ErosWired

This study is in regard to maculopathy, which is related to retinopathy, and shares many symptoms: [think before following links] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5751859/#!po=47.2973 Here’s another that summarizes several case studies on retinal damage and popper use: [think before following links] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/1032114

Bear in mind, I’m just speculating as to the physical cause. A look into studies on ocular effects of poppers (principally focused on the eye damage caused by isopropyl nitrite poppers - don’t use them) suggests the spot could be a manifestation of temporary retinopathy, which can cause a spot in the center of vision, and blurriness of vision, both of which I experience. I’m not a doctor, but it’s pretty obvious that poppers aren’t good for your eyes.

Most of the ones I’ve seen where cum is stored, the cum is poured or pumped into an ass. (Haven’t had it done to me personally.) I can’t say that I’ve seen one where it’s drunk…and I wouldn’t care to. Fresh is one thing, but it loses that magic quality pretty fast for my taste.

What do you mean by this? In what way is it ‘too much’? I’m not primarily an oral bottom, but when I do, I feel the need to taste the cum before I swallow it (the swallowing is a given). I don’t think I’ve ever taken a load that bypassed my tongue. I have a problem, though. There’s something about the first burst of fluid into my mouth that briefly makes me feel the need to throw up, like that first tang of bile you get just before vomiting. It doesn’t last, but it has made me cough before. I don’t know if there’s a chemical reaction with my saliva or what, but it happens every time. Once that moment passes, everything’s fine. I have no trouble licking cum off a body or cleaning up a cock. It’s never stopped me from taking a load by mouth, but I wish it didn’t happen.

Sort of. It refers to automated non-human spam profiles that are posted programmatically to try to gather information from real users. They are notorious for having pics of very attractive young men and state that they are looking for long-term relationships, friends, and other non-sexually-specific descriptions. If they list a distance away at all, it’s often hundreds or thousands of miles away.

It’s not that free speech is a myth - it’s that so many people in American society now misunderstand the concept of ‘freedom’. Freedom isn’t the right to do or say whatever you want whenever you want. Freedom is the right to act responsibly without interference. The problem arises because so many people now speak and act completely irresponsibly. Threatening to harm people is not responsible speech in a civil society, and naturally doesn’t fall under the category of ‘freedom’. It’s reckless and antisocial behavior. Of course the FBI checks it out, and we want them to.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin Free speech is the most potent defense against such dangerous people. If speech could be curtailed, the first thing they would take would be your right to call them dangerous.

Or, doxycycline 100mg 2x daily for 7 days. Really, people, this information is readily available by search. The internet is your friend.

In my experience, these are what are known as ‘bots’. It’s a very good question what these ghoster/haunter ectoplasms would be doing without the internet.

Ghosting is frustrating because there’s little you can do to prevent it. ‘Haunting’, on the other hand, as you describe it, is handily managed by the Block feature. What he can’t see, he can’t haunt. Once he’s ghosted you, leaving yourself open for him to haunt you is a self-inflicted injury, and holding out hope that a guy who has ghosted you is suddenly going to come back as a romantic contact is…forgive me, but…delusional.

My dear good man, I commend your charitable heart, but I have lived in Appalachia all my life, amongst the rednecks, ‘white trash’, and hillbillies. I can say such things because they’re my gene pool. I come from hill-and-holler dirt farmers, and I can tell you that many, many people of this ilk are not nobly seeking ‘only’ what is equal - they want that, plus what they figure they’re by God owed, and if they can’t have it, can’t nobody have it. They figure that if a man hasn’t been as miserable as they are, they’re undeserving. Don’t imagine they’d stop at equal if they could swap places with the fat cats - a big part of what stirs their populism is plain jealousy and envy. They want the opportunity to lift themselves? Some of these bubbas can’t be bothered to lift their asses out of their lawn chairs to go fishing. Your point about the fear of losing their ‘privilege’ is true, but it’s nuanced - the ‘privilege’ is worth relatively little for these people compared to those in the upper tiers of society. They fear losing the little privilege they have because it’s the thin line that separates them from the truly dispossessed below them in the social stratification. It may not be more than a smear of privilege, but it’s all he’s got. So hell yes, he’s going to come out swinging when somebody tries to take it.

There’s no single answer to your question. I could tell you why I do it, but those reasons are unique to me and might or might not apply to you. The same would be true for anyone else. On the whole, guys like bare because it simply feels so much better, no comparison. The cleanout work isn’t that big a deterrent - it’s the only hole available down there and feels good getting fucked, so small price to pay. The pain you get used to pretty quickly, and the STD risk you can mitigate, so those aren’t really deal-breakers compared to the physical pleasure you get. The psychological factors are totally individual. Getting fucked in skanky ways by skanky men might feel degrading to you, but not to somebody else, or he might like feeling degraded. There’s no universal explanation for that. One thing that is universal is the exchange of semen, which infuses the bottom with endorphins. This may go some ways toward explaining why we all seem to crave it.

I’m not sure it would. An object need not be inanimate. A fleshjack doesn’t moan or whimper. You can’t look into its eyes and see fear or submission. It doesn’t obey you, and it has no will for you to Dominate and control. There is not, on any level, a potential equivalence between you and a fleshjack that you can make yourself feel superior to by comparison. You are undoubtedly right that much of the time these roles and the way they play out in sexual encounters (I typed ‘encunters’) are largely mutual theater intended to meet symbiotic sexual needs. But the fact that those needs exist for expression of such roles suggests, to my mind, the existence of inherent primal states, possibly tied to deep patterns of social order and reproductive behavior. We often see the word loser applied to a man who is sexually dominated. I would suggest that this directly links to primal competitive reproductive behavior in which the victor is the one who gains the right to inseminate and the vanquished does not. In many cases in the animal world, such ‘losers’ are exiled from the group or otherwise relegated to lower status as the reproductive victor is also granted social power and authority. I believe there are echoes of this dynamic here. A cumdump is not only the ‘loser’ in that he is dominated by the most powerful of the men above him, he is the lowest of the losers because he is penetrated even by other losers. He occupies, therefore, the lowest position of power and authority. Having someone to look down to usually gives a person a sense of increased self-value by comparison. Sometimes, it is that person most in need of reassurance of his own self-worth who will treat a cumdump most aggressively, capitalizing off the cumdump’s perceived lowness. All of this may be so culturally ingrained that it’s no longer noticed, and cumdumps are now considered low-value because ‘they simply are’ and moral assessments are used to justify the judgment. The psychological roots of a need to sexually dominate another man or to be sexually dominated by one are, of course, individual and complex, but I think there’s probably some aspect of this that could be traced back 50,000 years.

I’m not so optimistic. The underlying driver of the populist unrest is inequity, and that has not changed. Too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few, and systems are arranged to make it more so. The wealth and power of the culture accrue to the cities in unequal proportion to the countryside. The disfavored and dispossessed are tired and bitter and fed up with it, and you can see it laid bare on every political map. Nature seeks states of equilibrium, along paths of least resistance. This applies here as well. The dispossessed and disenfranchised will seek equity with the wealthy and powerful not by trying to lift themselves to that level - which requires more energy - but by dragging them down, removing their power, rights, and privilege, eliminating wealth. The powerful and wealthy are not strongly incentivized to raise the dispossessed to their level, because doing so would mean that their own power and wealth would cease to have relative value; its value is dependent on the inequity. What we begin to see now is the inequity metastasizing as the ultra-wealthy (Trump, Musk) begin to manipulate the disenfranchised using their own terms and distorting populist movements to deepen cultural division. Trump didn’t create Trumpism, he simply correctly identified the festering state of unrest and capitalized on it. What makes him reprehensible is that he’s perfectly willing to advance and enrich himself by drawing callously from a national sea of pain and suffering. So until the inequity is somehow resolved, it’s hard to sea how any of this begins to change in a meaningful way.

If only it were that simple. From your post, it sounds as though you’ve been used to living in places where there was enough meat on the hoof to make cruising practical, and plenty of places to readily do it. That’s far from the common experience. There are vast areas in which the population is not dense enough, and in which there may be no place to cruise anyone in a fifty-mile radius. For some of us, the apps are the only way to make any kind of contact with those who may be in the area. If I had a bathhouse within easy reach I’d never use an app again. The nearest one is an hour away, and it’s not a good one. For a good one I have to drive three hours.

There is no cure for Herpes, HPV, or Hepatitis A or B, though the body may recover from hepatitis on its own. Some strains of other STDs are becoming resistant to treatment. So, no, it isn’t HIV discrimination, it’s prudence. And for someone who doesn’t care what anyone thinks about his posts, that was a very lengthy attempt at self-defense.

BreedingZone

I feel like it’s doubly a violation because the guy just plundered my body’s most intimate space for all he could take, and not satisfied with that, he steals my belongings.

What was with that ending? It almost seemed to imply something sinister.

Not only can poppers cost, they do cost, and are wildly overpriced. But the amount of the cost isn’t the point - it’s no different than if the asshole had helped himself to some cash from my wallet. Hell no, it’s not acceptable, for anybody. But it’s an extension, I think, of the way cumdumps are perceived - I am routinely asked by Tops considering fucking me: “You got poppers?” or “You got condoms?” or “You got lube?” as though it is taken for granted that it is my responsibility to shoulder all the expense for his fuck, because they don’t ever think about the fuck-thing they’re going to use as a person.

On the plus side, he didn’t leave a quarter… But see, this is a great example of what I mean about degrading being a subjective measure. For you, it was degrading that he left a mere dollar for your worth. But no one in 1,000+ fucks has ever given me anything more that a slap on the ass, so if someone were to leave me a dollar it would be a huge compliment. Degrading would be pulling out and saying “You’re not worth dumping in.”

This is not true of everyone. In the extreme manifestations, sociopathy and psychopathy render individuals quite capable of performing antisocial acts without remorse. The rise in this type of behavior suggests an increasingly antisocial trend.

For goodness’ sake - it’s a thought experiment. I said it was sophistry from the get-go. (I initially typed ‘get-ho’; still topical). Just because a prosecutor wouldn’t pick it up and run with it doesn’t make it a pointless discussion from a philosophical or ethical perspective. I haven’t been suggesting there are real-world applications or potential legal implications. I certainly hope not - I love me a bathhouse, just spent 16 straight hours at one, walked out with 17 hash marks on my ass - and that was with it snowing half an inch of snow outside. Legal considerations and ethical considerations are often quite different matters (what you can do doesn’t always reflect what you should do). I’m not a lawyer of any kind (thank Christ - the equivocation would drive me insane) but I think a lot about ethics.

That would not be the only thing qualifying it as a brothel, but I would suggest that if the bathhouse took that measure with the intent of having penetrators on the premises to engage in sex acts with the other clients and/or encourage bottoms to pay to enter with the belief that the penetrators would be there - and given that the discounts are offered expressly on the basis of the sexual function - that would certainly reinforce an argument that their intent is to profit from sex.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s guaranteed or not, the basic resource in trade is still sex. It doesn’t matter that the bathhouse is selling you a hunting license instead of a ticket; the fact that they got the hunters in the door - hunting each other - means they also stocked the premises with the game, which paid for the privilege of being hunted. They’re still being paid from both ends by men who want to come in and have sex with men who would not be there had not the bathhouse facilitated it: Brothel. Let’s imagine that a brothel existed that charged clients a fee to enter, but once inside, their ability to have sex was wide open, as it is in a bathhouse. You can fuck as many as you can get to fuck you, but your success is all on you - there’s no guarantee you’ll score. Would men pay to enter? You bet your ass they’d pay. They’ll take that fucking bet, thank you very much. So is the place still a brothel? Yes, it’s still a brothel.