Phallarchist

I have a long-standing notion to plunder a virgin at the moment of his majority. Local laws would vary the target age, but I would need the boy to be fully grown physically as well. Mental maturity is probably a lost cause. You could wait decades for it to arrive.

Computer crap. It's tedious.

The two instincts are, in fact, inescapable and irreconcilable. The initiate must be certain in his own mind and a seeker after the ever-disturbing truth of sex. He must be intellectually committed to maximal sexual freedom for the man and convinced of the necessity of his own spiritual castration. As important as the transformative nature of cunt pain is the corresponding ecstatic rage of a phallus that has absolute power. The man must hammer into his victim's body and soul the truth that has already been agreed in principle: that his deep male fulfillment is paramount and that it requires the oppression of the cunt. The sacrifice must be made to accept that his willingness to suffer is the foundation of his utility to the male. (It also creates the possibility of love.) Even with thorough mental preparation and an ironclad dedication to male supremacy, some boys will find the sacred violation intolerable. It is, after all, a shocking abuse of his colon and a deliberate assault on his (perhaps nominal) male identity. Rebellion might be unavoidable. It makes perfect sense for such a victim to attempt to reclaim maleness and heal the sacrificial wound by turning to the natural comforts of women. I do not consider this outcome at all undesirable. The functional ease of congress with females is as true as the joys and hardships of faggotry. There is unfortunate compromise and dissatisfaction on both paths. Seduction and a deceptively slow escalation of pain are appropriate for boys of exceptionally high value who do not know themselves and need to be lured into their self-enslavement. But they might also decide that they are not given to a life of cunt service. They might commit the odious crime of coitus interruptus. I am rather referring to those who enter the sexual arena with a deep need to be defeated and forced into abject servitude. They are few but blessed of men. Cunting takes them directly from ideology to practice.

This idea has naïve merit, but I think it's exactly wrong. The best a faggot can expect from life is a soupçon of happiness amid abundant pain and degradation. Therefore, I believe the first cunting should be sharp, brutal and traumatic. The victim should be fully aware of how he is to be sacrificed. He must accept it as part of his fate and as a vital lesson about his place in the sexual arena. The fag will carry the memory of that agony forever and it will remind him that suffering for a man is a privilege, even as he finds opportunities to experience pleasure in his subsequent encounters. It's possible that some boys will have a negative reaction to such an initiation. It's a defining moment that could push them towards other paths in life. Maybe they'll discover a latent interest in women. Faggotry is difficult. If they have other options, they should use them.

Yes, for high-quality sex, the period of receptivity has to be well-defined. Only in that context is a surrender to male sexual authority meaningful and valuable. One of the advantages of a live-in relationship is that the man can track the fag's digestion and general life schedule. His opportunities to use the cunt on demand increase greatly.

Sex is naturally violent and injurious, so I expect the average man to enjoy phallic brutality to some extent. It would be strange if he didn't. I love to hurt bitches and break cunts. The first time a boy yelped in pain and tried to get away, a jolt of power and joy transformed me into a sexual sadist in an instant. I felt perfectly male in that moment. The first time my weapon drew blood, I was thrilled. I hadn't realized how easily a rectum bleeds. Both discoveries were accidental, but I took to painfucking right away.

The man should decide everything where sex is concerned, but I consider spontaneous rectum sex impractical. The cunt needs to be scrupulously clean and that takes plenty of time and planning. The fag should know exactly what's required of him and when.

Thanks, I seem to be in tune with a few people. It's a small 'we'.

At least at first, the number of reactions a user can make is rather limited, so the system trained me to use them sparingly. It seemed better to highlight the few posts that I loved rather than waste my resources on the many posts that disgust me or otherwise engage my abundant capacity for disapproval. My own views and preferences tend to be harsh. Believe it or not, I mostly keep them to myself. But I'm sure my expressed opinions have garnered many more downvotes than I have ever thought to use. I don't mind. I keep my own counsel and have no expectation that my conclusions will be broadly accepted. To answer the question, I would tend to downvote a factually incorrect assertion if I considered the topic important enough.

Yes, it's a power pose. Some of the people who strike it actually have the power, but many are delusional.

I'm unaffected and indifferent, personally, but I promote and encourage the desire to the extent that it lures boys into giving themselves to older men. I love to see a man score young pussy whatever the reason. A 25-year age gap is a good start.

Try it. Stop if you don't like it. If you're going to fag out, then I think you're required to learn how to suck. Men tend to require it for purposes of dominance and sexual variety.

No, it makes sense. People expect men to talk about women a certain way because the vast majority of men depend on women for sex and so have to maintain a certain reputation. You don't have that problem, presumably. It's like lesbians who are said to "hate" men. Some certainly do, but most just don't care much one way or the other. They don't really need men, and aren't going to go out of their way to accommodate us.

If you're in control of the schedule, I would just say "don't," especially because I think eating should be avoided beforehand. Space it out. If men are controlling you, then they have the primary responsibility both to oversee your digestive tract and maintain your health. They have to balance their greed for your cunt against its foul primary purpose. It's especially a problem in a relationship where a normal man might reasonably want to fuck daily. He probably needs to accept the limitations of rectal sex and stick to once every two or three days, satisfying himself with the fag's throat on off days. I'm speaking about men of substantial penis size. It's possible that a simple rectum rinse would do for a smaller penis. I have scant experience in that realm.

It's one of the greatest honours a fag can receive. It's impossible for me to even understand the idea of deciding whether or not to swallow a man's seed. Ingestion of the sacred substance was a foregone conclusion the moment the first knee hit the floor. It's basic to my conception of what it means to serve a man sexually.

It's a shame that you had to figure it out on your own, and presumably defile several men in the process. I believe that young fags should hand themselves over to experienced men for extended rectal training and sexual exploitation. Self-abnegation and a dedication to service don't always come naturally. The fag must often be bent and broken into physical and psychological compliance with male requirements.

Every fag should be so perfectly aligned with its natural state of self-enslavement.

It's good that it emphasizes how thorough the process has to be. Faggotry is an extremely unfair and inescapable burden. A man need only have an erection. A fag has to wash his colon for hours at a time, get stabbed in the guts without a word of complaint, and thank the man for the privilege. It makes no sense whatsoever, but men and their dicks are just that valuable.

Clean-shaven، I'm afraid. It's not at all in line with my need for natural hair absolutely everywhere else, but I want to land on cunt-soft skin wherever my penis whacks him in the face. And I don't like seeing my seed stuck in a beard. I guess I'm generally boy-oriented when it comes to penetrating. I'm looking for intimations of youth and fertility, which are best conveyed by a clear, exposed face.

Odd. Half the thrill is aiming the stream directly into a boy's open mouth and watching the urine pool until he's forced to gulp. I don't want any extraneous equipment in the way.

I wish I could say that a man forced the discovery on me, but the truth is I started reading extensively on homosexuality early on. As soon as I understood the concept of rectal intercourse, I started inserting cylindrical objects and dreaming about being fucked by an excellent older boy who had become the center of my erotic attention. I eventually found the right motion and hit my prostate consistently. Orgasm ensued. It turns out I learned the wrong lesson. While it's nice when I get it, I shouldn't expect rectal pleasure. Being fucked doesn't always feel good physically and it doesn't need to. The point of giving myself to a man is to serve him and have him inside me. I want the man to concentrate entirely on the pleasure building in the glorious length he is repeatedly shoving into me. If I happen have an orgasm, it must be after his, or at a point when the resulting anal contractions would maximize his stimulation. His release is essential. Mine is irrelevant. In that sense, I think a sudden, uncomfortable initiation puts a young faggot on the right path, one of service and routine self-sacrifice to the male imperative. Pleasure, if it comes, is primarily a function of being useful to the man. His satisfaction must be total before any notion of cunt pleasure can arise.

I love that phrase and the concept of giving a man the sensation of taking a virgin. He should have the satisfaction of struggling valiantly against your reluctant cunt and pushing through your comfort zone into the tight passage beyond.

It's a perfectly reasonable definition, but why not just say "I get sucked" or "I fuck skull"?

Most terms are inadequately specific. Is an "oral top" a man who penetrates orally (leaving unclear his anal practice, if any), or a man who will insist on sucking dick before anally penetrating? Why bother with the codes and animal categories? Just explain what you mean, specifically. No one's paying by the word for space in a newspaper.

I think it's fine for a man to make a woman lick his anus, because it's purely an act of submission on her part. She doesn't have a penis and can't penetrate him. He can enjoy the anal sensations and degrade her at the same time. It's all to his advantage. He'll end up glowing with fuck-pride as she tries to brush the taste of his ass off of her tongue and his load drips down her leg. His victory as a man was preordained. But a fag is still a potential phallic threat and analingus by one male is traditionally the prelude to his penetration of the other. The power dynamic between man and fag is already given to instability, so I don't think a dominant male should allow himself to be treated in any way that even suggests he might be penetrated. I don't put a lot of limits on male sexual prerogative, but as far as I'm concerned, the man has a duty to maintain strict discipline in this regard. A man's anus should be off limits. At least, that should be the default assumption. You should lick his perineum, but go no farther unless he demands it.