ErosWired

For those considering actively trying to cause themselves to prolapse, I recommend doing a Google search on ‘rectal prolapse’ first and becoming fully informed about the potential consequences. A prolapse is an indication of significant damage or weakening of physical structures supporting the rectum, and according to most sources usually requires surgery to correct. Fecal incontinence is a risk. Personally, I’m not about to do anything that could result in having to wear adult diapers.

@rawTOP - As you are developing your hookup sites, a feature that might possibly be helpful might be the ability for a user to set his account preferences so that he can limit the geographic area in which he can receive contacts from others. For instance, a person might want to receive contacts only from other men within a 25-mile radius - that way, it would cut down sharply on the time-wasting contacts by pic hunters from 150 miles away, or anyone else who simply isn’t within a practical distance to actually hookup. It would also eliminate these annoying hits from profiles that show as being 5,000 miles away. A hookup site should facilitate actually hooking up; if it’s generating contacts for which hookups are impractical or impossible, then it’s doing something else. Just a thought, as I delete my third message this evening on A4A from the other side of the planet.

@AirmaxUK - Thank you for posting those; I think both have a balanced perspective. It’s interesting that Vince Ferraro notes that while he chooses a choice of lace color to convey a message, he acknowledges that he doubts that there are many people out there who still recognize what the code represents. His short list of lace color meanings reminds me of the hanky code, and we all know how widely recognized that is now. The other article points out that deciding to distance ourselves from fashion coopted by extremists gives the extremists the power to distinguish themselves through fashion. I’m not going to give them any power. If I decide to wear something they consider part of their uniform, then I’ll gladly weaken the power that symbol gives them by doing the opposite of what they would do while wearing it. As I’ve written elsewhere, I got my left ear double-pierced before I learned that gays were supposed to “signal” with the right ear. I didn’t say, “Well, fuck,” and go back to the piercer, I’ve just carried right along taking men’s cocks ever since, and they still seem to find me. In our modern age, we live in an atmosphere saturated with signals - visual, auditory, electronic, overt and subtle, invasive and in the background. As an autistic, I’m more aware of this cacophony of signal than the average person because I have to actively filter it or it would drive me round the bend. Bootlaces are just another signal in a churning sea of signals, and a very weak one at that. Wearing a pair of Fuck-Me Boots isn’t all that potent a signal either, but in certain situations it might bring results, and I want to make sure I’m broadcasting Fuckability loud and clear.

Lol - If you just wanted the load, then score, but if you were hoping for more of a fuck it sounds like the technique could use some fine tuning to avoid immediate activation. 😉

Not only a gentleman, but a scholar as well, I see. Have you gone to the trouble to learn how to say “I don’t speak English” in several languages for this express purpose, or do you find that that one works in all situations? I can manage French, Spanish and German, but I don’t think I could pull it off in Japanese. Not that it matters - they usually aren’t interested in anything coming out of my mout anyway.

I don’t think it’s something that can be taught. The predilection to dominate another man, to exercise power and control over him, is common enough - one sees it everyday among men who seek power and privilege. But the desires that cause a man to desire to become a Dominant - to dominate another man sexually - derive I think from deeper in the man’s psychology, and the more completely he seeks to control this most intimate and vulnerable aspect of the other man, the deeper the psychological effect has to be. A Dominant who enjoys simply being respected as a Top, deferred to and called Sir is a mild example. A Dominant who requires his boy to wear a collar and does not hesitate to fuck roughly is not at the same level. A Dominant who will bind his submissive and routinely select other men to come and violently fuck him in bondage is at a still different level. A Dominant who will torture his owned submissive’s genitals with electricity and needles and then mindfuck him until he accepts that that treatment is good for him is so far removed from the first example that the two can scarcely be compared; the first would not be considered a Sadist, the second could hardly not be. Yet all of these examples, to varying degrees have developed an appetite for controlling the one thing that cuts right at the core of the other man’s masculinity - his sexuality. The Dominant, unlike the simple Top, derives satisfaction from diminishing the masculinity of other men. In one way or another, the Dominant enjoys the sensation of taking away the submissive’s control over his own sex - whether coarsely, by brute force penetration and physical violation, or by compelling sexual acts by being the one who chooses who fucks him, or by violating him at his very core by violent forced orgasm. I have experienced all of the above, at the hands of an assortment of Dominants. In my experience, men who relish the role of sexual Dominant as distinct from simply Top are an uncommon breed with an in-built mindset and set of appetites that must have arisen over the course if their development and become ingrained in their psyche - and thus cannot be taught to the average Top. Perhaps because of my experiences, I cannot imagine now what I would be for if such men did not exist; I am their nourishment, an animal to be laid upon their table so that they may feed upon me, specially bred for the purpose so that others may be spared their ravenous hungers. I am glad that I was trained to serve such men this way. But it becomes very clear to me when I’m servicing regular Tops that there is a great divide between the Tops and the Dominants. The Tops want to use me; the Dominants wish to consume me. You can’t teach someone to be... hungry like that.

I haven’t had that happen very often, but you’re right, when it does, it’s somehow extra rewarding. Not because I finally found out who it was, but because he made it a point that I didn’t know and he got to have me anyway.

Sometimes I think about the fact that out there in the world there are men who have been inside my body and know what I feel like inside, and not only do I not know who they are, there is no way now that I can ever know. There have been so many of them. Sometimes the only thing I know about a man is the way his penis feels as it cunts me, and when he’s done I don’t turn to look at him, and then then the door closes - and I realize that I will never know anything more than the feeling of his raw cock using me. In moments like that my purpose in serving men is clearer to me than any other time.

That falls into the category of things you definitely insist on getting payment for in advance. Buyer’s remorse can run high. The effect you’re talking about is one thing that gives me pause about keeping my boots on when I arrive somewhere - while I would want to be appealing to those me men who find that stimulating, I sometimes get a sense that men perceive me as more vulnerable when I’m barefoot, especially when other men have shoes. I definitely don’t want to send off any vibe of unapproachability because I’m wearing a pair of combat boots. It can be confusing to telegraph I’m a slutty cumdump bottom any man can use, but if you look at me wrong I might kick you in the balls. Fuck-Me Boots ideally shouldn’t cause that kind of misunderstanding. But maybe it’s all in how they’re worn...

Name any other context on which a person wears the kind of high conical white hooded face covering with two eye holes that I’m referring to. Actually, don’t bother - this thread isn’t about hoods. You’re assuming that public perception should be the controlling principle over personal choice. Some of us get misjudged by the dear ol’ self-righteous, self-centered, self-absorbed public so often that we’ve realized that the public gets pissed off at the drop of a hat - and they usually drop it themselves - and have ceased to give much of a fuck about public perception. I’m an autistic gay-leaning bisexual intellectual with AIDS living in Appalachia and I’ve been harshed by public perception to the point that I’m sick to death of hearing about other people’s hurt feelings. If that offends your perception, talk to the back of my hand. Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to carry on talking about Fuck-Me Boots.

No, a tall, cone-shaped hood with two eye holes is a racist thing. Black boots are just black boots, and white laces don’t automatically turn them into Official Racist Gear. I’m sorry if some people have drawn that association for some reason, but I know nothing about it and I’m not going to subscribe to it. Not that it would ever occur to me to lace black boots with white, but I’ll wear whatever color bootlaces I please. They can judge me by my words and my actions, not by the color of my bootlaces.

Oh, come on - no hat?

Laced up tight or sort of loose at the top? I usually wear mine loosely laced so I can slip my feet in and out of them (it saves time getting my pants off). The hazard to this is that I have had a Top fuck me so hard he literally fucked my boots off. Though I guess a Top could interpret that as a compliment to his prowess... Also, what about the accompanying socks, if any? I almost always just wear white athletic socks because they contrast with the black of the boots.

When I dress to go slutting I expect to end up naked pretty quickly, so attire isn’t big on my list of concerns. Every once in a while, however, a Top mentions that he would like to fuck me with boots on, so in order to be prepared for all possibilities, some while back I bought a generic pair of black, steel-toed work boots with heavy tread. Ever since, they’ve been my slutting footwear every time I go out. I think of them as my Fuck-Me Boots. They’re wearing out, though, and it’s time to replace them, so I thought I’d ask the congregation here: If you’re the type that likes the look of boots in your fucking, what do you recommend? What can a bottom wear that screams “fuck me hard”? What makes for a kick-ass pair of Fuck-Me Boots that you want to see the soles of when you’re cunting him missionary? NOTE - This question is specifically addressed to mainstream fuckers and those with boot fetishes. CDs and sissies, while I appreciate you may have a taste for alternative footwear, please do not discuss anything other than men’s boots here. Foot fetishists - this question is not about the titillating delights of removing a boot to expose the foot inside; just so we’re clear. Get your minds out of the gutter. 😉

I can’t say I have ever felt that a Top was making love to me, and I would never expect them to. Tops fuck me. They don’t love me - they don’t know me, half the time they don’t even look at my face. My current regular Top, when he’s excavating some deep place in my cunt with his cock, will sometimes say, “God, I love fucking your ass.” But that’s not the same thing as making love to me. I’ve had plenty of Tops give me long, sensual fucks, full of kissing and tongue and stroking and full body contact. One mature man of color in Indianapolis was so superb that had I been so inclined I could have easily indulged in a fantasy of being in a moment of deep intimacy with a significant other. (Sir, wherever you are out there, I hope you know you’re incredible.) One could make the argument that there’s a difference between merely fucking and truly having sex. But not even those men were making love to me. Making love is what you do with a person you love - and the experience cannot be compared to simply fucking. It’s transcendant.

You could possibly, the next time he starts to go bare, ask him if how his comfort level is doing with your status, as a way of starting the conversation. You could say you’re just double-checking because the two of you have taken it to bare. He may take the opportunity to come clean about it. If not, you could say you just wanted to be sure because even if he were positive it wouldn’t change the way you feel. You said you found a bottle of HIV meds with his name on it, but you didn’t say what they were - is it possible they were his PrEP meds? Regardless of how you approach this, it seems to me that the risky proposition isn’t telling him you saw his meds - it’s telling him you’re in love with him. It might work out exactly the way your heart hopes - but if he’s commitment-averse, he might make a dash for higher ground. Good luck! —- I just realized the original post was made over a decade ago, so my answer is kind of pointless, but maybe it will apply to someone in a similar situation. Hope it worked out for him...

To the OP: You might have better luck reframing the question simply as “outdoor locations” rather than specifying “parks”. Most of the locations you mention aren’t actually parks themselves, but National Forests (under the U.S. Department of Agriculture and not at all the same as National Parks), state forests, state parks, recreation areas, or combination management areas of state wildlife resource agencies and the US Army Corps of Engineers that may or may not be operated like parks. Places like Camp Buckwood (one of my favorite places) isn’t a park at all, but a private, all-male campground. There are several such campgrounds that I’ve heard of. Generally speaking, authorities are not as vigilant at most of these other places as at National Parks, but you can never tell with particular state or city/municipal parks when authorities may elect to clamp down. National Forests usually won’t have the same level of supervision anywhere but at very developed facilities; the same with USACE properties. A word of caution if you’re contemplating getting nekkid in the wilds - nature is harsh. Take the aforementioned Cahokia Mounds, for instance. Cahokia keeps large areas mowed and open among its forested areas, so it looks quasi-tame. There are deer everywhere you look. The trouble is, there are deer everywhere you look. Waaaaay too many deer, and where there are deer, there are ticks and chiggers. The last time I was at Cahokia I was eaten alive with ticks and chiggers, and I kept my clothes on. Imagine what they would do with a naked body. Know the area you are headed into, and be prepared. Or hook up with a lumberjack. Either/or.

It’s because we’re nor actually talking about you, buddy. We’re discussing deeper issues related to the topic of what it means too be a man. Your post just stimulated the conversation. If we mention you it’s not personal, you just serve as a useful illustration for the discussion because of your usual style of posting.

Perhaps I should explain. I spent a 30-year career in the U.S. National Park Service. Our National Parks are set aside because they are our national treasures. The men and women who devote themselves to protecting those treasures and the people who visit them aren’t police just doing police work - they’re NPS Rangers who believe in their Mission and view their park as one of America’s sacred places. What’s more, National Parks are places where people bring their children, because they’re National Parks. That places an additional imperative on rangers to make sure they don’t become places that attract vice. So if you’re thinking of coming to Yellowstone and whipping out your cock in public view to try to time your cumshot to match the eruption of Old Faithful - don’t expect that to end at all well. People in green and grey will come for you.

The U.S. National Park Service has zero tolerance for the kind of behavior we talk about on here in its public spaces. Take my word for it.

I’ve done nothing of the kind. In no account of my experiences (all of which, I might add, are quite true) have I ever said that I had subjected myself to another man’s use without any limitation whatsoever, nor would I ever do so. No credible BDSM practitioner subscribes to that. In certain select cases I have granted Dominants great discretion in the use of my body as they have demonstrated that I could trust them to enjoy me responsibly, once they had become intimate enough with my physical response to know what they were doing. The most extreme expression of this was the extent to which I participated in my former Master’s experimentation with me. By the end of it, I would let him pass a pair of .18 gauge needles through my testicles. Would I let some random Top walk into my hotel room and do the same thing? Don’t be absurd. I give aggressive, dominating Tops wide latitude in how they use me not because I’m helpless to prevent it, but because I comprehend their potential impact and have conditioned myself to receive it. Human males are by their size and construction strong and potentially dangerous simply in moving about; the forces generated in sexual action multiply this potential exponentially. My experience of a (very) broad sampling of men has given me an understanding that, on the whole, men are not gentle, considerate, and thoughtful copulators. Rather, more often than not they are responding to biological drives steered by chemical and primal psychological cues and instincts that bring out the beast in them. This is a natural phenomenon in process. I might submit for your consideration the possibility that this interaction that you decry between what you consider abusive, entitled Tops and abject self-destroying faggots is in fact a kind of symbiosis that has developed by which personalities of certain types satisfy mutual needs so that neither group attempts to meet its needs within the context of the less accepting mainstream society. I put it to you that I, by allowing myself to be the target of a Top who likes to find an anon hotel cumdump because he enjoys the feeling of being entitled to use another man at will, am providing a service not only to that man in meeting his sexual and psychological need, but also to the community by acting as the buffer for his influence - which might, in another situation, have been negative. On the contrary, it’s right there, in his plain text: “a willing and welcoming hole”. To be candid, I am somewhat confused how you could have drawn a conclusion from reading my content posted in the forum that I am the sort of bottom who would allow myself to be used with no concern for my own welfare, there being ample evidence to the contrary - I can only assume it is a result of a cursory reading of my material. That would be consistent with your interpretation of the text under discussion, as you seem to have overlooked key passages in context.

But my good man, that is precisely what you spend your post doing, from the get-go where you start by implying that you know what is best for all of us poor fools who are too witless to realize that what we desire isn’t actually desirable... by someone else. Your opinion is noted. Frankly, what I read in your argument is not a general critique of the type of masculinity under discussion so much as your personal visceral negative response to it. Clearly, you are not the sort of bottom who would respond to the approach of such a Top; I imagine that such a Top would similarly not particularly enjoy interacting with you either. If you do not choose to identify yourself as a faggot, or subscribe to the notion that you have a role to play in servicing Tops, then so be it, and more power to you. Others are unlike you, but that does not invalidate their point of view. The basic incompatibility between the you and the Top does not automatically translate into some sort of universal truth, and you should at least have the sense that God gave a cactus to acknowledge that this is your personal outlook only. I am reminded of an incident one time at camp when I was being used on a picnic table by a particularly Dominant Top in view of a small gathering of onlookers. The Top was handling me fairly roughly, and applying mild verbal abuse - nothing egregious, and certainly nothing out of the ordinary in a BDSM context. As I lay there taking his cock, I heard a young man in the group say to an older man with him, “He can’t talk to him like that, it isn’t right. Look at the way he’s treating him!” Fortunately, the man he was with apparently immediately took him aside and set him straight before he could embarrass anyone further. There was much more going on in our coupling, at a much more deep and complex level, than his simplistic view comprehended, or allowed for. When we finished, I made a point of audibly thanking the Top for his use of me, and he complimented my service - and then he began his aftercare to make sure I was fine. I hoped that young man was still watching, so that he would understand what he had actually witnessed, not what he assumed he had witnessed.

Really? You’re forgetting where you are. Dominating, aggressive masculine sexuality that is deemed “toxic” in a heteronormative or even a conventional/traditional homosexual relationship may be viewed as a highly desirable and much-appreciated trait among others. @Phallarchist is quite right - those on here who would not agree with your assessment are legion. @BreedingTop71 usually characterizes himself as a highly aggressive and domineering Top with a strong sense of entitlement toward submissive bottoms’ bodies, and a certain callous objectification of them, which, taken as a whole, some might interpret as caustically masculine. While I don’t always agree with BreedingTop71’s philosophy, the post you quote is hardly a condemning example of toxic masculinity. He is specifically speaking about male roles in sexuality exclusive of other roles, and indicates that consent is a requirement, specifying a “willing and welcoming hole”. Yes, he expresses his belief that men should be assertive in sex and not concerned with the pleasure of the partner. Such a man might be a selfish lover, but not necessarily toxic. I would argue that penetrative sex is an inherently assertive act, and in the period of excitation leading to climax, the sexual response system of a man is biologically engineered to focus all attention on his own drives. The very, very last thing I want when a Top is truly in the throes of his rut is for him to stop and ask if I’m enjoying myself. If his pleasure is not overwhelming his senses, then I’m not doing my job. Your statement has political overtones; such comments tend to be received poorly on the forum in general as you may have observed. There is a section for that.

But being murdered by a regular psychopath with no religious views or intent to extort would be fine? Look, dude, this question is just not reasonable to ask. You are asking us to give you advice on where to go to place yourself in significant danger, and answering may not even be permissible under the site owner’s new posting restrictions. We get this as a fantasy, but I think I reflect the rational majority here in saying that acting on it isn’t something this community can get behind.

The younger ones may be clueless, but the older ones are working off ideas and beliefs that solidified in their heads a decade or two ago. PrEP is a harder sell to someone who lived through the Dark Years of AIDS - it’s hard to just shake off that sense of danger and dread built up from watching people die that the present generation doesn’t have to contend with. Yes, the worst has passed, but its ghost still haunts the survivors. Year before last, an older gentleman found me slutting myself in my room at the bathhouse in Indianapolis, and was very interested in making use of me - right up until the moment I explained that I was Undetectable. He backed off. No, he wasn’t willing to do anything with someone infected with HIV. I explained about my status, my testing regimen, what Undetectable meant, and complimented him on being vigilant about his own sexual health, before he left. A couple of months later when I was back in town for another trip, I was taking cock in my hotel room the night before I would be spending the day at the bathhouse, and who should walk in my open door but the very same older man. He told me that he had felt badly about rejecting me that way, and had studied up on HIV to understand his risk better. Now, he wanted to fuck me to show me that he didn’t think I was someone who had to be refused. And he fucked me exceedingly well. It is possible to change people’s minds, at any age, with information. Every time I host, somewhere on a table or surface near me, I place four small stacks of half-sheet flyers I made: One about PrEP, one about STD risk, one about the meaning of Undetectable, and one about popper use. (Part of my trade is publication design.) Hardly anyone ever looks at them, let alone takes one with him. But there aren’t as many of them in the stacks now as there were to start with, and that means that somewhere out there, a few guys are a little wiser.