BootmanLA

As far as I know, the "basement dweller" community you're describing (which I take to be "NoFap") started in 2012. The problem for the timeline is that Urban Dictionary has a listing for "No Nut November" created a year earlier, in 2011, suggesting that the term came into existence before its adoption by NoFap.

I'm not sure that the NNN fad came about out of any sense of sex being bad. From what I can tell, it was originally proposed as satire. Since then, I think there have been two threads supporting its existence. The first is the religious/conservative right, arguing that masturbation (and premarital sex) are harmful and/or sinful. They're taking it literally and trying to "play it straight". As far as I'm concerned, anyone dumb enough to fall for anything the religious right pushes probably doesn't deserve an orgasm. The second is the kink community's embracing of this for submissives, having them hold off from orgasm as a means of instilling self control. While that's not my kink, I can understand it, and don't see any problems with it (as with most kinks) as long as it's consensual.

Just for giggles, I googled "Club St. Louis". To my utter and unending amazement, they listed something called a "phone number," consisting of ten numerical digits that (as I'm led to understand) allow the use of a relatively newly invented device called the "telephone" as a means of communication. In this miraculous new age in which we live, one takes one's "telephone" and enters the supplied numeric digits, and - wonder of wonders - it provides a real-time form of communication, by transmitted audio signals, with the party in question. Truly, we live in a splendid age. I would imagine one could, with relatively little effort, repeat my online search, discover the number for oneself, and ask whomever accepts the communication on the opposite end a question, such as "When the fuck are you people open?"

Even so, though: not all tops like orgies, either. I know some who are self-conscious about "performing" in front of others, especially if they have hangups about not being as big as some other tops, or about finishing too quickly, or whatever. Some tops just prefer one-on-one to the exclusion of any other arrangement.

You might be surprised. I frequently encounter tops who are adamantly opposed to gangbangs; they want the center of attention to be on them, and not just for the (however many it is) number of minutes he's fucking the bottom. There are a lot of tops who don't like to share. (There are obviously quite a few that do, of course, or gangbangs and even sex parties wouldn't be a thing.)

@ErosWired, I agree 100% that bottoms vary dramatically in the amount of effort they put into getting fucked (and likewise, in the ability they have to seek it out, so as not to lay all the blame on them not working at it). What I meant to describe was averages, not how much sex any one bottom could reasonably expect. If anything, of course, gangbangs further exacerbate the problem for other bottoms; if tops only have so many loads to give over a given period of time, and several of them are teaming up to give them all to one bottom, then that's going to take away from the available pool, so to speak. I'd also note that while a lot of them might not admit it, one thing holding some bottoms back from getting as much as they might otherwise receive is a desire for something more than an anonymous fuck. Not saying they're wanting every guy who fucks them to marry them, but I've known a lot of guys out there who wanted each guy who fucked them to be at least a "potential" for something more. That's a very limiting factor. And I'm not saying it's wrong to look for that; it's just that anyone who does is limiting the amount of sex he's going to have. By a lot.

I don't think the shape itself changes. Rather, what I'm guessing he's seeing is that as your anal sphincter is becoming used to handling more... traffic, shall we say... the muscle may change the way it closes. After all, the anus isn't a pinpoint spot that stretches; it's a fairly large, more or less tubular opening that is clamped shut by the sphincter. My experience is that while erect cocks are rarely exactly perfectly round, they tend to be wider (side to side) than they are higher (that is, measuring from upper surface to underside, straight through). It's not strictly speaking an oval, but something like that. In any event, if prolonged exposure to a cock going in and out of the anus really did change the shape of your hole, it would almost certainly make it a horizontal slit, not a vertical one like a vagina.

Here's the thing. It's possible to have discussions about an illegal activity without becoming involved in illegal activity. Otherwise, it would be impossible for law enforcement, psychologists, journalists, and so forth to ever discuss the real world. I don't purport to speak for the site owner or moderator here. But here's my understanding of how it works. Underage: You can't be on here if you're underaged. Period. You can talk in general terms about experiences you may have had while underage, as long as they're not being eroticized. In other words, it's okay to say "My first time was at 14"; it's not okay to write up a porn-worthy paragraph about all the sex you were having at 14. You certainly can't post seeking underaged persons (for sex or otherwise). Rape: You can discuss your own experiences with being raped. You can debate whether particular behavior, clinically described, would count as rape. You can post erotic fiction that involves rape or pseudo-rape circumstances. You CANNOT advocate for actual rape. What to do about it: If you see posts that violate these rules, you should report them (the moderators will review and decide; they can remove posts, sanction the poster, or even if it's justified, remove them from the forum entirely. You also have the ability to "ignore" any member who posts material you don't like, so that you don't have to read his writing. And you don't have to open any topic you feel might upset you. But bottom line, if you keep "stumbling" onto stuff that offends you that seems to pass muster with the moderators, maybe this site isn't for you.

Not denying the existence of such toys, but I'm going by what anatomists say: it's not that there's a ring at the juncture of the colon and rectum, it's that there are muscles surrounding the colon walls, top to bottom. I suppose you could consider the first muscle encountered there as a "ring" but it's no different from the muscle tissue half an inch, an inch, two inches, etc. farther up the colon. It's just muscle vs non-muscle. The bigger reason there's a bit of a barrier to entry into the colon is that the juncture between the two is a 90 degree turn. The colon descends down one side of your lower torso, then makes a sharp turn towards the center of the torso where it makes another sharp turn and joins the rectum. That turn, coupled with the fact you're entering a muscle-lined corridor, is what makes things feel like a separate "ring". But it's completely unlike the kind of ring we have at the anus (keeping feces in the rectum) or the sphincter clamping the urethra (keeping urine inside the body).

Just luck of the timing 🙂 But yes, I do type relatively fast (I do it all day and I've been doing it on a semi-steady basis since I first took typing in high school, 40 years ago, so I've never really lost my speed.)

I think the topic description and the posts betray a disconnect. The TOPIC is supposed to be about how often (or seldom) tops like to have sex - ie fuck someone. But then the first post asks about fucking OR getting fucked, and most of the responses are bottoms who want it all the time. Well duh, Sherlock. I think we've established conclusively over the years that the supply of bottoms greatly exceeds the supply of tops, and the sexual appetite of many bottoms exceeds the capacity of any particular top man. So let's (just for fun) make up some realistic-seeming numbers and see how they work together. So in a given area, assume there's 100 gay men, of whom 70 are bottoms or at least versatile men who strongly prefer bottoming. Maybe 20 are versatile men who genuinely like both, or who may lean top, and MAYBE 10 who are essentially or completely tops. Most bottoms can, if they don't shoot while being fucked, take more than one fucking in a row (they may not get that chance often, but the point is, they CAN - and many would love the chance to do so regularly). Let's conservatively say half those 70 would gladly take two (complete to orgasm) fuckings in a row. And let's assume that on average, those bottoms would like to get their preferred level of fucking 3 times a week - again, conservatively speaking. That's 315 fuckings that, to satisfy the bottom population, would need to be delivered every week - by 10 "total" tops and 20 versi-tops. Some, no doubt, can fuck to completion twice or even three times in one day, others only once, but that's still (on average) 10 fuckings a week the tops would have to deliver to satisfy the bottoms. So yes, from a bottom's perspective, it's probably "shocking" how seldom tops seem to want to fuck. But in reality, the tops are probably getting >100% of the opportunities they want, even with a healthy, roaring sex drive. It's just that there are too many bottoms competing for those spots.

I would suggest that you check with a urologist. Not to belittle your "new friend" there, but it may be that (a) he was hitting something other than your prostate, and whatever that was, didn't like it, or (b) you might have prostatitis or some other inflammation of the prostate that made it sensitive or otherwise has inhibited its function. There's an off chance there's something going on in there that might be more serious than you'd think. A urologist (preferably a gay-friendly one) should be able to help you sort this out.

As I noted, there's no actual "ring" and what most of us think is the "ring" is not all that far inside. The average adult male rectum is about 12 cm (about 4 3/4") long, with another 3-4 cm (about an inch and a half) comprising the anal sphincter ring. Obviously, there's some variation among men (size queens, rejoice) but it's not like there's some magic ring 8 or 9 inches back that only the super-hung can reach. The muscles of the lowest portion of the colon - which are responsible for moving feces along into the rectum - just kind of peter out, and the last one is not some gripping tight thing like the anal sphincter. It presumably "feels" like that because the top's cock will only really feel the muscles of the colon once enough of the head makes it far enough inside the colon for it to get a grip. And conversely, the bottom's unlikely to feel anything until the top gets far enough inside (as in, probably, the whole head plus some), because then the muscles gripping the shaft behind the head will tighten down more than those gripping the head, and your body then senses an "object" as opposed to just being full from a more or less uniform shaft.

You're very welcome.

There are actually two things referred to as a "second hole". The more common, shared among all humans, is the connection spot between the end of the sigmoid colon and the beginning of the rectum. Ordinarily, in the standard layout of these two organs there's a sharp turn between them, so a cock long enough to extend into the bottom of the sigmoid colon will typically find a bit of resistance as it breaches that point. That said, the entire colon is lined with muscles (that's how it moves food waste along), and there's no special sphincter, as there is at the far end of the rectum, to "breach" with a big cock. It's just that there are muscles that are being stretched a bit by the cock's entry. In trans men, the vagina is something called the "second hole" (or "bonus hole"). But if that's what is meant, it should be clear from the context.

I don't know how many people here post from a cell vs. from a notebook or desktop computer (I use all of the above, depending on the circumstances). What I do not do is post random selfie shots with posts just because it's technologically feasible. It's a stupid waste of bandwidth and storage space to stick pictures of your dicklet into discussions just because you can. If you're trying to illustrate a specific point, fine. If you're posting to a personal gallery, fine. If you're just showing your dick because you're an exhibitionist there are sites for that elsewhere.

If you find an unconscious person and have sex with him, you're committing rape, which is a felony whether it's bareback or with a condom. Personally, I don't believe in committing felonies.

Cool. Are you okay with being robbed, beaten, maimed? Regardless, what you think is acceptable for you is pertinent and relevant to you alone. You thinking it's okay doesn't make it acceptable for anyone else to do it to anyone else. Period.

FWIW: The saying (again, obviously bullshit, but...) was "Big nose, big hose".

Unless he lacked a voice to be able to respond and couldn't even vocalize the word "No" (or its equivalent in your language), I don't think it counts as rape. But next time, why not just explain what you want first and get the okay? Tell him you want to fuck, but you can only manage to penetrate if you do it roughly. He can say yes or no, and then you act accordingly.

Your initial reaction was appropriate and no, you did not "clearly deserve" it. It's fine if you've chosen to be okay with it now, but that's because you choose to be, not because his actions were "deserved".

That's true in a small handful of "large cities". In other large cities, police are still slow to respond to calls of, say, domestic violence between two people of the same sex. When a crime is committed against a gay person or group, it's often put on the back burner for investigation if the cop it's assigned to doesn't like gay people. Even if the police aren't raiding public parks, that doesn't (by itself) make them pro-gay. Or even gay-neutral.

Over time, sure. But as the old saw goes, in the long run, we're all dead. People running for office in 2021 are not concerned that negative ads are going to mean only 40% turn out in 2035; they only care about winning the election that's on the ballot this year. And I agree that negative ads are a problem on both sides. But "I'm against X" is not the same thing as a negative ad, at least in the way political scientists view them. Positive ads are ones that promote the candidate's views; negative ads attack the other candidate. Both sides do that. But one side's candidates, in their positive ads, talk about the things they want to accomplish - universal health care, better roads, whatever. The other side's candidates, in their positive ads, talk about all the stuff they're against: against forced busing, against integration, against immigration, against taxing "job creators", against police reform... and on and on. And that's why it's asymmetric. When the Democrats win, they have to assemble a coalition to overcome filibusters to enact legislation to achieve actual goals. When the Republicans win, they mostly need to block things from happening.

I agree, McAuliffe was a terrible candidate. It didn't help that he was a former governor, running in one of the only states that prohibits a governor from serving consecutive terms. When a state has that rule, it's a sign voters generally don't want repeat faces. As for what voters want to hear: I think Democratic voters want to hear what you're for, because Democrats want their officials to do something. Republican voters want to hear what you're against, because the defining principle of Republicanism these days is being "against"; against liberals, against socialism, against minorities (except those that know their place), against progress. But to his credit, McAuliffe knows that Trump is still a danger. If he decides to run again in 2024, he's almost guaranteed to win the nomination, unless he's facing trial for tax fraud, and even then, he might still get the nomination. And if Republicans in places like Georgia and Arizona succeed in implementing the voting restrictions they're pushing, Trump might well beat whoever is the Democratic nominee. The problem is that too many Democrats don't recognize Trump, and his hold on the GOP, for the authoritarian danger that it is. Particularly if GOP gerrymandering enables them to take control of the House again.

FWIW, Republican executives (ie governor or president) no longer really see the need to "govern" in the classic sense. They simply issue executive orders attempting to rule, not govern, by fiat. So a divided legislature is hardly an impediment to a determined GOP governor. Especially since the GOP agenda, broadly speaking, consists of not doing anything and preventing other people from doing anything, either. When you're in favor of less regulation of industry, for instance, all you have to do is direct your agency heads (which are almost always appointed by the incumbent governor) to not enforce this or that or the other regulation. Someone may sue - this is America, after all - but lawsuits can take years to get to the point where anything is accomplished, and in the meantime, industry can run amok. Additionally, even when the executive order accomplishes absolutely nothing, in practicality, the governor can still tout them as examples of his "leadership". Look for Youngkin to issue an order forbidding Virginia schools from teaching "critical race theory", for instance; even though critical race theory isn't taught below advanced college classes, and thus the EO does zero to change things, he'll still promote it as his standing up to the "socialists" who seek to "divide" us (even as it's his stoking of white resentment that really divides). Really, the biggest difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is that the Democrats want government to actually DO things, and to do things requires legislation to be passed. Republicans, on the other hand, want to STOP government from doing things, and stopping it simply means ordering agencies not to do certain things any more. It's asymmetrical and it's a reason why Democrats always seem to be floundering on their agendas - because they're actually trying to do something. It's always easier to get people to do nothing.