Posts made by yababylol

There are risks attached to even oral sex, if it's not wrapped up, but .. I'm of a mind that if I'm going that far with protecting myself, my sex life is essentially dead and I'm doing the equivalent of eating rice cakes and flavorless protein pills for the rest of my life.

There's no joy in sucking a wrapped up cock, and it's hard enough for me to cum with a condom on even when everything is perfect. I won't engage in oral sex with someone that I have reason to believe is highly likely to be infected, but otherwise … if I'm going to suck a dick or get mine sucked, a condom is not going to be involved.

It's just too much.

I'm wary to get the vision-loss side effects that have been reported in European brands recently (I'm in the US).

Can any US users (the frequenter the better) confirm that our stuff isn't going to cause you to go blind?

There has to be a conversation of exclusivity first, as far as I'm concerned, or some expectation that the risk is very minimal (like you're on prep or one of you is poz but undetectable, etc).

I loathe condoms. I honestly can't get off topping with one on, so if it hits anal sex territory at all with me, that conversation always comes up (I'm still negative, and am looking to get on prep).

It's one of those things that, in our culture, can earn you social rejection and stigma (at best), or a stint in a prison cell (at the absolute worst). And yet, it really is VERY common.

Here is why I think that is: a lot about human sexuality is demonized. The worst kinds of crimes that it is possible to commit (at least as they are perceived by our culture) are all related to sex … you would literally face a smaller criminal punishment for getting drunk and hacking someone's arm off with a sword than you would for having sex with that person while they're drunk, and them later deciding that their drunkenness meant that their consent was not "real" and deciding to make a fuss over it -- I'm not being pro-rape or anything with that statement, but ... I do make the comparison to demonstrate how we elevate the status of any sex-related violation to "ULTIMATE EVIL" territory; we really have no greater sin in our worldview than a sex-related violation of another person.

It's our culture, the culture of taboos. It doesn't necessarily turn OFF these little fantasies or life experiences of ours, because we're driven by our lust and shit still goes down ... it just means we all walk around feeling guilty over those fantasies, and often feeling like you're the "only one with them." It's kind of sad what we do to each other, really ... it's like we never grew out of that phase when we were all 12-15 years old, on the school playground, each of us accusing each other of jerking off like it was an insult, but all of us adamantly denying that WE did, too.

We have evil-ized sex itself. What's considered "acceptable sex" in our culture is all bound into narrow little categories, and anything that strays outside of it becomes weird and perverted. All things considered, I wish we'd take some of the magic power out of sex and approached it again (like our ancestors did) with a more level, less hysterical point of view.

The sooner we make the bonobo chimpanzees (google their sexual habits) our role models, the sooner we end all wars for our species!  ;D

This is something I actually know a little about. I'm a very late bloomer myself; I lost my virginity at age 29, and I'm 33 now. The main answer to your question, based on my experience, is that nobody I've explained my situation of inexperience to has ever shunned me over it.

The first thing you need to understand is your own personal concept of where the line is. You know; that one you need to cross to have truly "had sex" for the first time. It's different for different people, even among straight couples. I might have been 29 when I decided I had finally had sex, but I also did have rare moments in years before that, as young as 18, where I had fleeting sexual play that I didn't count as the true moment (such as 30 seconds of blowjob with no cumming). To me, it was necessary to have penetrative sex to orgasm for me to feel like I'd gotten there.

I lost my virginity in part because I had this growing sense of dread that it would be a stigma over my head, bigger with each passing year, that I would eventually not be able to overcome. It wasn't made much easier by the fact that fantasy-wise, I really was turned on by the idea of topping more than bottoming, and I had this idea that any true bottom would expect a confident, viral, stallion of a top who very much knew what he was doing. I really, really, wanted to date and have sex and eventually find a partner … but I had issues going on that kept me from trying for years, not the least of which was my diminishing confidence in my ability to live up to my imagined standards that potential partners would have.
I later learned that almost no guy, if he finds you attractive to begin with, will balk at the chance of giving you an education (so long as it leads to him cumming  ;D ). Many even find it fun. We're men, horny beasts, and we're not going to turn down sex with someone we find hot over them not having the "proper training." That was my silly idea.

But, at first, I was afraid that I had waited so long, which made the problem worse as that fear delayed the moment even more. When I finally lost my virginity, it was to someone I met through craigslist that I did not find attractive at all (no pictures were exchanged; I was naive and anxious to get it over with), and I didn't enjoy the experience very much. I had to close my eyes and go to a mental place inside in order to finish, and afterwards I felt disappointed and a little sad.

… it sounds like a depressing way to do it, and it was. Since then, though, I've gone on to enjoy sex with a few partners. At first, each encounter came far between (I admit I did the hookup thing for a while as I learned ... it was quick. low-stakes, and easy). I was honest with each one about my newbie status, and I learned a lot from them all. Now, finally, after that phase of long stretches of not even trying for months, followed by a random hookup ... I finally have an active and fairly consistent sex life with two regular buddies.

Some advice:

1. DON'T HYPE IT UP TOO MUCH. You'll only frighten yourself from taking the plunge, and also set yourself up for disappointment when you finally do and it fails to live up. It's not that big of a deal. The first time sucks for a lot of people. Sex is something that gets better the more you practice it. YES -- it's something you learn, and few people are going to refuse to help you practice. Fucking is fun.

2. It's all about who you're with. You have to feel comfortable and not tensed up around them, and there has to be some kind of attraction. It can't be forced; you won't enjoy it if you try.

3. It's okay to communicate verbally about what you're enjoying and not enjoying. It's also alright, if you're enjoying each other so far, to ask your partner to help you try something for the first time (I bottomed for the first time this way, which I now enjoy enough to be truly versatile). The worst you can get by asking is a "no thank you, let's keep doing this instead."

4. If you're worried that nobody out there is going to find you attractive -- trust me, SOMEONE DOES. Everybody is somebody's type.

5. Don't be afraid of this. I had the same fears, and I think most late bloomers do. Don't worry to the point of never doing it. It may take a while for you to find a person who expresses a mutual attraction with you, but it's worth looking for a while. Make use of personals sites (if you want to get to know someone first) or apps (if you just want something non-commital to officially get into the game; few of us can judge you without being hypocrites ;)) and get to talking to people. Eventually, you will find someone who wants to get into that bed with you. It's okay to tell them in advance that they're the first.

It's NOT going to freeze the event in its tracks. I promise!

isn't this just the human condition? Even with heterosexual infatuations?

Or maybe I'm just another person susceptible to this scenario – it's not necessarily straight guys that I fall for, so much as guys I know that will never perceive me as being in their league. I become the supportive, attentive, reliable "good friend" for them instead, the always-available shoulder to cry on.

We always yearn for that which we can't have.

@taboi:

@ciremage:

I definitely think after a certain point an adult should have less acne. If you are older with acne it looks like you have poor hygiene.

Sheer ignorance.  I am 35 and still have it.  It gets bad at times when I stress out, and it has nothing to do with my hygiene.  In fact, it really seems the more I wash my face - regardless of the product I use - the worse I break out.  My doctor refused to prescribe me Accutane when I was in my teens, citing dangerous side effects..  And now that it has been recalled, if I start it now I have no grounds to sue if I develop side effects later.

Trust me … there are those of us out there that find the physical trait endearing, or at least a neutral factor. We understand.

I actually find acne (save the most extreme cases) kind of …. cute now. I got a crush on a cute, scrawny straight guy who happened to have bad skin, and ever since then .... it actually doesn't bother me.

Sometimes, that's all it takes to completely turn you around on certain subjects of personal appearance -- the right person can open up a whole new "type" for you. I had a similar experience with someone forever turning me onto twinks, whereas before I was fairly picky about liking jocks and even bodybuilders.

Love me some gawkish, geeky awkwardness. Glasses, too!

The perception that male bisexuality does not truly exist is sadly very common, and I'd have to guess that his comments are based somewhat in that belief.

I'm sure we've all known that outright gay guy (I've known at least one) who had a particularly hard time coming to terms with his sexuality, and used the bisexual label as an intermediary step to admit his gayness to even himself. I think it partially stems from that. Someone has a friend that goes through that cliche, and they start forming blanket assumptions about the other 6.5 billion people on the planet.

That's a very human thing to do, but still; it stinks.

Bisexuality exists, guys. Really-deally. Deal with it or don't, believe it or don't, but keep your hate to yourself.

In general, I don't even agree that every item in that list constitutes a violation of "etiquette."

I flex in the mirror to see my results, for a few seconds each visit. I only flex the muscle group that I was working on during that day (so biceps and back one day, just my legs another, etc.), and only for a few seconds. I'm not doing it in hopes I'll be noticed. It's to see the visible effects of the hard work, and remind myself that it's why I'm there. And that's it's working.

Something, on the other hand, that directly impedes the workouts of others? That's where I start getting ticked. Blocking access to the weight rack or trying to hog 2-4 machines or several dozens of square feet of the gym at once for 15+ minutes so you can get your super-intense circuit in is obnoxious. A workout that requires you to completely dominate 10% of the gym at any given time should not be done in a public gym at peak hours (between 4:30 - 8:00 ish).

…. most uncut guys really do NOT know how to properly clean under their foreskin when they shower, which causes things like 47 different flavours of genital cheese.

As an uncut man, I know that this is indeed a problem among some who were never taught to bathe properly by a person who understood an uncut penis. I've had some bad experiences myself.

"Bad" experiences tend to stand out in our minds 10 times larger than any good experience, though, and it can overshadow the memories where everything was just absolutely okay. I don't really think I can agree with the "most guys" assertion. SOME guys don't know how, but this is little different than meeting up with guys (even cut ones) that don't understand hygeine in general. The ones that don't know how to clean out and leave a snail trail of poo schmear all over your dick, or have perpetual B.O. or bad breath or …. you get the picture.

An uncut dick is merely just one more variable that can go "wrong" when it comes to a guy's hygeine habits. It's not a signal that there's an increased risk that you're dealing with an unclean guy.

In my experience, at least, the few uncut guys I do run into (the ones native to the U.S.) have mostly been great experiences. They know how to take care of theirs like I do, because (I'm assuming) they had a strong male teacher in their life who had one himself and knew what to do with it. My father was very stubborn. I have two brothers and he refused to let us go through that as infants, and I'm soooo grateful to the man for that!!

Also, always remember -- in sex play, a little tactful, caring feedback and kind-and-understanding education is NOT off the table. You can drag these guys into the shower under the guise of sex play and give them a little dick-washing lesson.

This sort of allegation is unfortunately very damaging for any kind of celebrity or entertainer that makes a significant portion of his bank on straight female fans. Anyone in One Direction definitely qualifies. "Heartthrob" status is only attainable, for some bizarre reason, for a male celebrity that is at-least-in-public interested in women. What he does behind closed doors, if it involves men, has to remain secret for the sake of that image.

I've never understood WHY … do these girls honestly believe they EVER had a shot in hell with these handsome movie stars, musicians, models, whatever ... REGARDLESS of the guy's sexual orientation? Just because he technically fucks women doesn't mean he was ever going to fuck Plane Jane Doe from an Illinois suburb.

It is what it is, though. I don't think this is him, for the record, but it was clearly someone out to damage him a bit. And it'll probably work.

Simon Rex's career was ruined in part because he simply permitted a bunch of gay guys to watch him jerk off on CAMERA. That was enough. I know; I heard a bunch of my female friends talk about it in shocked tones about how he's "so gross now." Ricky Martin, too ... remember him?

First there's resistance in the female brain to the idea ("OMG that's not true at all, I don't believe it!") .... but the moment there's acceptance, interest is gone immediately.

Full disclosure: I myself am a tall, big, strong, beefy, stocky-muscle bear type. Nobody ever guesses at my sexuality before I talk about it. I am, however, very attracted to smaller, slight, sweet, femmy twinkish types. So, here's my question:

We've all seen them in personals apps and profiles, that long list of checkpoints a person is supposed to meet before they're officially allowed to send some picky guy a message. At the top of the list of things I see most frequently: an insistence that only men that drip masculinity from every pore and orifice should even ATTEMPT to waste someone's time.

The wording changes based on the person. "No fats and no fems," is one I see a lot (pretty rude and judgmental phrasing choices, if you ask me), or "straight-looking and straight acting only," or "into masculine guys only" ….. the words change, yet the message is the same: essentially for the person writing those requirements, they're saying that nobody who appears to be gay on the surface is ever going to wind up in the bed of that PARTICULAR homosexual.

Please understand that I am not casting any judgment on the personal preferences of others -- I get it, I have my own type. I'm just a little confused about why MY type is not one that many people share.

There's nothing that I want more in the world than a cute, soft, slender, petite, feminine guy to hold in my arms at night. It brings out such a protective side in me. I wanna keep him warm and safe, pick him up and carry him to bed, cuddle up a storm! Of course, there's all sorts of nasty things I wanna do with that theoretical person, too, but that's another thread.

I find that this type of guy is generally well-dressed, well-groomed, invariably smells sweet, and tends to have a loving, bubbly, fun personality. This sort of guy often has a sweet demeanor, and a great sense of humor. This sort of guy always receives comments from straight women about being "sooo cute" and how they want to just "adopt them and carry him around in her purse," stuff like that. They tend to have many female friends. Does everyone know the type I'm talking about?

Why? Why is femininity such a demonized thing in our sub-community? Is it inherent in our hormones and biology, or is it something we inherit on a sheer environmental level from the larger culture, one in which masculinity is still perceived as a required trait to be taken seriously? It does seem to be a primarily westernized perception, as far as I can tell. I'm vaguely familiar with homosexuality in other cultures that seem to put a premium on the more feminine men. Of course, those are cultures in which it's not necessarily considered to be "gay" to be in the dominating top role in man-on-man sex, and there's many straight-identifying men who shamelessly pursue them for sexual release.

I do have attraction to women as well (though I have to say they're a lot of work and I grow increasingly put-off by them as time goes on, my dating spectrum has been exclusively men for a while now), so perhaps it's that ... but I have this nagging suspicion that a lot about what makes obviously-gay men unattractive to so many of us is more nurture than it is nature.

Does anyone else agree with me? A cute guy is a cute guy, and a femmy cute guy is still damn cute.  

This might seem like a shocking idea to some, but …. I wish there had been some kind of cultural, mainstream "values" sort of idea that encompassed childhood nutrition (where the parents legitimately had nutritional options) when I was growing up.

In the past, I suspect it wasn't something anyone needed to think about simply because the kind of calorie excess that it is common in modern life wasn't quite as possible. You simply fed your kids, made sure they were full, and you were a good parent. Times change.

Few people drop a jaw anymore at the idea of shaming parents who don't properly seat an infant up in a car anymore, for example. Once -- this was a new idea and people got very stubborn and nasty about the idea that they suddenly had to consider it part of their parental duties.

People who continually let your children eat a plate of chicken fingers, cheetos, candy ... whatever else at dinner time that you know they will eat with a minimum of argument .... I'm looking in your direction. Let them scream and squeel and throw tantrums instead, as you give them the one-and-only-option of the more balanced meal the rest of the family is eating. They will NOT let themselves starve. You may get a few unpleasant evenings out of it before you get the idea into their heads and they work it out of their systems.

My advise? DEAL AND SIT THROUGH IT UNTIL THEY START EATING THE VEGGIES.

No, I can currently think of a situation like that.  I would do both of them separately.

That's easily the best answer in the thread, haha. I've been there! ;D

FORGET the far-more-complicated-and-highly-subjective personal definitions of the traditional gay labels of "twink," "jock," yadda yadda …. the only label word that started the whole twist from the original subject matter of the thread was "heartthrob."

Yes, he's a heartthrob. No matter how twinky he is (thrilled that he's open about his sexuality, by the way).

Twinks (or at least what many gay men would define as twinks) comprise a pretty hefty chunk of the current "heartthrob" stock out there right now. Pick up any of those teeny girly magazines (like Tiger Beat, Teen Bop, etcetera .... I remember sneaking those from my sister when I was 13 years old and being in heaven) and look at the kind of guys they're turning into the centerfolds.

None of them are any Vin Diesel ... I'll just say that.  :laugh:

I don't think I've ever met someone who honestly believes this. It's a very old, old idea. I don't think it even survived the 90's.

Speaking for myself …. it definitely ramps up your kink factor quite a bit. The same ol' scenes don't quite do it for you anymore after some time, and you'll find yourself 'craving' certain types of scenes, certain types of performers, certain kinds of action, etc. Masturbation (I'm assuming most of us are doing this as we watch) is an easy, normal, healthy method to satisfy a basic human need, and using porn as an aid is no different from good-old fashioned imagination (which I can still use, all by itself, to jerk off) .... the older fantasies are buried after a while for the new thrilling stuff, whether it's in your head or on the computer screen.

Though, I also find that this doesn't translate at all to sexuality in the real world. Vanilla sex of the type I have in my real life would flat out bore me in a porn video, but it's fulfilling and exciting to me in the moment. Porn is so much about the fantasy and "idea" of what's going on ... maybe that's why it's so visual and repetitive. Personal sex is about living it yourself, and the physical sensations, and whatever connection you have to the other person.

Sometimes, if it's difficult for me to cum while I'm with a partner .... I'll think about a porn scene I like a lot to speed things up, and go there in my mind's eye. That's about the closest I can say to "impactful" it has been on my actual sex life (this is a well-known phenomenon even decades ago, well before the Internet), and I collect and watch a ton of it, because my libido is huge and I can't practically have sex four times a day.

I may be more willing to try things in porn than I might have been otherwise, but only that which looks practical and non-harmful to me.

@nordicblue:

He looks like a twink.

You say that like it's a bad thing, and that it's mutually exclusive with being a "heartthrob." 

He's definitely hot.

The fact is that sexual identity in and of itself is actually something I'd consider "normal" to know about one another in any social or work setting … gay OR straight. It's such a crucial piece of information that directs our long-honed social instincts ... it's such a basic fact in most interactions, how that other person fits in along those lines, we just never stop and think about it.

This is because, for a long time, the default scenario has been to assume that the other person is heterosexual. Now that it's becoming increasingly more okay to not have to creep in the shadows about it, it actually helps to normalize your everyday relationships with people to just help them reassess where you fit in with them interaction-wise. We are CONSTANTLY making subconscious sexual evaluations about each other, it's at the core of our species' survival.

Shedding some light on your sexual orientation actually uncomplicates things quite a bit in all facets of your life. The only other alternative that I know of to be comfortable in yourself is to simply not talk to people or form close friendships -- it starts getting tougher to live with those assumptions. (Pronouns mean a lot!)