ErosWired

This appears to be a case of statistical analysis attempting to make a point, but the Discussion area of this paper is where you start to find the holes in the study. The phrase “Our key, but ultimately unverifiable, assumption” is kryptonite. Also, the statement “For simplicity we also assumed that heterosexual couples do not engage in penile-to-anal intercourse” indicates extremely sloppy design of research. In more than one place they admit that they’ve based their results on assumptions that are either unverifiable or for which data simply does not yet exist, and that they’re dependent on assumptions. You know the old saying - when you assume you make an ass of u and me. I suspect the lack of rigor in the study may have something to do with why it doesn’t seem to have derailed the U=U guidance in the 14 years since its publication. It might also be noted that their figures, for male-male transmission, are results for 10,000 couples that each have 1000 sex acts over ten years, or 10,000,000 total sex acts, returning a figure of just over 3,500. That’s an incidence, if their raft of assumptions floats at all, of 0.00035. You buy your ticket and you take your chances, and you make your decision based on your odds. Edited to add: @fskn posted the reply above as I was writing this, and documents just how thoroughly properly conducted science addresses things like this.

Because the worst hasn’t happened. Worse would be transmitting your HIV to another person once you gave yourself over to sexual abandon. This is part of the pernicious myth that drives chasers - the notion that getting HIV is the key to sexual liberation. It’s absolutely not, if you have an ethical molecule in your body. I service a lot of men, but in order to do so, I have to monitor my state of health rigorously, and keep constant vigil on the Enemy Virus that’s got a permanent forward base of operations in my body and is constantly trying to find ways to mount a successful attack not only on myself, but to invade another foreign territory. I take my ART every single day, without fail, and I have missed exactly one dose in 7 1/2 years. Even so, I’ve had occasional blips where My viral load went detectable, and when that happens, I’m out of service. Period. Until it’s back under control. The vigil is daily, without end, and if a guy wants to be a Poz slut with any sense of personal responsibility at all, that’s what he’s in for. That’s why not. And I haven’t even mentioned that getting HIV doesn’t mean you can’t get it worse. There’s always a slight risk, even on ART or PrEP, of being exposed to a drug-resistant strain of the virus and getting superinfected with a version that your meds can’t keep in check. It’s not a common thing, but it’s possible. I know it makes me think hard about what I’m doing sometimes.

@valldelxeno - In addition to @fskn’s point above, bear in mind as you’re fucking bareback that a small but not insignificant segment of your potential pool of sexual partners is (insanely) actively trying to either catch or transmit the disease. There’s a whole section of this site dedicated to corralling that lunacy in one place. As long as giver/chaser culture exists, everyone will face an unnecessarily increased risk of exposure from the “brotherhood” of irresponsible fuckers walking around with untreated infections and high viral loads.

If the world’s largest nuclear military force ceased full cooperation with NATO, the organization might not be entirely dismantled, but its effectiveness against the aggression of the world’s second largest nuclear military force would become debatable. Yes, Putin will do more. He’s insane, and thus no amount of rational entreaty will influence him. Any rural-born man can tell you that when a dog goes mad, what you do is get your gun and put the beast down. You have to, before it hurts somebody. Putin’s a mad dog and needs to be put down. But this particular mad dog has the ability to render the planet an uninhabitable radioactive desert, and you can’t just grab him by the scruff of the neck. If Putin didn’t have his finger on the button of thousands of nuclear warheads, the powers of the world might be more willing to do the calculus and determine how much conventional strength might be employed to hold him in check. It may yet come to that. But a single mushroom cloud would make any such calculations meaningless in an instant. NATO isn’t just sitting back idly and watching. NATO is desperately trying to avoid World War III.

It might be more accurate to say that having HIV doesn’t prove that you’re a slut - yes, the virus is surprisingly not as easy to catch as you might think, but it’s not impossible to get it on your first fuck. It only ever takes one fuck. Nor is the fact of one being on PrEP further evidence that you had to be slutty to catch it, because PrEP is not an ironclad guarantee.

Standards? There are standards? I’ve always, from the beginning, just been grateful that any man wanted to fuck me and give me the opportunity. I still feel the same way. I have, however, over time begun setting a general lower age cutoff based on poor experiences with legal-age late teens and early twentysomethings. The cutoff as gradually worked its way up to 26 as the age below which I’m through putting up with their nonsense, though I do make exceptions. The 22-year-old last week deserved that fuck.

Yes! I remarked on this somewhere else in the forum some time ago, that there are some asses that feel almost hot, and others that run clammy to cold - my topping experience was quite limited, but I noticed the temperature difference distinctly. You wouldn’t think it, given that a human’s body temperature is supposed to fall within a given range, but the effect is real. Hm. Can a good bottom be a good bottom if he gives lousy hole? Is an otherwise awful bottom redeemed by a sweet cunt? You’re right that I was asking mostly about what physical aspects of the hole those men were responding to with the phrase “good pussy”, because I quite dislike categorizations we often hear around here that say that a “good bottom” does this or that. At the same time, though, I’m not sure that the Tops I’m talking about were limiting their assessment simply to the direct physical aspects of the hole - in your description above of what constitutes good hole, the traits you mention aren’t static traits - they’re dependent upon how the bottom employs them. (And I think you’re right about that.) So I can’t help wondering if “good pussy” for those Tops is a way of encapsulating the whole experience of choice anatomy employed to its best advantage with technique and skill.

@TheSRQDude and @theplayerking - what your comments refer to are situations where it’s a question of making a decision whether ir not to change your mind. The incidents that prompted my question are ones in which I wasn’t really presented an option - the Top just got his fuck anyway. It’s a little harder to come up with a scenario where this might happen to a Top - it’s kind of hard for a bottom to sneak his way onto a cock - though I suppose there are times when a Top might decide against fucking, say, an obnoxious pushy bottom, and then realize the ass he just seeded in the darkroom or through the gloryhole belonged to the same bottom…

“Every nation has the government it deserves.” - Joseph de Maistre A fascinating take on this famous quotation can be found on Quora, in an answer provided by Dima Vorobiev, a former Soviet propaganda executive: [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-of-the-idea-that-every-country-has-the-government-it-deserves

I would never claim to be cock-wise enough to school anybody on the subject. I just try to be very observant of the men I service and follow their cues as closely as I can. Tops give off lots of little cues about what they want, like, and need if you’re paying attention, but everyone is an individual - I can never be certain if a given technique will work on a guy until I’ve tried it. Then it’s usually a feeling of I’m glad that worked. I’m not sure how easy it would be to organize a cumdump academy anyway; cumdumps are rather varied in their motivations, and I think you’d end up having to sort them into Houses like at Hogwarts. It’s just a question of how you’d figure out belonged to Grinanddump, Ridehimraw, Haveapuff (the PNP’rs obviously) or Slideitin.

I don’t disagree at all - I think you’re absolutely right that the whole pretense of men’s approach to sex with other men is (by and large) different and less fraught. It’s somehow easier to take pleasure in seeing that the other guy just got his nut, and, hey, if you didn’t quite get there yourself, that’s easily remedied in a couple of minutes, and there’s always next time. Plus, even in those situations where it isn’t about mutual gratification - where you have dominant males using quiescent males for their own pleasure without concern for the other - there’s very often a kind of symbiosis at play in which the submissive male is actually obtaining a secondary kind of gratification, so the whole arrangement works out equitably. It might be noted that in BDSM circles, female submissives also obtain this kind of secondary gratification from dominants in scenes where one-way sexual gratification is the intent, but the broader context of those scenes is a relationship in which female relationship needs and requirements must be accommodated; with males, this is less so.

Without a doubt. While religion certainly played a significant role in my perception of my eventual development as a sexual being, it wasn’t as much an overt influence - sex simply was not spoken of in my family. The subtext, therefore, was that all of it was bad, and anything not strictly sanctioned for marital/procreative purposes was worse. Add to this my autistic nature, which left me sexually both utterly naïve and absolutely uninterested until far, far beyond my peers, and you have someone whose experience is not useful for comparison to anyone… except that it gave me a certain objectivity of observation on the behavior of those around me, who were swimming in a sea of hormones when I was not. I didn’t understand why they were acting toward me the way they did, but I could see the patterns in it. Now, I can look back with greater experience and understanding and place those observations in context to speculate on their motivations. It’s absolutely speculative. As I said, I often speculate about what kind of person I would have become had things been even a tiny bit different - what if a single dominant bully had taken the initiative to actually coerce me into a sex act? He would have awakened me to a sexual reality many years sooner, and what would have happened once I had had a bite of that illicit fruit? Would it have frightened and scarred me and delayed my growth even more? Or would it - as I tend to think more likely - have set me on a path that would have created a person I would scarcely recognize today, assuming I had even survived the pre-ART era? In a way, I mourn the potential that never was, because I was never presented the choice. The dominant bully never chose to act on me. The closest that I’m aware of was once at the public library, when I was in high school, an adult man very consciously positioned himself on the opposite side of a range of open bookshelves where I could easily see him, and began stroking his very prominent bulge right in front of my face as I knelt down to look at some books. In my innocence I only thought that wasn’t right, and quickly left. In hindsight, that was a big cock, and would have made a significant first impression. Alas. But a part of me also is glad that that younger me had the sense to know what he was ready for and what he wasn’t. I imagine a past in which I could have gone through college with full sexual abandon, embracing my true role and becoming a highly proficient service cunt at an early stage. With my penchant for public performance, I could easily have been attracted to work in pornography, or at least in sex work. The work ethic I get from my family would have bern none the less, so I feel sure I would have met with some measure of success at whatever I set myself to do. And as a result, I would not have accomplished the things I have, that I take pride in now, I would not have had a career in public service (well - it would have been a very different kind of public service) and most critically, my two children would not exist on this planet. That, above all else, leaves me content that the past unfolded as it did. At that cost, I would not change one millisecond of it. Thus, all my speculation is moot.

I suspect that’s an overly generous assessment - boys make life hell for other boys for lots of reasons having little to do with their personal sexuality. Any sign of weakness will do as leverage to lift one boy over another in the pecking order; it’s just that finding a way to suggest that a boy is less than a boy makes him a particularly tempting target. I have no such illusions that my tormentors were closet gay Tops - there was absolutely no sign of it, and their attraction to females was pathetically on display. It’s ironic that those young men could somehow detect in me the essence of what I was destined to become, because I had no inkling of it myself then, and couldn’t understand why they were attacking me. I often wonder what trajectory my life would have taken if sexual awareness had come upon me a good deal earlier…I imagine life would have been radically different, and I would have spent many more years submitting to other men’s domination, cruelty, and callous violation of my sex before I had the maturity to put it in proper context. They aren’t any less cruel or callous now, but at least now I’ve learned how to appreciate their needs for what they are and derive a sense of self-value from submitting to them rather that a loss of self-worth from succumbing to them.

While I take your point, I would also suggest that the anuses of certain males, even though they have another, unrelated, function, also ‘exist to be fucked’. One might make the argument that a submissive cumdump male, in the context of all males, has such a nature because he exists to be fucked by the males who inseminate. To me, this is the rational conclusion I arrive at when I question why I am the way I am: It is intended that I should be cunted for the benefit of men. It would follow, then, that if I exist to be fucked, my hole exists to be fucked. I’m not sure the argument about readiness is entirely persuasive. The obstacles to insertion and use in either case are, as you suggest, a matter of tolerance by the inseminator for less desirable conditions in the holes, but in neither case do those conditions actually prevent determined penetration. And in the male case, the matter of emptying the rectum for use for a common fucking by any average phallus requires (at minimum) a simple evacuation, and even the most rigorous cleaning may be accomplished within hours. In the female case, the invalidating condition can take the hole out of service for days at a time. It might also be argued that the ‘readiness’ of any fucking orifice is only as good as the access provided to it - in the case of females, access is notoriously problematic; in the case of faggots, rather less so.

But that isn’t really a feature of the ass itself, it’s a circumstance. Would you say that an otherwise mediocre hole would become a good hole if it had cum in it? Or that a hole that in every other respect would be considered excellent wouldn’t be if it weren’t pre-loaded? If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that no pussy is really good unless it’s been pre-fucked by someone else. Which, if that’s your personal criteria, no problem - it just doesn’t seem like an evaluation of the merits of the hole itself. It’s sort of like saying that a steak can’t be a good steak unless it has enough steak sauce on it.

Never a good sign. Several here have pointed out that they don’t refer to it as “pussy”, and it’s not my term of choice either, but “good pussy” just happens to be the phrase that keeps being applied in my encounters for some reason. More of us than you imagine. Internal muscle work is a basic skill for any bottom who aspires to a level of quality service. The real skill lies in knowing when to apply it for best effect, and being able to fine-tune the pressure and tempo. Full-on milking is certainly doable, but sometimes a little control and finesse is what’s called for. Very often I’ll help a Top get over the edge with just a v-e-r-y light application of pressure, just a quick touch, to provide a tiny bit of resistance to his glans as it slides. It’s not so much a superpower as it is a craft, something that a bottom masters more and more completely with time and experience - if he’s at all serious about service.

There have been two or three times when Tops have enjoyed using me and been particularly complimentary of my ass. I mean, lots of Tops give compliments of some sort or other, but these particular guys stand out with me because they all said the same thing: ”That is good pussy. Good pussy is hard to find.” I have to wonder how hard it can actually be. As we all know, there’s a sea of ass out here for Tops to choose from. Pickings ain’t slim. How uncommon is it actually to find an ass that you would classify as “good pussy” versus unremarkable, average, or even ‘bad’? What percentage of the men you fuck reward you with that level of pleasure? I recognize, by the way, that ‘good’ anything is a subjective measure, but since the guys I’m referring to all used the same phrase in essentially the identical context, I assume there is some common sensibility surrounding what may constitute “good pussy”.

Yeah…I get that a lot, too. I figure it’s actually a good thing - it keeps me reminded of what my role is, what my purpose is, what my place is. I would never say that all bottoms occupy a given place in the hierarchy of men, I just know where mine is, and when I submit my sex to a man who I would distinctly not choose, his presence inside me emphasizes a truth.

I have to be careful when I’m doing oral service because there’s something about certain men’s cum that, the instant it hits the inside of my mouth, causes me to feel a sudden urge to throw up. I really have to battle it down to keep from it, because no way will I ever dishonor a Top by spitting out his load. But there’s some chemical reaction between something in that cum and my saliva that is not compatible. I think it usually happens when the cum is more watery. But cum doesn’t really belong in my mouth anyway - if it ends up there, it means the Top has for some reason not been able to enjoy the pleasures of my ass, and that is inexcusable.

You sound like the sort of Top with enough experience and maturity to be able to take sex as it comes, in a sensible and open frame of mind. If all Tops were like you, there mightn’t be quite so much angst when it comes to cleanout. Unfortunately, bottoms contend with the whole range of potential reactions to any reminder of the hole’s primary function, and there’s no way of knowing if the new Top you’re about to encounter is one of the touchy ones. On Saturday I hotel hosted, and as always I did a complete cleanout prior. There was nothing in my gut, water clear. The first Top to use me had a decent-sized cock, and it wasn’t long before he was ramming me wet, and fucking enough air into me that it was coming out on the out-thrust. On the second sound of air escaping from my cunt, he stopped. “Something wrong?” I asked. ”The odor,” he said. ”Odor?” ”The fart odor.” There was no odor. No smell of flatulence; there was nothing in me to smell bad. It was all in his imagination, because he got squicked by farts. You never know what you’re going to get, but in my experience, when you do get one who’s got a thing about dung, he’s got a thing about it. It’s far better not to take a risk, and just avoid any unpleasantness by cleaning out. The key, and one you really only pick up from personal experience, is how much to clean out for a particular activity.

Stepping back from the center of the topic for a moment - it just struck me as sort of remarkable that this one topic begun on an observation about the regrettable state of affairs in a country under attack should generate a combined tally of no less than 18 downvotes in four pages of post comment. All the red makes the topic look (fittingly, I suppose) like a war zone. Given that nothing we say here on a forum for bareback fucking is going to make one bean worth of difference to what is happening on the ground in Ukraine (unless someone here happens to be fucking Vladimir Putin…who is fucking Putin, for that matter?) the more interesting question this brings to my mind is: If you discover that a guy’s politics are the total opposite of your own, does that make you absolutely not want to fuck him? Or does it make you want to fuck him harder? (Apologies to @hntnhole, and the people of Ukraine, for this highly inappropriate tangent from the main topic.)

This seems accurate to me. I have no idea what you’re referring to specifically in terms of ‘straight behaviors’ (look, walk, etc.), and probably wouldn’t recognize them as ‘straight’ if I saw them, so it seems likely that you’re responding to a set of stimuli that triggers you on a personal psychological level - a fetish - rather than reacting to something universal in a general way.

Now, since you feel emboldened to instruct us from your background (such as it may be) in political science, allow me to instruct you from my background as one holding degrees in various modalities of, as you put it, “simple English”. There is no such thing as a text with an absolute meaning. All texts are interpreted by the reader. That is the foundational premise of written language - it is the medium we use because we cannot read each other’s minds, and it is an imprecise means of conveying the content of one mind to another because it relies on symbols - which, by definition, are subject to interpretation. If texts bore independent and absolute meaning, if everything were completely literal, there would be no poetry. There would be no allegory, no metaphor, no parable. Yet the Bible, which some would hold up as immutable and absolutely interpreted as you do the Constitution, is replete with all of these. It must be, because if it were not, it would have ceased to be relevant to anyone’s life who wasn’t born in the Levant during the time in which it was written. The book is a living document because it can be interpreted to apply in many ways. Benjamin Franklin is dead. So is Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, all the Founding Fathers have been pushing up daisies for over two hundred years. We cannot ask them to clarify their thoughts on anything. They left us with a document meant to provide for the governance of a nation into a future the events of which they could not foresee; it had to be a document that could adapt to the times - that is, it had to be flexible, not rigid. It had to be something, therefore, that could be interpreted. You, yourself, interpret the document; you assign it meaning, and go a step farther - you presume to declare what the Founding Fathers intended, which of course you have no way of knowing except from what you interpret from their writings. But a literalist, minimalist interpretation of a text is still an interpretation, and still as subject to debate as any other interpretation. You would have it that the Constitution means a government that lets you do whatever you please with the absolute minimum of interference - but that is what you want it to mean. Others may not want it to mean the same, and might (and do) point to the same language to prove their point as you do yours. Why should your interpretation necessarily prevail? I am reminded of a newscast that was shown during debate over the Affordable Care Act of a man belligerently declaring how he thought the government should keep out of people’s lives, and said, “and they need to keep their hands off my Medicare.” Which, um…you see, sir… I won’t attempt to debate the role of the federal government with you; I was a federal Executive Branch employee for thirty years, and I have my own informed views about what government can, can’t, should and shouldn’t do, and have put up with more foolishness from uninformed citizens than anyone should have to. (A prime example: A belligerent citizen once told me, “Buddy, I’m a taxpayer and I pay your salary.” “I’m a taxpayer too, sir,” I replied, “and so do I.”)

Global slaughter of pigs annually: 1.3 billion. Global slaughter of sheep annually: 602 million. Just sayin’.

What makes that funny is that you don’t seem to realize that the function isn’t like blocking someone on Grindr - just because you can no longer see someone’s posts here doesn’t mean they can’t see yours. It just means you won’t be able to tell when somebody says something about something you wrote that you might have wanted to defend. This is the equivalent of just sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALA every time someone says anything you don’t like. Everyone would like to be able to say anything he wants without fear of contradiction or consequence, but any responsible participant in public debate has to be willing to face the reaction his words provoke, for good or ill. If you dismiss all response, then you can expect others to dismiss whatever you say. But you do you - after all, you’re not going to see this anyway.