Jump to content

BootmanLA

Senior Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,947

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BootmanLA

  1. BootmanLA
    It seems to me that the bracket option mentioned above would take care of that, for the most part. If we set an age under which sexual activity is simply illegal, and then make it legal (or more properly put, "not illegal") for anyone within (for instance) 24 months of the age of the younger party, you cut out the chances of someone 12 years old getting pozzed, at least to almost zero. Assuming (for now) that the current rate of HIV infection for people under 16 is negligible, you'd need a specific chain of people within 24 months of each other who all led back to someone who was poz - that is, the 18-yr old poz person would have to infect the 16-year old who would infect the 14-yr old who would infect the 12-yr old. I think the chances of that are exceedingly slim, especially since most 12-yr olds would continue to not have sex, as would most teens (I know that a significant number of teens are already sexually active, but I don't think it's an absolute majority).
  2. BootmanLA
    I will add this: just as there's concern about a bottom not showing up or not being all that prepared, there's a corresponding concern about tops. I've been privvy to a couple of gang bangs that failed miserably because, for instance, fifteen tops were invited, eight confirmed they were coming, three showed up, and one of them couldn't get a hard on to save his life. In a case like that, the bottom got only two fucks and had he been sharing with another bottom, he'd probably have only gotten one. Unless the other guy got them both. Bottoms haven't cornered the market on flaking or not being prepared. I grant you that Tops don't like to wait. But I've always thought it might be more interesting for the ones "waiting" if they took part - helping hold the bottom down and spread-eagled, for instance.
  3. BootmanLA
    As in all things, it depends on what one means by "submissive" and "top". If by top, you mean strictly the insertive partner in a sex act, and by submissive, you mean one who takes direction from another or is controlled by another, it's very possible to have a submissive top. I had a boyfriend many years ago who liked to be tied down so that he couldn't control anything, but he wanted me to ride his cock and make him cum when *I* chose to. Another partner some time later always wanted to be the one fucking, but wanted me to tell him how to do it, when to do it, how hard, how fast, what position, etc. Admittedly, these guys aren't abundant. But to say nobody likes pushy bottoms discounts the very existence of this kind of guy.
  4. BootmanLA
    I don't mean to minimize your experience in any way, Boyhood, but your argument holds no water. You say that it's "one man's story", but then extrapolate YOUR experience to 25 million others in this country, as though every one of them, no matter what his experiences, must inevitably be affected the same way you were. I'm always suspicious of huge numbers like "25 million men" because the only way such a large number could be true is if a very, very broad description of "abuse" were used. With a population of 308 million people, the US has about 150 million men, meaning that about 16% of men had been sexually molested as children. To reach that figure, you'd have to count every boy who ever had a clothing salesman feel him up while fitting a pair of pants and every football player who ever had his ass patted by a coach on the field. It would have to include every 17-year old boy who had consensual sex with a woman over 18, which not so long ago was a rite of passage. That may (or may not) all be abuse, but I can assure you that most of the men in those latter categories don't become suicidal or need PTSD therapy. Again, I'm not belittling your experience - which, as related, would be clearly traumatic. But you can't lump 25 million other people's varied experiences into that same context.
  5. BootmanLA
    I guess I'm the odd man out; it just doesn't bother me that much. I prefer watching raw but there have been some hot guys in gay porn back when condoms were everywhere and there was no such thing any more as raw porn. I'm not going to discard that for the sake of a little latex.
  6. BootmanLA
    At my house, the issue is almost the opposite of what the poll suggests might be an issue: I *love* to watch my boy get fucked by other guys, but it's not something he actively seeks or encourages at all. Not because I'm all that great at topping him myself; he's just more of a bondage/gear bottom than a fuck bottom. I do what I can to change that and he does do what he's told but I really wish I had more help in getting him fucked.
  7. BootmanLA
    In my experience, tops who pay close enough attention to details -- the kind who would never use an inept phrasing like "married guys to a woman" -- are the ones who make better tops. Addressing the bi/married point, though: most bi/married men I know are total bottoms because they want what they can't get from a woman, and the handful who do top are usually so inexperienced at sex with a man that it's usually not worth it. There have been a few exceptions but almost every really good Top I've ever known was unashamedly 100% gay.
  8. BootmanLA
    It's not just sexual terms that can mar communication. Brits are fond of referring to someone as "sorted" - which I gather is roughly a way of saying "has a good head on his shoulders". There are other personality terms like this that can really throw off international personal ads.
  9. BootmanLA
    Librayboy - you're making an assumption that the "true bottom sub" you reference is such *to every man he meets*. There are "true sub" bottoms who have met a Sir/Dom/Top/whatever to whom they are faithful, and if he both is negative and does not give permission to his sub to take loads from anyone else - then he's unlikely to get pozzed unless his Sir does first. Focusing on the issue of "truly submissive" is beside the point - the real issue is, does the bottom take loads from a variety of men, or not? All other things being equal, the more men whose loads he takes, the greater his risk of infection.
  10. BootmanLA
    This one has two answers for me. Physically, it's almost always better for me when I'm on my back - legs up, classic missionary position. Most tops seem to fit in me better that way, and it's more physically intense. Mentally, I love the feeling of being face down, either doggy style or lying down - it's a little less personal and the top's energy is focused on fucking.
  11. BootmanLA
    Andydeck, There is a difference between "freedom of speech" (as a concept) and "Freedom of Speech" (as referred to in the US Constitution). They are related concepts, but the former is a general term and the latter is a specific application. I don't know which universities you are referring to, but a quick survey of the academics I know resulted in a 100% contradiction of your suggestion that Wikipedia is an appropriate source to cite in a term paper. I don't discount its value (it's often the fastest way to find the (likely) answer to a question, such as "When was George Washington born?", but none of the professors and instructors I consulted would accept that as a citation. The point they made was that being user-edited, and with often-questionable sources, Wikipedia was at best a guide to finding other, more authoritative sources. It's certainly not a dictionary, and I would never cite it for the definition of a word or phrase. In any event, it's not that there are simply two states: free speech and censorship. Beyond the fact that TIM has a "right" to edit or remove content from its site, in order to be useful, it HAS to be ready to prune off-topic information; otherwise, I could post a recipe for prune danishes in their forums and scream "censorship" when it was removed. TIM decided, presumably, that a post accusing one of its performers of racism was not on-topic for the discussion board. Even if you're right that he's racist, even if telling the world about racists is a moral imperative, TIM doesn't have to provide you with a platform from which to do that. And it's not censorship if they simply decline to do so. It's editing. There is a difference. And please don't go citing Wikipedia entries in an attempt to prove me wrong.
  12. BootmanLA
    I don't think there's a question that it's censorship (broadly defined). But editors of publications have always done that, especially for reader contributions; they can only devote so much space to letters and select those they think are most fitting and relevant. It goes without saying they had to fit within the scope of the mission of the publication. In the internet age, with virtually unlimited 'publishing' space, we tend to think that any time a reader post is removed, there's something nefarious at work. But if TIM's purpose for its website forums doesn't include discussion of whether TIM performers are racist (or sexist, or whatever), then it's not only within its rights to edit, but may find it necessary, in order to avoid having the board deteriorate into a flame war. Simply being right on the facts isn't enough to justify a "right" to publish via someone else's site. Even if you're right on a moral issue.
  13. BootmanLA
    rawTOP, I have to say it varies sometimes from year to year. There are years when I'm horny as hell and looking to get pounded as much as possible, and other times when I'm just blah and not in the mood. I think sometimes it has to do with my surroundings (if my partner is feeling depressed, I tend to get "blah" too); sometimes it's the weather (crisp and cool makes me horny; dreary and rainy makes me blah). I will say, though, that attention from a hot top (and my definition of hot doesn't mean just model-gorgeous bodybuilders) always cranks me right back up.
  14. BootmanLA
    Not only are the buildings heated, but it *IS* a leather event... leather is warm. It wouldn't make sense to hold a leather event in DC in, say, August. As Rawtop posted, some guys go just for the sex (which is fine, everyone has his own motivations). But I'd add a few other observations: 1. IML being international, brings in a much more geographically diverse crowd. For many it's a "stand and model" beauty pageant both at the contest and at many events, and there can be (among some participants) a lot of body snobbery. It's not universal but be forewarned, if you can't deal with rejection it's not necessarily the best place to be. 2. MAL is smaller, more locally focused (at least, primarily east coast up to about the near midwest), and is much more of a traditional leather event. Unlike IML, MAL started as a social event put on by a leather club, and only later added the contest as a feeder for IML. So a far higher percentage of attendees are into leather and BDSM, although conversely IML, because of its appeal worldwide, attracts some of the most hard-core players. At MAL in particular, If you aren't in serious leather (i.e. considerably more than an armband on your right bicep), you may well be ignored at most of the social events. In other words, these are not sex parties although sex parties may well be individually held events at both venues. Don't go assuming you pay your admission fee and automatically get to hop in some sling in a big dungeon room somewhere. BootmanLA

Other #BBBH Sites…

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Top Bareback Porn Sites…

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.