hntnhole

You and me both !!! Watching a hot, hungry-holed bottom get pumped full of loads by other Cocks only pours gas on the fire for me. Tastes all the better too.

We barebackers are a fascinating lot, right? What turns one guy into a veritable breeding machine turns the next guy into a disinterested "no thanks". And the best part is, we can be mannerly and caring about whether or not our particular interests are stroked or not. There's room for every guy to get fuck/get fucked just how he needs to, and no guy needs to feel "less-than" about his particular needs. The really cool thing is, there's exactly the right "other half" for all of us out there, maybe not every time, but enough times to make it well worthwhile. All we need to do is show up.

Welcome, cumaddict619 Here's a sincere reply: You don't mention whether or not you've taken the necessary preventative steps to avoid serious illness. Since you've been exercising your Lusts for 10 years, it's difficult to believe that you haven't taken loads off "u+" guys, and plenty of them. In the event you're not on PReP, by all means get on it. You can get it through the mail, if that's important to you. Get tested for the other, marginally less-serious bugs out there, and do that regularly. Most of the suppliers require a 3-month regimen, but monthly testing can catch bugs earlier, get them treated, which is all for the better. Since you're in San Diego, I'm guessing that a rich banquet of Seafaring Rawfuckers will be a large and steady portion of your sexual diet. Keep us apprised of your adventures !!!

It occurs that there are a couple of "types" of drag: the so-called "skag-drag" with clown-like makeup, enormous balloon-tits, loud clashing colors, silly wigs, all of that. There is nothing inherently "sexual" at all about this type of drag (excluding, perhaps, the potty-mouthed jokes). There is also a type of drag wherein the performer actually emulates a real woman, which takes an enormous amount of dedication and hard work. I recall sitting in The Baton drag bar down on Clark St* in Chicago, which featured both types. When the second type of performer - impersonating a real woman - was onstage, surprisingly often it was simply impossible to see anything but a real woman. I knew it was a boy physiologically, but the male presence onstage was completely gone, and only the "female" present. Graceful, elegant, beautifully dressed, all the feminine mannerisms were perfect. In the case of these professional female impersonators, I might understand how "dangerous" straights might find these people. In that sense, the second type - often billed not as "drag performers", but as "female impersonators" - can easily be an affront to the straights, in that a talented f.i. might be able to fool a straight man. Imagine a straight man's rage if his Cock got hard for a female impersonator !! The clown-like first type of drag can't possibly threaten anyone, but the second "female impersonator" type might. * interestingly, directly across the street from the famous Leatherbar ... The Gold Coast. I know that there are some who consider wearing the hides merely another type of drag, however mistaken that may be.

This is an interesting and complex issue, isn't it? All of us that have sex with other gay men regularly understand that taking precautions are the responsibility of the individual. We also know that some guys don't recognize that as an important issue, which means each of us that do take health issues seriously have decisions to make, issues to come to terms with. What it comes down to is, each guy has to decide for himself what level of risk he's willing to take, and regulate his sexual behavior accordingly. While interesting, this thread raises the issue of exactly whose responsibility it is to share information. I have no idea what the bareback action is in your area, but where I live, we fuck guys without knowing or caring what their name is, and then move on to the next one. How much information is a trick entitled to? That can only be answered by the individual guy, given the inclination to do so. Frankly, I think it's asking a bit much of his potential partners, if he asks to see official proof of this or that, but then I don't know the lay of the land re; gay hookups) where he lives either. Topics like this are the reason I enjoy BZ so much, and thanks to all you guys that have been sharing your thoughts.

Then, each guy goes his separate way. Each guy can ask whatever he wants to ask. I'm guessing though, that kind of question - asking to see the piece of paper from the medical testing facility proving nothing more that on x date prior, the guy tested negative - would be considered intrusive by the questioned guy. Point: if it's ok for a guy to ask another for personal information, and prove it, it's just as ok for the questioned guy to simply ignore the questioner and walk away.

I've noticed this too. It seems that every few decades, the instinct to destroy "the other" surfaces in the general populations everywhere. While centuries ago, the actual damage to humanity was limited to small areas, these days there are weapons that can wipe out entire continents in an eyeblink, rendering huge swaths of the globe a smoldering, infertile cinder for a thousand years. It's unsettling.

Neither have I. The very notion of carrying a folded up report in my back pocket when I'm out in the backrooms/fuckjoints, proving that at some certain moment prior, I had tested negative is nuts. Just because earlier that month I had tested negative for the lesser infections doesn't mean that I didn't pick up some bug in the preceding few nights. Protection, at whatever level an individual guy deems appropriate, is that guy's business, which applies to every other guy equally.

I agree. While asking someone to get tested prior to meeting up, the implication of that question is a bit much. What seems to me to most effective would be making sure you've taken all the precautions yourself. Asking another guy to get tested may not be illegal or immoral, but it definitely puts him on the defensive, rather than an equal footing with you. Once you've taken all the precautions yourself, and can offer proof of negative tests for the lesser, treatable infections, you'd at least be able to answer the other guy's equally-reasoned request for your own "proof". What you don't mention, is whether the guy is a prospective boyfriend/husband/buddy (implying some kind of ongoing relationship) or a hook-up that you may never see again. I agree that asking that question is neither illegal or immoral, but it does seem to be a bit pushy. Good luck.

Mr. Bootman, Aside from the uplifting commentary - with which I agree completely - I simply must mention that your exceptional gift for satire, use of alliteration, composition of nick-names is a gift that keeps on giving. I laugh throughout the day, doing chores, whatever, as snippets of your phraseology pass through my mind again. Thanks for your magnificent observations, doled out in such a winning way.

Agreed ... this one's pretty good .... most of the guys hadn't been fooling with razors, nicely built, but not musclegods, some "eyecandy ink", Every guy just doing what cums naturally.

While true, that doesn't mean she wasn't "pro LGBT". All it means is that LGBT Community was not under direct threat by some on the other side of the aisle. All it means is, there were other issues that the candidates were taking stances on, because the repressionists weren't coming after us like they are today. Political candidates develop/take positions that don't address the current issues of the day, in the effort to garner more votes than the other candidate(s). Sure, there were those who hated us - there always have been - but Clinton wasn't faced with these issues at the time. She, and other candidates were taking stances on the pressing issues of their election cycles. Both the Clintons had addressed the issue of gay rights, and in an affirmative way previously. As the various issues arise, candidates state their positions when those issues become predominant in the political discourse.

I am reminded of a hookup in a filthy store-front type porn theatre on Wells St in Chicago called the Bijou Theatre. Rumor was it was owned/operated by the Cincy mob, and the owner would up being shot to death in a parking lot a few doors south, but I digress. In the johns, most of the fucking took place (several years later, it was expanded to include the second floor, but this took place before that expansion) in the two very small johns in back. There was a smallish cruising area between the theatre and the johns, and I was sniffing around a guy, he me, and we went back to one of the johns to fuck. After that, we chatted a bit, and he seemed to be a decent guy. I was done and so was he, so we left together. Outside, we continued to talk, and it turned out he was a Lutheran pastor. Being raised in that particular institution myself, I was curious to know how he was able to juggle what the church taught about gay folk, gay sex, etc, and how he has just taken my load up his gut. The guy was an honest joe - he told me how he struggled trying to get some small measure of comfort between the juggernaut of the soul-crushing Lutheran position, and his gayness. He tried and tried to come up with something meaningful to say, and I felt badly that he simply couldn't. Here was a very good man, so inclined to doing good, in fact, that he took the pastoral collar. I felt so sorry for him, as he was caught between to immovable objects. It seemed that a wonderful man was being completely wasted by trying to make the world a better place, and the profession he chose simply wouldn't have it. We parted, and as I turned around to wave bye, he was just standing there watching me walk towards my car. I felt so sorry for him, for the choices he'd made, for the angst he felt each time he got his Truth fucked up his gut. The fuck was great - the guy was great - but the resulting angst (for him) was heartbreaking. While I'm sure it's happened any number of times since in the fuckjoints, I wouldn't knowingly fuck a cleric again. Too painful.

Really .... thanks for surfacing, ShyCubbyBottom. As you well know, all kind of viewpoints are expressed here, and we hope you let us hear more from you. Every guy get's an equal voice. And if you're not already, please protect your health. You can get it through the mail if you prefer. Easy.

I think it's because our refusal to "toe their cultural line", which is interpreted as flipping them (and their values) off. It's interpreted as dissing them. It's interpreted as marginalizing the already extant sense of marginalization. They think gay folk are beneath them, and we know we aren't - we're merely equal to them. Thus, the Republican interest in repressing not only gays, but other groups they feel is beneath them on the social order. I am not alluding to the validity of the conservative viewpoint; there are liberal/conservative parties in nations across the globe, and they usually managed to work together to advance the lives of their citizens. We can do our best to work with them, as equal citizens, and try our best to achieve small advancements in caring for the welfare of all our citizens. We must vote in every single election. Proof positive has been amply demonstrated that the down-ballot elections matter tremendously. Take part in local politics. Let our voices be heard, and not in an antagonizing way. We can set an example in the practice of citizenship. Thanks for the questions. I hope other guys respond as well.

To my mind, the source of this discontent has been around for over 150 years now. It's only in the very recent past that those clinging to disappointments, envies, jealousies, grievances, have crawled out from the rocks they've been steeping under for that century and a half. It's only lately that these above-referenced "moderate Republicans" have felt emboldened enough to be so open about their self-serving views, caught up in the truly ignorant platitudes of the amazingly dull "legislators" doing absolutely nothing to advance that Moral Arc of the Universe that bends towards Justice. The odd thing is, once the mindset of at least attempting to be part of the "Greater We" fades away, thus laying their mis-directed sorrows bare, the urge to rip everyone and everything apart can take hold. It's almost unimaginable that one of the major political parties has not advanced one single piece of legislation that might stand a chance of at least smoothing things over, if not actually ameliorate some of the more egregious wrongs. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Hello, marum, and welcome. Per the above, the interests of Big Business are paramount to all elected officials, and to those seeking office. This is the very deep well from which they get their multi-millions in "seed money" to run ads in major media, hold rallies, etc. While the liberal/progressive legislators are generally more inclusive in their outlook, many are still a bit behind-the-times in forward-looking political decisions. The conservatives have chosen to limit their outreach for dollars (and votes) to the less educated, less responsible, and obviously less caring of their fellow citizens. These "conservatives" in the general population are more concerned with preserving their imagine preeminence in the cultural life of the US, and care little for the trials and hardships of "the other". Yes, there are gay conservatives, but they are Conservatives first, and gay secondly. Thus, and by default, the "group of interest representing us" is the closest thing we have to a political "home". Given that the liberal party has many other groups and sub-groups in their fold, the resources are spread over a wider pool of recipients. There are so many groups that desperately need representation, the effect of getting attention seems to get watered down, compared to the conservatives. The obvious answer for us, is to take part in the political life, as 'out' gay men, be recognized and thus a valued component of the so-called Progressive Wing of the liberal party, and no bird I've ever heard of has that many wings. It seems more and more clear these days, that one political party is looking backwards far more than the other, but it's simply not the 1950's anymore. What were clearly defined limits then, are fading away, which is what we call "progress", socially, culturally, and as citizens. That progress cannot be made, however, unless the majority of all the citizens agree on certain basic principles like respect for others, respect for oneself, listening to other's viewpoints as well as offering our own. No, it was not impossible. In fact, we got really close to that. An acceptance of others as-they-are was the order of the day, and quietly accepted even by the conservatives that never believed it in the first place. But greed, jealousy, self-interest over the welfare of everyone took hold unfortunately, and may again rear it's hideous head. When a group of citizens fears are pandered to by a con-man, then the forward progress - I mean culturally - can easily be arrested. But fear is a powerful thing when let loose, as we're seeing all around us in the US. The only sense I can make of this issue, is the creation of a non-existent "threat" in the minds of straights, regarding their children. No parent, regardless of political connection, wants their child to be exposed to "sexualization" or drugs. The way I see it, no parent should be forced into anything, or kid forced into anything sexual or drug-related. The problem arises when poorly-educated parents seem think that their kids learning about other groups of people have differing thoughts about what is right and proper for everyone else's kids. Parents get to teach their own kids what's right and wrong, and so does every other parent. No one gets to decide for others what is "right" or "wrong". Thanks for the post.

Eating Hole ...

For a beginner, I would suggest one of deerskin, and fairly short - 2, maybe 3' lengths. A 16 or 18 fall flogger would be a good place for beginner to start. And, never consider an SM scene like this without the required negotiation.

Welcome, cummmmhole. We look forward to hearing more from you.

Sure I do .... Santa, the Great Pumpkin, ufo's too ...........

Actually, I'm considering that too. I have 3: the regular type in the fuckroom, a slingstand outside in the back yard (I don't keep the actual sling for that one outside, obviously), and a portable, heavy-gauge steel slingstand w/standard leather sling in the garage. It took me a couple of years to get everything settled back in Chgo when I relocated, bought a small condo while all of the stuff was sold there. No extra room at all, so I just bought one that disassembles easily. Haven't used that one in years now. Somehow, I don't think a run-of-the-mill garage sale would turn the trick though.🙄

I've read and re-read the article; I don't see anything suggesting that the actual virus - in and of itself - carries any physical power to induce, influence, expand, or otherwise affect or create a deeper lust for wanton sex than existed prior. What I do see is that becoming hiv positive can alter the behavior, meaning that something like "it's already happened, so I might as well get as much as I can" type of outlook. That is easy to understand.

As far as I know, that is the single most crucial thing about a relationship. Honest communication. No judgements, just honest communication. Kudos, and the best of luck !!

Well said. There's also the possibility that some guys simply weren't raised with any manners. If that's so, and they've never bothered to realize/try to remedy that fact, the default reaction could be defensive aggression. Another possibility is that they're feeling shamed, and lash out from a sense of insecurity. I'm no shrink, but what's so wrong with treating others with some measure of respect as the default setting?