Phallarchist

Not casually. I do have the urge to lick it before I stick it, but the snatch has to be both naturally hairy and scrupulously clean in and out. A light rinse won't do it. I wouldn't trust a stranger to do a thorough job.

If it is deeply clean, I can see tonguing out my seed, or preferably the seed of a better man who claimed the cunt first.

Faggot females should primarily obey and endure with muted vocalizations of pain and pleasure. They do not give orders.

Men fuck to breed, so they ask "do you want my load"? only as a test of faggot loyalty and gratitude. They're demanding worship, not asking for permission. Enthusiastic begging is the only correct faggot response.

I've followed men to the bathroom and knelt next to the toilet with my mouth open and a pleading look on my face. It doesn't always work.

I don't think I thought much about it. When I was with the first man, he told me to do it and I was naturally enthralled at first taste.

Yes, and I've come to regard enduring this abuse as a measure of submission. I expect to be able to ejaculate in a faggot's eyes. I wouldn't do it in often, though, because there's probably a small medical risk. Urine is probably safer.

Use of force is essential. Giving my throat and airway to a man so that he can use it as cunt is an act of surrender made in exchange for experiencing the glory of his male power. I need to feel his hands tightly controlling my skull and watch him swell with pride in his penis as he chokes me on it, just because it feeds his ego.

A man with girth is a born sexual assailant. He can't put it in half way. A long, thin penis can go right down the throat quite far, but a thick one is like a battering ram. It's a glorious impaling.

But mostly I want to feel that the man himself, and not just his penis, is intent on invading and exploiting me. A big dick can be an amazing weapon, but I value a man of almost any size who actively and freely enjoys forcing himself into my throat and is totally obsessed with his own pleasure.

19 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

There is ZERO evidence for this fantasy of yours. Did it cause some black voters to question supporting him? Almost certainly. Is he still likely to cause a significant drop in African-American votes for Mango Mussolini? Yes.

It's especially hysterical to see you waving the Trump banner when you claim to be so supportive of alpha males, when your candidate wears lifts, lies about his height and weight, whines like a baby incessantly about how badly he's treated, and throws Twitter temper tantrums whenever he gets cranky. The toddler-in-chief is the least adult male president we've ever had, and you sing his praises like a cuckold. Pitiful.

I am not a Trump supporter, and even if I were, it would not be because he's a masculine ideal. You're just randomly spouting the latest
talking points, apropos of nothing.

Biden's task, had he been trying competently to win an election, was to try to convince these million voters to choose him over Trump. He instead elected to mock them by way of defining them out of their own race. Perhaps Trump's support has eroded such that these voters are now considered disposable, but I would think that the marginal failures of 2016 ought to be regarded as monitory.

On 5/24/2020 at 12:07 PM, BootmanLA said:

 Trump got slightly less than 8% of that black vote, or just over 1 million votes. 

In the millions, on the order of millions, one million. They're all votes now much less likely to go to Biden.

Millions of black people voted for Trump. Biden has had his (first) "deplorables" moment, months ahead of Clinton's exemplary schedule.

Biden's incoherence and Trump's incoherence are in no way mutually exclusive. But what do I know? After all, I "ain't black" and so can't appreciate Biden's superior logic and rhetorical skills.

I've never met anyone who employed such language, and it's not something I would ever seek. But if an aggressive male started using it against me, I would feel obligated to do what I could to validate and enhance his erotic contempt. It would be my duty to maximize his desire and psychological satisfaction. My principle is that the dominant penetrator gets whatever he wants in the moment, to the best of my availability to provide it.

That's the ideal, but I wonder how far I could really go.

The party of Obama had four long years to find a candidate who could defeat this incoherent orange carnival barker, and managed to settle on one that's just plain incoherent. There is no political consequence harsh enough to reward such cowardice, incompetence, and stupidity, except for the unthinkable. It's atrocious.

6 hours ago, BlindRawFucker1 said:

I consider being a bully or arrogant, to be traits of a jerk, not a male.

This evaluation sounds rational, whereas @ErosWired does not seem to be referring to an impulse founded in logic. And you have chosen just two traits that he mentioned. But if we were to take it as a rational proposition, then I would say that there need be no strict separation between the categories of "jerk" and "male". If most men exhibit "jerk" behaviors over evolutionary time and across cultures, then I don't think there can be a simple distinction.

Of course, the strength of this behavioral link would not be nearly as strong as the basic biological link between XY chromosomes and the development of the penis, testes, and sperm-production. Those correlations are virtual identities. But let's say the "jerk" correlation is 60% or even 20%. Those effect levels are still notable and bound to influence behaviors in others.

6 hours ago, BlindRawFucker1 said:

If they are male traits,I guess I can't be considered a true male.

I take it that you are a "true male", in the chromosomal and gross anatomical sense. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is starkly atypical of males in general, and usually deleterious to genetic propagation. The behavioral and reproductive differences entailed by a primary or exclusive sexual response to male bodies make it difficult for me to easily place male homosexuals in the broader "male" category. It's a "one of these things is not like the other" situation.

6 hours ago, BlindRawFucker1 said:

On the other hand, I have no desire to be female.  So, what am I?

I would say "Other". I consider reproductive distinctions fundamental. The vast majority of human beings have sexual impulses that are in line with their bodies' reproductive functions. They are male and female. The rest of us are something else, and since we are largely self-terminating, it probably doesn't matter much in the end what that thing is. "Other" or "both" or "neither" or "whatever": it's a catch-all pseudo-category for the irrelevant.

6 hours ago, BlindRawFucker1 said:

Human psychology and normalcy, often confounds me.

They confound me also, in that my impulses are generally at odds with those of normal humans. Especially normal male humans. But I find it impossible to ignore them.

52 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

@FaceLoad - I actually don’t balk at all from considering that a part of my instinct reflects the female - we are all an amalgam of animus and anima. While I don’t think of myself as female, my sexual function is undeniably that of the female in a hetero or dimorphic context. I’m comfortable with this, and even find myself wondering abstactly from time to time what life would be like if I had a vagina instead of a cock: Double the opportunity for penetration, what wouldn’t be to love about that?

The only time I yearn to have a vagina is when I want a man to penetrate me. I.e., when it's convenient. And then it's my most fervent wish. But if I did have one, I would never give a second thought to my rectum again. It would become exit-only, at least until the man wanted to take his conquest of my body to the next level.

1 hour ago, alwaysready said:

I prefer confident and cool.

I suppose "confidence" could be contrasted with false bravado, but what makes the man "cool"? Or are they synonyms?

Let's review the examples you provided:

• strut around taking up more than their fair share of personal space: just dominant behavior
• sit around with their legs spread: space-taking dominant behavior, plus phallic presentation (you know what's between those legs)
• unabashedly ogling every body that passes, offering comments boorish and unrefined (or just whistling): sexual aggression
• laughing louder than anything could be funny: the auditory form of taking space
• being ‘bro’: projecting masculinity by signalling membership in a shared male culture
• being badass: displaying bravery and skill in a bid to increase status and thereby, mating success
• being bullies: increasing status through comparison with relative weaklings

As Spunkinmyarse said, these behaviors are simply aspects of maleness. I would consider them common enough to be secondary sex characteristics, like muscularity or body hair, but in the behavioral realm. Such men aren't necessarily pleasant company, but they are probably closer to the natural state of the male human animal than the mannered and inhibited creatures that make up polite society. Just as male instinct makes some of these behaviors inevitable, your female instinct necessitates a degree of sexual arousal in response. I really don't think it's complicated.

Or maybe you would balk at the notion of having a female instinct. I don't think you can speak of sexual attraction to males apart from sexual dimorphism, but never mind, then, I'll substitute myself. My female instinct absolutely responds to a number of these characteristics, and I want to be mated by certain men who display them.

My problem is that many of my sexual urges are in fact male, but I lack the instinct to exhibit most of these secondary behaviors. No doubt, my self-presentation is comforting to those who have suffered from male tyranny, but it also minimizes the faggot-female sexual response necessary for my breeding success.

On 4/24/2020 at 11:17 AM, drscorpio said:

I don't expect to talk you out of being a homophobic, self-hating faggot though, but please give the rest of us a break. 

You're the moderator, so I'll refrain from responding further on this topic. Anyone who is really curious can contact me privately. I genuinely don't want my offensive opinions to interrupt all of the self-loving spread of disease, drug addiction, and fantasizing about rape (my personal favorite). Let's keep the party going!

20 minutes ago, Bottomb1ichbo1 said:

Love the idea of meeting a guy for sex,  him tie me down, then like 5+guys show up and use me for days. 

I like to think there would be real camaraderie among the gang members, cheering on the brutality of the active rapist and competing in turn to make the victim cry, beg, and pass out. The most skillful assailant would get to keep the rapeslave, if he wanted it.

Another nice one from the same site. The stain on his ass cheek is picturesque: [think before following links] https://barebackbastards.com/25871/gay-bloody-hole/

On 1/10/2020 at 4:38 PM, as1717 said:

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://barebackbastards.com/27463/blood-fuck/

how about this

Thanks so much for this link. It was a beautiful sight and I hope it was real. In my experience, it's not that hard to bloody a cunt, so I would never use any equipment other than the flesh weapon of my birth.

4 hours ago, fungayboy said:

I want to be forced to take a large cock

I'm making a list and checking it twice.

On 4/25/2020 at 1:47 PM, angbcd said:

[W]hats the point if you can't feel it.

If you're sufficiently masochistic, it would be the psychological pleasure of suffering for a man. But this depth of self-sacrifice is understandably rare.

1 hour ago, ErosWired said:

For goodness’ sake. Really? How many times have we had to scream it from the rooftops to make the rest of humanity understand? Being gay is. not. a. choice. If it were optional, “conversion therapy” might work, instead of being a cruel, counterproductive and ethically indefensible form of psychological torture.

Being "gay" is a cultural choice that just demonstrates poor taste. Homosexuality per se is generally not a choice, but a mental defect that seems to be largely congenital. Bisexuals are not entirely hopeless and sometimes do have a degree of choice. That choice should generally be the other sex for primary pair-bonding, while perhaps entertaining the same sex as an occasional amusement.

If I knew of an effective conversion therapy, I would insist it be provided to every child at risk. Most "conversion" is useless, warmed-over Christian babble or Freudian fantasy. Nevertheless, I absolutely support the right of patients to try to escape exclusive homosexuality as well as the right of therapists to offer services to this end.

I endorse the universal usage of the word "faggot", because it's derogatory. While I welcome society's general move toward practical tolerance or indifference, most people correctly understand exclusive homosexuality as a regrettable aberration and I want clear distinctions between preferred and marginal forms of male sexual expression to be clearly maintained in common parlance. Children should learn that male and female are naturally complementary to an extent that almost justifies the labeling of same-sex penetration as "unnatural". In fact, it's just barely natural, driven by psychology, with little real physiological compatibility involved. Exclusively homosexual behavior should be regarded as the wrong choice, except for those few of us who are actually incapable of normal male-female sexuality.

Further, I have no truck with the nonsensical politics of "queer" or the empty ugliness of most of what passes for "gay". I would much rather be known as a disgusting sexually-deviant faggot who is nevertheless allowed to go on defiling himself and others like him as long as he doesn't interfere with the sexually-normal population.