tallslenderguy

^^THIS^^ Fast food may fill the void, but a gourmet meal is so much better. When there is a "connection" it takes things to a whole different level for me. For lack of a better way to explain it, it isn't so much age as maturity. Maturity is not always age related, though we associate the two instinctively it seems. i've noticed, especially with a lot of guys into D/s, there's some on both sides (i.e., D or s) who want an empty headed play thing or vice versa. To me the appeal of Top/bottom, D/s, is the psycological, the mental/emotional part of sex where the Top or D reaches into the bottom or sub and fucks and breeds that part of him. For me, that has an added dimension if it happens with a younger guy because it is not 'expected' that a younger guy is going to have that kind of experiential knowledge and ability. i was at a gay sex resort last year and a couple of young guys (they were together) were in a play room. The room was busy and i was by no means a standout fuck, there were plenty of good looking and younger guys there. One of these guys was watching another guy get fucked and was stroking his cock, so i went to suck him and he let me. It wasn't long before He wanted to fuck me and he turned me around and slid in. He got into being aggressive and was getting off on the public part of it. At one point, He pulled out and told me to suck Him and He got a thrill out of the fact that i did it after He'd been fucking me. He commented to the onlookers about how i would take it in the ass and suck my own juices off of Him in a mocking way. After a bit, he pulled out and went outdoors and was talking to a group of guys and his friend, telling them about me in mocking terms, telling them i wasn't much to look at and laughing. Then he and his friend came back in. i recognized his friend as a guy who had bred me earlier in a booth. They asked me to go to their room with them and i declined. Partly, i felt a red flag, like things could get abusive. But honestly, i was hurt by the things the one guy had said to his friends and the physical part (they were both hot) was not enough to capture me as a fuck. They lost me. The guy who had been mocking me was the one who made the invite. He was obviously disappointed and surprised by my refusal, and tried to change my mind. i don't know if he connected the reason why in his mind? Sex can be very complex, i know some guys reading this are going to be shocked and say i wasn't a "good" sub or bottom. i know some guys want that sort of thing and honestly, there is a sort of humiliation that can totally captivate me, but it always has affection/desire attached to it from the Top. I.e., if the Top is obviously loving me for being so sub even in a humiliating situation, i am His. If He can take me or leave me, the connection is not there and he has lost me. whoa, sorry, that went down a rabbit trail lol

First off, i think you are fucking gorgeous. Your combination of personality and looks is a total meltdown for me lol. For some reason, the darker a guys skin, the more i psycologically associate them with Top or Dom. No logic to it that i can discern, but Latino, black, tanned guys all impact me as more top while pale, hairless strikes me as bottom. It's totally a visual for me. Once personality enters in, any 'look' can be Top or bottom, personality trumps looks for me. Hairy is definitely a visual top for me, though i prefer less hairy guys generally speaking.

Great thread, i wonder if the survey results would be different if it were started today? Even in 9 years, it gets easier and easier to be openly gay, but not sure that would make a difference in those identifying as bi. i was married to a woman for 31 years, was a virgin when i married her when i was barely 21. i married a woman because of religious and cultural conditioning/beliefs. The way i came to see it was my conditioning and beliefs were like a prison and my wife was my prison romance (comparing to straight guys who go to prison and have a romantic tryst because that's all that is available). It's been a curiosity to me. We had plenty of sex and i never had any trouble getting it up for her or going down on her. i started cheating on her with guys 5 years into the marriage (i didn't like cheating, it was hurtful and torturous and not something i am proud of). She's the only woman i have ever been with vs prolly a thousand guys? When i divorced in 08, i thought i might be bi so i tried dating and considered poly. Was a great experience for me, met and dated some really great people. One woman had her PhD in women's studies and was a visiting professor from Germany (taught in the US). She had been lesbian most of her life and was a leader in the lesbian community in Germany. She woke up one day and decided she wanted to be with men. She told me that she'd probably be killed in Germany if the lesbian community found out, so she was practicing an interesting form of 'DL' lol. She wanted to have sex with me, but i just wasn't feeling it, even though i found her attractive. That helped me figure out i really am gay and not bi. i also dated a trans person (FtoM). That relationship was awesome, i learned so much about deeply imbedded notions of gender and masculinity/feminenity. When it came to sex (he was a top and used his hand to penetrate), again, it just didn't happen for me. Even though he identified as male, there was to much about him that felt female and i didn't feel sexual towards him. On the other hand, a top Tgirl can be a turn on for me, though i have never been with one. On the very rare occasion that i have topped, it has always been with smooth boy types. i more recently had a Victor/Victoria moment when a doctor i had a crush on at work was gone for awhile and came back to work changed from Stuart to Julie. To this day though, the only woman i have ever had sex with was my former wife.

ii love this... not so much the "papi" part. To me, it's better if the age difference remains unspoken, because it is so obvious? i think it's probably the all the stereotypes that this breaks that penetrates me so deeply? To me, a Tgirl who only wants to breed me or have me service her cock is mind blowingly HOT. There is something in most of us (i think?) that associates "Tgirl" or "fem" with "bottom" or "sub," so for a fem guy or Tgirl to only want me to service their cock or breed me is a HUGE affirmation of me being a bottom/sub. And i love the 'humility' of them demonstrating that i am a pussies pussy? What makes this even hotter is that to anyone observing, on the surface it would look like the opposite is going on. i'm not fem, people cannot tell i am gay, let alone a bottom who loves a Top who needs/wants to impregnate me. Onlookers would all think: "oh, he's the top/dom in that relationship," when the opposite is true.

There is a decided mind fuck side to this question for me. Fucking for me is so much more than the physical act... at least, i want it to be. i'll 'simply' hook if that's all there is, but fucking is so much better when the rest of the couple is engaged (not just their bodies). First off, i have never liked the label "daddy." i know it has different meanings for individuals, for me it by passes who i am and is sort of ageist. I.e: ' once you get past a certain age, you're a "daddy."' To me, even the supposed positive connotation has "dom" or "top" attached to it, so i feel lost, invisible, when it's used. The term son has similar issues for me on the reverse side. I.e., the "son" becomes an idea instead of who he is and it still can be a sort of ageism to me. Roles of "dad" or "son" apart, i have experienced some awesome connection with some younger Tops. i had a fb who was more than half my age and He bred me regularly until i converted 3 years ago. That really scared Him, but He was very appreciative when i told Him. He got tested and was relieved to find out He was neg. When He was breeding me though, the dynamic was awesome. He had a maturity that blew me away and exposed age bias in me. He knew how to breed my mind and feelings and He loved the power of being a Top and knowing how to do that. There is an added element of mind fuck for me for a younger guy loving to fuck and breed an older guy emotionally and mentally. i think it's because there is a culturally unexpected connect there for both parties. i see need and desire in both Dom and sub, Top and bottom. i know a lot on both sides shy away from words like "need" when it comes to a "Dom" or "Top," because i think many associate "need" with weakness. i don't. Needing to eat or drink or breed is not a weakness, it's a natural necessity. bottoms are plentiful. Anyone who wants to breed can find and use a bottoms hole pretty easily. But getting inside of a bottoms head and emotions is a whole different level. A Top who is strong enough to not be afraid of His own desire and need ends up owning a piece of me beyond my hole. A younger guy who does that has an added dimension because it really shatters the social mental/emotional stereotype for me. There's a deeper level of, idk, power play 'humiliation?' when a younger guy locks and owns me.

i'm bringing the top back to the bottom in an attempt to make it the top again. This topic was started by a black man telling us the way the term "BBC" makes him feel. As a white guy, i cannot relate. i can use my experiences as a gay guy growing up in a conservative religious culture to help me understand what it means to be a part of an often despised minority, but i will never relate to what it means to be black. The best i can do is listen and try and learn from those who are in that position. To me, it is not a question of exercising a "right" or "freedom of speech" for me to try and argue against the way i think a black person should feel about the term BBC, it's delusional. Really? i think gay people should really have a leg up on understanding this ethnocentric phenomena. As a gay person, haven't you ever had straight people assume you are just being 'pc' or 'oversensitive' by something blind and inexperienced that they have said? How about calling your being gay a "lifestyle" and implying your orientation is something you have chosen? i don't think most are purposely racist, but i do see that a lot of racism is culturally and subconsciously engrained (vs a conscious decision to be overtly racist). i believe that hiddenness and denial sustains it. DrrAid has articulately and graciously exposed one such 'ism' and simply made a plea for stopping its use.

Taking cock. At some point, my hole stopped looking like a puckered ass hole and now looks more like a pussy slit. i've had a few Tops, one in particular, who made it their goal to remodel it into that. i love Him/Them for that. Seriously, it really evokes a feeling of warm affection in me and an ongoing connectedness to them, even after they are gone. i see that feeling as part of the 'sub' nature in me, where in a sense, i'm the clay part of the art project, the Top is the artist who molds and shapes the clay. That may sound hokey to some, but it's how i feel. i've mentioned in other threads that i have a drawer full of toys that i almost never use. i bought them in the heat of the moment, but cannot usually bring myself to use them on my self. For me, using my hole instead of a Top using it just doesn't cut it. i do love it when a Top uses toys, or anything, to penetrate me... but only when i feel He has a connection to what He is using. For me, the point is being penetrated by a Top, not just being penetrated. i like that my hole is a reflection of the Tops who have formed it into what it is today.

"Do you think about the connection between bareback see and being poz?" No. i don't think about the connection between going to the grocery store and getting the flu either. i get no thrill out of being ill, but the threat of illness doesn't keep me from getting groceries or connecting with another person sexually.

i used to be turned off by effeminate guys, but then found "she-males" who are total tops and that reorganized my mind lol. For me it came down to undoing some bias and centricity on my part. Now the thing that will turn me off with a guy is a contrived or disingenuous demeanor. If i perceive a guy is being true to himself, it evokes affection and love from me, even if not sexual desire. The best fucking for me is where we are "tapping into" each others desire/need. In my mind, the Tops need to breed, to have a receptacle for His seed, is no less than the bottoms need to be bred and be that receptacle. For me where it becomes "best" is when the 'breed' reaches a psychological level in both of us, when it is not just a physical part of Himself that is left inside of me, but an almost spiritual part of Himself. Several posts on this thread are hitting it with me with why terms like "pussy" are so evocative for me, and i suspect many of us. Both FaceLoad and Sunofabesh hit the mark for me when they described the sexualization that those terms gives to body parts that are traditionally associated with digestion lol. i suspect that's why they are such powerful terms for me on an evocative level, they actually ellicit receptivity in me. The sounds i make have run the gamut. i used to try and make sounds i thought my Top might like, but that didn't last long. Anymore, it's just whatever comes out lol. i have no typically feminine manners, i have to come out in order for people to know i am gay. i have been embarrassed on more than one occasion by the squeaks or squeals that have come out of me, even stifled them. Was with a guy on Sunday who had a long enough cock that he would hit the curve and it was thick too. He was aggressive and trying to wreck my hole and He got me writhing and squirming, biting and grabbing my matress. At one point i clenched my teeth and growled . Wtf, where did that come from?

me too... and my "cringe" extends to terms like "manpussy" or "mancunt." That communicates ambivalence to me from the top, like he's not sure about who he is and what he is doing. "boypussy" or "boycunt" works because of the man/boy distinction. This hits on the reasons those terms effect me. For me, they are like a button and that evokes something psychological in me, like i become the invocation. It is indeed the sexualization aspect. The truth for me is my hole is much more of a sex organ than anything else, so i suspect part of the power of calling it a "pussy" or "cunt" is that it's just more accurate and affirming. i'm psychologically responsive to those terms no matter how they are delivered, but the most powerful for me is when my Top is simply matter of fact about it. He doesn't have to reinforce His term with forceful attitude or command. Tops need to breed, bottoms need to be bred. All a Top has to say to me is "I need to breed" and i am automatically His pussy. i love the mind fuck aspect of Him knowing that and using it. Faceload wrote: "Yes, "cunt" can be just its function, and avoiding the association with digestion is welcome. " Funny trick of nature that everyones sexual organ also serves as a waste removal system for the body. A woman's vagina is no exception with her monthly period. You never hear anyone refer to a womans vagina as a "blood hole" though.

i sometimes reverse the fundamentalist Christian notion and quip: "being gay saved me from "God." Though i know some Christians (and Webster) want to take sole possession of the term "Fundamentalist," two towers should demonstrate others possess similar surety. Heck, i've met atheists i would call "fundamentalist." One of my take aways from fundamentalist Christianity is the (almost) aversion to the absolutism that undergirds it. The only thing it seems i know for sure is that i can be wrong. That has "enhanced [my] philosophical capacity" (a lot lol). Funny story i think you'll appreciate. While i was still religious, i sought every cure or remedy from being gay. i wrote several Christian leaders thinking they might have the answer/s, and never heard back from one of them. At one point, i emailed Noam Chomsky (not about being gay), and he wrote back. Quickly, and every time. One of the religious notions i grew up with was that only Christians have the ability for 'good' (the reasoning is "good comes from God and nothing good comes from people...). The thing that floored me was how kind Noam was to me, a complete stranger. He was kind, patient, honest, vulnerable and connected with me in spite of my being obnoxious with my beliefs. How he was helped me see through my false ideas, he indirectly helped me see and accept reality. In that vein: "about Crossley." "The gay man's psyche" strikes me as a fundamentalist sort of thing to say. Or, at least, a fundamentalist way of saying it. You note: "many theoreticians see 'UAI' as 'reactance' or kind of reactionary resistance to decades of prevention campaign messages, which are aimed at kind of prototype of 'the healthy/normal, non-pathological gay man')." i wonder, how many gay men ever thought to use condoms before HIV? Did the term "bareback" exist prior to HIV? As a kid, when i realized i am sexually attracted to males, i went to my friends for input. Books were my "friends," so i went to the library. Theoreticians didn't vote to remove homosexuality as a "disorder" (from the DSM) until 1973. It wasn't completely removed, as a "sexual orientation disturbance," until 1987. All the 'medical' input i got told me (us) i was sick. Theoreticians are a work in progress, eh? It was processing through my religious background (i was even asked to pastor a church at one point, eek lol) that ended up giving me perspective. Fundamentalists equate their beliefs with "GOD." i went over all the isms (shackles) endlessly, exhausitvely, trying to conform. Once outside it all seems ludicrous, but it seems real on the inside. i think the added dimension of 'God' makes it one of the strongest ethnocentricites around. "God" excuses/explaines a multitude of questions. A result though is a huge sensitivity. i often see things in mainstream culture that appear to have roots in religious culture. Consequently, i wonder how much of research in heath and forensic science is influenced ('confounded') by deep rooted notions.

i've read many posts on BZ (and elsewhere) from bottoms who want to be whored out, so am not surprised that the majority of responses here are from bottoms. For me this dynamic is as much about control as it is about the physical act of getting fucked. Like a few others, when this kind of connection is involved, for me it needs something to make it more personal to work? Idk, because you did seem to make it more than just hooking your bottom up (i.e., Tops sent you pics, etc.). For me this feels a little like cyber sex. It throws me, because it does involve real sex, but part of it is still 'virtual' for me. For me, a big part of the appeal of being whored out is experiencing the enjoyment of the Top who is doing the whoring, not just the Tops breeding me. For me, those Tops are an extension of Him, sort of like their toys He is using to enjoy His (my) hole. From what you say, this is not ideal for you either, but a substitute for the real thing when you are in a "remote" area.

The notion of easing into group sex seems a contradiction in terms, eh? But i do get it. Your internal slut wants it, your reason has a bunch of "what if" questions. Ditto the advice on prep with clean out and lube. A way you can "ease in" would be to not put yourself in a situation where you lose control. E.g., don't get tied to a fuck bench. If you are at a sauna, say in a dark room, you can simply get up and leave any time you need a break or are through. The sauna/sex clubs i go to have private rooms available as well as just lockers. Getting a room gives you a place to go to if you want to take a break, but aren't ready to leave. Also, keep in mind that things may go the other way for you. I.e., you may not get as much as you want. This isn't as big a deal in larger cities, but i am in a medium sized city. There are times i have been to the sauna and gotten as many cocks as i could take, other times the same sauna is dead and i am begging for it. i see in other posts that you seem aware of this, but i'd choose a place where you know there are plenty of guys wanting ass if that's available to you.

i can't answer that either, so i posed it as a question instead of a statement, i want to be careful to qualify my assertions are often just personal feelings, perceptions vs facts. [laughing at self], i came out of a fundamentalist background, as part of my 'coming out' i tend to eschew absolutes universally. Thank you for saying so. Kindness is important to me, i want to practice kindness. i see stealthing as fringe too. i don't know "Crorssley," but words like "healed" evoke memories of 'reparative therapy' in me (an effect of her unintentional homophobia?). Imagine straight culture treating condomless sex (barefronting?) as a "nasty cancer to be eliminated from an otherwise healthy body of [straights]." Condomeless sex spreads disease, and has always spread disease, in straight culture, it also has the unique potential (to straights) of making unwanted babies. i'm guessing, but confidently, that gay culture didn't invent "stealthing," that it existed long before HIV was around. i may misunderstand you, but i do not consider barebacking to be "compelled...by pathological narratives in gay culture" (perhaps you meant stealthing?). If anything, it seems opposite to me. I.e., the compulsion to wear condoms is (often) compelled by pathological narratives internalized by gay culture from straight. While i can see an argument to be made for condomes in both gay and straight culture, in either instance they seem 'unnatural' to me. Condomes strike me as a compromise of nature that our human reason has come up with to survive or avoid certain consequences (i.e., babies, disease). "Biological (genetic) and personality factors are just as important in sexuality as cultural ones." It sure seems that way to me, maybe even more so than it would to the 'average' gay? i came out of an era and culture that taught me that being gay is "sick and/or sinful." i had to process through (old) medical and religious notions. In the end, it was my one man study that 'proved' to me (i don't present my experience as evidence for anyone else) that my sexuality is, in large part, intrinsic. For me, the pathological narratives came from straight and religious culture. "Hurting someone in your fantasy is not quite the same as doing it in real life. Declaring otherwise can have nasty effects. Poz gay men are stigmatized within the gay community and poz barebackers are stigmatized even within the poz gay community." i so agree with this. Having come from a conservative religious culture. i may be super sensitized to, what often seems to me to be, internalized stuff by mainstream culture from patriarchal religious culture. In fundamentalist Christian culture it is purported that Jesus taught (paraphrasing): 'if you think it in your heart, it is the same as having done it.' The reference was to "adultery." I.e., if one 'commits' adultery in ones heart, it's the equivalent to having done it. i think this notion has infected a lot of mainstream culture and a lot of people unconsciously feel this way. i see a whole lot of difference between thinking murderous thoughts against the person who just cut me off in traffic and a drive by shooting.

Ditto toys and training plugs. Something else i haven't seen mentioned is a speculum. mileage. yeah. i know a lot of guys here insist that they've taken fists and millions of cocks and their hole still returns to its original size (okay, i'm exaggerating). i've have prolly close to a couple of thousand guys. i've had fb's who loved to purposely open and gape my hole (and i loved their lust). For me, my hole reached a place where it is permanently changed. Nowadays i think of it as much more receptive than retentive. i have a hell of a lot more control over my inner muscles, used for milking and squeezing cock, but the opening? It's changed. It even looks different, not quiet, but more of a slit than a pucker. Honestly, i love that. i love seeing the Tops i have been with reflected in my body, makes me feel like there is a permanent connection to them.

It seems that way to me. People like Jeffrey Dahmer come to mind. i want to think that even people like him could be helped if we had the understanding and means to reach them, that they're just beyond our grasp? But yeah, they do exist, no doubt. i can barely wrap my brain around S/m, let alone my emotions. i was bullied a lot as a kid, pretty obviously had 'sub' in my nature even as a kid. my response was to learn martial arts, second degree black belt. i came close to back kicking a guy through a wall once when he got rough with me in a way where i felt threatened, bet he would have been surprised lol. i often steer clear of using terms like D/s in profiles because they are so often coupled with S/m in peoples minds. For me they are distinct and i never purposely try to establish anything with someone identifying with ,or wanting, S/m. Ultimately, it seems to me that a person who feels they have to sneak or steal must feel powerless or inadequate to get what they need legitimately?

Damn, i enjoy your posts, the thought and consideration you put into them and how well you articulate. i have a disposition, maybe a flaw?, where i almost refuse to see anyone as unredeemable. It's hard for me to think of anyone as purely evil (not saying you are inferring "purely evil," i am... and that is admittedly emotional, not necessarily rational on my part). So, it's probably my way of offering that type of stealther an out to say they are "looking for a relationship...." Not activly "looking," eh? lol. i tend to see most "evil" as inadvertent and a result of immaturity vs malicious intent. i know, i could be wrong though. It's just hard for me to imagine a person who is willingly malicious without them having some sort of wound themselves? i see the "advantage over another" that is achieved in such acts as illusionary. On the other hand, there are guys like me who want to be "marked" by another guy, but it is very different in that my offer of myself is a gift given, like a canvas for a creative top to 'mark', paint on. For me, that can speak of a deep (mutual) bond, not abuse. It's an expression of yin/yang. In that vein, to me, the guy who "stealths" (in the way we are speaking), lacks the insight and skill of maturity to get what he really needs, which is the 'yin' to his 'yang,' so he just ignorantly tries to create a facsimile rather than going about it the 'right' way.

i agree. i really cannot see a difference either.

my understanding of "stealthing" is that it (simply?) means removing a condom without the partners knowledge/consent? (i googled it to confirm lol). i think that meaning has been extended my many as an intent from poz tops to poz their bottom. i'd call that "stealth pozzing" vs just stealthing? i've applied the same logic to pissing, and have been what i call "stealth pissed" by some tops who didn't ask, just did it. i originally agreed with find91, but this made me reconsider. In part, i still agree that avoiding anonymous cock probably affords a measure of protection. To me, grindr and hookup still constitute "anonymous," but that's just my interpretation. i've had long term FB's that i still think of as anonymous because our only relationship is hookup sex. The truth is, there are guys who get pozzed by long term partners in so called 'monogamous' relationships. The notion of "protection" is a matter of degree, never really an absolute. Even condom sex is more accurately "safer sex," not absolutely "safe sex." In 2019, the safest sex (by evidence) is with someone on meds, either PreP or HIV suppressed if poz. Things have changed.

Interesting to see where this conversation has gone in two years. i never was a chaser or had the desire to be pozzed. i found out i was poz when i was getting tested to go on PreP. i'm pretty sure i know the guy who pozzed me and he lied about being poz. It doesn't matter to me. i don't 'blame' him, i invited him to my house to fuck me on many occasions. i never wanted to be pozzed, but i always wanted all of the guy fucking me. Condoms offend me pschologically more than physically, but that's me. i don't want to transfer my psychological make up onto anyone else or presume they are like me. my psychology does not dictate social morality. Two years later, i still think it is morally wrong to try and seed someone against their knowledge or desire. To me, the most immoral thing a person can do is vilolate another persons volition. 'Alpha' or not, unless You were raised by and live in a pack of canines, social norms are not going to recognize Your desire to do whatever You please. There are definitely sub cultures that will though, and as long as You move in those circles, yYou're probably ok. The thing that differentiates us (people) from animals or objects, is the ability to reason. i know. There are those who wish to be "slaves," some who wish to be seen as "objects." They key is, it is their wish. Treating those as such is not a violation of their will, it's affirmation of their desire. This is where this stuff all gets tricky by my estimation. The Guys i know who identify as "Alpha" (gay) Males really don't fuck just any guy, they fuck the ones presenting as bottoms. The consent to penetrate is there. Where it gets tricky for me is how many, both tops and bottoms, are conflicted about BB sex. How many on both sides purposely BB despite their profile saying "safe only," for instance. Still, if i guy tells me condom only, i will do everything i can to convince him otherwise, but i wouldn't deem it okay to violate his will and 'stealth' him, and cannot imagine ever doing that as a top. As a bottom though, i have had a few who sheathed through a GH at an ABS and have sucked them just so i could bite a hole in the condom. i've done that, but still think it's wrong. my personal wiring as a bottom is such that i end up loving a guy who does certain things with me without asking permission. i've had several Tops piss in me without asking and the effect is i love them for it. But that is different, because it is not a violation of my will, it is an understanding of it without them having to ask. One of the things i love about D/s dynamic is the implied consent incumbent in such a relationship. Going full circle, i think that is really what stealthers are looking for, a relationship where they can act without having to ask permission.

i post this info occasionally when this topic comes up. If you're eating the typical western diet, you don't get enough fiber. The short version is, fiber is not digested by us, but it does feed bacteria the colonizes our large intestine. There are two types of gut flora, one results from eating a carnivorous diet, the other plant based. As and example, cultures that eat primarily plant based diets do not have diverticulitis. i advocate for as much of a whole food plant based diet as you are willing, total is the healthiest. Avoid laxatives and chemical enemas, they are not going to facilitate fucking health for the long term. There are two types of fiber, each beneficial in their own way: soluble and insoluble. Grains like oatmeal and legumes (beans) are soluble, fruit and veggies insoluble. Soluble absorbs water, insoluble doesn't. Soluble fiber absorbs water and expands making what comes out more bulky (bigger), and usually more formed, thus the experience of of easier clean out with many using fiber supplements like "Pure." Fibers from whole plant foods have the added benefit of making/maintaining a healthy bacterial gut biome, something that i think makes sense for us bottoms to pay attention to given the stuff we are taking in from the other end. i have tried Pure for Men, it definitely bulks me up, but i cannot discern that it makes clean out any easier or quicker for me. i suspect that may just be me though, my colon seems to absorb less water than it used to? Or i drink more water? i know my colon has changed over the years. When i was younger and less informed, i used lotion for lube. Read the label: "not intended for internal use." Ever suck a cock on a guy whose been stroking his cock with lotion? Gives you one hell of a sore throat. Our rectums are just the other end of the same system. We take cocks and toys and fists and cum and piss etc., etc., and endless water to clean us out... that's going to have an effect on our colon. We are putting stuff in both ends, so what applies to the general population won't necessarily apply to us. We have about 25-29 feet of intestine (varies from person to person). Most of that is small intestine, about 5-6 feet of that is large intestine, the colon. i wouldn't recommend a usual practice of chemical cleaning (i.e., laxatives) as they effect the entire 25 feet. When we are prepping someone for colonoscopy (i'm a critical care nurse), the patient is typically NPO (nothing by mouth except clear liquid) for about 12 hours before the procedure. The rectum (aka our "fuck hole") is about 5 to 8 inches (again, varies from person to person), so if that is all you clean and all you are taking is the 'average' cock, just douching there can suffice. Also, the rectum size can be misleading... it stretches ( i've seen figures from 12-20 inches). i think a "rectal douche" is just that, i.e., a "douche" and not a clean out. It will likely work soon before penetration, but it likely won't work if you are heading for a 12 hour fuck spree, depending on what else is in the colon and how far it has progressed towards the rectum. Parastalsis is a never ending phenomena (i.e., the intestines are in constant motion always moving stuff out). i suspect where many of us get into trouble during clean out is when we go beyond the rectum into the sigmoid (beyond the "rectosigmoid junction"). And i don't see any way around that if you are trying to prep for more than a quickie. Google a pic and you'll see that after the recutum the sigmoid forms a sort of bowl, you can see how when you are vertical, the sigmoid is situated to hold onto stuff. When we give patients an enema, we have them lie on their left side, right knee bent. After the rectum, comes the sigmoid and that takes a turn to the left (your left). Logically, if you want to empty the sigmoid, lying on your right would direct contents towards the rectum, but most of us are standing in a shower or sitting on a toilet as part of our clean out process. Bottoms are brilliant and innovative though, so most of us have figured out that if we lie down and do our clean out in stages, more comes out. Then there the super long dildo trick to get around that curve and release trapped water... and stuff lol. sigh.

i think it's hot to watch, but i can't get into it. Same with toys. i have a drawer full (really) that i bought in the heat of the moment, but rarely use. The only thing i can figure is sex is so much more for me than the physical sensation, it's the connection with another guy. i just can't get off on topping myself. on the other hand, i suspect i'd suck myself off if i could lol.

curiously, i have had FB's flake on me too. An anonymous hookup is easier for me to rationalize as a closeted guy who chickens out last minute or who just gets off on the talk. A guys who's hooked with me on several occasions really has no excuse, it just simply inconsiderate self absorbed asshatery. It takes 10 seconds to send a text saying "sorry, can't make it." It's especially immature when they are the one that contacts me and asks for the hook up, then flake. i think the buffer of cyberspace makes it easier for guys to be jerks

Flakes were pretty much non-existent prior to internet 'hook-up' sites. i lived in Virgina Beach/Norfolk (coincidently the largest Naval base in the world ? ) There were a couple of parks that i never left without hooking. And rest rooms? Damn, there were several where i could get fucked all day. Of course, there was vice cops to worry about, sex was easy, plentiful and instant. That was during the 80's and 90's. Those same places are still there, but cruising just doesn't happen there anymore.

my permutation would pivot on the thought that i believe many of our notions of love come from heteronormative culture. i think that's changing, but i think we all have internalized cultural notions of love that may not nurture our nature. i see gay guys who have coupled in open relationships, and that makes sense to me. It just doesn't seem reasonable to me that one person can be ones 'everything.' i think a lot of couples split because they unreasonably expect their partner to be someone they are not. It's a popular notion to equate 'love' with compromise. i think love is the opposite, that it accepts a person for who they are, not: "hey, i compromised and did this for you, if you 'love' me you would do ___________ for me. i think that is quid pro quo, not love. To me, the relationships that have the best chance of being 'good' are those where there is chemistry. I.e., (way over simplification) Top with bottom. Or maybe something that isn't sex, just other good chemistry where each compliments the other. Having said that, i fell head over heels for a Dom guy once, and a lot of it seemed pretty magical, so what do i know? lol