ErosWired

Only two? And two sets of societal rules that happen to agree that, for varying reasons, outing someone is not unethical? Therefore we are to understand that regardless of whether we happen to be from one era or the other, our community’s societal rules sanction outing as perfectly acceptable? I’m afraid I don’t buy it. There are many layers of interaction, unspoken agreement, and tacit mutual consideration that comprise the social contract that undergirds society. One of the fundamentals is to do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you. Because this is a matter of equivalent social exchange that promotes parity between individuals - thereby discouraging or de-escalating conflict - it becomes part of the fabric of social expectation. More, it’s a rational framework. These features place it within the scope of ethics. So one must ask oneself, “How would I react if I were the one being outed?” How many people would shrug and say, “Meh - I’m good with it.” Precious few, I’d say. From this perspective, is it ethical to force someone into a situation if you would object to the same treatment? Objectively, and considered in isolation, it is not.

When we look at this issue from a perspective of personal ethics, it’s often because someone feels personally conflicted by what he perceives as another person’s compromised ethics. He may see a ‘straight’ man in a bathhouse, and know that the guy has a wife and children, and think: That guy is being dishonest with his spouse, likely putting her at risk for STIs, and putting his selfish desire for mansex over his vows and his responsibility to his family. Shouldn’t someone call him out on it? Doesn’t his wife deserve to know? …and consider outing him while he’s fucking him. That is unethical. Unlike ass, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If a man feels strongly that another guy’s behavior is ethically questionable, he cannot participate in or otherwise encourage or support that activity and still judge it. Now, does the corollary to ‘not support’ mean ‘actively act against’? That’s a different set of ethical considerations, involving a right to personal privacy and the potential responsibility for unforeseen and unintended consequences.

This question is posed as a decision whether to interfere with an individual’s private sexual life, and under what circumstances it would be acceptable, but I don’t think that’s the actual value judgment faced in many of these scenarios. When a man in a position of leadership or influence speaks out or takes action against any group or practice which he then clandestinely participates in himself, he creates an imperative for right-minded persons to expose his hypocrisy, double-dealing and deceit. That the exposure may out his participation and cause him embarrassment because it reveals information about him that would otherwise enjoy an expectation of privacy is collateral damage, and a self-inflicted wound. He has no one to blame but himself. Privacy is only absolute when one cannot be observed. In any other case, privacy becomes a matter of social contract between individuals who either agree not to observe one another, agree not to acknowledge what they observe, or agree to hold what they observe in confidence, at which point it becomes a matter of discretion. Once a man begins acting in the way described above, he has already become indiscrete toward himself by drawing attention to his opinions on sexuality, which will cause others to scrutinize his own sexual practice more closely.

I have to say, as many times as it’s been done to me, I’ve never much cared for it. I’m all about giving the best service possible, and if I’m trying to satisfy two Tops at once, one at each end, I’m not doing my best work for either of them. It’s simply not possible to concentrate on them both simultaneously, so whenever I’m focused on one, that means I’m necessarily neglecting the other. The fact that my cocksucking isn’t at the level of quality of my cunting makes it that much more difficult, because I have to work that much harder to ensure that the head is acceptable, taking even more time away from focusing on the man inside my ass. If I have to service two Tops at once, I’d much rather they double-penetrate me than spit-roast me.

Again, I don’t disagree, but my point remains - achieving the enlightened state you (and we all ought to) aspire to becomes very difficult when the very ones on the receiving end of the negative consequences of perceived inequality take every opportunity to encourage and reward the attitudes and behavior. How are we to reach a point where bottoms and cumdumps are no longer considered by some to be ‘disposable’ sex objects if a significant number of them jump at every chance to proclaim “Yes! I’m a trashy faggot, Sir! Treat me like a worthless whore, Sir!” And then submit to acts of sexual excess that by their nature are intended to debase and humiliate? What incentive does a Top with such an attitude have, when thus affirmed and rewarded, to change? He has none, and this forum is brimming with examples of bottoms affirming exactly those attitudes. I do not announce that I am trashy or disposable, but to the degree that I hold certain firm beliefs about my own sexual role and status, and Tops’ entitlement to my body and service, I an guilty of this as well. Further, my style of service can only reinforce a certain negative view of men like me, if such a view is held. I maintain my equality with any man who fucks me in most any other facet of life, but it is much harder to make the case for equality among men for a cumdump whose cunt has a cock breeding it.

I don’t agree with the perception either, but it’s all too common, and regrettably, it gets promoted by some bottoms who foster it because it caters to their fantasy/fetish sex style. This thread itself prompted immediate boot-licking from several bottoms who couldn’t express quickly enough how they would comply with anything any Top wanted. When a Top sends out a call for “worthless trashy faggots” and men actually respond - and they do - that makes it difficult to make an argument that we’re all perceived as equal.

A small penis is not necessarily an abnormality. The human penis has a fairly wide normal range in terms of length, with the average landing somewhere around 5.2 inches. Lengths over 7” are only actually found in roughly 5/100 men; lengths over 8 run at about 1/100. The big cocks are nowhere near as common as porn would have us believe. Most men run between 5 and 6 inches. Only when the length drops below about 3.5 inches (some sources cite 2.7) is the cock considered medically a micropenis, but even so, the cock may be formed normally. So no, a smaller penis is not an abnormality, and premature ejaculation is a common problem that affects men irrespective of their cock size. What I think you’re asking, however, is whether it’s normal for a ‘beta’ bottom to be small and unable to control his ejaculation, inferring that submissive males are naturally sexually inferior and naturally have smaller endowments. That’s horse shit. Being a bottom has no bearing on size. I’m a total bottom cumdump, formerly an owned submissive systematically trained to sexually submit to and service other males, and I’ve got a 7” cock and can edge it as long as I want. There are plenty like me. Sorry, but the idea that you’re naturally the way you describe because that’s the way we all naturally are is a fantasy.

Having said the above, I feel obliged to append the following: Rules For Tops, continued: 11. My cunt is not naturally designed to take your cock - use the lube. 12. Don’t spill the fucking lube. 13. It is not my responsibility to provide you with a condom, and why are you even asking? 14. Cleaning out my colon for you to enjoy is a time-consuming, uncomfortable, unpleasant process that often involves me eating little or nothing for hours. Respect the process, and do not expect a bottom to be both instantly ready and flawlessly clean when you call. 15. If you call for anal service, and a bottom cleans out for you, do not flake, ghost, or otherwise fail to fuck him. If you’ve asked for it, you owe him. 16. If I tell you to stop, you stop. Period. If I say No, the answer is No. If you want to talk about consensual nonconsent, that’s a conversation. 17. Do no expect me to answer you when my mouth is full of your cock. 18. Do not expect me to give you decent head when your buddy is pounding my cunt. 19. Don’t be a dildo. Actual fucking is expected of you, as in thrusting penetration. When the bottom is the only one moving, you’re not really Topping him, or actually fucking him - you’re just a dildo. 20. Fuck every fuck as though it were your last - this is where you’re as male as you can be, so let it all out, and relish it, go hard, go deep, go long. The bottom will thank you for it. Besides, you never know…it might be your last fuck. and, for luck… 21. Be a cock, not a dick.

Perhaps the topic would have been better titled “My Rules For Bottoms”, because the notion of there being ‘rules’ that bottoms are somehow subject to is rather droll, and we can only take this in any way seriously as an expression of one individual’s personal preferences. Note that we only tend to see these sorts of lists of rules, requirements, expectations, or characteristics in relation to bottoms, cumdumps, or ‘fags’, as though our submission or receptive male sex role renders us second-tier beings in need of being controlled. Where is the list of Rules For Tops, and if there were one, how many Tops would be jumping up and waving their hands to subscribe to that the way some bottoms do to this? But hey, what the fuck, why not? Rules For Tops 1. I am not responsible for your erection. If you can’t get it up and keep it up, don’t waste my time. I’m not going to spend half an hour on a lost cause. 2. Do not - do not - try to stuff a limp noodle up my fuckhole. Know when you’re hard enough for penetration and when you’re not. 3. Know how to find a cunt with the end of your cock. Missing the first time is understandable; missing five times in a row is embarrassing. 4. Know whether you’ve actually penetrated. Really. 5. Quit asking for my poppers. They will interfere with your erection. You are not immune. And while I’m at it, quit fucking stealing them. 6. You don’t have to be fresh from the shower to fuck me, but basic hygiene is required. If you have body odor, you’re breeding bacteria. 7. Know what you want from the fuck, and be prepared to take it. This is your chance to take what I’ve got - don’t waste the cunt, because another guy would have loved to have absolutely destroyed it. 8. Do not add imaginary inches to your cock. You can only disappoint bottoms by doing so. Be proud of what you have, and use it. 9. Your semen is like liquid gold. Apply it where it will be most valued. Do not shoot it onto my hole. This brings satisfaction to no one. 10. If you say you’re going to fuck me, show up. Nothing, and I mean nothing, emasculates a man like failing to follow through on a fuck. It calls your whole manhood into question. - I’ll stop, but there’s so many things I could add, I could do this all. day. long.

What makes one a slut? Well, if you look at the definition of the word, it means a prostitute, whore or harlot, an immoral, dissolute or wanton person, someone dirty and slovenly. Clearly, the definition understood - and embraced - by many here has significant differences from this clearly derogatory standard. Some would apply it simply as a synonym for promiscuous, and feel no sense of shame whatever. But the question is, is ‘slut’ a definition one gives oneself, or more a label that is applied to a person by other people? I tend to think it’s more the latter, tends to be more negative in aspect, and is something one can’t do much about. I have no doubt that there are those who, if they knew of my sexual habits, would call me a slut in the standard sense, even though I am not wanton, dirty, ethically barren, or an actual prostitute. But there’s nothing I can do to stop them from applying that label to me except not acknowledge it. I consider myself a slut in the limited sense that I am indiscriminately promiscuous, have had intercourse with many hundreds of men, and will do so at any opportunity. But that’s as far as it goes. I’m not going to carry a suitcase full of shame along with it.

This is interesting to read. I have never had the slightest interest in phone sex, but I also seldom delve into sexual fantasies to arouse myself or get off. It sounds like phone sex appeals best to those who enjoy sexual fantasy. Unlike @onlyraw above, I can’t imagine myself younger, or fitter, or better endowed, etc., because it would just leave me discontented with what I am, and feeling unsexy. Plus, I’m Autistic, and we Autistic people generally find it difficult to lie, so coming up with unreal impromptu fantasies on the phone with someone I can’t see would be more of an exercise in trying to guess what might titillate the other person, and I would get nothing out of it. For me, sex is real. Sex is intercourse. Sex is juicy. Sex is warm on the outside and hot on the inside. Sex is about the moment another person touches me, and enters inside me, and becomes for a short time indistinguishable from me. Sex is about understanding that doesn’t need words. Phone sex doesn’t have any of that, so for me, phone sex minus sex just equals … phone. Even camming is unappealing for these reasons. I’ve done it, didn’t care for it.

That’s not out of the question. Do you know how hard it is to get a good shot of your own ass? I can see some guy sitting on a scanner that couldn’t take the weight…

Or, because they require discretion. Or they’re sick to death of pic collectors. Or they have come to the conclusion that so many people use pics that aren’t of themselves that no one’s going to believe his pics are a real representation anyway. Or they’ve decided it’s not worth the risk of someone sextorting them with their images. There are many reasons why a guy may not choose to associate his image with his sexual habits online.

After getting two or three hundred fucks since my last reply to this, I might add that I sometimes get guys talking to me about a fuck when I’m hosting, wanting to know who fucked me already that night. I don’t divulge any information at all about men who use me when I host (assuming I even know anything about them to say). Some men require discretion, but when a Top is inside me, he is in a protected space in which the whole world is for him alone, and he is entitled to keep that experience for himself, as far as I am concerned. It’s nobody’s business but his. It’s my privilege to be the one who helps him reach that, and being discreet is part of my role. It’s not reciprocal, though; quite the contrary. I not only have no expectation that a Top would keep my service secret, it is entirely in my interest as a service cumdump that he should not. My goal is to provide service to as many as I can, and they have to find me somehow. Whether anyone actually has ever ‘recommended’ me to someone who then enjoyed me I have no idea, but I would very much welcome it.

In this case the OP is specifically asking why a Top cares what a cumdump looks like, rather than simply what a bottom looks like. I think the question carries the inference that he’s asking about situations in which Tops are approaching men for anonymous sex, and bottoms are acting as cumdumps, providing ease of access without strings, hassle or drama. Your reply is, of course, correct as far as it goes - it certainly explains why some Tops post criteria. But it doesn’t really answer the question of why a Top looking for an anonymous cumdump would care about a face or features he’s unlikely to see. My answer would be that arousal is in the mind, and the Top fucking an unseen, anonymous body in a darkened room isn’t actually fucking that body at all - he’s fucking a body that he has created in his mind and imagination. Some men, however, don’t have as much imagination, and want to have some idea what they’re working with for something to build their arousal fantasy around. There’s also that percentage of Tops who prefer missionary position - those Tops may want a preview because they’re going to have to look at that face while they’re fucking the body, and they want it to be at least tolerable. Personally, I don’t know why they would want to see what I look like; I send them an ass pic, and thus they see me at my best.

If you’ve written the Bible on gay breeding, does that mean you’re the God of gay breeding? If so, I have a couple of requests… Is there a Pope of gay breeding as well?* *Apologies to any Catholics - no blasphemy intended. What are you doing in a naughty place like this anyway? What would the Blessed Virgin say? For shame.

That presumes you plan to actually use the room to sleep in at some point, I presume? When I host, I don’t sleep that night. In my experience, men prowl for sex at most any hour of the night (except, curiously, the period between around 1:00am-2:30am, which I have come to call the ‘doldrums’, when everything seems to go dead no matter what day of the week it is). I do indeed spend the entire night in the bed, but I’m never under the covers.

Every time I hotel host, my ad on the apps includes the phrase “Door’s open”. By this I mean the door is not locked, and any Top can simply push it open. I tape the door latch to make sure it stays that way. But the reasons the door is not actually propped open are obvious, especially at a motel with doors that open to the exterior (which are the only ones I host at) - a visibly open door begs for an opportunistic thief to come in looking for something to burgle. Usually at a hotel, the assumption will be that a shut door is a locked door - although I have had men open the door who have been trying the knobs down the line. (Interestingly, finding a naked man in a room seems to startle and divert many such incidental thieves away from their intent. The couple I’ve encountered both bolted.) I’ve only had something stolen once (not counting poppers, which Tops steal all the time) - a guy who fucked me once made off with my dildo, after using it on me for a warmup. It wasn’t even a new one. I have very seldom posted an actual room number openly, as that seems like asking for trouble, and I haven’t found that doing so was noticeably more effective that getting Tops to ask for it. In any case, a number of apps, like BBRTS, specifically prohibit the posting of physical addresses, so it’s not even an option. Bathhouses are another matter. The door to my room at a bathhouse doesn’t close unless a Top closes it, or I walk out of it. Otherwise, it’s not only wide open, but has a sign on it saying ‘Cum On In!’ If a Top leaves it open so other men can watch my cunt getting bred, so much the better.

And yet you post -twice- just to complain Have you tried just going away?

I received a notice “There was a problem reacting to this content” when I attempted to like a post, and the like didn’t register, but when I exited to the forum directory and returned to the topic, the reaction had appeared.

Nice innovation.

Yesterday I had a semi-regular Top swing by to fuck me, and he likes to start off eating ass, finger-probing my prostate, and trying to get my cock hard in his mouth (usually a futile effort) before he gets down to breeding. Well, yesterday, he must have found some special determination, because he kept at his foreplay until he actually made me cum, and took my load in his mouth, before moving straight to mounting me. He did himself no favor in doing that as far as the fuck he received, because cumming totally threw me off my service vibe, and I wasn’t able to respond for him with anything like my usual skills. An ejaculatory orgasm is not a rewarding thing for me; it’s unpleasant and energy-draining. I often wish Tops who use me would just understand that when they’re with me, it really is all about their climax. That’s not true for all bottoms, but it is for me. Now with this local Top, now that he’s succeeded in milking one out of me, I have a shrewd idea what I’ve got coming…

The OP is asking about the moral implications of approaching the homeless for random sex, so I’ll approach the question from that angle. Most homeless people don’t want to be homeless, don’t enjoy being homeless, are living rough, and suffering some combination of deprivation, hunger, exposure, want, illness, loneliness, addiction, and mental illness. They are highly vulnerable people, often desperate, in great human need - one one which needs may be sexual. They are a population highly susceptible to being taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. (Ahem.) So you have a homeless guy with mental illness, addicted to drugs, and in order to tempt him to fuck, a guy offers him free meth, and raves about how eager the homeless guy is to fuck and how well he does it - but then complains that the homeless guy ‘gets weird’ because he’s mentally ill. Well, no shit, asshole - you just gave him more of the exact thing that that dragged his life into a living hell that he can’t escape, just so you could have a freaky shag. You want to get them to trade their dick or ass for goods? That’s exactly the same thing as asking them ti prostitute themselves for barter - and fucking cheap-ass barter at that. What are you offering for their sex? A cigarette? A handful of change? But hey, he’s just a homeless guy - he’s barely even human, right? What’s in it for you, really? Why seek out the homeless? Because it gives you a thrill to have sex with someone you perceive as dirty, sordid, low? Because it’s easy to prey on their desperation? Because it’s fun to watch someone do something they otherwise wouldn’t just to get enough to buy food? There but for the grace of God go you, buddy. The only saving grace in the scenario is that sex is a basic human need, and some homeless men may gain something they need from an encounter, but if it has to be coerced, that’s probably not the case. Next time you contemplate propositioning a homeless guy, take a minute a try to put yourself in his shoes - if he even has any.

I think the difference I see, from the perspective of society’s willingness to take on part of the cost of care for, say, smokers or those who have become obese by consumption, is that the society (at least in the capitalist world) implicitly acknowledges those conditions as a result of allowing an free-market economy in which enormous profits are generated from a system that encourages the population to consume sugar and addictive substances. The society has held its nose and allowed these ills to metastasize within it for the sake of profits. Eliminating the ills would eliminate the profits, so the society palliates the sufferers in order to perpetuate the profit machine. There is no such cash cow inherent in HIV chasing, save possibly in the very limited interest of select pharmaceutical companies (and down the line, potentially, the mortuary trade), and such profit as there might be is only to be made because it is involved in the care needed to mitigate the harm in the first place. The subject population is too small a subset of the total population to make the calculus work as a societal interest in perpetuating pozzing - there’s no money in it. For the cookie companies - and their shareholders - the cost of treating the obese looks like a cost of doing business; with pozzing, the cost-benefit is all cost and no benefit.

That seems so odd to me - I never experience encounters like that, probably because I usually never get a good look at the men who’ve been inside me in the first place. It’s hard to imagine a boycott of Grindr working - if guys are so low on integrity that they flake on hookups, they’re not suddenly going to develop the backbone to stick to a moral crusade.