Posts made by MeatHook

I have a Muslim friend who came out to his parents when he was around 20.  They initially had a negative reaction to it but mellowed gradually. They're now at the point that, while I'm sure they'd prefer him to be with a woman, they accept his (also Muslim) partner and treat him as part of the family.

This is a guy who like me, lives in the UK.  His experience is that younger people in the Muslim community are more likely to be accepting of his gayness than those who are older.  In that respect, that's pretty much the same pattern as found in the general populous.

I have to say, those are damn hot pics!

That's correct.  A freeleech torrent won't count towards your DL total.

Torrents only remain freeleech for a period of time though.  If the freeleech period ends while you're still downloading, the part you download after than point will count towards your DL total.

That's my understanding anyway.  I'm fairly sure that's accurate.

Gotcha.  I mis-understood.  Of course in that case there's no problem.

No need to apologise for your English; it's very good, and far better than my rusty schoolboy French.

For me, Caesar is hard to beat.

Good as a dream, with one caveat.

Dream: Though I have no experience of the job, I suspect that being the editor of a mag is pretty demanding. The reality may not be as sparkly as the dream but that's not to say it's not a great goal.

Caveat: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by

PDF with images of volunteers, or royalty free if there are beautiful

If it means giving a benefit to those you perceive as beautiful, that inevitably means withholding it from those that you perceive as non-beautiful. That's discriminatory and subjective so wouldn't get my vote.  Of course I may have totally mis-understood what you meant and my comment may simply not apply.

Overall, I'd be interested to see a sample copy.  Could be an interesting publication.

@MikeChang:

Firstly I never said "HATE",

Yes, you did use the word 'hate'; it's right there in the part of your post that I originally quoted.  Even if you hadn't used the word, are you surprised that when you scapegoat a whole part of the community by saying,

@MikeChang:

being gay doesn't mean you suddenly have to act like those dreadful camp queens from TV shows. that to my mind is one of the biggest reasons straight men hate gays.

that it's described as hate?

@MikeChang:

I gave an example to further my dislike to a particular type, (Camp Queens) that being the character played by Anthony Cotton in Queer as Folk UK or Jack from Will & Grace.  I'm not saying there aren't people who are naturally like this, but I am saying there are plenty who think this is how they should be and therefore put on the act and make a whole over the top performance of being this way.

Some people choose to modify their behaviour for reasons including fitting in with a group. Assuming they're doing no harm by behaving that way, why is it any of anyone else's business?  Where is the list of acceptable manners of behaviour? Who produced this list and what gives them the authority to do so?

Note: In all comments, I'm referring to freedom of behaviour which causes no harm. It would be tedious in the extreme to keep repeating that so I'll take it as understood.

@MikeChang:

I fully agree with the comment "Be Yourself" but just as I don't expect everyone to like me for who I am, don't expect everyone to like you for who you are, that is just totally unrealistic.

Who said anything about liking everyone? There's a huge difference between liking and accepting someone. No, we can't reasonably expect to be liked by everyone - true for everyone on the planet - but we sure as hell should be working toward acceptance of everyone!  I have a very long list of people I don't like, but I accept everybody's right to be the way they are or the way they choose to be. That's not me seeking to be unusually accepting; the fact is that it's none of my damn business how they are!

@MikeChang:

I'm only one person and the original comment was that this effeminate guy felt he was not belonging in the gay community, something that I guarantee is not affected by me in any way.

This is a total cop-out.  While you may not have affected the person who was the subject of the original post - assuming he's not a member of this site and didn't read your post - others who read your comments, who identify with the group you criticised, certainly will have been affected by you. Some, who have a strong sense of self-esteem, will probably have been angered by it, dismissed it or otherwise dealt with it with no harm being done.  Some others though who have low self-esteem will have been damaged by it.  Their already poor self-esteem will have been further eroded by your comments - that's the way it works!

http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/facts-about-suicide
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/25711600/higher-suicide-risk-for-young-gay-and-lesbian-people
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04suicide.html?_r=0
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/study-links-social-environment-high-attempted-suicide-rates-among-gay-youth

That first url has an interesting quote

Each episode of LGBT victimization, such as physical or verbal harassment or abuse, increases the likelihood of self-harming behavior by 2.5 times on average.
Source: IMPACT. (2010). Mental health disorders, psychological distress, and suicidality in a diverse sample of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths. American Journal of Public Health. 100(12), 2426-32.

We have a horribly high level of suicide in our community. That's a headline reality. The less obvious reality is that suicide is the most extreme end of a scale of increased likelihood of life-problems such as self-harming, failing to realise potential, lack of self-confidence and mental health problems.  I'm sure the originator of this topic could give far more detail to this than I could ever hope to.  Comments such as yours will move some readers towards the bad end of whichever scale they're on. perhaps by an imperceptible amount, perhaps by a lot.

Even if it's by an imperceptible amount, it still matters.  If you doubt that, take a look at the applications in the psychology of mental health, of Christopher Zeeman's work.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02686568

Your comments do not exist in isolation from the rest of the world.  What you say and post FUCKING MATTERS!

@MikeChang:

The comment about this being the biggest reason straight men hate gays DOES in fact come from my experience of many years of being gay and having straight and gay people telling me they (when they find out I'm gay) that they are so glad I'm not like those camp queens that turn their stomachs.

Yes, some people's stomachs are turned by gay people, of every type, manner and description. Some people's stomachs are turned by people of a race other than their own. Some people's stomachs are turned by mixed race marriages.  Some people's stomachs are turned by people with disabilities. Some people's stomachs are turned by people of a religion other than their own. In every case, the problem lies with those whose stomach is turned.

The remedy to this gastric discomfort isn't the change in the behaviour of those that distress them; it's that they get rid of their sense of entitlement to decide how other people are allowed to behave!

As for the reason that some straight men hate gays;  it's because they're haters. They seek to legitimise their prejudice by claiming their hate is half for only one part of the community, but that doesn't change the fact that they are haters. Refer to my comments above regarding a sense of entitlement.  They may seek to make a scapegoat out of a particular sub-group but it boils down to the same thing - they don't get to make the rules on what's acceptable!

Accepting their hate without challenge, serves to add to the problem by, in their eyes, validating the behaviour, and by tacitly reinforcing that message of hate.

@MikeChang:

I never mentioned "Drag artists" of any sort, why because one of my best friends is not only gay, but also a Drag Queen, yet out of his frock he probably straighter than me except when in the sheets.  I wouldn't want anyone else next to me when it comes to a fight as he can kick the shit out of the biggest thug or hater you could throw at him.

You use the term 'straighter'. I'm going to assume from the context that you mean more masculine, not more heterosexual.  Heterosexual men don't have the monopoly on behaviour which is traditionally perceived as masculine and the perpetuation of the stereotype that they do, is not only harmful but massively inaccurate.

Did you really mean that first sentence? Had a drag queen not been one of your best friends and/or if he hadn't been 'straighter' than you, you would have included them in or list of those you dislike?

No, you didn't mention drag queens - I did to introduce my anecdote.  Interesting that you take issue with my having done so.  Why is that?

Yup, I love cum. Love the taste of most guys' cum, though a few guys i find have very bitter cum. Even so, still worth getting a mouthful of.

It seems like a simple choice to me.

You have a baby boy, just born, just about as perfect as he'll ever be, then some people think, "I know, we'll slice a piece off him for no good reason".

Except in very unusual medical circumstances, there's no good reason to circumcise a child. Even in those circumstances, look for credible alternatives to surgery, which should be a last resort.

If you're circumcised, you may be concerned you can't teach him to keep himself clean.  It's as simple as getting him to wash behind the foreskin without using soap - there's no special technique to it.  He should practice retracting the foreskin gently when he's old enough to understand to do it to help the foreskin develop gradually.

Simple as that.  No huge complications with foreskins, and you're taking nothing from him.  If later he chooses to be circumcised, he can go ahead and do it, having had the choice over his own body.

The agreement here is deafening and I'm just going to make it louder.

Stay away from him while he's your student. When that student/lecturer relationships ends and a little time has passed, then it's a different story, but for now, hands off.

I think all the reasons given above are valid, but I'll add another.

If you make any move that compromises the student/lecturer relationship, you're risking the quality of his education.  He's there to learn your specialist subject from you, nothing else.  While I was teaching, I took great pains to wear a carefully constructed professional mask with my students. I carefully avoided interactions that would place any kind of barrier between me and them that would affect their learning.  I avoided politics, football, music and anything else that could have made them uncomfortable or awkward.

You need to be professional and do the same as I did, as even the most subtle probing about his orientation may be awkward for him, and compromise your ability to give him the kind of education he has a right to expect.

@MrMazda:

Believe it or not, but an uncircumcised guy as the top of the sexual relation is statistically 200% more likely to contract an STD through the pocket under the foreskin than that of a circumcised guy.

That's quite a remarkable figure for STD susceptibility - Could you point to the source for it?  I think it bears investigating more closely.

As for the foreskin being a germ trap, assuming a fully retractable foreskin, washing takes less time than it generally takes to wash balls.  No special thoroughness is needed.  Of course if the foreskin is tight, that's it's own problem as mentioned in my previous post and it would be wise to see a decent doctor about it. The reason for not using soap is that there's a little ecosystem of protective bacteria in there which are benign to us, but actively fight off other bacteria. Using soap can knock these out and leave a guy a bit susceptible to some infections.

After having said that, I'm bad at washing with just water and usually clean in the shower with whatever I'm using on the rest of my body.  In my 52 years, I've never had any problems whatever with my cock.  More than that, I don't think I've ever known anyone I know to have had a problem beyond a standard STD, and with most people I know, we talk openly about such things.

Yup, it was my first kinky activity when I was pretty young.  It can be a lot of fun but as has been mentioned by others, you need to take care and do it right.

So, a baby pops out, cries and the parent's think, "Here's our new Son, just about as perfect as he'll ever be.  Let's cut a piece off him".

In the US, it's a routine procedure despite the US surgeon general determining that it's unnecessary and results in a number of infant mortalities each year.  The excuse of "I'm circumcised so I can't teach him how to keep it clean" is one i've heard. How hard is it to say the words "Wash it".  Uncut dicks don't come with 300 page manuals; you just need to wash it (ideally without soap) just like you wash anything else.

Some religions practice circumcision as part of their belief system.  A religion that says you have to cut pieces off babies is at best suspect! it's the 21st century; put your brains in gear and rub a couple of brain cells together and see what wonderful things happen.

Cultures that influence you to circumcise - same as above.  Brain in gear and see if you can develop a bit.

All of the above applies even more strongly to female genital mutilation, where the effects are often debilitating and devastating. i don't know of any religion that demands it, but I'm not putting money on there not being one.  I would put money on some advocates trying to justify it in religious terms.

Doctors - recommend surgery as a last resort.  A friend has a Son of 15 suffering from Phimosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis. His doctor took one look and recommended circumcision without exploring any other treatment option. A simple web search and some patient stretching and the kid's happier and well on the way to solving his problem.  Doctors should explore the alternatives before advocating cutting off pieces of their patients.  Sometimes it's necessary - no argument there - but it should be regarded as a last resort.

Having said all that, you probably have the notion that I'm against circumcised cocks.  Not at all.  I'm against circumcision for no good reason.  I a guy wants to be cut or someone has a medical condition that's the best treatment option, fine.

As to playing with cut cocks, I do prefer uncut because of the texture, the taste, the sensitivity, but I'd never turn a guy down because he was cut or express disappointment.  I've had a number of guys apologise for their lack of foreskin because they feel incomplete; just one more reason not to cut a piece off someone before they're able to make their own choice. I've pointed many guys toward http://norm.org for free information on easy non-surgical ways to restore a foreskin, or at least go a long way towards doing so.

Hell yeah.  I love a beefy butt in a jock.

Atheist all the way here.

As for religion and homosexuality, I know of none that like us and plenty that hate us.  That has nothing to do with my atheism, it's just the way it is.

We don't need religions to work out how to be good people and get along with one another.  We can be rational and work things out for ourselves if we can shake off the habit of religion.  it requires us to take responsibility for ourselves though and there fewer people ready to do that, than wrap themselves in the security blanket of a higher being who they pray is going to take care of them.

Total top chubby here.

I'm a gay man. Certain types of men make my dick get hard.  Other types of men don't make my dick hard.  That's a reflection of my sexual attractions, and not being attracted to every type of guy is not something I feel the need to apologise about.

When it comes to acceptance of others, it's a different story. I'm happy to accept anyone who behaves reasonably towards me and towards others.  What possible reason would I have not to accept someone because of any other characteristic, like whether they were fat, thin, young, old, of a given race or not of a given race, feminine, masculine, wearing leathers or wearing feathers or even wearing leathers and feathers.

I've seen first hand a variety of "you're not the right type" prejudices and in a small way have been subject to one when some friends of mine accused me of "butching it up" so that people would be surprised when I told them I'm gay.  I've never had time for that sort of idiocy.  How can you honestly expected to be accepted  for your differences when you discriminate against others for their differences.

I think much of it it comes down to some people feeling they need to feel better about themselves by feeling superior to others. That's never going to work either in a society or in a community.

@MikeChang:

I personally don't like effeminate men, being gay doesn't mean you suddenly have to act like those dreadful camp queens from TV shows. that to my mind is one of the biggest reasons straight men hate gays.  It all just seems so put on, like some great performance.

@MikeChang Mike, if you've been in a relationship for 17 years, it seems likely that you're old enough to know better than to come out with this rubbish! Some people, not only straight men, hate gays - true. Haters don't have or need a rational reason for their hate, They need no excuses so scapegoating effeminate men or drag queens or any other group is not only unfounded but pointless and damaging.

You should look at our history.  Those effeminate men and drag queens have done far more to make progress in equality than masculine guys, perhaps because of the difficulty of ignoring them, but they've put their balls on the line for our community for decades and they deserve our respect!

I recall, over 30 years ago, a group of queer bashers  outside a gay club in the dark times of the early 80s, attacking a young, small, in their eyes, easy target; typical bully behaviour  I and a couple of other "butch" guys started towards them, but were overtaken by two drag queens who had just left the club.  They both stopped about 10m short of the fight, to take off their high heels and then proceeded to use their stilettos as highly effective weapons against the attackers, who literally didn't know what had hit them.  They'd fled by the time I got there and all that was left to do was to provide a shoulder for them to steady themselves as they re-shod.  That takes the kind of guts that many of "butch" guys didn't show that night.

There are countless examples of those who put on "some great performance", moving our community forward and supporting us. Read the true history of Stonewall - you may be surprised.

Bottom line.  If someone is causing no harm - and I challenge anyone to show how someone in drag or who is effeminate, in doing so, causes harm - then why should they not be accepted for who they are.  Why is it anybody's business other than theirs if they act in a manner more commonly associated with someone of a different gender? Why is is anyone else's business if they choose to wear a frock? Why is it anyone else's business if they don't fit into the gender binary, or are transexual, or pansexual, or transgender or asexual or intersex or are any combination of the countless variations that people come in?

If you want to fight hate, start with the haters, don't become one.

I'll proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with a bloke in a frock, or a bloke who acts like a girl, or any of the groups I mentioned above, or any of the ones I missed. I consider them to be in my community. I consider someone who discriminates against people based on superficialities, not to be.

I find Japanese men to be an interesting contrast.  So many are skinny, smooth, feminine and they do nothing for me.

Many others though are beefy, chubby, solid.  They are as hot as hell!

Thank you, and it was my pleasure.  I enjoyed it too

Yup, it's quite simple.  Your statement…

there is not currently any scientific finding that proves that it is possible to contract HIV from an undetectable partner

is what relates to the axion that absence of proof is not proof of absence. While perhaps true, it does not support the statement that

if you were to contract it from an undetectable partner, you would be the first case where transmission has occurred

It may be supportable to say that it has never been demonstrated to have occurred, but it doesn't support a conclusion that it has never occurred.

At this point, we've lost any possibility of ever determining that transmission has never occurred - we will never be able to make that determination.  All we can do, and what may well have been done, is to calculate an estimate of the probability of transmission, from a statistically significant sample of study subjects, which approaches zero.  It'll always be an estimate and can never be demonstrated as being zero.

All the studies that could ever be carried out can only ever increase the confidence of that estimate. They can never determine the probability absolutely.

What does this mean in real terms?  It's a matter of accuracy of statement.  You're clearly responsible in your approach to your HIV and your communication with your partners. What I seek to do is to clarify what statements can be supported by data derived from studies.  It's incredibly easy to misinterpret scientific results; I seek only to make sure that the statements are supported by the evidence.