ErosWired

Fascinating. 85 people have read this question so far and no one has had an answer or opinion. I’d love to view that as a sign that men don’t actually have a zest for sexual cruelty, and that all the accounts of it on here are just fiction, but my personal experience tells me that something truly lurks in the hearts of certain men…

Interestingly, there are dildo manufacturers online who will provide realistic cocks in ranges of hardness to suit the customer, and I’ve found some references to hardnesses described as “Not Suitable For Insertion”. Usually these are Shore Hardness Scale 00-20 offered as a custom order (if available at all) but apparently there are people who will by a dildo that can’t penetrate anything. I’m just reporting this, don’t ask me to explain it. People are weird.

Sexual orientation is a social construct. Reproductive function by gender is not. Homo sapiens reproduce by binary gender as a species - it isn’t optional. The whole modern debate about whether there are more than two genders, or whether someone can straddle or cross lines between genders, has little practical bearing on how babies are made. Baby-making is firmly a heterosexual function whether the persons involved are heterosexual or not. Given that humans are biologically evolved to reproduce in the “straight” way, and are thus in the main biologically programmed for sexual attraction to opposite-sex partners as a matter of species survival, and given that the human body was not practically evolved for homosexual intercourse, I think it’s pretty safe to say that we came by “straight” the natural way.

They get away with it in the US because the market for brokering collected user data is - still - largely unregulated. Grindr was in fact fined $7.7 million dollars in 2021 for sale of sensitive user data between 2018 and 2020, but the fine was levied not by an American court, but by a Norwegian court under the EU’s GDPR laws. We do not have the same protections in the US because in America the Right To Make As Much Money As Possible essentially trumps every other right when it gets down to politics. A right to privacy of personal information is not verbatim protected by our Constitution, which is why we do not have robust laws to protect it, and why we’re scrambling now that the internet has suddenly put us all under a public magnifying glass. I have no idea whether, or how, we end up having out cake and eating it too - getting all the benefits of distributed information tailored to our individual data, and keeping it completely secure from every possible adverse use.

Well… near the Vatican, what other kind of shit would it be?

Your Mileage May Vary. My bathhouse visits usually require a 6-hour drive round-trip, so I stay for about 16 hours each time, and over that length of time I usually manage to catch some sort of wave. That said, at the same bathhouse that duration has landed me as many as two dozen fucks to less than a dozen. The few times I’ve been to a bathhouse for a short duration, however, I’ve definitely found the results more dicey. I’ve never left a bathhouse unfucked, but on a few occasions it was only once over, say, four hours. Vapor in Louisville was notorious for this every time I ever went there - but haven’t been back in quite some time.

A cock can absolutely be too hard for comfortable fucking - if you’re concerned about comfortable fucking. For me, it’s never been a primary consideration. My concern is that the Top finds my cunt an extremely comfortable place to rut his cock, and that means doing it the way he likes it with the equipment he brought for as long as he wants. Sometimes that makes for a test of endurance for me, but that’s what I’m trained for. Now: Can a Top not be hard enough? Fuck yes. And I’m not talking about obviously limp, I mean just-too-soft where he can manage to stuff it in but can’t keep it in. That’s really tedious and frustrating because he often thinks he’s hard enough when he really isn’t.

‘Suck my dick’ seems more polite because it isn’t ‘Suck my dick, faggot’. Less demanding is: ‘You look like you could use a throatfucking.’

Have you tried speaking without using any vowels? Try saying ‘Ccksckr’ out loud - but no vowel sounds whatsoever. The powerful ‘K’ loses much of its power. The consonants only have power because they are pushed by the air moved by the vowels, and the choice of vowel determines the amount of relative power. In tonal languages, the vowels, rather than the consonants, do the heavy lifting in defining sense and meaning, and in most languages vowels have plenty of character. Take, for instance, the two words in ‘King Kong’ - the consonants are identical, including the ‘K’s, which are behaving just as you describe, but the difference in the relative power snd effect of the vowels becomes evident. So much so, indeed, that the ape is often simply referred to in dread as ‘Kong’ because the ‘O’ denotes more strength and force. Compare ‘King Kong’ with ‘Dick Cock’ structurally. The comparison shows that your observation about the effect of the leading ‘K-sound’ stop consonant is accurate, but it also demonstrates that the ‘O’ has a comparative dominance over the less energetic ‘soft-i’. Your point about the consonants is well taken - but orchestras could not perform with percussion alone.😉 There is, by the way, some debate in the science of linguistics about the degree to which a familiarity with the phonemic-level elements of a speaker’s native language acts as a kind of neural filter reducing the impact of the acoustic “edges” of an utterance, whereas hearing something spoken in an unfamiliar tongue does not. Here’s a link to an abstract on this; I’m certainly not well versed in it, but I find it interesting: [think before following links] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.17.504234v1

My reaction was less about my age than about the fact that I actually am a father, and the person saying it not only was not my child, but was approaching me for sexual contact, a thought that would revolt me if it involved on of my own children. Besides, I’m not much into roleplay, let alone age-based roleplay, especially if there’s some question whether I’m actually old enough to be his father. I worked with a young 20-something Top who had a daddy thing and really wanted me to play that, but I just couldn’t accommodate him. In my mind, fucking sons isn’t what dads do.

I would suggest that it isn't the consonants that make the difference here as much as the vowels. The sound made in vocalizing the 'o' is more robust than that of the soft 'i', but more to the point, when saying the word "cock", the mouth assumes the shape appropriate for the task, and the throat becomes open and receptive. You literally say 'ah'. The shape of the mouth when saying "dick" does not imply an invitation to entry. This isn't to say that the choice is a conscious one, but the one is certainly more evocative than the other. There's also an almost visual sense conjured by the two sounds, in which the 'i' gives an impression of something thinner and less substantial, while the 'o' conjures the thought of something round, with heft. It has always struck me that a dick denotes something skinny while a cock denotes something thick. Most men, given such choice, will choose generous terms to describe the thing they either have or want. Note that while one might equally say "I suck dick" or "I suck cock", you really don't hear guys say, "I'm a dicksucker." They say "I'm a cocksucker." I do find @topblkmale's observation interesting, however: Now that I think about it, I have also generally observed that 'dick' is the word of choice among the black men I have served, but don't have enough cultural insight to speculate on why this has developed in this way. I only know that when one of these men tells me what he's about to do to me with his Dick, I hear it with an unmistakable capital 'D', regardless of its actual dimensions.

In women who get a vaginal chlamydia infection, a subsequent rectal infection sometimes occurs due to secretions passing between the two orifices. Studies suggest that the incidence of rectal-to-urethral coinfection in men is less common. That is to say, not impossible, but not guaranteed. Chlamydia does not infect the reproductive tract via an internal route from the rectum to the urethra; it would have to make the transition between orifices. This can occur manually - our hands go lots of places. One common complication of chlamydia is a conjunctival coinfection, where the infection is transferred to the eye by a contaminated hand. Your rectal chlamydia isn’t automatically going to infect your cum from the inside of you and shoot into someone you fuck. The risk, rather, is that you will secrete infected fluid from your rectum in the course of sex, it gets on your cock, and you then insert it into your partner. Sex, as you may have noticed, is messy. The treatment for chlamydia is simple and of relatively short duration. Get it dealt with, abstain for the brief time required to be safe, and then get back in the saddle.

Let me preface this question by saying that I ought to understand this well. I come from extensive BDSM beginnings in which a wide array of twisted men entertained dark desires testing the response of my flesh to various extremes of treatment. I've observed them at their play and tried to understand their motivation well enough to give an appropriate response. To the degree that I am able to express suffering in a way that seems to satisfy them, I succeed. But I have never truly grasped the state of mind that a man is in that drives him to take pleasure in the sexual torture of another man. In scenes of power exchange, the motivation is more clear. In scenes with equipment, such as electro play, there is an element of curiosity external to the individuals; that is also more easily understandable. What truly leaves me wondering, however, is not the BDSM experiences, but rather to two or three particular non-scene encounters that I have had at bathhouses or hotels, in which a complete stranger, knowing nothing about me at all save that I am ass-up and receptively sexually vulnerable on a bed, without word or warning takes up a large dildo and begins savagely, mercilessly, jackhammering it into my cunt as deep, hard and fast as he can, until, his arm tired, he rips it dripping out of me and leaves without a word. There is no identification of roles, no understanding of levels of experience, no exchange of interest or desire, no exchange of any sort. The event is a singular expression by an individual of an unidentified drive that could be animus of some kind, but might be as neutral as idle curiosity, with an execution devoid of human context. I remember these moments neither because they are exciting nor because they are traumatic, but because they are bewildering. In any other context whatsoever, that behavior would constitute a brutal sexual assault. He chose to approach a stranger and batter the inside of his body in an intimate space. It leaves me speculating as to the possible motives: 1. Was it idle curiosity, seeing the dildo and wondering what it would be like to jam it up an ass? But if so, what is the deeper drive that would make someone want to experience that? 2. Was it a sense that a vulnerable man in that position deserved to be treated in such a way? Why, and why would doing that be satisfying? 3. Was it an act of jealousy by another bottom, trying to harm me to force me out of play? 4. Was it an act of curiosity by someone wanting to know if I was slutty enough to take his imagined extreme of sexual intercourse? 5. Was it a man who takes a special delight in causing pain to a man in a sexual way because he feels that that is the way to control a man most deeply and completely, and to extract the greatest pain, by striking where he is most tender and has the least defense? Is it a special kind of schadenfreude that can be felt no other way? I know that there are men on here who enjoy causing a bottom pain; they have said so. No one has really expressed why, or what the reward is. I would very much like to know. I find myself drawn to such men, if only because the only way I know to seek to find the answer to the question is by submitting to their use. I am driven to perfect service, and I feel as though I will never achieve it until I understand exactly what such a man truly seeks to obtain from me. I'm sure there are going to be the usual responses to wit: Tops can do whatever they want to me, I'm trash, etc., etc. That has nothing to do with the question. I want to hear from those who take pleasure in it, why they take pleasure in it.

Heh. It’s not the way I treat my colon that concerns me. The way other men treat my colon almost certainly doesn’t qualify as ‘taking good care’. …At least, not in the sense you mean.

This has actually been the subject of several studies, and there does appear to be some efficacy of aqueous extract of garlic as an anti-shigellosis treatment. A Google search on ‘garlic treatment for shigellosis’ will turn up several research abstracts for those interested.

So Trump bears no responsibility for what transpired at the capitol on January 6? Try again. So far in this thread you’ve belittled my comments as both simplistic and silly, which is little more than name-calling, and I’m surprised at you. This rhetoric is not your best work. No, the President of the United States is not directly responsible if the price of gasoline spikes or FEMA does a sucky job managing a hurricane relief effort…except when he is. A President might, for instance, personally change the trajectory of a national health crisis by directly instructing his subordinates to quash scientific data that made him look bad politically. He absolutely is responsible for the way he uses the explicit powers of his office, from the stroke of his pen to the bully pulpit. He has both immediate power and direct influence. He is responsible for not only what he does but what he fails to do, and his decisions have far-reaching consequences. Heavy is the head that wears the crown. The personal responsibility of federal officers in the conduct of their duties is very clearly spelled out, I assure you, in regulation - 21 CFR 19.6 if you want chapter and verse, and it applies to officials up and down the chain. If nothing that transpires when an official holds office is his responsibility, then there should be no need for any process of discipline or impeachment. Yet there is. And if wrongdoing in office matters, so does doing in office. I honestly don’t know who you’re talking to. Who said we shouldn’t? You say we don’t have to individually take responsibility (which for some reason you keep putting in quotes) but we do need to collectively? The individual doesn’t but the collective does - how does that work, exactly? Because the collective is nothing but the sum of its individual parts, and if all those individual parts individually take no responsibility, the collective has no will to do so. The only way that the system you say disgusts you is going to change is if people take up the personal responsibility to change the way things are, even if they were not directly responsible for causing the problem. The fire brigade is not, after all, largely composed of arsonists. It’s not sufficient to simply be cognizant that a problem exists; it’s not enough for white Americans to be cognizant that they have benefited unequally from the system; they must individually accept the responsibility for ensuring that it changes, and then act collectively. That is not necessarily the same thing as accepting blame - you can choose to put out a fire even if you weren’t the one who set it, and even if it kept you warm, if extinguishing it is the right thing to do. That said, I have now spent absolutely all the time I’m prepared to spend debating this on a site for bareback assfucking. I’ll leave you to it.

Jesus. I entertained no such notion, and made no statement whatsoever suggesting that they did not enjoy the societal benefits of being white. I am not attempting some kind of ludicrous justification of Confederate heritage. What I said was that they were poor as dirt and were not sitting there thinking through the macroeconomics of it all. It’s a grassroots humanist perspective based on principles of practical need. Don’t get it twisted. I don’t buy your apologetics about Lincoln, by the way. If he had such fine moral principles about slavery, it doesn’t matter how earnest he made them sound - he traded them in for political coin. He was born about a half hour from here, one county over, by the way. I’ve done work details over at the Birthplace. Integrity is kind of illusory when it comes to Lincoln. Fun fact: The cabin that’s supposed to be the one he was born in is actually reconstructed out of pieces from two unrelated cabins, and they put them together wrong. The chimney’s on the wrong side. If some of my arguments are too simplistic for you, I would frankly far rather err in that direction than tortured rhetorical cabin-building. As to this whole sense that seems to pervade the air that all white people in the society share guilt for having benefited, by circumstance of their genetics, from a system that they were born into, by that logic, this must then apply equally to the white abolitionist as to the white supremacist, both equally condemned, as both benefit the same. If you draw the same brush against all, all receive the same coat of paint. That’s not how it works, of course. An individual is directly responsible for how he treats others; he is not necessarily responsible for how others treat him. To claim that every stratum of a stratified society is equally responsible for the stratification simply because they are not on the bottom is absurd, and utterly ignores the reality of the inequity of power. A dirt farmer in the rural antebellum South may not have been treated as a slave, but he had no significant power to change the system, either. He had no money or influence and, critically, little education, so even his vote was subject to the manipulations of political operatives (and don’t try to pretend it wasn’t, because it’s happening right under our noses today). Similarly, if the stratum of society wielding the power to wage war opts to use it in support of an unjust system, that is not a decision that the soldier is in a position to make, and if the result of the decision to wage war is that William Tecumseh Sherman is planning to come burn down his house, he may not even have the luxury of deciding whether or not to be a soldier. If Henry V is correct, even if every man’s duty is the King’s, every man’s soul’s his own and he must be individually judged - he cannot be judged on the basis of the motives of the King. The only way any of this ever gets resolved is at the individual level, one brain at a time, teaching people to respect the priceless value of every human soul. And then, once we get all the issues of white privilege finally squared away, we can get started on Neurotypical privilege, and how it works the same way when neuronormative people - of every skin color - make life a living, breathing hell for people with different brains. Don’t imagine for a moment that they stop at race.

Are you saying that white America doesn’t have to feel ashamed that white people owned slaves in America? Really? Whew, that’s a relief. For a while there I thought there might be something legitimate to the argument that the dominant majority unjustly profited from the mistreatment of minorities for 400 years. Of course we have to feel fucking ashamed of it. The whole damn nation needs to be cringingly ashamed of it. If we’re not ashamed, it means we don’t get why it was wrong or how wrong it was, and why every vestige of its legacy needs to by God be dug up by the roots and burned in fire.

There’s something to be said for smelling like garlic…if a man wants to avoid being fucked by vampires.

I experienced no pain at all my first time, and it wasn’t a short fuck. I hadn’t been playing with toys or anything like that to prepare myself for the possibility of getting fucked - I don’t think I even owned a dildo at that point. Afterward when I told him I was a virgin to taking cock, he refused to believe me. I guess I must just have a natural talent for taking it up the ass.

WARNING - This is the General topics forum. Specifically asking for or encouraging discussion of bugchasing “conversions/pozzings” here may subject you or any who respond to the request to infractions from the Moderators. The appropriate place for that discussion is the bugchasing section of the backroom.

If not predisposition, then perspective, and perspective is everything in the way humans interpret society. In this case, the prevailing perspective that the white race benefited from the institution of slavery, and those benefits persist to the present day, reflected in continued social and economic inequity. This is arguably true; the consequences undeniably favor Caucasians by most any metric. What follows, then, is an interesting question. If we assume that the benefits of the white-established society accrue to whites, what are the implications of the fact that in 2044 white people are no longer expected to be in the majority? This won’t mean that all the systems established by white, legacy-of-slave-owner-society are abolished; it will simply mean that those benefits that accrued from the institution of slavery will then accrue to People of Color as well. One might say, Well, it’s about time they got a little of their own back, but that’s not how it works - it’s still modern people benefiting from the enslavement of others in the past. They just happen to have skin closer in color now. Full disclosure: I’m white as paste. I’m see-thru white. My family is all from Appalachia (God help us). I do a lot of genealogy, and I have never found an ancestor who owned a slave. Except for one. He owned one slave, and I know this because there is a photograph of the enslaved man in a book of local history. I cannot bear to look at it. It makes me viscerally sick. The shame is almost unbearable, and this is five generations later. No doubt this will gratify some People of Color, who will say, Good - you should be ashamed because your ancestor owned a slave. But what if my son or daughter marries a Black person (fine by me) and their child one day looks at that book of local history? That child is as much Black as White, and the child’s heritage is equal parts oppressed and oppressor. Should that child feel shame because her ancestor owned a slave and she benefits from the society built on the institution? How should she feel if she delves into genealogy and discovers that a 7th-generation ancestor on one side actually owned a 7th-generation ancestor on the other? (Genealogy is a perilous hobby.) The thing about genealogy is that you start to see how everyone is connected to everyone else - there really is ultimately no us and them. Blood mixes readily, and in ways you don’t expect, and it doesn’t unmix. The Melting Pot here is only going to get more mixed, and harder to sort out who should be ashamed of what. By the way, above you say that those who weren’t against slavery were perfectly fine with the status quo. Lincoln wasn’t. He was neither for nor against it, and he sure as hell wasn’t happy with the status quo, because he could read the tea leaves - the country was a cultural powder keg. I neither think the war was a property dispute nor an economic issue, but a cultural reckoning that was always inevitable because no human society founded on disequilibrium and the deprivation of human need can endure. The endemic channeling of those things that humans require for self-actualization to a segment of the population, coupled with its sharp denial to another, built an unsustainable rising pressure within the society, from which all other complications derived. I fear we see a not dissimilar dynamic playing out in the modern day.

I’m not going to try to rise to that bait. It will always come across that way to you because you are predisposed to that view. Any discussion about slavery that takes any position other than the one that puts slavery full center as the only topic that matters runs headlong into the claim that slavery is the only topic that matters. Slavery was vile, unconscionable and inexcusable. The institution had profound and perfidious effects that reverberate through society to this very moment. The expectation that these wrongs can be undone has led to much frustration; they cannot be undone, only mitigated. The wound may heal, but it scarred the flesh, and the scar will remain. We cannot unwind time and make it as though no one was ever enslaved or discriminated against in any way. If it were merely a question of achieving parity between races in the present day, great progress might be made; but for many, what they demand is equity over time - a full balancing of the scales, to reach a true equilibrium of justice. Essentially, this is the eye-for-an-eye principle, whereby both sides are settled at an equal base level (and both, incidentally, equally blind). In this case, however, the only way the balance could be obtained would be a role reversal in which Blacks enslaved whites long enough to obtain equal benefit to that which whites obtained through enslaving them. Yet all agree that slavery is vile, unconscionable and inexcusable, so the path of total balance is not an option. But my comment above was not intended to address any of those broad questions, but simply that the condition of individuals belies simplistic conclusions about the causes of the war. Your examples merely underscore my point. Of those who benefitted peripherally from slavery, you cite landowners, railroads, insurance companies, banks, and corporations. My comments were about individual citizens who didn’t have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, which in the rural South of the 1860s was a pretty common description. Nobody denies that slaves suffered, nor that a society built on their backs was reprehensible, but there were people - many people - whose lives had little to do with it, as they were just struggling to get enough to keep the wolf from the door themselves. My comment made no attempt to frame any “good guys” - in fact, I personally very much agree with abolitionist Wendell Phillips’ judgment of Lincoln as “a first rate second rate man” for his willingness to equivocate on slavery. Lincoln wasn’t a “good guy” - he was actually a dick about it. ‘The Great Emancipator’, my ass. Rather, my comment was meant to point out that not everyone - as so many would simplistically have it - were “bad guys”. Just because the society treated a class of people unjustly, every individual is not painted in the same hue with the same brush of guilt. Not every Russian is equally evil because Putin is waging an unjust war in Ukraine. The society might be guilty of not rising to stop him, but the individual does not have the power. The complexity of the nature in which individuals become the society is what makes facile statements like a single cause or a single motivation for any societal phenomenon unrealistic.

I am surprised that you would subscribe ti something so simplistic as a notion of “The” (singular) cause of the American Civil War. Slavery was unquestionably the malignancy in the American corpus at the time, so badly so that we still haven’t healed from it, but a societal upheaval of such magnitude that it causes individuals with no direct stake in the issues in play to kill their own blood kin speaks to a broader array of passions, motivations, circumstances and individual realities than one single cause. Bear in mind that there were plenty of white folks in the agrarian south who did not own plantations, or slaves. If they did own land they were just as likely to be dirt farmers out working their own fields, and if they didn’t have the wherewithal to own their own land could easily find themselves sweating in the fields alongside enslaved persons, just getting paid some pittance to do it. Don’t think so? Allow me to introduce you to some of my ancestors. There is historical record of the response of some white Confederates when asked why they were fighting against Union soldiers who were in the South. Their answer wasn’t “Because you’re trying to free our slaves” - it was “Because you’re down here.” To these people, the proximate, immediate, pressing motivation for war wasn’t the preservation of the slave state, it was stopping an invasion that was killing their people, burning their homes and farms, killing their livestock, and fouling their water. Yes, at the level of state, of government, of economy, of politics, the question of slavery drove policy. But it wasn’t necessarily what drove the individual to war, and as the saying goes, all politics is local. It’s worth pointing out, by the way, that Lincoln himself did not place the abolition of slavery as the sine qua non of the War - for him, what mattered was the preservation of the Union. In his August 1862 letter to Horace Greely he wrote: If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. (Full disclosure: Among the several hats I’ve worn was one where I spent 20 years as the executive director of a Civil War battlefield preserve.) As to the brouhaha over CRT, I still can’t figure out why everyone is so worked up. Nobody makes cathode ray tube monitors anymore.

I’ll bet you could. You’re very articulate.