GermanFucker

18 hours ago, Pozguyinchi said:

To this day he was the single greatest influence on me sexually, spiritually, and gave me the confidence to be who I am today. With that said, I really didn’t think about his color until someone brought it up. Sometimes it was him. lol. 

I can't speak to the black top / white bottom dynamic. I'm white, but never a bottom. I can still say that one of my biggest influences sexually and probably one of my all-time favourite fuck buddies was a 20-year-older black man I met when I was around 19 or so. Naturally talented at sex and just all-around fun to fuck with. He always challenged me to explore, but at the same time made hardcore barebacking feel light-hearted and playful. 

50 minutes ago, ellentonboy said:

It's a sobering experience to be told NO at the door.

I think it's a bit more sobering when expressed with the typical Berliner "charme". They say, Berliners are just like Hessians in their misantropy, but add agressiveness: 

[think before following links] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-t0P12Vzpw4

On 1/12/2025 at 9:27 PM, coomer said:

im into leather but im also brown so i do not conform to what everyone else in the leather community look like

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. This is about 2 things above all: a.) Dress codes and b.) Germans taking things seriously. 

1.) There are dress codes in the US, too ("no shirt, no shoes, no service"), but Americans are sometimes laxer about enforcing them with the customer being king and all. Germans are much more serious about things. A rule is a rule and it's there for a reason. Either follow it or you're out, there is on point in arguing.

2.) Of course big cities like Cologne, but especially Berlin take this to an extreme. In some backwater town, you may not even have a gay club, only a queer club for lesbians and gay alike, or just a weekly LGBTQ night at a local college bar. Those places are welcoming to everyone. Berlin is different with its huge, but also fragmented scene. Many clubs cater exclusively to specific crowds and fetishes. These clubs don't care about a general appeal to the wider public, but they pride themselves on being "the place to be" when it comes to e.g. getting pissed while wearing farmhand attire. 

3.) It's also about the crowd feeling comfortable. You don't want looky-loos wandering around the establishment staring at you while they're not really taking part in the debauchery. Or a guy in flip-flops having a go at you when you came to the club to meet leather daddies.

4.) It's usually not about how well you can pull off a look, but rather how authentic you are and how much you respect the theme of the party. Skin color is not the issue. It's not about fitting a stereotypical picture, but understanding the fetish and making an effort with your wardrome selection. Sure, if the motto of the evening is "barely legal pretty faces", you have a hard time getting in as a daddy type. But I have seen incredibly attractive guys turned away from clubs because they didn't want to follow the rules and the red carpet being rolled out for barely average guys, because they nailed what the party is about. 

5.) Best is ALWAYS to ask a local friend (who has been to the party before) about possible pitfalls. It's usually tourists (be it a Americans, but also Germans from a different state) run afoul of local dress codes, because they usually don't have the time to get informed in advance and aren't introduced to the fetish scene gradually by friends and aquaintances. But if you know someone in the area, take advantage of it. 

As a very nerdy teenager I took pride in knowing the exact number of guys who had my dick (and cum, in most cases) in their asses. After 700 guys or so I lost count, i.e. in my early twenties.

On 8/18/2024 at 5:01 PM, Bbdude78 said:

UpGuys . com 

they sell both. They are based in Vancouver I think. You set up your profile online, they will call you for a consultation over the phone, and send you the stuff through the mail pretty fast. It's definitely more expensive, but I think you can submit it to your insurance. 

I think it's side effect of the Covid-pandemic that telemedicine has become mainstream. I think such offers have sprung up in many countries, where they do consultations over the phone or via videochat and the prescription they then write you is legit.

On 8/22/2024 at 1:54 AM, Poz50something said:

Wonder if Cialis or Viagra is covered by RAMQ. (It’s the provincial government health insurance of Quebec ). 

If it is, I would bet that you need to provide two doctor's notes: One testifying to your impotence and the second one stating that you and your wife are planning to conceive.😄

On 3/5/2025 at 5:01 PM, viking8x6 said:

OK people, don't get your knickers in a twist!

@nanana's statement is not false per se, although it is somewhat misleading.

If you combine the military spending of all NATO countries, US spending is approximately 70% of it (over the last 10 years). BUT (and this is why it's misleading) that's ALL military spending for the countries in question, including all operations everywhere, not just in Europe or on "Europe-relevant" theaters of engagement.

If anyone wants to see the numbers, you can find them here: [think before following links] https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

 

Personally, I think we (the US) spend too much. Of course, that's what the President says, too... Do I have to disinfect myself now?

I think you can want the same thing for different reasons.

First things first: things are complicated. For the last years the dollar has been decidedly overvalued, which is skewing the figures a bit. Also part of the equation is that the US disproportionately profits from NATO miliitary spending. Other countries buying F-35 not only makes the jets cheaper to produce for the US, but also generates US tax revenue. The decisions that to led to the current state of affairs was not just other countries "taking advantage of the US", but also the US going along with it, as it benefitted the military-industrial complex and cemented the US' role as the world's only true superpower

So it is one thing to demand more equitable load-sharing within a defensive alliance (which I think you're doing here). That is just fair. It's something different if you spew FSB propaganda and want to dismantle this alliance (because leaving NATO will not save the US money. Instead it will cost a lot more money, if the US wants to maintain a similar posture on the world stage). It's funny how the same guys who first chastized Europe for not spending enough on defense, are now decrying them as warmongers, now that the EU is upping it's defense spending to US levels.

Simple trick to spot Russian trolls and the "useful idiots" who parrot their talking points: The hypocrisy is always rife with them.

6 hours ago, PozFunBER said:

I am German, obviously fucking with many Germans. I have NEVER seen a nazi flag in anyone’s home, and most definitely not at a fuck date’s place. B maybe I was just lucky. But writing „I've noticed that many Germans have these Nazi fetishes.“ – this is a strong statement. What is many? What is your observation based on?
Personally, I have never met a really obvious Nazi German (gay).

If you think of bald head , black boots and bomber jacket guys - they are not necessarily neo-nazis but it’s a fetish outfit coming actually from the punk scene, later techno scene. Some of these fetish guys are actually very left wing. So, just saying, let’s be careful with strong statements and generalizations of any group of people. 

Yup, I'd also call bullshit on this.

It's not that there aren't gay nazis in Germany, there certainly are. You can find weirdos in every country. It's also true that especially in the former communist east there are some god-forgotten shit towns where neo-nazism thrives. It's just this assumption that it's somehow prevalent or widespread all over Germany that I can't get behind. If anything, I'd even say the gay Nazi fetish is more popular in the US. I only came in contact with very few gay nazis, and if I remember correctly, almost all of them were Americans.

Don't get me wrong, i've fucked a number of skinheads. But those were all emulating the British skinhead culture, which became big with and is an offshoot of the punk scene as PozFunBER correctly mentioned.

As a side note: On a purely personal level, Germans certainly are more intense. Compared to them hooking up with Americans seems light, bubbly, slightly disconnected. Whereas some find Germans intense, dark, brooding. But that has little to do with Nazism.

5 hours ago, cumslut4play said:

I'm fine paying for porn.  I've got quite a few digital paid versions on a drive.  But I'm struggling to find a studio that turns me on anymore.  When I was younger, HDK was super edgey cuz it was piggy bb sex, TIM turned that in to even more plus eluding to things.  Now I look at the new TIM stuff and they are doing exactly what I think happened to HDK which is becoming just.......whatever.  I've already seen something similar and it's not edgy enough for me.  If there were an edgier bb gay porn studio I'd buy.

Amateur stuff is really turning me on these days cuz those dudes don't give a fuck.  I wish we could send them some mics and some lighting though! 🙂

Totally agree. I think I once paid 3.99 for an official DVD-rip from the HDK website which was on clearance or so. Just because I liked the late 90s / early 2000s stuff which was just so much more "real", because it was less polished and overproduced. I mostly bought it for the nostalgia. I still have happy memories of e.g. HDK and Active Duty, because they showed the same kind of sex I was having myself at the time.

Today I sometimes watch the 4-minute "Latin Leche" clips or earlier stuff from Eric Videos on the usual porn aggregator sites. I just wouldn't pay for it.

I mostly avoid US American porn productions. They are just so contrived. How many times can you recycle the old "stepbrother" trope? Also, in their search for bodily perfection, many actors fall into the trap of imitating each other (so they shave their hair in all the same places, have all the same sculpted eyebrows), which gets old quickly.

Well everybody is entitled to being a bad fuck... I mean, usually it's the one's cheating on their boyfriends who use condoms, because they cannot manage to take prep in secret without the BF finding out. If that's your deal, who am I to judge? Just stay clear of me.

It just dishonesty that pisses me off. If you exchange preferences and agree to meet and one side then wants to alter the terms of the deal (thinking the other will agree because he's already made the effort to meet), that's just a shitty move and plain bad manners.

Some guys are subs and will agree to anything (which I find submissive types usually boring). There are even tops that are pushovers and will relent. I just think that sets a bad precedent: Communicate clearly upfront and then stick to your promises. Just be a man, FFS.

14 minutes ago, partying.hard said:

I have walked out of a bedroom and gone home instead of acquiescing to his request that I use a rubber.

Done that so many times. 😄

On 1/27/2021 at 12:25 AM, DarkroomTaker said:

TBH, there are some posts on here where people have stated that they purposly go and infect people with Aids/HIV etc, which obviously I am ignorant to still understand the thought process behind this.

 

You want the real answer?

The thought process is mostly TROLLING. Collins defines trolling as follows: "If you troll someone, you deliberately try to upset them or start an argument with them, especially by posting offensive or unkind things on the internet." I.e. the point is to be as outreageous as possible in order to elicit a (-n emotional) reaction. Even among sexual deviants there is a high likelyhood you encounter basically moral people (e.g.: Even if you enjoy swapping STDs, you wouldn't involve others who don't share your fetish), wo react either with outrage or are torn between being aroused and admitting to finding evil things enticing. Either way: a win for the troll, who by bragging about infecting others on purpose was sucessful in eliciting an emtional response.

If you do a stylometric analysis of a number of these posts, you will find, that many of these stories come from the same real-life person, albeit posting under different aliases. Heck, there are many threads on this board where one troll is bascially talking to himself using 4 different aliases. Having been here on the forum for a decade, I remember users who presented themselves as alpha-pozzers and who were admired by many, only to be unmasked as total frauds 4 years later. 

So with most stories, you should better assume that they are fake. Just as I am sure there are a signifcant number of true stories here as well (I am probably deluding myself believing that I can spot the difference).

I mentioned my friend who got pozzed on purpose by another guy. True story. But the other guy didn't brag about it on some internet forum. I have been to bareback gangbangs where the bottom ended up poz (not my doing). It's not like the this stuff isn't real. It's just waaaay more intricate and complicated in real life that some tall tales make it look.

6 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Several posts in this thread seem to try to make a point that attractiveness simply is what it is, and justify a willingness to engage with the lunatic seditionist because his appearance exists independently from his behavior. I disagree, and I think the evidence lies in the fact that we can be aroused by someone right up to the point that we learn something invalidating about him, and then not be aroused at all, even though his appearance has not changed. Put succinctly, ‘pretty is as pretty does’.

I think that is the basic fallacy of καλοκἀγαθία : One assumes that someone pretty is also a good guy. And one is surpised when he's not. But in this case you know the ugly side of him right from the start. So, IMHO, to answer the question why some still find him attractive AS A WHOLE you have to look at the semiotics and psychology of audience reception theory. What kind of signals is he sending? And what makes one predispositioned to react to them?

E.g.:

Men who are anxious about their masculinity are more likely to support aggressive politics and to have voted for Trump: [think before following links] https://www.psypost.org/2021/01/men-who-are-anxious-about-their-masculinity-are-more-likely-to-support-aggressive-politics-and-to-have-voted-for-trump-59417

Precarious Manhood Predicts Support for Aggressive Policies and Politicians: [think before following links] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167220963577

If it is legal and fun, I will do it. Thing is: I'm a laid-back, no drama guy. If a teenager of legal age wants to get fucked by me I will tell him that I don't use condoms and don't pull out. If he's fine with that ... ah, who am I kidding, they are all fine with that.

I don't stalk young kids (again, for the purpose of this message, this and similar terms always and without exception means: of legal age according to German Age of Consent laws) on Grindr, I don't fuck with their heads, I don't do powertrips (i've done so with older guys 20 and up). It's all about uninhibited fun. I enjoy their youth and they enjoy their breeding.

3 hours ago, Close2MyBro said:

I miss the days when sex partners didn't have to be passed thru a 'political' filter first. That destroys the spontaneity and anonymity of raw animalistic sex.

I think MichiganBottom has a point: you want to avoid the crazy. And one thing applies to both racial politics and sex: a laid-back live-and-let-live attitude is always better than fear and divisiveness.

3 hours ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

But regarding this point, I had a few conversations and even met in public this one guy  who was a right winger,  when Obama was president. Good looking guy, racist as fuck. When he started ranting about Obama being an uppity you know what I blocked him. Which is to say, plenty of people have hard limits for that nonsense.

You can say it: An uppity Irishman. It's all because of his Irish roots. They are known as troublemakers.

Or am I missing something here...🤔

7 hours ago, BlackDude said:

Excellent point! Although, no one would go online and admit they liked the thug ex-con as openly. 

Disagree.

Exhibit A: [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Meeks

Case closed 😁

(But now I fear because he's multi-racial the next discussion would be if Maya Rudolph is black or white... 🤣 )

1 hour ago, BlackDude said:

I understand what you are saying to a certain extent. But I wonder if you would have taken your extent a step further and created another profile with a black torso, what would have happened?

You have to keep in mind that I live in one of Germany's heavily urbanized western states. It would probably have increased my chances by quite a lot. There aren't so many Afro-Germans, being black is certainly still somewhat more "exotic" than in the US, so there is usually always more demand than there is supply 😉

On the other hand, this also means that my Afro-German and expat African-American buddies today live in a totally different environment than in the US, so I cannot speak to the problem of racism among gays in your specific US state. And I kinda regret that when I snuck onto the US Army bases in the vicinity as a 19 year old kid to fuck with African American soldiers (all hush-hush because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell), I didn't take the time to get to know them better (same for White and Latino soldiers).

1 hour ago, BlackDude said:

I guess my point is, I don’t think he’s that hot. Yeah he’s okay/fuckable. I think the only reason a lot of guys think he’s “hot” is because he white and being a white supremacist is icing on the cake because deep down they believe what he believes. 

I don't think "whiteness" is wrong. An African-American friend of mine always jokingly mocks me for how very "white" I am and some of the white people shit I do. But I am at peace with my socialization. Just like he is a proud black man and I think that's what we find hot about each other. Being rooted in an identity doesn't have to be a negative thing.

Personally I cannot understand how one could find the concept of white supremacy per se attractive in any way. But I do unterstand somewhat where you're coming from. When talking about the male human ape, we are all genetically conditioned to find an aggressive posture more attractive than a submissive posture. That is what the alt-right's concept of weaponizing identity is about: the fusing of tribalism with an agressive aesthetic.

Franky I don't think the gay admirers princess snowflake a really "believe" much of anything. They certainly don't fawn over the beer-bellied rest of the mob and its ideological underpinnings. IMHO it is just the combination of the achetypical "warrior type" image with agressive action, that makes Angeli appear "hot". Not saying that his is not problematic in itself (the same thing has been used as a propaganda staple forever). I just think that it is far more subconcious (more "feeling" than "belief").

51 minutes ago, Fprefect570 said:

It is certainly moral to disclose your status but if your barebacking with someone and it’s not mentioned you should assume is poz.

Disagree. That is just such a big city gay thing to say. That's true within a very limited context, but a failure of imagination when it comes to a multitude of substantially different life circumstances. If you're a young dumb kid from some farming town that hasn't even defined his own sexuality to himself and mistake a more experienced guy having fun with you for love, the last thing on your mind is safer sex and you will certainly make no such assumption.

The burden of using one's brain should not be put on one party (i.e. the HIV-negative party) exclusively. IMHO the standard must always be: can I REASONABLY assume that the other guy is fully aware of all the implications of what is about to happen and is sufficiently informed to to know what he's doing? A guy that consciouly went to a gay sauna to take loads in the steam room. Sure. The 18year old high school senior getting bred behind the bleachers because curiosity got the better of him? Not so much.

51 minutes ago, Fprefect570 said:

A lot of the people who have been prosecuted have been charged with attempted murder and are sentenced to 10 years plus in prison.

And that is wrong

51 minutes ago, Fprefect570 said:

 I think you are over estimating the amount of cases are because of “revenge” or for malicious intent. 

Do I agree that most cases of HIV transmission (i.e. accidents) and sex between sero-discordant partners (where no infection took place) should not be touched by the law? Sure. But at the same time extreme cases do exist, where legal scrutiny is valid.

Take a friend of mine: Another guy pozzed him on purpose. Being unsuspecting, my friend did not doubt him when the other guy said he was neg, so my friend did not get tested in time. As a fast progressor he got cancer when his immune system collapsed. He's undetectable now, but the the combination of the cancer and agressive chemo have left him with a serious disability. His legs are basically fucked.

I believe this example warrants legal consequences. Not because of the HIV, but because of the combination of lying, malicious intent and inflicting serious bodily harm.

For these extreme cases there should be the appropriate legal tools. But again, these should be the same as with dangerous machinery, environmental toxins or other STDs. They shoud not be HIV-SPECIFIC.

As I have said mainy times before on this forum: I believe that there should be no special laws for HIV transmission, but that infliction of bodily harm should be penalized (or not) by the same legal standards no matter the cause of the bodily harm. In that a number of aspects needs to be considered:

- impact on the person: HIV is a manageable disease, you can grow old with HIV no problem. Just like you can with an amputated foot. In most cases it makes no difference to the everyday quality of life. But there might still be areas where there are restrictions or stigmas. Being HIV positive can e.g. be a problem for a thoracic surgeon, just like missing one foot might be for a ballett dancer.

- culpability of the "perpetrator": If you cut off you're neighbor's foot with an axe, that is certainly intentional and warrants a harsher sentence. If your neighbor loses his foot because he was your passenger in a car accident, where you failed to metion that you're drunk, you are at least negligent. In both cases - driving intoxicated and having unprotected sex when one party is aware of a clear and present transmission risk - disclosure is necessary. If not, one shouldn't complain if one is being sued for negligence.

- informed consent: HIV criminalization laws sometimes even insisted on punishment, when both parties were fully aware in advance of the risks involved. Some laws required punishment even if the other party suffered no harm / no virus was transmitted, whereas in comparable circumstances that don't revolve around HIV it would not be punishable and merely considered a life lesson. Some laws required an unreasonable amount of disclosure, even if reasonably there is no risk of transmission at all. I believe all this is wrong.

In short: Laws singling out HIV as a special case or HIV-positive persons as a special group are archaic and non-sensical. There should be no discrimination. But that means that there also should be no postive discriminations / priviledges for HIV. Inflicting a certain type of bodily harm as a result of a certain intention / state of mind should neither be judged harsher nor more lenient because HIV is involved.

If a certain set of actions / failure to act is considered an accident when it comes to e.g. traffic, is should also be considered and accident when it comes to sex. If it is considered negligence in other contexts, it should be seen as the same when it comes to HIV. If there is malignant intent, you shouldn't go unpunished because you used a virus as a means of inflicting harm instead of an axe.

So if decrimininalizing HIV means removing special HIV-specific laws from the books and instead using the same set of guidelines, rules and laws as with other life risks and infractions against one's bodily integrity, then I'm all for it.

If it means a blanked exemption from liability in each and every case, then I disagree. As i said in other discussions here: If you say that intentionally pozzing unsuspecting others should never be punishable under ANY circumstances, because the other guy could have used prep or a condom, but at the same time think you should be able to sue your employer if poor working conditions give you cancer, than that is hypocrisy / a double standard (after all you could have found yourself a different job, right?). Each situation is different and we need to consider and weigh aspects like the actual outcome, intent / state of mind and level of consent. What we should not care about is whether we're talking about asbestos, syphillis or HIV.

On 1/8/2021 at 9:48 PM, LetsPOZBreed said:

I've always been relatively introverted, but I pretty much retreated into myself.  I felt I couldn't go out to the local gay bar anymore for fear of running into him, or seeing that group of guys he was hanging around with.  I completely lost my sex drive altogether, and it was months before it came back in even a marginal way.  I actually became a total top for a while, as even the hint of bottoming triggered a reaction.  Also, because I didn't really know this guy very well and had clearly been seeded by him, I became paranoid about getting pozzed.  I did get tested (quite a few times) after that, and all came back negative, but there was always this fear in the back of my mind.  I could bring myself to talk about it - not even to my closest friends.  I just put the whole situation on block as much as I could.  It would be a few years before I let a guy fuck me again.   I became suspicious of large groups of men, and this led me to retreat from places where that was common.  I wasn't going to gay clubs; I wasn't attending pride parades; none of that.  I grew up feeling that I could potentially be attacked by some homophobic redneck from my part of the US; instead, it turned out that the most heinous act done to me happened at the hands of someone in my own community.  I couldn't trust gay men any longer.  

By then, I went from being an occasional alcoholic to a heavy drinker.  I had no self-confidence.  When I did get back into bottoming, I turned into a barebacker.  Not because I specifically enjoyed it, but instead lived with a fear that a guy on top of me is just going to take what he wants, however he wants it.  I was a barebacker because I felt worthless.  Eventually, my lack of confidence led me to darker and darker places over the years, culminating in a period of drug use that would be what led to my conversion.  The drug use stopped at that point, but the alcoholism coninued on.  A little over 4 years ago, I finally decided to completely sober up - and part of that process of addressing the underlying issues of my drinking was confronting that horrible evening 15 years ago. 

I'm in a much better place now.  I no longer think of the "what ifs" and instead live my life for the blessing it is, but there is a part of me that was changed forever. 

Not this is a description I actually believe:

- self-isolation due to post-traumatic stress.

- loss of enjoyment of sex.

- trust issues in general

- depression and substance abuse

With some other stories here; I'm not so sure.

I personally never was in such situation. I once had a guy try to flip me over (at 6'8" and 300 pounds of pure muscle he was actually taller than me) and stick his dick in me. He wasn't trying to rape me, we just hadn't discussed roles before and it seemed like a fun idea to him at that moment. However he happened to catch me unawares, I suddenly just acted on instinct and almost broke his neck.

On 1/21/2021 at 6:40 AM, BlackDude said:

This post is hilarious for many reasons. One of which is the entire “he’s hot (which he’s really not) and I don’t care what his beliefs are he can fuck me senseless.” You guys must not get out much cause this dude is a 6, on his best day. Not saying I wouldn’t fuck a 6, but all this fawning is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, dudes like me have to answer a damn near survey about my housing situation, relationship status, where I work, medical records, etc plus have six pack abs all the while having a 10 inch dick with a thug personality before most guys will even consider a casual hookup.

I wonder why that is.....?!

 

I think men fall into two categories: Attractive or not. To stay with the political theme: Corey Booker is broadly attractive, Ted Cruz is definitely not and there is nothing he can do about it. Once you're somewhat attractive, the rest is attitude, presentation and context (e.g. with all the barbershops closed in my state, I myself currently have to work the "Opie from Sons of Anarchy" angle very hard *LOL).

Angeli certainly falls into the reasonably handsome category. I think the fact that some guys are fawning over him says more about those guys. If you are a beta / omega follower type personality, that's what pushes your buttons. And for all the progress we have made, many gays still have confidence issues.

I once did an experiment: in my late 20 / early 30s I lived like 300 meters from the local university dorm building. I made two online profiles. The first described my relationship situation, where I work, medical status and showed a picture of my washboard abs. The second had no picture, and the text simply said, that I don't give a shit about you, that I just want to fuck and breed you, no condoms, no discussions, submit or fuck off. Let's just say, the response rate was about 1 - 20. After a few months I deleted the first profile.

I think that if we empower each other and nurture our self-confidence, fewer guys will fall for such banal shows of masculinity as presented (not that there is anything wrong with shows of masculinity). But then, if we judge each other with the same number value system as Donald T. uses for his, pardon my French, bimbos, it's IMHO no surprise that many will look to guys that outwardly portray manliness and self-assuredness - even if they are, as evidence suggests - total snowflakes in real life.

1 hour ago, Fprefect570 said:

Pulling out is for porn

Correct. Who does that in real life? Asking such a question only shows your inexperience.

Wasn't there an edit button before? By mistake, I cut off the last paragraph. Well here it goes:

"I don't know whether tongue-in-cheek humor is the best idea here, but I just wanted to ironically point out that there are also good guys to idolize.

And no, that is not meant to take anything away from other role models like Eugene Goodman, a truly heroic guy. He's just no Ruben Loftus Cheek (whom I would marry in an instant, even though he plays for the wrong team, both literally and figuratively).

On 1/11/2021 at 6:24 PM, BlackDude said:

Dude is so run of the mill it’s hilarious, But I actually appreciate the honesty.  Most gay guys will pretend they are against a mediocre, mentally unstable racist, when in reality they don’t care as long as their is a white dick attached. At least you aren’t pretending......

I kinda disagree. I think saying you find the guy hot after January, 6th is more about trying to be "edgy" in a conformist world, thus making the whole thing about yourself. See also Professor Nichols venting on Twitter about the phenomenon: "

But taking about white guys what REALLY shocks me is that noone here seems to be fawning over the salt-and-pepper hotness that is Michael Fanone (sources: [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55679623  and [think before following links] https://www.theday.com/article/20210115/NWS13/210119631 , I believe this falls under fair use? )   

2 hours ago, ChristophBB said:

Those are great points. The reflection concept you mention is one that's particularly important to me actually. In fact that's a big reason I've decided to see this therapist right now because I feel I'm lacking some clarity in various aspects of my life. But the direction I'm going from the standpoint of sexuality is part of that. We discussed sexuality in some detail in the past session and I was encouraged that he has views very similar to the ones I'm developing which felt like a good reflection experience. 

And my hesitation is in fact a bit of self protection until I'm sure I have a sense I'm not going to be shamed, considering the extreme degree of shame I grew up with I'm leery to let myself be shamed by a therapist even though I really don't think he's going to do that.

IMHO the operative words are TRUTH and MEANING. If you feel you have to lie to your therapist because you are fearing judgement, then something is going wrong. You should be truthful, but that doesn't necessarily mean a myriad of details. Do I tell my therapist that I cheat on my boyfriend? Sure. But then the interesting question is WHY, not what position did I fuck the guy in. You should always be able to talk to your therapist about things that have meaning to you. To stick with the boyfriend example: If I cheat on my boyfriend in a public place like a sauna, that probably has some meaning. If I make a point of seeding all the guys because I promised my boyfriend my cum is only for him, that probably too (or topping / bottoming for some guys etc.).

You are the one who has to determine whether something is meaningful to you and whether it is something you would like to discuss with your therapist. If the answert to both questions is yes, you shoudl probably bring it up. But in which way is also up to you. "I have taken three loads on tuesday and three on wednesday" is one way. "I have been more promiscuous because I never experienced playfulness and variety when it comes to sex" is another.