BootmanLA

Personally, I think your best bet is to take sex off the table entirely. Make sure he knows that you want to meet him in a public place, he can arrive and depart on his own, and anything more will wait for another day. And repeat that the next time, if necessary. He's a virgin (or at least, so he says). He's not going to go from 0 to 100 in one step. If he does, he's probably got other issues that need to be addressed first.

Cumunion is a series of sex party events held in various locations across the world. Some are tied to other big events (ie a Cumunion Party held at the same time as a particular bear or leather event) and others are standalone. They are essentially all-bareback parties. You can find more at cumunion.com. For the moment, they are having Friday night virtual parties (and have been for much of the Covid pandemic), although some venues have re-opened and scheduled Cumunion parties. Undoubtedly more will return as vaccination rates improve and incidence rates of Covid drop further.

I'm starting to think "eyeroll" would be a useful reaction to have available - for the posts that don't *quite* merit a downvote (which has both punitive effect by reducing a member's approval score, and which often inspires retaliatory downvoting) but which inspire the reader to think "Really? Again with this shit?" Not sure how you'd distinguish it visually from the "sad" and "confused" icons (which also both feature faces with big eyes) but something to think about.

For every single body variant in the world, there are people who are attracted to it. Every single one, from nubile twink with no body fat or musculature to super-chub, from dad bod to muscle head. The more conventionally appealing the body is, the more likely it is a large number of people will find it attractive, but that's because *that* is exactly what "conventionally appealing* means. It's like saying "the most popular color is the most popular color" - something logicians call a tautology.

The same could be said of the white hood - that to some, it's not a KKK symbol, they just like it, and they're going to wear what they please. That's not going to protect them if someone sees them wearing it. Symbols become symbols through broad cultural adoption in a particular culture, not by requiring universal approval - as I'm sure you realize. Swastikas, for instance, had a long and distinguished (though not prominent) history as a symbol in more than one culture until appropriated by the Nazis. Like it or not, this particular combo - black tall-ish boots with white laces - has become symbolic dress for racist skinhead types, and no amount of "that's not what it means to me" is going to change the public perception. In some cultures, raising and showing the back of your hand is a greeting; in others, it's a symbol almost as bad as flipping the bird is here. I'm reminded of the polo shirts produced by Fred Perry, which are popular among many groups but the black with yellow trim one has, apparently, particular resonance among racist skinheads - to the point where the company stopped selling that color combination in North America. The fact that others may love it - like you might like whatever color bootlaces you choose - doesn't mean that it isn't conveying a symbolic message, unintended though it may be.

Broadly speaking, I prefer bearded men. That said, there are some men whose faces can't grow a decent beard and they shouldn't try. They're better off with a face that's clean-shaven.

OK, let me see if I have this straight. You want to bottom. You can't clean out at home (presumably because you're leaving early and it won't last till you get to fuck). You are too shy to clean out at your top buddy's house. If you don't clean out before he fucks you, you have issues with diarrhea afterwards. Sounds to me like unless you're willing to carry a disposable enema with you at all times, and can find a public restroom with a more or less lockable stall door to administer it, then you're (to coin a phrase) shit out of luck.

Wrong. Dead wrong. It's true that beginning in the mid 90's, the number of new HIV infections each year began to fall significantly, because newly introduced treatments meant guys who were previously transmitting the virus most of the time, when they had unprotected sex, could now dramatically reduce or eliminate passing on their infection. PrEP has further reduced that transmission rate. That said: it's still a major health issue, it's just less likely that you will become poz than it once was. Once you do get it, you've got to treat it (which is a lifetime commitment and expensive) or you will almost certainly die much earlier than you would otherwise.

And yet you posted it publicly rather than actually sending him a private message. Odd.

So: are you saying that anyone who is a "switch and versatile" is automatically a "optimal slut"? What, pray tell, is an (not "a") "optimal slut"?

Anyone who is still using the term "clean" in 2021 to describe HIV status needs some serious education.

Tell him that at all costs, he should avoid ever making contact with his future ex "B".

Here's my thoughts. It seems you define a "cumdump bottom" as someone who takes any cock/any load, no matter what. If that's the case, then making yourself horny or wanting the top's load should be irrelevant; if he wants to get off he will. The cumdump's job is to take whatever happens or doesn't happen. I personally think there are very, very few (vanishingly few) people who meet this description. Rather, most "cumdumps" are bottoms who love sex and get a lot of pleasure from it, and they convince themselves they must be cumdumps because only a cumdump wants that much sex - not realizing that for a true cumdump, wanting it is irrelevant; it's their job to respond to others' needs. I have no objections to roleplaying - I love it, in a variety of roles - but it should be recognized for what it is. So when a guy says he wants to be tied down so he can't resist anyone and a group is allowed to breed him, he's playing the role of a cumdump. The real cumdump would hear "Bend over, I need to fuck" and that's what he'd do, regardless of any other intentions. Rope wouldn't be needed.

Nope. Saying everyone has some sort of fetish or kink because you went into BDSM dating sites and they all did, is like saying everyone must be a dog lover because you went to an AKC show and everyone there had a dog. Plenty of people have no fetishes or kinks of any kind. (I'm not one of them - so this isn't me holding myself up as an example of a fetish-less person - but I can assure you they exist in abundance.)

But that's just it. I'm not saying any particular bottom can't desire that. I have no problem with a Top making clear that *if* sex occurs, he's in charge and he feels entitled to do anything from A to Z. I have no problem with a bottom making clear that he's only willing to have sex if restrictions J, Q and P are observed. (And the top can decline to accept those limits, and the bottom can decline to have sex without a guarantee of those rules in place.) What I have a problem with is the idea that anyone is *entitled* to his pleasure at any cost. Because there's literally no daylight between that position and "I can fuck anyone I want to regardless of whether he wants it or not". What's missing from his postings is any acceptance of the idea of consent - that there is clear and unequivocal consent for what he may do. You've talked about some of your picnic table escapades where you allow tops to use you in any way they choose. Would that include fisting you with an open pocketknife in his hand? Strictly understood, BT's demands to be in complete control of getting his jollies any way, shape or form could include that. Or choking you until you pass out and then fucking your throat, further cutting off air repeatedly and possibly causing brain damage. Or deciding to carve his initials into your buttocks - not to claim you as "his" but just to show he'd been there. Hell: there's nothing in his posting that acknowledges that if he decided he'd get off on snuffing your life out, getting his orgasm during your last spasms of life, that would be crossing a line. There's nothing that conveys the notion he even recognizes that there ARE any lines, at all. Because as he noted, he "will expect my fag to do what it takes to make me cum as hard as possible." Track down the movie "HARD" sometime.

This is difficult to answer for several reasons. First, it's clear English is not your native language. That would explain why, taken literally, your question ("Are my cravings to hard?") makes zero sense. If what you are wondering is whether you should or should not try bareback sex: only you can make that decision. If you were in a place where English was the default language I might be able to grasp whether PrEP (medication you can take regularly - every day, or it doesn't work right - to prevent HIV infection) is available to you in your area and if it's an option. If PrEP is available and affordable where you live, get on it, and STAY on it, and after a reasonable period for your body to become used to it, you can try bareback sex. If it is not available: you should learn the English phrase "Russian Roulette". It is a game in which the "player" loads one bullet into one of the six chambers of an old fashioned revolver pistol, points the gun at his own head, and pulls the trigger. Many times it has no harm. Once in a while, the chamber is the one loaded with the bullet and the "player" dies of the gunshot. Bareback sex as a bottom without PrEP is like playing Russian Roulette with a gun that has several dozen empty chambers and one bullet. Every time you have sex it's like spinning that revolver's chambers and attempting to shoot yourself. It may not happen the first time, or the tenth time, or the fiftieth time. It might, technically, never happen. But the odds are that with enough sex - with enough spins of the wheel, eventually the bullet will fire. And it might be the first time you pull the trigger.

I agree, but I think it's easier to depict the difference I perceive as two parallel dice games. You start each one with $20,000 in pennies. In one, every time you eat a double cheeseburger with bacon and a slab of sugar-laden apple pie, you roll a pair of dice. If you get a 5 or higher, you toss a penny in the pot; if you get a 4 or lower, you get a penny from the pot. Every time you eat a healthy, low-sodium/low-fat-low-sugar meal, you get an extra penny back from the pot without a roll of the dice. When the pot hits $5,000, the amount you lose on each 5+ roll rises to 2 cents, but the payoff for a low toss stays at a penny. When the pot hits $10,000, each high toss costs you fifty cents. You can keep playing at that rate a long, long time, but eventually it's going to catch up with you, and it's going to accelerate rapidly toward the end. In the other game, every time you have receptive bareback sex without PrEP, you roll four dice. Every time you roll 22 or lower, you get a penny from the pot. But if you roll a 23 or a 24, you owe the pot 90% of your bank, plus you have to keep rolling, and every roll costs you a penny no matter what the score is. You can throw an awful lot of rolls and keep building up a penny at a time, having a lot of fun along the way. But with enough rolls - on average, nearly 1,300 times, but it could be on roll number 5 - you'll hit three sixes and either a five or a six, and boom! that's it. The odds of escaping without getting that penalty are vanishingly small. In the first instance, you get lots of tasty food and a lifetime of memories, and you can stave off that rapid decline in your fortunes by mixing in goodly amounts of healthy food. With the second instance, there's effectively no way, with unprotected receptive sex, to increase the odds dramatically in your favor. I suppose you could argue that a limited stable of partners, having everyone test regularly, etc. would help, but that's turning over the odds to other people's (unverifiable) compliance with some harm reduction steps.

Not in the slightest. There are plenty of people who desire things that are clearly not good for them. Meth-heads and heroin addicts, for instance. The fact that they think something is "highly desirable" does not mean the rest of the world has to concede that they may be right. I'm sure in most shooting galleries the percentage of people who think smack is great dwarfs the percentage of people on here who think toxic masculinity is a good thing, but popularity of something is not always any indication of whether it's a good thing or not. The maiden voyage of the Titanic was one of the most anticipated and heralded events of early 1912 and they sold a buttload of tickets for it, and none of that popularity or pomp and circumstance overcame fatal design flaws that caused it to sink. Here's the wording that sets off the alarms: "A Man fucks and dumps his sperm in a willing and welcoming hole. Male or female, the recipient’s pleasure is irrelevant." and "If I am with a faggot, I am the Man. I will take my pleasure from him because I am entitled to it and I will expect my fag to do what it takes to make me cum as hard as possible. " In other words, the TOP is the "Man" - the recipient might be male, but he's not a man in BT71's eyes - he's just "a faggot". I call 100% bullshit on that. I'm a bottom - looking at my sexual history and going by number of 'events' in each role, roughly 99.997% bottom - and I am every bit as much a "Man" as he is. And declaring otherwise is exactly the problem with toxic masculinity - the idea that some men, because they do the inserting, are MEN and the ones who are inserted into are "faggots". I'm not here to tell anyone else how he should identify. If some bottoms enjoy the abasement of being treated this way, they can knock themselves out. And if certain tops enjoy taking on that role - and it's a role; it's play-acting, like a drag queen, although usually with far less skill and innate talent - they can do the same. But declare it as the norm, as though all "real" men do this? All "real" bottoms do that? FUCK that. At least they should have the sense god gave a cactus and acknowledge this is their personal outlook only, not declare it the One And Only True Gospel of Masculinity According To Some Dickhead. (Note his statement: "Having said that, don’t buy into what our society wants us to be: castrated and whiny, asking for permission and be sweet and tender in bed like a woman. That’s not who we are!" A directive as to what NOT to believe, that suggests anything less than his asshole fake bravado is "castrated". What a joke.)

"Requirements" can come from either of you. You could insist on those conditions, if they're that important to you. Sex advice columnist Dan Savage calls this the Price of Admission. Each of you can set your own Price of Admission: for you, it could be that your relationship be open and that you both will joint and separate sex adventures and agree to share the separate ones afterward with each other. If your potential partner wants a relationship with you bad enough, he'll pay your Price of Admission. Conversely, his Price of Admission might be "Open is fine with me but I don't want to know who you do things with." And if you want this guy as a partner bad enough, you'll pay his Price of Admission. Note that in this case, these two prices of admission are incompatible with each other - so one of you has to, so to speak, discount his price. Either you accept that you won't be talking about your hookups with him, but know that you can still do them; or he accepts that he'll have to vicariously experience your hook-ups after the fact. It's a negotiated outcome just like any other negotiation. But not all negotiations produce any result except stalemate; it may be that neither of you is willing to pay even other's bare minimum. There's nothing wrong with that - move on, and life proceeds - but what's wrong is one of you capitulating on something you normally would consider part of the minimum deal. That's a recipe for bitterness and resentment eventually.

If you're confused it's because you didn't understand the question that was asked originally. It was addressed to tops, asking them about THEIR behavior. The fact that you're trying to answer with a non-sequitur answer suggests you need to re-read the question, realize it doesn't pertain to you, and move along.

It is because apparently large numbers of people on here failed Reading Comprehension 101. The question did not ask "Do you like tops to cum in you?" The question did not ask "Do you like condoms?" The question posed was a simple one: If a bottom has requested, before sex, that the top pull out before orgasm, do you cum in him nonetheless?" You could rephrase the question "Are you a selfish fucking piece of shit asshole who doesn't think other people's opinions matter?" and all the people who answered the first question with "yes" should check "yes" to the second question. All these inane and pointless side tangents from bottoms talking about how they are there for the top's pleasure and all that associated bullshit are completely non-responsive to the question asked - which is clearly directed at tops. It's reasonable for a bottom to comment on a top's answer, but there's simply no way for the allegedly subservient take-any-load-never-say-no bottoms to even legitimately answer the question because to correctly answer it, you should be a top (or at least, top on occasion). It's also why I don't answer any of those fucking questions addressed to "Faggots" or "Useless Cumdumps" - I'm a bottom, but I am not a faggot. (Call me one once and you'll get corrected. Keep it up and you lose teeth.)

In other words, as long as the top is rough enough, he'll get off and that's all that matters. Gotcha.

Then you'd better make that clear BEFORE fucking, and if a bottom tells you BEFORE fucking you don't have permission to cum in him, then you'd better not, even if it means you don't get to fuck him. You're free to set any requirements you want, basically, for a bottom to get your dick. What you are NOT free to do is ignore a direct instruction, on which the bottom's consent was predicated. Otherwise you're essentially a rapist because you're fucking someone against his express consent.

There's nothing wrong with that at all. As long as you're open and honest about it from the start. Now, once you've made it clear that's what you want, your future partner may want to put some guidelines on it. Maybe it's "Don't ever tell me about anyone you have sex with." Maybe it's "Don't have sex with other people in our house." Maybe it's "Nothing with anyone who's our mutual friend so I'm not the ignorant one not knowing what's going on with you and him." It might even be "You need to tell me what you do because I want to know and get off on the retelling" - who knows? But the point is, if he has requirements like that, you need to honor them. Otherwise, you're back to cheating, because that's no longer being "open and honest".

Overlooking that the question as originally posed said nothing about preventing HIV transmission, it's not wrong. Calling this "topping from the bottom" and "inappropriate" assumes what you're trying to prove: you're saying that you shouldn't tell a top not to X because you shouldn't tell a top not to X. There's no magic rulebook that says a bottom can't determine what does and doesn't happen with his body, and no magic rulebook that gives all the authority to make decisions to the top. Second, I know quite a few tops who like to pull out and shoot all over someone. While you can't judge anything specifically from porn, that's done ALL.THE.FUCKING.TIME in porn - lots of people, including a good number of tops - like cum shots. That doesn't mean any particular top has to like them. But this complete bullshit of a top gets to decide everything about the sex needs to be called out for the bullshit that it is. If two people WILLINGLY enter into sex with that understanding in mind, that's one thing. For any top to decide - AGAINST the specific request of the guy who's allowing him to fuck - that he's going to shoot inside is just a top being a shitty asshole.