Definitely, definitely, definitely.
Its not something i've had the pleasure of seeing first hand yet, but i find the idea incredibly erotic - number one fantasy for me. Especially pretty boys... mmmmmm.....
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Forum
I was Sixteen and thought i loved him, he was my boyfriend, it was at his house, with his parents downstairs, i'd drank lots of lime and lemon Mad dog and smoked lots of his Dads homegrown weed... so as not to be too nervous! Turns out i was anyway, it hurt like hell, as did a few times after that, but i have no regrets!
Quote by JonJon
..... And of course you get a free AIDS check without looking like thats what you're doing
(although i've only ever had unprotected sex with my current partner, and thats cos he was irresistable!)
No, actually, you don't
HIV tests are (usually - there are circumstances where this varies) taken twice, with a three month interval, since infection in the three months prior to the first test may not have produced a sufficient viral load to be detected.
Just answer the questions honestly. If they don't want you, they don't want you, the purpose of the process is to benefit other people, not risk exposing them to HIV (still relatively unlikely) or Hepatitis (alarmingly common).
^Edit - like what daffodil said
Whooah, easy tiger - i was being flippant - like i said, i've had very little unprotected sex and my giving blood was well before my current partner. Anyone who wants to be certain re HIV should go to a GUM clinic. Which i have dones since, as i reckon everyone should, for peace of mind. :P
I'd have to disagree - America is expanding its commercial empire and is doing so by force
The Iraqi war(s) had much more to do with the commercial control of key oil fields than any supposed international intervention
Afghanistan served no purpose other than to free up vital routes for US firms Oil pipe line
If the US truly did intervene on a humanitarian basis then why not get involved in Zimbabwe where Mugabi kills, tortues and ruins lives , or what about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians? Morally the US should /could intervene, but it won't because Israel is a strategic ally in the Middle East - not to mention finanical ally for all the US weaponry they buy.
Another point would be that whilst not officially doing so, as someone else mentioned in this thread the US have supported/funded countless uprisings and coups in developing countries where it suited them their political agenda - to me that is expanding your commercial empire aggressively, just secretly.
For me, Bush is the most dangerous man in the World and i sincerely believe he poses the biggest threat to me and mine - i want the world to be as safe a place as possible, and whilst human nature dictates that people will kill and hurt one another, what we need is good men/women in charge to minimise this happening and prevent total world chaos and cultural mistrust - which is where we are now cos of Bush's creation of a culture of fear. The world has been a much scarier place to be since 9/11 unquestionably, but to what extent is this fear justified? How much of it suits Western politics? Thats what scares me i guess.
The Iraqi war(s) had much more to do with the commercial control of key oil fields than any supposed international intervention
Afghanistan served no purpose other than to free up vital routes for US firms Oil pipe line
If the US truly did intervene on a humanitarian basis then why not get involved in Zimbabwe where Mugabi kills, tortues and ruins lives , or what about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians? Morally the US should /could intervene, but it won't because Israel is a strategic ally in the Middle East - not to mention finanical ally for all the US weaponry they buy.
Another point would be that whilst not officially doing so, as someone else mentioned in this thread the US have supported/funded countless uprisings and coups in developing countries where it suited them their political agenda - to me that is expanding your commercial empire aggressively, just secretly.
For me, Bush is the most dangerous man in the World and i sincerely believe he poses the biggest threat to me and mine - i want the world to be as safe a place as possible, and whilst human nature dictates that people will kill and hurt one another, what we need is good men/women in charge to minimise this happening and prevent total world chaos and cultural mistrust - which is where we are now cos of Bush's creation of a culture of fear. The world has been a much scarier place to be since 9/11 unquestionably, but to what extent is this fear justified? How much of it suits Western politics? Thats what scares me i guess.
Quote by da69ve
Bush is proberly the most dangerous man in the world,you don't need to watch a documentary to know that.
Ask the mother of the child who was shot in Nottingham. She just may disagree with you. Dangerous is relative
Dave_Notts
When a man who has an army at his command and likes to but in on over countries affairs ,that makes him dangerous!
An army that is commanded democratically with many checks before its use is slightly different from criminals who shoot weapons indiscriminately. The chances of me being shot by a member of the US forces in the UK and a crimainal shooting me in the UK is a lot less. Or do you know of an impending invasion by the Americans
Dave_Notts
Oh yeah so why did he invade iraq against the united nations wishes,the americans don't need to invade us we already have there puppet running our government!
i just don't see how you can argue that because there is a risk (still a very small one in this country) of being killed by someone with a gun, Bush isn't the most dangerous man in the world. To be the most dangerous man in the world you would have to be the person who wields the most power over others and therefore most potential to bring harm to those people (and opposing forces) have the largest military force and have a political agenda that would place those people at risk and require the use of your force - all of which Bush represents fully. Its sad that a little girl was killed in Nottingham, but in the instance of being the most dangerous man in the world, simply irrelevant. 'danger' or 'dangerous' may be relative but the title of 'most dangerous' is fairly cut and dry.
Oh God. I've done this lots.
I once went on a blind date with a guy and it seemed to go quite well, the next morning i was emailing a friend all the details. Then i got a 'dear jon' email saying he wasn't sure, ex girlfriend pregnant, needed time, blah, blah, blah... so pissed off i emailed my friend with 'guess what? hes sent me a dear jon email... f**ker, never mind he turned up in a white coupe convertible escort ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH' They then sent me a picture of Britney Spears, without thinking i forwarded it to this guy with all our conversation on the bottom. He sent me a really angry email saying i was horrible, etc, etc... but you can see what really upset him because he signed off:
P.S My cars not a coupe!!!!
Another time i sent a client the wrong mail which was going on about sexy french kickboxers! and it had a nickname of mine in it, which is private, but trust me - that was embarassing!
I once went on a blind date with a guy and it seemed to go quite well, the next morning i was emailing a friend all the details. Then i got a 'dear jon' email saying he wasn't sure, ex girlfriend pregnant, needed time, blah, blah, blah... so pissed off i emailed my friend with 'guess what? hes sent me a dear jon email... f**ker, never mind he turned up in a white coupe convertible escort ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH' They then sent me a picture of Britney Spears, without thinking i forwarded it to this guy with all our conversation on the bottom. He sent me a really angry email saying i was horrible, etc, etc... but you can see what really upset him because he signed off:
P.S My cars not a coupe!!!!
Another time i sent a client the wrong mail which was going on about sexy french kickboxers! and it had a nickname of mine in it, which is private, but trust me - that was embarassing!
