Turning down “Sides”

[PozTalkAuthor]

Oh fuck! Why this! 

Nothing bad in being side, or side-verse; preferring manual, oral, or other stimulation than penis-anus is anyone's freedom. But insulting is not appropriate in any circumstance. 

God, nature, universe call it anyway you want, has made us with a body and a mind; why on Earth not use them?

I could suppose that one person may just want cuddles, kisses and wank because they've got a serious movement disability preventing them from having an "ordinary" sexual life. Or, better said, they don't live sexuality as we are used to know about it.

In such a case life might be frustrating (I've personally been stalked by a woman with a disability but NEVER indulged them), someone of them feels "untouchable" given that a huge quantity of people, making a serious MISTAKE, forgives any action for "pity" reasons; but in case a person in physical impairment condition reacts insulting or worse when encountering different sexual desires than theirs, it's harmful both for themselves and for people with disabilities in general as others may judge a whole community due to a single person's behaviour. 

Then, I suppose there are also many folks without any particular condition but feeling unsure, uncomfortable with their sexuality, and when hearing someone who has a different desire, they act as "I would like, but I can't". Aggressivity and envy of "I'd like to have it up my ass too, but I never admit it and get frustrated towards you who admit it so frankly".

Signed: a proudly side-verse man who never understands insults, when just a "NO" is enough. 

[J-raw]

I actually heard this 'side' discussion at a local sex store, while I was picking up some poppers. Apparently the 'side' thing is popular with guys in their early & mid 20s. One guy speculated that it was due to the Pandemic. I don't know, but I remember when I first started with gay sex at 30 I was fine with just oral sex; boy has that changed. In America & Britain oral sex is often regarded as second best but in France it's considered more intimate. Conversely, I was surprised at how intimate it was when I first got fisted. 

[TallAussieBtm]

In my view, 'side' isn't actually a real thing. It's just an excuse to put them in control of how the event progresses. Gives them better leverage to reject you after you've invested time, effort and possibly expense getting to a certain level of arousal. They can swing either way - or not - at their choosing. You have no control.

I simply refuse to engage with someone who says they're a 'side'. "Sorry mate, that's not a thing!" 😃

[BBArchangel]

3 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Same here.  In fact, I don't think I've ever heard it "live", just here on BZ.  Apparently, it's what we used to call a regular/occasional "trick"?  Or maybe it's a contraction of "sidekick", meaning a guy that always seems to be around?  

Someone needs to update the Gay Pig's Dictionary .... 

I’ve always considered that a “trick” was anybody you picked up for sex. Basically a hook-up. “I  went home with h a trick last night.” “I picked up a trick at the bar.” 
 

Now “side” is so completely new to me that I had to look it up in the  Urban Dictionary just a few weeks ago. Somebody who just wants to cuddle and kiss, but not actually have sex? If this describes you, please post it prominently on your profiles, because that’s not what I’m looking for. Well, unless you grow on a really great massage. Then maybe.

[RealCute]

I like sides...

I have a salad with thousands Islands on the "side"

Baked potato with the sour cream on the "side"

A "side" of mushrooms.

But when it comes to hookup's I don't want a side I just want cream of some young guy. 😆

[BootmanLA]

18 hours ago, BlackDude said:

You should take offense when someone lies to you. We have too many guys now lying about fucking and they need to be called out. Don’t create some new word to use as a buffer or screening for they guys you are too scared to tell you won’t have sex with them 

Lie? Where's the lie?

I acknowledge that "side" is a relatively new term in the sexual realm, but it didn't take me long to find out what it meant: someone who does not do anal sex, but will engage in other sexual activities such as mutual masturbation or oral sex.

Telling someone "I'm a side" *IS* them telling you that they're not going to fuck. It's no different than "Top" meaning "insertive partner" or "bottom" meaning "receptive partner" - it's a word used to describe a person's role. The fact that the role is "no anal" doesn't change that fact. And calling it a lie is, well, stupid. 

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

i guess we're not talking side of beef here?

i haven't had to deal with this. It strikes me as funny though. Sort of like drive thru: "would you like fries with that."  

To me, a 'side' is something you have along with the main course, not something one makes a meal out of.

 

I get that, but then neither "top" nor "bottom" describes a main course, either. They sound like halves of a bun.

"Side" is useful because it maintains the geometric approach (top/bottom/side) while accurately suggesting what's likely to happen: two guys, side by side, enjoying each other without taking it to fucking.

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

This term is new to me.  I have been referred to as a "side", not because of some sexual interest, but because I was having sex with a neighbor who had a partner.  The guy living next door to him referred to me as his "side".  I thought it was amusing, "Hey I saw your "side" coming out of your apartment this morning".   It made me laugh to hear the term....I thought it was a new term guys in the 20s used.  Apparently, I was wrong again....

That's "side" as short for "side piece". If they used the entire term, it might be clearer.

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, tighthole64 said:

What I hate MOST is a top that wants a picture of my cock.  Im not looking to get sucked or Jack.  I'm simply looking for a cock and cum up my ass.

Yes, but for some tops, it only counts if the bottom has a significantly big cock, because then he's fucking a "real man" (rolling eyes).

And for a smaller number, it only counts if the bottom has a smaller cock, because he intends to introduce humiliation into the scene - calling it a "clit", telling him he can't touch his pitiful little cock, etc.

For both those kinds of guys size - on the bottom - does matter.

[BootmanLA]

7 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

Is there a polite way to tell them that while you may think you know "1001 ways to have really great sex that doesn't involve using a cock", but all of them leave me sexually frustrated? They are just as big of problem at the fuck venues as they are on the hookup apps.

"You may well be able to enjoy yourself that way, but I know what I'm looking for, thanks, and that's not it. Good luck!"

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, TallAussieBtm said:

In my view, 'side' isn't actually a real thing. It's just an excuse to put them in control of how the event progresses. Gives them better leverage to reject you after you've invested time, effort and possibly expense getting to a certain level of arousal. They can swing either way - or not - at their choosing. You have no control.

I simply refuse to engage with someone who says they're a 'side'. "Sorry mate, that's not a thing!" 😃

It is a thing, whatever your view may be. It's just got a new name, and a somewhat clever one at that. For a very long time, men got together for mutual masturbation or "just oral", and nobody thought that was strange (other than thinking ANY same-sex sexual contact was strange).

That said, if you don't want that, decline it. You do have the choice, though, to be polite about it, or to be rude (as we see here).

[PozTalkAuthor]

I don't really understand these conflicts, saying "sides aren't a real thing" means discriminating all those people who don't rely on anal/genital contact for any reason. Mental, physical, whatever. 

Would you tell "you don't exist" to a person who has no hands and needs to be masturbated, or nothing? Would you tell them "you require a sex assistant, not an ordinary dating app"? Why the fuck? 

Or if that person has had an operation preventing them to use their "ordinary" sex organs? Why shouldn't people get pleasure by other body parts? Declining it is our right, and freedom. Being rude is unpolite, regardless of disability and stuff. 

Let's behave as an inclusive, open-minded, community ourselves, before asking OTHERS to accept us. Let's learn to accept ourselves even considering different ways to live sexuality. 

 

And, last but not least, yes. Nowadays the problem might no longer exist but finding pleasures without genital-anal involvement could also be an opportunity for HIV positive folks BEFORE UEqualsU and PrEP discovery. 

I clearly can't talk about others, but, I've actually grown up being a "side": at the beginning, the idea of anal sex scared me so I used oral, manual, and cuddles. Until I found the right man, both for top and bottom role. 

Then, after HIV diagnosis, fear of genital-anal contacts came up again! I laugh now thinking of it, but the fact to be open to full body exploration has allowed me to take control of myself again. 

Even my current relationship started in the "side"'s way: cuddles, kisses, nipple play and so on, brought us gradually where we are now. 

Then, if you have a relationship with a self-claimed "side", you have other needs and cheat on him? Or have an open relationship, or no affair at all? It's their own business! 

We must accept and admit that we all think different: me into full body contacts, being naked as essential, others even remain clothed just freeing their cock and enjoy sex in that way, gloryholes where to shove your member in, without even knowing what body stays to the other side... I'd never conceive sexuality in that way but, what's next? Why should I be rude towards someone having fun like this? 

Respect is the key. 

PozTalkAuthor in lecture dress [kidding, of course] - no intention to lecture anyone, I'm just wondering why, in a world full of conflicts, we need to create them for sex too. 

[BlackDude]

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Lie? Where's the lie?

I acknowledge that "side" is a relatively new term in the sexual realm, but it didn't take me long to find out what it meant: someone who does not do anal sex, but will engage in other sexual activities such as mutual masturbation or oral sex.

Telling someone "I'm a side" *IS* them telling you that they're not going to fuck. It's no different than "Top" meaning "insertive partner" or "bottom" meaning "receptive partner" - it's a word used to describe a person's role. The fact that the role is "no anal" doesn't change that fact. And calling it a lie is, well, stupid. 

Since I’ve never met a gay man who won’t engage in sex (given the right person and situation), we will just have to agree to disagree.

[BootmanLA]

15 minutes ago, BlackDude said:

Since I’ve never met a gay man who won’t engage in sex (given the right person and situation), we will just have to agree to disagree.

There's a term for looking at your own experience and extending it to cover the world: navel gazing.

[BlackDude]

15 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

There's a term for looking at your own experience and extending it to cover the world: navel gazing.

There another term for ignoring your experiences refusing to acknowledge what you’ve seen in the world: delusion.