ErosWired

Yes. Yes, it is. The OP’s previous accounts have been blocked from the site, so he has made yet another account for the sole purpose of stirring shit. The best response to this recreational provocateur is no response at all.

@BathhouseBottom - If you spend any time on this discussion forum you will discover that personal insults and abuse are not how we roll here. If you want to show your ass, do it in a bathhouse.

I was more referring to notices that an individual would feel the need to post on the door to his room at a bathhouse reading ‘Men Only Please’ or some such if women were also present, in order to avoid having to deal with undesired contact. Such a thing could only, inevitably, lead to a toxic atmosphere, in my view, with signs appearing reading, “No Tits, No Twats, No Fems, No Fats, No 30+” etc., just like in the apps.

You make #MeToo sound like an accident at an oil refinery. 🙂

But this brings us right back to the reason why we have gender-segregated naked spaces. Consider the general atmosphere of a men’s bathhouse catering to a largely gay clientele - if I enter such a space, I can expect to be looked at and evaluated in a sexual context, and likely touched, and possibly touched at points of my anatomy where I would not be touched out in public, all without being asked. In the context of this place, I expect this; indeed it is the reason I go there, and if a man approaches or touches me and I don’t wish it, I know how to act as another man. But in a mixed-gender setting, if a man touches a woman without her consent, particularly in an intimate place, even if the venue is a place like a bathhouse, and even if she has come there for a sexual purpose herself, the question of sexual assault arises simply by virtue of the difference in gender. Consider how behavior in the average bathhouse would change if one day women started appearing in the facility where they had not before. Men would either become self-conscious and stop doing things they would openly do around other men, or continue, assuming that the women were there on the same terms… …until one of them touches a woman in a sexual way without permission. Suddenly we’re reminded exactly why we have gender-segregated naked spaces: Mixed naked spaces are a minefield. But aside from the sexual, there are behaviors and exchanges that men engage in exclusively with other men - it has been so throughout human history. The presence of women has a chilling effect on those behaviors. The same is true of women and their exclusive behavior toward other women. Exclusive spaces are a part of social and ritual culture worldwide, and it would be absurd to suggest that we dispense with them. I wasn’t suggesting putting up notices in bathhouses as an actual solution. The extension of that idea is that everyone ends up walking around wearing a sign with a list of warnings, and everyone becomes so nervous about transgressing someone’s boundaries that no one initiates contact anymore. Yes, we could put up notices, but we shouldn’t have to in a space dedicated to our needs. Not every place has to accommodate all people. Note: The Universe doesn’t work like that; the natural world doesn’t create environments to suit all species uniformly. A species either adapts to the way things are in a given place, or goes elsewhere. I see a transperson as doing the former, adapting the self to the environment, not demanding that the environment adapt to the individual (demanding the use of novel pronouns is an exception to this), but persons of the opposite gender expecting the venue and all who use it change so as to accommodate them is a demand that the environment adapt to the individual.

This layer of discussion on the role of bathhouses as sexually open spaces being available to all tastes and persuasions seems to me to overlook the salient point behind the OP’s question: He’s asking about men-only spaces, and whether you believe such women-excluding places should exist or not, they do. (See also: Bathrooms, everywhere) While it is valid to say that a bathhouse should be large enough to politely decline an unwanted approach, consideration must also be given to the right of a person to be free from undesired sexual contact. Let’s assume that I have taken a bathhouse room and wish to lie on my bed with my ass up toward my open door as an invitation to men to use it. I feel fingers deep-probing my cunt, perhaps inserting my dildo, playing with me at length. At last I glance back, and discover that the person who has been doing this is a woman. That would not be welcome, and it would be too late for a simple ‘no thank you’ - I will already have been subject to the use. Therefore the only way to protect myself is to either put up a notice saying “no women”, or not put my ass up, which means that much of my incentive to go to the bathhouse is lost. It’s not just a question of me wanting to impose my personal preferences on others; it’s a question of knowing whether I have a safe space to be who and what I am. By and large, gay men do not seek, and may be repulsed by, sexual contact with women, just as many straight men might be repulsed by the thought of fucking a guy. These are visceral reactions, not a product of bigotry, and must be taken as valid considerations. We have all-male venues because we need them.

I’m afraid the image you posted to the thread is too small to make out enough detail on a mobile phone to tell much about the individual shots, but I am very interested in the answer to this question. I have a similar selection of images of my ass that range from suggestive to explicit to devolved, and I’m never sure which to send. I’m always a bit hesitant to send ones where I’m spreading my ass with my hands for a close look at my freshly-fucked cunt, because it seems kind of in-your-face and leaves nothing to the imagination. I also feel as though it would make me look too eager/desperate, or, if the Top isn’t accustomed to fucking slutty cumdumps, kind of unsavory. I’m sure there are some Tops who enjoy seeing a hole in the most carnal state possible, but on the other end you have guys just wanting to see if your backside is plump. How much is too much, and how do you know when to use what?

I think I may have misspoken at some point either in this thread or somewhere else recently when I was speculating on the confusion caused by conflicting uses of the word ‘trans’ in reference to both transgender and cross-dressing. Where I may have used transsexual as distinct from transgender, I was intending to draw a distinction between transgender/transsexual and transvestite. I think that, to those unfamiliar with the distinction, the trans prefix may have a tendence to confuse and conflate.

A little background: Dr Hans Asperger, the pioneering psychiatrist who made the first classification of what was until recently referred to as Asperger’s Syndrome, had a clinic for autistic children in Vienna in 1938. As the Nazi regime came to power, he spoke in favor of “race hygiene” policies that included forced sterilization of individuals deemed mentally unfit or undesirable, and actively worked with a child euthanasia program that ended the lives of children under his care. Here’s a link to some critical historical analysis: [think before following links] https://molecularautism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13229-018-0208-6#:~:text=Her text established what has,to misfits was nothing less

Which would be a recipe, ultimately, for anarchy, and the total breakdown of the social systems that compose human society. The Universe itself, though we see structure and order and systems all around us, is ultimately (wait a few quintillion years) bound for the absolute dissolution of all order as entropy takes its final toll. Decay of systems happens around us constantly - I just had to replace my toilet valve last tight because the water suddenly wouldn’t stop running - and the only way we keep systems running is by constantly adding more effort to restore order. Maintaining tolerance in a society similarly requires a repeated influx of effort, and new energy, because it is a cognitive advance that has to be overlain over intolerance, which is an outgrowth of survival instinct by which creatures avoid unlike creatures to prevent predation, competition, and disease. But a biome survives and flourishes as a holistic system when each member species learns what other members it can tolerate and accept, and which it cannot. The gazelle can peacefully tolerate sharing the Serengheti with the elephant, but it would be suicidal to tolerate the lions wandering among them, even though the lions occupy the plain as well and aren’t going anywhere. The Constitution helps the American biome figure out how all out gazelles, elephants and lions (and warthogs) coexist in a thriving system…that includes a certain amount of moderate intolerance of lions.

As a person whose graduate degree deals with libraries and archives, I can tell you that from the perspective of the library profession, there is no such thing as a public library open only to a select group. Any such arrangement would be in direct contravention of the professional code, the Library Bill of Rights, one Core Value of which reads: All information resources that are provided directly or indirectly by the library, regardless of technology, format, or methods of delivery, should be readily, equally, and equitably accessible to all library users. Based on this, a 2014 interpretation guideline for the LBR on Restricted Access To Libraries states: Libraries are a traditional forum for the open exchange of information. Attempts to restrict access to library materials violate the basic tenets of the Library Bill of Rights. In other words, we don’t do that in public libraries. You might not be allowed to check out a book if you don’t have a library card, (they have to have some control over circulation) but you can still read it in the library. Certain collections may be access-restricted, however, such as rare or fragile manuscript archives, or classified materials held in governmental libraries otherwise open to the public and subject to FOYA. And certainly, not all libraries are public. Owners of private library collections (including law firms, corporations, governmental agencies, and universities) are free to restrict access however they wish, although a professionally certified librarian has to do some soul-searching before agreeing to abandon the LBR to work in some situations.

Shall I tell you who were among the very first systematic victims of Nazi “cleansing” of the population? Autistic people. Yep. Before they even got started on Jews and homosexuals. I’ve had people tell me to my face that the reason they’re oppressing me is that I’m Autistic. Frankly I grow rather tired of hearing people say that their suffering is worse because it’s race-related. Let’s check off the boxes for mental illness: Special verbal slur? Check. They call Autistics ‘retard’, which, FYI, is every bit as offensive to us as the N-word. Institutional incarceration? Check. They’ve been throwing neurodivergent people into institutions that are in some ways worse than prisons since the middle ages, and you can still be committed to one without being convicted of any crime. Arbitrary violence? Check. People seem to feel entitled to hit the ‘crazy’ person because they feel threatened. Stereotyping? Check. There are plenty of people who, on hearing that I’m Autistic, automatically assume I lack self-control and am apt to go on a shooting spree, or that I’m just like Dustin Hoffman’s character in Rain Man. Discrimination? Check. Sooo many ways, because people don’t want anything to do with someone who is Autistic (which isn’t even a mental illness) or suffers from a condition chronic depression. I can’t get a pilot’s license because the government is afraid I’ll go nuts on a plane. People are denied employment, promotion, housing, and services all the time, and have even less recourse than those discriminated against on the basis of race, because you can’t see mental illness by looking at someone’s skin. Hate? It’s worse than hate. You have to be taught to hate another race, but people have a visceral repulsion to someone who they feel is acting ‘crazy’. If you gather a bunch of humans of all races into a room, they’ll all gather together on the side of the room opposite the ‘crazy’ person. And history is full of examples where killing us was the simplest solution. I have great empathy toward those subject to the unthinking hate of others. But don’t tell me that I can’t understand until you’ve put on my shoes and walked a few paces through Hell with me.

Bigot is defined as: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. - especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group It makes no reference to whether the people, ideas, etc. being disliked are otherwise universally accepted. Indeed, if a view is universally accepted, then by definition of universally, bigotry would not exist against it. But it does. Ask any transperson. There is no threshold for acceptance that a group or an idea has to reach before bigotry against it becomes bigotry. Even if society were to reach a point where transpeople were wholly accepted, a single individual could be bigoted toward them just the same as if he were a member of the cis majority bigoted toward them because they currently struggle to be understood. I do, however, agree that there’s not much to be gained in throwing the word bigot at people, other than to make them even less likely to listen to you. A bigot does not think of himself as one; to him, his view is sensible. Helping him to see a different perspective is a better way to lead to acceptance.

Actually, a transman’s anus is just as useful a potential cunt as any cis man’s, and if he transitions so that he no longer has a vagina, his ass is still going to be a warm, wet hole. Much of the sense of the conversation in this thread seems to me to presuppose that because a transman wants to transition out of a naturally female state, he must therefore want to Top. But there’s no reason why a transman in a gay venue shouldn’t be just likely as everyone else to be a guy who wants to bottom - that is, more likely than not. There’s a whole set of cis assumptions at play here - an assumption that a female who says she’s actually a male will want to become anatomically male; that the transman wants to assume traditional heterosexual male roles; that the transman, as a male, is going to be attracted to women (because, the cis logic thinks, if the person is attracted to men, it makes more sense to be a woman - the fucking pool is much larger). Why, the thinking runs, would a transman choose to become a man just to be a gay man? The answer, of course, is that he doesn’t become a gay man, he always was one. He just happened to get the wrong body when he started. That’s why whether he gets fucked in the ass or the vagina is immaterial - the vagina isn’t what he is, it’s what he has. And after he transitions, an asscunt will be what he has for that purpose. Just like all the rest of us guys. I’ve occasionally wondered what it would be like if I had a vagina instead of a cock. I once saw a photo of a transman who hadn’t bottom-transitioned, and he was stunningly arousing (which, from me who doesn’t really notice appearance, is saying something). I didn’t realize at first that he had a vagina, and I did a double-take, because the guy was absolutely a guy. My next thought was “I wish I was like that.” Such possibilities. If I had that I would be sluttier by an order of magnitude, were that possible. But at the same time, I’m not sure I would change if I was offered the chance; my cock my be pointless for sex, but it’s mine, and I’m accustomed to it. Besides, I’ve invested a lot of time and effort into conditioning my ass into something that multiple men have told me is better pussy than any vagina, so why change?

I can understand how that would have been more intense, though for me the effort of the contortion probably would have distracted from the full effect. I would say, for those who can’t quite close the gap from tip to lip, that you can still get something of the sense of the experience by getting as close as you can and shooting into your own mouth. You don’t get the galvanic sensation of your tongue on your own cock skin, but you do get that sense of the closed circle as you taste your cum even as you’re producing it.

The number of men who can answer your question is going to be limited - autofellatio is not something everyone is able to do, even if so inclined, so although any number of guys can tell you what it’s like to suck a cock, relatively few can address the comparison. I, however, am one of those who can. When I was (much) younger, long before I ever wrapped lips around anyone else’s penis, I worked on bending enough to suck my own. (Cautionary tale: I can’t do it anymore - I’m convinced it was those early contortions that led to the back problems that have plagued me later in life.) The memory of the sensations of self-sucking, and taking my own load that way, are still very vivid in my mind, and from my perspective, sucking my own and giving head to someone else are very different experiences. When you have your own cock in your own mouth, it’s like being in a closed sensory loop that builds on itself. Your cock feels and reacts to your tongue and lips, and your tongue and lips feel and reinforce the sensation of the texture, firmness, warmth and taste of your cock, and each confirms, reinforces and ampllifies the other in a circle that goes round and round in your body and mind. I also found that ejaculating into my own mouth was unlike anyone else doing so, because I could feel both the release of the fluid from my body, its pumping, and its intake, all in one event, with a kind of synergy. I don’t know quite how ti describe the taste of it across my tongue, except to say that the chemical reaction of taking my own freshly ejaculated fluid orally seemed unlike any other man’s, possibly because I could smell some scent unique to my sexual chemistry at ejaculation. In giving head to someone else, there is a disconnect - My body does not receive the sensation from my tongue and lips - the other guy does. His scent and chemistry are his own, and though they may be heady and arousing, they are not the same as mine and don’t have the same kind of resonance. Sucking someone else is not a closed loop, but an open, back-and-forth exchange, rich with its own rewards, but unlike in many ways. If I had to choose one or the other to do, I would probably choose self-sucking (presuming I still could) because when I could do myself, at least I knew I was doing it right, and never disappointed. But admittedly, cocksucking isn’t my strength, and I have yet to find a way to get my cock up my own ass.

The list of Unspeakable Things on Breedingzone is pretty short…

Given that the topic is being propositioned for sex by strangers, we’re not letting that pass without some details, buddy.

This discussion raises a question in my mind that I would ask, out of my own ignorance and hope for better understanding, of any transman willing to share a perspective. We hear here at least one FTM view that observes what he considers phallocentricity among gay men, to which I replied above, essentially, of course they’re cock-focused - they’re men. It has been my experience as a male (even by the most technical definition) that the penis becomes an omnipresence in the lives of the vast majority of men, not only gay but straight as well, simply by virtue of being one of the most sensitive receptors of stimuli on our anatomy. It’s constantly sending a barrage of subtle signals from plain friction, so it’s constantly reminding us, at a subconscious level, that it’s there. When it’s stimulated to its full extent, the result is one of the most pleasurable experiences (usually) a man can experience, and for most men the phallus is the quickest, and often the only, way to get there. Every biological male experiences the nature of this organ from babyhood on; it’s just sticking out there waiting to be triggered. It is an experience so universal to the gender that I would argue it as defining. A transman faces the predicament of feeling a dissonance between what he perceives as his naturally masculine psyche and the body he occupies by mischance. There is no reason not to accept his self-assessment at face value; he is, after all, the world’s most knowledgeable resource on himself. The question that occurs to me, however, is whether the transman’s perception of maleness is actually the same as the sense that biological males have by virtue of being male. That is to say, when the transman says, “I’m a man inside,” but does not get why cocks are so important to men, how does that color the sense of the man he perceives himself to be? We agree he is a man, but is he a different kind of man? He certainly isn’t a woman. There are those among the men on this forum for whom our own phallus has ceased to be our primary focus of sexual energy; a good many especially among the total bottoms, myself included, are more orifice-centered, and may not even become erect when aroused. But I suspect this may have little resonance with a transman’s experience and sensibility, as it begins to approach a female way of being that the transman is trying to become distant from. The question is potentially fraught. The very, very, very last thing we need is still one more reason to divide people from one another, yet differences that are not addressed and talked about have just as much potential to sow discord. I am particularly aware of this as an Autistic person - we are just like everyone else, and no one would know the difference, until we open our mouths and ‘normal’ people realize that, to our perception, they are bizarre. It all goes downhill from there. Yes, I’m a human, but what kind of human am I? I’m not just like all the others. I’m not mentally ill, just as a transperson isn’t mentally ill - we’re just wired differently. I ask for guidance on these questions from our trans members, as my knowledge is lacking and I do not wish to presume. The first girl I ever dated, the first girl who was ever sexual with me in any way, now goes by George. That person is dear to me, and for his sake as much as for a more inclusive world, I want to understand.

A transperson cannot change their feeling that they are in the wrong body, and an attempt to live as themselves draws adverse reaction from the people around them. A homosexual cannot change his homosexual nature anymore than you can change your skin. Gays suffer from prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, and violence. I’m Autistic. I can’t change it, and wouldn’t even if I could, even though the Neurotypical majority has made my existence hell for most of my life because of it. There are other human conditions besides race that pose intractable challenges in dealing with the prejudice of others. There’s no prize for being the most marginalized - this isn’t the Suffering Olympics.

I fail to understand the distinction. Are you then saying a transman is a female man? That’s an absurdity. I have to assume you’re drawing upon the technical/scientific definition of male that specifies an organism that is born with the ability to produce sperm and fertilize gametes. This is not, however, the only way the word is used or understood in the lexicon, and broadly bears the meaning of “belonging to or relating to men or boys”. It is even extended to inanimate objects by virtue of their ability to be inserted into something else, as in the male end of an electrical cord. But if we focus expressly on the question of human male sex characteristics, it is only the primary characteristics that are not inherent to transmen. With the application of testosterone, for example, secondary sex characteristics that are associated with males begin to be expressed, which means they were inherent in the body all along - the increase in the hormone did not create them, but merely enabled their expression. From that perspective they have the innate male physical potential; to say, then, that the one thing that disqualifies them from being considered ‘male’ is the lack of a natural penis is to suggest that a penis is the sum total of what makes a man - which brings us right back to absurdity.

Also: Metoidioplasty, another method. Transmen are not a buffet. The issue with cross-dressing in a male-only space is that it forces a sense of the female into the space. The culture does not (by and large) recognize fishnet stockings and garter-belts as items associated with males and masculinity; indeed, even for females such things are usually associated not just with females, but with feminine sexuality. They draw attention to the groin, but in such a way as to proclaim, “Imagine me with a vagina”. The wearer in essence is announcing to the bathhouse, “I’m here as a woman.” Um…no women allowed, dude. Read the sign. Then read the room. Not judging your kink, but there’s a time and a place. The transman is nothing like this. He is coming into a men’s place as the male he is. No issue. Now, I think there is some validity to the point raised above, that a transman who is pre-transition, or who has opted to forego surgery, probably does have some obligation to disclose the nature of the difference in genitalia to prospective partners in this context, as the exclusive nature of the venue gives rise to an expectation of consistency; it is best to avoid surprises. As to the poster above who characterized bathhouses as places where men all walk around with towels around their waists, perhaps it is so at the bathhouse he frequents, but that is hardly the standard everywhere. My towel is almost always over my shoulder, and I see only some men waist-wrapped - a successful merchant does not hide the goods in his shop window behind a curtain. Nor, I find, is the bathhouse primarily a social venue. Early on I made the error of trying to strike up conversation whilst sitting among men in a dry sauna. ~Crickets~ They looked at me as though I’d come from the moon. (Admittedly this could be a phenomenon of the Upper Midwest, but sex makes men weird everywhere.) I soon realized that no one talks in the bathhouse except in the corridors - mostly at the most inconsiderate and cock-blocking locations - or in the privacy of rooms. Otherwise, the atmosphere is sexually charged, and can hardly fail to be because at least someone is always going to be cruising. Everyone is aware of being constantly under potential evaluation as a prospect. Towels around waists most often flag either insecurity or the equivalent of a taxi sign reading ‘Out Of Service’.

While it is true that viral load is constantly in flux, if one is rigorously meds-compliant - taking every dose prescribed - and reaches a point of durable Undetectability, there is no reason to anticipate the viral load rising to a transmissible level. I never miss a dose. Ever. At my last check, because of the med change, my viral load rose to 80, the highest level I have seen in nine years, and detectable by the >20 standard. Yet even so, it was still far below detectable by the >200 standard on which the PARTNER studies based their findings of untransmissability, and therefore even if I had let a Top take me in that state I would not have posed a danger. I’m also tested at regular intervals. Your observation that a test result tells you only what is true before the test and provides no guarantee after is valid, but the implications are not the same in the situation of meds-compliant Undetectable HIV as they would be for, say, gono, chlamydia or syphilis. HIV viral load doesn’t skyrocket from UD to over 200 overnight in the presence of antiretrovirals - it can’t (med-resistsnt strains may be an exception). But I can test clean for a battery of STIs, take one load at a bathhouse, and come out a carrier for multiple illnesses. That’s the risk that gives me the most ethical concern about serving as a cumdump. I can do everything possible to safeguard the health of the men who choose to use me, but in the end I am no more able to guarantee their safety from STIs than I am my own. Bareback fucking is a risky activity, and it cannot be made risk-free. When I raise my cunt up to be filled, I potentially raise it as a vessel to be filled with contagion for all who follow to dip into. So yes, I do think very hard about never fucking anyone again, and eventually that argument will likely prevail in my head. In fact, if the day comes that I learn that I have sickened someone I am quite certain it will. But that decision will most probably be as a result of transmitting some other STI than HIV. For now, my duty to protect is at odds with my duty to serve, and I try to strike a balance between the two. Yes, every man bears the burden of personal responsibility for his own protection. But those around him bear an equal responsibility not to put him in harm’s way or tempt him toward ill. What is my cunt if not temptation? It may be a temptation that brings him pleasure and relief, a fulfillment of his needs; but there is a chance it may be a temptation to harm, and neither of us can tell how those dice will land. We both have to weigh the risk, and the responsibility.

Of course I was. I couldn’t have taken a fist at all otherwise.

I’m afraid this is to be expected, and properly considered, it’s not a question of inclusivity. If one asks, why are all these gay guys so interested in penises? The simple and obvious answer is because they’re gay. But digging a little deeper, gay phallocentricity may have roots from the psychological to the practical. It may be in part because the phallus (along with the testicles) more than any other trait, defines masculinity - all the other physical traits are by definition secondary sex characteristics. Psychologically, the cock is the representation of masculine power and virility, and we see this reflected in many ways throughout art and culture - indeed, it’s practically impossible to avoid it. It is little wonder if gay men associate it with their yearning to connect with a masculine other; the cock is both the flag and the pole it flies from. On the practical side, polling around here consistently suggests that approximately 66% of gay men identify as bottoms or vers bottoms, and another 24% identify as vers Tops who occasionally bottom - meaning that about 90% of gay men are looking to be penetrated in some way at some time, and two-thirds of them want it either predominantly or exclusively. This means they’re looking for someone who can penetrate them, and preferably do so in a filling manner that requires some degree of endowment, thus the importance of the cock as an object. But there is an additional, and perhaps critical element. The phallus is the fount of semen. Ultimately, the brass ring in most encounters is that someone will ejaculate, either in or on someone else. The production and sharing of that fluid - the absolute essence of the masculine - has an almost ritual sense about it, even in the most impersonal or transactional of exchanges, and it absolutely requires the phallus. While a transman may be able to overcome a limitation or obstacle presented in terms of the ability to satisfactorily penetrate a partner in a fully masculine expression, he will unfortunately not be able to produce a load of cum. The transman may feel that a bukkake gathering is not inclusive in that he cannot contribute a load like the others, but what is to be done? He may feel unincluded because his own new endowment, an entirely legitimate part of him and possibly even functional to the degree possible, does not equal the dimensions admired in certain other men. He may find himself, in a phallocentric point-of-view, in the same position as those biological males on the small end of the size average for human phalluses, and obliged to deal with that set of unnecessary absurdities just as he’s finally gotten a footing in the world as the male he is. It’s regrettable, but the point is that to be male is to be cock-centered to some degree, and in the sexual arena, it ends up being pretty much the point, much of the time.