to be required to "keep them fitted"... if medical professionals find this unbearable, what do you expect from our kids? They won't comply, and then you've lost all levels of protection!
• This kind of "editorial" change (vs. fact-based change) is going to confuse and anger a lot of people, and it will feed into the narrative of the anti-mask crowd... in other words, while wearing an N95 mask may be better after all, making this editorial change NOW is going to COST LIVES, not save them:
• People that have been iffy about masks all along, are going to stop wearing them... you're now telling them the mask they've been wearing is useless (the CDC says it is not!), and saying only an N95 mask - which is uncomfortable and expensive - is the ONLY way to go.... so they're STOP wearing the cloth or surgical masks (which HAVE been working, according to the CDC!) and give up...
• People who were already pro-mask were very likely already wearing N95 masks (well, KN95 is far more likely), so your editorial change won't be affecting their behavior at all!

I don't know yet what the background on this editorial change is - I don't see a political advantage for the Dems here - but there is something behind this -- and I do NOT believe it is pure benevolence on CNN's part... maybe a new sponsor makes KN95 masks?

For me, I'll continue to follow the CDC guidance and wear my rainbow-colored surgical mask when in public. I'm fully vaccinated, and while Omicron is scarily easily transmittable, I'm as protected as I can be (without adding natural immunity by getting COVID-19!)

@flozen said in Goodbye, SlamRush:

Earlier this month, the porn review website str8upgayporn reported that MasterCard stopped processing charges for the SlamRush site.

https://str8upgayporn.com/slamrush-changes-its-name-to-facedownassup-in-wake-of-mastercard-drama/

Faced with this economic pressure, SlamRush morphed into a newly named site -- facedownassup. Here, the text for clips is now scrubbed of direct drug references, such as "getting cloudy."

They also pulled several clips that included needles and pipes and are reworking them, cutting out background visuals on tables, etc.

With these changes, the revised videos and new content won't present -- and normalize -- sex in scenes that infer intravenous slamming and smoking of meth.

As well, goodbye to the language promoting cloudiness (drugs) as a way to lure younger gays into a state where they are no longer capable of proper judgment and consent.

Goodbye to all of that going forward.

While it is clear that there was a market for that content, I have to say I'm not sorry to see it go. I found it ... distasteful, if sadly realistic...

That said, I am sure that others will lament its loss, and decry the actions of the Credit Card companies... These companies do need to thread the needle:

• they have to assuage the concerns of many of their customers (on the banking side of their equation) that they're not supporting illegal activity
• they also have to beware of the slow creep of consumers switching to blockchain (eg: BitCoin) types of currency exchange, which allow direct transfers of money - without the need for these "clearinghouse" companies

If the Credit Card companies misstep here, they can push themselves out of business!

@geobear40 said in Trump goes to the Dark Side...:

I didn't post this trying to convince you of anything! (nor for @raphjd)

For you this belief that "Big Pharma is responsible for the disease, not the cure" may as well be a religion - there is absolutely no authority - even Donald Trump, nay even GOD himself - that could dissuade you from such strongly held beliefs! I don't count myself as nearly that persuasive - I don't share your hubris!

But there are others who read these forums - others for whom FACTS (and the opinions of Mr. Trump) are not so easily dismissed...

Should any of THEM question my facts, I'll be happy to respond... but I have no desire to argue "religion" with a "zealot"...

'Tis Christmas Eve...

Merry Christmas to ALL!

@geobear40 said in Are the appoved Covid Kits made in USA or China?:

Show me the lie and I will correct it if necessary.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine

The Pfizer vaccine, now called Comirnaty, is fully approved by the US FDA, and has been since August 23, 2021 - hardly "breaking news"... and 2-days prior to the press-release you quoted.

I'm not sure how more definitive I can be - that's the FDAs actual press release, on their own website...

But look - we can stop arguing this point... this is, for all intents and purposes, a religion for you... Truth be told, there is no authority on Earth that could convince you that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective... and that's OK - I don't think every single human needs to take the vaccine! But a large majority DO need to take the vaccine - and for 2 reasons:

• First and foremost, for their own protection. Vaccinated people still get COVID-19, but they have much "easier" cases, seldom requiring hospitalization - much less dying of the disease. (This is similar to EVERY vaccine: the MMR vaccine, by example, can't stop the measles virus from getting into your body, but it CAN make the infection minor and almost never life-threatening!)
• Secondly, by vaccinating LARGE proportions of the population, we can potentially END the threat of this virus once and for all. But, so long as large segments of the population continue to provide "ample opportunities for incubation and proliferation" of the virus, it will continue to thrive - and mutate - endangering all of us.

EDIT: Let me DIRECTLY refute the primary argument your ridiculous link makes (it claims the FDA approval is for a different vaccine).

In the FDA's own words: "Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee), for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older. The vaccine also continues to be available under emergency use authorization (EUA), including for individuals 12 through 15 years of age and for the administration of a third dose in certain immunocompromised individuals."

So, the vaccine was approved (fully approved) for use in people 16 and older, but the EUA is still the authorization for using the same vaccine for children ages 12-15.

I'm sorry if that is confusing to you, but it makes perfectly clear sense to me... Prior to full approval, Pfizer could not market the vaccine, and so there was no approved marketing name... now, it has been approved, so the marketing name can be used... I'm not confused by that...

Former President Donald Trump did an interview with Candace Owens of The Daily Wire in Mara Lago that "dropped" Dec 21 (2 days ago from now). I can't link you to the pay-walled content, but here is a link where you can find the Interview - if you pay to join The Daily Wire.

In the Interview, former President Trump says many things - but none quite so provocative as these excerpts:

• "The vaccine works" (referring to COVID-19 vaccines developed under his Operation Warp Speed initiative in 2020)
• "Look... the results of the vaccine are very good, very good... and if you do get it" (referencing COVID-19), it's a very minor thing. People aren't dying when they take the vaccine!" (again, referring to the COVID-19 vaccine)
• When pressed by Ms. Owens, Mr. Trump doubled-down: "Well no! The vaccine works!" The ones that get very sick and go to the hospital are the ones that don't take their vaccine! But, it's still their choice... and if you TAKE the vaccine, you are protected.
• Trump also touted his role in developing the vaccines - perhaps taking a little too much credit, but certainly SOME credit is due! He said, **"I came up with the vaccine... with all 3 vaccines! All are very VERY good. I came up with 3 of them in less than 9-months!"

For the record, Mr. Trump has the best of all worlds with regards to immunity to COVID-19:

• He contracted, and later recovered from, a severe COVID-19 infection - requiring hospitalization and receiving advanced treatment from the White House & Navy physicians in charge of Presidential well-being.
• He later received the Pfizer 2-dose mRNA vaccine.
• He even later (recently) received a 3rd, booster, shot of the same Pfizer vaccine.

Clearly, Mr. Trump has not been recently briefed by the same Russian Trolls who feed information to the likes of @raphjd and @lololulu19 and others...

Or, perhaps he has the best possible doctors in the country, and he has received sound medical advise from them, which he has followed - resulting in his taking a total of 3 doses now of the Pfizer vaccine.... because it works!

Or, maybe he has gone to the dark side, and sided with Big Pharma in the great hoax!

I'll let you - the reader - decide!

@loststoner said in Do I have to....:

In order for my upload to start counting do I have to download the entire torrent file before it will start counting any of my upload?

No, uploaded data always counts - regardless of how much you have downloaded (now or in the future) - if you share, you get credit.

To my limited knowledge, the only "free" (un-charged download or un-credited upload) is the freeleech program, which allows you to download for free, although the people you download FROM still get credits for their sharing.

Because of this, one of the FASTEST ways to get "ration" help is do download a FREELEECH torrent when it has been freshly "free'd" - because there won't be many seeders yet, but there will be significant demand (there always is for freeleech content!) -- but if you download a freeleech after it has been free a while, there will be a LOT of seeders, and fewer downloaders - so of much less help.

Or will it still count my upload if I only download the parts I want and not the rest?

Yes, all uploaded bytes count - thought they don't show up instantly -- there is a scheduled "job" on the website that collects the data from the tracker (no, they are not the same systems - at least not as far as I can tell)

Also what is the quickest and easiest way to get my upload ratio increased?

See Freeleech description above, then keep an eye out for "fresh" freeleech torrents! (EVEN IF you don't want to KEEP the content itself!)