Apparently chemsex is a thing where gay men take meth or other drugs that will allow them to have sexual orgies with no inhibition for hours.Not into it but I would love to see it in person and see what happensHave u done it
No, but I stimfap with speed or meth
>>43186001Why not do chemsex?
>>43185963>Have you done it?Yup
>>43185963I literally cannot wait to organize a transbian orgy with a gratuitous amount of molly10/10 stick to the 3 Ms Molly, mushrooms and Marijuana
>>43185963never fucked on speed but have jerked off on speed many times, had to stop completely after i came insanely hard once and had a transient ischemic attack. you really can just keep going for forever and it feels fucking awesome but it's unimaginably bad for your heart and there is a non 0 chance one day you cum and just drop dead
>>43186028I don't trust people and rarely find people that attractive. Also I can stimfap for like 48 hours
>straight men: "uppers make me impotent! i can't get hard on speed! meth makes my dick shrively! waaah! i'm like a little babby!">gay men:
>>43187468I'm a tranny and can get hard on meth, it just takes a bit of effort
>>43187495Where do u introverts get meth from? I thought we were all sheltered babies who had social anxiety. Ur making me feel so uncool
>>43187562gotta be friends with cool people irl sry nona
>>43187562A little thing called "dark web"
>>43187495me too. and i'm post orchi. i enjoy being able to make fun of straight men for being more impotent than i am despite me having no testicles
>>43187591Mfw im retard can't u send me some I wanna try it
>>43187704Sure if you're in the netherlands or germany i'll swing by
nona
>>43187704>smoke fuckton of weed>get adhd diagnosis>get prescribed methamphetamine salts>???>profit
>>43187746you are not getting prescribed meth lmfao no psychs are prescribing desoxyn you're gonna get fed adderall or methylphenidate if you're lucky and lisdexamfetamine if you get what you deserve for being a retard
>>43187792Yea getting desoxyn takes 5+ years and about a dozen drug combinations and sustained impairment like not being able to work.
>>43187944yeah cus it's literally fucking meth lmao. even getting IR amph salts or d-amph tablets is sisyphean
>>43186564>pretending molly is somehow more akin to weed and shrooms than meth>thinking molly is less harmful than meth in the hands of idiotsishygddt
>>43188075are you mentally handicapped
>>43188236You're the handicapped one if you blindly refer to a bar chart without thinking it through.Meth is mostly harmful because of impurities and how it fucks up your teeth desuWith responsible, moderate use it's no worse than other amphetamines
>>43188258exactly this, whereas molly can really fuck you up (Keith Flint being an extreme example) even in a short while if you don't follow strict harm-reduction guidelines (which people rarely do). I've seen people's pupils do a sickening, rapid back and forth dance more times than I can count after they've bumped MDMA more than once during the same night. Never bump that shit more than once, and always keep the second dose at maximum of 1/3 of the original dose (e.g. 150 mg / 50 mg).
>>43188258responsible moderate use of any drug isn't detrimental to your health. responsible moderate use of alcohol is perfectly safe and it's still at the top of the list. i can't post multiple graphs at once but you are free to search for yourself. mdma is consistently grouped with the lowest scoring substances whereas methamphetamine is consistently grouped with the highest, both in terms of reliance and harm caused. yes, you CAN use both responsibly and you CAN use both retardedly and fuck yourself up, but pretending like molly is worse than meth is profoundly retarded to a degree never before seen.
>>43188376This "data" doesn't prove shit sorry
>>43188429lmfao ok sure man
>>43188456You sound like you have autism
>>43186564can i have an invite i am dying to do this
>>43188376this is a fucking retarded chart in that it claims MDMA (or even ecstasy, which more often than not contains amphetamine or another stimulant in addition to MDMA) is somehow less harmful than amphetamine. You can do amphetamine consistently weeks on end with no real harm, whereas if you take MDMA two days in a row or several times during a month you're really going to feel it.
>>43188467i do lmao and i have a special interest in pharmacology, kind of a skew towards pharmacokinetics specifically though >>43188514>you can do amphetamine consistently weeks on end with no real harmhonest to god, what the fuck are you talking about? have you ever used amphetamine? with fucked up amphetamines like lisdex you can push for a lot longer because it's chemically hard stuck XR but normal amphetamine salts will drain you and wipe you out after 2 days if you're lucky and the day after feels like shit too. maybe you're talking about microdosing or something i genuinely have no idea what you are trying to describe.
>>43188589motherfucker I've done so much speed you wouldn't believe me even if I could give you an exact amount.
>>43188589I do speed and meth all the time and I feel fineI feel fine even if I don't have it, I'll just feel tired and not really thrilled to do much more than chill in bedCan still get up and do my basic routine though
>>43188604then i'm even more interested in what you mean. i've been using regularly for years and i'm completely lost.
>>43188615what I'm getting at is that MDMA might be more safe in a clinical setting, but in the environments/settings people usually do that stuff it's so fucking easy to burn your serotonin receptors to crisp. Iirc in addition to releasing massive amounts of serotonin it basically allows dopamine to bind to serotonin receptors (or was it the other way around, been a while since I've read PIHKAL).
>>43188664MDMA is fine, it makes you feel like shit because it basically drains all your neurotransmitters when you use it, they did studies on it with people who were using it weekly for years and they all got normal brain function back after stopping.
>>43188686link to the study?
>>43188664there's no cross-binding afaik, i'm not sure where you heard that. some drugs can bind to multiple receptors at once or maybe weakly interact with nonprimary receptors at high doses but full on cross-binding isn't really possible or at least not physiologically meaningful. mdma is unique in that it's very heavy handed with serotonin AND dopamine release, (contrary to amph salts which are dopamine/norepinepherine dominant with minor serotonin activation, and meth which is dopamine/norepinepherine dominant too but with significantly more serotonin activation) and those systems interact somewhat downstream, but they are still very much their own unique processes.mdma's risk of serotonergic neurotoxicity simply does not outweigh the risks present in blind amphetamine or methamphetamine use, as miserable as it is.
>>43188964reading up on it I'm not sure anymore either, might've read on it when I was younger and misunderstood something about the reversal of transponder functions. However, on the topic of amphetamines I never advocated for "blind usage" of any of them. My original point in >>43188075was that I've seen more misuse of MDMA than the more responsible counterpart (been raving). "Gratuitous amounts of molly" in my opinion speaks of the former. It's real hard for me to believe there's no lasting damage when people's pupils do that unsettling dance from left to right half a dozen times per second when they're trying to look straight ahead. If used responsibly/in therapeutic amounts I'll admit that meth might be inherently more neurotoxic of the two, but when you're dropping >200mg mollies several times a night imo it's like comparing jumping from 4th story or 5th story-window.
>>43189228bottom line is the brain heals itself. there are people who use meth for literally a decade, they stop and they are normal people, the problem is that its hard for them to stop so when you think of a meth user you think of some kind of zombie, but thats because they arent letting their body heal itself and they usually have some other thing going on at that point.
>>43189267no arguments there, and meth for sure has more abuse potential. However, that is not to say that MDMA has none, or that it couldn't be comparatively harmful >in the hands of idiots. Guess what irked me is the holier-than-thou attitude present in many MDMA users, thinking they're somehow better than speed freaks or meth heads while doing stupid amounts of molly weekend after another.
>>43189228well of course you're not advocating for that lmfao i didn't think you were, and yeah i get what you mean. i thought you were trying to say that pound for pound mdma was just broadly and easily more neurotoxic than (meth)amphetamine which is not accurate. i completely agree there is a phenomenon with some mdma users having this weird sense of superiority and molly-centric pov. i was just talking about this to a friend the other day, i can't think of any other drug that people treat quite the same way as mdma, not even other entactogens like mephedrone. something about molly just really attracts retards i guess.
