"The covid shit sure killed hook-ups. I spent the entire time doing nothing but sufring porn and jerking off. A true bitch for a straight guy. Early this year I tried a j/o group. I admit I was pretty timid at first but Holy Shit it felt good to have someone else stroke my dick. One dude there and I hit it off and he tells me he's straight but loves stroking with guys. Now that covid is on the rise again we decided to get together on our own for Masturbation Month. Not sure how it happened but it seems we both enjoy sucking dick too. But we both still want to hook up with women. Is there anything wrong with that or are we supposed to stick with playing with dicks now?"
 |
| Photo courtesy of The Guardian |
As to your question: Have you not been paying attention to the whole "poly" thing? There are no strict rules anymore. Not that there were any before. But before, the issue was that bisexual men were even more closeted than gay guys. Didn't help that many in the gay community used to say any man who had any kind of sexual activity with another man was really gay and just didn't want to admit it.
So keep meeting up with your straight buddy if you're both down with that. Jack off together. Suck each other's cocks. Rub your boners together. Fuck each other if that's what you want to do (just do it safely with condoms).
Keep in mind that when either of you feels safe going out again and hooks up with a woman, you knew it would happen sooner or later. In the meantime, enjoy the common activity.
25 comments:
Ugh. The shooting. So heartbreaking. Repugs who bow to the NRA are guilty of this and more.
As for the guy who found out him and his friend are very much into doing sexy things together? Have at it. Questioning it yields no results.
XOXO
Isn't it amazing how timid people are when it comes to sex? To doubt or even question if something so basic is alright? That's what's wrong with this nation. It starts with our fear of the penis and ends with guns being pointed at children. It's a stretch, but I bet that correlation could be made.
@ Six - Those politicians have their fingers on the trigger as much as the shooter.
Yep, questioning fun with a buddy only leads to anxiety.
@ Upton - I'll bet you're right --- a correlation could be found with these young men. Incels? They can't get laid so they kill people??
I guess it's going to take another federal building to come down till any of the policticans do anything about this. Years later....here we still are. No gun control. No background checks...selling Willie nillie....I guess just the new normal...oh look...another shooting.
It is not a time for a moment of silence. It is a time to point out the politicians who have blood on their hands. Not just for this one but all of the mass shootings. I think those politicians need to be forced into the room to smell death and look how they had to use DNA to tell which mangled body was whom. I was a teacher and in class when Sandy Hook happened. It brought back the faces of my student. People need to speak with their vote.
Gun advocates should look to Australia where there was an equally powerful gun lobby. When they banned it in 1996 after suffering a terrorist attack and began to buy back these weapons, all the results improved at least by a factor of two. Including something they hadn't anticipated, the number of suicides. And zero terrorist attacks.
Hugs and bisous, my darlings Jean and Pat.
Have a wondrous Wednesday.
First, I suggest to the OP that you can do BOTH - keep playing with each other and also have sex with women. No need to restrict yourselves to any one thing. Whatever works for the two of you, do it.
Second, these shootings, which are almost daily now, are only going to get worse when the Supreme Court, in the upcoming months, finds New York City's restrictions on carrying guns unconstitutional. Then anyone will be able to carry a gun anywhere and we will see first hand both the death of our republic and massive deaths from guns. If we don't gain control next election, the end is nigh.
so sad for you
Sixpence Notthewiser
You are you right what a tragic event happened at the elementary school in Texas yesterday.Nobody will argue that,how could you.But I find your comment interesting that you blame the republicans or Repugs your name for them and the NRA quite hypocritical since you hail from the city of Chicago which has been run by democrats forever .The city is also known as Chiraq,how many people have shoot and killed/wounded in the windy city this year alone? Its a holiday weekend and I wonder what the total body count will be in Chiraq this weekend.I know its not the NRA and republicans pulling the trigger.The coward in Texas was not a card carrying republican or NRA member nor was the Tops grocery store shooter in Buffalo nor was the Sandy Hook shooter.I am curious what is your answer to stop this? Ban all guns? Just curious,its easy to point fingers by just going by talking points. Have a nice day.
@ Anon, May 25, 2022 at 11:43 AM - Not that I need to defend Six, but I would argue that the issue stems from the lack of National Gun Reform, which has repeatedly been blocked by Senate Republicans. So to connect the dots and point the finger in that direction is pretty easy to do. None of the shooters you cite may have been registered Republicans or card-carrying NRA members, however those two organizations are what made it so easy for the shooters to purchase the guns they used - as well as the guns used in Chicago on a daily basis.
I am so goddam mad at the Republicans that I could spit. Fuck every damned one of them.
What is fascinating is the effect of the well-spent money of the NRA protecting the gun manufacturers.
All the Republicans today have plenty of suggestions for increasing, yes increasing the purchasing of guns as a solution. Let's make sure all the school resource officers have guns, let's make sure all the teachers have guns, before you know it they'll reduce the age to 16 so that high school students can start carrying guns.
One guy pointed out all the new gun laws that were just enacted in Texas. Come to find out all those "new gun laws" are to make it easier for people to carry them, without registration.
We are not doomed, voters have to start voting for candidates who support reasonable gun laws, and those candidates need to start winning elections. Until then nothing is going to change.
Hugs and bisous.
@ Anon the correlation is easy to make around the world. Pick a nation that has a lot of guns, and you are going to see a lot of deaths by guns. And guess what, the US has everyone beat, is that a statistic we should be proud of?
They made the same lame excuses for seatbelts, drunk driving laws, mandatory car insurance, etc. No one specific gun law is 100% sure, just like not everyone who wears a seatbelt survives a horrific crash. But the overwhelming evidence is that most do survive. So suppose we stopped half of the 45,000 deaths by guns a year, would that be worth it?
Hi, I'm the far left, and when I said seize the means of production, I didn't mean ask nicely.
Sorry, but that always bothers me. The centrists are actually pretty unique for being anti-gun when all four quadrants in fact oppose gun control for their own reasons.
I can tell you that at least with American Indians, hate crimes rarely involve guns. And it's simple why: Not sadistic enough.
That said, my big explanation is kids being exposed to racist and other bigoted ideologies. That's why it's gone up since 2009, Obama's election was, to white supremacists, a clarion call heralding the apocalypse.
It seems quite strange to someone from outside the USA to see upholding the right to bear arms as a tonic to government going rogue, when you might be taking a gun to a cruise missile fight today: times have changed, but not the original sentiment which no longer carries much meaning in reality. Therefore, the right to bear arms just means that unstable people can kill others easily without any other benefit: it's much harder to cause mass murder with a knife if guns and similar weapons are banned.
Sex between men has been villified for so long, it doesn't even appear as an option in the minds of most men, which means they are thus held hostage to women or celibacy. Having that option means men are no longer held captive and can exert choice, which is a good thing. It also means less sexual frustration and potential outbursts of rage.
I kind of think of sex between men as being a recreation instead of the whole ball of wax of relationship, family and children, not that it isn't possible to have the whole ball of wax with another man, but for most it's about the sex/pleasure only. A man has no problem with a recreational game of squash with another man, so why should recreational sex be viewed so differently? Viewed from that perspective, a man has a choice for recreational sex with men or women or a full relationship/intimacy thing with either men or women or even a mix and match or both: the degree of choice means that men should be less frustrated in getting their needs met as they have more than just 50% of the population available to them compared to 50% of the population less womens choices.
Womens choices dictate what a man receives currently, so it would be beneficial for men to have more options and less frustrations. Also, women's choices are often not just to do with having sex, but with an eye on a different longer term agenda. Whilst some men may also have that agenda, it's more likely they will be interested in just sex with no strings attached if they can get it. Womens different biology also means men are more sexually compatible with men as they already know what men generally like.
I would like to see all men throw off the shackles of conditioning and homophobia and treat sex as a recreation with more options than traditionally provided by women with less strings and dire consequences.
@whkattk I respectfully disagree,what gun laws would have prevented this from happening? The ultimate goal of the left is to completely disarm 100,000,000 million gun owners and make this great country that is currently circling the drain look like Australia.You do realize that the 100,000,000 gun owners probably have a trillion rounds of ammunition between them.If all these guns were the problem you would know it.People will find a way to kill no matter what.All the politicians,celebrity's,sports figures all have armed security.Why don't the civilians have that luxury.Please don't think I'm downplaying what happened in Texas,nothing could be further from the truth.I live in a major city and their is a shooting every night,but its not from legal gun owners.I have the right to defend myself and my family from these thugs.Schools are a gun free zone,a very soft target.Have armed police officers at every entrance.Outlawing guns will only hurt aw abiding citizens.Thanks for your response though and thank you for being civil.Hope you have a great day.I guess this really isn't the place for this discussion.This a wonderful blog and very informative.Hope you have a good day.I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Dear Anonymous--
Hopefully, the armed security guards have had firearms safety training, as well as how to talk down a hot situation, rather than reaching for the trigger first!
The recent wave of "2nd amendment freedom" laws that eliminate all licensing, training, and background checks make our citizenry -more- dangerous!
--PaulMmn
But there is the question of if dying from being shot is worse than dying other ways. Murder itself has been steadily declining for decades.
And I assure you, Third Way Dems are more afraid of the far left. (Communism even requires an armed proletariat.) Or even the center left. Or center right. They collaborate with the far right if anything, but have to pretend to be disgusted when Trump is ready to tell the talent agent his act is called the Aristocrats.
@JeanWM
I would like to know how you would rid the country of all guns? Switzerland everyone is required to have a firearm they have very little gun violence.So are you saying that half of those 45,000 gun deaths wouldn't occur by another means.Last Christmas a man driving a car in Kenosha Wisconsin ran over and killed a bunch of people.If there is a will there is a way.If someone wants to kill you they will find a way.
Do you really think law abiding citizens will actually turn their guns in ? By the way democrats own guns too.We are losing our freedoms a little at a time.I see the consensus of the people writing on this blog hate republicans well this country was in much better shape than under the administration.Thanks for being civil Jean I respect your opinion but disagree.Thanks Stay safe
@PaulMmn
I agree Paul The security guards should be trained in all that you mentioned.Perhaps ex-military or retired police officers and all must be vetted.
I thought every state had background checks,I live in Pa and there are background checks for handguns but not rifles,I think it should be for all guns.There used to be a 7 day waiting period before you got the gun,but that was before computer systems now its insta check through Pa state police.Even though its not considered a background check for rifles and shot guns you still have to fill paper work out,so there is some sort of paper trail,also Pa doesn't have the gun show loop hole where you bypass any background checks.
@ Anon, May 26, 2022 at 5:27 PM - If every state required background checks, if every state made it as difficult to purchase a gun as it is to cut someone's hair or do a manicure / pedicure, if every state closed the gun show loophole, if every state required a person to be at least 21, no one would have to be hounding members of congress to institute those requirements. That's what we Dems call "Common Sense Gun Reform."
In TX, AZ, NV one can walk into any gun show and buy truckloads of firearms (assault weapons included) without a license, without a single question being asked. Those guns then make their way into other states.
Here's the problem with arguing the The 2nd Amendment, which states: A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." None of the mass-killing shooter, like Kyle Rittenhouse, the Buffalo shooter, nor the Uvalde shooter are part of a "well regulated militia."
@whkattk I think the background checks are good.I don't have a problem with them.I understand what you're saying about have to be 21,but you join the military at 18 you're working with more sophisticated weapons so I really don't think the 18-21 would make much difference.The dems really want total disarmament of the American people.I noticed you used the term assault weapon you do realize thats a buzz word used by the left,the civilian versions are not assault rifles neither is an AK,these are semi-automatic rifles ,there is no select fire switch to make it full auto or 3 round bursts.There is also a lot of black market gun dealers fueling this too.But to try to punish all the law abiding citizens is just plain wrong.
As far as Kyle Rittenhouse I don't consider him a mass shooter,should have never been there but neither should have any othe of those so called protesters more like domestic terrorists who the left protected including BLM and antifa.also Rittenhouse was found not guilty of ll charges which if you watched the trial it was the right decision.The left was trying to try him in the media which is total BS.If I remember correctly the guy he shot in the elbow,also had a gun and intended to shoot him,who by the way was not allowed to have a firearm.I think the irony I find in what happened that night is all those knuckleheads wanted to de fund the police but once he took out the pedophile they were screaming call the police.
Anyway I appreciate your opinion that you offer and thank you for keeping it civil.We just are on two different ends of the spectrum but thats ok,But it does look like the left,not saying you is going after the first amendment.Hope you have a good weekend and stay safe.
@ Anon - We will definitely have to agree to disagree. I am a gun owner. I was in the military for 9+ years.
Any shooting involving 3 or more people is considered a "mass shooting." You're right. Rittenhouse should have never been there. At 17, he had no business being there, he had no business carrying that rifle - across state lines, to boot. I did watch the trial and, IMO, Rittenhouse was guilty and should be in prison for aggravated manslaughter. I don't care what kind of criminal records his victims had - Rittenhouse declared himself police, judge, and jury the minute he used that rifle against 3 people.
Those protesters had as much right to be there protesting the killing of George Floyd, regardless of any organized affiliation such as Black Lives Matter or Antifa, as the white supremacist protesters in Charlotte shouting "You will not replace us." and "Jews will not replace us." protesting the dismantling of a statue.
The saddest part of both? People died needlessly. I think we can agree on that, too.
@Whkattk They have a right to protest but not the right to burn the place down and destroy everything in their path.Protest peacefully.George Floyd didn't deserve to die the way he did,but was far from a stand up citizen.As for the white supremacists I don't believe they burned the town down or created the violence that BLM and antifa did,if you want to label the white supremacists terrorists then blm and antifa have to be too.I believe antifa is a terrorist group and blm.Blm is not what it sounds like what it truly represents.Then there is the Jews,I just don't get the hatred for them.Never understood it.But I do love how they all stick together no matter what.
Oh kinda figured you were a gun owner just by the way you kept everything civil.Didn't want to make a career out of the military? Hope you have a good weekend.Enjoy talking to you even though we disagree on things.
Post a Comment