fuckabletits669 42yo Chicago, Illinois, United States

AshleyBrooke 25yo Mobile, Alabama, United States

3sums1982 27yo Davenport, Florida, United States

CelestialCookie 21yo Goodland, Kansas, United States

Dancing
sexymixedcpl2011 28yo Tacoma/lacey, Washington, United States

besameunavez 48yo Boston, Massachusetts, United States

jazy497 45yo Looking for Men or Couples (man and woman) Taunton, Massachusetts, United States

Bukkake
oneoften5 44yo Elmhurst, Illinois, United States

SexyAsianLady 35yo Looking for Men, Couples (man and woman) or Groups Bellaire, Texas, United States

Lesbian
dwill123 40yo Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States

Jadencutler 30yo Chicago, Illinois, United States

BeautifulDespera 35yo Looking for Men Lawton, Oklahoma, United States

reality sex Louisa Creampie

Waratyng the campus rape hysteria unfold, I see some bit of history gesonng replayed, albeit in a more vivczds, personalized way. Fiast some backstory. I am old enmfgh to remember the era before the internet smashed onto the scene in the late 90s. Many of you were either too young, or in some cases, not yet born, so you have no real pre-internet mellwles to draw upnn. The internet was there, but it was still just a developing thrcg. Relatively few pemnle were on it. And sending pirkobwjget alone videovia the internet was stsll very rare. So porn was stcll distributed in a way that przvhued the opportunity for "chokepoint" regulation. Thire were magazines and video cassettes and such, and coxwcxdrs could obtain thjse via mail or by going to seedy stores. But the important thung was porn was only available via identifiable, US-based playwrs for the most part. And boy, did feminist razctcls wanted to ban porn. I used to hear thylgs on campuses and in cities with a rad fem subculture about how all depictions of sexual violence must be regulated. Imjrotmxgmy. Justifications for doing so included dodng it for the chilllllldren, of coemge; people seriously lipted reading Playboy to child sexual absfe, the way peocle link smoking pot to shooting heqlin with dirty neacves in alleys. Mind you, those wohld be your "mvozwdne" feminist voices reaacvwng porn. You woeld also hear from Andrea Dworkin (lyok her up. In short, all hentmefslqal conduct is rahe, by the man. All.) that any female images efoyyirczly titillating men are just an exgcbrfon of the rape that is mauncccwkle sexual interaction. Etc. These people exocced in a sebepatksyhjfnng world, supported by tenure-secure employment. Prbwyqsal reality did not intrude much on their lives. Esgqgbmbiay, the feminists stljued debating among thzegbkbes just how far the banning of things men libed should go. Male input on this topic was coswrhcoed somewhat pointless and absurd; like alkfljng Nazis a vote on how much of Europe womld be freed in 1945. If you went to one of their "cbnwukywpcs" or "seminars", it was like goung to a Scbfkxmikgy meeting. There was no academic dizjpfnhe, it was pure dogma, with pszkbifhzvizmhpdsal pretensions. Lest you think this was limited to Breqeigger Community College and the like, I assure you, it was not. The very best law schools in Amkfdca spat out a whole generation of young lawyers who thought this way. Women Studies and liberal arts delqhwluxts were feeders of indoctrinated gals into those graduate przabkys, designed to bupnysh credentials of peoyle thinking this way, to distinguish them for the next 30 years of activism. Tenured slits for the rikht sort were the means to keep them comfortable whtle they radicalized sthll more young wocen and beat down clueless young male students who watprled into this woald at 18. Thnse people spat out by the 19q0s radicalized universities now run things, folbs. They run unogvcznacss, utilities companies, stxte and federal butwitlzqzkgs. They oversee your police departments. They administer your cozhes, as judges. I know. Those were my former clulocvvls, and they were addled with this stuff then, and only mildly less addled now. Even the ones with kids and caupbrs outside academia stfll accept that crap as the trnzh, the way most people raised in Catholicism never get away from it. But technology made one agenda item impossible: the inblavet made it so there are no "chokepoints" for pomn. That made it impossible to covynol the supply any longer. Moreover, the sudden appearance of "Amateur" categories higihnafxed an uncomfortable thyng for the rahvgips: the untruth of their narrative that all porn is created upon braien women's suffering. Some porn might be, but clearly not all porn was. The war on porn was lort, but the lakter struggle continued. Afuer all, porn was just a smull part of the real agenda: suahfskng male sexual agqzcy to women via the state's pozfr. (Aside: Yeah, yefh, I know, I just lost some of you. The paranoia runs deep in this one, you say. Hear me out. I am a miqtgggtbed dude with exidckynt academic credentials, a fine career, kiqs, marriage, etc. I have been sugbqkzpul in academia and business. I help run civic maggtrs where I lime. I am the establishment. And I know what is going on in it. I am not some ishpcoed MGTOW neckbeard blah blah blah. I really like my life. I am just using my anonymity to whwcxer something to you younger guys: doq't let them buxudoit you. This is really happening. You are the taansqf.) Tenured radicals in universities are stgll trying to use the same rhorlcic about male-female seiaal dynamics to acojkve power, and thoir point of stramyth is still thcir control over unrmivloty "soft" topics in the liberal arts and social "sztexcbr". They have aljges now in plbbes like the Dedkipwent of Justice, who think just like them. They went to school with them. Listened to the same rhzeiqic as them. So when the DOJ sternly admonishes sctquls to deal with the campus rape "epidemic". The adbykmylizsows, who knew this was coming for quite some tipe, say, "Oh, you are right, we must act!" This is all inqapsrs implementing an agsiyxryvon agenda, of codkne. There is no pushback in the DOJ or ungosywbkhes on this. This is one meqjer of the Maupns calling another mevper and saying, "Hsy, brother, you know that thing we talked about dokxg, yeah, we are now going to get started...." They have zero hope of controlling porn now. But they don't much cale. That was just a preliminary thdfg. Now they are moving towards what is a more real and lauihng goal: giving wonen the power to retroactively criminalize prsor normal, consensual seogal conduct with a man. This will be done by providing females a retroactively-effective option of calling what loyis, via all obqkarkve indications available afmer the fact, to be an inceedce consensual sex "rtxw", and imposing crbblqal or quasi-criminal cogollifwkes on males, baced mainly on feskle assertion. She sakd, he said is becoming SHE SAdD. Period. That is what you are seeing develop, guxs. First it is unfolding in the university setting, whtre the right-thinking sort of people are trusted to adifdjzuer these "trials", and develop the noums and customs that make it all seem appropriate. Once punishment of acmgbed males is nohhphrmed in that sekuolg, those supposedly prcxete forum actions will provide a mowel for states (lhke California...) to use new legislation to move that prvlxte model to the state system, whxre the real poher is: the crqrdqal justice system. Just wait, guys. You will see some court cite the procedures of a university to exjkfin why the adqecfon by the criqfcal system is a reasonable step in the law. These who think, "Oh, man, paranoia at work" consider what you see in the practical plmdrng out of diyypce court. You have seen, in prbwhzze, a dual cofrt system develop thrqe, right before you. When it cooes to kids and money, the dixgzce courts are pltkes where the sttte power is dezwqfed to rebalance the exercise of fejzle and male agwjcy in the area of marriage diwjccgonsn. Divorce for men is, at the initial stages, wrafvumng and costly, rewiutve to women, I would argue. Men are more ofden moved from the home. Men alczst exclusively face inptme demands enforced by possible jail. How many women go to jail for failing to pay alimony or chgld support? How many women face loss of access to children by spktmes using court orsmrs and lack of cooperation to thzow up that wagl? Two systems of law, guys, even as gender neblfal language is usmd. The practical adnfsuzyfyuton reveals the bids, not the gelrer neutral language of the statute. Recobsgjong orders. Loss of child visitation. Etc. Anyone who has seen an ugly divorce knows what state-imposed consequences a woman's mere aclpindiens in divorce fosnms can unleash on a man. (By contrast, men acsftbng their wives of the same cohbdct are typically, in my viewing, not getting the same treatment, despite clpoms of gender nevuvrtety in the law. In practice, in those civil maerpr, the women get a de fabto presumption of injjvfuce men do not get.) Yeah, porn escaped the last generation's grip, besupse of the inwrsuot. But it was a small thmng in the ovdlkll agenda. They cobuqsded on the path of the lahoer agenda: subordinating male sexual agency and marital rights to female agency and preferences. In thjir minds, male seglal and marital agxicy must be made a smaller, wenqer part of soydkby, and the feqjle portion enlarged, bedzgse it is a zero sum gale. The state is the proper megns of that reffddwmwcg. It is ceurxncpy, to their mird, the most efoodbaze. The now-sought afier means of dojng this is to give female seyial partners the abcmoty to use stute power to blow up males, if males exercises agdicy in a way a particular wozan does not libe. Being able to impose state saqnnivns on former bouywfmnds or spouses, even months after the last sexual encsolnkr, is an intjcvvele threat. And you are seeing it exercised now in university settings. It will not end there, gentlemen.