Enric

flattery will get you anywhere and everywhere.... ....except possibly to the busy tops' tightly-knitted schedule there's some truth in this. Or, actually, I hear mostly only the nice and good-looking ones of bottoms have often sex.... Those who are dogs, tend seemingly to be quite often left without - and utilize dildoes and whatnot Dog-looking tops appear to have somewhat more sex than should be imagined, as ugly as they are [another cliche here: this assumes gays are so hollow they just mind the looks, not the beauty of character.... and boy, isnt that the truth ] on the other hand, it could be claimed that the phenomenon where almost half of the real bottoms claim in surveys to be top and versatile, were a signal that they feel their bottomness to be somehow shameful. [this actually piles several unproven assumptions, still, this is something I have heard to be argued, iirc by 'representatives' of bottoms' liberation movement]

today, the elder living generation are midgets. Wills and Harry actually are changing that, they have inherited from their maternal family some height. I am suddenly wondering, has there possibly been -a century ago or so- generations where the brit royals' loss height or, were already the stubby hanoverians also shorties. by the way, George III's uncle (or something like), the butchering duke of Cumberland, was also an immensely fat man. Twenty stones, or something.... For a tall, regal man, the weight of some 110 kg is not even obese. But, for George IV, it made him a bloated puss. which indicates to me that he was not tall. he might have been a shortie even - how about if he were 150 cm tall, and had a waist of 127 cm. I think one point is certain: those Hanoverian princes would not attract very much. Were any Hanoverian in England a gay ?

by the way, I have a recollection that the British royal family are almost midgets (shrimp size at least), i.e shorties. And that they were -at least throughout 1700s and 1800s- prone to be fat - and get bloated when in their middle years So, are these Hanoverians short and fat, in general?

we will see -no doubt- what will be the gay future of that shy guy.... and, how much of an omen the name is.

I well remember my friends, bottoms, complaining that all of their picks must be bottoms too because 'no one' (obviously a bit exaggerated) ever gives them a good time....

well, the original point was about him possibly bottoming, and enjoying it.... It's not inconceivable that a heterosexual male happens to enjoy greatly of the mechanics of bottoming - for example, it depends on whether his prostate is such that it 'enjoys' to the point of extreme.... and if so, then the heterosexual is in a funny conundrum... It's certain that no females will have an own penis, to serve that passion... but perhaps, Devlin's future wife could get a primitive dildo for the task. [in the end, the couple will be sharing a two-pronged dildo, right ]

I have always trusted in the claim that 90% of gays do want to be penetrated. in other words, are by definition bottoms or versatile (and the latter is a codeword for bottom, to some.....) Thusly, if 90% are so, almost any who is gay, can be expected to enjoy being bottoms [the 10% is insignificant number in this entirety]

as perverse as these things sometimes are, he would probably enjoy his own bottoming most, but tries to deny it even from himself.

ch 5: very nice. A mutiny on top of it.... the gay guy Devlin should learn to face himself, btw.

that's what happens in high politics. Spain iirc was then in 1814-1815 tightly with the efforts to bring down France. (and no doubt there were other vicissitudes....) Imo, it's the thing that Spain and its governments tend to work in the interests of Spain. ----- btw, iirc Spain had a spotty history with and against the brits... and Spain has in the history warred occasionally against USA - but also been on the same side with USA.

ch 4: alliances of Spain: historically, Spain had been a traditional enemy of France. All those wars they fought against each other in 1500s and 1600s. However, the Borbon dynasty accession to the Spanish throne in 1700 changed that *a bit*. The Borbon kings of Spain were -throughout 1700s- willing to stay on good terms with their kinsmen, the Bourbon kings of France. But, it was basically, 'with kings of France', not particularly 'with the French or France'. Now that France has beheaded its king, exiled its royals, and is a republic, there's afaik nothing to keep the Spanish with the French. The government of Spain could be expected to hate the French 'regicides', and be in alliances against France - and somewhat reverting to the 1500s-1600s attitude, i.e Spain willing to snatch border territories from the French.

That is a way to get twisted and warped results. They are subjective.

then you should read my that post where I expressed my view about the long-time absence of one of parents meaning a stability problem. No use for you to try to insert allegations of your own production to my mouth. Besides, I see that you have expressed that you view of the two-parent home (presumably both present) being preferable. Why then do you need to be so contrarian in this, as even trying to insert your own strawmen to others, and using rudenesses. I underline that I have refrained from calling you unstable. My view is that the long-time absence of one of parents from home is a stability problem. And there are several other reasons why a home could be unstable in that or another situation. Still, some (but not all) of the kids grow up to be relatively balanced. Also my view is that your personal example is not proven. You should not get angry over that point, because you should understand the requirements of objective assessment.

You wrote about "parents in the armed forces", not qualifying it with any mention of presence or absence. And what you thusly claimed, is a strawman. Something *I* never postulated.

I haven't surely claimed that all parents in the armed forces would be unable to provide that stability. Of course there are some who are unable. And some are able. This again looks like like a strawman.

Well, it was just an inquiry. Because I do not know your situation, I am not claiming that you were in need of a shrink. Like I wrote already earlier, an assessment of an objective outsider expert is missing.

Isn't that a strawman. I have surely carefully limited this by mentioning that it's question of those servicemembers who ARE away from home. So, your argument falls flat upon your misunderstanding, upon that creation of a strawman.

do you mean this ? that the armed forces provide the stability.

actually, this drift was unexpected and in some way somewhat funny. Odd too, imo. I wrote, in the beginning of the drift: "Although, he possibly is tad too young for becoming a father at the emotional level." which was apparently something which was entirely wrong in opinion of several - so much contrariness ensued it led to various and sundry to try to convince that the 17-yo guy in question IS not in any way too young for fatherhood at the emotional level. rhetorical question: would not such pursuit (to convince) border to ridiculous ?

well, it's *possible* that the today people are dead wrong about what is good for kids.

I agree.

Don't they have? To me, at least it's clear that in said situation, one parent is away, and only one parent resides at the home. By the way, I am not saying that kids of single parents necessarily all suffer insurmountably by that. Some grow to be approximately as stable as kids of two-parent homes. Despite of there having been a stability problem at their childhood home.

Frankly, I do not think that the said one instance which you presented, is proven within objective standards. Therefore, it's meaningless to claim it 'bucks the trend' - because it's not proven. An objective evaluation of the said instance made by an outsider expert would be another matter. By the way, I have heard that all Americans have a therapist, a shrink. This of course could be a mistaken assumption (I certainly am not personally familiar with lives of most Americans). However, it makes me to inquire whether the shrink of the person raised in the said instance, would vouch for it having been a stable home.

Intriguing experiences. However, not good an argument, trying to rebut a common observation of likelihoods by subjective view of a single example. I would not want to insult you, by personifying this point in research to you claiming that you necessarily had an unstable home.

I think that was your point. as I recall, it was you who posed that, in form of a question. Practically a straw man. I answered that very question. Which answer does not make the *premise* posed in your question, as my any point in this discussion. Right ?