ErosWired

Seriously? In a discussion of copyright? You just convinced me that everything you’ve written is word salad.

Well, since I wrote that post, I’ve taken that first fist. And, a second one, later. The concern I expressed above has proven baseless. After two fists, I still don’t understand what’s supposed to be so great about it. The fister was experienced, he got up in me without any particular difficulty, but I felt none of the assgasmic pleasure everyone raves about. It was just…full and uncomfortable, and hurt a bit going in. I might consider giving it one more shot, just because I like to test something thoroughly before giving up on it, but the third time would have to be a significantly different experience to hook me on it. If what I’ve experienced is what it is, I can be absolutely fine just taking cock.

Whether the legal terms line up precisely or not, I assure you, a person who breaches copyright is a thief from the perspective of the copyright holder. How do I know this? I’m a published writer and creative professional. My livelihood (read: actual money) has derived in part from my intellectual property that is protected by copyright. If another person were to make use of my original creative output in any way that deprives me of the benefit (again, read: actual money) of the use of my intellectual property, that person has, in any sense you like, stolen from me. A person who steals is a thief. A person who breaches copyright to use another person’s work, uncompensated, for his own gain robs the owner of the opportunity to use his property as he sees fit; to use his property in that way; and to realize the profit made from that use. A person who breaches copyright by acquiring a copyrighted work like a book or movie without paying the required fee for access to the material, whether buying or renting, is also directly depriving the copyright owner of the value of his work, and enjoying the value of the creator’s work at the creator’s expense. A thief who steals my wallet and spends my money for his own enjoyment is no different. I grow extremely weary of apologists who try to claim that there’s somehow nothing really wrong with taking or using copyrighted matter that doesn’t belong to them, because it’s so easy, everybody does it, it’s just words and pictures, who cares? We care. It’s wrong. And regardless of how the law may prosecute it, I look at the man who steals what’s mine and I see a goddamn thief.

In such a situation I would be tempted to say, “Drunk guys really show you their true nature, don’t you agree?” And then proceed to fill in the blanks in his memory. In detail.

Torrents are not, of course, evil in and of themselves - it’s nothing but a method of distributed data transfer, and can be used for perfectly legitimate purposes. It’s the moral compasses that are the problem for this, and every, technology that trusts humans to be on their best behavior. ‘Best behavior’ is not the human default. We aren’t born that way, we have to be taught how to behave, and most people revert at any opportunity because being on your best behavior often involves denying your own pleasure center, and requires mental effort. Which do not at this time. All of them have the right, and any of them could choose to exercise it at any moment. Just because they’re not at the moment doesn’t make it any less wrong to take their stuff than from those who do. But ethics aside, your VPN doesn’t mean it’s safe for you to torrent. Using torrents for illicit content is a lot like cumdumping for cock at an ABS: The place that hosts the activity is shady, people come there because of the lack of restrictions, and if you keep coming back, eventually you’re going to get infected. Torrents are notorious for spreading viruses and other malware that could render the end user’s careful use of a VPN meaningless. A VPN may hide your face, but it’s not a computer condom.

It sounds like you weren’t playing with a straight friend then, either. He evidently found that the bisexual content of your videos inspired his bisexual nature enough for him to instigate homosexual acts, so I think calling him ‘straight’ just because he has a girlfriend overlooks the obvious. Why is it that people think a gay man who fucks one woman can’t actually be gay, but that a ‘straight’ man can casually fuck male ass or suck male cock and still be totally straight? It’s just willful blindness to me.

I have to say I find it a different feeling being naked in the theater at an ABS versus a bathhouse, or even when hosting in a hotel room. In the bathhouse, people are expected to be naked, and most are, to a greater or lesser degree. In a hotel cumdumping situation, the men who walk in the door pretty much expect to find you naked, and some are very specific about how they want to see it. But in an ABS, most men aren’t naked in the open, wouldn’t be comfortable naked where strangers could see them in that seedy environment, and may feel a kind of sympathetic embarrassment when they see someone else bared. Even if they don’t, I think there’s a good deal more judgment that goes on there in terms of who’s considered a slut or a whore in a negative sense, in the sense of a person of low character. Even though everyone there has smut on his mind, they can all put themselves on a shelf a little higher than the guy who actually takes his clothes off. In a way, there’s almost an element of what makes CMNM (Clothed Male/Naked Male) into a fetish, the sense that there’s something inherently lesser about an isolated make naked among other males who are not. This unspoken social understanding has various implications. On the one hand, it may be the dynamic that encourages some to step forward and make sexual use of the individual. On the other, it may leave some wondering why any man worth the title would voluntarily do that, and lead them to avoid contact with him. Frankly, my own experience suggests that the latter is the more common reaction. I know that if I strip down in an ABS theatre I am always conscious that I am naked. That’s not the case at a bathhouse, or in a hotel room, where I often don’t even think about it. Possibly there’s a sliver of concern, knowing that, in fact, I’m legally not supposed to be naked in that theater, and if the police happened to choose that night to pay a visit to the theater, things would be…awkward. In some ways I sometimes wonder if it isn’t a good thing that I never had much luck at the local ABS before they shut it down - if I had, I’m sure I would have become a regular feature of the place, and ended up in trouble eventually. As it was I only had a cock up my ass about five times.

Paper? Paper? You shouldn’t have been embarrassed, you should have been outraged. Could he have been more disrespectful? I’m embarrassed for him. In all honesty, had it been me, I would have had some difficulty complying with the instruction to ask someone else to lick it off of me because that would be a dominant act according to my training, but I would have certainly consumed it myself after cleaning it off with my own fingers and tongue. The idea of using paper…as though it were a spillage in aisle five…inexcusable.

Your analogy doesn’t work the way you think it does, since glass isn’t actually a fluid - it’s an amorphous solid, somewhere between a liquid and a solid. But in that sense, the analogy might work even better, in that our overall sexual makeup is ‘set’, but still capable of permutation.

This sort of question seems tedious to me, because it insists that we subscribe to a nonsensical notion that a bird with webbed feet that quacks isn’t a duck. You can’t answer the question if you can’t define ‘straight’ as distinct from ‘gay’ or, more importantly, ‘bi’. Any meaningful definition of ‘straight’ would mean a man who is not sexually attracted to, and does not perform sexual acts with, other males - i.e., not homosexual. This is necessarily the definition, because if it weren’t, there would be no fetishistic pleasure in the thought of such a person ‘going against his nature’ to engage in sexual contact with another male. It would just be two guys interested in guys hooking up. But in fact, in most cases, that’s exactly what it is. The ‘straight’ male may be repressed, confused, in denial, closeted, or simply on the hetero-leaning side of bisexual, but they Kinsey findings of a sexual spectrum are well established and make the idea of absolute heterosexuals dubious when we’re confronted with behavior to the contrary. Protests that a ‘straight’ man uses a male because ‘any hole will do’ are unconvincing - truly, absolutely, committed heterosexual men aren’t simply disinterested in sex with other men, they’re repulsed by the idea, just as absolutely gay men cannot abide the idea of sex with a woman. These visceral reactions don’t change circumstantially, and certainly not simply because the preferred type of hole isn’t ready at hand. The OP asks about straight guys being gay under given circumstances, which implies that they would be absolutely heterosexual and in no way homosexual at all in all other circumstances. People don’t ‘turn gay’ any more that a gay person can ‘turn straight’. A person may be inclined to lean either way depending on the circumstances, but that dual nature itself is not conditional - it is a fundamental part of the person. No, a man begging for your cock and telling you to pound his ass hard and cum inside him is not ‘straight’. Of course he isn’t. Whether he chooses to call himself straight, or self-identifies as straight, is immaterial. He can call himself an eagle all he wants, but he’s quacking like a fucking duck, and his feet are webbed. If a man finds himself turning to other males for sexual release, he no longer fits the definition of ‘straight’ as ‘absolute heterosexual’. Claims to the contrary stem from a wish to perpetuate a fantasy of the power of gay male sexuality to seduce otherwise unattainable objects of desire. Claims by so-called ‘straight’ men that they aren’t homosexual because they engage in homosexual activity are disingenuous and self-deceptive. And all of it, it seems to me, is rooted in a culture of shame over traditional definitions of masculinity. Tedious.

You did not. Please correct the oversight at your earliest convenience.

One wonders, since Grindr isn’t actually very useful for cruising. On the other hand, if you’re trying to find a flake, a game-player, or a time-waster, it’s a gold mine.

I’m not a mod here, but I have been elsewhere, and I can tell you that the hassle and headache associated with moderating leaves very little margin for reward of any kind. I can’t imagine anyone finding it “tremendously fulfilling”. It’s a pain in the ass, and the people who need moderating in the first place just make it more so. The internet has become so uncivil that moderation is a practical necessity now that people have forgotten how to behave toward one another. Where you don’t have it, you get dumpster fires and cesspits. Without moderation, a place like this would go rancid in a hurry.

Grindr is a social media app intended to facilitate hookups (in theory). Grindr is not a public health agency, or indeed an agency of any kind. It’s a business. Grindr is under no obligation to provide any service not expressly stipulated in its Terms of Service to its paid subscribers. If it has elected to participate in a program to promote sexual health, that is laudable, and it may even calculate that it has a sound business reason for doing so, but there is no requirement for it to do so for any group, and if it elects to do so for one group, it is under no obligation to do the same for all groups. Your statement about what Grindr needs to do is nothing more than a statement about what you want it to do. There’s a difference.

? A citizen of Canada is a Canadian. A citizen of the United States of America is an American. A citizen of Mexico is a Mexican. They are all indicators of nationality. An argument might be made that all three, as inhabitants of the North American continent, are americans, but that’s little a, not capital A.

Actually, in the news today we read that an Australian swim club now has a ban on being naked in the dressing rooms and showers. The whole world’s gone dog-barking mad.

No, that’s a reference to a case in which a school employee was sacked for not providing notice to parents that the statue would be discussed in the classroom. The educator apparently did not follow policy on other matters as well. It’s ludicrous, of course, and in the US we’re facing a dangerous social trend of conservative attempts to ‘sanitize’ public education, ban books, and legislate speech. I personally think it’s the last scream of a dying generation trying desperately to stop the inevitable change in the world around them; they may triumph for a day, but they cannot prevail against time. The generation that is coming into adulthood does not think as they do, and will in time reshape the world to their own liking. It has always been so - it will always be so. One might also point out that David has been standing around in the nude in public for twice as long as the United States of America has existed. I don’t think anyone here is going to have much luck banning him.

For me, it’s not just a question of it being a waste not to swallow it. Not swallowing it is out of the question - failure to do so would disrespect the Top who had honored me by selecting me as the receptacle for his semen. I would dishonor myself if I failed that fundamental task. And truth be told, there’s something about the chemical composition of cum that hits my mouth wrong on the first spurt, and it isn’t pleasant, but I fight past it and get every drop down no matter what. Oddly enough, I don’t think a Top has ever cum down my throat rather than in my mouth, so I’ve made a conscious effort to swallow every load I’ve swallowed.

These people like to cherry-pick the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, touting the part where it says that no law shall prevent the free expression of religion, but conveniently ignoring the part that says “will make no law respecting an establishment of religion” - in other words, they want laws that affect religion, but only ones that make everyone else follow their religion. Even Jesus understood the difference between the church and the state, when asked whether it was lawful to pay taxes to the Romans: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. - Mark 22:21

No attack on you was intended. The comment was simply an observation that the motivation of these litigants seems misguided. Health insurance is no longer mandatory at the federal level. The tax penalty for not having health insurance was repealed by the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2019. Some states may still require it, but it is not a federal requirement. They are not forced to buy it. How strong is their conviction? Is their faith strong enough that they’re willing to forego insurance rather than support something their belief does not? Nor can they demonstrate that their individual dollars, out of all those paid by millions of others, are the ones being used to subsidize PrEP. It always boils down to the same thing - this isn’t about freedom to believe what they wish, it’s about them wanting to be able to control how other people live.

!! Hold the phone. When these people paid their money to purchase their insurance coverage, it stopped being their money, the same as when their money stopped being their money when they subscribed to Netflix. It isn’t a violation of their religious freedom for Netflix to use the money they spent to distribute movies that don’t comport with their religion, and the insurance companies likewise have the right to do whatever they damn well please - or meet whatever requirements the government places on their industry - with the money they’ve earned.

HIV doesn’t selectively target people with ‘colourful’ sex lives. A person doesn’t have to be promiscuous - anyone who fucks without a condom is at risk. Unless by ‘colourful’ you mean ‘homosexual’, and are suggesting that it would somehow be acceptable for the insurance industry to discriminate wholesale against LGBT persons to the extent that they could only obtain insurance through a specialized niche market of providers. Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination in the provision of health insurance, and this includes sexual orientation. The link below provides some background. [think before following links] https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep14-lgbtacaenrolla.pdf Whether a case can be made that refusing to cover PrEP for free (or at all) on religious grounds constitutes discrimination is more than I know.

There’s great consensus in this thread of dislike of seeing Tops pull out to ejaculate. I definitely concur. Increasingly, though, I’m also growing weary of seeing bottoms instantly pushing out the loads dumped into them. It amounts to the same thing - wasting the load for the sake of showing it to the camera. If you want to prove to me that the Top didn’t fake his orgasm, give me a close-up of his face while he’s cumming. Give me a shot of his taint pumping. Let me see the pullout with a drop left on the end of his cock. Let me see the bottom’s hole glistening with cum. Let my mind do the rest. I don’t need to see the bottom empty himself out in a squirt of white, much less an impossible stream of fake cum. It just leaves me disappointed, with the sense of a ruined breeding. Plus, in my mind, it shows a deep disrespect for the Top who pumped the load. When a Top puts his load inside me, it stays where he put it. Out of the thousand+ men who have seeded me, I can count on one hand the number who have asked me to push it out.

That was my first thought. How can a corporate entity hold a spiritual belief? I suppose the answer given would be that companies can be created for the purpose or intent of expressing or advancing the principles of the beliefs of the people involved in it, or for whose benefit it operates, and forcing the company to do something contrary to those principles would violate the beliefs of the human beings responsible for the entity. But an insurance company is not a church. It readily writes policies on individuals without discriminating on their personal beliefs, and is only too glad to take their premiums and put them in the bank. Not only are insurance companies not churches, they’re sure as hell not charities, and don’t pay out for anything they aren’t required to. That’s why it’s necessary to regulate the insurance industry. There is something deeply wrong when a single power-drunk judge in Amarillo - the ass-crack of Texas - is able to dictate how the entire nation must live. The next thing to come is a ruling that companies have feelings and can sue for emotional distress.

I’ve had to think about my answer to this. For me, a cunting by a stranger is generally absolutely preferred, but I can’t say it has to do with the quality of the sex with a FB. I actually have had very few regular sex partners, and the one thing I could always rely on is that the time would come when they would lose interest in fucking me. Happens every time. So the dynamic by which they use me is very different. I think perhaps my preference for servicing strangers comes from the way I’ve been trained to view my sexual purpose - as a utility, a thing to use, a thing to provide a service. When a stranger comes for my hole, there is no subtext - he doesn’t know me, his agenda is purely the use of my body. I can focus on the purpose I’m meant for, knowing that I am seen as nothing mire than that. Everything about the interaction is simplified, and we can focus on the essential nature of the fuck. Additionally, part of my purpose is to ensure that no man who wants a fuck ever has to go without one, so servicing as many men as possible tells me that I’m serving that purpose as well as I can.