Leaderboard

I have to say that rarely, (if ever), do I see someone put themselves so out there like Tom has in this thread. I have thoroughly enjoyed every post and comment and photo!

Internally, I look at a beautiful girl and say, "wow, she is hot. I wonder if we could so shopping and bake cookies together." Internally, I look at a handsome man and say, "wow, he is hot. I wonder how I can get him to drop his pants so I can fuck that ass."

"MsAnn would've hit tipped that."

Adam, MsAnn, MsGuy, and Grandma pose together (sorry Lookin couldnt make it) MsGuy Grandma Adam MsAnn

Let me help you. I would never be attracted to you or most members on this board. They are not my type. Sorry guys. I like someone who is younger and smooth and masculine and tough and thuggy, tattooed and bottom. Why? I don't know. I was born this way. I also prefer Oreo Cookies and Creme. Why? I don't know. Sometimes, you just know what you like and you do it. I am bisexual. I bi sex all the time. Why? I just like it. And, to get the younger, smoother, masculine, tough, thuggy, tattooed bottoms, I often bi it. But, sometimes I have sex with a woman. Why? I don't know. I just like it too. I'd say that is about 1 out of every 400 fucks. It use to be one out of 20 and then 1 out of 100. Now, even less. Why? It is just the way I was made and everyone will like and crave and desire someone different.

Christ almighty, y'all aren't gonna start postin pictures of titties again are you? Cause if you are, I'm going to bed.

Exactly. If you're not hard, you can't fuck (as the top). If you're not attracted, you're not hard.

BORING......Grandma needs some Glitz & DRAMA !!!!!!! You Get it ?

Listen up parisrio.... this is getting a bit out of hand..... The answer to your question is quite simple. When your Cock gets HARD, you need to stick it somewhere, in a hole or orifice.... When I see a woman, I want to steal her lipstick. When i see a man, my cock gets hard and I want to SUCK his. THAT'S the ticket. I have ZERO desire to put my cock anywhere near a woman. WHY you still ask ? The voices in my head are telling me to do it.....

As others have said, as a 'gay top' I am far more sexually attracted to a man than a woman. Which would you rather look at as you masturbate? That's who you'd prefer fucking. Yes, I can fuck a woman, and have a couple times, even gotten off once or twice, but with some difficulty because of the lack of attraction. And it's a hell of a lot harder to find a woman to fuck than a guy. Even when paying for it, the kind of experience I can have with a guy from Craig's List for around $100 vs any woman on CL is hands down better.

Tom, I hope my abs look that good post-tummytuck plastic surgery!

I would also like to as the OP if he is just a bottom and attraction does not play a role, can just anyone fuck him? Is he OK with a skinny queen fucking him. If a hole is just a hole and pleasure is obtained by the hole and other factors don't come into play, would a lady with a dildo not be just as good?

Assuming that you are not just "pulling out legs" and pretending to be so unaware, let me explain a little more than I already did. 1. As I stated earlier, there must be attraction. 2. Having met the necessity of attraction, each person has a preference for doing certain or specific sex acts. 3. Basically, some people need to be "top" while others need to be "bottom." Based on what you previously posted in connection with your sexual preferences, you are a "bottom." I have read many of your posts to this forum. It is clear that you are not a stupid person. Naive, yes, but stupid, no. Therefore, if you still claim that you have a problem understanding the answers given to you, then I must return to my original assumption and then conclude that you are playing with us. -

Is it just me or is that fringe in the middle a lot darker than the others? It is a fringe, isn't it?

Seeing it here is what you consider "firsthand experience"?!

lookin finally did meet up with us for Brunch...... (she always likes to stay out of the limelight)

Have you never had sex? There is an entire body there beneath you (or wherever), not just the hole. An asshole feels different from a cunt as well. And the couple of female assholes I've fucked felt different from men's. If all that is not TMI.

Grandma LOVES to get her Carnival On !

In the eye of a mega-drought: Researchers warn US should prepare for 'unprecedented drought conditions' unlike anything in past 1,000 years http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/in-the-eye-of-a-megadrought-researchers-warn-us-should-prepare-for-unprecedented-drought-conditions-unlike-anything-in-past-1000-years-10045747.html

Frank Lloyd Wrights Hollyhock House http://la.curbed.com/archives/2015/02/a_full_tour_through_frank_lloyd_wrights_first_la_house_restored_to_its_1920s_beauty.php Stunning in her simplicity. We should all look so good at nearly a hundred.

This scholar's research is endlessly fascinating to me. The Search for the Historical Paul: Which Letters Did He Really Write? John Dominic Crossan Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies, DePaul University The 13th-century Sopoćani monastery is a UNESCO World Heritage Site near the source of the Raška River, just east of Novi Pazar in the south-western corner of Serbia. After two centuries of attack, desolation and abandonment, its Church of the Holy Trinity is now rebuilt, its frescoes restored and its monastic life revived. In the southern choir of that eastward-pointing church are frescoes of seven apostles. Five are now unidentifiable, as time and decay has literally defaced them, but each is folding a single scroll. Matthew is identifiable and he is holding the book of his Gospel. But the most clearly identifiable is the leading figure on the choir's east wall. It is the apostle Paul, complete with his recognizable receding hairline. His right hand is raised in the traditional Byzantine teaching gesture of fingers separated into two (for two natures in Christ) and three (for three Persons in the Trinity). What is extraordinary, however, is that his left hand holds 10 clearly distinguishable scrolls -- not a single scroll or book but 10 scrolls in a cluster. Why 10 scrolls when Christianity's New Testament attributes 13 letters to the apostle Paul: letters to communities such as the Romans, Corinthians (twice), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians (twice) and to individuals such as Timothy (twice), Titus and Philemon. There is, however, a massive consensus in modern scholarship that those three letters to Timothy and Titus were written in Paul's name but long after his death. It would seen, then, that around 1265 a Byzantine artist at Sopoćani already accepted that viewpoint -- hence, only 10 scrolls for 10 letters. There is also a strong (but not massive) consensus among much of modern scholarship that a further three of those 10 letters were not written by Paul. In other words, we have seven letters certainly from the historical Paul (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), three others probably not from him (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians) and a final three certainly not from him (1-2 Timothy, Titus). Those are all, of course, historical conclusions and not dogmatic presumptions. Well and good, but, even if correct, so what? And why should anyone care? It is not just that we have factual and fictional letters of "Paul" or that those 13 letters are mixed between a Paul and a Pseudo-Paul. It is not just that, after Paul's death, followers imagined him in new situations and had him respond to new problems -- as if in a seamless if fictional continuity from past into present and future. The problem is that those post-Pauline or Pseudo-Pauline letters are primarily counter-Pauline and anti-Pauline. What happens across those three sets of letters is that the radical Paul of the authentic seven letters (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon) is slowly but steadily morphed into the conservative Paul of the probably inauthentic threesome (Ephesians Colossians, 2 Thessalonians) and finally into the reactionary Paul of those certainly inauthentic ones (1-2 Timothy, Titus). In other words, the radical Paul is being deradicalized, sanitized and Romanized. His radical views on, for example, slavery and patriarchy, are being retrofitted into Roman cultural expectations and Roman social presuppositions. Watch, then, how it works in terms of slavery (I leave patriarchy for my next blog in this series on Paul): The radical and historical Paul sent back the now-converted slave Onesimus to his owner and told him that a Christian could not own a Christian for how could Christians be equal and unequal to one another at the same time? He reminds him "to do your duty," to free Onesimus, and to consider him "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother -- especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord" (Philemon 1:8,16). Next, the later, conservative counter-Paul takes Christian owners with Christian slaves absolutely for granted, addresses both classes and reminds each of its mutual obligations. "Slaves obey ... fearing the Lord" and "Masters treat your slaves justly ... you also have a Master in heaven" (Colossians 3:22-4:1 & Ephesians 6:5-9). Christian-on-Christian slavery is back but now in kinder, gentler mode! Finally, the still later and reactionary anti-Paul never mentions mutual duties, addresses only the master, and says to "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and ... to be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior" (Titus 2:9-10). What is at stake in that sad progression from Paul to anti-Paul? Why is it of importance that -- at least with regard to slavery -- radical Christian liberty is being changed back into normal Roman slavery. It means this: Jewish Christianity is becoming Roman Christianity. And this: Constantine here we come! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-dominic-crossan/apostle-paul-letters_b_890387.html

Yes. Best regards, RA1

I was disappointed that I didn't get to meet up with the girls. They did say it was ladies only. So, I just sat at home all alone.

There is a global water crisis emerging. From China, to Moscow, to Brazil and now the central valley of California, and many of the western states are about to go into crisis mode. Will water become more valuable than oil? Will the lack of this commodity create civil unrest?

O.I.C.

I dont think you should be worryin yourself about some titties !!!!!!! We have Bigger issues.....

Well you know Adam, what makes it work is that we ALL play to our strengths...... You girls are ALL beautiful (in your own way )

Thank goodness we just had our hair done. And Grandma, your color sense puts the rest of us to shame again.

I know girl, we Did have fun at Spa Day......

Speechless. :rofl:

:laugh: Score one for Hito!

Perhaps suffice to add this is one of those questions best answered by gaining some firsthand experience of the subject.

- You omitted the most critical word that explains your dilemma. Succinctly, that word is "attraction" which is the answer to your question.

WOW, I AM AFRAID OF HER !!!!!!!!!!!!!

parisrio, that's an odd, uninformed question. There is more to this than just a Physical sex act. The psychological and emotional aspects are far more pervasive than the physical, and they actually drive the interaction.... Perhaps you should READ up on it ? And lets not also forget there are TWO or more people involved here, not just one, and the needs and preferences of BOTH must be taken into consideration.

Has not someone postulated that the brain is the largest sex organ? Knowing with who and what one is having sex is primary, at least according to me. According to some, yes, sex is sex, but, if so, why not just masturbate, then one is having sex with whomever one wants, so to speak. I prefer cellular to cellular responses with warmth and good feelings for all. Best regards, RA1