funpozbottom

The first think I notice (not only in sexual situations, but just in general) is smells. Some smells draw you in and excite you while others repel. As soon as I enter a room, I notice the smell. At a bookstore, taking in the lingering smell of sex sets the mood even before I've connected with anyone. Touch is also important. I'm dyslexic and can have trouble recognizing visual signals, but a touch on my ass clearly gets my attention. Finger tips pressed against me, body heat, the sensation of hot piss dripping from and cooling on my body; all heighten my awareness of my presence and place. Combining touch and smell, I get taste. I have the sensation and taste of a cock in my mouth, or my tongue licking over an asshole. I tend to tune out sounds when I have sex. While the right sounds can help to set a mood beforehand, during sex, I find a lot of sounds to be more of a distraction than a turn on.

There is a big difference between having a right to hold a belief and having a belief that you are right.

Is there a difference between sex without condoms and barebacking? Let me ask you this: Is there a difference between an afternoon tea party and a pre-game tailgater? Of course there's a difference. You participate in one when you are feeling posh and trendy, and you participate in the other when you're too wasted to realize that sliding a hot grill under your car's gas tank isn't a good idea. It's exactly the same with bare sex. ... but seriously ... I think I understand the distinction you are making. As prep has become more available, more guys seem to be willing to go without a condom, but with conditions or only in some circumstances. For example, they might do it bare with regular partners but not random / anonymous hook-ups. These guys are probably still in the process of assessing the risks / rewards of going bare. Contrast that to regular barebackers who have already decided that the rewards outweigh the risks, and will always be willing to fuck bare. While I see that there may be some distinction to be made, it doesn't make a difference to me when deciding to have sex. I don't care about the guy's rationale for using or not using a condom. All I want is to make him cum.

Does anyone know what bible verse is used as rationalization to justify that position?

I have had problems with swallowing pills all my life. I've found the easiest way for me to take meds is to swallow it in a bite of food. Take a bite of something you like, chew it up and just before you swallow, slip the pill in your mouth and swallow it all together. You might have to try a couple different foods to figure out what texture works best for you. For example, pills might slide right down with something like pudding or applesauce. Or, you might be able to disguise it better if you eat something crunchy. I will say that over time, sucking cock and trying to take cock deeper into my throat had the added benefit of helping me relax and open my throat when it comes to taking pills. I can swallow pills now, but I still prefer to take them with food as described above. There is research on extended release medications -- primarily with the injectable meds. Currently, dosing is every other month but I think 6 month dosing is in trials, Hopefully soon all of us people who have problems with pills will have more options.

"Porn Culture." That says it all right there. In porn, they want to give the impression that the top is filling the bottom completely and the bottom can barely contain it. Contrast that to the reality that (most) bottoms in porn are prepped and lubed and fully capable of taking the top they are paired with. The reality is that (most) bottoms that I've known don't want to feel pain while being fucked. For me, feeling pain usually means I need more lube, I'm not open and relaxed yet, or the cock is poking at a weird angle and I need a different position. All of those things have very easy fixes. There is a certain amount of discomfort I'll tolerate, but I don't want sex to be painful... at least not in the way you're talking about.

I don't use apps or hook-up sites much anymore, but when I did, I found that getting a message followed by a long silence meant the guy was bored at work and maybe looking for something later but then he got busy and forgot to reply again. Saying "on my way" did not mean he was on his way to me -- it meant something more like: "my shift ends in two hours but if it stays slow I can probably dip out in 15-20 minutes but I might have to go home to shower first and then my roommate may want to do something with me .... " Your situation is probably different, but that's the problem I have living in a college town: Lots of hot boys, and lots of hyper squirrels. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which.

Walruses? I haven't even finished my reply to your post on frogs and now I have to research walruses? This is definitely going to take a while. The only walrus I'm familiar with is Chumley from Tennessee Tuxedo cartoons, and thinking back on it, I'm pretty sure Chumley was the bottom.

It is difficult to find a term that fully encompasses a person's sexuality because sexuality is complicated and fluid, and each term only addresses one single aspect. So for example, I am only interested in individuals with a penis, so I consider myself "gay" (although I leave open the possibility of sex with someone who is trans). So that explains attraction but doesn't address the type of relationship I'd like. For that, I'd use the term, "asocial", which means I am not interested in social relationships, however, it doesn't fully express my desires to have sex, or that I'll have sex with guys I'm not particularly attracted to. Sociosexual helps to express my desire for anonymous, non-committed sex, but I still need the other two terms to clarify that I am only interested in sex with men and not looking for any relationship. But even adding that doesn't address the role/position, type of sex, kinks and fetishes I enjoy or are willing to indulge in for someone's pleasure. The only single term I've found that fully expresses my sexuality is simply to say I'm human.

Have you ever known or heard about someone who has cancer but treatment put it in remission? Have you ever heard them talk about how happy they are to be in remission and cancer free for "X" number of years? I view my infection that same way. I have HIV but my medication holds it in check. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about the use of the word "undetectable" because it's got nothing to do with you -- it's about me and my challenges and progress in fighting my virus. I'm undetectable and happy to say so.

OMG! I go away for a week and look what happens! I just have one final comment on your comments to my comments: You said, "...there really is not much else I can do for guys that aren't willing to at least ask for the materials to review." That was exactly my point. If you produce an ad/announcement that seems like it could be a scam, most people are simply going to turn away. (And to be honest, my first reaction to your ad was that it looks like it came out of the personals section of an '80's smut mag. The only reason I responded was because you had been somewhat vetted by the mods. If I had seen your post in the wild, I would have steered clear.) It doesn't matter whether your study is legit. It doesn't matter how well designed your research is. If a person's gut reaction on reading your ad is that it seems a little sus, that person will most likely not respond, and you potentially lose data for your research. Another reason I personally wouldn't do an interview is that I have difficulty articulating my thoughts, verbally. It totally stresses me out. I need time to consider what I want to say and usually do better with written responses. That is why I mentioned an on line questionnaire (not a survey). You said you could provide a list of questions you would ask in an interview, and the interview would be (somewhat) anonymous, plus, you are transcribing your interviews, so why couldn't you make your questions available in an on line questionnaire? You could still do interviews or additional followup interviews or emails for those willing to provide additional info, Providing a second means of data collection might increase data for your research. There may be reasons you designed the study the way you did. There may be reasons you want a small sample. You may even have reasoned that the number of people who don't respond because of issues I've stated or other factors would be insignificant, however you may be missing an opportunity to interact with a more diverse pool of respondents and thereby, miss data for your research. There's more I could say, but that's the main point I wanted to make. Good luck with your project.

There are a couple things I have a problem with here. First, you don't seem to see the irony of asking people who intentionally seek anonymity to do in-person interviews. Second, when questions about the project are expressed, you simply dismiss them and shut down the conversation. You said: "Girl, bye!" How is that professional? If I were one of your professors, reading that would have meant an instant fail. If you can't handle a modest critique on a sex site, how will you handle criticism or other challenges posed by a dissertation committee? As a sociologist, you want to get people talking and not shut them down. It would have been so easy to turn the conversation around and ask: "What do you think would improve the project?" In order to answer that last question, I offer the following: Realize it's not about you, so don't take critiques personally. Realize that you are studying sociology to better understand how people in societies interact. They are not always predictable so don't be surprised when your assumptions are challenged or are found to be untrue. Moments like that should not be seen as frustrating as they are opportunities to ask more questions and devise new research. If you were raised in the age of Google, you may be used to freely sharing personal data without a second thought, however as a researcher, you will be interacting with people with wide ranges of ages, backgrounds and other experiences. This may lead to some having differing opinions and/or being more cautious about sharing information. Be careful not to be dismissive of alternate views, and don't limit your research to only one mode of data collection. Create a separate project specific email address and not use a personal address. The university should be willing to set one up for you. Make the user name relevant to the project so it's obvious it is going to the research team and not a personal email. Create a website for your research project. If you do it well, it may help to impress your professors and improve your grade. It would also be place to point people who have questions about the project. On it, you can post documentation showing that your research has been approved by the university. Also post an abstract detailing examples of current research. Explain why you think their conclusions may be faulty. And finally, explain what you hope to show with your research. You'll need to write an abstract for your dissertation anyway, so posting your rough drafts as you go along allows for some informal feedback from your site visitors. And along with that, ask for comment and feedback as that may bring up perspectives you had not though about, which could trigger a new line of research. The third thing I think you should post is an anonymous questionnaire that can be filled out on line. This will allow those who wish to remain anonymous an opportunity to participate which will increase your sample size and most likely provide more candid opinions. You can include an option to leave a email for a follow-on interview, or provide your email address for anyone interested in being interviewed to be able to contact. One other thing: why not post some of your questions here? It would give you an idea of how much interest there is for your research, offer feedback on the types of questions you are asking, and might give you insight on whether you should alter the scope or focus of your research topic.

Oh, surely you knew, on this site, if drama can be created, drama will be made. 🙂 But it is a good question as to what do to if you'd like to see a story continued. Here's my personal opinion of steps I'd take if I wanted to continue a story: First, try to contact the original author to see if they plan to continue the story and/or if they would permit you to write a side story. If you don't get a response within a "reasonable" amount of time, the author may have left the site and/ or abandoned the story. If that's the case, I'd start a new thread that picks up a story "inspired by" the original. (in your intro, say what it's inspired by and link to the original if you want.) Write a story that stands on it's own but with some similarities to the original so that other fans can see some continuity between the two. By starting a new thread, you leave space for the original author to return to his work, and you aren't accused of appropriating someone else's story. It would also give you more freedom to express yourself instead of trying to mimic someone else's writing style, and you won't be locked in to a particular character set. This would allow you to spin off stories of any new characters that you create. In that way, you could be on your way to creating your own Marvel-ous Slut-iverse of interconnected plots and characters.

From the article: "... ducks, they also have this penis inside the cloaca that ... can explode out of the cloaca at something like 75 miles an hour..." I'll take that as a warning to never try to give oral to a duck.

I was at an ABS and was in a spot where I could see two movies at the same time. The scenes on both screens started at the same time, and were in sync through the movie. Each spent the exact same amount of time kissing and removing clothes, then they switched to sucking. The bottoms rolled over at the same time to get rimmed and were fucked in the same way for the same amount of time. The movies were from different studios and different genres (one was twink, the other hunky guys) but the filming and editing made look exactly the same. Porn is fantasy - can't they at least show a little bit of originality? I used to hate the bottoms moaning and think they sounded so fake (especially when the top has an expression on his face that says, "why are you moaning? I haven't even put it in yet?") But then, one night, I was out walking my dog. I passed a neighbor's house that happened to have their windows open. I was on the street but it was so loud, it was like being in their room. And 9 months later they had a bouncing baby boy. So now, I still hate the moans, but the moaning also make me snicker and wonder how the baby's doing...

Oops. I guess I used the 'wrong' word there. I wasn't completely happy with it when I wrote it, but sometimes the word I'm looking for eludes me. What I ended up with was a weird variation of the saying of "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" which basically means something happened to you accidentally. You may not have that expression in Europe and/or not make the association to it which may have given what I wrote a different meaning. I did not think there would be an issue with it since it was a personal side comment and didn't really have much to do with the commentary on the original post. Also I never said anyone gave me AIDS. I said I am poz. I said I had AIDS. I said I did not want to be infected. My phrasing may have been 'wrong', but again, it was a personal comment to give my perspective and did not deal directly with the comments on the post. I find it ironic that you say: "there may be too much emphasis on matters that suggest blame" and the only parts of my post you pick apart are my personal experience.

While the impetus for the original post may have been related to bugchasing, that fetish was not the focus of the study cited in the post. I don't think it's being "judgemental" to remind people that there are other factors to consider beyond the one narrow focus of the study when making decisions about one's health. It's also not "puritanical hand-wringing" (gotta say -- that's some kinky shit right there) to point out shortcomings within a study that may reduce it's relevance to the subject being discussed. You can make any decision you want about when and whether to take meds, but I think an individual should have access to a full range of sources and not make a decision based on only one. I would hate to keep silent about a subject I have some experience in simply because someone might not like my opinion, and then have that person later lament: " Why didn't anyone tell me it would be this way?" For full disclosure, I am poz. I had AIDS -- my CD4 count was 12 when I was diagnosed. I did not want to be infected, and did try to protect myself from it, but if you slip up with the wrong person, it only takes once. I don't understand the whole bugchasing mystique. I don't read the bugchasing section as it holds no interest to me. I respond to this thread solely as it relates to a person's health. That said, since you feel the original post was from a bugchasing perspective, I have to say, I didn't see it that way, although it was at times ambiguous and could be read that way. As for the study mentioned, my opinion is that it doesn't provides much useful information to someone interested in pozzing. First off, it's over 7 years old. While digging up and recycling older studies is a very "internet" thing to do, I don't think it enhances the conversation. Second, even though participants were monitored and tested through the study, no data is provided on how long an individual can go without meds before reaching the stage of AIDS. It also doesn't mention the effect on viral load as treatment is delayed. Knowing those things might be of interest for someone interested in pozzing, but even if it did provide data on those, the only way you're going to know how long you can delay treatment is if you are tested regularly so the illness can be monitored. Also, keep in mind that the focus of the study was whether an individual is more likely to suffer a major illness before reaching AIDS if treatment is delayed. The fact you may infer that an individual is no more likely to suffer catastrophic illness by delaying treatment, does not mean the study is giving a green light, or advocating for, delayed treatment. It simply suggests that HIV without treatment is a slow decline until AIDS. And you probably already knew that.

While many people call the perineum a "taint", I think it originally referred specifically to the perineal raphe. The raphe is the ridge that runs from the anus to the head of the penis and is formed during sex differentiation in the womb. Here's the blurb from wikipedia: The perineal raphe is a visible line or ridge of tissue on the body that extends from the anus through the perineum to scrotum (male) or labia majora (female). It is found in both males and females, arises from the fusion of the urogenital folds, and is visible running medial through anteroposterior, to the anus where it resolves in a small knot of skin of varying size. In males, this structure continues through the midline of the scrotum (scrotal raphe) and upwards through the posterior midline aspect of the penis (penile raphe). It also exists deeper through the scrotum where it is called the scrotal septum. It is the result of a fetal developmental phenomenon whereby the scrotum and penis close toward the midline and fuse. source: [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perineal_raphe It may have been called the taint as it could have been thought of as a visible sign of what some religions conciser man's original sin. (I've never been able to find the logic in that, I'm just passing along what I read somewhere.) It could also have been called the taint simply because it is usually a well defined area that is darker than the surrounding skin. Personally I like this derivation better. If you combine the words "tint" and "paint" you get "taint".

As usual, I pretty much agree with @ErosWired . HIV, and all the other STD's for that matter, are not Pokemon. You do not have to "catch them all". There is no fame or glory in catching them. There is, however, irreparable damage done to the body if left untreated. The only medical reason I can think of for delaying treatment is if an individual has pre-existing kidney / liver problems that may be exacerbated by the additional strain to their function incurred by starting on meds. But even then, I think the doctors would probably want to start meds as early as possible to keep HIV well controlled and prevent opportunistic infections that could further compromise the body. ( I think potential liver / kidney problems is where the rationale that it's better to wait to start treatment came from. Early classes of meds did a lot more damage to the body than current meds, and as drug regimens continue to be refined, damage to liver and kidneys will hopefully be minimized.) So, from a personal health stand point, I think starting on meds early would probably be the better option for almost everyone. There is also the viral load and reservoir to consider. The sooner treatment is started, the faster the viral load is diminished, and the smaller the reservoir is within the body, which means the virus would be slower to rebound if treatment were ever stopped. And one needs to consider how being poz affects a sex partner. An uncontrolled viral load puts any sex partner at risk of infection. There is currently a push to get more people on PREP for prevention, getting people tested, and getting people to understand that U=U. Suggesting that infected individuals should wait to start treatment undermines those efforts and may perpetuate stigma attached to being poz, especially for those who are now undetectable. With the exception of the insurance industry, I don't see anyone who benefits from suggesting that infected individuals could delaying treatment.

I've only been to one bathhouse, and going there was always hit or miss. As I recall, my first visit was definitely a miss. There were a bunch of bored looking guys wandering around in towels, the porn playing was ancient, and the air was visibly hazy with smoke. I stuck around maybe an hour before my inability to breath made me leave. I gave it a second shot, and that time it was smoke free and I had a chance to play around a little. If the second time was as bad as the first, I wouldn't have gone back again.

Here's a little thought experiment: How would you feel if one of the cocks that came through the hole was your hubby's? Would you be turned on? Disappointed? Embarrassed? Jealous? Then consider how he'd feel knowing you were doing that. Maybe you could suggest a "date night" at the ABS and see what cums of it.

It's interesting how everyone develops different fetishes. Personally, I'm sort of the opposite of you: I've never had an interest in bondage (or I should say, I've never found someone that I wanted to try it with), but I do like getting whipped or spanked. For me, being restricted is not a turn on -- what I get into is submission and voluntary degradation in front of my top. While I like getting spanked, I do agree with you about nipple play. I've never understood it's appeal. I might tolerate it from a hot top, but it doesn't turn me on, and is likely to piss me off. I've almost told someone: "If you want to play with nipples, go fuck a girl!" I wasn't willing to say it out loud though, and risk losing his load. Instead I just suck it up and submit to being used.

I've heard various versions of that question so many times that I just think of it as the bathhouse equivalent to saying: "Nice weather we're having, isn't it?"

I'm usually a bit nervous / embarrassed getting naked at an ABS, but once my clothes are off, I love feeling like a slut and enjoy the looks and grabs of anyone who's there. I like to take a dildo with me -- it's something I can use to "entertain" myself if the theater isn't busy, plus it keeps my hole open for when things pick up. I think being a naked guy fucking himself with a dildo sort of hints that I'm willing to do stuff.

Since glory holes are usually in short supply, I consider them "use it, or lose it." If I'm sitting or kneeling at a glory hole, I'm willing to service pretty much any cock that's offered. If, however, one comes along that doesn't pass the smell test or I want to pass for some other reason, I'll get up and take a break, walk around, find a different spot, and hope the "weird guy" doesn't follow me. The exception to that is if someone wants me to do something I'm not into -- like trading blow jobs. If I guy wants to suck me, I'll just sit back until he puts his cock back through or leaves. I think the main thing is just be respectful of those around you and don't hog the glory hole if you're not getting what you want.