tallslenderguy

When i first read the title i read it as: "Does manstick make your boy pussy twitch?" and i thought: "hell yes!!"

Depends on what you mean by "impotent." Impotence can be caused by physical factors and/or mental and emotional factors. Physically, vascular disease is the most common issue, lack of blood circulation. Mentally/emotionally, all sorts of things can contribute. For some time now i don't get hard when guys are talking to me about my penis, wanting it, etc.. If they want to, (and talk about it), penetrate me, i get hard as a rock. Though, once a guy is inside of me, i go soft again. It's not a simple black or white situation for me that i can predict, but for me i can trace it to mental/emotional factors.

Haha, no, missed on all accounts (as far as i know, none of those are taboo on BZ?) i've even tried Recon and it seems most of the guys who approach me there are after my feet?!? i hooked with one guy from there who was soooo fucking hot, and all he was into was tickling feet (mostly). This is apparently what happened to all those kids who grew up with Tickle Me Elmo made by Tyco Pre School. And they says gays have an agenda.

Sort of a loaded, especially on this site. i guess it would depend on your standards of what constitutes "irresponsible." i take care of critically ill people for a living (critical care nurse), and i don't like to see anyone sick and suffering. my vote is to get regularly tested if one is sexually active and take meds if you are poz or have another STI. i also advocate for PrEP and am against the fetishization of disease (though not against the people who fetishize disease, i want to find a different fetish for them that is not destructive). Personally, i wish our society was less puritanical about sex and the stigma of testing and treatment was not such a factor as it is. Imagine the dent we could make in STI's if we had a social agreement that all sexually active people get tested for STI's every three months?

i have some kinky fantasies i've never had a chance to try, pretty much all of them revolve around a Top putting something of Himself inside of me. The Top needs to penetrate, inseminate and impregnate all find a corresponding need in me to be penetrated, inseminated and impregnated. i see many of my kinks, and the kinks of others, as expressions of individual needs/wants that are just uncommon. i see the manifestations or expressions as "uncommon," not the needs or wants that drive them. i think a lot of people miss out on exploring their sexuality beyond the physical, even though sex is mental and emotional too. i'm for holistic sex lol. i've got some kinky fantasies that can't even be spoken of on BZ, but have met others with similar or who they resonate with. i don't think anyone is "weird" (not directing that at the OP, just making a general statement). One's kinks may not correspond with everyone, i think it's unrealistic to expect to be compatible with everyone, so the search is for people we are compatible with (e.g., Top with bottom, etc.). i think our "weird" kinks often represent areas and opportunites where we can deeply connect with each other, so i love when someone like the OP is brave enough to bring topics like this up.

Details? how'd it happen? 😉

Saying "I love black cock" reminds me of how fundamentalist christians often tout how they "love gay people." They make a distinction between how they 'love' gays and other people. Being gay is not the same same as being a different race, but i think many (most?) of us have probably experienced being treated as differently because of being gay. i think that should help us understand and know better than to make the distinction "black cock." That is a stereotype. Maybe it's one of those things a black person can say, but people who are not black cannot? Sort of like how we can own the word "faggot" and straight people cannot because they do not know, cannot relate, to all that means? i do not think the way many use terms like "black cock" is overtly bigoted. i do think it's inadvertently evil because it stems from and supports stereotyping. When we do that, we stop seeing the individual person and instead treat people reflexively (instead of consciously) using culturally conditioned ideas and notions assigned to the group. Just because it is not ones conscious intent to be offensive doesn't remove the offense. We're in a cultural revolution where stereotypes are being exposed and there's a back lash against that revolt, exposure. Some think because they do not consciously intend to be offensive that they are not. That's ethnocentric, ignorant and emotionally immature- an attempt to preserve the status quo rather than change.

What a fucking great imagination. i love how you think!! To me, part of what defines a Top/Dom is the desire to be in control of their bottom, to effect them in so many ways. i love affectionate humiliation.

i agree with this train of thought. i don't think of barebacking as a path but as the natural way to have sex. i.e., condoms are not a natural occurrence in nature lol. The implication in the question is that barebackng leads to "kinky/taboo scenes," but i think wearing a condom is the violation of nature (outside the natural 'norm,' if you will), not the other way around. i think guys who bareback demonstrate an ability to question social standards and go against socially and culturally constructed norms. To the rules (and those who make them) of what is "kinky" or "taboo." Personally, i see kinks as individual expressions of need or desire. Humans are complex, there is so much we don't know about what goes into making us the individuals we are. We have lots in common, but we all have differences too. To some people, just taking a cock up the ass or sucking it is "kinky/taboo." i see our kinks as opportunities for us to connect with each other on deeper levels. "Deeper" may not be the right word, but we often hide or don't acknowledge our "kinks" because they are socially "taboo." So those parts of us remain hidden and neglected. But again, i see kinks as individual expressions, flavors, of who we are, our needs and our desires. When we are open about them, i think part of the excitement comes from discovering we are not alone and finding others with corresponding or compatible kinks. i think openness to questioning the rules positions us to discover who we are, what we want and need they may not be part of the social mainstream. i don't think kinks are so much created as they are discovered by people willing to look and question the status quo.

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph5ab0ba1bb946c second one is amazing [think before following links] https://barebackbastards.com/27096/cruel-condom-breeding/

"For me it’s the totality of each individual man that attracts [or not], so the size type of cock is part of the total package and I’ll adapt accordingly to the top." me too. Toys, in and of themselves (i.e., disconnected from their user) do little for me-they leave me wanting (the Top attached to it). i won't repeat your description of "depth" and the why's behind your "like;" for me, that sums it up nicely. The size and depth is connect to the intent of the Top for me. Is it His intent to mold and open my hole with progressively girthier penetration? i love Him. Is HIs desire and intent to effect me deeper? Oh fuck, i love Him. It's my Tops need/desire to effect me that gives the power to what He uses to accomplish that.

i want to clarify that i don't want to pretend some sort of moral supeirority here. The question is: "Is stealthing morally okay?" ErosWired commented: "I would like to believe they’re not all sociopaths, but rather, haven’t thought it through, or don’t realize that most of their peers here consider it an especially dick move. I’d like to think that such guys might be willing to rethink their stand on stealthing - and their intent to stealth in future - based on our community discussion here. " i think Eros is right. i confess there have been a few times (three that i can remember) where a guy has offered me his cock through a GH with a condom on it and i have purposely sucked it (something i would never do) just so i could try and bite a hole in the condom. my intent has never been to poz anyone (i'm undetectable). my sole intent was to get his cum inside of me. Even still, i've stopped doing that. i think it's wrong, a violation of his will. Instead, i just tell them i don't do condoms and if they refuse, that's their prerogative. i've decided i'd rather go without than to violate someone else will. It doesn't change me and what i like. i still want every guy to fuck me and inseminate me, but not at the cost of violating His will. And i think that's a good social standard. i don't have a chaser or gifted fetish, but i do understand having fetishes, i've got plenty of them. To me, "morality" draws a line at violating another persons wishes or volition. That can get murky in a world of D/s, but not impossibly so, so that's where i land on this. i love this group and love that we can have these discussions. i don't feel morally superior to anyone.

i get your feelings, but i don't think anyone can unequivicolly draw the conclusion that "these are not two people who want their consent to be respected." There's so much we don't know about this. E.g, was the Top poz and wanting to try and poz the bottom or did He just not want to wear a condom? The bottom put a condom on the Tops cock before offering his ass. There are lots of people who engage in anonymous glory hole sex for a variety of reasons, one is being DL. To me, the bottom putting a condom on the cock of the Top sent a pretty clear message that he wanted to be fucked through the GH by a Top with a condom on. i think it's naive, but i don't think the bottom is necessarily asking for his consent to be disrespected. It can be hard for some of us (me) who are experienced sluts to understand a shy guy who insists on condoms at a place like an ABS, or any place for that matter, but they do exist. i think what is generally in question here is whether it's moral to cum in a guy against his consent or expressed wishes. i'd say no. i think it's immoral to violate another persons volition no matter how 'stupid' one may think that person is. And really, isn't the primary point behind stealth (i,e., purposely trying to poz a bottom against their will) to lie and deceive the bottom? There are apparently plenty of bottoms willing to take raw loads no questions asked, it's not like open asses are in short supply. Stealthing as we're talking about it here is about purposeful deceit and harm.

There are lots of width toys out there from what i have seen, which has a hotness all it's own for me. i love the idea of a Top purposely opening my hole, especially subtly over time... one of my kinks lol. Admittedly, this is a different twist, seems really focused more on depth... and snakes have been around for some time, but what pushes my buttons with this is not just the length, but the more obvious goal of retention with the knot? The idea of a Top placing one deep inside me for training, then leaving it there is fucking hot to me.

i'm not much for using toys on myself, but this looks like an awesome type of butt plug for a Top to insert into His bottom. Damn, i love the mind fuck of such deep penetration and the idea that it looks sort of constructed like a plug where it could be worn long term of even with a chastity belt? Anyone have experience? i have snakes, but this is different. Also looking around, these are ridiculously over priced. [think before following links] https://www.squarepegtoys.com/shop/slink/

i think this is a rarely discussed point. If one wants HAART, having HIV makes one dependent on the/a healthcare system. i get patients in hospital who show up and have no med list and haven't been to a doctor in years, often decades. That's not going to be the case for someone with HIV getting treatment so it will not progress to AID's. HIV infected people getting treatment have to go for regular blood work and have to be around a pharmacy that provides the meds, with a mechanism in place to pay for it all. If you are dependent on government programs, you take what they provide, even if better options may be available, they're generally going for cheaper. You may have to work a job for the insurance to pay for meds. One cannot be foot lose and fancy free with HIV.

i don't have a poz fetish, the risk of disease and dying from AID's doesn't excite me. Fewer people are getting AID's because of the efficacy of HAART. As a result, we are discovering that HIV can effect other disease processes (e.g., heart disease, vascular disease, liver disease, kidney disease). The focus has been on AID's and the devastation of the immune system. i wish i could find newer research, but there's some good info in this article that identifies other health issues of HIV other than AID's.

love you and i don't think you're naive. i applaud your efforts and, between you and me, i let strangers push their penis into my asshole too.

i love your creativity. i have a hard time disengaging my mind and emotions from sex, and i love 'mind fuck.' my particular bottom/sub disposition is that a Tops piss is very similar to HIs cum, that He uses it to inseminate and impregnate. i look at Him inserting a catheter as another way He penetrates me and i see all sorts of ways a Top can penetrate His bottom, physically and psychologically. So i imagine Him doing the insertion and then purposely draining my urine and treating it as unimportant, because it's a bottoms urine and impotent (lol, i know, but i love the matter of fact attitude of it). His point of emptying me is to replace my urine with His piss, to puriposely penetrate me for inemination with His piss. my bladder is another receptical for Him and what comes from His body and my urethra is like a penis pussy for Him to penetrate/fuck. Of course, ideally i find a Top who just thinks this way and has these kinds of attitudes that come up with these sorts of ideas. Again, i don't imagine Him doing this in a mean way, but a lusty, almost need way, that He has to put Himself into a bottom boy where He belongs and a bottom is made for Him and His needs and wants, made to receive and hold Him.

Thanks for saying something about what bottoms go through for Tops in order to get clean. For me, it's worth it, but a lot of Tops are clueless when they contact a bottom and want instant access... takes time lol. This topic has been discussed a lot here, as well as Pure and chia seeds, we have discussed he hell out of clean out. A quick search will net you a ton of information 😉here's a couple to get you started:

This makes me think of cigarettes and how smoking was socially stigmatized. Stigmatization was a definite part of reducing the number of people who smoke. It's not a complete comparison, because smoking was glamorized and promoted in the media and the tobacco industry for decades. Smoking was a mainstream norm where stealthing remains a sub sub sub cultural practice. i imagine a group of guys who fantasize about stealthing, but would never do it because they do not deem it "morally okay." i think what we are left with are a very small group of guys who would stealth (i.e., purposely try and infect another with HIV without their knowledge or permission) regardless of the moral wrongness of what they are doing. i think there will always be sociopaths, so i don't think stealthing will ever "cease," though i think we can further reduce the practice? i don't think it's right or morally acceptable, and i accept the idea of stigmatizing the actual practice of stealthing (which is just calling it what it is). i do think it's unrealistic to expect we will ever be safe by controlling people who would ignore our right to choose. i'm grateful for PrEP and ART and glad i can make choices that can protect me against such people.

i just finished binge watching "Daybreak" on Netflix. What i saw is indeed a new series, not a 'movie"? i suspect there will be seasons to follow, google says so. I googled and see there was a 1993 movie, as you describe (haven't seen it), but i don't think this series is related or a remake. There is a gay couple, but i missed any reference to "becoming positive for love?" (not saying it wasn't there, but if it was, i missed it). It's a comedy-drama, satire, and the premise of the series is nuclear/biological warfare happens and all of the adults are altered, animals mutate and teens rule the world (well, Glendale CA anyway). It struck me as a sort of Lord of the Flies like in places. i confess i liked it, but at the same time have my ongoing concern that white guys in their 40's are doing most of the creating and producing, i.e., writing the scripts for everyone else-including teens. i continue to wonder how much modern media has effected social development? Kids watch this stuff and emulate attitudes, etc.. If kids wrote their own parts, they'd be different, as would womens parts, gays, people of color, etc., etc., etc.. i always check who the writers and producers are on stuff, it's amazing how much is middle aged white guys. Not saying "middle aged white guys" is bad, but it's curious to me how much is written and produced portraying everyone else without necessarily having their perspective. Now to contradict myself, there's some pretty fun social stances/norms being challenged in the series... i liked it.

For me, reality should always involve consent and the free exercise of volition of all parties concerned. i realize my "gray" areas do not provide permission to go against that standard. i don't think any one can or should decide what is or is not "harmful" for another person who has all their faculties about them. To me, "consent" is the submissive part of D/s. i don't think it's really D/s if something is just taken, it's just D without the s.

i would have had exactly the opposite response, i would have loved Him for it, but that is wholly irrational and i know it. i know that my desire is not universal, so neither can a Top assume it's okeedokee. It's an emotional response on my part because i associate a Mans piss as an inseminating part of Him, but that's individual and He has no way of knowing that without prior exchange. Part of me wants to feel that it's okay if it's not harmful, but i know that is not true because one Mans pleasure is another mans poison. i suspect that for me it's a desire to be known in some magical way that doesn't require communication... i.e., the Top 'knows' what i need without asking. i see this emotional response on both sides (Top and bottom), where a Top will sometimes say: "you know you want it." i think there is something in many of us that wants there to be that kind of perception, understanding, but it's magical thinking. i think the type of experimentation where the Top presumes to 'know' what the bottom needs is more reasonable in relationship vs anonymous encounters, where there is agreement ahead of time that such experimentation is wanted on both sides?

When we first started discussing this topic, i saw "stealthing" as a Top unloading in a bottom without their knowledge. i saw the intent was to breed, not infect. To me, the word didn't always mean "theft," but the more i think about it, it may? What is always 'taken' is the other persons knowledge? i think of the stealth aircraft that doesn't always drop bombs, but the intent is to occupy a space without being seen, so in a way, that takes a persons sense of seeing (and thus, knowing) from them? i agree with the conclusion: "...the theft of another person's right to refuse, and the possible theft of his health [is] wrong 100% of the time, in every circumstance." With acceptance of that conclusion, i had to examine and clarify some of my own disposition (which i would guess is similar to others). There is something in my emotional nature that wants a Top to 'use' me without asking my permission. i've had long held fantasies of a Top who i sleep with and any time He needs to cum or piss, He just slides inside of me, even if i'm asleep. But the truth is, that would always involve my permission, thus knowledge, so it's not theft... though it seems to have an element of 'stealth' to me. It's the element of stealth that pushes some button inside of me. i have another totally impractical fantasy about waking up to find a man has His hand inside of me. Of course, it would probably be impossible for Him to get there without waking me, but the idea of it is an ongoing fantasy. But when i consider those fantasies, they all really involve consent, just not consent at the time it happens. When i look at it, all my fantasies involve prior knowledge and consent, it's not rape (which the thought of has no emotional appeal to me) That all seems pretty clear cut. A gray area for me is when i do anonymous sex at ABS or sex club, etc.. i always hope that a Top won't just stop with breeding me, but will also piss inside of me. For me, that loses something if He has to ask ahead of time. Not everyone wants piss in their ass, so it's not as though permission is implied. Even though it's not rationally "gray," for me it is emotionally. There is an irrational assumption on my part that the Top is caring and has no malicious intent. So it's a fantasy on my part to think that i'll get what i want/need in an anonymous hook up that involves no real discussion. It's like a sort of roulette, hoping i will win, i expose myself to loss as well, but i expect that there will be no cheaters at the casino. Rambling.