Phallarchist

I dislike cockrings, just as I seem to dislike many things that are wildly popular with other fags. Most sexual accoutrements are silly, but cockrings distort what should be the natural perfection of the male organ. If an erect penis isn't inherently beautiful, then no amount of strangulation is going to improve it. I briefly wore a rubber one in my youth to try to emphasize my bulge. It's not an enhancement that turned out to be necessary or useful. (I still believe in genital advertisement via appropriate clothing, e.g. sweatpants or dress pants with no underwear, tight-crotched jeans, and of course erections in public whenever feasible.) I understand that many use cockrings to compensate for erectile dysfunction. I have some sympathy for this condition, but the failure to become hard enough to penetrate is a sign of the collapse of maleness itself. The afflicted need to fix the underlying causes (diet, exercise, psychology, etc.), or accept their fate and withdraw from the penetrative arena. Though I can somewhat accept pharmaceutical interventions, because I don't have to look at them or feel them.

No, but one of my cell cultures was abnormal once. It's scary. There have been disturbing rises in oral, anal, and penile cancer due to HPV. I put them in what I think is the order of severity, though all are horrible. Most fags don't strictly need their penises. Anal cancer is no doubt painful, but your elimination can be re-routed if necessary. Oral cancer is in your head, in organs you use constantly every day. And it could easily affect your face.

Rape/torture/murder. Serial-killer stuff. Specify that the victims are children and you have the ultimate horror. (Unless they're really annoying children.) I'm aroused by some rape scenarios and might be tempted to argue that it's justifiable in some limited circumstance. The rest holds no interest even as fantasy.

I think your questions and consternation are sincere, so I'll attempt to respond, probably with no great success. Fundamentally, I think I just enjoy a bit of sexual sadism when i can arrange it, while you don't at all. There will probably be no meeting of minds. Nevertheless, 1. I do not brutalize every boy indiscriminately. The faggot must accept his fate and agree to the necessity of the ordeal that I will inflict on him. This level of submission in a boy is rare and beautiful. 2. There is no such thing as a generically submissive boy. Each man has his own requirements for total erotic fulfillment and each boy must be put to particular use/abuse to meet those requirements. Some men are easy to please. I admit to being cruel and difficult at first, but a boy who suffers for me endears himself to me. His self-sacrifice at the altar of my manhood could well inspire love. And as I indicated, this blood rite would generally just be a one-time demonstration of my phallic power. I would reserve the right to hurt him occasionally in the future to satisfy my perversity and renew our bond as man and bitch, but I would have no further need to break his cunt. Though, in truth, he will bleed whenever I fuck him, just not always visibly. The rectal cunt always bleeds because it is not meant to be used by men. Anal penetration is thus always inherently abusive. I just want to make the abuse explicit and purposeful in a ritual of initiation that fills me with a sense of absolute power. 3. What I perpetrate is no worse than any rough fuck. It's certainly less risky than fisting, which is shockingly common. I would indeed and be aiming for the sigmoid junction (it feels great), but the locus of the injury depends on the size of the boy and the anatomy of his cunt. 4. I radically disagree with the notion that I have no right to hurt anybody. Sadists and masochists have been hurting and getting hurt since time immemorial. Consent has no meaning if you can't agree to take pain and risk damage. 5. There's always the possibility of a more serious injury. That potential is always there, because a rectum has no substantial natural defenses against the depredations of penile invasion. I could tear him from his first hole to his second hole in the course of normal breeding. Or he could move the wrong way and fracture my penis. Or we could transmit HPV to each other and eventually contract anal and penile cancer. Every sexual act has known risks. It is possible that I could cause the boy great pain. He has to decide for himself whether or not it's worth the risk to accommodate my plainly twisted desires. 6. It's absolutely my intent to prevent the boy from receiving other men. I fucked him to own him, nothing less. I would give him about a week to heal completely before initiating regular breeding. In the meantime, his throat will serve me well. 7. The short answer (sorry to leave it for last) is that hurting a (consenting) bitch with my dick gives me the sort of thrill that I associate with brutal rape. I am not actually a rapist. I'm probably actually too considerate for my own good in most situations. But I believe that men should give expression to the primordial impulses for conquest and violent penetration that lurk in our genes whenever possible. Fags love a beast fuck. So do many women for that matter. We should pay this much tribute to the ancestors who raped their way into genetic immortality. Their example can inspire us even as we confine ourselves to the limits imposed by modern civilization. I love the power in my dick without reservation. 8. Finally, pricking the boy and enjoying his suffering strongly recalls the classic ruination of the virgin. In many cases، and especially on the wedding night، consummation would have consisted of heedless forcible penetration, leading to unlimited pleasure for him and pain and bleeding for her. You're a good person, so you no doubt abhor the thought. I, on the other hand, love the practices of patriarchy implicitly and regard traumatic penetration as one way to establish and enforce the correct, male-dominated, penis-centred marital and social order. I hope I've clarified my intent somewhat. No doubt I remain a monster, but I am ill-disposed to prevaricate in this regard. Though I probably should have used my time to seek out and defile an innocent instead.

I want to hurt the boy deeply our first time. I drive hard inward to stretch his guts around my full length. A few sharp thrusts from there will reliably draw blood. I withdraw my weapon to wipe the boy's cunt gore on his agonized face and make him taste his defeat. When he accepts my power over him and my right to abuse him for my satisfaction, I can proceed with normal breeding. I might never need to hurt his cunt again, but it's essential that he be forced to yield to my will and learn the price of disobedience.

Bitch, then fag. Slave and object are automatically included in either of those.

Yes, you gave him the right to take you by force when you entered his door. Withdrawing consent before he's done is despicable behavior for a faggot. Any man so betrayed should discard the useless bitch.

You could take the initiative and move to suck the man clean. Pause to give him the opportunity to refuse you the honor. He might need a few seconds to comprehend the depths of your depravity and balance his natural disgust against the satisfaction of completing the cycle of dominance.

"Cocksucker" is an identity as well as a gratifyingly demeaning insult used by normal men. However, "dick" is the word more associated with anger and active abuse. "Being a dick". "Dicking me over". Somehow "suck my dick, bitch" sounds more aggressive than "suck my cock, bitch", so I prefer it. Although if the man is using his strength to forcefuck a throat, he can call his sex-weapon a "johnson" or a "pecker" for all I care. Male sexual aggression is invaluable, whether it's silently contemptuous or accompanied by constant, hateful verbal degradation. The bitch is there to worship, choke, and swallow, not to have vocabulary preferences.

Fuck me while I'm asleep (probably drugged). Fortunately, it still counts as rape even if I want you to do it and ask you to take pictures while you're doing it. In terms of an unplanned assault, it's more of a date-rape scenario where I tell him to stop because it hurts and he holds me down and forces it in me until he's finished. It's illegal, but also his natural right. It's immoral for a fag to interfere with a man's pleasure.

I like this standard. Fair game if he's still breathing.

If the faggot bitch is going to reliably swallow every drop, then it should kneel next to the toilet. Otherwise (e.g. full-face urination), it should kneel in the bathtub just as a practical matter.

He had a huge mouth and it felt like he had detached his jaw, snake-like, to swallow the whole thing. There was no scraping or struggle, just immediate deep entry to the tight wet cunt of his throat. It's a rare experience.

I much prefer that the man reach down to grip my throat of his own accord. With one hand on the back of my head to force me down and the other wrapped tightly around my throat, he shows me his strength and his capacity for violence. I surrender to the threat and power of his male instincts as he forces his seed into me.

Roughly forced rectum bleeds pretty reliably. I hope you'll share the pictures of your haemorraging cunt next to the man's blood-soaked weapon.

I agree that it's scarce, but haven't found it to be better elsewhere. BlowBuddies does have a monthly event for it and their specialized piss area is generally open every Saturday.

Does he at least have pretty tits?

Yes, a thousand times yes! Beautifully worded. It's degradation and debasement, perfected. Men, fags who won't suck their cunt stain off of your prick are pathetic and insubordinate. Demand complete service and deny them the dick until they start showing you respect.

I'm not into HIV and wish the whole topic would remain in the past where it belongs, but it's certainly not illegal or immoral (as if that mattered) to give a faggot bitch what it's begging for. It sounds like he has many satisfied, if dumb customers.

I need males to have natural body hair. I like everything from thick shoulder/back hair to just cunt and front hair. Just leave it natural. I myself don't have nearly as much as I'd like. (Boys love hairy men.)

It's not a suggestion or a request. It's the Law.

If it's nothing but a faggot and it spends its whole life head down, cunt up in a sex club, half-conscious on some substance, then I agree that there's not much there to rape. It might as well be a Fleshlight. But if you administer the drug, say to a random boy from the club, and you carry him home and ream his cunt inside out while he's unresponsive, that's definitely a full-fledged sex attack. Now, it's possible that if he's a sick bitch, as so many faggots are, that he would thank you for the experience afterwards. I do think a surprising proportion of faggots regard being raped as a rite of passage and a source of erotic inspiration. But it's still rape, just that it's rewarded instead of prosecuted.

I think there is truth to this observation for a lot of porn. As far back as the 1980s in my recollection, I noticed that some standards were only applied to white performers. They didn't seem care about the faces of the black men hired and sometimes not even their bodies. It was all about the "Interracial!" taboo and big dick. It often seemed like they had just gone to a random street where there were lots of black men and took the first few who said yes. Some looked like they had rough lives. Some were OK. Few would I have categorized as cute or handsome. The good news is that it's never been cheaper to make porn, so anyone with concerns about representation can meet them head on with productions that reflect the faces, bodies, dicks, and themes that he wants to portray as the alternative.

Actually, we do: "big white cock" in Google returns about 25 million results. It's a relatively recent (last 10 years?) sort of reaction to "BBC". I have never understood the particular obsession with "big black", but I've come to accept that there are probably more black men at the extreme end of the scale size-wise. I don't know how else to interpret the abundant visual evidence and the many testimonials I've heard from people who aren't generally given to exaggeration or crude bias. This clustering at the top end of "endowment" would naturally lead to a disproportionate representation in size-focused productions. However, the existence of this minority does not necessarily make the average penis size among black men any larger than the general population. We also know for sure that penis size is at least partially determined by genes, so I wouldn't discount the possibility that there are sub-populations with widely divergent average sizes among men with significant genetic African heritage, given the large genetic diversity within Africa.

Yes, "cunt" can be just its function, and avoiding the association with digestion is welcome. Nevertheless, I consider the masculinity of the fucked faggot null and forfeit for at least the duration of penetration. Just as it's cunt because a man is fucking it, a fag who's getting fucked is the female and should embrace this function in mechanical and reproductive terms. A man is right to negate, scorn, and correct a faggot's pretension to maleness while it's crammed full of his dick.