ErosWired

I’m afraid your analogy doesn’t hold up. Obligate carnivores do not turn to plant foods when meat is unavailable, because they are physically unable to digest plants. So, for them, any meal will not do. An animal able to digest both animal and plant matter is by definition not a carnivore, but an omnivore. Again, we’re back to labels, definitions, categories. But we can’t always dispense with such things, because sometimes difference matters.

Saying that a man is only and exactly what he says he is, because nobody gets to label him, is nonsense. If a bird calls itself an eagle, but has webbed feet and a bill, it’s not an eagle, even if it firmly believes it is. This ‘straight’ guy does not do ‘straight’ things - he does homosexual things. He fucks males, and ejaculates into them. ‘Straight’ men, by definition, do not engage in this behavior, therefore, he is not ‘straight’. In a world where sexuality had no labels, or categories, or judgments, ‘Any hole will do’ would go without saying - it would simply be the way of things, and nobody would think anything of it. In this world, ’Any hole will do’ is just a handy excuse for denial, a lot like ‘I was drunk’. Both are used as cover to allow the guy to attempt to credibly wear a ‘straight’ mask to cover his gay or bi reality. Suggesting that a guy is ‘straight’ because he has convinced himself he’s ‘straight’ and believes he’s ‘straight’ ignores the ubiquitous ability of the human brain to accept untruth as a coping mechanism, and allow him to exist outside the category he thinks he’s supposed to occupy. You may note that throughout this post I’ve placed ‘straight’ in quotes, because science from Kinsey forward has demonstrated convincingly that human sexuality is a spectrum, and that true, absolute ‘straightness’ is on an extreme end, opposite true, absolute ‘gayness’. Everything in between is some combination of the two. For that reason, the labels are largely pointless anyway, but overlaying a label of ‘straight’ over three-quarters of the spectrum immediately illustrates that a significant percentage of the eagles are ducks calling themselves eagles. You guys who say you’re not hung up on labels - fine, and good for you. Frankly, it would be a better world if nobody was categorized at all. But if you don’t go by labels, then you aren’t in a position to say what the labels do or don’t mean for those who do use them. If the label is to be used, no, the dude the OP is asking about is not ‘straight’. Men who fuck men are not ‘straight’. They simply do not acknowledge or accept their actual nature.

All I can say is that the people running these fetish gear shops are morons. Not because of the comments or the attitude, which are beyond inexcusable, but because their business sense is appalling. All they’re doing by not stocking merchandise for real-life-sized people is throwing away potential profit. To suggest to a potential customer that you’d rather he spend his money at a gym than provide products that fit him is idiotic. I imagine they fail to realize that their refusal to equip regular people in gear isn’t forcing everyone to slim down to their bespoke sizes - on the contrary, the BDSM world is replete with skilled craftspeople and artisans who turn out custom gear, and taught themselves how to do it exactly because they couldn’t get what they wanted elsewhere. The only gear I have that I don’t craft for myself is metalwork. There are populations of men in the fetish scene for whom that man on the Recon cover represents an ideal, both as an example to aspire to, and a very highly desirable goal for service. A failure to recognize this on the part of a company that sells, say, leather kilts, is a sign that the company has an inadequate understanding of both its market and its customer base.

Really? All of them? The entire gender? Even the lesbians? And constantly? Come now, you’re too sophisticated a thinker to resort to hyperbolic generalization. While it may be true that there are some women who seek advantage by attaching themselves to male companions, an assertion that all, or even most, do may open your argument up to claims of misogyny.

What you said does not differ materially from what I said - three 20mg tablets is 60mg, which falls in the middle of the prescribed range, which will vary by individual depending on the physician’s prescription. While some men may be prescribed up to 100mg per dose/day (I am one such), your doctor, apparently, considers 60mg the safe and effective therapeutic amount for you. Your doctor’s instruction not to take in excess of the prescribed amount in a single dose, or more than once a day, is exactly the guidance I referenced. Your decision to follow your doctor’s advice is admirable, but if so telling us you intend to ‘take a few hits’ of Viagra doesn’t make sense unless by ‘hits’ you mean ‘20mg tablets’ and by ‘a few’ you mean three, taken at the same time. To ‘take hits’ is the language or recreational drug use, so you have to understand why what you wrote might give a certain impression.

Going to a mountaintop is a great strategy in Greece. The gods love mountaintops, and it gives Eros a clear shot for his arrows. And you looking all golden and such…

You don’t take ‘a few hits’ of Viagra. You take Viagra (Sildenafil) in a single dose of between 25mg and 100mg - 50 is absolutely adequate for most men - one hour before intercourse, one time a day. That’s it. There is no increased benefit to taking more of it, or taking it more often, but there are risks to the liver and the cardiovascular system. The fact that you say ‘a few hits’ suggests that you may also use poppers, and using poppers with Viagra can be deadly. 💀 The combination can drop your blood pressure low enough to kill you. There’s a difference between making a show of yourself getting fucked, and making a scene by having an ambulance called for you.

A foot fetishist would probably say it would get hotter without the shoes, but you can’t please everyone.

Okay, a new peeve here. This is admittedly something you don’t often see, but it was So. Fucking. Annoying. that it deserves a mention. I saw a clip where this bottom is being fucked in half by CutlerX (always worth watching) but in this case some cinematic genius thought it would be a good idea for the bottom to be wearing a jockstrap either made of some shiny material, or covered in sequins. The result was that every time the bottom moves, *-flash-* you get a burst of reflection from that damn jock right in the eye through the camera.

Heh. True, but aging is a whole-body process, and the events in question are the kind where one gets naked. The hands alone are often a tell. Still, I’ve been tempted to mask for this reason, plus the fact that even as a twentysomething I was never one of the Beautiful People. To the question: A half-mask/eye-mask may have some utility in preventing positive identification, but there are plenty of things it won’t conceal, such as hair color and style, ear shape and definition (not all ears are built the same), nose shape (if not covered), mouth shape and fullness, etc. It may hide crow’s feet around the eyes, but not grey in the hair. An executioner’s hood - eye mask covering the entire cranium - is a middle ground between eye mask and full hood, but frankly I think It’s difficult to wear one without giving off a ‘dungeon’ vibe. Similarly, I find that a full hood screams ‘kink’ to most people, and ‘slave’ to some. I have opted against wearing one regularly for fear of putting guys off who fuck vanilla and don’t feel comfortable approaching someone geared up like that. I’ve worn both eye masks and full hoods, and have crafted both in leather. My recommendation is to not choose leather for a full hood that you’re going to wear for any duration unless it’s part of a set of full leather gear. If you do use leather, make sure it’s been designed with vent holes in the top to allow heat to escape. Otherwise, choose cloth, neoprene, or some material with a little stretch to it that wicks moisture off the skin. Unless you’re a rubber fetishist, do not choose rubber/latex. The need for adequate nasal eye and nasal holes cannot be overstated. A mask whose eyeholes do not align well with your eyes is an instant annoyance, and you need nose holes generous enough to allow for easy breathing - if you’re focused on drawing breath, you’re not focused on fucking, and your brain is going to set breathing as the priority evert time. Note also that if you choose a mask material that is relatively rigid and it isn’t shaped properly to accommodate your nose, its constant pressing against your nose can be extremely distracting. About glasses: If you can’t see without your glasses, a mask may not be feasible. Wearing your glasses over any mask will look ridiculous. Wearing glasses beneath a full or half hood is possible, but problematic - your breath is going to fog the lenses, and you won’t be able to take them off to wipe them. An alternative, of course, is to mask the lower half of the face instead, though this conceals fewer signs of aging. Another alternative to an eye mask: Face paint. I’ve never tried it, but people have painted clothes onto their entire bodies before, so I can see it working.

I have to ask why the OP is throwing out this question as a poll and offering up personal stats to start it off if the OP has sucked zero cocks and therefore cannot have potentially gotten an STI thereby. Is this a legitimate inquiry about sexual health risk (and if so, why isn’t it in the sexual health board), or is it just fishing to find out who’s so slutty he’s gotten an STI in his mouth? I have no idea how many I’ve sucked, but never had an oral STI. The cunt is a different story, but it sees much, much more use.

This is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about. But it wouldn’t have to be related to government expenditure - a picture could be published with a complaint simply of “How can the authorities be allowing such things to go on in our neighborhoods, think of the children” and -boom- no more venue thanks to the cameras. Don’t think the zealots won’t go to the extreme of infiltrating an establishment. I remember on one visit to the local ABS, discovering a 70+year-old church lady with a big Bible in her lap seated firmly in a chair at the head of the corridor lined with gloryhole booths, watching every move everyone made. Imagine letting her have a smartphone that could take pictures. She wouldn’t think twice about doing so and sharing them with the world, because she’d be doing it, in her mind, as a warrior for Jesus.

Is it because they’re encouraging people to ma-ate (May 8)?

Venues like that owe their existence to the willingness of the society they’re in to turn a blind eye to what actually goes on behind the doors. As long as the community at large isn’t exposed to the truth of the depravity, the powers that be can act as though it isn’t happening. The key is that it never gets dragged into the light, and the regular public is never faced with it. The internet, however, is a terrible place to keep a secret - like, for instance, video footage of the inside of a sex venue. Eventually, clips purporting to show activities going on inside will start making the rounds, getting more public as they get shared - as the saying goes, a secret shared by two is known to two; a secret shared by three is known to all the world. In time, someone will be scandalized (or some high-level person will be compromised) and a hue-and-cry will ensue that something must be done about these dens of iniquity. It is not in these venues’ best interests to allow phones, and the sooner they realize how useless their camera stickers are, the better.

I felt him mark something on my ass. After he walked out, I got off the bed and looked in the mirror. He had added another hash mark to the end, so they now looked like łłłł łłłł łłłł łłłł lll

I find myself wondering how a Top knows for certain that the hole he’s using is virginal (we have no hymen, and even if we did that’s not a guarantee). One sees any number of profiles online that advertise ‘virgin ass’ that are plainly not. Indeed, the skepticism of claims of virginity is such that the man who took mine did not believe me when I told him.

This sounds as though you don’t consider a person’s virginity lost until he’s taken a load. I think most would consider the simple act of being penetrated by another man the defining act, although there is definitely a point-of-no-return aspect the first time a male is bred by another male.

This is just a casual observation, but I think there’s a tendency in gay sex to consider multiple ‘virgin states’ - for instance, a bottom can be very well- used but still be a double-penetration virgin. I was a fisting virgin until last year. There was a time when I has never taken piss up my ass, and then I had (because I hadn’t mentioned I absolutely would not want that). But when we think of someone having his ‘cherry’ ‘popped’ or ‘taken’ (note the aggressive imagery) we generally think in terms of penile penetration. I still sometimes think of certain acts that I have never performed in terms of me being somehow virginal to them, though by now men have used my body in so many ways the list of what they haven’t done is shorter than the list of what they have. An example: I’ve never been fucked while hanging suspended in rope bondage (admittedly an unconventional situation). Another example is being the middle of a ‘sandwich’ fuck, where I’m simultaneously penetrated and penetrating. (The difficulty in achieving this for a total bottom is obvious, as it requires vers ability by definition.) A person might not be a virgin at either penetrating or being penetrated, but never have experienced the sensation of being in both states at once. You’re right, and because my cunt is by far my primary orifice, I do tend to lose sight of the experience and point-of-view of oral-only men. For them, that oral introduction to sex is every bit as valid a deflowering, and indeed, the fact that it was done orally might have been the catalyst that caused their sexual taste and practice to develop as it has.

What made you uncomfortable about the age difference? I’m curious because I had a sort of similar experience a couple of years ago with a young man of 21 (me at 53) who wanted me to help him learn to Top. It wasn’t a case of virginity, but there was still a sense of him being very new and extremely vulnerable. I was glad he came to me and not someone else, because I knew I was going to treat it a sensitively as humanly possible. Yet normally I would avoid such a situation.

This is interesting - hearing a distinction made between ‘oral virginity’ and ‘anal virginity’. Technically, my first gay experience was oral, but I don’t count it as losing my (gay) virginity because, for me, probably because I have no Topping instinct whatsoever, I consider my first time as being the time I was first penetrated. In my prior oral experience, he sucked me off. (Head has never done much for me, so that first experience was very meh anyway.) But it’s interesting that some might consider they have two, or even three, gay virginities to lose, if they count their first penetrative act as distinct from receptive.

Note: For comments on views about feelings about taking someone’s virginity, please see the related topic Taking Virginity. Losing one’s virginity is usually a watershed moment in life. Sometimes for the better, sometimes decidedly not. Like most major life events, the whole trajectory of a person’s life may bend one way or the other depending on what happens, when, and with whom. I can never know, but I have a strong sense that if I had been introduced to male sex in high school or early college my life would bear no resemblance to the way it looks now. Do you consider the loss of your virginity, under its circumstances, a net positive, or net negative? To what degree do you think it shaped the person you became? How do you feel about the person who “took” your virginity? Was it a taking, or a giving? (GIFTERS/CHASERS - DON’T EVEN START.) I realize that for far too many on this site the event I’m asking about took place at an age long before it should have; numerous brave narratives on these boards attest to that. Your views would be especially valued. I would ask that all those responding to the question respect the genuine trauma that they may have endured and may still endure, and not pollute the thread with fantasy posts about how your father, uncle, and all your brothers, etc. turned you out when you were 8 and you loved every minute of it.

Note: This question is not an opportunity to glorify the abuse of underage persons, so if that’s what you were planning to do, kindly move along, thank you. Note also: This question asks about the experiences and views of men who have taken someone’s virginity, not the views of those who have had their virginity taken - which would be, at some point, every one of us. I am, however, posting a related question asking for these views. Have you ever (legitimately, not in fantasy or roleplay) been somene’s very first experience of sex? One usually hears this referred to as “taking their virginity”, but taking implies coercion or nonconsent, or at least dominance or aggression, and that obviously isn’t always the case. If you have, how do you feel about having done it? It’s an irreversible act, a bell that cannot be unrung, and is generally life-altering at some level. For some, it is s rite of passage and a goal they‘ve yearned for; for others, it’s an untimely introduction to a world of trauma that they aren’t prepared to cope with and don’t want to live in. The direction it goes may have much to do with the way it’s handled by the one providing the service. I have no doubt that there are some here who wouldn’t give such considerations a second thought; men for whom finding an anal virgin is like finding a hundred-dollar bill on the sidewalk - they’re going to fucking grab it. I have no doubt there are men on here (I trust a minority) who see a sexual virgin as a problem to be solved - See? That was quick. I have no doubt that there are a handful of men who see sexual virgins as the choicest of prey. If you are any of these, I’m not going to judge you if you say so here, but I would be interested to know that you exist, and why you feel the way you do. For the rest of you, how do you feel about the experience, in hindsight, for better or worse? Would you do it again, or avoid it?

I wouldn’t call any CumUnion I’ve been to an orgy as such, and what you get is hit-and-miss, but any bathhouse or sex club setting is going to be the best chance for orgy-like opportunities. There’s also the opportunities to be had at events like IML or CLAW, or Pig Week, or even event weekends at some gay campgrounds, but in my experience even in these cases access to the big, organized group fucking that one would technically call an orgy is still by word-of-mouth and invitation. Fickstutenmarkt or Rough Stock Roundup are certainly specialized orgies, but access to those is limited.

Organized orgies are most often the result of social networks, and getting invited to them involves making connections with people. Even if someone advertises an open orgy for random walk-in strangers, what we generally find is that such things are generally poorly attended, and even if they do get enough people to have group play, the action is seldom as dynamic as when the group is composed of people with some social linkage. One contact will tend to lead to others (assuming you don’t gain a poor reputation), but how one finds and makes that first contact is more than I know - I don’t do social and have no social network, let alone a network of orgy enthusiasts.

Take a look at a map of Greece. It’s not as though he can just hop in a car and drive to any number of larger cities in the country. Depending on where he is, there may be a sea in the way. The gay mecca in Greece, Mykonos, is an island, and he doesn’t live on it. We can’t respond effectively to his question if we assume his circumstances and cultural situation are the same as if he were in the U.S. Even here, advice to travel to a larger city means something very different to a person who would have to drive multiple hours to get to one than it would to someone who could make the trip in less than an hour. And as difficult as it is to be openly gay in, say, rural Kentucky, it’s culturally far worse in other countries where it can land you in prison or worse. Unless we’re familiar with the mores of Greek society in this regard, we have to realize that our advice may be of little practical value, and the kind if knee-jerk replies we so often read on here where guys are told to “just do it” may be worse than useless.