ErosWired

When someone says he wants to eat my ass, I approach the request with some trepidation. On the one hand, done properly, anilingus has a pronounced effect on me, turning me into the anilinguist’s mindless sex drone, lost in a hypnotic fog of exquisite sensation. But note the word: analingus - as in tongue. Not teeth. Why do some men seem to interpret “eating” literally, to include biting and chewing one of the most delicate, sensitive areas of the anatomy? I just had to stop a guy who was going pretty much full cannibal on my cunt, biting with teeth, chewing, reaching in with a finger to rake at the inside as though to try to prolapse me outward (I don’t prolapse), which he did having stripped away all lubrication from my hole with his tongue that would have eased the entry of his finger.

I don’t consider myself trash and I am far from worthless as a human being. Nothing a Top ever does to me is going to change that, and I’ve been treated by men in way that are both physically and mentally demeaning and degrading, including sexual assault. There have been men who have treated my body with little to no respect, and even those who openly expressed their contempt for me as they despoiled me. None of it caused any loss in my self-esteem. I am a human being of worth, dignity, and considerable accomplishment in ways that have nothing to do with this. At the same time, I fully accept that my body is a sexual utility to be used by men without consideration. I do not expect them to think of me in equal human terms; I am a flesh object. I take this view as it applies only to me and do not consider it true of anyone else, and some might interpret this as poor self-esteem. But in fact, I take pride in the role that I find is mine. I am proud to be a cunt that another man sinks into and is transported to bliss, and if in his mind I am never anything more than a sleeve of warm, wet, delicious fuck, then I am fulfilled. My duty as a piece of ass is a part of what makes me human, a part of my purpose, and one part of my contribution to the world.

Hierarchy can refer to the classification of a group of people according to ability or social standing, but also can be generally used as a word for a graded or ranked series of values, which can be evaluated as a vertical high-to-low stratification. It’s true that the valuation by which individuals are viewed may not apply to them outside the construct of the hierarchy of which they are members, that is irrelevant - the hierarchy is self-referencing. An example might be a matter of penis size: Cocks observably differ in length and girth, and conventionally, it is most widely accepted that longer, thicker penises are more desirable. Any number of attempts are made to spuriously conflate other metrics with cock size - big cocks have been claimed to occur more often on men who are Black, or ginger, or long-nosed, or big-footed, etc., without a shred of actual basis, and therefore the relative standing of those same men in a comparison of cock size has no bearing on a comparison of them to other men in terms of the unrelated metrics. But their cocks are what they are, and each of them does occupy his place in the given hierarchy of size. Quantifiable metrics may establish the most simply identifiable hierarchies, but again, hierarchy can also apply to social constructs, which are much more fluid and subjective. The “inborn nature” of an individual you refer to may be an amalgam of personal traits as interpreted by observers within the construct, and thus given a definition relevant to the hierarchy. My former Master observed inborn traits in me and interpreted them to mean that I ought to be occupying a very low place on the male sexual hierarchy. He set out to demonstrate this, and succeeded (dramatically). That I have other natures inborn to me is beside the point - I’m not being compared to other men for purposes of this hierarchy on the basis of my intellectual acumen, I’m being evaluated on whether my more natural role is as a breeder or the cunt that gets bred. I’m being placed in the dogpile of other men in order of who gets to fuck who, and I end up pretty damn close to the bottom. That’s the physical definition of a hierarchy.

I don’t think control is usually the determining factor when the concept of ‘superiority’ is invoked. Superior is a judgment of relative value, whereas control is generally viewed as an either/or question, of who has it and who does not. Rather, I think superior is applied, either directly or indirectly, to an assessment of maculinity - not who is the superior male, but who is the superior male. This is readily applied to a hierarchy when various masculine qualities are evaluated both on a scale and as yes-or-no. A preponderance of opinion seems to hold that the more aggressive and dominant a man is, the more superior he is as a male, because those are strongly masculine traits. If a man is submissive, he is generally considered to be an inferior male because the conventional wisdom holds that superior men do not submit. That a man is able to exercise control over another man is not the determining factor of his superiority, but the natural expression of it…if one subscribes to the idea that dominant masculinity equates to superiority. Superior in what sense? Superior for what purpose? Is a brute who can physically overwhelm a man of towering intellect the superior specimen? Not if you’re trying to build a civilization. The genetic traits that make an individual a superior candidate for survival in one environment may make it an inferior candidate in another. The ring of my anus may yield to the penetration of a more aggressive man - his greater force might even be successful in forcing its way past any resistance my flesh is capable of mounting in order to bury his semen deep inside me - but my my pain tolerance, my resilience, my sheer physical ability to endure his brutal assault may make me the superior specimen from a certain point of view. I’m the survivor, not him. But we’re talking about a sexualized arena here, and in any reproductive context in the natural world, the superior male is the one who is successful in dominating, penetrating, and inseminating. We may be human, but we are still in animal bodies, and we are not exempt from the animal rules in this regard. So, yes, I’ve been cunted and seeded by over a thousand men, and by one measure that would suggest that I’m an inferior male. But I’ve also successfully fathered two children, something that many a gay Alpha Top will never accomplish. In that sense, I, the cunt he considers himself superior to, is actually by the reproductive measure by far the superior male. Not that I feel superior to him when he’s destroying my cunt with his cock and telling me what a faggot like me deserves. Bit of a head-twister.

I’m loving that this thread is giving us all these gorgeous views of cocks of real men at real, normal size, and not just filling up as a gallery of all the guys of unusual size. I’m sure that if fewer of our guys felt some kind of pointless embarrassment over their perfectly perfect normal average size we would see even more mouthwatering and ass-wetting samples. Hint, hint.

I am not a masochist. I do not enjoy pain, and do not seek it, but I started out as a bondage submissive, which put me in the position of having to develop a tolerance for the pain resulting from the practices Dominants would perform on me while restrained. This resulted in a conditioning to entry into subspace in response to certain types of pain, but that is not the same as masochism, which fetishizes the pain itself. I had an unusual experience at IML in which a very talented Dominant pinned me down and began biting my nipples. Normally, nipple pain shuts me right down like a kill switch, and it did in this case, but he persisted, and intensified the pain - he perceived my reaction and, maintaining direct eye contact, continued in an overt display intended to show me that he was in control of me and that I would be responding as he dictated. I suddenly plunged into subspace in a way I hadn’t for a long time, and from that point every impulse through my nipples became an irresistible call compelling ever deeper submission. I hated every moment of that pain from start to finish, but after crossing that threshold, the pain was irrelevant. The dynamic with my former Master was indeed an alignment of desire and need, though he had made it his purpose to take some small kernel of desire and need that otherwise might have lain dormant and unexpressed my whole life, and fan the ember of it until it became a conflagration that he then channeled to his own uses. He achieved this not simply by the application of pain - something any brute could do - but rather by its subtle manipulation, directing pain into the channels of pleasure until the boundary between the two became fundamentally blurred by forcing repeated serial orgasms until ecstasy became agony. Even now, the orgasm I feel when I ejaculate is more like being tortured than pleasured, and this may have something to do with why I now have no drive whatsoever to Top. My Master employed several techniques, both psychological and physical conditioning, but did not himself attempt hypnosis, as he had no experience with it. I consider that unfortunate - I believe we could have made substantial progress and possibly gone much further had he had that as a tool in his arsenal. The Dominants who have used hypnosis on me all identified an aptitude in me as a hypnotic subject. Possibly by virtue of my Autistic mental wiring, I can hyper-focus in a way highly conducive to trance, and this might have made me particularly vulnerable to abuse except that that same wiring also lets me disconnect from emotional states and be less influenced by them. Thus, although I have run afoul of unethical hypnotists who sought to do me harm, none of them ultimately succeeded. Even the one who figuratively came into contact with my soul and then attempted to rape it - possibly the most obscene act imaginable - caused no lasting hurt. (I do now stress to others the great need for caution in dealing with hypnotists in this way, as defense requires extensive time invested in mental discipline.)

This concept is found across cultures and is absolutely necessary because hierarchies - and territories - overlap. Were there no commonly agreed convention that the Master is respected in his Keep, dominant types would have knives out every time they crossed boundaries and civilization as we know it would be impossible. (Vladimir Vladimirovich apparently didn’t get the memo.)

My former Master once skewered each of my testicles straight through with a 0.18 gauge needle. On another occasion he required me to masturbate using copious amounts of IcyHot as lube. He subjected me to many sessions of high-level electric current through my genitals. He directed me to use my crafting abilities to create the diabolical tools for my own CBT. Obviously, he was a Sadist. But he was never - ever - cruel. He was not mean. He never acted from a place of malice. I cannot say that he did not coerce - I was continually fascinated to observe, almost as though looking from the outside in, the way he psychologically led me to acceptance of each act, to become an active, willing participant in my own torture. His confidence that he could get me to accept what he desired to do was absolute; he dominated me, and we both knew it. In the end, the full measure of his dominance was his ability to command my orgasm by speaking a single word - “Cum”. Believe me, there are very, very few ways one man can express his dominance, control, supremacy over another than by being able to reach inside him and drag out his most intimate center. He used this ability mercilessly to achieve his goal of my transformation, but merciless does not mean cruel. What he did he did rationally, for purpose, with no intent to harm. To be entirely candid with you, I have very little patience for a gentle Dominant, or a gentle Top, for that matter. Men are not gentle animals. Men are powerful in the way bulls are powerful. One expects them to break the china. And I am not a china doll. If a man treats me gently, it signals that he understands neither the nature of my submission, nor the importance of his role as a dominant. He need not be cruel or demeaning, but he can still be aggressive - even brutal - in the service of something greater than us both.

I thought “glass whorehouse” was another way of saying “red light district” in Amsterdam. Need to brush up on my Dutch.

One other thing I might suggest is that you ask someone to assist you the first couple of times, at least until you get the hang of it. Putting on a set of separated ball weights is actually a job for three hands (at least) - one to keep the anatomy positioned, and two for the assembly. Without the dedicated hand to keep the balls where you need them to be, they’re going to go where they want, usually at precisely the wrong moment.

Oh, I’m throwing stones - how are they all supposed to get at me to fuck me with that damn glass wall in the way? Besides, who would want to own a glass whorehouse? You’d have to go out every hour with a squeegee and a bottle of Windex just to clean off the drool and the cum splatter so guys could see you.

Addendum to my last post above: The result of my visit with my HIV specialist today is that I’m being taken off the ART I’ve been on for the last five years and put on another that doesn’t contain Tenofivir, to see if it changes the trajectory of my kidney function, because Tenofovir is documented to cause renal issues in some cases. Guess what’s in PrEP, sports fans. Yep. Tenofovir. So you can’t just pop it and forget it. You have to keep tabs on your kidney function, and some medications, like Metformin, can react with Tenofovir to exacerbate the issue if there is one. (Guess who’s also taking Metformin. Ain’t life just a fucking bowl of cherries?) I’m not wild about changing meds, since my CD4 counts are usually less than 400 and often in the 200s - I don’t have any margin to experiment with. Plus, this new one needs to be taken with food, which I haven’t had to do since Atripla back in 2015. Nope, definitely not loving being Poz. Not one microscopic little bit.

Let’s get nuanced then. Instead of aggressive, might you describe yourself rather as assertive? I believe much discussion gets bogged down in a lack of distinction between dominant and Dominant. (We shall omit discussion of the use of ‘dominate’ as a noun, which causes my teeth to delaminate.) The meaning of dominant as an adjective is simply “most important, powerful or influential”. That doesn’t have to imply “of them all” - it may simply mean “of the two present”, “at the moment”, “in this circumstance”, or “in terms of that factor”. In terms of energy states, it’s practically impossible for one entity not to dominate another at any given time from the simple standpoint of physics. One is going to consume more of the room’s air than the other. One is going to radiate more heat than the other. Therefore, there should be no reason for distaste at the notion of dominance per se, or even behavior that reflects or expresses natural dominance. But what you express seems to stem from a value judgment about certain types of toxic behavior that you would not wish associated with you if you accepted a description of dominant. Many synonyms of dominant do indeed signify a sense of negatively aggressive behavior and attitude. I might submit, however, that many such terms are subjective - one man’s bossy is another man’s confident leadership. One can find the difference starkly illustrated in two men who both style themselves as Dominants in the sense of the role, but whereas the first treats his submissive with care, respects his humanity, appreciates the nature of his submission, and exercises his prerogatives as the Dominant with an admirable alchemy of excess blended with restraint, the other is a self-centered abuser with little regard for the physical or mental safety of the submissive, and indulges his base desires at will and whim under a mistaken sense of entitlement. As a trained service submissive, I do not view the latter man as a Dominant worthy of the name, merely as a pretender, and a dangerous amateur at that. But more than that, the second man’s behavior actually derives in all likelihood from a deep-seated recognition that he is not dominant, and he is desperate to become so even though his methods are utterly futile and ultimately self-defeating. The second man might get me in a position where he is able to exercise physical control of my body and in the end sodomize, inseminate and otherwise despoil me until he runs out of ideas, but after he’s finished, he will still see nothing but contempt in my eyes. The first man will touch me in a certain way, speak in a certain way, and unlock a place within me that contains a thing of exquisite vulnerability and sensitivity, and he will imprint it with his Dominance. When he is finished, in my eyes he will see acceptance beyond acceptance. Do not be ashamed to recognize dominance traits in yourself. You are under no obligation to act on them (though we live in hope) nor must you label yourself. But be true to what you are.

Precisely. The reality of Power Exchange is that it is exactly that, an exchange, and the one in control of the exchange is the submissive, not the Dominant. The thing that is a given is that every individual has agency by virtue of the fact that no other person can occupy and operate his body; another may coerce or compel the individual to make the body perform, or may act upon the individual’s body, but only the individual can perform an act of will. And without the will to submit, there is no submission, and Dominance has no meaningful power.

Some of them are obviously rose-colored. How many of the “I Love Being Poz” guys have had to have the conversation I’m going to have to have with my HIV specialist at my visit tomorrow morning about why my kidneys are showing alarming signs of deterioration, whether my ART is what’s causing it (a distinct possibility), and exactly how fucked I’m going to be if that’s the case? Because - sorry - the idea that you just take a pill and forget it is bullshit, and anyone who says otherwise is just turning a blind eye to the steady breakdown of the body’s systems under the double assault of both the virus and the harsh medications needed to hold it at bay. I know that’s not something anybody wants to hear, but unfortunately, it’s reality. There’s no free lunch, nor consequence-free fucking. If someone can persuade me that he’s taken a good, hard, realistic look at what it actually means to be HIV positive, both in this moment and down the road, and in the face of what’s coming still tell me he absolutely loves it, then I’ll be interested in his reasons. Otherwise, he’s just fiddling while Rome burns.

I don’t understand why this should cause you shame. If none of those men was a relationship commitment, you were under no obligation to fuck anyone a second time, and given that you had to make a choice of which hole to fuck at any given time, a decision in favor of trying one you hadn’t tried before was legitimate. Further, if your concern is that you deprived someone you fucked of a second opportunity, had you fucked him, you would have deprived someone else of his first opportunity. By electing to fuck only unfucked holes, you spread your largesse in the fairest possible manner. But if you’re saying that you were being too selfish to attend to a neediness expressed by a bottom you fucked, or worse, to repay a bottom for letting you fuck him the first time, that’s manufactured guilt of almost Catholic proportions. Now, you may, in hindsight, regret the lost opportunity to discover the richness and depth to be enjoyed from getting to know the ins and outs (as it were) of a particular hole from repeated sampling, but that’s altogether another question.

If you want actual insemination, there are a couple of compilations on xHamster of ‘50 Tops Cumming Inside Bottoms’ (parts 1 and 2, link to the first below). [think before following links] https://xhamster.com/videos/50-tops-cuming-inside-bottoms-pt-1-xhUobwJ These are actually interior ejaculations, no pulling out and then pushing it back in, the real deal. This is what I consider insemination. Somehow, filling a bottom with thawed semen lacks something to me personally, in that some sense of the Top’s ‘vital essence’ has gone from it, but a Top were to tell me to raise up my ass because he was about to pipe 100 loads of semen into it, it’s not my place to stop him.

The thing about this dynamic is that in order for it to really be effective, the naked male has to be acutely aware of his nakedness as different from the clothed man (or men) around him. I have had any number of Dominants require me to be naked when they are not, or take it a step further and actually cut my clothes off of me so that they cannot be put back on (my former Master did this in our very first encounter). I often find, though, that in subspace I stop thinking of myself as naked; I’m simply in my natural, native form as a submissive. Of course I’m naked - how else would I be in the situation? It would feel more unnatural to be clothed. There have occasionally been times when I have suddenly realized I am the only naked man in a room with several men, and in that moment the awareness of the differential does become acute. But I can only think of one instance I’ve ever been involved in group play where a point was made of my isolated nudity, and that was a demo in front of a mixed-gender BDSM group. I wouldn’t mind trying something all-male and fucking-oriented - I think it would bring out the best in my service. I think, however, the fetish isn’t all that widely practiced as a group phenomenon because it stems largely from the bottom fantasy of being the center of attention for multiple dominant males, akin to the fantasy of being put up for auction.

I was owned and trained by an experimental Sadist for six years. He had a Deed that gave him ownership of my body for such purposes as he wished, and as far as I was concerned that deed was as valid as any real estate deed or vehicle title. It wouldn’t be possible to give a satisfactory accounting of the experience in this format - I was required to document my training in explicit detail in a long series of public posts on FetLife at the time (no longer available there as that account no longer exists) and the compiled narrative runs to some length. Suffice it to say that the experience shaped the trajectory of my life from that point on in a profound way, and made me a person I doubt I would have otherwise become in terms of a sexual being. I can trace the transformation of aspects of my physical and mental being now directly to the intentional actions of that man, and I believe that had he not been in a position of ownership, with the ability and prerogative to exercise his will as he did, the result would not have been the same. The thing about the experience that stands out most strongly is that what I became was not the result of brute force shaping, of making something where nothing had existed; but rather the skillful manipulation of the material at hand to draw out potential, to the point that I cannot point to the place where my mind is now and say: He meant for me to become this. Rather, his goal was to see what his influence could do to a man, where his influence could take me. It could, in fact, have taken me a good deal further down the rabbit hole had he been of a mind to push me further, but he obtained an answer to his question that satisfied him, and then he was done. I am of two minds whether I regret his decision to stop, as I doubt I will ever meet another like him who could put the question to its extremes. It may be that I have been fortunate to have been owned by a man who had a sense of when to stop.

With respect, what difference does it make what age someone was when he lost count? That makes it sound as though this question is actually “Who was the most promiscuous at the youngest age?” Otherwise, you could simply ask “How long did it take you to lose count?” In the first year I started taking cock, I kept a written tally up to 74, then lost track. So, within the first year. But I was 37, so what does that signify? If a guy started at 16 and lost count at age 24, how is that any sort of comparison?

I did get that, actually. It just seemed a funny thing to declare when one of those continents obviously offers no bathhouses for comparison. (If you’re one of those guys who likes to plunge into frigid waters, however, Antarctica’s got you covered.)

I suspect you would need to define what you mean by ‘hierarchy’ in order to arrive at any solid answer to this question. Does it simply, for these purposes, refer to social roles or structures? Does it attempt to encompass elements of natural order? Does it touch on the deeper dynamics of power, and if so, does it attempt to distinguish those from the fundamental rules that govern the movement of energy in the material universe? (I would submit that that would be folly.) Is there an inherent hierarchy? If we look at the question from the view of power states, everything in nature exhibits a differential in energy states, a disequilibrium that nature is constantly trying to balance. One thing will always be at a ‘higher’ level than another in terms of energy, and given those handy (or pesky, depending on your viewpoint) Laws of Thermodynamics, one can reliably say that material reality is full of hierarchies in the sense that it is full of stratifications of various kinds. These base-level states of being manifest themselves in material human circumstances of all sorts, which we observe and describe in physical, behavioral and social terms. Clearly, demonstrably, there are hierarchies. Every human society is built on them, because power is not uniformly distributed among all individuals. In many cases the hierarchies are strongly defined and exercised, and accepted by individuals at every level. Even something as seemingly egalitarian as a queue that one stands in to wait one’s turn for something is in fact a form of imposed hierarchy, because a hierarchy must be imposed - because the thing cannot be accessed by everyone at once, some must be placed in a higher position to access it, if only by virtue of timing or chance. But this question asks whether there is a hierarchy in everything - bearing the implication that there ought not be. Why is this? The question strikes me as one arising not out of an objective sense, but rather from a place within the ego of the psyche that rebels at the notion of finding itself at a hierarchical position not of its choosing. From a strictly positional sense, this would seem pointless - in any given order, the individual must occupy some position somewhere. The relative value of that position is an entirely perceptual matter. Is there a natural hierarchy among races of humanity? Any such claim is highly dubious, as ‘race’ is itself an ambiguous concept untethered to science, and no such stratification can demonstrate any solid grounding. Where such hierarchies arise, they are entirely the result of power inequities, and, were the flow of power reversed, the hierarchy could be inverted; the hierarchy itself, therefore, is not an inherent construct. Is there a natural hierarchy among individual males? Again, in many cases, those factors that lead to stratification may rely on power inequities that if changed would alter the stratification, but there are also factors inherent to the individual that predispose an individual to a lower power(energy) state, and thus it can be argued that that individual does in fact occupy a fixed place in a natural hierarchy. Taking myself as an example, I am a person whose mental faculties are more developed than my physical ones. From a purely competitive standpoint, I am far more likely to dominate other individuals in a mental comparison than a physical one. Therefore, I do not recognize the hierarchical superiority of very many men over me at an intellectual level. On a physical level, however, I recognize that there are many men whose physical nature is more robust, more powerful, more agile, more virile than mine. Because I have a share of my own masculinity, I am able to compare it to that which I observe in others, and note that others’ drives may be stronger, their abilities and appetites greater, their reproductive potential higher than mine. By simple observation I can discern that I occupy a position with respect to them by comparison. That positioning, however, does not automatically imply hierarchy. It gives rise to questions of opportunity, and need, which then must be evaluated. If a more aggressive, stronger man driven by vigorous sexual appetite finds that he needs an outlet for that lust, and I occupy a position that would make me a suitable receptive object, does that automatically put me in a hierarchy with respect to him? In other words, simply because nature arranges him as an Alpha, does its arrangement of me make me a faggot? I may not choose to participate in the hierarchy, but does that mean I am not what I am? I believe it may be most accurate to say that we occupy some position in just about every order, but there are some orders that are natural while others are superimposed, or extrapolated from more basic states. No single hierarchy categorizes the whole of who we are. The question does arise regarding hierarchies imposed by others, as to whether we are actually embedded in them by virtue of the perception of others, or we are fully self-determining. Am I a faggot if other men say I am? If other men choose to define my sexuality (an unalterable aspect if my self) as ‘faggot’, then I cannot tell them that they cannot perceive the world in a given way; I can only tell them I do not share or accept their perception. If they then say to one another, ‘The faggot doesn’t know it’s a faggot’, I am still firmly embedded in their hierarchy whether I accept it or not. I cannot speak with any authority to the degree to which the fundamental tenets of s-atanism are offended by the notion of hierarchies, but the limited familiarity I have with the writings suggests that there is a core sense of hierarchy that is indispensable to them - the self is elevated to the highest consideration, which is an inherent hierarchy, and judgments are made regarding the value of others, which necessarily imposes hierarchies. To suggest that the philosophy is somehow more immune to hierarchy than any other architecture dealing with social, moral or ethical valuations is, I fear, self-deceiving.

There’s a bathhouse in Antarctica? That actually wouldn’t surprise me - it’s just what you would expect from penguins.

Sex with an ex? You can’t really have sex without an ex… …I don’t think there’s another way to spell it. 🤔

I have never been tempted to try this, but this is probably because I have never been asked to submit my ass to a merman. 🧜‍♂️ I refuse no one…