To much Illegal talk on here

[spartus4]

If you don't like what is here why are you here???  There are sites on the web that I find gross that I never go to because I don't like them.  I don't make an account and tell people on that site how bad they are.   I do the adult thing and leave the people on that site to their own lives.

[carl1982]

I'm very new to this site, and so far have not found anything I find offensive, well except on comment that was made regarding a.post I made, ok I didn't handle it well at first but with the help of Dr Scorpio it was sorted and post deleted.

On the whole i would say the mods have a hard time policing this site but do try their best.

If you see something you think is offensive or illegal flag it up to them to decide and deal with it.

If not as others have said pass by the posts that you do not like, after all we all have a choice. No one has forced you to read anything you are not comfortable with.

If the site is not for you then delete your account and forget about it.

Whilst I do accept you may have a right to voice your opinions as I think that is what this site is about, maybe you should also accept your opinion is not that of others.

Long and short of it is if you don't like it then get out of Dodge and find somewhere that you are more comfortable posting on.

I will add that since joining this site i have got a better handle on my own situation and have been able to move on and accept a lot of things i was having a few issues with.

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by carl1982

[Coldfusion]

42 minutes ago, spartus4 said:

If you don't like what is here why are you here???  There are sites on the web that I find gross that I never go to because I don't like them.  I don't make an account and tell people on that site how bad they are.   I do the adult thing and leave the people on that site to their own lives.

The "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, LEAVE" routine. You can tell someone is doing really well in an argument when that comes up... lol.

They don't leave because that's not what this site was supposed to be. It's supposed to be Breeding Zone not InBreeding Zone.

This site was about bareback sex for 10 years. It's only been about "I fucked my uncle"  for about 2 years.

So those who haven't left are still hoping that this weird fad will stop.

If you're so convinced your interests are somehow the future of this website why don't you get  Rawtop (that's the site administrator) to rename the site "IFuckedMyDad.com" instead? or InBreeding Zone?

 

[Slamuel]

On 11/9/2021 at 6:23 AM, Mcv69 said:

Makes me sick to my stomach this kind of behaviour on here I will probably leave this forum for good there is way to much talk about illegal issues involving under age and rape etc, this is wrong and it has now alignment on the way Gay men should act. Please fuck of with that sort of behaviour this page needs better moderators on here!! Fucking disgusted!  

Instead of shitposting about the moderators, members should consider reporting posts that do not comply with site rules so they can be dealt with properly. Posts which fall within site rules but offend your own sensibilities can be downvoted and ignored.

All the moderators are volunteers and cannot be expected to see every one of the thousands of posts that are made in these forums, therefore it is down to the members to report them and use the tools provided to help deal with them.

[Slamuel]

35 minutes ago, Coldfusion said:

The "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, LEAVE" routine. You can tell someone is doing really well in an argument when that comes up... lol.

They don't leave because that's not what this site was supposed to be. It's supposed to be Breeding Zone not InBreeding Zone.

This site was about bareback sex for 10 years. It's only been about "I fucked my uncle"  for about 2 years.

So those who haven't left are still hoping that this weird fad will stop.

If you're so convinced your interests are somehow the future of this website why don't you get  Rawtop (that's the site administrator) to rename the site "IFuckedMyDad.com" instead? or InBreeding Zone?

 

Frankly that’s not been my experience at all. I’ve seen a few incest posts when I’ve been reading, and they don’t work for me at all. But there are way more posts that aren’t about incest to go to.

[blackrobe]

Preamble:

It's worth noting that it's not the *experience you have* that is most important here, but instead *how that experience affects you*. One person can have early sexual exploration and penetrative sex with someone older and feel its magical  while another can just have a family member show them their penis and be traumatized deeply for life. People are so very different in their makeup, we need to recognize that any one-size-fits-all thinking isn't going to be useful in this topic.

 Commentary:

I think it matters whether the people raising reports and complaining about some content were survivors of child sexual abuse themselves. If they are, they may be getting triggered by some element of what they read. If that's the case I think taking these reactions into their therapy sessions and talking about what they're reacting too would be a healthy thing to do.  In truth, *lots* of things, even the mundane and non-sexual, can trigger a PTSD response and that stuff needs to be dealt with in tempering your response to the stimuli and removing yourself from it until you can. Trying to erase triggering stimuli from the entire internet and reality is not a viable approach.

Other survivors of child sexual abuse often adapt to their experience by reframing it to find their power and move beyond what happened to them and how it might have affected them. Essentially rewriting and re-contextualizing their story. I don't think I would want to silence those voices from being able to explore and affirm that part of their stories, as being silenced on what happened to them is re-traumatizing in itself.

People who aren't survivors who are hyper sensitive to early sexual experience narratives fall into two broad groups. Family and friends of survivors who react to every recounting as though it's the person that they knew being talked about. Quite often this response is driven by guilt and shame over what they knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it.

The other group are the broader public who react in vehement abhorrence and disgust at any mention of child sexual abuse and early sexual experience narratives. This group are the most problematic in my opinion. When people hear about instances of child sexual abuse, the societal narrative is that "We'd/I'd never let that happen here" and it drives that vehement reaction as a form of virtue signaling. Sadly, the research shows that virtue signaling is all it is. The research on instances when children have approached adults to report instances where they were being sexually abused by a family member or close family friend (the most common perpetrators) is quite bleak. Contrary to the performative reaction, in the overwhelming majority of cases adults did not report or in some way act on what the child told them in any way. The adults rationalized the complaint away as the child making it up or acting out in some way, or found their own conception of the accused abuser so at odds with what the child said that they could not believe it (very common for family members and authority figures). There were also fears about how passing on the report might affect the family or organizational dynamic, or might affect the person passing on the report personally in some negative way.  

The concern for the welfare of the child was and is, in almost every case, entirely secondary to the welfare of the alleged perpetrator, the child's family, the organization they were connected to, and the person the child made their report to. That's the reason why there has been a "silent" epidemic of child sexual abuse throughout human history and why it will continue long into the future.

As a result, I see vehement protestations of disgust and demands for content to be removed by this latter group of "disinterested bystanders" as those least worthy of attention and most suspect of self-serving motives. This group, true to form, remains ignorant and doesn't realize that they are often advocating to silence and erase the voices of the survivors they purport to care for and want to support. I'd recommend that people who think they understand what being sexually abused as a (male) child is like go to malesurvivor.com and read some of the stories in the forums there. 

It's a difficult triangulation for sites like this to make. Keep content legal, serve this community, and not wantonly silence people's voices. It's unenviable.

The best help anyone can give is to simply report content they find concerning to the moderators so they can evaluate and deal with it and maintain that balance.

 

 

[DarkroomTaker]

8 hours ago, EricX said:

First time I heard a gay man only wish for a few inches…

I am not greedy,  I am Ambidicktrous. 😆

[BootmanLA]

6 hours ago, Coldfusion said:

The "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, LEAVE" routine. You can tell someone is doing really well in an argument when that comes up... lol.

They don't leave because that's not what this site was supposed to be. It's supposed to be Breeding Zone not InBreeding Zone.

This site was about bareback sex for 10 years. It's only been about "I fucked my uncle"  for about 2 years.

So those who haven't left are still hoping that this weird fad will stop.

If you're so convinced your interests are somehow the future of this website why don't you get  Rawtop (that's the site administrator) to rename the site "IFuckedMyDad.com" instead? or InBreeding Zone?

For what it's worth, the oldest reference to a dad fucking his son on this site is in a Bareback fiction story posted in 2010.

Oh, and guess who created that topic?

Rawtop. The site owner. 

[NEDenver]

The fiction is fantasy and all, but the follow up comments are not.  I ignore those because it’s not above my tolerance level, but I could see it being there for some.  I don’t know if the crowds cheering on rape and stealthing and the like cross over to illegal, but my personal moral compass says it’s uncouth at the least.

[chipygmalion80]

Where was this stuff posted?

Just ignore it.

I myself was given a warning by rawTOP many many moons ago, and I don't recall why.  A lot of folks have said the same.

Members have complained about why we've been given frivolous warning points.  By "frivolous", I mean the moderators will happily dish out a warning if you post to the wrong forum, but won't budge a finger for threads that are, at best, left for Backrooms.

The forum rules are the rules, and it's rawTOP's site; but I can see some change in the wind.

This site's rules ban people who post about women outside the Str8 section.  <-- you read that right.  Or you'll get banned about trans outside that section.  Banned!  Oh, but if someone posts about Chem or "other" fiction in the wrong secion, they're given a slap on the hand warning.  Clearly certain groups are being disenfranchised.

The rules look to be aging out, and they remind me of RuPaul's take on drag.  RuPaul believed only biological men should be on his show.  He changed his opinion real fast when a new generation of folks stepped onto the stage.  Times are changing.

So rawTOP owns the site and can make whatever rules but it seems out of touch with a heavy hand on minor/frivolous things, like Str8/Trans talk, but ignore or gloss over things that members have complained about before, like Backroom topics popping up everywhere.

 

[BootmanLA]

On 11/13/2021 at 9:18 AM, chipygmalion80 said:

Members have complained about why we've been given frivolous warning points.  By "frivolous", I mean the moderators will happily dish out a warning if you post to the wrong forum, but won't budge a finger for threads that are, at best, left for Backrooms.

Warnings are an advisory to refresh your understanding of the rules so that you don't repeat the offense. It's not frivolous. I see posts periodically get moved from the wrong forum to the right forum, and then other users come right along and post in the same wrong place (or sometimes, it's even the original poster, determined to make a point).

On 11/13/2021 at 9:18 AM, chipygmalion80 said:

This site's rules ban people who post about women outside the Str8 section.  <-- you read that right.  Or you'll get banned about trans outside that section.  Banned!  Oh, but if someone posts about Chem or "other" fiction in the wrong secion, they're given a slap on the hand warning.  Clearly certain groups are being disenfranchised.

I don't think making a post about women outside the straight section gets you "banned". Maybe if the post were especially egregious and broke the rules in multiple ways, but I think generally speaking the moderators move the post (or remove it if the previous context was essential for it making sense), notify the poster, and maybe issue a warning/points depending on the severity. Ditto for trans stuff.

And I don't see a problem with that. This is not a general purpose, talk-about-anything-and-everything sex forum. It's not Reddit. It's a place with defined areas for certain topics that don't appeal to everyone, that don't appeal to a majority, that don't even appeal to a significant minority of the members here. That goes for explicit discussions of chem sex as well as sex with women or trans people.

It's also a place where certain topics are completely banned - for instance, bestiality, or fetishizing AIDS (as opposed to HIV). These are decisions the site owner made because it's his site and it's the kind of discussion he wants to foster.

[ErosWired]

@blackrobe - While your analysis above likely has some merit, your discussion assumes that the narratives being related, and reacted to, all have their origin in the lived experience of the tellers, who are sharing their true stories so as to help others as well as themselves contextualize the experience.

But this overlooks the fact that some of the material we see is outright fiction, posted by its originators for no more purpose than base titillation and a taste for what they consider deviant behavior. They do not post out of an understanding of such an experience, and certainly not with any consideration or sensitivity to the potential impact their salacious pseudo-testimonials might have on other members here who have actually had to contend with the real thing.

The difficulty lies in our inability to readily separate the false narratives from the real ones. The true stories have a legitimate telling here regardless of whether the poster views his experience as positive or negative; indeed, it is only through these variegated lenses of experience that we can begin to understand the reality that underlies the phenomenon. Calls to remove authentic material are misplaced and should be rejected.

But umbrage over false accounts intended merely to thicken the atmosphere of smuttiness on the site is, in my opinion, entirely justified, at least on the open boards. We may be a randy, libertine bunch of fuckers here, but we have scruples (at least some of us do) and not every behavior is an acceptable behavior.

The fact that some individuals have not been seriously damaged by the sexual abuse they experienced in childhood does not mean that people need to chill out about it because it can be a good thing - it means those individuals were fortunate that they were not devastated as others have been. It isn’t necessary for the average person on the street to go to a website to understand that sexual abuse traumatizes children; our society already has that very real concept baked in, which is why we have strict laws codified against it. You’re right, we absolutely don’t want to be wantonly silencing people’s voices. But when many of those voices are false narratives celebrating something this potentially harmful, people of conscience have an obligation to protest.

[BootmanLA]

7 hours ago, ErosWired said:

But this overlooks the fact that some of the material we see is outright fiction, posted by its originators for no more purpose than base titillation and a taste for what they consider deviant behavior. They do not post out of an understanding of such an experience, and certainly not with any consideration or sensitivity to the potential impact their salacious pseudo-testimonials might have on other members here who have actually had to contend with the real thing.

The only thing I'd add is that this is true of a multitude of topics on here, many of which quickly devolve into a game of one-upmanship of bragging about alleged sexual experiences, many of which I think are complete fabrications created as masturbatory fodder. It's just more egregious when it's done on the topic of childhood sexual experiences.

[Guest]

On 11/20/2021 at 9:46 PM, ErosWired said:

We may be a randy, libertine bunch of fuckers here, but we have scruples (at least some of us do) and not every behavior is an acceptable behavior.

Best description of this site and our community I've ever read in a long time. Thanks ! 
Personally I've always liked the adagium: 'I don't have morals - I have standards'.
(Not saying these are high mind you). 😉  

On 11/20/2021 at 9:46 PM, ErosWired said:

The fact that some individuals have not been seriously damaged by the sexual abuse they experienced in childhood does not mean that people need to chill out about it because it can be a good thing - it means those individuals were fortunate that they were not devastated as others have been. It isn’t necessary for the average person on the street to go to a website to understand that sexual abuse traumatizes children; our society already has that very real concept baked in, which is why we have strict laws codified against it. You’re right, we absolutely don’t want to be wantonly silencing people’s voices. But when many of those voices are false narratives celebrating something this potentially harmful, people of conscience have an obligation to protest.

The defining aspect that makes sexual experiences harmful is found within the word 'abuse'. Or at least that's what I think.

Being abused is something completely different from consensual, equal and not being forced against your desires and will. Making a decision you might - or might not - regret later is not the same as having the choice taken away from you. That's probably why legally but also in therapy and in support-groups things like rape are often not labelled as so much sexual but as violent acts.
You'd be suprised in how few cases that I know of and have experienced as a child myself, the lowlifes that commit things like rape and abuse are doing it out of lust. Most cases I'm aware off it was a powerplay first and in essence.

I think we for a large part can see eye-to-eye or at least can have an open conversation about this subject, although constricting everything 'potentially harmful' is putting it a bit a too broadly imo. 

 

Some room should be there for young people to discover sex and this sometimes is not after they turn 16, 18 or whatever and sometimes it is with someone older and/or within the family. [banned word] as these things are, they in itself are not always 'abuse'. Although a large age difference between the child or young-person in question with the older man or woman is more risky as it has the potential for abuse of power, authority and power.

Talking about this in way that's real, is ok. Tabooing everything sexual is harmful in it's own way.

One or two of my early experiences where helped by reading sleazy porn-like contributions about under-age incest later. it helped me to accept and feel it is ok to have enjoyed some of the experiences.

If you asked me if the early experiences have traumatised me I honestly couldn't tell you. Some things that were forced upon me were definitely not fun and what happened then and there was also not innocent. Probably a number of difficulties I face have a connection to those events.
At the same time I don't feel like I am now a victim because of it; and I don't like the word 'survivor' as in the end it where things that happened and it's just that. It's not like we have time-machine to correct what went wrong in the past.
It's history.

I am glad that I am me and that I'm here. I enjoy sex and the only thing in my sex-life that's sometimes hard (or flacid actually) is that when a sexual partner says 'no, no' or indicates pain and he is role-playing I have to be absolutely sure it's an act or otherwise my erection is gone and it will not be back for at least half an hour.
There is someone I know something like this happened to, who reacted against being victimised so strongly that it became an abuser. That's happens to, it's not uncommon.
And there is someone else I know where recently I have come to feel I can't trust him; He has possibly dealt with this in the same way. My instinct is to keep my distance from him, but I can't be sure if or what he might have done.

Luckily I've met more people than these two who after experiences like mine, who just grew up to become nice, caring and even playful and fun individuals. 

Whether it's written sleaze, fantasies or actual acts:  it is a fine line sometimes between 'kinky' and harmful.
I am aware of that. And that's basically the awareness I wish more people would have. Not having declared subjects [banned word] is better to achieve this, I think. 

 

(Sorry for rambling on like this and I hope what I wanted to say is at least partly coherent so whoever reads this understands what I needed to add to this thread form my personal perspective. It's far from perfect and certainly not concise but it is, what it is).
 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Guest

[ErosWired]

@BareLover666 - Thank you for sharing your valuable perspective on this. The thing that makes it so important is that it helps readers begin to understand the way that such experiences can be complex questions for the person who experienced them, not always defined in black-and-white terms, and that different people process the experiences differently, and can sometimes come to view the same event in terms both positive and negative.

You are correct that cases of sexual assault and rape have been found to not be driven by sexual desire, but rather by anger, hatred, or a desire for power or control. Sexual abuse, however, may sometimes be a result of an individual’s acting on his prurient impulses - paedophilia comes to mind as an immediate example, but a man might act on sexual impulse in an inappropriate way and, having once crossed that inhibitory threshold, do it again until it becomes a repetitive offense. He may either not realize the harm - or potential harm - he does to the underage person, or he may face a psychological conundrum in which his conscience comes into direct conflict with his strong sexual urge, the urge triumphs, and he then resolves the conundrum by psychologically manufacturing a rationale under which he persuades himself he is doing no wrong or no harm.

Your point about a young person having the ability to discover sexuality at his or her own pace, when he or she is ready, is well taken, and firm age markers are not always helpful. A number of posters on this forum have indicated they were eager and ready for that stage of development as pre-teens. I was decidedly not. I bloomed extraordinarily late, and am absolutely certain that an adverse sexual intervention at an early age would have severely traumatized me; I was unequipped to understand or cope with such a thing then. It would have radically altered the trajectory of my life going forward. Even now, with the benefit of an adult’s mind and life experience, and years of work building cognitive rational thinking, I still find it difficult to understand why the men who have sexually assaulted me as an adult have done so.

Childhood is a vital period of development that shapes the whole person to come, and you only get one shot at it. That’s why I tend to err on the side of zero tolerance for adult advances toward young people. I can only say that, as a father of two who have successfully reached the threshold of adulthood unmolested, had any man made such an attempt, he would not have been able to make a second - the weight of six feet of cold clay on top of him would have made it impossible.