hungry_hole

I loved this video. Frozen cum that melts by the end of the fuck [think before following links] https://barebackbastards.com/61565/frozen/

First, why are you so angry with me when all I'm trying to say is that all men would benefit from same-sex intimacy being part of masculinity, the way same-sex intimacy is an important part of femininity. Men's bodies are different from women especially when it comes to erotic life because we have the cock that gets hard and it unconsciously interferes with intimacy. So obviously the way same-sex intimacy will take place will be different. Two girls can compare breast size without sex being part of the interaction, but two boys who want to compare cock size and shape, they both need to be horny to be able to make the comparison. I already asked, can then only "gay boys" compare cocks? Obviously all boys would like to compare cocks so they should have games that boys play with their cocks and hard-ons. But because society has decided to marginalize boys and men who demonstrate any interest in same-sex intimacy, boys are reluctant to experience same-sex intimacy for fear of being part of a special group of boys and men. Girls don't think of other girls as lesbians because they want to go together to the washroom or share some piece of clothing. "Gay" is an identity and as such is ambiguous. For some men, a man is gay when he bottoms anally. I once read that a man is gay only if he falls in-love with a man, but having sex with men doesn't "make" him gay. Sexual Orientation has no biological markers so it's a good candidate for a socially constructed concept. So-called "straight men" are very reassured by "being straight" because they never have to contemplate the idea that sex with men may be fun. But the same elements that "gay men" love in porn, hard cocks and cum, are present in straight porn, just with some women to calm down the straight men. Everybody here is probably familiar with the Kinsey Scale, and you probably have it wrong. The Kinsey Scale never intended to categorize identities, but instead the proportions of hetero and homo sex. Kinsey said it clearly, that "homosexual" and "heterosexual" should be used to refer to sexual encounters, and not for people. A sexual act can be heterosexual or homosexual, but not the people. It's a small detail that means a lot. Just look at the disappointment in a woman's face who is anxious to find a man but discovers that the cute guy next door lives with his lover. A boy watching the scene will get the message that the guy next door is not a regular man. I don't see the "stupid". I know what gay mean to most people and if I were saying the same thing that everybody says or thinks about gay men, I wouldn't have bother writing anything. I am sure that if men could comfortably suck their own cock, gloryholes and cock sucking would not be as popular among men as it is now. Gloryholes provide men with a "disembodied" cock that one can appropriate as your own, and pretend you are sucking your own. I've never said that boys can get it out of their system. What I'm saying is that most likely all the stuff we now attribute to "being gay" is actually something common to all boys and men.

Societies depend and have depended for ever on heterosexuality not because people have been "socialized" to favour it, but because children have been part of a male-female couples, so heterosexuality is here to stay. Children have grandparents, they meet the parents of other children, most in male-female couple. Again, I think that the mistake is to focus on identities, gay and straight in this case. First of all, if people want to talk about socially constructed concepts, instead of talking about gender, gay and straight are better examples. I say this because sexual orientation does not have any biological markers. If the body or blood of a person is found, it would be impossible to determine the sexual orientation of that person, because sexual orientation is a fictitious construct. I'm opposed to referring to same-sex marriage as "gay marriage" because then it would imply that only gay men and lesbians can marry each other. In my opinion the insistence in having to be gay in order to engage in same-sex marriage is pervasive. Nothing stops two men to marry each other without "being gay". I totally disagree with this "wired" reference because it would mean that some men have no interest in anything male and only focused on women. And we all know that it's not true, because we live in a male-dominated society where most men prefer men to women. Why do you think guys watch MMA fights? They enjoy watching masculine and muscular bodies, mind you fighting, because otherwise it would be gay. They even have these stupid silly women announcing the rounds that nobody cares about because the men are there to watch the men. Yes, the men who in the back of their minds sees the potential to get turned on by men, are opposed to "gay stuff" because it may ruffle their feathers. From observing girls and women same-sex intimacy I think there's a lesson to learn and that maybe men are frustrated by the censoring of same-sex intimacy and that the only way to achieve it is by "being gay". Why can't boys and men be allowed to share intimacy, physical and emotional, without being labelled "different"? The problem with the concept of "gay" is that it will always be of a lower social status simply because for women, a so-called "straight" male will always have more value that a gay one. Everybody's heard comments from women who say "the guy next door is so cute, but too bad, he's gay". And this will never change. Or do you think it will come a time when women won't care if the guy they are interested is gay or not. The solution is to get rid of the gay and straight identities because that will be the only way to get rid of discrimination. And focus instead of what are the needs that boys and men need from other boys and men. Here is one example. Wanting to suck cock is seen as an indication that a man is gay. But this need to suck cock would be interpreted as men wanting to suck it's own cock but because a man can't really suck it, he needs to suck another guy's cock. Boys should first have fun with each other, suck cock, fuck each other, play all kinds of sexual games, without any women. Then, as they grow older into manhood men can decide to relate sexually to women. That way men can resolve any fetishes they may have among each other, and then go to women.

I would like to take a step back and think of why a professional doing their job has to share with the clients, children in this case, details of their personal life. When I went to school I never knew anything about the personal life of my teachers, and looking back I wasn't interested. Teachers were there to teach subjects that were considered to help children in their future careers, like Math, Grammar, Science, public speaking, and many other useful subjects. Regarding the reference to sexual orientation: But heterosexuality is pervasive in all cultures, and it has been for millennia, therefore there must be something about the conditions and the dynamics of heterosexuality that it is favoured among all cultures. One reason I can think about why most men favour heterosexual intimacy over male intimacy is that most likely their experiences of intimacy have been with a woman, their mother, rarely with a father or any male friends. I disagree with presenting children with a concept that segregates them based on a need for intimacy. As BootmanLA says "[Heterosexuality] is baked into the environment; it's the air that people breathe" which creates a power imbalance with homosexuality at the bottom of the scale. Heterosexuality is so baked into the environment that there have been several cases of Canadian Junior players using some young woman in gang-bang, just to be able to say that they are straight. If I were the judge my sentence would be to repeat the scene but this time instead of the young woman being gang-rape, they all have to take turns being the slut. Instead of telling teenage boys about the gay identity, they should be told things that are real and concrete, like "Look boys, you have a cock, it gets hard, and it feels good touching it, but it would feel better if I sucked it, but I can't". You tell them that for some boys the next best thing to sucking your own cock is to suck a buddy's cock, and maybe later switch. If one keeps the "gay" out of the needs for intimacy with other boys, boys are more likely accept same-sex intimacy themselves. One of the most intimate things two boys can do, something they cannot do with girls, is compare their cocks, in size shape, etc. But for two boys to compare their cocks they have to feel aroused, which within sexual orientation perspective would mean that two straight boys cannot compare cocks, because doing it makes them gay.

Using a fake name for a law is not a proper way of debating the issue. I'm not American so I don't know what the name of the law is, but I know those opposing to the bill likes to call it that way to disqualify it. I'm against confusing children about any concept, and especially gender. Many concepts are ambiguous and that may include gender. I say "may" because it's never been confusing to me. Take the concepts of "door" and "window" which at first glance they seem simple. A door is to go in and out of a room, and a window is to let light and fresh air come into a room. That's what children learn by observation. But it turns out that a window can also be a door and a door can sometimes be a window, but not because of that we teach two-year old children the nuances of concepts like window and door. Children learn about the nuances of windows and doors with experience. Yes, sometimes for some gender is not as clear as it is for more than 99% of the population in the Western world, but that doesn't mean that you have to confuse every child with the nuances of gender. Because if you do, many children with emotional issues unrelated to gender will gravitate to the ideas of gender theory because they find emotional support among other young people.

I would agree but I would also agree with:

"I'll bottom for the right guy" is a phrase that I see quite often in profiles of usually versatile or versatile-top profiles. What does it mean? Does it mean that the right guy has to do with his cock or age?

That's hot!

Great feedback and it matches my experience because I remember the weird size of the outlet. There is probably a converter to the standard size. I don't understand how places like GI-Joe don't have good cleaning facilities for bottoms who want heavy anal play. It's like a restaurant without bathrooms.

I was also young, on my first visit to the YMCA in New York. Maybe the guy wasn't very big or maybe that I knew about lube from my bottom friend who had recommended me I stay at the Y. I still remember the guy in his 50's moaning, pulling out and quickly leave the room. My first bottoming experience must have been very good because I became hooked to bottoming and taking anon loads.

As a bottom, one of the things I like about Steamworks Toronto, is that the bathrooms are equipped with good cleaning facilities. Does GI-Joe have any good cleaning facilities?

Yes, because guys feel uninhibited, but No, because darkrooms are full of holes looking for cum. If you are a young, good-looking guy, in a darkroom you basically have the same chances of taking a load than a bottom in his 60's or 70's.

Dripping holes make even a bottom want to breed it. So hot...

When time's up at the sauna and I'm still horny, I many times prefer to go home and jerk-off just before I fall asleep. Other times I jerk off in my room and then go home. If there are gloryholes, I may feed my hard-on to some willing mouth and have it swallow my load, and then go home. I know many bottoms, even total bottoms, if they are horny and need to dump their loads before leaving the sauna, will hunt for a hole, stick their throbbing hard-on, dump their load, and then leave the sauna.

I'm sure you're right about the history, but what I know is that Harper was Primer Minister when same-sex marriage became legal in the province of Ontario, and that he gave permission to his party to vote independently.

In Canada, it was during the Conservative government of Stephen Harper that the same-sex marriage became law.

At the sauna I like to keep my room fairly dark and hang a sign that glows in the dark and says "CUMHOLE". Guys find the idea of the cumhole hot. One the guys that stopped by was a young black dude in his early 20's with a "holy shit" cock and who insisted in fucking me. Before leaving he told me that the sign mad him horny

Why aren't you?

I went to Steamworks Toronto for the Lights Out event and one of the loads I took was in the smaller darkroom in the back. I never expected to get fucked, and even less bred, but I guess my hole was there at the right time. I walked into the darkroom and in the crowd of horny men I found a hard cock at which point I turned around and guided that hard tool into my hole. I was surprised when he enthusiastically began to pound my hole, and after a minute of so he stopped, slapped by ass, and left the room. There's nothing hotter than an anon load and not really knowing from whom.

That little face 🙂makes me wonder what thew reason may be that this hotel is so popular for cumpdimps. Is it because there is no need for access cards, and visitors can just walk to the room? Do any of the rooms have special features that can help anonymous hook-ups? Just wondering

This site is about fetishes and I think that here no legal fetish should be shunned.

On one of my visits to Steamworks while I was in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, a guy going by my room decided to walk in when he saw the glow-in-the-dark sign "CUMDUMP" on the wall of my darken room. He started to fuck me but he came fairly quick. He mentioned that he had just got in, which explained why he shot his load so quickly. But that he wanted to come back later. A couple of hours he appeared again but this time he fucked me for a fairly long time, and when started to shoot his load, this second orgasm he seemed to enjoy it more, with a lot of moaning and expressions of pleasure. It was hot!

Why Tops? When I'm looking to get bred I don't mind who breeds me. Instead I would say "Any horny hung guys looking for a hole?"

I think that the time a guy lasts fucking a hole has more to do with the guy fucking than the with hole. Some guys take their time before they shoot and others cum really quick. Some bottoms at the sauna, after taking loads for a few hours, like to blow their load before going home, and they are usually quick. Last weekend at the sauna I stayed until; early morning when guys were already leaving. At some point I was on the fuck bench on one of the darkrooms and in less than a minute a guy started to play with my hole, fucked it, bred it, and gone. I could tell he wanted to blow his load and go home. I think the guy was very horny and it wasn't my hole.

Every city should have a piece of land, with trees and bushes, where nudity and sex are legal. I would prefer an all-male space to keep it drama-free. The entrances would warn of nudity and sex acts.