Stupid shit in Medellin

[Mr Enternational]

I think if I am going to commit to a single woman, she will have to be my equal and not dependent on me.

Exactly. And she better be smart as fuck. But I understand some people need to feel needed, and that usually does not come in an equal.

I also don't like the woman tell me to shower and stuff, and I will not tell her that either.

Seriously? I have been out with some Latin American women all day then at night they want to climb their dirty ass between the sheets saying they took a shower that morning. No way Josefina. You better hop your ass in the shower before you get into this clean bed. I don't play that shit.

[Huacho]

Actually I am not sure if Elvis and I are so far apart right now. He says he is having the best sex of his life and I would say the same. I kind of found a perfect unicorn hooker and while it does not make me monogamous, I'm mostly too old and lazy to bother with anyone else. She comes over, we have some food and foreplay, then we blaze up, then we fuck, then I cook for her. Then we might fuck again, or not, and then I walk her three blocks home. I've had fellatio from oh say 500 women and this one is the best in recent memory. We met while living in the same building during COVID lockdowns. So I knew her as friend and neighbor before she revealed herself to be a hooker. Kind of a fluke and most people won't find their neighbor lady wanting to fuck for money.

[Nounce]

...

Every relationship...

This post has substance and I know you have great sex but I still don't know what it is. I think if I am going to commit to a single woman, she will have to be my equal and not dependent on me. I still don't think she can provide me better sex than a trained sex worker that potentially knows my body better than myself. I also don't like the woman tell me to shower and stuff, and I will not tell her that either.

[Huacho]

Also when I insult somebody, I spell the insult correctly. Terd indeed. Fucken cerote.

[Paulie97]

Oh no. I am under no illusions that the women I pay 'want' me. You're the one who thinks that. But my body is not an instant turn off. It's true there is a segment of the female population that prefers big guys but for every one of those, there are at least ten who are completely turned off by that big fat belly coming at them. And you would never have the guts to call me a coward to my face.

And it's all the worse when that big fat belly comes with a foul personality, in someone like Elvis who builds his life around arguing with strangers day after day in a monger forum. I'm sure that his momma is very proud.

[Huacho]

Huacho is a terd because he thinks women want him because he is in shape. He thinks beauty queens should want guys like him instead of me. He thinks it is all money, but it is not.

Oh no. I am under no illusions that the women I pay 'want' me. You're the one who thinks that. But my body is not an instant turn off. It's true there is a segment of the female population that prefers big guys but for every one of those, there are at least ten who are completely turned off by that big fat belly coming at them. And you would never have the guts to call me a coward to my face.

[Elvis 2008]

My comment is not about his taste or he is wrong about Colombia.

I know. It was about his negativity. I think it was justified.

I think the main difference is you want exclusivity and something more than physical sex. Most mongers are happier with sharing and just physical sex. Thanks for sharing.

Again, you are missing the point. I thought there was no way in hell I could be happy with one woman. I thought monogamy was a scam to keep man from his real nature. The best sex for me was going from woman to woman, and I was looking for the best sex. If that is not the goal of all mongers, I do not know what is. What stunned me was the best sex I have ever had came with monogamy.

Every relationship I have been in the women tail off sexually after a few months, and it is not just me. Studies have shown desire goes way down in both sexes in a relationship but with women it goes down much more quickly. To me, it is like, "Oh, I have got you now. I do not have to try in bed anymore. " So for me, if that is always the case, then why bother ever committing? So I kept women in a position where if they do not perform, I get rid of them. None of my sugar babies ever said "No sex tonight. I have a headache. ", yet women wanted all the fruits of a relationship even if they did not perform.

Huacho is a terd because he thinks women want him because he is in shape. He thinks beauty queens should want guys like him instead of me. He thinks it is all money, but it is not. All money does is attract. His little ego cannot take the notion that my game and character trump his physique. Thing about having a good physique is women like to think a strong man can protect them, but who cares if the the guy with a good physique is a paranoid coward?

Mr. E's comment is on point. Look at all these beautiful women and the guys who strayed. I get where he is coming from, and it justifies the monger POV of polyamory. The issue I have with it is if you look at it from a sexual POV, we do not know if say Beyonce was a good lover. She probably was. But Beyonce is not really yours. There was a good Netflix show called the Baker and the Beauty that touched on the issue. Everyone wanted the beauty's time.

Let's say Beyonce is great in bed, the best in bed. How many guys are really going to be sexually satisfied with her in a monogamous relationship? I doubt I would be. She is going to be so exhausted after performing for everyone else I doubt she would have the energy to care about performing and satisfying me.

And I have been with women from the top places: Playboy, Penthouse, breasturant calendar girls. A lot of them thought all they had to do was show up. I will never forget a Penthouse Pet who was horrible in bed.

What guys do not get with Ms. Cartagena is she runs her own charity and was doing physiology problems when I met her, so she was quality beyond just the looks. We had sex bareback and she was pretty good but then later that night she was ordering me around, "I want you to shower, shave, brush your teeth, and then get back into bed with me. " I do that and she is asleep. I called a different girl and was talking with her, and Ms. Cartagena heard me and stormed out of the hotel room.

She later told me that she was in love with me and it bothered her when I was talking to someone else. My comment when she said she loved me was "Well, that is nice, but I never promised you I would be exclusive. " She apologized and wanted me to see me again, but I never did. I do not give a fuck if you are Ms. Cartagena. If you do not sexually satisfy me, I am not going to commit, and I doubted she ever would satisfy me.

So to Mr. E's point with all these great women, were the women in all these cases sexually satisfying the men? My guess is more likely than not the answer is no. I wish some of the men would actually say that. When the woman says "You cheated on me", and the guy says "How would you expect any guy to not stray given your performance?" I am so sick and tired of men being shamed for their sexual desire.

So I disagree with you Nounce. I think mongers want great sex. I just think they have not found it in a monogamy relationship and given the way most women behave that belief is justified.

[JjBee62]

An astute observation, and this has been true for decades now. The last effort to torpedo this might have been Ross Perot and he was rich too! LOL.

The purpose of any group ultimately becomes the wealth and power of that group, particularly the wealth and power of the leaders. This holds true for all groups, from your local homeowners association, to your unions, to your political parties. Each group works to enrich and empower itself.

Democrats and Republicans use different tactics, and each group feels their methods are right and the others are wrong. Some individuals in each party are altruistic, they honestly believe they're working to make things better, but they're just there to be the poster child.

In the end, your choice in the matter makes no more difference than choosing your method of execution.

[JustTK]

this has been true for decades now. The last effort to torpedo this might have been Ross Perot.

TBH I don't know much at all about him. Obv Bernie S would have been a great choice for the people, but he got torpedoed bcos he is not electable as a head of the Dem Party (for that very reason). Al Gore might have done well, although who knows how he would have reacted to the pressures from big money. And Jim Carter. What a great guy he has turned into! Sounds to be a real hero these days, but was a different person when he was president unfortunately.

There are a few that I have noted in the Dem Party, but they are far away from leadership at this stage ... and most are groomed and turn in to corporate shills as they rise thru the ranks. It's actually a good motivation for independence of the states - then there would be more opportunity for real progressive politicians to do something tangibly good.

[JjBee62]

That says something, but that says nothing. Do they generally know the people they are attacked by? Are people that are not in the LGBT community committing these violent crimes against trans or is is people from the LGBT community doing it? Why are they doing it? Is it because they just do not like the people or they have been deceived or maybe even had a crime committed against them by the trans person.

There are too many contributing factors, whereas the statement tries to get you to believe trans people are just walking down the street minding their own business and some stranger violently attacks them. The most abuse occurs in lesbian relationships, but if I just said lesbians are often violently attacked, it is not telling you they tend to be abused by their own mates and leads you to believe someone outside of their personal circle is doing the abusing or attacking. So are these trans having violence done to them purely because they are trans or is it for other reasons, and by whom?

That gets complicated. Here's a place to start:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-relea...ime-statistics

To get some perspective, let's roll the calendar back about 65-70 years.

Today the hot equal rights issue is for trans people. That's why any of us are discussing this. Back in the 50's and early 60's, the big equal rights issue was for blacks. Same issue, different group who felt the laws didn't treat them equally and fairly.

You may have learned, during that time, some black people were the victims of violence. Some claimed they were discriminated against. Some claimed that segregation laws were wrong. Many white people argued that black people needed to be segregated, that they couldn't be allowed to integrate with whites. And I'm sure there were some who questioned whether or not the black on black crime wasn't more important than a few friendly lynchings.

Just something to consider.

[JjBee62]

Only a thrid type? Why not a 4th type. One for trans men, one for trans women. And while we are at it, what about one for homosexuals and another for lesbians. And another 2 for ex-convicts. Men and women. How about one for scary black people. One for terrorist Muslims. The whole world is going to be turned in to a huge allotment of bathrooms for differetn monority groups that we do not like.

Many places already have a third type, a large private bathroom for families or for people who need assistance.

I've just never understood the bathroom panic, but I've heard the same "logic" applied to different groups throughout my life. One of the hazards of growing up where racism and bigotry are considered to be virtues.

It all begins with "they're not like us."

"You have to watch out for the 'colored'. They're not like us."

"You can't go to church with him. He's Catholic and they're not like us."

"Don't talk to those men. They're homosexuals and they're not like us."

"Your friend can't spend the night. He's Amish and they're not like us."

"Those men are Jewish. They're not like us."

Now it's "they're Democrat / Republican. They're not like us.

Pick a label and someone is telling us "be afraid. They're not like us."

If someone is threatening me, the color of their skin, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, immigration status or gender identity doesn't matter. I'm not thinking "he won't hurt me because he's a straight, white Protestant from the midwest." I'm certainly not thinking "this is serious because that guy is wearing lipstick. " A threat is a threat, regardless of how you label the person.

The threat doesn't come from the groups people want you to label. It comes from individuals and from the people who want you to put labels on everyone.

[DontSayMuch]

Yep. Good old fashioned 8 transvestite / transsexual robbing crew. Now if one of the victims would have knocked the shit out of one of these guys for trying to pick pocket them that would have been counted in the stats as violence against a trans.

https://www.h13n.com/ocho-mujeres-tr...-hurto/108410/.

I also wish that the criminals received karmic justice. But do you kinda see how this anecdotal evidence doesn't refute the point that trans people aren't more violent than the rest of society? It would be like showing a video of a chicken beating up a hawk and generalizing that chickens are the real avian aggressors.

I'll link to the video of that happening because it's kinda funny. (No animals were really hurt).

Actually I'm not sure if I'll run a foul (LOL) if I post that kinda video so if anyone wants to see it just google:

Chicken beats an Eagle.

[DontSayMuch]

That says something, but that says nothing. Do they generally know the people they are attacked by? Are people that are not in the LGBT community committing these violent crimes against trans or is is people from the LGBT community doing it? Why are they doing it? Is it because they just do not like the people or they have been deceived or maybe even had a crime committed against them by the trans person.

There are too many contributing factors, whereas the statement tries to get you to believe trans people are just walking down the street minding their own business and some stranger violently attacks them. The most abuse occurs in lesbian relationships, but if I just said lesbians are often violently attacked, it is not telling you they tend to be abused by their own mates and leads you to believe someone outside of their personal circle is doing the abusing or attacking. So are these trans having violence done to them purely because they are trans or is it for other reasons, and by whom?

It could be that the violent offenders of trans people are from the LGBT community, but I don't see much evidence of that. That's not saying there isn't any, I just haven't seen it. I look forward to you supplying evidence and I will read any peer reviewed study you link.

The point I was putting emphasis on was that trans people are not more prone to violence than the rest of the public.

[Huacho]

And where were you when I was out fucking these women? Locked up in your house scared shitless of Covid. Why would I or anyone care what a cheap, drug taking, beer swilling, gutter dwelling coward thinks? You do not pay women money. You pay them with glue.

Webster's does not have to define loser in the dictionary. They can just show a picture of your face.

Glue? And I smoke pot so if that makes me a drug taker then so be it. Gutter? I think that's where you found the putas you 'fell in love' with. I bet your woman sticks her finger down her throat after every sex session with you.

Glue. Ja ja ja. No idea where that came from. But you can just continue to be morbidly obese and disgusting physically and I'll just, you know, get way more and better pussy than you do. And when I do pay for it, I will know what I am paying for. You find expensive hookers and think they like you. I find cheap hookers and don't care. I think you forget sometimes we've actually met, and so I know for sure how full of shit you are.

[GeneHickman]

Only people raised in the blinkered world of USA mainstream media would say such a obviously fallacious thing. The corrcet answer is "the Republicans are one of the parties of the rich ".

An astute observation, and this has been true for decades now. The last effort to torpedo this might have been Ross Perot and he was rich too! LOL.