tallslenderguy

Just left... needed that bad. Had a house guest last week so i missed our 3-4 breeding sessions. Can't believe we've been doing this for 5 years, just never gets old. i'm so opened and creamed right now, sweetest feeling in the world. Love the way holds me, feels like affectionate restraint, hard to describe, but drives me wild. In 5 years and 100s of fucks with Him, i've never had an orgasm of my own, which kind of substantiates a fantasy of mine of sharing one orgasm between myself and my Top. i wondered if it was just a fanciful fantasy to bond that way, but we've been doing it now for 5 years. i don't think He is really aware of it, He never talks about me cumming, but them i've told him from the beginning that His orgasm in me is my orgasm when it leaves His body and enters mine. i was hard as a rock when He left, lately i've been fucking him for a bit before He finally says: "let Me fuck you." He has only ever cum in my mouth once, i don't think He prefers that, though He loves to get sucked, always breeds my ass and i'm totally sated by that. Awesome, eh?

Not really an issue for me as a total bottom. The only Top i don't want is the one who isn't going to breed me... It's a strange scenario though. There are guys out there who are ambivalent about sex... they want it, are driven, and in process, some change their mind. For me, all sex comes down to mutual desire. i won't have sex with any guy who doesn't want me and i them. I.e., it's the connection of mutual desire/need and much (maybe more?) than the connection of bodies. For me, if a guy doesn't leave a part of himself inside of me, it leaves me feeling incomplete, sort of empty, sad, disappointed, like his desire wasn't complete, or something turned it off? It's not only His cock, His seed, it's also His orgasm.... i see those as three separate things, though woven together. So, from my perspective, the guy who wants and craves that, and suddenly changes his mind while getting fucked, seems ambivalent about the whole act? i know, we're all individuals, so it could just be the guy is ignorant and thinks he's protecting himself from an STD. But i think there are plenty who psychologically have not fully embraced their desire/need for another man to possess them, and they feel that if they don't receive seed, they have not had sex. I fully embrace who and how i am, and i do not feel like i have had sex if a guy fucks me and does not do it wholly or completely (i.e., have His orgasm inside of me). To me, that is foreplay. And i know, there are many Tops Who don't wanna cum till they are done, so they will fuck several guys first before cumming. i get that, and if i am in a sex club, etc., i just put it down to foreplay and am not offended or disappointed. All said, i can see how a certain type of guy, not psychology self accepting, can keep his sense of virginity if he has not been seeded. It's a complex topic, so individuals are going to be in different places with their sexuality. Not a simple, black or white answer.

yes.

Opposites do something to me too, i'm not big, but i'm tall (6'5"), small Guys Who are Total Top and driven to breed drive me wild when they are almost shyly confident that i want them and they can own me.

i've wondered about this. i have a particular attraction to Black Men and Latino, though in no way exclusive. More recently i've come to understand it's a cultural attraction really. i guess that's associated with race, but not the sole cause of who or how anyone is.

i was just becoming sexually active with guys in the 80's. i watched my older brother die an awful death from AID's. With guys, i've always been pretty much (99.999%) bottom. i've been with and received 1000's of cocks and loads. i can count on 2 fingers the number of times i've used a condom. Was i a cumdump? i didn't hear or use the term, but comparatively speaking, i was. Was i afraid of AID's? Yes, but my drive to be taken/possessed by a Man and bred was stronger than my fear (by far). For me, it had nothing to do with bug chasing... and that wasn't a thing in the 80's anyway. i don't relate to the notion of "becoming a cumdump." i was being myself, not really becoming anything. Ironically, i found out i was poz when i went to get tested so i could go on PrEP, but even that wasn't a big deal for me, just felt more responsible, sort of like getting vaccinated. It was amazing it took as long as it did for me to become poz. i believe, prior to AID's, condoms didn't exist in the gay community. Condoms, prior to AID's, were a form of birth control. The idea of using them for STD's became a thing because of AID's. Prior to AID's, i don't think the term "bareback" existed either, it was just fucking lol. Guys didn't use condoms with guys because there was no risk of making a baby. So, i think if you wanted to get fucked, you were gonna be a cumdump to one degree or another.

Just seeing this, but Wow, great discussion!! i have all sorts of thoughts/feelings as i read through the comments, so i'll throw them into the mix. my feel is that there are no new sex acts... i.e., 'nothing new under the sun.' Which is not to suggest there aren't "trends." i speculate that, in part, trends are influenced by the waxing and waning of cultural openness/repression. i recently posted a review of Cabaret. The movie is set during WWII, but was made in the1970's, so it wasn't written or acted from the perspective of the era it depicted, so there was likely a mix of both? Still, one point the movie makes is how liberal and open Berlin was towards gays, and how quickly that reversed depending on the social structure in power at the time. The gay community is (and always has been?) a minority that exists in the larger context of heteronormative dominance and influence. The more liberal the social structure, the freer the social expressions, e.g., porn, movies, etc.. Words, descriptors change, but i think guys are basically the same. A gay guy in 1955 may not have rimmed, not because he didn't want to , but he maybe didn't think of it and there was no media available to give him the idea? We also tend to look at this topic from the perspective of our experience and life time, but just as we can see extreme trends just in our lifetime, in the broader context of human history, i suspect we could find similar waxing and waning of sexual trends. Pompeii comes to mind lol.

This is not a complete answer... i'm really tired after a 13 hour shift, so i don't know what i'll think after i sleep Somethings that come to me though is, i requires two people in an act where one is in a sense possessed and the other possesses... and that may be symbiotic, reciprocated each in their own way? i guess central though, it is a type of impregnating and impregnation, both are part of it. i guess as i see and feel it, both give, lose something to the other......

i found this to be a great commentary on a great film. To this day, i still find the film Cabaret captivating (almost put this in the LGBT section, but thought... nah lol)

About 10 minutes ago. i was all dressed and ready to go outside and paint the trim on my house... butt. my FB called and wanted more (He bred me last night too). He's going to Hawaii and wanted something to tide Him over. He's on the DL and will be with straight family so won't be getting any there. He identifies as Bi, and i'm pretty sure i'm the only guy He's ever been with, so i get a lot of His testosterone lol. 5 years seems a long time to me, sort of mysterious to me that He seems so satisfied using me for His sexual outlet. Pretty sure He hasn't had a GF in maybe a couple of years now, but He doesn't really talk about it, just occasional comments, and i just let Him be who and how he is. He loves getting fucked recently, and i continue to do so but don;t breed him, and it always ends with Him breeding me. So, no guarantees there will be no drips while i paint.

Found this a very informative watch. If your attention span is stressed, fast forward to the 13 mark to see where wealth distribution in the US starts to diverge.

And i was among those who voted for Harris. To clarify, what i am saying is she was a last minute decision. I don't think i am alone in how big of a part money plays in choosing candidates for president, and we get to choose, realistically, from two. If we had a system where the playing field was level when it comes to campaign financing, i think it would make a big difference in the choices? Idk, i think it would allow (force?) Americans to be more engaged in the process of who becomes their representative.

So true. If it's so "beautiful," why wait to reveal the results till after you're long gone? Making tax cuts permanent to those who can afford to pay for the wall and dome (in some cases, the ones who will benefit financially from their building), while throwing a token temporary bone to the waiters by not taxing tips. My guess is you did not "allow this to happen." Elections are not in the hands of any one individual. We get two selections, but who among us would have actually chosen either of those selections? Professional politicians on all sides know how to work the system, and each has their base to whom they pander. And of course, it takes money to pull all of that off, so money (and those who have lots of it) play a huge part on who we end up getting to select from. i think the majority of Americans are not at one extreme end or the other... that even many total bottoms occasionally find their cock in an ass. The election winners definitely pander to their base, but can only win if they sway the what i believe is the majority middle. Those who espouse some of the ideals from both camps. For example, i don't think most Americans have much of a clue about what is in a 1000 page bill. The stuff that gets summarized and gets attention maybe accounts for 5%, what else is not being discussed and debated publicly? Hell, we have senators admitting they didn't know what was in it, yet still voted for it. i don't think that is unique to this particular bill, i think it is business as usual. The debt keeps growing no matter who's in office, but where the money is spent shifts to the winners choice agenda. To me, it comes down to trust. i think your feeling of needing checkers to check the media and fact checkers really gets to the root of the problem: trust. I think most vote based on emotion and the hope that they can trust who they elect, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. Our country does seem to have entered a new era of extremism though. i cannot remember a time where a president could actually get away with saying "i hate democrats." Many politicians may think it or feel it about their opponents, or an individual, but to actually say it about an entire group of people creates a stereotype and panders to the extremist element in this country. It also solidifies Trump as one of them. He does not even attempt to represent all the people of this country. He cannot claim to love our country when he hates god alone knows how many Americans disagree with him. They are also America.

The following is off the cuff, and not well thought out... The middle east seems one big grudge fest to me, an ancient Hatfield/McCoy feud. So many play the long game when it comes to revenge. From Trumps mouth to their ears: "nobody knows what i'm going to do," which often seems the concerns the world has with certain other guys in charge of means to destroy. To me it feels like, with Trump, the US has taken the route of joining the bully dictators in the world, sort of "if you can't beat em, join em" approach (e.g. Putin, Kim Jong Un,, Xi Jinping, Khamenei, Netanyahu, etc.). The double entendre "bully pulpit" comes to mind, considering Trumps methods; ruling by coercion, force, fear. i don't believe those kinds of rulers are good for the long term stability of the world and that the world would be better off without them, but there is no doubt that that type represents a large portion of world leaders. Short term, i can see Khamenei fearing Trump enough to capitulate... short term. But these guys all seem cut from the same cloth to me, i don't see any of them actually agreeing to long term peaceful terms. It seems to me that each of them wants to be "first," that they do not want to coexist on more level or balanced terms.