ErosWired

I concur that a person found to be in violation ought to at the very least be provided a clear explanation of the nature of the offense and how it can be avoided in future - otherwise, the penalty has no positive effect in improving conduct on the site, and is merely vengeful. As to the rest of the post, however, this site has rules. Every site has boundaries, and every site must. There have to be guardrails to rein in the excesses of human behavior, because in their absence, humans will, inevitably, violate the boundaries, because they can, and because their worst impulses lead them there. The site rules exist for a variety of reasons, some commonsense, some cover-your-ass legal, some a matter of the site owner’s personal discretion, which is entirely appropriate as we are in his house. If you have a guest in your home, I suspect that there is some limit to the things you would tolerate him saying to you before you got insulted, then infuriated, and kicked him out - your distaste for censoring his expression would go that far and no further. You have rules by which you live. This site is the same, and some members have an appreciation not only of the need for the rules, but the difficulty the Moderators face in riding the fences. If I report a post, and I do from time to time, I am not ‘running to mommy’ - I have been a moderator responsible for a site elsewhere and I know what kind of a job it is to keep things on the rails. I also keenly dislike censorship, as it happens, but there is a difference between censoring and regulating.

This reminds me of a time at camp when I was bent over a picnic table taking loads. Everything was going fine until a muscled twentysomething arrived and bent over the other end of the table. After that, every Top who arrived on the scene went for that hole, and even stood in line for it, even though my hole was open and ready at the other end of the table. I wasn’t salty about it; of course they went for him, he fit the model of what gay men are taught is attractive. Besides, I was getting fucked plenty, I didn’t need to have it all. So I just stayed there and had fun watching his face as he was cunted. But, I have to admit that it stung a little to be 100% rejected as soon as muscle-boy hit the scene. I guarantee my ass was every bit as good as his and probably better skilled for experience, but those Tops never gave me a chance to prove it.

I second this advice. The body generates pain for a reason, to let us know that something is wrong. The tissues and structures around the anus are vulnerable to injury, and the types of injury that can result from taking cock, and especially oversized intrusion, can be a matter to be taken seriously. Anal fissure comes to mind. Also, numbing the discomfort resulting from the emergence of an STD infection will not cure the ailment, it will just make you less aware of the need to have it treated. If something doesn’t feel right down there, it’s always best to know exactly what the issue is, and deal with it specifically, rather than just trying to use some generic cure-all and hope for the best.

No exactly - but last year at IML a guy came into my room and started fucking me and said, “I have zero respect for you.” I don’t know if he was disgusted by me - he wasn’t so disgusted that he didn’t use me - but he made it a point to let me know that. I’ve also had men say things like “you disgusting whore” but I think that’s just phraseology. I don’t think they’re really expressing a visceral disgust when they say that so much as trying to say something belittling or shaming. Besides, if a guy tells me, “You’re a disgusting slut”, my response is basically, “If I’m that disgusting, why is your cock balls deep inside me?”

Don’t misunderstand me - consent is always the trump card, and no means no. My suggestion was that once the consent is given, the bottom assumes a responsibility as an equal participant in the engagement. The bottom, by giving consent, by allowing penetration, by letting the Top experience the rush of pleasurable sensation that accompanies entry into the warm, wet space, is the agent whereby a series of cascading physical/biochemical and psychological processes are begun, with potent effects on the Top. For the bottom to then change the parameters mid-course places an unreasonable burden on the sexual partner to cope with physical reactions that are counter to his body’s natural progression. The question might be asked, “What if cumming inside wasn’t discussed in advance? Doesn’t the bottom have a reasonable excuse at that point to make the request?” This is where I make my point. You say ‘from a sexual risk standpoint’, but my argument is that the bottom has a positive responsibility to assess his sexual risk before deciding whether to take a bare cock; one he’s taken it inside, he’s past the point of proactively protecting himself from sexual risk. The risk has now been incurred, to some degree. The more he lets the fuck go on, and especially if he waits until the Top is close and draining precum into him like a faucet, to ask him not to cum inside, the request is simply pointless from a sexual risk perspective. There is essentially no such thing as bareback sex without fluid exchange, so any bottom making the decision to accept bare cock is de facto choosing to accept fluid exchange. It’s simply a question of degree at that point, but at any point post-penetration, a risk has been incurred. Therefore, any point at which a bottom may be getting cunted and then think, ‘okay, that’s enough risk for this fuck’ fails to realize how arbitrary and baseless such a decision is, and clearly has no concept of the nature of risk. The Top isn’t safe-except-for-his-semen; if he’s carrying an STD, there are other vectors of transmission, depending on the pathogen. So my argument is that if a bottom is going to consciously choose the path of risk, and entice another person to participate, there is some responsibility to follow through in his decision. A secondary consideration is the nature of the activity itself - bareback sex. As an expression of the make reproductive function, its natural progression points in a single direction; any other outcome runs contrary to instinct, and, sentient as we are, during a rut, there is undeniably a force of instinct at work in a Top. A responsible bottom always has to take this into consideration from before making the decision to seek cock, all the way to determining what position to take a seeding. The imperative to inseminate is always hovering in the room, whether the pair has chosen at the outset to act on it or not. No bottom is ever under any obligation to permit access to his body - and I commend that universally. I realize that a suggestion of obligation at any point seems to contradict that, but we all have obligations to one another within the framework of the social contract that allows society to function. There is a give-and-take that enables the equity and parity that prevents anarchy overall, and facilitates individual relationships. Sexual interaction is not immune to these equations. I fully admit that I write my argument from an apostatic position - even as I declare that no bottom ever has any obligation to give a Top access to his body, I do not believe that universality applies to me personally. I readily accept that this may be irrational, but I hold the belief firmly, and cannot dismiss it, that any man may enjoy my body if an when he wishes. I have not only an obligation, but a duty. You clearly consider this ‘silly’ - I discount your opinion as presumptive, uninformed and lacking in perspective. Come back after you’ve spent six years being physically and psychologically conditioned by a Sadist, and we’ll see what you call ‘silly’.

…And continued. As though you had said nothing. This is precisely why a Top like this is my absolute favorite type to serve. The parameters of this event are uncomplicated. The entire scene is only and completely about ensuring he gets the maximum pleasure he can get, without worrying about reciprocation, holding back, or anything else. When I serve a Top like this, we both have one goal, it’s the same goal, we’re both going to give it everything we’ve got to reach it, and we’re both very good at it. I just lament that such Tops are so rare. So many more men could enjoy that level of pleasure if they would just step up and take what some of us offer freely - indeed, what some of us consider them entitled to have.

I don’t remember there being a merit badge for that.

I’ve had reasonably good luck with BBRT in the past in both Louisville and Indianapolis, but like all the apps, something changed during the pandemic and hasn’t come back. Plus, the way BBRT is managed has become particularly user-unfriendly, to the point that one wonders if they’re not actually trying to drive people away. A4A has become absolutely useless where I am.

This necrothread from 13 years ago has resurfaced in a time since we have become more conscious of consent, so I have trouble with the premise of the question - not just asking a Top whether he would honor a neg bottom’s request, but any bottom’s request not to cum inside him. To say that one has no intention of honoring consent is equivalent to saying that one intends to act on nonconsent. And that’s indefensible. That being said, I believe a bottom cannot have his cake and eat it too. To take raw cock is to accept another man’s bodily fluids inside. Period. It’s unavoidable. Even if the fluid is only a leak of precum, there is no physical way either man can prevent that exchange in a bare situation. And exposure to any amount of fluid presents the risk of STD exposure. So what, then, does the bottom who takes it bare up his cunt hope to avoid by denying a full ejaculation? He has already rolled the dice on the health risk, and they can’t be unrolled. He’s already been cunted, and that definitely can’t be undone. What does he imagine he preserves by keeping his cunt free of semen? Dignity? Masculinity? Pride? Don’t make me laugh. It’s just a bait-and-switch with little practical purpose, and I believe that if a bottom is going to put that drive in a Top in gear, he has an obligation to let the motor run.

Out of curiosity, what gave you the notion that you could make such a statement and fail to entertain us with the details?

If I might ask, why are you considering springs versus, say, chain? Chain supports have the advantage of incremental adjustability for height, by simple repositioning of connectors. I can imagine springs becoming problematic in achieving optimal fucking height depending on the variable weight of different occupants.

Brilliant

Does this involve a clown? I hope it doesn’t involve a clown. I couldn’t take it seriously if involved a clown. Would you be wearing, like, a ringmaster’s hat, and nothing else? I have a mental image…

My new word for the type of guy who hits me up for a fuck on an app from an unreachable distance is ‘barnacle’.

Physicists disagree on something? Surely you jest. But they aren’t debating whether Schrödinger’s cat is straight, just whether it’s dead. I don’t think we have to address quantum states to contemplate what is essentially a question of human psychology.

The Boy Scouts of America is about to begin distribution from a Victims Compensation fund established by the courts as a part of its bankruptcy restructuring. This is part of a settlement with over 82,000 survivors of abuse - a jaw-dropping figure. I was very briefly in the Boy Scouts after completing Cub Scouting, until health issues made continuing unfeasible, so I wasn’t in it long enough to have seen or experienced anything adverse. Were any of you Boy Scouts, and did you encounter or become privy to any of this? If you are a past victim of such abuse, please feel under no obligation to reply if it would cause you distress. The intent of this question is to gauge the effect the problem had on individuals, and to what extent, not to glorify, fantasize, or fetishize abuse in this context.

Indeed. There’s a whole suitcase full of assumptions to unpack there, including the ones about being what being a penetrator/inseminator means in a homosexual context. I note you say ‘mostly straight’ Tops. In other words, almost-but-not-actually.

If I were to respond to such a situation and then discover that his ‘car’ was a hearse, I’m not sure I could go through with it. [opens car door, finds Lurch waiting naked] You rang…? (Actually, with my luck, the occupant would be Thing the disembodied hand, who just wanted to give handjobs.)

Agreed. And though I don’t rim, I don’t refuse ATM, so I’ll be adding a dose of Pepto to my pre-service prep going forward.

That’s hilarious. My grandfather liked bourbon. A lot. In his last years, he was in the hospital and had to have an external pacemaker installed, and he was a bit delirious. One night, the nurses at the nurses’ station watched his heart monitor flatline. They all rushed in, and found him sitting up in bed, trying to unscrew the leads off his pacemaker. ”Sir, what are you doing?” They asked. He told them, ”I’m trying to get the cap off this fifth of bourbon.”

Just a note about the referenced study - the results indicate that while the active ingredients in Pepto-Bismol have significant antimicrobial properties against a range of intestinal pathogens, that protection is not absolute. It significantly reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk. Also, the authors note that their findings were principally made in vitro, i.e., lab-based, and that more in vivo, or actual in-the-body, studies would be needed to confirm the degree of efficacy in actual use. Clearly @Twochipigs has found it so, but just be aware that the pink stuff isn’t actually a tongue condom.

I can’t imagine that confronting the guilty parties would result in anything but making the situation worse, if their posting was done will ill intent. They might even double down and try to expose you more. If the exposure was unintentional, you might be able to nonconfrontationally request that the information be removed. You say you reported the comment; if this was just a matter of using a regular reporting feature, you might try making a direct contact by email with the site management and explaining that your personally identifying information has been exposed against your wishes and ask that it be removed. If the information revealed is such that it is only identifying when linked to your account, you could consider eliminating the account and creating a new one that would not associate with the linked comment. That would, of course, not be a preferred solution, but might dodge the bullet.

The difficulty in accepting an “order” in which men act gay but call themselves straight is that it perpetuates a stigma toward homosexuality and non-binary sexual nature in favor of the paternalist heterosexual masculine power structure. These men want, even if subconsciously or against their own desire, to enjoy the benefits of homosexual activity while remaining under the socially secure umbrella of straightness. It’s dishonest and disingenuous, to themselves and those around them, and helps keep in place a reality in which men feel that they have to wear such masks. In a generic sense, what do straight men call men who fuck other men? Fags. Therefore, your ‘straight’ bro with whom you want to have a beer and chuckle about how the fags feel about him being straight would be considered a fag himself by any straight person who saw him doing what he does. That is beyond dispute. The joke, it would seem, is on him.

You’ve got a 9” cock? Don’t let it go to your head. That’s a micropenis in the sea. The Blue Whale’s cock is 9 feet long. It would be kind of embarrassing to say “I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours.” Diameter is about a foot. A testicle weighs around 150 pounds/70kg, and an average cumshot is about 5 gallons. Just for comparison, the maximum volume of a human stomach and intestines is less than two gallons. (Forget getting fucked by a whale.) The Giant Squid (Architeuthis dux) is also impressive, with a cock measuring around 7 feet long. But the dude who takes the prize is the one who has a cock seven times the length of his whole body. If cock size is the ultimate measure of a man, then this guy is the Man Among Men… …the barnacle. Which, naturally. When you’re glued to a rock and all the cunt is also glued to a rock, the only way you’re getting any is if you have a r-e-a-l-l-y long cock.

Just because a guy ranting on the sidewalk says, and believes, he’s Jesus, doesn’t mean I’m under any obligation to give deference to his perception over my own. The question we grapple with is whether perception constitutes reality, or whether there is an absolute reality that exists outside of perception. Regardless, the ownership of any man’s identity ends at the entrance to my cunt. From that point, I’m absolutely entitled to an opinion.