I wonder if this profiles are real: "I like CLEAN pussy".

[marylander1940]

looking for wet pussy bottoms ONLY

 

23, 6'4", 160lb, 31w. Slim, Black, Hairy Body, Black. Looking for: 1-on-1 Sex.

 

 

im a FULL time student & my work/studies comes before you & this site...

here to get sum ass

safe only

no raw! NEVER!

 

 

in your first message you should be sending me your address & doggy style waiting on me.

 

(serious people ONLY! im not here to play games or lead people on)

 

all i ask is be CLEAN! i like clean pussy

& be submissive.

no tops. no aggressive bottoms

 

 

digging out that pussy till it creams

 

Drink Often, Zodiac Scorpio.

 

9", Cut, Top, Safe Sex Only, HIV Negative

 

http://www.adam4adam.com/profile/view/Rocky1911

[k9lover]

When you post about private citizen who want free sex are you trying to promote them or just mocking them?

[+ quoththeraven]

Color me confused when terms that normally apply to women get used in this context (pussy, boypussy, and cunt as terms for a receptive partner's anus). I get that it's teasing and dominant, but is there some point to using gendered terms that aren't literally applicable? One reason I ask is that it's my conclusion that a not insignificant reason for disdain toward gay men from straight society, men in particular, is that receptive sex is for women, not men, and that engaging in it is therefore unmanly. Yet it seems as though some gay/bisexual men accept that characterization.

 

I'm not questioning the kink, if you want to call it that, for domination or humiliation along this axis. Just asking why does gender have to be dragged into it?

[+ FreshFluff]

Here's my guess: The use of "pussy" emphasizes the inevitability of the bottom's submission. From a physical perspective, a woman can never turn the tables and become a top without the use of external aids.

 

And of course, being called a woman is humiliating for many men.

[+ quoththeraven]

Here's my guess: The use of "pussy" emphasizes the inevitability of the bottom's submission. From a physical perspective, a woman can never turn the tables and become a top without the use of external aids.

 

And of course, being called a woman is humiliating for many men.

 

That last sentence is what I thought is going on here, but you're probably right about the other as well.

 

It may not be possible for a woman to top physically, but psychologically and in terms of setting up the scene/context, absolutely. I know of dommes that say that it's not a matter of who's doing the fucking in the physical sense, but who's doing the mindfuck and who's controlling whom.

[+ FreshFluff]

That makes sense, given the number of female mistresses, but it's hard for me to picture it. Of course, B&D can take place before or, for that matter, without intercourse.

 

In a gay context: Does the bottom ever dominate the top? I asked Google, but it demurred.

[marylander1940]

Color me confused when terms that normally apply to women get used in this context (pussy, boypussy, and cunt as terms for a receptive partner's anus). I get that it's teasing and dominant, but is there some point to using gendered terms that aren't literally applicable? One reason I ask is that it's my conclusion that a not insignificant reason for disdain toward gay men from straight society, men in particular, is that receptive sex is for women, not men, and that engaging in it is therefore unmanly. Yet it seems as though some gay/bisexual men accept that characterization.

 

I'm not questioning the kink, if you want to call it that, for domination or humiliation along this axis. Just asking why does gender have to be dragged into it?

 

I find the name: Mangina (as synonym of butthole) even more disgusting and confusing.

 

Please don't confuse it the Urban Dictionary meaning of mangina:

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mangina

 

When a guy pulls his dick and balls back between his legs (forming a basket of fruit behind him) and then putting his legs together to simulate the look of a vagina

 

"That's one hairy mangina"

 

Buyers beware, the following pics are gross yet have some bromantic homoeroticism.

 

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1002/4601055525_5fd719df52_z.jpg

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A69GyFiCcAEvxLs.jpg:large

http://i4.bebo.com/043/3/large/2008/03/14/12/20212507a7146961836l.jpg

http://i4.bebo.com/042/12/large/2008/03/14/12/20212507a7146960419l.jpg

[+ quoththeraven]

In a gay context: Does the bottom ever dominate the top? I asked Google, but it demurred.

 

Yes. It can happen in any context. It's called "topping from the bottom." There's also such a thing as a bratty sub.

 

You will also get people noting that the sub is in control of what goes on in the scene by virtue of negotiating and setting limits beforehand and the existence of a safeword.

 

Topping isn't just a BDSM concept; I'd include whoever takes the initiative in that term. In that regard, I "topped" during most of my marriage even though the sex was predominantly vanilla. My ex was unable to articulate his fantasies (or else he didn't have any; as a practical matter, there wasn't much difference), so any roleplay was something I came up with and executed. Since his idea of seduction was to ask if I wanted to have sex (most of the time the answer was no because I was tired or trying to get something else accomplished), I wound up being the one who determined when we had sex, which was mostly Sunday night because by then I'd gotten as much done that weekend as I was going to. Until then, I was too distracted by all the things I wanted to get done to relax enough to enjoy myself.

 

I find the name: Mangina even more disgusting and confusing.

 

I agree! I'd forgotten that one. I probably buried it in my subconscious.

 

If anyone has a better explanation for this phenomenon than the feminization of the bottom, I'd love to hear it.

 

Marylander1940, you edited your post after I'd quoted it. I only looked at the first photo, but I don't find it gross, just a reminder that when you subtract the obvious (external male genitalia), we're more similar than we think. Male and female embryos start off looking the same. Male embryos develop organs down the line that female embryos don't, and have a different balance of male and female hormones (which we all have unless we have an endocrine disorder). Part of the reason for confusion when it comes to intersex people is that their development may have gotten stuck somewhere in the middle. It's also why the clitoris is considered homologous, not just analogous, to the penis.

[marylander1940]

...

 

If anyone has a better explanation for this phenomenon than the feminization of the bottom, I'd love to hear it.

 

Marylander1940, you edited your post after I'd quoted it...

 

Me too!

 

btw, I just added new pics while you were quoting me. Btw now that you mention this subject, in the old system we had 45 mins to be able to edit, how long is it now?

[+ FreshFluff]

QTR, my understanding is that "topping from the bottom" or "fussy bottoming" refers to resistance to submission rather than to domination.

 

Certainly, the person who determines when the sex act happens is dominating. I suppose the bottom can seduce the top into having an erection, but the bottom can't force the top to stick part A into part B.

[anotherjohnindupont]

I find the name: Mangina (as synonym of butthole) even more disgusting and confusing.

 

Please don't confuse it the Urban Dictionary meaning of mangina:

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mangina

 

When a guy pulls his dick and balls back between his legs (forming a basket of fruit behind him) and then putting his legs together to simulate the look of a vagina

 

"That's one hairy mangina"

 

Buyers beware, the following pics are gross yet have some bromantic homoeroticism.

 

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1002/4601055525_5fd719df52_z.jpg

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A69GyFiCcAEvxLs.jpg:large

 

http://i4.bebo.com/043/3/large/2008/03/14/12/20212507a7146961836l.jpg

 

http://i4.bebo.com/042/12/large/2008/03/14/12/20212507a7146960419l.jpg

 

Is like saying manty intead of panty...

[+ quoththeraven]

Is like saying manty intead of panty...

 

There's a difference between anatomically incorrect usage and making distinctions regarding clothing. One just looks ridiculous and the other is perhaps overly persnickety. (Though many men's underpants have features irrelevant to women.)

 

And to answer marylander1940's question about editing: You should confirm this with the Admin staff, but it looks like there's no time limit. Eternal editing FTW!

 

Whoops, forgot: FF, I see it as the two fighting for dominance rather than resistance to submission, but this may be a case of potayto, potahto.

[+ Axiom2001]

Color me confused when terms that normally apply to women get used in this context (pussy, boypussy, and cunt as terms for a receptive partner's anus). I get that it's teasing and dominant, but is there some point to using gendered terms that aren't literally applicable? One reason I ask is that it's my conclusion that a not insignificant reason for disdain toward gay men from straight society, men in particular, is that receptive sex is for women, not men, and that engaging in it is therefore unmanly. Yet it seems as though some gay/bisexual men accept that characterization.

 

I'm not questioning the kink, if you want to call it that, for domination or humiliation along this axis. Just asking why does gender have to be dragged into it?

 

Perhaps the guy who wrote the ad has had a difficult time in accepting self who engages in male-to-male sex and thus continues to use terms related to hetero sex! That's how I viewed it.

"male pussy" Might be completely wrong though!!