hntnhole

The answer would depend more on where you expect to be taking loads. If it's in some fuckjoint - with many other guys, all unknown to you, I would suggest leaving the gear at home. Wearing a ball-stretcher like the one pictured could invite some guys to assume that it's an invitation to even more distress. I see in your photos that you're accustomed to wearing gear that could easily be interpreted as an invitation be abused. You don't mention what level of pain you can tolerate (particularly from strangers). I'd call it a risky proposition. If, on the other hand, you rely on the apps to find sex, you can always state the qualifiers in advance, whatever they may be. Bd / Sm play can be fantastically fulfilling, but it can also be quite dangerous. I'd advise keeping to two separate sexual tracks: 1) For public sex in the fuckjoints, where any guy can rightfully assume that you're game for anything, leave the heavy-duty gear at home. You might meet some guy that knows his craft, and set up more action in the future. At least, you'll get home without a visit to a hospital first. 2). For using the cruise apps, make sure the other guy knows in advance what your pain-limits are, and agrees to honor them. It's hardly fool-proof, but at least gives the other guy some guidelines as to what you need. Also, arrange for a friend to call you at a certain time, and tell the prospective fuck (before you meet up) that you'll be getting that call at X time, and if you don't answer, the cops will. That's always a good step to take when serious harm might come to pass. To the OP, I have nothing against a cumdump jacking his Cock or whatever. That issue though, is something to be ironed out during the "negotiation" that is always, always, always required prior to a private Bd/Sm scene. Good luck !!

They're both already illegal, and have been for many years. Both are aggressive, violent, non-consensual acts violating another person's most basic rights. While Federal law avoids the common term "rape", that act is included in the basket of "non-consensual sexual acts", punishable via a fine to life in the clink. Many States have further codified those acts within their State laws, along with punishments.

I hope that's a bit of hyperbole ... we don't need to live in fear, all we need to do is be understanding of each other. I know that most Tops would avoid an "unprepped" Hole, but we all know that accidents can happen. It's merely a function of our interior plumbing, and after all - it's us that are using our bodies in a "special" way, so like car-insurance - hopefully, we've all taken out a "no fault" policy. I might take pains to point out though, that a pre-fucked and loaded Hole is fantastic for a number of reasons and a number of guys, which you most likely already know. Some might think my tastes aren't just "dirty", they're downright filthy. Maybe you can guess how big a shit I give what others think. I know the phrase you used is commonly used in any kind of conversation; I just hope it's not actually the case for you. Where would guys like me be without guys like you? One sorry sordid lot of crabby guys, that's where.

Interesting issue to reflect on: Not being medically trained at all, I have a question: is the "neuroplasticity" applicable to Tops as well? If so, would the sex-act trigger the neuroplasticity, regardless of the position (T or b)? More, could that be - would 'triggered' be the right word? - by non-sexual experiences? I mean, preferring to hang around with boys as a kid, finding girls irritating, without any actual (or at least realized) sexual thoughts? Lastly, is neuroplasticity an in-born thing? Does every human possess it from birth? Or is it something that develops, and might be guided(?) by learned/developed 'likes' or 'dislikes'?

Agreed. It's no surprise that the inherited filth of White Privilege has soaked so thoroughly into these folks stunted minds. When one inherits a "taught" mindset - learning from the earliest age - that others must defer to you, seeing one's parents/grandparents/relatives/neighbors/friends/church congregations display such depraved behavior, one grows up believing that such anti-human filth is completely normal. And then, the unthinkable actually happens: an African-American man gets elected President of the United States - twice. Of course these misguided (from earliest childhood) folks are enraged: they're the ones who have to either acquiesce to the immutable fact that they are, and have been wrong; grossly wrong in their cultural myopia. That unfortunate (for them) fact is the burden they simply must bear. Boo-fukkin-hoo. Continuing a hateful tradition of repression, merely to support a misguided tradition of White Privilege, merely because it has always applied to them, is the definition of moral corruption. The way I see it, these people can wake up, realize the error of their cultural their ways, or sit down, have a good cry, realize the depravities of the "old ways" are on the way out, and do their best to atone for the sins of their forebears, or just pack up their junk and find somewhere else to live out their miseries. The Moral Arc has been bending away from their way of life for some time now, and no amount of myopia will alter that fact.

Faith-based politics depends on a general population willing to accept an "other-worldly" set of rules or guidelines upon which to not only order one's own life, but also the lives of others. That, in and of itself, requires a suspension of one's powers of thoughtful reflection, one's intellect, as well as one's ability to reason. It rests solely on a persons inclination to suspend these individual powers, which all humanity posses, in favor of a version of ancient, yet often beautiful moral guidance. In the tradition of Western Theology, that requirement is hinged on the life of Jesus over the last couple of millennia. There have been moral Leaders throughout human history, in other parts of the world, with similar messages, and they also deserve to be honored. Consider actual history. As the Romans began to advance to the North, they understood that their pantheon would not be accepted by those conquered tribes/peoples, and realized that Christianity could be a new, uniting contrivance, heavily redacted of course, and controlled by the Romans. All kinds of miraculous events became attributed to that gentle man, which served to "prove" that their religion was the one, true religion. I encourage anyone interested in this process to read the apocryphal texts - mainly the Book of Peter - which contains mostly the sayings of Jesus, but others are well worth the read. In May of 325 CE, the Roman Council of Nicaea took place, at Roman behest, which codified the "books of the New Testament" into an instrument of Roman conquest. Thus, from the earliest days, the suspension of reason was required in the study of the sayings of that gentle man. The rise of religious authoritarianism began (and the parallel requirement of suspension of reason), Rome became the center of the Catholic (from the Greek, meaning Universal) Institution began, and according to Roman (secular) rule. The "magical" stories became "Romanized", and the conquest of the Northern European tribes took off. I suppose it wasn't all that tough to sell, since many of the conquered already believed in magical beings - and have since humanity developed the ability to reason. Something had to be honored for a victory, or blamed for a defeat. We all know (or should) the history after that process of Romanizing the Western world, which required the suspension of reason in favor of magical carryings on of innumerable deities. Sure, there were those who argued against this process through the ages, and they were repressed when encountered. When the Roman Christian Church went too far, a thousand years later, we wind up with the Reformation, which ditched Roman rule, but retained a lot of the magical stories, events, etc, which had served Rome so well. It was at least something to rebel against Rome peddling indulgences to forgive sins for a few coins more. Gradually, less structured belief-systems developed, all dependent on the suspension of reason, in favor of adhering to beliefs and practices promulgated by a "Roman-lite" institution. The Liturgical churches of today reside comfortably within that historical construct. Gradually, even these new Liturgical belief-systems - while discarding the most egregious of the Roman traditions - thus fostering the so-called Evangelical Movement - which has developed into what we what we see today. The problem is, there is simply no "anchor" of intellectual work involved in these Evangelical constructs - there is merely the emotional quotient left. There is no respect for any other belief-system, since only they can discern what the Deity desires. They fervently believe that they simply know without an scintilla of doubt, what the Deity wants. It's an easy "out' for them; all they have to do is listen to whatever they're told, practice it, and presto: Heaven awaits them. Thus, we find ourselves in a dilemma: We say we honor education (sometimes), and disregard it with the next breath. Some of us have inherited the concept of "I know, and you don't", so you don't count, and I do. Reason is abandoned. Respect for other viewpoints dissolves before our very eyes. Our powers of reason wind up in the trash can, in favor of forcing certain beliefs on everyone else. Consider the issue of medical treatment of women. How, in Whatever's name, can one group of people (oh - Evangelicals, for instance) simply believe they can force their religious beliefs onto everyone else? If someone believes abortion is wrong, ok - then don't get one. Leave others to make their own decisions. Have we devolved into a country of gangs, each the enemy of the others? Does reason not mean anything anymore? Evangelicals: I say let everyone believe what they believe, so long as they don't attempt to force their magic onto others just, as you apply your magical beliefs to yourselves. Evangelicalism has become a millstone around some folks necks, and that's ok with me if it's ok with them. Keep your beliefs to yourselves, and allow the courtesy of others to believe as they perceive. When it comes to secular issues, keep the magic to yourselves. This is a nation of religious freedom - extending to freedom from religion. Allow reason to exist. Allow our neighbors to live their lives, as you are allowed to live yours. Belief-systems are not a matter for Government, they're a matter of private reflection.

In the sense that she's equally "prepared" as Orange Julius,* it's possible that she might be more able to effect the policies of hate, division that O.J. has cemented into the minds of the so-called Righteous Right. These "Evangelicals" pay attention only to what their leaders - who, of course, are living high-on-the-hawg - have been shoveling down their evangelical throats for a long time. They pay little attention to the Original Message they claim to uphold. *credit: Bootman

Welcome, MountMe63 !! Sounds like you've got plenty to add to the various threads of conversation. We'll be looking for more from you.

Don't be concerned - all of us have gone through that. Let us hear more from you !!

Millions honor the concept of God. Many more millions world-wide detest that mistake-of-humanity. The fact that there are so-called "religious" persons who can stomach - let alone accept/endorse this merde is beyond all understanding. Maybe "God" is tired of it too, and sending the most bitter cold weather to Iowa tomorrow. Maybe things are a bit slow in "Heaven" these days, and "God" is going to send some folks to that warm place with the 7 rings ....... which makes more sense that anything in the above.

HAHAHAHAHAHA ...... You are simply a genius at coming up with hilarious nicknames !!! The oblique reference to Julius Caesar - with all his depravities - is simply delicious. If I were wearing one, I'd take my hat off to you !!!

I'm not a South Carolinian, nor a "conservative", and had little knowledge of Ms Haley until recently. So, I can't take a position on that question. What I can say however, is she was asked a fairly direct question, which she (for whatever reason) felt disinclined to answer, and simply parried, That showed precious little courage in addressing the grave error of the Southern States, which prompted the "slip & fall" OP. So, no. I don't believe her "response" was misunderstood, and the ambiguity with which it was delivered was a purposeful attempt to sidestep the opportunity to reply honestly. She even asked whoever the questioner was, "what do you want me to say about slavery"? That answer demonstrates only her disinclination to answer serious questions, for which there is no positive answer. She could hardly have been more clear. Ms. Haley is fairly nimble in her speaking ability: she didn't "misstate" - she was simply unwilling to answer honestly. That said, I don't expect to find much courage in the conservative party these past few years.

I took no offence at all in your responses: the discourse on various issues is why I come to BZ (well, a couple of other reasons too, I guess). I'm glad you were able to find, read, and respond to those earlier posts. Thanks again to moderator Viking for the instructions on how to do it.

Neither have I ...... absolutely yuck

no big deal .... probably just a matter of slippery (!) fingers ........... 😉

So, it seems it's the boy-wonder's turn in the crucible of fire-breathing magoid miscreants. He says he's trying to avoid a Govt shut-down in the coming days, communicating with Schumer, all of that - but the nut cases are insisting on their way or the fiscal highway re: a CR. We're watching, closet-boy ..... so is Kevin ...

According to State Law in Florida, sex between relatives is a third-degree felony, regardless of the age of participants. Merely the fact that they're biologically related is enough to prosecute. Some States have de-criminalized sex between adults of some degree of common descendants, but not here. Now. I think that argument is weak as water (when both are well past the age of majority), and resides mostly in a religious/culturally repressive milieu. That said, I think the scene you described is hotttt !!!

"Should incest be normalized?" This ^ is the original post, As is often the case, the thread has developed into a deeper issue: namely, serious child abuse. I have nothing against the "development" of a thread, and enjoy reading the responses. It was not specified if the prospective participants were boy/girl, boy/boy, girl/girl. To the original issue, once the prospective participants have reached the age of majority (as I included earlier), it's not the business of anyone to judge. There are many interesting viewpoints expressed, and one truly tragic experience. Doing so would only open the door even wider to judgements from disassociated "arbiters" of normalcy, which we - as gay men of a particularly delicious-yet-deeply-frowned-upon persuasion - should not enable. Since we've migrated to include those not of majority, I completely agree, whether biologically related or not, that it should never be tolerated. Those misguided souls who willfully wreak havoc on the emotional lives of minors should be punished to the greatest extent of the law. That kind of behavior is a moral outrage, akin to emotional murder.

Kudos, bottomdad123. Where would those guys be without your Hole? Where would the rest of us be without guys like you? We'd be one crabby lot, that's where.

ugh .... it's almost dinnertime, and I don't dare ... the description is simply perfectly vomatious .... and now I'm just not hungry anymore .... but at least I'm laughing !!

I don't mean to offend any religious guys, but - - - the sillier some of the propaganda is, the easier it is to reject, and hear the siren call of wanton raw sex. The notion of gold dishes buried somewhere in the mountains out East (I think?), or the holes sewn in the undies of the husbands - supposedly to make access to the balls easier for the "spirit-babies" constantly circling the earth, waiting for a pair of cojones to sneak into (and thus increase the population) is just begging to be laughed out of court.

I would avoid it, since it could lead to all kinds of accusations (regardless of what actually might happen) in the future. If a younger relative came to me asking for advice, how to navigate Aunt Bitch's reactions, Uncle Asshole, etc etc, I'd gladly offer what advice I could - from the chair on the other side of the room. In the case of brothers, however, I suppose it's only natural that sex is discussed between them as they grow up. If both turn out to be gay (I mean on their own, no coercion), then they're already close, so it might be unnatural to argue against it, once each reaches the age of majority.

Just had the opportunity to get back to this .... If ever there were a crystalline example of just how far down the garden path the "evangelicals" have been led by that hellish cretin, this mish-mash of garbage points the way.

I'm going to get the fire extinguisher ready before I click "play" .....

Oh wow - Thanks so much, viking8x6 !!!!!!! Computers can do so much, but only if you know how to tell them what to do !! I'm going to save your instructions - write them down in cursive if I have to .... Many thanks !!!