gwmxyz

For some reason she was convinced this profile on gaydar was me.  I kept telling her she would be scaring the hell out of some complete innocent ("Helllo, it's your wife here...)

So hot - nothing better

On 4/1/2021 at 7:21 AM, Ding said:

Dont worry Pornhub is an Empire xvideos xhamster redtube youporn and so on is all from pornhub. So he removed this tape also from other sides. The dude behind pornhub make many sites and try to makenpornhub more official (more buissnesslike)

Somehow official and businesslike doesn't turn me on.   To remove as X-Tube did everything, without warning because it wasn't paid for porn seems daft.   I'd have thought fucking for money was a far higher risk area than doing it for pleasure.  Blackmail's never hugely worried me.  In fact a guy where I worked got into hot water once for taking clients to a strip club where he boasted that things went a lot further with the girls in some other city.  Embarrassing as it might have been, there was also a client who gave him some new business.  "I didn't know you had an office in that city until I read the strip club story" says the client. 

That I was half my age and a girl - I didn't mind being runner up, I just wasn't sure I was very well cast in the role.  Age, stubble and physique made it seem improbable to me.  Only the most desperate would-be Jeffrey Epstein even think of asking.  However, that's who he was, so I went for it.  Just the odd moaned "yes" when I was asked what I was.   

Or bizarrely, that I had been fucked - to a guy who got turned on by the idea and was absolutely sure.  At first I tried pointing out the dull reality, then I said it must have been in my sleep and then I just agreed with whatever it was he was sure had happened.  

On 3/14/2021 at 7:26 PM, Phallarchist said:

There's no contradiction. You have a right to enjoy being violated and otherwise choose how you react.

I agree.  It's what makes this thread more uplifting than you'd expect. Being slightly pedantic, you can "want it" but still be raped -  for the same reason a burglar who steals things you were planning to throw out still commits theft.

Best of all is the idea there might be rapes where intentions were to cause distress and pain but it was actually enjoyed. Talk about backfiring - and unlike the burglary, it clearly does actually happen sometimes.

(btw coincidentally going back to my earlier comment about jury service, one of my regulars told me after he fucked me bb that he's been selected for jury service (actually he asked me to guess what letter he had got from the court ). Either that or it's a sign ...

No - stereotypes and - it must be said - my bf's manner (especially when he's on good behaviour mode) I'm sure means they assume I'm a top.
It doesn't bother me what they think.  I find it quite funny seeing how they stereotype and think they assume they know.
One of the stranger ones I saw recently on bottom shaming was the wife of Lord Lucan (the one he tried to murder but got the wrong person and killed the nanny instead).  She was clearly never the happiest of people  and - stating the obvious - it was not the happiest of marriages.  Interviewed shortly before her death 40 or so years later, the claws were still astonishingly sharp.  Saying she Lord L was gay was a fairly low level insult - a bit like saying he tended to stay out late and lose money at poker.  Saying he killed the nanny (and would have killed her if she hadn't tricked him) was medium level hatred.  When she felt like really putting the boot in she elaborated and shared the detail that she thought he was bottom.  In her view this was obviously the most shameful thing - and she seemed the sort who would know what to say to cause the pain/shame/embarrassment.  

I'd have thought bumping off a perfectly innocent woman, gambling away all your cash, wasting your life etc etc were far worse but she struck me as a world-class in shaming and paining.  Whether it was true is anyone's guess.  They didn't strike me as the sort of couple who would discuss these things.  For all I know she saw the moustache and knew how we love our stereotypes.

On 2/25/2021 at 11:42 PM, PigBoyDallas said:

No hoods or blindfolds ever. I have issues with giving up control and I'm not about to agree to that. Same with cuffs, restraints, and stuff like that.

That's the whole point, isn't it?  It's why those who like it do.  There was this time recently in China where a top got another top around to fuck me.  Only he turned out to want to chat more than to fuck. I didn't mind - these things happen but the first top was ready to kill him.  A hood might have helped.  When you see someone in a hood, you're more inclined to see the fucking opportunities than the conversational ones.

A good horseman, the late Brig Sir Gregor MacGregor of MacGregor  was once passing in front of the band when his horse noisily farted.

‘Sorry about that, Brigade of Drums’ he called out.

‘That’s all right’ a piper retorted ‘ we thought it was the horse. 
The only problem I can see with this idea is that most people wouldn't take it as an insult when people fart.  They would just think the top farted.
 

No.  Make as little as noise as possible and let them watch straight porn till they cum in yr ass.  At least that's what works around here...

I get a bit worried when I'm also the alibi ...ie he says "I'm just here with [my friend you've never heard of'. Or  "he's here - say hi"..but that's just probably me being paranoid. 

I was so anti-gay at my (all-boys boarding school) ... one of the 10% or so that's definitely straight...  

4 hours ago, MichiganBottom82 said:

 

Also, insects and octopus porn? Guess I'm more sheltered than I thought!

I think it was just that the Pornhub rulebook was a little overenthusiastic in its definitions - and so made sure it defined "bestiality" to include fish and insects (not just what you might think of as "beasts").  So the NYT journalist tried to suggest it was a den of depravity for that reason. Not because anyone actually had.  

On 12/10/2020 at 4:50 AM, 11bi11guy said:

as he clearly has no niche sexual interests that have been over-regulated by Puritan moralists: he is a prude, and an ignorant one at that.

I think your are being too kind.  What's his problem with numbers?  I think we can probably agree that "most" videos on PornHub don't show any rape/child porn/age of consent issues. To say "probably" seems at best over-cautious and at worst downright deceptive.  Try it. Search "fuck" and see how many of each you see.

Secondly, I'm sorry but suggesting that Weinstein, Epstein and Cosby are relevant because the issue is consent is the most absurd straw man (or 3 ever).  Consent is not the issue.  Nobody is saying rape is ok - and if the guy thinks we need those three bogeymen to tell us rape is bad, then he thinks we are very stupid indeed.  It looks to me like bring in the bad guys and blame it on Pornhub.

Back to the numbers - so the guy tells how many responses one gets to a text search.  980million why?  I bet a search on Is the New York Times turning into the Daily Mail in competition for the daftest scare story? It would get quite a few answers too.

Why doesn't he actually tell us the number he clearly knows?  He has spoken to one of their review people.  Isn't the first question - ok, so how big a problem is this?  How many videos a day?   And in which category?  I don't buy the "the issue is consent" stuff at all. If anyone can't tell the difference between (a) the actual rape of an eight year old child and (b) consensual age of consent issues as they relate to 17 to 22 year olds they are on a different planet from me.  

The guy is happy to tell us that most fall into the latter category - but unless he tells us whether that's most of 3 or most of 3000, it's all pretty meaningless.

The issue, incidentally, at least to me isn't whether you're allowed to rape people or whether you need the three bad guys names to help you with that.   It is whether the sex lives of hundreds of law abiding, grown ups, many of whose sex-turn-ons may not be super mainstream should be curtailed significantly at the behest of a guy who can tell us that most of it isn't child rape but refuses point blank to say how big a problem these bad rape type videos are.  Call me cynical but I don't think it's because it's so enormous.  

Or, more accurately, the three numbers.  (1) rape (2) serious underage - eight year olds and (3) willing consensual sex with women between 17 and 22.    The article doesn't tell us any of them but I think we can work out which crops up the most.  

Then we get the octopus porn concern.   I'm not going to waste much time on this.  Point is simple.  If you were really worried eight years olds were being raped for PornHub you would not make a silly point about a definitions section in a rulebook.  It looks like there may not actually be any octopus porn at all.  But we know if anyone's tempted it's not allowed.   Ditto insect sex - sorry guys.

Although actually maybe the insects and the octopus should be feeling sorry for us.  Guess what three letter word isn't mentioned once (unless you count half of a name of one website given in a list).

Having some familiarity with lawyers' BS I could see that all the old favourites were there.  So much so that  I "contemplated suicide".  Decided not to as it happens.   It was a life changing decision too....

Sorry I could rant about this for a very long time.  I'm afraid the one that sinks most in my estimation is the NYT. I thought it was one the few really top-notch papers left.  Turns out it the Daily Mail with octopus porn.  Bit sad about that.

I love questions like this.  Wow - you think I've got standards and the answer isn't just always yes.

So look serious, remind yourself what theirs is - and that's a good answer, I say. Obviously don't overdo it - that way you look slightly less stupid when someone says "that's funny, he said the opposite to me"

I don't care about cock size either.  As long as it can reach in and cums, I'm happy.

I don't mind - or maybe a bit more accurately -  so what if I did? 

I'm not going to say, "sorry, time's up".  They know that.  I know that. So they can take as much or as little time as they like. 

Looking at the metaphorical clock is never going to help - surely everyone can see that? 

For me the problem with filming is that you can either film or fuck.  Trying to do both is super tricky.  The best is obviously getting someone else to film and the next best setting it up so it's not a distraction (without the video looking too terrible and far away) Even then some can ignore it others can't. My problem is that the ones who are turned on by it more than they are scared are also the ones who can't resist seeing the video's looking.  It does work sometimes though.

I remember I was so clueless at the equivalent time that I thought it would be a problem that I didn't have any bb experience.  So I thought, maybe if I post on Craigslist and am upfront about it, then I'll find one who doesn't mind too much. i realised fairly quickly that it wasn't going to be the problem I had thought.
I was a still a quivering wreck - until he started fucking me at which point it suddenly felt good.    Only to go back to being a bit of a quivering wreck after he had pulled out.
I've never once regretted anything other perhaps that it had taken me until I was 35 before I worked out what I liked.  
I also think that "risks" are completely different for topping than bottoming.  
A guy I know has fucked pretty much anything that moves for years (in fact probably more like decades) and always bb.  Yet never gets poz. He's had a couple of long term bfs in that time. Same story.  They are, he is not.  
But what I do know he never bottoms - and by never, I mean never.  I know because I know he gets turned on by the idea, so being thoughtful and polite like I am I give it a try from time to time to see how far I get.The answer is always the same - nowhere. I've got a small cock,  I'm aware of the problem so its as soft, slow and gradual as it can be without actually falling asleep (me that is, I can't be vouch for him).   His body just gives him a pain reaction at a particular point and that's it. 
I'd be amazed if his physical inabity to bottom and his miraculous resistance to HIV weren't two sides of the same coin. 
I'm not saying you can't get it from either.  I just think, there is a massive difference in the risks - and even though everyone knows that, the figures probably slightly overstate top risk and understate bottom slightly  - just because some tops say never when they mean is "well almost never".  I can't see many bottoms being as sheepish about admitting they did a bit of ineffectual topping sometimes.

I'm amazed that the tops are patient and wait the 2-3 hours.  Around these parts you'd have missed your chance.  So a bit cynically, I think it might not be perfect, but if I waited until it was, I'd never get fucked at all

Also, I guess our bodies are all a bit different.  Saline and the like has never bothered me at all.  I can mix my own if I'm being too lazy to buy the proper ones. Both seem to work - but nothing's is 100% guaranteed either.  The only guarantee I can think of is someone who realises it goes with the territory.  

(or, of course - in theory - fucking women instead;  maybe it's the guys I'm into but that one never seems  to appeal).

Aren't you forgetting "cancel culture"'s greatest moment - Laurence Fox?

Fox from the famous, politics-dabbling acting family.  It starts well enough - he goes to Harrow school where the likes of Winston Churchill, his father, James Fox and his uncle, Edward Fox had been before him. Only unlike those three, he doesn't quite make it through. He gets thrown out - and so spectacularly so that no university would have him (It must be some report.- I've never heard of UK universities not taking people other than for academic/grades reasons).

So after working for a bit as a gardener he decides to go into acting (wonder where he got that idea from) and ends up quite famous with a part in the Inspector Morse spin off, Lewis.  What he's almost as famous for by then is his ability to fall out with people - getting into all manner of fights, disputes and litigation with pretty much anyone - those who block him, divorce him, get punched by him, sue him him for defamation, apologise to him (yes, he won one - despite,  being about the only actor I've ever heard of who is not  a member he still he still manages to get into a fight with Equity.

Finally, at the end of last year his agent drops because of his "public political statements".

Edward Fox as you might recall likes a bit of politics too - James Goldsmith, Referendum Party, UKIP, Countryside March and, of course, Brexit

It seems however that none of these are quite the right fit for Laurence. So he decides to start his own party.  It was in his capacity of leader of a new political party that he drove the agent away.  Apparently it's called Reclaim - although it seems there's a bit of a fight going on there too - with a charity who were using that name already.

Reclaim's policies are a little unclear - "UKIP for culture" gives you the broad idea (I can't tell you how much we needed that). As far as I can tell it seems to involve Fox going on chat shows (where he's still on speaks) and telling what he's against.  It's a fairly familiar list: people who suggest he's racist,  all things that are "woke". He knows colonel in the shire types don't like "woke" so he's very against that and, of course that other that curse of our age, cancel culture.

Only then Sainsburys - the supermarket - does something for its Black Employees that doesn't like, so what does Laurence Fox (aka Reclaim) do?  He says he's boycotting Sainsburys.

Not cancelling mind - cancel culture is woke - the very thing he is taking a brave stand against.

A boycott's completely different - and if you say otherwise... you get the picture..

On 8/28/2019 at 11:26 AM, Guest POZitiveBoyZ said:

Liberal Democrats only.

I hope you're in the US.  If you were in Britain, you'd be fast approaching celibacy.

My wife's got this plan to move to Canada...will say if it happens.  

I'd always thought it was like jury service - never happens to the few who actually want it

I agree with many of the earlier comments - in particular those that human psychology and attraction is not about seeing what it says on the birth certificate and going for the other sort, with anyone who doesn't being a bad person- stupid, selfish, wrong and/or mentally ill.

The problem isn't them. It's our very limited rule.

The one I would take particular exception to is that one can draw a line between a fetish and our true selves - as if our sexual desires were somehow not a part of us or beneath us and that anyone who acting according to them  was somehow superficial, selfish and second rate as compared to others with nobler and truer motives.  

Isn't how we see ourselves and why we want sex all to a large extent imaginary? To those unfamiliar with the desire (eg children) all sex and everything to do with it seems unappealing and pointless, notable only for how it makes rational people do stupid things. 

It's not vain or superficial to think of ourselves as sexy or to want to be so.  Any more than sexual desire is explained by those who see it as being about  a moment's pleasure.  Those who try and it thus are either charlatans or fools (or quite likely both).  They are missing the point for much the same reason as children do - but without the excuse.  

For myself, I see how we see ourselves, how we present ourselves and who we are attracted to as infinitely varied but part of a continuum. Whether  its old-fashioned racism or Myers Briggs personality types the problem is always the same - we seem to have this unquenchable desire to categorise others according to our simple rules - only then to get terribly upset when reality doesn't quite fit.   We blame reality rather than seeing the inadequacy of our rule. 

For example, I can see logically that someone who was a lesbian might not care how they were seen by men. But I don't think I need to be a lesbian to suspect that logic plays very little part in it. I bet you there are those who care intensely.  And I'd be surprised too if there weren't those for whom "lesbian" was a simple heading for more complex facts.  My wife - who went to a womens' college view thinks that one out of ten lesbians is a woman only ever found women attracted to women, and the other nine  it was likely to be about bad experiences with men.  Whether that's right or not, the point is a simple one, we are all different - and terrible at seeing things as others do.

Have you ever noticed how one can almost guarantee that if a group of women say how sexy and attractive their female friend is, a man who was unaware of this phenomenon and took them at their word would almost certainly be disappointed?  Nobody is lying and none completely clueless about what counts as attractive either. They just see it slightly differently.
I'm pretty sure, for example that if I were to wake up tomorrow weirdly transformed into a woman, that I would give it a go - like the breasts it might be a shock - but I'm already seeing the opportunity just as much as the problem.   Likewise, I have no doubt at all that if I did see myself as a woman, it would be as a sexy one. 
However, it's not happened and is not likely to either - so like the women talking about their ever so sexy friend, I might be speaking sincere but complete rubbish.  It seems far better to take someone at their word who has found themselves in this sort of situation than to rely on how me and others who hadn't found themselves in this situation think that they might.    
For the same reason my money would be on the men who had resisted being a right about to the friend's irresistability -  not the women who can only imagine what it is like to be them. But, of course, neither is anything more than an informed guess. The problem might be the men.  She might be one of those who only dated what she called "unthreatening" men - and that if she would only go for the heterosexual ones instead, she'd be every bit as irresistible as her friends thought..

Quote

 I can’t get off to amateur porn or anything with condoms.

Condom porn can be quite hot, providing they start but don't finish.  I only like amateur stuff coz it's real - and to remove everyone's uploads without a word of warning, seems pretty crap.  Xtube seems just as bad as pornhub.

The whole time - so completely, consistently and tiresomely that I now cringe. I'm amazed they thought it any fun at all.  Though I can see that my complete faith they would do so, just exactly as I had asked meant it was not quite as unappealing as it might at first seem. 

"More pics?" is my favourite question ever. I love it.  

Saves so much time you might have wasted chatting to them . Not many people are brave enough to say  "sorry, you're borderline but with the right pic you might just about make the cut".  Or if they were, they would understand why the conversation had gone no further. 

Or maybe it is just my terrible pics which explain why  I have never, ever -  not even once - talked them around from their perfectly reasonable concerns about my ugliness/ the fakeness of the first lot of pics

Or maybe it's my attitude - I'm being unkind. It isn't actually the dim-witted and rude giveaway it might at first seem? 

Or maybe I'm just jealous - I'd be in business if I could show them a massive cock....?

Is it related in any way to the idea - apologies, I know next to nothing about this and only have it at second hand - that it's not being gay that is the sin, but being fucked?  Tops are ok, it's the bottoms who are in really deep trouble.  If so, while I'm not sure I understand the reason, the outcome (more tops) is one I  love.
I realise that I'm probably doing myself no favours in their eyes for saying this.  But then, if they're right, things wouldn't be looking too good anyhow. 
Also, at risk of making it worse still,  for a religious teaching, it seems really quite well-informed - ie knowing there are tops and bottoms.  The form in my religious tradition was to be lectured about sex by people who'd never actually had any.  Usually, anyhow.
 
"well, we're all virgins here" a junior monk once started his talk to the assembled monastic community

"speak for yourself, brother" comes a voice from the back.