ErosWired

Offense against humanity? Something that should be abolished? Hyperbole much? Don’t inflate my language into things I didn’t say. I said that was my take on it, not a declaration of universal truth. Why you, and others responding to my views in this thread, have felt the need to adopt such a defensive posture is a little puzzling considering I’m just relating my experience. And your condescension in schooling me on what it means to live in a Neurotypical society, with its arbitrary, capricious social rules and its breathtaking self-absorption, is noted. Do not presume that simply because you have been informed of my Autism that you “get it”. I assure you, you absolutely don’t.

I wonder what they classify as “recent” history of STD, considering that many men who get regular screenings may only do so on a quarterly or semiannual basis.

I’m not being ‘precious’, I’m taking the compilation of my experience over the course of years of dealing with people who do this, and making a determination about how much bullshit I’m prepared to put up with. You’ve had good luck with taps? Good for you. I uniformly haven’t, and I started out as a guy who always replied to them. It’s not ‘daft’, and it’s not anxious, it’s a practical decision based on the way people have behaved toward me when I’ve attempted to respond to them. If you’re willing to put up with that level of fuckery in your quest for the perfect shag, then more power to you; It’s sure as hell not worth it to me.

I’m leaning Toppish. His hip motions, and the positions he assumes, are more those of the penetrator, the thruster, the one who positions for leverage. Were he a bottom, I would expect to see more positions displaying vulnerability and physical accessibility, and more prominent display of ass. He did not, however, make a show of grabbing his crotch or otherwise emphasizing his cock, so it is a bit ambiguous.

Here’s my take on that. The tap is a communication of a type that, if responded to, runs a significant risk of being interpreted as reciprocal interest or attraction. Yet we are socially conditioned to respond reciprocally to such signals, and failure to do so can seem insensitive, callous, or rude. So my problem with taps is that they are inconsiderate - they essentially put the recipient in a position where he is forced to take the risk of an unwanted and potentially awkward social interaction, or be considered rude. Moreover, the tap may simply have been sent nearly reflexively, on a whim, at the literal tap of an icon, and may actually mean nothing more to the sender than the equivalent of a swipe on Tinder. But to the recipient, the tap is always personal and directed, regardless of the original intent. The notion of this is borne out, to my mind, by the frequency of non-response I get to replies to taps. So the guy winks at you from across the bar, you try to engage back, and he acts as if you’re invisible. Fuck his winking, then, and his tapping too.

The unfortunate reality you face is that what you may be attempting to do in good faith, scores of others have already attempted in bad faith and left little trust in their wake. I moderate another discussion site dedicated to mental health, and have done so for the past 17 years. In that time, due to the nature of the site, attempts by university students at both the undergraduate and graduate level to recruit members of the site by such posts as yours have been a regular occurrence. Because of the vulnerable nature of our member community, we have done extra diligence when such posts occur to ensure the legitimacy of the research. Our experience has been that vast majority of such attempts are made by students who do not have the sanction of their institution, do not have the approval of the relevant ethics authority, have rudimentary or even no firm methodology established, and/or - most critically - have no means of guaranteeing the privacy of participants or the security of their information. I am not “scared” to respond to your proposal; what you have presented, the way you presented it, simply demands too much trust. If you want to be taken seriously, it’s not enough anymore, regrettably, to say that you’re willing to be transparent - you have to prove that you’re solid. You are a graduate student, not as yet a research professional. Your research may indeed be a legitimate effort (as I acknowledged initially) with a serious and well-planned study, backed by your institution. The way you have made your proposal here, however, is not unlike many I have seen by students with less preparation and, as I indicated, could even be construed, given the context, as a pretext for an online sexual contact. That the first step in your plan to recruit study participants is so dubiously executed does not inspire confidence. Neither does the fact that you are yourself a participant in the group from which you are attempting to draw data, potentially opening the study to questions of bias, and this leaves one to wonder how thoroughly all factors may have been taken into account. I have no role in the moderation of this site, but I do not apologize for speaking out in a way that might cause fellow members here to approach your request with caution. Given the nature of our discourse here, a breach of confidentiality could affect someone very seriously. I am not in any way opposed to your research effort - If your protocols are as secure and developed as you say, then I wish you well with it. I do not tell others here not to speak to you - these are all grown men perfectly capable of making their own judgments about risk. Indeed, that’s mainly what we talk about here. I do, however, believe strongly in making sure a person makes informed decisions. Some people are quite content to have their dental work done at a school of dentistry; others less so.

‘Taps’ are Grindr’s version of these odious pokes-in-the-eye, and if they consistently mean anything, it’s that you’re not going to get fucked. I understand what you’re saying - there was a time when to ‘tap’ an ass meant to use it, but in this case, no. I’m not even sure the overall concept of tapping someone physically is surviving. When I go to the bathhouse I always mention in my profiles that I’m there any anyone who wants my ass can just tap my shoulder and get it, no questions asked. I’ve never felt a tap.

I despise them. When possible I disable them; when not, I try to add a note in the profile that I won’t respond, but that usually proves useless - the kind of guy that taps you isn’t usually a profile-reader. It drives me mad that if I get tapped and I do respond, the guy on the other end invariably has nothing to say, apparently expecting me to initiate and carry all the weight of the encounter. Therefore I now look upon all such signals as telling me that the person on the other end is lazy, unimaginative, and undeserving of my time and attention.

At Steamworks in Chicago I experienced an egregious example of a variation on this that I’ll call The Rock In The Stream - a guy who finds an open door in a bathhouse with a sitting bench outside of it, sits right outside the door, intercepts someone who comes by, and then proceeds to suck, fuck, finger, whatever, right in front of the doorway in such a way that there’s no way in hell anybody could possibly squeeze past to get into the room. And then, when the paying occupant of the room asks him to clear the way, ignores him as though he didn’t exist. I had to get really rude with this guy just so I could exit the room. I don’t know that his intent was to cock-block me as much as it was not giving a single shit, but I’ve never had anyone behave in such a blatantly shitty way anywhere else, ever. Totally turned me off the place, but the whole place had an unwelcoming air to start with. The angle of approach to most of the play opportunities was usually so constricted it almost could have been designed for cock-blocking.

Without seeing your research proposal and methodology, clear explanations of your information privacy protocols, and documentation where your research plan has been signed off on by the university’s research ethics authority, no way in hell. Please know that everything is private? Are you kidding? You want people to tell you all about their private sexual habits that the previous research in your field says are abnormal, and you expect them to just take your word that their secrets are all safe with you? Seriously? Besides, there’s nothing creepy or suspicious about some guy wanting a one-on-one phone chat or cam session with us about sex, not at all. How do we know this isn’t just an elaborate ruse to get guys to contact you for a voyeuristic thrill? Because hey, nobody around here would be terribly surprised if that turned out to be the case. You might be legit, but this isn’t the way to go about assembling a cohort for a credible scientific analysis.

Whippets are like toy greyhounds, and their legs look like regular matchsticks.

With respect, you fall into the same category as all others who claim “the” cause of the Civil War. The arguments made in defense of single causes continue to cause division, and to my mind are simply an extension of the hardheaded lack of mutual listening that prompted the damn thing in the first place. The causes were several, as diverse as the reasons that individual Americans took up arms to fight in it. For many Confederates, my family among them, their decision to pick up arms had nothing to do with the balance of economic power, nor with the disposition of slaves - they were poor dirt farmers who had no economic power, owned no slaves and were more likely to work in fields alongside them, and chose to put down their grubbing hoes and pick up rifles only when they found themselves invaded by armies that started shooting them and eating everything in sight. A captured Confederate was famously once asked by his Union captors, “Why are you fighting?” To which he replied, “Because you’re down here.” If you must have a single, core cause of the American Civil War, the one thing that ultimately made a fratricidal war possible in this nation, then here it is: Americans decided there was an “Us” and a Them”. That was the weakness in the society. Had that not been so, I submit to you that there would have been no shot fired at Fort Sumter.

This statement continues to trouble me. This is America. There is no “them”. There is only “We”. We the People do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. A rock’s throw from my house is a cemetery wherein lie the graves of Civil War soldiers from my family. Some are Confederate graves. Some are Union. The stones all bear the same last name. I am a Kentuckian. I can walk up to a Californian, a Mississippian, a North Dakotan, a New Yorker, and feel that I am among my countrymen, not that I am surrounded by foreigners. What “they” are you referring to who are not a part of us? And if we are not a part of them, what gives us the right to claim the Constitution over their native claim? It’s the same birthright. Anyone espousing a dissolution of the Union cannot stand on the backs of the founding fathers to make their case; the case would be anathema to the founders. They cannot pretend to be of a kindred spirit with Lincoln, for whom the Union was paramount. And if they stand opposite the founders, if they stand opposite to Lincoln’s principle, can they claim their principles are fundamentally American principles? They cannot. Set aside this profitless talk of division. Set aside this false labeling of our own countrymen as other to us. We are one people. That we disagree on some things does not mean we disagree on all, or even on the ones that ultimately define us. Set aside this talk of “them”, and when you speak of “we”, include us all.

Have you ever seen that breed of dog called the whippet? They’re the ones that look like they’re so skinny and fragile they would snap if you tried to pet them. That’s the kind of parallel I draw.

You’re right in that there are no muscles in the rectum subject to voluntary control, and even the sigmoid junction isn’t a true sphincter. I’m referring mainly to the muscles of the pelvic floor. You can’t actually cause your rectum per se to do anything with these, but you can modify the overall environment around the rectal cavity to increase or decrease the relative pressure a cock would feel and the net area contact it might have with rectal walls. Anyone who has had to work for months to take a fist can attest to what the pelvic floor is capable of providing in the way of resistance, and the benefit of training it for conscious control.

United we stand. Divided we fall. That solution assumes a considerably greater homogeneity of thought - a purer redness of red - than exists in all the red states, and forecloses on the possibility of change. Yet the national view on same-sex marriage, just for example, has evolved from broad rejection to broad acceptance in a single generation. What would such a partition mean for the millions of people who don’t fit the new unfettered Red Rule? Are you so sanguine about consigning them to a fate of cruelty, repression, and deprivation of basic rights? Is your solution a mass exodus on a scale unprecedented in the Western Hemisphere? (Note: a whacking great chunk of all that Canadian real estate is essentially uninhabitable.) The notion of a “United States of Canada”, by the way, presumes that Canada would ever be willing to accept Americans under a joint flag - which I much doubt, and who could blame them? No. The idea is nonsense. A great deal is made about slavery being the reason for the American Civil War, but it was only one of the rights the states accused the federal government of stripping away. It was a question of whether states could essentially make their own rules and still reap the benefit of a federal union without sharing in its unified commitments and principles - which of course no state can. It’s no wonder that Texas behaves now in the radical and rebellious way it does; you can’t spend ten minutes in Texas without someone reminding you that Texas was once an independent republic, and they never stop muttering about seceding again - indeed, they were the last Confederate state to rejoin the Union.* I lived in Dallas for four years; it becomes tiresome. What we are witnessing right now is nothing less than a resurgence of the States Rights doctrine, and it is no more valid now than it was in 1861. Neither is secession. We will achieve nothing by Balkanizing the North American continent except our mutual downfall. *Georgia rejoined the Union before Texas, but had to do it again afterward because some representatives were unseated.

As I was born with an ass particularly well suited for receptive breeding, and a mind well suited for training and service for such a purpose, and as it is my firm conviction that all men are entitled to fulfill their sexual need, I am unshakably convinced that my purpose and duty as a sexual being is to provide my body in service to that need. My mission is to perform my duty, on demand, at any time or place required, without discrimination on the basis of age (legal), race, religion, creed, ethnicity, infirmity, HIV status, or any other measure, to ensure that every man is afforded his opportunity to seed a warm cunt. Without this mission, there would be no point in me.

There’s a lot to unpack here. You are conflicted on multiple levels because: 1. You’re uncertain how to approach accepting a homosexual or at least bisexual orientation given that your circle of people - and therefore we assume your upbringing - is largely conservative; 2. You have discovered not only that you like sex with men and feel strongly drawn to continue doing it, but you also find yourself drawn to relatively abusive and potentially dangerous couplings; 3. You had experiences involving substances and you credit those substances with greatly enhancing your sexual experience, but at the same time recognize the danger they represent and the physical harm they likely caused you; 4. You went into it with a fear of disease which was then borne out by your catching STDs, though not specifically HIV; 5. You fear an inability to control your own impulses; and 6. You come at this with a self-esteem issue that tells you that you aren’t worthy to be healthy and that you should do self-destructive things. Let’s start with No. 6. Many of the previous issues likely have their root in the last one. I would strongly recommend that you seek counseling not about your orientation, sexual proclivity, or drug use specifically, but to try to determine what drives down your self-worth, and work on building it up. A positive self-realization is necessary for a healthy acceptance of one’s own orientation and sexuality, and essential in being open about it with the people you know. Positive self-assessment provides the basis of confidence that allows one to sensibly judge risk versus reward, and to reject outside influences that are not in one’s interests. It allows you to place a realistic value on yourself and your health, and therefore be able to realistically determine whether having sex a certain way, or with a certain person, or using a certain substance, is in fact a good idea. Intentionally self-destructive acts are irrational, and point to maladaptive thought processes. You say that the primary feelings causing you distress are fear, shame, and unworthiness. Some of this appears to be based in internal conflict between your awakening desires and self-awareness, and the particularly and unfortunately negative consequences of your initial attempts. Had you not fallen prey to the types of men who used you in that way, your outlook might be different. It may be, therefore, that any determinative decision you make about your future along these lines will require further experience of a more representative range of possible partners. Other issues are clearly based in misinformation or incorrect assumptions. For instance, you seem to have bought into the notion that acquiring HIV is a benefit because you can then stop worrying about catching it. This is utterly misleading. Catching HIV only means you get to start worrying about having it, and you never get to stop thinking about it, not for a single day for the rest of your life. Forget that bullshit immediately and get on PrEP if you’re going to bareback. Don’t be a fool. No, this lifestyle isn’t an absolute guarantee of HIV, nor is HIV a death sentence if you get it (unless you refuse treatment), but you will face a significantly increased risk if you choose to fuck bareback. You buy your ticket and you take your chances. That’s it. Parachuting out of an airplane isn’t a guaranteed death either, but you’re much more likely to die doing it than if you stay on the ground. You’re afraid to try because you’re afraid you can’t resist your impulses? Nonsense. You just told us that you’ve resisted your own impulses so thoroughly that you haven’t let yourself have sex in over a year. Your impulse control is fine. What you lack is confidence in yourself. As to the drugs: Contrary to what any number of men on this site may say, Methamphetamine is bad shit and can damage your brain at the level of its ability to process neurotransmitters, among other things, quite aside from being horribly addicting and having a tendency to leave users with mouths full of rotten teeth. Sound attractive? No? I didn’t think so. Before you make the decision to devote yourself to a sex life marinated in chems, I strongly suggest that you give it a solid try without any of them and see how it works for you. You may find that not only do you not need them to have a good time, you’ll be better off for not having to take a week off work recovering from drug withdrawal. You sound like you’ve been doing a lot of diving in the deep end of the pool before you’ve really learned to swim. I’d spend some time in the shallow end if I were you.

What was the reason for the closure?

Perhaps the bottom’s lack of skill is the issue rather than the Top’s. From my very limited experience of the handful of times I ever tried Topping, one thing I remember is that I would consistently find that once inside I would feel as though I had stuck my cock into a jar with a narrow opening - the only real friction was around the opening. Not that I ever was or will be a skilled Top, but I can see how, if a bottom has no skill or training using interior muscles to work the cock along its whole length, the Top might feel obliged to concentrate the thrusting of the cockhead around the opening in order to get enough friction.

Except that there’s scant evidence that he actually knows how to do that. There is abundant proof, however, that he knows how to run businesses into the ground. Which of course just strengthens your point, that he needs to do this to keep the con going. Poor Donald. It’s a boat with huge holes in it, and he can’t keep pumping forever. What a tragic figure. His entire concept of self-worth is an unsustainable con. And yes, I follow your points about the potential of other GOP candidates to beat Biden, but that only points to the current tragedy of the nation - that any of the potential contenders, of either party, would be better than Trump.

I’m absolutely using that from now on. The OP is no longer here apparently, so an answer will be of no benefit to him, and since he asked in January one presumes the question is moot for him now anyway. But for anyone else in the same situation, I would ask, since you’re asking if your first penetration should be protected, that implies that you expect subsequent fuckings to be bareback. Well…if you’re planning on going raw on your second (or third, or fifth) fuck, what is the benefit of using protection the first time? A condom isn’t a vaccine - it doesn’t confer lasting immunity once you’ve worn it. You either commit to them, or you accept the risks that come with fucking bare and take responsible steps to mitigate the risk both before and after. Now: If you’re *cough*’straight-but-curious and want to ‘try out’ mansex to see what you’re missing but are afraid of all the nasties that come with it that don’t come with your nice, clean hetero sex, news flash - there aren’t any “gay diseases”. If you’re doing promiscuous hetero sex, especially bare, you’re still swimming in the same pool as the rest of us. Your HIV risk may have been lower, as men are predominantly at risk for HIV, though women make up about 20% of new cases, and women are at a higher biological risk of contracting STDs in general than men. The fact that you haven’t been on PrEP does mean that your single first exposure, unprotected, does carry a real, if statistically minor, risk, so that might be a reason to cover, but not because gay sex is particularly disease-ridden or guaranteed to be so. If, however, you’re actually simply curious and truly want to know what it’s like, you won’t get a complete answer to your question wearing a condom. There is no comparison between the experience of fucking with a condom and fucking bare. If one desires true knowledge one must usually take a risk to obtain it. Life does not give wisdom away for free.

In 2020 Biden was the only real choice on the ballot - that or allow the republic to collapse. That doesn’t mean he was a good or desirable choice. We can dispense with all the claptrap about him being doddering, senile or demented - that is demonstrably false. But he has not been legislatively effective, politically adroit, spiritually inspiring, or particularly wise. And though he isn’t debilitated, he is old - and the strain of the job is wearing on him in a greater way than it might a younger man with greater reserves. It would be for the best if he did not run again. If nothing else, it would deprive Trump of the “rematch” he so desperately desires. The thing I truly don’t understand about Trump is why, given that he absolutely cannot stand to lose, he would run again and risk a second defeat in a row that would cement his reputation as a man who has lost more than he has won, and a net loser overall? I mean, he is, but why risk rubbing his own face in it?

The question is, what benefits of the U.S. Constitution can a foreign national residing in another sovereign nation claim entitlement to simply by virtue of accessing a U.S.-based website from abroad, which is what I’m assuming is the case here. The First Amendment doesn’t so much positively confer a right as expressly prohibit the government from interfering with it. It doesn’t say “every person in America shall have the right to speak as he wishes”, it says “the government shall not tell the people what they can and cannot say.” Perhaps it might be closer to the mark to say that our form of government (thus far at least) has recognized that all persons are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, and these must therefore apply to people no matter what country they happen to live in if they cross, physically or virtually, into our realm.

The thing is, though, except for that little strip of beard, the bottom had shaved all his gingerness off. Is a hairless ginger still a ginger in any practical aesthetic sense? What makes him any different from a bald, hairless blond- or brown-haired guy? If a video title of two completely hairless men reads “two gingers fucking”, does that make them satisfactorily gingers even if they actually aren’t? Personally, if I think I’m going to see a ginger, I’m going to be expecting to see red.