Brad

Ad Dr. Seuss would say... I like kissing here or there. I like kissing anywhere. I like kissing deep or light I do like them if alright. I do like them on on the lips I do like them on all bits. I do like them here or there. I do like them anywhere. I do like them with some tongue. I do think they are quite fun. On a train! In a tree! In a car! Yes, come kiss me! I would, could, on a "box". I would, could, with a fox(y lady). I will kiss her feet to hair. I will kiss here or there. I will kiss her anywhere. I will kiss both lips and ass. I will kiss a lady with sass. I do like them Brad-I-am. Ahem. As for safety. Well nothing is 100% safe in this world and everyone has to decide for themselves what their comfort level is. I'll respect a lady's preference if she has a no-kissing rule though I won't deny disappointment. I do not, however, recommend kissing a dementor...

I have to agree with Ice4Fun. Attitude and comfort count for a lot. The same piece of lingerie can either be the sexiest site on this planet or just another article of clothing depending on the attitude and personality of the one wearing it. I'm not sure I have a favourite, but being a fan of novelty and variety I do appreciate it when an outfit is a little outside the norm. My favourite is also going to change depending on my mood. Every option you listed sounded appealing. I only wish all of life's choices could be that kind of agonizing. :)

Another long-suffering Leaf's fan here. I take consolation that no one has ever accused me of jumping on the bandwagon. Here's hoping at least some Canadian team (yes, even if it's "The Canadians") can do well.

Not every book (or movie) has to be Tolstoy or Lord of the Rings, and every now and then all someone wants is a bit of general entertainment. And no matter how kinky things are, if it's between consenting adults, then I say go for it. But that's where my own big issue is that prevents me from enjoying 50 Shades... At one point the character says 'no'. But apparently when if you're rich and handsome enough, then that's the difference between no actually meaning yes, and what in any other situation we would call rape. Take that one "minor" point away and I'd probably be on the bandwagon with everyone else, but I personally can't get past it.

I'll switch throughout the night to sleeping on either of my sides or my stomach; don't tend to sleep on my back. I always bring a glass of water with me to bed. Invariably throughout the night I'll wake up with my mouth feeling dry. I don't think I have any particularly odd habits. I always like to read a bit in bed before sleeping to settle my brain (at least when other activities aren't available at least). Definitely prefer sleeping au natural; one of the things I dislike about winter is it forces me to put on jammies at night. That's right, I call them jammies.

.

Fair questions, and I think I see what you are trying to say. But consider, some people want the facts so they can better make a safer, informed decision -- not so they can pretend that there is no risk or take it as permission to act however they want. Perhaps think of it a different way: isn't it just as likely a person would interpret the words "low risk" to mean it's safe enough to act and then blame those charts if they get infected? Whereas if they had been told some sort of numerical rate they might have considered that too risky for them. It all depends on the person. One person might go hand-gliding because the risk is "low" but if you told them there was a 1 in 1000 chance of an accident they'd say "no way!" :) You say "high means high" and "low means low" but that's just what some of us aren't sure we understand. What does high mean? One person might argue you have a high risk of death flying because there's dozens of plane accidents a year, while another person would say flying is a low risk form of travel because of how often planes don't crash. Or maybe it's a medium risk, because accidents happen less often than with cars but more often than not traveling at all. Using high/low is useful only if there's some information or context to explain what constitutes each or what the bar is to decide the difference between one vs the other. I'm truly not trying to be difficult, and hope that at least explains why such terms--in isolation--leave some of us wanting more.

When having any discussion, the fairest thing to do is try to understand the spirit of what a person is saying or asking...not focus on a side sentence or skew things. I'm not sure why we can't see that the spirit of what the OP is asking is whether anyone knows what the numerical chance is of catching a given STI, and why--on a discussion board that likes to pride itself on its friendliness--we want to give someone such a hard time for asking a question or even in some cases act like it's offensive to have done so. Now, it may very well be those numbers don't reliably exist, in which case that is a fair response. But to just say he should do his own research or that we are not professionals seems...unfair. I mean, is it so unrealistic to think some people on this board may have talked with professionals or come across some useful numbers? People ask questions on this site all the time about topics we aren't professionals on, and often someone is able to point to information. I mean, we all know there is a risk to sex. And we all know that the only way to be 100% safe is abstinence. But why is it seemingly wrong to want to knows the odds of the risk? I mean, I could say there is "100%" risk in me driving because there's always a chance I'd get into an accident. But I know the risk is small enough that, given the benefits of driving, I'm willing to do so. And though some places have more accidents than others, and even though it certainly only takes driving once to get in an accident, there is easily accessible data out there to tell me the odds and help me make an informed decision. Simply saying there's risk in terms of something bad could happen doesn't really help a person decide how to act. Whether I carefully walk across a sidewalk or jump into the middle of a highway at night wearing dark clothes, I have a chance of being hit by a truck. But since I have a good idea of the odds of an accident happening with each, I'm able to decide that I'm willing to risk the one but not the other. If I can buy a lottery ticket for one draw where I have a 1 in 10 chance of winning or a different draw where I have a 1 in a billion chance of winning, knowing the odds helps me decide if I want to spend any cash buying a ticket. Yes, I could win either way but are we really going to pretend that knowing the odds isn't useful in making a decision? All aspects of life are like this. In all things we decide whether something is too risky for ourselves or not. Wanting to know the degree of risk or chances of something happening isn't an unreasonable desire. Now, whether those numbers reliably exist for STI's...well, isn't that a discussion worth having?

I agree conquistador that Jon Oliver would be a fine choice, but I doubt he'd leave his HBO show for it. I'm a regular Daily Show viewer and I was quite saddened to hear he'd be leaving as well, though I can understand him wanting to move on after 17 years of it. It's just sad in a way that one had to turn to a satirical comedy show for some of the most insightful interviews, thoughtful commentaries, and fair analysis around. I always respected his interview style. Not only did he know his material, but (again, unlike "real" news shows) it wasn't about who could yell louder or spout off talking points the best. Even when he clearly disagreed with someone he would give them time to have their say and his arguments were logic based rather than noise based (not to say I always agreed with Stewart on his views, but I can at least respect that he thought them through and wasn't just parroting a party line). Hopefully whoever succeeds him will be up to continuing the task.

I'm not sure I have much new to add and I haven't posted in a while, but in discussions like this I think it's worth adding one's opinion as support if nothing else. One can hope that if enough people voice the same opinion then others may be less inclined to a certain behaviour. So let me say that no, this is not a relationship where negotiating is either polite or productive. The most you can accomplish for the sake of a couple bucks is many ladies losing their opinion of you, wasting some people's time, and even if one does successfully badger...sorry, negotiate, a ladies' rates down then chances are you've also reduced the quality of the time you'll spend with each other. Would you really want to be with someone who basically told you they don't think your time is worth what you say it is? There's are certainly reasons men negotiate, and it can be interesting to discuss those (and perhaps this post is a sidetrack since the OP was asking about "why" and not whether it's OK). But it's important to keep in mind that just because there's reasons people behave a certain way doesn't make it right.

Gorgeous shots, Jafo! Thanks for sharing.

.

.

.