wsc

Funniest thing I've read in a while.

Handsome man, nice muscles, nice d*ck. But Hewlett-Packard doesn't use that much ink! Very distracting from his other enviable charms.

The problem with picking up this hunk is that I' d be the one asking, "Can you give me a ride?" On second thought, not a problem!

But what will I do for the weekend? Can we find two more?

Nice, but I'm not sure it fits the thread title. There seems to be something blocking the view.

Love the jeans and boots uniforms. Wouldn't mind being cuffed and frisked by the one on the right. Cavity search, anyone?

John Bronco is listed in Tampa. Nice muscles on that boy!

2nd from the left - yum, yum, yum. Love that smile. And the rest looks good, too.

Pics of AJ Irons are welcome anytime. Thank you!

J'accuse! ... you of stealing my heart. Get it? J'accuse in a Jacuzzi thread? Oh, well, moving on. But he does have a lovely backside, and I do love a muscular back!

Who is this stud? Has he done videos?

And his Style co-star, Todd Baron. Also, Mike Branson; what a face, what a body, what a "gift" down there! Also, Cash (no last name) of Active Duty. (Oozes sex appeal like sweat on a hot summer's day in southern Alabama; learned he was from around Mobile.) Also, Rod Peterson and Jared (Hoss Kado) from DreamBoyBondage. Muscled bottom and delicious top, in that order.

I agree it's impressive but question the practicality. Also, transportation might be the most expensive component of the meet-up: an Uber to get there, an ambulance to leave.

In 1968, I paid $125 for a lovely cream-colored Nehru jacket, or a little over $1,100 adjusted for inflation. At that time, it was a significant outlay. By the time I got home with it, it had gone out of style and was never worn anywhere but in my room. Twice.

I would think sexual attraction is more of a static feature, whereas sexual behavior can be more fluid or variable. Men in prison, for example, have sex with other men more than with women since necessity is the mother of invention and not of convention; if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with. Men constrained by social norms instead of prison bars, as the young Turks you describe, may simply choose from what's available in their social circle, meaning other and available men instead of unavailable women, so as not to violate the social norm while still finding satisfaction where it can be found. A hungry dog will eventually eat what's put in front of it, no matter how much not to its liking. Similarly, human sexual partners can be chosen simply based on circumstantial availability without regard to an unavailable preference.

Most of this kind of outrage seems manufactured by those looking to be offended. And some poor fools say we don't make anything in America anymore! Tsk-tsk!

I don't think the boys dance because they want a Lamborghini but because they need rent money. I find that a little sad, but am happy to help where I can.

I'll try not to beat the dead horse too hard but do wish to clarify my point in the previous post. Neither my question, nor the video, sought to question the existence of gay people, but rather sought to explore their perpetuation and survival in the face of a threat posed by evolutionary processes, particularly if transmission of the orientation is biologically based. I thought this to be a reasonable and insightful line of enquiry. The video -which I assume you did not watch- looks at multiple avenues of research which, as a whole, identify a number of biological factors (as in DNA and in-utero environmental) that could influence an individual's orientation. I thought the explanation of exclusively homosexual rams to be especially revealing. The general gist at the end is that there is no single "gay gene" but there are numerous biology-based markers which may influence orientation or, in certain unidentified combinations, may even be determinative of orientation. And since there are degrees of "completeness" in those combinations, this may account for a range or scale of orientations. I thought exploring this line of research served your interests and objectives as stated in the original post [edited by me]: "I would like to ask how many members ultimately felt they CHOSE their sexual orientation as opposed to having it assigned? It's interesting to me that so many gays are in complete denial of the ability to choose. WHO ELSE CHOSE THEIR LIFESTYLE?" I agree the lifestyle is a choice, but the basis for that choice -the orientation- is a more complex question. A bird cannot choose to be a bird; it was born that way. But the choice of taking flight is only possible if it was born a bird in the first place, and that was not a choice but a gift of nature.

Gorgeous face! Look at those lips! (The rest ain't bad, either.)

A few years ago, I attended a presentation on Fermi's Paradox, a question posed by physicist Enrico Fermi that asked: considering the size of the universe and the likelihood of lifeforms other than human having developed elsewhere, why have we not encountered them or at least found evidence of their existence, past or present? I recently viewed a YouTube video entitled "Born This Way: The Science Behind Being Gay." Predictably, [spoiler alert] the final conclusion is that there are a lot of factors, and no one knows for sure. But the research was interesting to see. The connection in my mind to the Fermi Paradox is from the way the presenter first formed the question: if homosexual people have existed in every society and generation of humankind, but are, by-and-large, unlikely to reproduce, why are we still here? Wouldn't evolution have dispensed with an element that contributed virtually nothing to the human gene pool generation after generation? I found the postulated possibilities interesting.

As opposed to Professor Higgins' view that "The French don't care what they do actually as long as they pronounce it properly."

If I had a handyman like that, I'd be breaking sh*t all day.

Attractive man. And I like that his d**k comes with a timer to tell when the session's over.

Just the package I've been waiting for! But why the box?