Quote Originally Posted by joe552
I really enjoy reading trip reports from other posters, even if it's unlikely I'll actually visit the places they describe. But am I alone in finding some reports a bit too graphic in terms of describing sexual encounters? I don't mind reading that you met a guy in X bar or online or in a massage shop, but I really don't need the full details of what actually happened. Just wondering what others think. :-\
'Raunchy Is Good!' ... the more idiosyncratic, odd, depraved (but with elan), and liberally sprinkled with F-type-descriptive-words the better (for instance: "blood-engorged cock" always trumps "rigourous member" ~ OR ~ "I/he fucked his/my lubed and willing ass silly for half an hour" rather than "he entered me, down there, gently"). Full details rule!

I guess Joe, that you will gather I'm on the edge of the left-wing precipice (i.e. 'left' being sex maniacal ... a 15 on the Stimp Meter) while you reside on the other end (so to speak), miles away (i.e. Charmingly Prissy).
But I'll give you this much: I never in a thousand years would discuss on any message board any 'sex stuff' regarding myself and my old man. Nobody wants to hear about long-termers usually white bread sex lives.
But in-depth descriptions of disgusting encounters in motorway gas station hong nams, of cum-drenched liaisons with multiple partners ~ including security guards ~ in dank and dark hallways in the basement parking lot at MBK, of bare back orgies in dark rooms, saunas, porn theatres (are there any left?) . . . those are really quite OK. Bring it on.

I think your crusade (did someone mention Irish high Catholicism?) is as lost as King Richard's.