ErosWired

There are some highly annoying fat-finger issues that an autocorrect function isn’t going to fix anyway. The biggest one that makes me crazy is if/of. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve finished and sent a post only to discover that half the times I’ve tried to write the word of it ends up as if, just because the two vowels are adjacent. But autocorrect wouldn’t catch it anyway - they’re both legitimate words. The only solution, I guess, is for me to run my fingertips through a pencil sharpener.

Another facet to this whole business that hasn’t really been addressed is the fact that this is taking place within the context of academia. The politics, the drama, the interpersonal machinations that go on in academic social structures - particularly graduate and postgraduate level - are notoriously byzantine. A university is nothing if not a conveyor belt of fresh young meat. Our OP here may be a winsome, eye-catching thing, but he’s hardly the first to pass through that professor’s classroom. So if there’s a question about whether the man is actually conflicted or is actually playing some sort of game, I would submit that if he were the sort of man who latched onto young sweetmeats that caught his eye he would by now have developed a reputation on campus for doing so - and the OP likely would have been warned about him. That suggests that his confusion is genuine, which further suggests that his position is doubly precarious - not only fir the family reasons I lately expounded upon, but for the possible ramifications he might encounter in his professional capacity if he becomes carnally involved with a student of the institution, particularly one in his field, who attends his lectures, etc. If he has any role at all in the evaluation or advancement of the student, such contact is ethically out of the question. The OP should think carefully - if there is the potential that this professor could end up as a faculty member on his thesis/doctoral committee, a personal romantic entanglement is a no-go. Not only if things were to go well and there was improper partiality or favor - what if the relationship soured badly and suddenly he had an enemy determined to make sure that dissertation wasn’t accepted? That’s a nightmare scenario. If nothing else, if the two of you did hook up, don’t imagine it won’t be noticed and discussed extensively among your university colleagues - you both may find yourselves subject to assumptions and judgments you hadn’t anticipated. Academia can be savage. To be brutally frank, this thing has red lights flashing all over it from where I’m sitting. My advice, and I’ll leave it with this, is that you tell the man you like him very much but you think that for both your sakes you had best keep your relationship professional for now. Once you graduate, if there’s still something there, you can reopen negotiations. Make sure your focus is where it needs to be for your future and don’t get drawn off track.

My suggestion was predicated on the notion that it’s better to disregard the content of the political comment altogether and redirect matters to the business at hand. It is not true, however, that I will take any man’s cock under any circumstances. I am on record on this forum stating that I will not knowingly service a racist, a white supremacist, or any promoter of hate or bigotry. Having been fucked by more than a thousand men, I have no doubt that I have been rutted and seeded by such individuals who did not make their philosophies known to me, but I will decline to serve them if they make themselves known as such. It does raise a question for those with “standards”, however. You select a guy to fuck and are pleased with the fuck; you anticipate a second round. Then he says something you find politically unacceptable and decide this disqualifies him from further fucking. Now rewind a few moments. You select a guy to fuck and are pleased with the fuck; you anticipate a second round. He starts to make a political comment but gets distracted and doesn’t end up saying the thought in his head. You didn’t hear it, he isn’t disqualified, and round two commences with lusty abandon. Yet in both scenarios, you’re fucking the same guy. His philosophy is exactly the same, you just don’t know what it is. So if you actually have a certain “standard” that guides who you fuck, and you claim it’s important enough to discriminate by, shouldn’t you be screening for it before you select the sex partner in the first place? If being a ‘right-winger’ is a deal-breaker, shouldn’t you be asking about that before a hookup is agreed to? Because if not, that’s essentially “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and that’s hardly standing on principle. In my case, I have a governing principle that I accept any man because every man has a right to sexual expression and some men are denied the opportunity to express it. That principle is my baseline duty. Even men with questionable political views have the right to have this basic human need met, and thus my duty applies. I have a personal principle of not giving support to those who promote hate and bigotry. Where those two principles come into conflict I must make a decision which principle is most vital to uphold. I determine that denying the use of my body will likely not result in the complete loss of opportunity for the individual, therefore I am at greater liberty to express my opposition to his philosophy thereby. If I am unaware of his views however, and allow him to take his pleasure in my flesh and inseminate me, am still operating under a guiding principle; it is not an arbitrary decision.

@phukhole - Don’t be a tease. Not that these aren’t nice, but I know you’ve got to have a really breathtaking shot of your hole somewhere. I mean, it’s in the name, isn’t it? 😀

I’m afraid that simply isn’t true. Even among gay men, indiscriminate penetrative fuckers are a distinct minority. Tops are a demonstrated minority significantly overbalanced by the number of bottoms, and among Tops, this forum is full of posts about Tops who are either selective, highly selective, or so selective that they hardly ever get around to penetrating anyone at all. I used to operate under the assumption that any man would fuck a hole if presented with any opportunity, but my experience hosting as a cumdump bottom for any cock simply has not borne that out.

Yes indeed. The key is not to respond in kind. If the offender insisting on blathering about politics or religion is a bottom, I should think the right course is to say, “Your mouth apparently needs something to do” and then provide it something. If the offender is a Top, it indicates that he has started thinking with the Big Head, and you should shift his thinking to the Little Head.

Indeed. Trump supporters are in an unenviable position that in some ways explains why they’re so intransigent - there’s now no way for them to be a little ashamed of themselves without taking a bath in it.

I would add that if I were given the option of having a vagina, I would only consider it if I didn’t have to take a uterus as well. I’m not doing the period thing, let alone pregnancies.

I never cease to be amazed at the way people automatically lay the blame for everything going wrong at the present moment at the feet of the current president as though he personally had caused it all, or could somehow magically fix it. We should just change the name of the office to Scapegoat-In-Chief. A president inherits a set of circumstances and societal and financial trends that were set in motion long before he took office, enacted at least by his predecessor if not even further back. I’m reminded of a houseboat my father once owned - it was a gargantuan vessel, and once you got the damn thing moving, there was no way to bring it to a quick stop or make a sudden turn. It had a momentum all its own. Joe Biden, contrary to all the trash talk, is not mentally incapacitated by age. He is not feeble-minded or suffering from dementia. His level of cognitive function is obviously normal. He is not incompetent. He is, however, hamstrung on one side by a Republican side of Congress hell-bent on derailing any forward progress he may try to make just because he’s trying to make it, and on the other side by two obstructionists in his own party who have frustrated any possibility the Democrats might have had to leverage their slim majority. His hands are tied. Please. You absolutely cannot expect to be taken seriously if you attempt to categorize Trump’s litany of outrageous behavior as “a few mean tweets”. By objective, fully documented standards - beyond bias or question - Donald Trump is a habitual liar. He lied to the American people repeatedly on a daily basis for his entire term of office. By the standards of federal ethics - as I as a former federal executive branch employee can attest - he callously threw the ethical constraints that govern public servants out the window in breathtaking fashion. The grift, graft and nepotism that took place were thinly concealed when they were concealed at all. Violations of law, such as the Hatch Act, went blatantly unaddressed (such things can cost a federal employee his job). And all this is quite aside from the fact - fact, sir - that the man was impeached, and only survived his trial in the Senate by the craven political capitulation of cowards. It is quite, quite aside from the mounting body of indisputable evidence, much of it directly from the testimony of his own subordinates, that Donald J. Trump did attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election and remain in power by way of a coup, in which he spurred on a mob of his supporters to make a violent and seditious attack upon the seat of American democracy. Or aren’t you paying attention? This is what you’ll take over Joe Biden? This is what you’ll take over a bit of economic discomfort that anyone who weathered the ration stamps of the Second World War or the energy crisis of the 1970s would laugh at? These are not “the worst of times”. They’re not even in the running. They may be worse than we’ve seen in a while, but frankly, we’ve been spoiled in recent years by markets running higher than their actual value, and an economy acting as though the planet wasn’t on course to bake itself to death. The piper has to be paid, there’s no getting around it. It’s not Biden’s fault that the chickens of the Industrial Age are coming home to roost. But the last, the very, very, very last thing the nation needs right now is a self-absorbed narcissist in its highest office who loves money, hates windmills, scorns the rule of law, turns the truth on its head, and sets the people at each other’s throats. ’Mean tweets’ were the very least of his sins.

The one math course I took in college was statistics, and the biggest thing I got from it was a realization of how difficult it is to produce truly comprehensive and unbiased sampling sets. I agree that there are open questions left in both of the cited examples, and I take neither of them at full face value. They are nonetheless data that suggest interesting social trends. Society is nothing, however, if not fluid.

The difference between “concern” and “fault” in this case is the question of seduction. The degree to which the OP might be responsible for outcomes depends upon the degree to which he may be actively manipulating the situation to promote outcomes favorable to him. Given the level of confusion described on the part of the OP after the kiss, it suggests that the forward sexual momentum may be being generated by the OP rather than his counterpart. He cannot ignore the influence that his mere presence has; he exerts a kind of sexual gravity. By choosing not to remove that influence from the equation he automatically incurs a certain level of responsibility. If he then actively leverages that influence the responsibility increases. Whether this amounts to “fault” relies on a value judgment. The devil/angel construction was merely a common metaphor for a situation in which temptation may be at odds with conscience, and not a reflection on anyone providing advice.

I’m going to take a different approach than others above who are encouraging you to move forward and telling you that the man’s concerns about having a family are not your concern. Of course they’re your concern, or they ought to be if you are a man of ethics. This man has a family, a network of relationships based on love, trust, blood and shared experience over years. His bond with his spouse bears his oath. Had he never encountered you, those relationships would not be at potential hazard. Now, because of you, they are. It isn’t only his life that stands to be disrupted by your imposition, it’s all of theirs as well. But nothing in your narrative thus far suggests that you have given thought to the consequences of your actions - only that you are thinking about your own desires. So I ask you, can you look at yourself objectively and say that what you are doing is right? Is it in the best interest of everyone affected? Bear in mind - this man is not free. He is not fair game for you. He is not an unattached single on the open market. You are tempting him to do something potentially wrong and doing it consciously. You are asking him to make space for you? Describe, in modern society, what space is available in a traditional family structure for an unrelated male to occupy as a romantic partner to the father? There isn’t one, and I think that at some level you must realize that your question is disingenuous - you’re not asking him to ‘make a space’, because you know there’s no way that can ever work in any sustainable way. What you’re asking him to do is choose. I can tell you what that does to a family, because an interloper from outside made it impossible for me to keep my own family together when my spouse was put in a position to ‘choose’. The damage doesn’t mend. The wounds don’t heal. There is a person I would very much like to offer my heart right now, but that person is married and I would never, ever, even though I will likely never find such a person again, risk their marriage by inserting myself. It’s out of the question. I have no right. I have endured a divorce and I know the trauma it unleashes, how it ravages hearts. The men encouraging you to blithely pursue this married man show no sign of understanding the pain you could be responsible for. You may prevail upon his present confusion, or some unresolved same-sex curiosity, or even just a period of emotional weakness he’s in now, but the likelihood of him deciding to forsake his wife and children to take you on as a life partner is not something I would take odds on, and even if he did the situation would be fraught beyond anything you’re imagining. The other possibility is that either you, or he, or both, are inwardly looking at this as something transitory (frankly, most gay relationships are) and what you’re hoping to lead him into is an affair. In this case, again, ethics. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose; he has something to gain, but a potential to lose everything in the end. Are you prepared to be the catalyst for that? From your account of the kiss and its aftermath, two things seem clear: 1) He is conflicted and by no means certain in himself where this is going or where he wants it to go; and 2) You are likely the more emotionally grounded in the matter at this point, which puts him at a disadvantage. Depending on his personality type, this could be an inflection point at which a more rational cognitive facet of his mind takes control and decides this is a danger to be avoided, or a more limbic facet may overbalance his caution and give you an opening of unguarded weakness in which to move. The question is, will you take advantage of it? The others above are responding to your aspirations and acting as the devil standing on your left shoulder. Although I sure as hell don’t have a halo I’m standing in for the angel on your right shoulder whispering to your conscience. I don’t propose to tell you what you should do - but I do suggest that you contemplate the landscape before you paint any more on this picture.

I wouldn’t assume they’re all tweakers, or even using substances, doing something thoughtless. An exposure fetish involves a particular psychological framework, one that may be a more extreme manifestation of Exhibitionistic Disorder, a recognized paraphilia. The expressions of shame and conflicted self-worth and self-image we often see in these cases get combined with a drive for sexual gratification derived from exhibitionism, amplified by the adrenaline rush of high-risk, high-consequence actions. It’s a devil’s brew in the brain that can wear off with the speed of a passing orgasm, with nothing to fill in behind it but horror. Exhibitionistic Disorder is treatable.

This is me, plus I usually try to start with an understanding that in many cases ED has a psychological component that can be overcome, and I make it my business to try to figure out if I can help. It can be very rewarding to help a Top get past that block.

When a cumdump asks "Am I the ass hole?" it's hard to arrive at any other answer than "Well, yes. Yes, you are." 😉 You are not, however, in the wrong about the photos. No one is entitled to personal copies of images of you owned by you, naked or otherwise, if you don't wish it. The fact that you are in an online flesh market doesn't alter that fact. It is the other guy who's under the mistaken belief that Grindr is a free library of porn collectables. I can't imagine actually paying to wade in the cesspool, but your rationale is as good a one as I've ever heard.

I'm not sure if this was the exact study that was being discussed on the radio when I was listening, but it sounds very similar: [think before following links] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2378023121992600 There is, however, another interesting paper on Politico that (I think) is more aligned with your thinking, and in fact makes as much sense to me as anything: [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533/

The research, as I recall, didn’t draw its conclusions from a study of conservatives at large, but from an analysis of those in the MAGA movement as a subset. I had heard the report on the radio, but if I can find a print reference I’ll try to post a link.

No one in this entire thread, of any persuasion, had suggested that until you did it just now. No one even inferred it. That’s all you, buddy. In fact, racism being a reflection of insecurity, a ‘masculine racist’ is somewhat contradictory in terms of describing a man of maturity.

Nice try, but flattery will get you nowhere. I was born in the 60s, and I’ve got the mileage.

Not only this, but the OP opened the original post with “Maybe a long shot”, indicating that he was well aware that the reference to MAGA was likely to evoke a negative response. Any notion that no political slant to the question can be inferred is disingenuous. That is an uncharacteristically irrational comment from someone I usually find highly reasoned and deliberative.

My experience with foot fetishists has been that they have basically substituted feet for cocks altogether. They either want endless footrubbing and/or toe sucking, (with an interminable taking off and putting on of socks and shoes), or worse, they want to do it to mine. And that is not happening. I would rather watch a coat of paint dry.

Your statement suggests there is an equivalency between all viewpoints, that all are simply sides to a coin and we should be able to all interact with equanimity because all social values are equal even if they may be opposite. But that is not the case. Recent research being done on the factors representative of factional politics in America has found that expressions of racism, intolerance, homophobia and white supremacy are in fact reliable predictors of whether an individual is in the Republican party. Obviously not every Republican is this way, but if a significant bloc of the population espouses attitudes that are hostile to the LGBT community, it isn’t rational to simply say their views should be tolerated and accepted. How do you ‘just get along’ with people who wish you would fall off the face of the earth? How do you tolerate them when they do not tolerate you? That’s why it’s so jarring sometimes to read posts here by members who hold affinity with groups and movements that, at large, absolutely do not support our interests. It’s extremely difficult to understand the rationale, for instance, of someone here who enjoys the lifestyle we discuss yet is an adamant supporter of politicians actively attempting to limit or deny our freedom to live and speak about this lifestyle. To suggest that we simply accept that person’s beliefs without challenge is to suggest that we be complicit in our own downfall.

That was another IML gem - the dude who pulled me on top of him and then, instead of finding his cock’s way into my hole, just rubbed himself against me belly-to-belly with his cock in between us until suddenly everything got warm and sticky…and then he was ready to go. I honestly don’t get the frottage guys - they come at it without the slightest discussion, as though it’s a given that anybody else would be down for that. To me, it’s possibly the most selfish type of contact, because the guy doing it isn’t really focused on the other person’s pleasure at all - it’s purely about self-stimulating against the other body. If someone outright says he’s interested in frottage, I immediately decline, almost as fast as I do with foot fetishists. My body is for penetrating, not rubbing - all the best stuff is on the inside.

How do you manage that?

Words matter. Terms matter. If all you meant was that you had a taste for arrogant, belligerent assholes, you could have just said that, and no political debate would have ensued. Instead, you chose to throw out a hot-button, very politically charged term and asked us all to weigh in on our feelings in its context. The fact that you have to be made aware of the nature of rhetoric is disturbing. Work on yourself.