Would you respect a neg bottom's wishes?

[not_sure_bb]

i didnt know i had an option to tell the TOP he cant cum in my hole.

[ridemehard]

There are so many bottoms out there that the top can fuck. Take the dick, take the cum. Be happy that he chose to unload in you.

There are so many bottoms out there that the top can fuck. Take the dick, take the cum. Be happy that he chose to unload in you.

[Guest 24collegekid420]

If you take a raw cock expect to be fucked full of cum. I do.

[maryann]

On 5/8/2010 at 3:14 AM, submissivefaggot said:

My philosophy is that I have no choice over whether a top cums in me or not, though I do always ask if they're neg or not. Even so, there have been a couple of occasions where during the fuck I've changed my mind and the top has rightly told me to shut up and take it.

I agree with submissivefaggot on this,,,  as a bottom I have no choice once a guy is on top of me.... it's the risk I take as a bottom giving up control of my ass to the top..

Had a top bend me over a stool in the local Adult Bookstore and when i tried to hand him a condom he just pushed my hand away ... and took my ass raw.. at that point I knew I hand to submit to his will... and the feeling of not knowing if he was going to get me pregnant was so exciting for me.

 

[Seedyfun]

If you take raw cock, then whether or not your Top comes in you only slightly changes the risk of STI.  The risk does not  only come from cum, so much as friction caused by skin on skin penetration.  You will probably have pre-cum inside you anyway.  Part of the joy of taking it raw is to have him cum inside you anyway (at least it is for me).

[TwinkChaserSlut]

On 1/24/2011 at 11:16 PM, sateme said:

It all depends on timing. If a bottom doesn't want it raw, be upfront about it and let me know before we've met. I only fuck bareback and never pull out and I make sure any guy who wants to be on the receiving end of my cock knows that. If that doesn't work for him, no hard feelings. But if we've met up or, worse, I already have my dick in his ass, that bottom may change his mind, but it doesn't change the outcome of my load in his hole. I know what I want; if the bottom can't make up his mind, he'll get what I want.

That's amazing man. I would love to hear you moan & feel you throb as you bust.

[TwinkChaserSlut]

On 3/8/2014 at 11:25 PM, utopmeinohio said:

Before I was open to taking loads I was always upfront that I was neg and only played safe. I was amazed at how many guys would try to start without the rubber on, or try to persuade me to let them fuck me raw. I would hear "I promise I'll pull out", or "just let me start" or "just the tip". I soon realized that once you let a guy start, there was no stopping him. And quite frankly, I didn't want them to stop either.

Did any of them get to bust inside? If so, how many?

[ErosWired]

This necrothread from 13 years ago has resurfaced in a time since we have become more conscious of consent, so I have trouble with the premise of the question - not just asking a Top whether he would honor a neg bottom’s request, but any bottom’s request not to cum inside him. To say that one has no intention of honoring consent is equivalent to saying that one intends to act on nonconsent. And that’s indefensible.

That being said, I believe a bottom cannot have his cake and eat it too. To take raw cock is to accept another man’s bodily fluids inside. Period. It’s unavoidable. Even if the fluid is only a leak of precum, there is no physical way either man can prevent that exchange in a bare situation. And exposure to any amount of fluid presents the risk of STD exposure.

So what, then, does the bottom who takes it bare up his cunt hope to avoid by denying a full ejaculation? He has already rolled the dice on the health risk, and they can’t be unrolled. He’s already been cunted, and that definitely can’t be undone. What does he imagine he preserves by keeping his cunt free of semen? Dignity? Masculinity? Pride? Don’t make me laugh. It’s just a bait-and-switch with little practical purpose, and I believe that if a bottom is going to put that drive in a Top in gear, he has an obligation to let the motor run.

 

[Guest]

On 4/24/2023 at 10:25 AM, ErosWired said:

This necrothread from 13 years ago has resurfaced in a time since we have become more conscious of consent, so I have trouble with the premise of the question - not just asking a Top whether he would honor a neg bottom’s request, but any bottom’s request not to cum inside him. To say that one has no intention of honoring consent is equivalent to saying that one intends to act on nonconsent. And that’s indefensible.

That being said, I believe a bottom cannot have his cake and eat it too. To take raw cock is to accept another man’s bodily fluids inside. Period. It’s unavoidable. Even if the fluid is only a leak of precum, there is no physical way either man can prevent that exchange in a bare situation. And exposure to any amount of fluid presents the risk of STD exposure.

So what, then, does the bottom who takes it bare up his cunt hope to avoid by denying a full ejaculation? He has already rolled the dice on the health risk, and they can’t be unrolled. He’s already been cunted, and that definitely can’t be undone. What does he imagine he preserves by keeping his cunt free of semen? Dignity? Masculinity? Pride? Don’t make me laugh. It’s just a bait-and-switch with little practical purpose, and I believe that if a bottom is going to put that drive in a Top in gear, he has an obligation to let the motor run.

 

Yes, I agree 100%.

[BootmanLA]

On 4/24/2023 at 12:25 PM, ErosWired said:

So what, then, does the bottom who takes it bare up his cunt hope to avoid by denying a full ejaculation? He has already rolled the dice on the health risk, and they can’t be unrolled. He’s already been cunted, and that definitely can’t be undone. What does he imagine he preserves by keeping his cunt free of semen? Dignity? Masculinity? Pride? Don’t make me laugh. It’s just a bait-and-switch with little practical purpose, and I believe that if a bottom is going to put that drive in a Top in gear, he has an obligation to let the motor run.

I agree with the rest of your post, 100%: consent is consent, and violating consent is morally, if not always legally, rape.

But the key point is: you negate that by imposing an "obligation" (your word) to let the Top "let the motor run", which I take as meaning "cum inside you". What you're saying is that regardless of what the bottom consented to, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else might find it silly, from a sexual risk standpoint, the bottom has the obligation to let the top cum inside. That's bullshit.

[VistaCaBB]

My first time the Top said he had condoms and we had agreed to that though email many days before. He was older and I was in my teens and hadn't done anything with anyone only using brush handles on myself before.  Fast forward to the meet and we had been making out on his couch sucking each other and whatnot and when it came time to fuck he went to the bathroom to get a condom and then came back saying his brother must of taken the last one.  He said he understood if I wanted to stop but also that if I let him fuck me he will pull out before cumming. I know now I got played and it was a lie him knowing I would not want to stop and I said yes that is okay.   Anyways I am laying on his bed face down doggie and he is going at it.  A few times he said he wasn't close and not to worry.  The pain was bearable but I had my face in the pillow kinda biting on it as his pace was nothing I had ever done to myself.  Eventually he said he was getting closer and asked if I still wanted him to pull out. I didn't really say anything but nodded my head a little.  Again he said this time he is super close and I just mumbled in the pillow and he started to pulse and twitch.  I picked up my head and said yes pull out but it was mostly too late.  

I've also talked bottoms into the whole Just the tip and while I have always respected their wishes it might take a few seconds longer than they are comfortable with to comply. 

Looking back I would not do anything different.  I am glad my first time was bare and I got cummed in. Bottoms if your gonna say pull out give them plenty of notice. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by VistaCaBB

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I agree with the rest of your post, 100%: consent is consent, and violating consent is morally, if not always legally, rape.

But the key point is: you negate that by imposing an "obligation" (your word) to let the Top "let the motor run", which I take as meaning "cum inside you". What you're saying is that regardless of what the bottom consented to, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else might find it silly, from a sexual risk standpoint, the bottom has the obligation to let the top cum inside. That's bullshit.

Don’t misunderstand me - consent is always the trump card, and no means no. My suggestion was that once the consent is given, the bottom assumes a responsibility as an equal participant in the engagement. The bottom, by giving consent, by allowing penetration, by letting the Top experience the rush of pleasurable sensation that accompanies entry into the warm, wet space, is the agent whereby a series of cascading physical/biochemical and psychological processes are begun, with potent effects on the Top. For the bottom to then change the parameters mid-course places an unreasonable burden on the sexual partner to cope with physical reactions that are counter to his body’s natural progression.

The question might be asked, “What if cumming inside wasn’t discussed in advance? Doesn’t the bottom have a reasonable excuse at that point to make the request?” This is where I make my point. You say ‘from a sexual risk standpoint’,  but my argument is that the bottom has a positive responsibility to assess his sexual risk before deciding whether to take a bare cock; one he’s taken it inside, he’s past the point of proactively protecting himself from sexual risk. The risk has now been incurred, to some degree. The more he lets the fuck go on, and especially if he waits until the Top is close and draining precum into him like a faucet, to ask him not to cum inside, the request is simply pointless from a sexual risk perspective.

There is essentially no such thing as bareback sex without fluid exchange, so any bottom making the decision to accept bare cock is de facto choosing to accept fluid exchange. It’s simply a question of degree at that point, but at any point post-penetration, a risk has been incurred. Therefore, any point at which a bottom may be getting cunted and then think, ‘okay, that’s enough risk for this fuck’ fails to realize how arbitrary and baseless such a decision is, and clearly has no concept of the nature of risk. The Top isn’t safe-except-for-his-semen; if he’s carrying an STD, there are other vectors of transmission, depending on the pathogen.

So my argument is that if a bottom is going to consciously choose the path of risk, and entice another person to participate, there is some responsibility to follow through in his decision.

A secondary consideration is the nature of the activity itself - bareback sex. As an expression of the make reproductive function, its natural progression points in a single direction; any other outcome runs contrary to instinct, and, sentient as we are, during a rut, there is undeniably a force of instinct at work in a Top. A responsible bottom always has to take this into consideration from before making the decision to seek cock, all the way to determining what position to take a seeding. The imperative to inseminate is always hovering in the room, whether the pair has chosen at the outset to act on it or not.

No bottom is ever under any obligation to permit access to his body - and I commend that universally. I realize that a suggestion of obligation at any point seems to contradict that, but we all have obligations to one another within the framework of the social contract that allows society to function. There is a give-and-take that enables the equity and parity that prevents anarchy overall, and facilitates individual relationships. Sexual interaction is not immune to these equations.

 I fully admit that I write my argument from an apostatic position - even as I declare that no bottom ever has any obligation to give a Top access to his body, I do not believe that universality applies to me personally. I readily accept that this may be irrational, but I hold the belief firmly, and cannot dismiss it, that any man may enjoy my body if an when he wishes. I have not only an obligation, but a duty. You clearly consider this ‘silly’ - I discount your opinion as presumptive, uninformed and lacking in perspective. Come back after you’ve spent six years being physically and psychologically conditioned by a Sadist, and we’ll see what you call ‘silly’.

[BootmanLA]

22 hours ago, ErosWired said:

So my argument is that if a bottom is going to consciously choose the path of risk, and entice another person to participate, there is some responsibility to follow through in his decision.

I think this is where we disagree, as I firmly believe consent can be withdrawn at any time. It may make personal interactions difficult - no top, I'm sure, enjoys being encouraged to 'let his motor run' and then being forced to kill the engine - but at no point, in my view, does the top earn the right to 'cross the finish line' inside regardless of any change in the bottom's consent.

22 hours ago, ErosWired said:

 I fully admit that I write my argument from an apostatic position - even as I declare that no bottom ever has any obligation to give a Top access to his body, I do not believe that universality applies to me personally. I readily accept that this may be irrational, but I hold the belief firmly, and cannot dismiss it, that any man may enjoy my body if an when he wishes. I have not only an obligation, but a duty. You clearly consider this ‘silly’ - I discount your opinion as presumptive, uninformed and lacking in perspective. Come back after you’ve spent six years being physically and psychologically conditioned by a Sadist, and we’ll see what you call ‘silly’.

I don't think your position is silly at all. As I see it, you've made a choice - whether conditioned or not - to allow any top who wants to breed you. And I say "made a choice" because the option always exists, should you wish, to de-condition yourself (with therapy or otherwise) from that stance; and that's not suggesting you SHOULD, just that it's possible to do. That choice you've made, under whatever conditioning, is yours to make, and it's not for me to call it silly or anything else.

[ErosWired]

32 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

I think this is where we disagree, as I firmly believe consent can be withdrawn at any time. It may make personal interactions difficult - no top, I'm sure, enjoys being encouraged to 'let his motor run' and then being forced to kill the engine - but at no point, in my view, does the top earn the right to 'cross the finish line' inside regardless of any change in the bottom's consent.

I don’t disagree, and I’m not suggesting that the Top has earned a right to finish by starting - only that the bottom, having made his choice at the outset, has an obligation not to be arbitrary in changing the rules of engagement.

 I say that if a man (we’re not boys) decides to undertake this, his very first responsibility is to know what he’s getting into, what his risk is, and what his choice is regarding that risk. There should be no need for last-minute changes-of-mind that have little or no bearing on the actual risk, because he should have been prepared for the risk before he ever took the cock.

That’s not to say people aren’t idiots. There are millions of them, who don’t think before they act. Yes, therefore, stop always means stop, and no always means no. But it ought never to be an issue between men responsible for their own decisions.

Edited April 29, 2023 by ErosWired

[ErosWired]

35 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

the option always exists, should you wish, to de-condition yourself (with therapy or otherwise) from that stance; and that's not suggesting you SHOULD, just that it's possible to do.

That would make for an interesting debate in its own context.