blackrobe

It sounds like you have some traumatic memories of playing hockey as a kid. That sounds horribly painful. I understand your reaction and there's no doubt your read on hockey's pervasive homophobia is rooted in reality. I think lots of people, including Rachel Reid who wrote Heated Rivalry and Jacob Tierney who wrote and directed the adaptation for television, agree with you. I think both wish it was different, too. Rachel is the first to say her books are romantic fantasy. The power structure of her fictional hockey league isn't welcoming to men who have sex with men either. The fictional commissioner is a very clear homophobic villain. She makes just one team in the entire league a place where the homophobic culture doesn't completely dominate. Individual players and coaches, just like individuals in the real world, have their own attitudes and experiences and we get to see how they play out in a less homophobic environment. I think that's the whole point. Rachel and Jacob were aligned on celebrating queer joy in the source material and the adaptation, arguably very successfully. Again, it's a romantic fantasy so that's what it is supposed to do. They also managed to show how human beings lives can be distorted by fear and prejudice and what it can take to get over or around it. Meanwhile, the real-world hockey league is getting about a 20% bump in ticket sales from HR fans kicking the tires as new hockey fans. New hockey fans who come into the sport knowing the league has *never* had an active player who is out, and whose expectation is for the league to make moves so that changes. I've heard a lot of chat about how Rachel's fantasy hockey league seems to have way more gay and bi players than it should, but looking at the statistics, it seems like she's only scratching the surface. About 6% of men in the general population self-report as same-sex attracted and there are 736 active NHL players at any time. It looks like about 1000 NHL players overall. Bear in mind that self-reporting is significantly less than the real number since so many men would not self-report. That means conservatively there are between 44 and 60 gay, bi, and queer players in the NHL. I'm pretty sure Rachel's book series hasn't come close to the lower threshold number in queer characters, so in my view her fictional hockey league is still dramatically underselling the number of same-sex attracted men there are in real-world hockey. I'm sorry you were so ill-treated and abused when you were younger. The NHL has so much work to do as it's seen as the most homophobic and least welcoming of all professional sporting leagues. I've been enjoying reading professional athletes reacting to the TV show and comparing it with their sport and experiences. I have to believe the kind of focus and pressure that shows like Heated Rivalry can bring to bear can only speeds the pace of change.

No space between the first and last names - NoahPartic With a space it leads to a sketchy looking group.

Let's be clear, being fucked with a condom is an act of pure withholding. The whole reason for a condom fuck is to prevent his bare throbbing dick and load from touching you. A man using a condom has no intent to breed you. Absent his clear intent to breed you, how can one say you took his load? You took his condom, that's all. It might be mechanistic, but I think men who use condoms only fuck condoms. It's the condoms that fuck your hole. If a man fucked you with a condom, then removed the condom and poured his seed into your open hole himself, I think there's some intent to have his cum inside you. A man who fucks and breeds a condom, with you around the condom, and then discards the condom has abandoned his load. The bottom picking the condom up and fingering or pouring some of the abandoned seed inside his hole hasn't been bred by the man who made it. I think "artificial insemination" is a very close to the truth for this scenario. Absent *his* intent, *his* action putting his load inside you, my view is you didn't get his load. [P.s. If a top has you suck his bare dick and swallow his precum, but then only fucks you with a condom (because STIs), that's illogical *and* withholding.]

If they have competent marketing and social media people they'll have alerts on their company and product name and come across this post. I haven't seen a product forum, but the product is still under development so it's likely all Commercial in Confidence at this stage. I hope they have lots of queer folks in many countries road testing this product. I have a sneaking suspicion that how it performs will have a lot of variations across cultures and national boundaries. It feels like my questions are pretty basic and lots of people will ask many of them. I found a rudimentary FAQ and it seems like they don't know many answers yet as there is a testing phase happening this year. It seems like the penis dimensions questions are in their testing matrix but no findings yet. You do need lube to insert it (so far they have only tested water based lube and Silicon lube tests are coming). You need to insert it no more than 30 minutes before you play. The ball is supposed to be too small to trigger feeling like you need to poop. They have a one-size-fits-most model right now and will look at sized versions after testing. I don't get the sense this is for long play sessions.

I'll take your word for it, since you were in the room and in the hole. The test is whether his behavior changes and if it does, is it with everyone or just with you.

A company called Polari Labs has a product in development called "A-Ball" that they style as "The first alternative to douching". Claiming "Takes 30 seconds. No Water needed. Made of body safe materials." It's a gel ball that you insert in your hole and gets pushed up into the sigmoid flexure to block poop from heading any lower into the rectum. They have lots of information at their web page, including diagrams and dick length research, so I won't reproduce it here. I think the pricing I saw said they were thinking of £4 GBP which is about $5.35 USD each. Here's the list of things I'm thinking of: Do you need to lube your hole to get it in position? Is it recommended to push the ball up into position with something, or is the design relying on the dick to fuck it up into position? Will tops be weirded out pushing the ball up inside your ass? What happens if there's poop residue in the rectum already? Do you need to ensure the rectum is clean before you even insert the A-ball? Do you need to clean the rectum after the A-ball is in position? What effect will water have on the ball if you clean after? Is using the A-ball predicated on having a high fibre diet to ensure the rectum stays as clean as possible? Will the one size fits all ball work for all holes? What about really well used and stretched holes and sigmoid flexures that are frequently breached, fisted, and bred? What about the varying depth of rectums? Will long dicks (longer than 6"-6.5" which is their design point) used to breaching the sigmoid for that second hole experience hit an unpleasant firm barrier? Will long dicks that take the sigmoid flexure push the ball past the point it's effective and release poop into the rectum? Effective time is 4-6 hours (softens and comes loose to be passed normally), so is this inherently only a short fuck solution? For those who need the experience of a man's sperm staying inside them as long as possible, it sounds like this prevents it ever getting in any deeper than the rectum or staying inside you overnight. My initial reactions are: It sounds pretty expensive for something that I don't know will give me peace of mind. Water is not expensive. Granted, time can be at a premium and spontaneity is something it's tough to finesse as a bottom. If I have to douche before or after insertion to ensure the rectum is clean, I don't think the value proposition is there. For those of us for whom earning a man's load and keeping it inside us is the goal, I don't know whether this ball makes any sense. For tops who prize deep hole fucking and second hole breeding, it sounds like this isn't at all desirable. I'm interesting in hearing from other bottoms (who would be the market for this product) and tops on their thoughts.

There's always *that guy* who behaves like he owns all the dicks in the room. I had that guy literally pull my head off a hot breeder dad's dick while I was sucking him slowly down my throat. I was so surprised by how aggressive he was, but when stuff like that happens I try to let it go (it wasn't easy) to not sour the sex vibe in the room. I've gotta say I'm confused by your "retribution". It really doesn't sound like it landed the way you think or intended. That pushy, unprepared bottom wanted your dick inside him, to get his ass pounded out, and to get bred. He got all those things, so to me it wasn't so much "retribution" as "reinforcement". My read is that you totally rewarded him for being pushy and unprepared by handing him a fantasy fuck that will live in his head and reinforce his rudeness for years. It's awesome that you got satisfaction from treating him the way, but that was about *your* satisfaction, not about curbing *his* bad behavior. Let's be real, you know a lot of the men watching you wished you were treating them that way. Hell, put me on that list. The greedy bottom dick-stealer I mentioned earlier got his mouth around that sexy dad's long fat dick. After he moved on to the next dick, the sexy dad told me he wasn't impressed with the greedy bottom's move and that he'd fuck and breed me when he's ready to head home. He kept his word and that greedy bottom had to watch me take an incredibly intense fuck and big load from him. That feels like the right kind of correction that can have some impact. It's totally valid for you to drop a hate fuck on a selfish bottom to meet your own needs. I just think it had zero deterrent effect on him.

It's a shame as budding power-dynamic and BDSM curious guys don't have a place to go and learn the ropes. Its very hit and miss finding genuine folks online.

If a bottom gets pain from condoms (they pinch me inside), or they are allergic to latex, or being cut off from the man's dick and cum doesn't work for them, they get to say no.

Workman's lunch?

I'd enjoy hearing that story.

I've been a member of Seattle Men in Leather in the past, but never found the kind of connections and mentorship that have happened in traditional leather communities. I think I'm wired for the more well trained, curious, and human dominants. I'm very clued into subtle things and when I've connected with dominants they've enjoyed and respected my nature. Sadly, many men using the term dominant are in the middle of a false flag operation. There are also tops who discover that ripple of understanding inside them when they feel a bottom giving them something extra that they didn't realize they really wanted and needed. I'm happy to speak more in private.

I'd love you to expand on this. I have my own observations, but I'm keen to hear your thoughts. Let's be real, Dominant ≠ Aggressive. Some of the most effective dominant men I know move slowly, speak softly, and would never be described as aggressive. A dominant man can be aggressive, but too much of that can read as performative to me. Topping is even more nuanced and broad-ranging than domination. There is definitely a trend of some men being confused about what being a top asks of them and how to move into topping authentically and confidently. This is in the same way that men focus on aggression and exerting control because they think those are the bellwethers of being masculine.

Navy blue hankies have white paisley on them already, so the polka dots are redundant. There *is* a black and white checked hanky that's for flagging safe-sex bottom and top. Given that, I always read a navy hanky as bareback fucking and breeding.

Good man. I love getting fucked filthy in a man's office or workplace and leaving with his nut buried deep.