Do you still cum in a bottom who asks you to pull out?

[hntnhole]

That was in response to a page or two earlier in this thread ... 

[fskn]

The original question was descriptive: "Do you still cum in a bottom who asks you to pull out?"

Wouldn't it make sense for people who like debating ethics, law, rape and so on to start a separate, normative thread?

I feel as if I were reading Anita Bryant's newsletter! I reject:

1. The assumption that cumming inside a bottom necessarily carries a health risk. Come on, we are barebackers! If any group of people is informed about, and attends to, sexual health, it is us.

I don't go around willfully nutting without consent inside bareback bottoms, but if ever I did lose control and fail to pull out in such a case, I would definitely not be exposing the person to HIV. I've been using Truvada for PrEP since 2013 and take it daily, without fail. Similarly, the majority of Poz tops are on ART and have an undetectable viral load; empirical research established long ago that undetectable = untransmissible.

My exposing the bottom to an STI (beyond the baseline risk from skin-to-skin contact and fluid exchange before ejaculation) is highly unlikely. I have had all available STI vaccinations and I get tested every month for other common STIs, so the number of days that I might have an undiagnosed STI is small.

Why do bareback enthusiasts repeat (and thereby, amplify) the false assumptions of heteros? Maybe some harms do result from an unwanted insemination, but with responsible bareback tops, health harms do not. Once we ditch the shame and grant our own community credit for decades of sexual health activism and practice, the stakes in this debate become much smaller.

2. Denial of physiological reality re: ejaculation timing. Yes, consent can be withdrawn, but the top's body operates under physiological limits. Orgasm and ejaculation are processes with a long build-up but a very quick end.

If you cancel an Amazon order immediately after placing it, the cancellation always succeeds. If you wait until Amazon is "Preparing for shipping", you get a warning that the cancellation might or might not succeed.

After the build-up, ejaculation is on a hair-trigger. Bottoms who withdraw consent will get better results if they do so early. It's stupid to stake this debate on the fact that consent can be withdrawn at any time. Yes, a bottom can withdraw consent at any time, but no, it might be too late for the top to delay ejaculation and pull out.

3. The innocent, hapless bottom versus evil, wanton top dichotomy. Unforeseen events are possible in sex as in any other activity. PrEP, and vaccinations against HPV, Hepatitis A, and Hepatitis B, have been available for years. If commentators held bottoms to the same standards of responsibility as tops, the stakes in the debate would be further reduced. Again, maybe some harms do result from an unwanted insemination, but with responsible bareback bottoms, health harms do not.

[BootmanLA]

34 minutes ago, fskn said:

I reject:

1. The assumption that cumming inside a bottom necessarily carries a health risk. ...

2. Denial of physiological reality re: ejaculation timing. ...

3. The innocent, hapless bottom versus evil, wanton top dichotomy. ...

Fskn, the problem I see here is that you're operating under the assumption that the reason a bottom asks the top not to cum inside him is for safety, and that it's not always possible to be 100% safe.

But that's not the point.

The point is, the bottom is an autonomous, living, breathing person with the right to control his body. If he consents to being fucked with the express understanding that the top will not ejaculate inside, then that's the terms of the deal. Violating that - whether the top is negative or not, whether he "lost control" or not, whether the top is good or evil, is all beside the point.

If I tell you you can't cum inside me, and you do, you've violated my consent. Period.

With respect to the "physiological reality": a man should know how to recognize his impending orgasm, and be able to stop short of that. If he finds himself unable to stop, that's not a "physiological reality"; that's a "I fucked longer than I should have allowed myself to and ignored the warning signs that I was getting close." And yes, it happens, but the responsibility for that LIES WITH THE TOP.

And as I've said a hundred times before: no, a top isn't being forced to pull out. He can pass that particular bottom by, and find one eager to take his load, Bottoms are a dime a dozen and even good, quality ones are pretty easy to find. 

Now, I do agree that a bottom who waits until the top is just about to cum to demand "pull out, pull out" is unlikely to get the results he wants. But I don't think most of this thread has been about that. From the very first post, this has been about guys who ask UP FRONT for the top not to ejaculate inside, and that very first post was about how the OP gets around that. And top after top on this thread has (fap material or not) talked about how if he gets inside he's going to cum inside regardless of what the bottom wanted. Fuck that.

[backdoorjimmy]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

The point is, the bottom is an autonomous, living, breathing person with the right to control his body. If he consents to being fucked with the express understanding that the top will not ejaculate inside, then that's the terms of the deal. Violating that - whether the top is negative or not, whether he "lost control" or not, whether the top is good or evil, is all beside the point.

If I tell you you can't cum inside me, and you do, you've violated my consent. Period.

With respect to the "physiological reality": a man should know how to recognize his impending orgasm, and be able to stop short of that. If he finds himself unable to stop, that's not a "physiological reality"; that's a "I fucked longer than I should have allowed myself to and ignored the warning signs that I was getting close." And yes, it happens, but the responsibility for that LIES WITH THE TOP.

Once again you've expertly stated what I wanted to say but haven't been able to find the words to express - a bottom is a human being with agency. I keep reading posts from people on here, tops and bottoms, who say otherwise. And if that's how they feel, I won't bother arguing because I can't wrap my head around that mindset. But the bottom line (no pun intended) is that as a bottom, I decide who to open my legs for and whose load to take.

For the record, I've never denied a load. But if I'm with a top and we agree beforehand that he won't cum in my ass, he better pull out before he cums. If he doesn't, I'm well within my rights to hold him accountable. Either with a prolonged shot of pepper spray to the eyes and nose or by reporting him to the police. If he doesn't have the restraint needed to pull out before he nuts inside me, he should tell me he's not interested before he puts his dick in my ass.

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

And as I've said a hundred times before: no, a top isn't being forced to pull out. He can pass that particular bottom by, and find one eager to take his load, Bottoms are a dime a dozen and even good, quality ones are pretty easy to find. 

Exactly. Apps like grindr and Scruff are swimming with bottoms like me who take loads. If one of us says no, move on to the next one. Don't be a dick about it.

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

Now, I do agree that a bottom who waits until the top is just about to cum to demand "pull out, pull out" is unlikely to get the results he wants.

Yep - this constitutes "withdrawing consent" after the fact. It's like saying, "Now that I've sucked your dick and swallowed your load, I've changed my mind."

It's a BS tactic and bottoms who do this deserve to be called out for being shitty people. On the other hand, if the top still manages to pull out and shoots his load all over the bottom's stomach or back, he's a hell of a top in my opinion.

[ErosWired]

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

We are bottoms because we are the lowest of life forms.

You appear to be confusing bottoms with lowest animal life forms, belonging to the phylum porifera, the sponges. I can understand the possible confusion; members of porifera are characterized by their ability to allow fluids to enter and exit their bodies through a number of relatively large pores or orifices. As far as that goes, one must acknowledge a passing resemblance.

Aside from that, however, I’m afraid I can’t subscribe to your philosophy. I freely admit that I’m sexually submissive to men, that I suffer myself to be regularly cunted like a breeding animal, and even that there is a man who at this moment possesses a formal deed granting him ownership of my physical body for his use and pleasure. But I reject any claim that I am a lower form of life simply because my place is to serve.

 In fact, I would strongly discourage that kind of self-description, because it’s the very sort of thing that a man of a certain predatory type might use to justify his actions.

The sentiment you express is not universally held. If you speak as though it is, be prepared to be corrected. We are not sponges.

[BootmanLA]

46 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

 

You quoted me in the post above, but the words you quoted are from another user. I would absolutely never make a sweeping, categorical statement like that (and in fact, that's the kind of fucking bullshit I repeatedly call out here).

I'm assuming you meant to respond to the fapper extraordinaire who made the original posting referring to "lowest of life forms" and mistakenly quoted me instead.

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

You quoted me in the post above, but the words you quoted are from another user. I would absolutely never make a sweeping, categorical statement like that (and in fact, that's the kind of fucking bullshit I repeatedly call out here).

I'm assuming you meant to respond to the fapper extraordinaire who made the original posting referring to "lowest of life forms" and mistakenly quoted me instead.

I’m not sure what happened there - yes, naturally it wasn’t you I was quoting, but rather the poster to whom you had responded. I must have drawn the quoted matter from the quoted block within your reply - it’s unfortunate that the system appears to forwardly-attribute quoted matter to the quoter. My apologies for the confusion. Something quite similar happened with me just a day or two ago when I found myself assigned someone else’s words.

[ronnie4u]

On 1/31/2022 at 9:47 PM, Faggotuser said:

Dumpsters get dumped in. That’s their purpose. What am I gonna do next, not piss in a toilet or not throw my garbage in the trash?

So Fucking Beautiful and HOT - giving me a Erection - Hungry again to breed others !

[hntnhole]

13 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

If I tell you you can't cum inside me, and you do, you've violated my consent. Period.

Obviously.  The root of the question though, is when the Top is made aware.  We are men who need sex with other men, we have what some other men need, and they have what we need.  

The problem is, "consent" or "non-consent" to fill the guy up should (or I would even say "must") come before the fuck (preferably), or shortly after it commences.  If a bottom says "gimme the load" and then waits until the very last instant before he gets it, and suddenly says "no - I didn't mean it - I don't want the load - pull out" then I find that an abrogation of the limits first agreed upon.  Bareback Tops don't exist to cater to bareback bottoms that think they can run the scene, alter the terms from second-to-second.  That's irresponsible, manipulative, and anything but fair.  Bottoms that try a maneuver like that are more into trying to "Top-from-the-bottom" than a sexual exchange.  Bottoms are only 1/2 of the breeding calculus - and trying to co-opt the Top's half is unacceptable.

To be clear:  When in a 1-1 situation, I ask where he wants the load before I shove it to him.  Then, when I'm razor-edge close, I tell him something like "now it's time to Breed" ..." or "now I'm gonna make you one of my boys" ... or something like that.  He's already had chances to decide, and when it's too late to alter the impending event, it's just too damn late. 

Obviously, in the fuckjoints, this subject wouldn't even rise to the level of discussing the weather ... let alone anything else for that matter.

[BootmanLA]

19 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

Obviously.  The root of the question though, is when the Top is made aware.  We are men who need sex with other men, we have what some other men need, and they have what we need.  

The problem is, "consent" or "non-consent" to fill the guy up should (or I would even say "must") come before the fuck (preferably), or shortly after it commences.  If a bottom says "gimme the load" and then waits until the very last instant before he gets it, and suddenly says "no - I didn't mean it - I don't want the load - pull out" then I find that an abrogation of the limits first agreed upon.  Bareback Tops don't exist to cater to bareback bottoms that think they can run the scene, alter the terms from second-to-second.  That's irresponsible, manipulative, and anything but fair.  Bottoms that try a maneuver like that are more into trying to "Top-from-the-bottom" than a sexual exchange.  Bottoms are only 1/2 of the breeding calculus - and trying to co-opt the Top's half is unacceptable.

To be clear:  When in a 1-1 situation, I ask where he wants the load before I shove it to him.  Then, when I'm razor-edge close, I tell him something like "now it's time to Breed" ..." or "now I'm gonna make you one of my boys" ... or something like that.  He's already had chances to decide, and when it's too late to alter the impending event, it's just too damn late. 

Obviously, in the fuckjoints, this subject wouldn't even rise to the level of discussing the weather ... let alone anything else for that matter.

Not that I disagree with the main point you're making - resolve those consent and limits questions BEFOREHAND - but I do have a quibble, as usual, with the broad brush painting.

*Some* tops do exist to cater to bareback bottoms, some *do* like when the bottom takes charge of what happens. You may not be one of them (and in fact, they may not be all that common) but it's always a bad idea, in my book, to prescribe a behavior that one thinks is obligatory for all members of a group - either a group that the person belongs to, or a group that he wants to have sex with.

[Beetle]

I would love to have a cumdump bottom who asks to pull out when I’m about to come. Would be such a turnon to ignore them and dump my load deep inside. 

[ohmalewhore]

Not since my first time with men have I ever said those words .... and never will! My ass is here to please men - to give them a tight fuckhole to fill. The pleasures I get from being fucked and feeling him cum inside me are secondary.

[hntnhole]

8 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

but I do have a quibble, as usual, with the broad brush painting.

No problem at all, BootmanLA ... I like your <polite cough> challenges.  It's entirely proper to offer them.  I very much enjoy the discourse, sharing of ideas; that's why I'm here.

Now: the title of this post was "Do you still cum in a bottom who asks you to pull out".  There was no qualifier, no hint of when (before/during/almost done) and I answered that question according to my personal thoughts.  I claim to speak for no one but myself.  I don't mind sharing what I happen to think on whatever subject, but it's only my perceptions, and on the behalf of no one but me.

The one possible exception: there was a post a while ago about "negotiations" "rules of the road", "safety", all of that, for a Bd/Sm scene.  I happen to be experienced in that particular corner of the m4m world, and offered some considerations that could possibly be considered "speaking on the behalf of others", since no one else within the LeatherLife world had not responded to that thread.  

I look forward to more interesting perspectives from you - and everyone else, for that matter.

[BootmanLA]

1 minute ago, hntnhole said:

Now: the title of this post was "Do you still cum in a bottom who asks you to pull out".  There was no qualifier, no hint of when (before/during/almost done) and I answered that question according to my personal thoughts.  I claim to speak for no one but myself.  I don't mind sharing what I happen to think on whatever subject, but it's only my perceptions, and on the behalf of no one but me.

Fair point. I think where your prior post didn't really follow this pattern, though, is right at this juncture:

9 hours ago, hntnhole said:

then I find that an abrogation of the limits first agreed upon.  Bareback Tops don't exist to cater to bareback bottoms that think they can run the scene, alter the terms from second-to-second. 

...

Bottoms that try a maneuver like that are more into trying to "Top-from-the-bottom" than a sexual exchange.  Bottoms are only 1/2 of the breeding calculus - and trying to co-opt the Top's half is unacceptable.

The final part of the first sentence ("I find that...") is clearly a statement of what *you* believe/act on, and clearly 100% your call to make. But the next sentence (and the one that follows, after the gap) are fairly categorical statements that "X group of people do Y" - which is kind of, you know, speaking on behalf of a lot of people who may not share your perspective.

[hntnhole]

Hmmmmm .... I see your point.  I did shift into 5th there.  Thanks for pointing that out.