Phallarchist

I want to see the full process of insertion, whether it's a slow push or a brutal one-stroke slam to the hilt. I don't know why studios so often cut from suck to mid-fuck.

Fundamentally, 1. Have a penis that gets hard. 2. Use it to fuck and breed. Of course, there are other secondary sex characteristics and factors that determine degrees of manhood. E.g., fag breeding is a simulation. If you've never fucked your seed into a vagina, then you're clearly missing an experience that's central to having a penis and being a successful male of the species.

No, not at all. Natural body hair is essential.

I'm sure no one thinks it's a legally-binding document. As you suggest, it would be a way to make sure the candidate knows the parameters of the proposal and to gauge his actual level of desire for it to happen.

I have digestion mostly in mind. A faggot has to have an empty stomach or an empty and cleansed colon to be useful. It's unrealistic to impose both conditions on a boy's body every day. It's better that that he take enema rest and heal on alternate days at least. A 2:1 ratio also goes some way to satisfy the male ego and desire for variety.

I would match one man with two boys. Faggot cunt requires a lot of maintenance time, so having two in circulation increases cunt availability for the man. If a boy had a random male urge, he could dissipate it in the other boy (with the man's permission) and return to female service.

Men have limited opportunities to ejaculate, so they tend to choose their targets carefully. You should try to find out why men find you undeserving of their seed. It might be some factor that you can improve.

Actual Female Cunt™ has even more hair than the average ass.

Leave it and grow more!

I am looking for completely untouched hair growth below the neck. I prefer an extremely hairy cunt. It's just beautiful. But I am perfectly happy with less hair as long as it's natural.

On this opposite side of the equation, I would have to agree. An abundance of aggression and other secondary sex characteristics, like muscularity and body hair, can be decisive. A short man can certainly get inside me by displaying and using male power. The difference is that a tall man can intimidate and force me effortlessly if it's in his nature, while a short one has to work harder to achieve the same effect. I greatly admire the smaller men who spare no effort to seize the advantage and prove their manhood against me. Their determination is inspiring. Nevertheless, I retain a general preference for the human pattern of sexual dimorphism. Males should ideally be larger.

This process is vitally important, but I submit that the effect is largely in the mind. What bodily integration does occur cannot be detected, and I believe that most seed leaves the colon by the unfortunate mechanisms of that organ. The oral route is actually more effective in the sense that all seed ingested is digested. I don't really interoperate with the terms "top" and "bottom". Even a normalization to the more useful concepts of male and female is somewhat unsatisfactory. There is only a man's desire and its consequences for the cunt he chooses. Semen is valuable because it is the concrete manifestation of his will to breed. The thought process of his volunteer victim is a fly-buzz distraction. This expectation is the crux. Female preference aside, I would agree that deep insemination must be the objective if a man has only one opportunity to breed. However, I do not assume the promiscuous model. I always have in mind an ownership relation between man and cunt-provider, wherein the man retains nearly unlimited long-term penetrative access and is thus assured of frequent delivery of his reproductive payload to its quasi-natural destination. In this context, any number of violent or degrading practices are available to him for the satisfaction of his phallic sadism and pride. These complementary acts reinforce his power and drive his lust for the subsequent productive copulation that he knows is forthcoming.

Penetration has, at the point of release, been well achieved, and possibly into both cunts in alternation. A bred load is quickly lost to the interior. An ejaculation into the face is a frontal assault on the (hypothetical) dignity of the victim. It also allows the man to view the splendor of his seed strewn over the (presumably attractive) face he has just fucked. I would also regard pissing or spitting on a face to be dominant. Slapping even more so. Is there any doubt that these acts convey contempt?

Yes, impale the little bitch from both ends. Or break his tiny cunt wide open with both cocks at once.

Facial ejaculation is for domination and degradation. Oral ejaculation addresses the reproductive urge. I would never give up either, and fortunately, they're not mutually exclusive. What hits the face can be scooped into the mouth.

Yes, I crave a large difference in height. 5'4"/1.63 m and below is best. I want to be able to easily control the boy's position and feel like I'm splitting him in half and stabbing up into his guts past his navel. Small hands trying to encircle my shaft look amazing, even while I prefer a generous mouth for obvious reasons.

It's technically impossible to fulfill as a demand or request, but it wouldn't stop me from trying.

I like the idea of decisively negating the faggot clitoris. I do not like the restraining devices. Perhaps a punishment model could work instead. He wears a tracking device and I get a notification if it records undue motion or an orgasm. I make him regret his disobedience when I get home.

If a man orders a female (faggot) to impale herself with his penis for his enjoyment, then he is exercising a form of male dominance. The only justification he thinks he needs is the birthright of his sex. He believes that the only reasonable response to his demand is compliance. My first impulse is to agree with his stunning arrogance. The opportunity to obey and satisfy a man is a gift. The Phallus imposes rough order on a chaotic universe. It both creates life and gives it meaning. Its power and beauty overwhelm the senses and exceed the bounds of reason. Yet, I submit that its vital work can only proceed by male intention and male action. It cannot be an immovable object. It must be an unstoppable force. A man who fails to wield his penis with active purpose is lapsing in his duty. While I might find myself reflexively complying with a command from a seemingly superior, but essentially inert man, I would ultimately feel the act idolatrous. By his deliberate inaction, he undermines the very basis of his authority and carelessly forsakes my natural devotion. I am loath to place limits on a man's prerogative. In general, power should be wildly imbalanced to his advantage. But I do think it rightful to require from him a consistent pattern of forceful penetration.

Let it be rough! Virginity is for the breaking. You will remember it always and thus take the essential lesson of self-sacrifice into your soul. Find an excellent brute to do the job. Don't waste your precious blood and tears on an unworthy male.

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.