Consider myself mostly straight but I have the grief to suck

>be me
>be bi tendencies for years
>cant stop thinking about sucking dick
>don't really like men
>one day say it's now or never
>make ad on craigslist for private gloryhole at my place
>we dont see each other, perfect
>get guy lined up
>wait by the door for car to pull up, so anxious but drunk with lust now
>car pulls up, heart racing
>listen to footsteps
>guy comes to hole, pulls gym shorts down
>i can still smell the laundry soap on his shorts and it turns me on til this day
>take his semi hard cock in my hand, stroke a little
>take the plunge and slide it into my warm receptive mouth
>moans from mystery man turns me on
>literally turn on my cocksucker switch and naturally turn into a pro
>10 mins in and I feel a warm shot in my mouth followed by grunting
>guy pulls pants up thanks me and leaves
>sit on floor and savor in his taste for a while
>emails me and tells me that was one of the best bjs ever and cant believe when I tell him it was my first
>hooked ever since

God, now I'm going to search out a cock.

>>1447256
Congrats anon, you're on the fast track to herpes and HIV.

>>1447257

Literally no different than seeing him face to face or vetting someone you find at a bar, supermarket, grindr, etc. Use your fucking brain, idiot.

>>1447258
>Literally no different than seeing him face to face
>glory hole

>>1447258
Glory holes are for bug chasers and old men who are used to the time when glory holes were necessary

Lol no. In the real world aka truck stops bathrooms adult stores yes. Privately, no dif than seeing his face. I ask questions, have parameters on age orientation habits etc. If they fit the bill, sure. There's literally nothing I do dif than I'd do if I was vetting someone to see on a date, etc. The gloryhole was a way to remain somewhat anonymous and an ice breaker to explore somewhat.

And what do you guys think about the cock?

>>1447264
>In the real world aka truck stops bathrooms adult stores yes.
What do you know about the real gay world? You said this was your first dick and your straight? I can smell the bullshit from here.

>>1447253
that cock loooks nice, would like inside me plz

File: SX5qGyK.gif (2MB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x197px

>>1447260
>Glory holes are for bug chasers

bug chasers are looking for anal, mong.
glory holes are oral.

you literally don't know what you're talking about.

>>1447307
Bug chasers look for bugs, you can get HIV and plenty others at glory holes just as easy as you can gettin anal

>le straight guy on /hm/ maymay xD

>>1447312
there is not one single case of anyone ever getting hiv from oral sex alone

saliva destroys the virus and the membranes in the mouth are stronger and thicker than those in the ass or vagina

>>1447468

Medfag can confirm

>>1447628
Lmao no you're not http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/oralsex.html
Two seconds of googling... Jesus, lazy bullshitting idiots. Low does not mean physically impossible and considering how many slutty gays there are I figure low is never as low as it seems

>>1447708
Did anyone say 'impossible'? No. They said low, which your own fucking link says.

Chance for sucking is something like 1/2500. Chance from being sucked is so astronomically low as to be 0.

That doesn't mean impossible, or never going to happen, or any of that shit. But there's been about one reported case of HIV from oral sex in the past two years.

>>1447714
You're kidding. Read the comment above yours about the membrane and saliva, dumbass. And with enough gays suckin dick even 1/100000 is a relevant stat

>>1447714
Are you really gonna quote him on the correct stats after he just posted a link correcting your misinformation? Why are people so ready to start a fight on this board? Get a life.

>>1447718
>A number of studies have shown that whole saliva protects susceptible cells against HIV infection
>Shugars DC et al. The role of the oral environment in HIV-1 transmission

>>1447720
This rephrased info doesn't make your first comment right, you tried to be smart, you were wrong, move on, stop defending your virtual ego

>>1447719
Please point out somewhere on his link that has statistics.

The phrase:

>The chance an HIV-negative person will get HIV from oral sex with an HIV-positive partner is extremely low.

is used.

>>1447724
No, he's not right, it doesn't destroy the virus, that's a dumb thing to say. Acting like saliva plays no part in protections is also stupid to say though considering recent studies.

> And with enough gays suckin dick even 1/100000 is a relevant stat

OK, so find more reported cases then.

>>1447725
/sighh The reading comprehension. I said his post had links, not mine. Please stop, this is embarrassing . This is like the sad, fat nerdy kid at the debate club whos desperately trying to prove how smart he is while saying all the wrong answers and everyone just looks the other way and cringes.

>>1447729
>OK, so find more reported cases then.
Lmao you fags are unbelievable. Give a direct link to government info "find me more cases". If people argued like that in real life they'd be laughed out of the room.

>>1447730
Seriously? It's an anonymous board, saying 'his' doesn't indicate which post because everyone fucking post in here is a 'his'. You didn't even link to it.

I like how you're having to resort to trying to insult me, because you're incapable of doing anything else. It's OK anon.

>>1447732
Your link doesn't say anything about the number of reported cases, are you sure you read it?

The best it say is:

>However, it is hard to know the exact risk because a lot of people who have oral sex also have anal or vaginal sex.

which has absolutely no statistical value. People don't 'argue' like that in real life, because people in real life actually research the topic before making themselves look stupid.

>>1447733
>it's ok anon
>taking the comforting therapist tact
>literally the worst type of person
I'm insulting you because you make it SO easy to do and I already defused your awful logic a while ago. The person I was talking to said it was impossible to get HIV via mouth, I posted a link disproving that and you went off on a tangent about all this other info which doesn't matter when the main point was, is it possible to get via oral, and yes it is. The rest of it has just been you sperging info in order to appear smart as possible. This sentence may have actually been the worst thing I've ever read, by the way. So smug and repulsive.

>No, he's not right, it doesn't destroy the virus, that's a dumb thing to say. Acting like saliva plays no part in protections is also stupid to say though considering recent studies.

File: 9345865620975.gif (1MB, 396x223px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 396x223px

>>1447737
>when autists think they can disprove government studies via vague wording and their "intellect"

>>1447739
>The person I was talking to said it was impossible to get HIV via mouth

We're back to reading again, sorry anon. Here's the post: >>1447468

Please point out the word 'impossible' in this post. You might struggle, because it's not there, so really you're posting a link to 'disprove' something that wasn't even brought up. Then amusingly accusing other people of posting information to 'appear smart', despite basically doing that exact thing.

>>1447741
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Holy shit I've been arguing with THIS guy the whole time? Wow.......

>can't distinguish the implied impossibility of never having a single case
You seriously think the government created that study without a single case of HIV via oral ever? No wonder you feel you need to spew info to appear intelligent..

File: hqdefault.jpg (39KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 480x360px

Well, op? How you enjoying this super hot thread?

>>1447741
>literally looking for the actual word impossible
>the last sentence perfectly describes why he thinks its impossible

>>1447745
This is what happens when autists cant deal with being wrong so they need to start drama over it.

>>1447740
I'm not disproving government studies, because there's no studies linked. Nor has the government issued anything on the chance of HIV from oral except "extremely low".

So, non-vague. Link a government study that has some kind of empirical evidence about transmission rates, and I'll happily stand corrected.

>>1447752
>study doesn't have exact stats so it doesn't count
>i'll only believe what makes me feel right
How about you link me a study disproving the information I've already provided you, instead of spouting conjecture about so called studies over and over and providing nothing.

>>1447754
>thinking a CDC link is a 'study'
>not bothering to Google the actual terms


Disprove what? The CDC says the risk is 'extremely low'. I said the risk is probably around 1/2500; these two things are apparently incompatible in your brain despite the fact that I agree with the CDC.

You've also provided zero information, beyond the aforementioned CDC link. I'm not the one repeatedly mentioning 'government studies' because, frankly, I haven't seen that they've done any on transmission rates.

>>1447628
>Medfag can confirm

Super-ghonorhea, on the other mouth...

>>1447758
This is definitely some sort of autism. Why do you need exact numbers to prove to you that HIV is possible to get via oral? Only seeing in numbers and colors (autism joke). The numbers shouldn't matter if it's scientifically possible, and even if they were there and astronomically low, my point would still stand. They obviously used data to come up with this study.

>still arguing the fact that this information wasn't attained via careful surveys and studies because "need muh exact number or no good"

>provided zero information
>a link to the government website, non-biased well-funded
>he still hasn't linked anything at all

Also where the fuck did we start talking about transmission rates?? Lmao, you've gotten lost in your head. This is sort of entertaining to watch.

>>1447764
>Why do you need exact numbers to prove to you that HIV is possible to get via oral?

I...don't? Like, I really hate to drag it back to this, but I get the distinct impression you're not reading my posts, just skimming then getting angry. Look:

>>1447714
'they said low'

I never once, and never would, say that it's impossible. Even in the post *you just quoted*, I pointed out a statistic for transmission, which is the exact opposite of 'impossible'.

I still don't understand where you're coming from, it's perfectly possible to get HIV from oral. No denial. It's also improbable.

What do you want links to? We agree on the premise, and I agree with the CDC. But, I can probably find a link or book if you want something more?

As an aside, saying:
>The numbers shouldn't matter if it's scientifically possible

is dumb. Statistics (and facts) shouldn't be ignored simply because the premise is true, that's how we end up with stupid leaders.

>>1447714
>>1447773
Your initial post was in response to my info that you obviously can get HIV via oral, implying you didn't think it was possible, not unlikely, because that's exactly what I said.

So what the fuck are you even arguing about LMAO??? Holy shit you're a massive waste of time. You just got called out on a lie (that first guy was you and you samefagged your shit) so you decided to create an argument about nothing.
>give me my transmission rates even though I apparently exactky agree with your viewpoint
>autists on this board

>>1447778
>implying you didn't think it was possible, not unlikely, because that's exactly what I said.

Seriously? Here's what I said:

>That doesn't mean impossible, or never going to happen, or any of that shit.

I'd say that's pretty clear.

Also
>being angry about being provided more information

>>1447781
I linked the one after, I should have linked the one before where you spouted bullshit but whatever, you get the idea. You got called out on a lie, then "agreed with my premise" and started an argument demanding transmission rates and more info for no reason other than you didn't like being wrong. Why else would you demand more info on something you said you already agree with?

>>1447783
Now you're trying to argue about arguing?

Just stop anon. I've never posted anything factually wrong in this thread. If I have, feel free to disprove it. Otherwise, just stop being so angry.

>>1447787
>Now you're trying to argue about arguing?
>literally exactly what he's doing

I've yet to be angry, how could I be? You've posted nothing worthwhile and covered zero ground during the entire duration of this. Also learn to internet.. insults =/= angry.

>>1447745
>'totally what i had in mind when i opened this thread. Some crazy guys just posting yes no arguments