Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Swingers Chat |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the anonymity of poking your cock through a hole is consent that you dont know who is on the other side? Not saying its right, but its certainly a possibility If you want to know whos lips are on your bell end, dont poke it through for an unseen stranger" But if they have been led to believe it was the female, they would be consenting to 'that' not the male. Legally I'm not sure where it lands, but it certainly isn't cool. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, I’ve just seen a couple post that they enjoyed fooling straight guys into thinking the F of the couple was giving head at a gloryhole but it was instead the make of the couple. This isn’t cool right? This isn’t consensual? " My opinion is if you’re gonna put your dick through a glory hole you’re happy to let anyone have a shot. If you’re unsure then have someone the other side making sure it’s a man/woman. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
But leading people under false pretences is wrong | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well - here is the actual status text “ The highlight of our weekend has to be getting all the straight guys to think it was only Mrs that was draining their dicks in the glory hole hehe!” If it was flipped and a guy was like “a girl thought it was only me going down on her but my mates did too” then wouldn’t that be a reportable sex offence?? " I think it would be reportable and is exactly why I think glory holes are a bad idea. Personally I would like that couple removed from the site for that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well - here is the actual status text “ The highlight of our weekend has to be getting all the straight guys to think it was only Mrs that was draining their dicks in the glory hole hehe!” If it was flipped and a guy was like “a girl thought it was only me going down on her but my mates did too” then wouldn’t that be a reportable sex offence?? I think it would be reportable and is exactly why I think glory holes are a bad idea. Personally I would like that couple removed from the site for that." I like the idea of a glory hole, but would want a spotter. A bit like is recommended for women and female gloryholes. I agree, that they should be reported. Laughing about ticking people into unconsented sexual acts is not good and depending how it was done could even be reported as a criminal offence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well - here is the actual status text “ The highlight of our weekend has to be getting all the straight guys to think it was only Mrs that was draining their dicks in the glory hole hehe!” If it was flipped and a guy was like “a girl thought it was only me going down on her but my mates did too” then wouldn’t that be a reportable sex offence?? " Report the profile to admins let them have a chat with them To me it just sounds like a bloke showing off, if the Gloryhole was in a club, the jokes are usually big enough to see a rough idea of whose on the other side of that two people are in the room, in which case as I said before people are getting sucked knowing they are taking pot luck as to whose on the other end In my experience from giving a BJ in a Gloryhole, watching my partner give & receive a BJ there is usually done hand contact and I'm pretty sure most people could tell the difference between a woman's slim fingers and a mans thicker fingers I'm still not condoning what they've done if they have deliberately misled people as your right that would be assault but surely they then wouldn't be stupid enough to advertise what they had done which is why I think the guys would have known there was a possibility it wasn't only the woman on the other side so therefore prepared to take their chances | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well - here is the actual status text “ The highlight of our weekend has to be getting all the straight guys to think it was only Mrs that was draining their dicks in the glory hole hehe!”" Agreed, that is deceptive and manipulative. To set out deliberately to do this is not Swinging in my experience But I still think people getting upset about what happens to their dick once they poke it through a hole is a bit precious. Either they want anonymity or they want certainty, cant see how you get both when they are at odds | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Report the profile to admins let them have a chat with them To me it just sounds like a bloke showing off I'm still not condoning what they've done if they have deliberately misled people" I am on the same page as you I think  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the anonymity of poking your cock through a hole is consent that you dont know who is on the other side? Not saying its right, but its certainly a possibility If you want to know whos lips are on your bell end, dont poke it through for an unseen stranger But if they have been led to believe it was the female, they would be consenting to 'that' not the male. Legally I'm not sure where it lands, but it certainly isn't cool. " It's pretty much the same rules as spending money on a lucky dip: you pays yer money, you takes yer chances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the anonymity of poking your cock through a hole is consent that you dont know who is on the other side? Not saying its right, but its certainly a possibility If you want to know whos lips are on your bell end, dont poke it through for an unseen stranger But if they have been led to believe it was the female, they would be consenting to 'that' not the male. Legally I'm not sure where it lands, but it certainly isn't cool. It's pretty much the same rules as spending money on a lucky dip: you pays yer money, you takes yer chances." If I recall correctly “lucky dipping” is definitely an accepted defence in English Law  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the anonymity of poking your cock through a hole is consent that you dont know who is on the other side? Not saying its right, but its certainly a possibility If you want to know whos lips are on your bell end, dont poke it through for an unseen stranger But if they have been led to believe it was the female, they would be consenting to 'that' not the male. Legally I'm not sure where it lands, but it certainly isn't cool. It's pretty much the same rules as spending money on a lucky dip: you pays yer money, you takes yer chances." Only if it 'was' a lucky dip, but if you have been promised something, such as a random teddy and receive a can of dog food, you'd have reason to complain. It's deception and in this case potentially illegal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the anonymity of poking your cock through a hole is consent that you dont know who is on the other side? Not saying its right, but its certainly a possibility If you want to know whos lips are on your bell end, dont poke it through for an unseen stranger" Sorry I don't agree with this. It sounds like victim blaming to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, I’ve just seen a couple post that they enjoyed fooling straight guys into thinking the F of the couple was giving head at a gloryhole but it was instead the make of the couple. This isn’t cool right? This isn’t consensual? " Quite frankly it's disgusting and dangerous. Personally i would never use a gloryhole anyway but as a straight guy, I'd lose it if I found out another guy unknowingly performed a sex act on me. But that is the risk you get with a glory hole hence my avoidance of them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I get the concept of the glory hole thing but... That status, if its actually true, is a shitty trick. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. " Is that the same argument that says if you are willing to go out on a Saturday night to a club, dressed with a few very revealing clothes and get very d*unk then you can't complain what happens to you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. Is that the same argument that says if you are willing to go out on a Saturday night to a club, dressed with a few very revealing clothes and get very d*unk then you can't complain what happens to you? " Absolutely not the same argument at all! I'm not saying it's okay but it's a grey area, 100% if the guy specifically said before attending that he didn't want the male half sucking him off then they did that anyway then yeah its totally not cool | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. Is that the same argument that says if you are willing to go out on a Saturday night to a club, dressed with a few very revealing clothes and get very d*unk then you can't complain what happens to you? Absolutely not the same argument at all! I'm not saying it's okay but it's a grey area, 100% if the guy specifically said before attending that he didn't want the male half sucking him off then they did that anyway then yeah its totally not cool" Ok - I thought you were telling everyone to calm down and that there was nothing to see but glad I misunderstood. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. Is that the same argument that says if you are willing to go out on a Saturday night to a club, dressed with a few very revealing clothes and get very d*unk then you can't complain what happens to you? Absolutely not the same argument at all! I'm not saying it's okay but it's a grey area, 100% if the guy specifically said before attending that he didn't want the male half sucking him off then they did that anyway then yeah its totally not cool" How is this a grey area? They clearly know that he is straight. Should he again tell everyone that he doesn't like to be sucked off by men? He has been made to take part in a sexual act he didn't consent to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For the ones who think it's not that big a deal, let's change the gender and sexual orientation. A lesbian woman visits a couple. They do blindfold play. They deceive her by saying that the wife is performing an act on her but it was really the husband. Would you have treated the issue similarly? That's actually r*pe. So is this. People should learn to respect someone's sexuality." EXACTLY. This is sexual assault. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think being honest with glory holes you take that risk. It’s not as if you can shout and say ‘hi is it man or woman behind there’ I also think everyone is probably reading too deep into the status I actually go into glory holes with my partner if they do not see my partner walk behind there but only me are we supposed to announce our gender? Everytime a sock comes through As someone said above there are ways if you really want to make sure about the gender. Just look through the hole or just don’t do it at all. " Assume a female glory hole where the woman is looking to have vaginal sex. A guy comes out of nowhere and tries anal sex with her. Would that be cool? Because it's a glory hole anyway and they should take that risk? The status says that the couple knew the guys were straight and still went for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think being honest with glory holes you take that risk. It’s not as if you can shout and say ‘hi is it man or woman behind there’ I also think everyone is probably reading too deep into the status I actually go into glory holes with my partner if they do not see my partner walk behind there but only me are we supposed to announce our gender? Everytime a sock comes through As someone said above there are ways if you really want to make sure about the gender. Just look through the hole or just don’t do it at all. Assume a female glory hole where the woman is looking to have vaginal sex. A guy comes out of nowhere and tries anal sex with her. Would that be cool? Because it's a glory hole anyway and they should take that risk? The status says that the couple knew the guys were straight and still went for it. " For one you would have a spotter on female glory holes. Also they were probably assuming as the guys were straight as when the guys actually decided to see who had milked their cock and saw a man withdrew their cock. It’s not as if you wear something to say you’re straight is it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the anonymity of poking your cock through a hole is consent that you dont know who is on the other side? Not saying its right, but its certainly a possibility If you want to know whos lips are on your bell end, dont poke it through for an unseen stranger" Fantastic answer. Laughed out loud | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think being honest with glory holes you take that risk. It’s not as if you can shout and say ‘hi is it man or woman behind there’ I also think everyone is probably reading too deep into the status I actually go into glory holes with my partner if they do not see my partner walk behind there but only me are we supposed to announce our gender? Everytime a sock comes through As someone said above there are ways if you really want to make sure about the gender. Just look through the hole or just don’t do it at all. Assume a female glory hole where the woman is looking to have vaginal sex. A guy comes out of nowhere and tries anal sex with her. Would that be cool? Because it's a glory hole anyway and they should take that risk? The status says that the couple knew the guys were straight and still went for it. For one you would have a spotter on female glory holes. Also they were probably assuming as the guys were straight as when the guys actually decided to see who had milked their cock and saw a man withdrew their cock. It’s not as if you wear something to say you’re straight is it. " To requote the status: The highlight of our weekend has to be getting all the straight guys to think it was only Mrs that was draining their dicks in the glory hole hehe It says that they got the guys to think it was the Mrs. And I don't see how having a spotter is an excuse for such behaviour. In case a spotter doesn't exist just like the case OP mentioned, would it be ok for a guy to indulge in anal sex without getting consent? It's not as if you wear something to say you like anal sex or not, is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fantastic answer. Laughed out loud "Thank you  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. Is that the same argument that says if you are willing to go out on a Saturday night to a club, dressed with a few very revealing clothes and get very d*unk then you can't complain what happens to you? Absolutely not the same argument at all! I'm not saying it's okay but it's a grey area, 100% if the guy specifically said before attending that he didn't want the male half sucking him off then they did that anyway then yeah its totally not cool How is this a grey area? They clearly know that he is straight. Should he again tell everyone that he doesn't like to be sucked off by men? He has been made to take part in a sexual act he didn't consent to. " Come on this is getting silly, nobody has come up with a decent comparison, the blindfolded lesbian thing was rubbish as was the female gloryhole anal thing. This is potentially a good debate but nobody is doing it justice yet. There is something in it however, I know that I never would allow a guy to visit mine without him knowing my gender beforehand and I always make boundaries clear too, I'd never back my ass down onto their cocks without asking first for example. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
K | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry I don't agree with this. It sounds like victim blaming to me. " So to be clear, you are describing someone who wants to have an anonymous sexual encounter with a stranger as a victim? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the same argument that says if you are willing to go out on a Saturday night to a club, dressed with a few very revealing clothes and get very d*unk then you can't complain what happens to you? " No, this is not the same at all! People going about their leisure time without interfering with others is NOTHING like demanding a stranger sucks your cum out of yours balls What are you thinking, even comparing the two? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. Is that the same argument that says if you are willing to go out on a Saturday night to a club, dressed with a few very revealing clothes and get very d*unk then you can't complain what happens to you? Absolutely not the same argument at all! I'm not saying it's okay but it's a grey area, 100% if the guy specifically said before attending that he didn't want the male half sucking him off then they did that anyway then yeah its totally not cool How is this a grey area? They clearly know that he is straight. Should he again tell everyone that he doesn't like to be sucked off by men? He has been made to take part in a sexual act he didn't consent to. Come on this is getting silly, nobody has come up with a decent comparison, the blindfolded lesbian thing was rubbish as was the female gloryhole anal thing. This is potentially a good debate but nobody is doing it justice yet. There is something in it however, I know that I never would allow a guy to visit mine without him knowing my gender beforehand and I always make boundaries clear too, I'd never back my ass down onto their cocks without asking first for example. " No. What I see here is hypocrisy in some people just because the victim here is male. If I reverse a similar situation where the victim is female, none of you seem to answer. I respect the fact that you make everything clear with your partner and no one is accusing you of anything like that. I am just requesting people to treat the male victim same as you would treat a female victim. You wouldn't see people bending over backwards to find excuses like "But it was a glory hole. She should have known the risk" if the victim was female. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry I don't agree with this. It sounds like victim blaming to me. So to be clear, you are describing someone who wants to have an anonymous sexual encounter with a stranger as a victim?" Yes if they had specifically stated their sexual orientation as being straight then they are only consenting to an anonymous sexual encounter with someone of the opposite sex. If they are deliberately deceived and have ended up having that encounter with a member of the same sex then yes, they are most definitely a victim. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry I don't agree with this. It sounds like victim blaming to me. So to be clear, you are describing someone who wants to have an anonymous sexual encounter with a stranger as a victim?" Because the status by the couple makes it clear that the couple knew the guys were straight, the couple got the guys to think it was the Mrs but it was the husband who did it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the same argument that says if you are willing to go out on a Saturday night to a club, dressed with a few very revealing clothes and get very d*unk then you can't complain what happens to you? No, this is not the same at all! People going about their leisure time without interfering with others is NOTHING like demanding a stranger sucks your cum out of yours balls What are you thinking, even comparing the two?" I am thinking I find it weird that you would condone a sexual act where one partner thought they were having sex with one person and then find that it was switched. Consent is consent. It doesnt matter what led upto that point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am thinking I find it weird that you would condone a sexual act…" Hang on, have you read my posts? At no point have I condoned anything From the start of the topic I said it was wrong, read back All I am saying is that visiting a glory hole does not make someone a victim, certainly not to be compared to an assault | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am thinking I find it weird that you would condone a sexual act… Hang on, have you read my posts? At no point have I condoned anything From the start of the topic I said it was wrong, read back All I am saying is that visiting a glory hole does not make someone a victim, certainly not to be compared to an assault" And I disagree with that fundamental premise. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And I disagree with that fundamental premise." Please tell me how seeking casual and blind/brief sexual gratification is an act of innocence | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry I don't agree with this. It sounds like victim blaming to me. So to be clear, you are describing someone who wants to have an anonymous sexual encounter with a stranger as a victim? Because the status by the couple makes it clear that the couple knew the guys were straight, the couple got the guys to think it was the Mrs but it was the husband who did it. " I think from what I can gather they realised the guys were straight when they withdrew their cock. Hypothetically if it was a club how would they know the guys were straight? It’s not exactly their fault when they see the woman walk behind the screen but take no notice there is a man with her. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am thinking I find it weird that you would condone a sexual act… Hang on, have you read my posts? At no point have I condoned anything From the start of the topic I said it was wrong, read back All I am saying is that visiting a glory hole does not make someone a victim, certainly not to be compared to an assault" Sorry, if you are tricked into doing something you didn’t consent to particularly as the perpetrators were fully aware that you didn’t consent to it. Then that’s sexual assault. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And I disagree with that fundamental premise. Please tell me how seeking casual and blind/brief sexual gratification is an act of innocence" I didn’t say it was innocent. Consent has nothing to do with whether it is innocent or not. The issue is not the setting or the location. The issue is that one side thought they were having a sexual act with one person and it turned out to be someone else. By definition the act cannot be consented to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. Is that the same argument that says if you are willing to go out on a Saturday night to a club, dressed with a few very revealing clothes and get very d*unk then you can't complain what happens to you? Absolutely not the same argument at all! I'm not saying it's okay but it's a grey area, 100% if the guy specifically said before attending that he didn't want the male half sucking him off then they did that anyway then yeah its totally not cool How is this a grey area? They clearly know that he is straight. Should he again tell everyone that he doesn't like to be sucked off by men? He has been made to take part in a sexual act he didn't consent to. Come on this is getting silly, nobody has come up with a decent comparison, the blindfolded lesbian thing was rubbish as was the female gloryhole anal thing. This is potentially a good debate but nobody is doing it justice yet. There is something in it however, I know that I never would allow a guy to visit mine without him knowing my gender beforehand and I always make boundaries clear too, I'd never back my ass down onto their cocks without asking first for example. No. What I see here is hypocrisy in some people just because the victim here is male. If I reverse a similar situation where the victim is female, none of you seem to answer. I respect the fact that you make everything clear with your partner and no one is accusing you of anything like that. I am just requesting people to treat the male victim same as you would treat a female victim. You wouldn't see people bending over backwards to find excuses like "But it was a glory hole. She should have known the risk" if the victim was female." I hear you and I think you're right that there is inequality in regards to gender and sexual assault and that needs to be addressed 100%. I think that perhaps the reason nobody replies to the examples you gave is that they are far fetched or very unlikely to happen and just don't quite match the OP gloryhole scenario. As someone said, the people who are more in agreement with you identify as straight on their profiles. I wonder how many of them would actually put themselves in that situation in the first place though? I think most will agree you'd have to be very naive for it not to even cross your mind that it could happen. I think the prob is we don't know exactly what was communicated with each guy beforehand so can only comment and speculate so far about the couple in question. I wonder how many would still think it were sexual assault if they found out later that it was 2 women sucking them and not just the woman on the couples profile, this technically would be sexual assault too wouldn't it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And I disagree with that fundamental premise. Please tell me how seeking casual and blind/brief sexual gratification is an act of innocence I didn’t say it was innocent. Consent has nothing to do with whether it is innocent or not. The issue is not the setting or the location. The issue is that one side thought they were having a sexual act with one person and it turned out to be someone else. By definition the act cannot be consented to." Completely agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry I don't agree with this. It sounds like victim blaming to me. So to be clear, you are describing someone who wants to have an anonymous sexual encounter with a stranger as a victim? Because the status by the couple makes it clear that the couple knew the guys were straight, the couple got the guys to think it was the Mrs but it was the husband who did it. I think from what I can gather they realised the guys were straight when they withdrew their cock. Hypothetically if it was a club how would they know the guys were straight? It’s not exactly their fault when they see the woman walk behind the screen but take no notice there is a man with her. " Where did you gather that information? Re-quoting the post for you: The highlight of our weekend has to be getting all the straight guys to think it was only Mrs that was draining their dicks in the glory hole hehe! "Getting all the straight guys to think it was only Mrs" They knew they were straight. But the bigger problem is that they made the guys to think it was the Mrs. Even if the guys were bisexual, it's still non-consensual. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By definition the act cannot be consented to." And here we agree! A glory hole does not imply consent, its random and hidden, unknown and all of that is the appeal (to those who indulge). The very essence is a lack of consent, some unseen lips are going to wrap around my throbbing cock and drain my balls To complain that you did not know whos lips they were is missing the point of it all. Surely? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. Is that the same argument that says if you are willing to go out on a Saturday night to a club, dressed with a few very revealing clothes and get very d*unk then you can't complain what happens to you? Absolutely not the same argument at all! I'm not saying it's okay but it's a grey area, 100% if the guy specifically said before attending that he didn't want the male half sucking him off then they did that anyway then yeah its totally not cool How is this a grey area? They clearly know that he is straight. Should he again tell everyone that he doesn't like to be sucked off by men? He has been made to take part in a sexual act he didn't consent to. Come on this is getting silly, nobody has come up with a decent comparison, the blindfolded lesbian thing was rubbish as was the female gloryhole anal thing. This is potentially a good debate but nobody is doing it justice yet. There is something in it however, I know that I never would allow a guy to visit mine without him knowing my gender beforehand and I always make boundaries clear too, I'd never back my ass down onto their cocks without asking first for example. No. What I see here is hypocrisy in some people just because the victim here is male. If I reverse a similar situation where the victim is female, none of you seem to answer. I respect the fact that you make everything clear with your partner and no one is accusing you of anything like that. I am just requesting people to treat the male victim same as you would treat a female victim. You wouldn't see people bending over backwards to find excuses like "But it was a glory hole. She should have known the risk" if the victim was female. I hear you and I think you're right that there is inequality in regards to gender and sexual assault and that needs to be addressed 100%. I think that perhaps the reason nobody replies to the examples you gave is that they are far fetched or very unlikely to happen and just don't quite match the OP gloryhole scenario. As someone said, the people who are more in agreement with you identify as straight on their profiles. I wonder how many of them would actually put themselves in that situation in the first place though? I think most will agree you'd have to be very naive for it not to even cross your mind that it could happen. I think the prob is we don't know exactly what was communicated with each guy beforehand so can only comment and speculate so far about the couple in question. I wonder how many would still think it were sexual assault if they found out later that it was 2 women sucking them and not just the woman on the couples profile, this technically would be sexual assault too wouldn't it? " I agree. I do think that the “straight” people probably would not do a glory hole (and I said that I wouldn’t for that very reason). I also agree that if it was two women people probably wouldn’t complain. I also agree people are naive. But that still doesn’t make it right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By definition the act cannot be consented to. And here we agree! A glory hole does not imply consent, its random and hidden, unknown and all of that is the appeal (to those who indulge). The very essence is a lack of consent, some unseen lips are going to wrap around my throbbing cock and drain my balls To complain that you did not know whos lips they were is missing the point of it all. Surely?" I think you want to read the post above yours for the answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. Is that the same argument that says if you are willing to go out on a Saturday night to a club, dressed with a few very revealing clothes and get very d*unk then you can't complain what happens to you? Absolutely not the same argument at all! I'm not saying it's okay but it's a grey area, 100% if the guy specifically said before attending that he didn't want the male half sucking him off then they did that anyway then yeah its totally not cool How is this a grey area? They clearly know that he is straight. Should he again tell everyone that he doesn't like to be sucked off by men? He has been made to take part in a sexual act he didn't consent to. Come on this is getting silly, nobody has come up with a decent comparison, the blindfolded lesbian thing was rubbish as was the female gloryhole anal thing. This is potentially a good debate but nobody is doing it justice yet. There is something in it however, I know that I never would allow a guy to visit mine without him knowing my gender beforehand and I always make boundaries clear too, I'd never back my ass down onto their cocks without asking first for example. No. What I see here is hypocrisy in some people just because the victim here is male. If I reverse a similar situation where the victim is female, none of you seem to answer. I respect the fact that you make everything clear with your partner and no one is accusing you of anything like that. I am just requesting people to treat the male victim same as you would treat a female victim. You wouldn't see people bending over backwards to find excuses like "But it was a glory hole. She should have known the risk" if the victim was female. I hear you and I think you're right that there is inequality in regards to gender and sexual assault and that needs to be addressed 100%. I think that perhaps the reason nobody replies to the examples you gave is that they are far fetched or very unlikely to happen and just don't quite match the OP gloryhole scenario. As someone said, the people who are more in agreement with you identify as straight on their profiles. I wonder how many of them would actually put themselves in that situation in the first place though? I think most will agree you'd have to be very naive for it not to even cross your mind that it could happen. I think the prob is we don't know exactly what was communicated with each guy beforehand so can only comment and speculate so far about the couple in question. I wonder how many would still think it were sexual assault if they found out later that it was 2 women sucking them and not just the woman on the couples profile, this technically would be sexual assault too wouldn't it? " If it was just a random gloryhole at the club with no discussion with anyone, it's a risk that the guys took. But I have quoted the status by the couple multiple times. They "got the straight guys to believe it was the Mrs". This is why I claim it is a sexual assault. If the guys were told that woman A was going to blow them but it was woman B, it is still a sexual assault because the guys were misled. My sexual orientation has nothing to do with this. My examples were also around the same thing. A lesbian woman on blindfold being misled to believe that it was the wife who was performing oral sex but in reality it was the husband. This situation is same as telling the guys that the wife is going to perform oral sex but it was the husband who really did. Both are sexual assaults. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And at every point I said it was wrong We only differ in that I reserve my outrage for the innocent "So that is the “she was asking for it” defence? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By definition the act cannot be consented to. And here we agree! A glory hole does not imply consent, its random and hidden, unknown and all of that is the appeal (to those who indulge). The very essence is a lack of consent, some unseen lips are going to wrap around my throbbing cock and drain my balls To complain that you did not know whos lips they were is missing the point of it all. Surely?" If you have been specifically told it was a woman sucking you off then that is what you had consented to and you have a right to expect that it would be a woman. If a man then decides he wants to suck you off instead then consent should be obtained for that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the anonymity of poking your cock through a hole is consent that you dont know who is on the other side? Not saying its right, but its certainly a possibility If you want to know whos lips are on your bell end, dont poke it through for an unseen stranger But if they have been led to believe it was the female, they would be consenting to 'that' not the male. Legally I'm not sure where it lands, but it certainly isn't cool. " I van confirm.... it would be illegal as not 'True' consent.... if i told a woman I was a Fireman, she sleeps with me, then finds out i'm actually a lifeguard, this would actually be R-ape as True Consent not gained.... as its argued if she knew i was a lifeguard etc, she wouldnt have slept with me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the anonymity of poking your cock through a hole is consent that you dont know who is on the other side? Not saying its right, but its certainly a possibility If you want to know whos lips are on your bell end, dont poke it through for an unseen stranger But if they have been led to believe it was the female, they would be consenting to 'that' not the male. Legally I'm not sure where it lands, but it certainly isn't cool. I van confirm.... it would be illegal as not 'True' consent.... if i told a woman I was a Fireman, she sleeps with me, then finds out i'm actually a lifeguard, this would actually be R-ape as True Consent not gained.... as its argued if she knew i was a lifeguard etc, she wouldnt have slept with me. "So by that argument If you tell someone you are single and you are married then that would be r*p*? That doesn’t end well for a lot of people on here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think being honest with glory holes you take that risk. It’s not as if you can shout and say ‘hi is it man or woman behind there’ I also think everyone is probably reading too deep into the status I actually go into glory holes with my partner if they do not see my partner walk behind there but only me are we supposed to announce our gender? Everytime a sock comes through As someone said above there are ways if you really want to make sure about the gender. Just look through the hole or just don’t do it at all. Assume a female glory hole where the woman is looking to have vaginal sex. A guy comes out of nowhere and tries anal sex with her. Would that be cool? Because it's a glory hole anyway and they should take that risk? The status says that the couple knew the guys were straight and still went for it. For one you would have a spotter on female glory holes. Also they were probably assuming as the guys were straight as when the guys actually decided to see who had milked their cock and saw a man withdrew their cock. It’s not as if you wear something to say you’re straight is it. To requote the status: The highlight of our weekend has to be getting all the straight guys to think it was only Mrs that was draining their dicks in the glory hole hehe It says that they got the guys to think it was the Mrs. And I don't see how having a spotter is an excuse for such behaviour. In case a spotter doesn't exist just like the case OP mentioned, would it be ok for a guy to indulge in anal sex without getting consent? It's not as if you wear something to say you like anal sex or not, is it?" It could be that they got them to think it was the female after rather than before I.e they were in a club and all chatting after as to who was the one in the Gloryhole sucking all the cocks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the anonymity of poking your cock through a hole is consent that you dont know who is on the other side? Not saying its right, but its certainly a possibility If you want to know whos lips are on your bell end, dont poke it through for an unseen stranger But if they have been led to believe it was the female, they would be consenting to 'that' not the male. Legally I'm not sure where it lands, but it certainly isn't cool. I van confirm.... it would be illegal as not 'True' consent.... if i told a woman I was a Fireman, she sleeps with me, then finds out i'm actually a lifeguard, this would actually be R-ape as True Consent not gained.... as its argued if she knew i was a lifeguard etc, she wouldnt have slept with me.
So by that argument If you tell someone you are single and you are married then that would be r*p*?
That doesn’t end well for a lot of people on here "Exactly! This is perfect example... technically not True Consent... So yes, intotally agree.... lots of ppl might need to consider their choices. Lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And at every point I said it was wrong We only differ in that I reserve my outrage for the innocent
So that is the “she was asking for it” defence?"Oh wow! Am I really communicating that badly? No no no no, in fact I am arguing the very opposite of what you have inferred Someone on an innocent night out cannot and must not be compared to a glory hole punter No clue how to be more clear on that view Seeking random sex with unseen strangers is by definition non consensual, its the very point of the activity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm going to share something with you now I've never told anyone. A few years ago a guy came to my gloryhole, I'd seen vague pics of him but not a cock pic (which I now insist on but at the time was willing to take the odd chance here and there). To cut a long story short he had a tiny micropenis (and I mean tiny) and I felt so bad for him I gave him a bit of a pity bj. It didn't last long and he didn't cum and that was that. The majority of my experiences are positive with the gloryhole so I brushed it off. About a year later I saw his pics on another profile only to discover it wasn't a man at all it was a FTM trans man who'd had surgery to make the clitoris into a makeshift mini penis. I felt incredibly violated and still do. But in the end it was me that consented to putting the 'penis' that was in front of me in my mouth but if I'd have known their gender beforehand I would have firmly said no. Not sure I can quite call it sexual assault but it makes me angry and a bit grossed out to think about it. " I am sorry to hear that. You didn’t consent and it is sexual assault. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By definition the act cannot be consented to. And here we agree! A glory hole does not imply consent, its random and hidden, unknown and all of that is the appeal (to those who indulge). The very essence is a lack of consent, some unseen lips are going to wrap around my throbbing cock and drain my balls To complain that you did not know whos lips they were is missing the point of it all. Surely? If you have been specifically told it was a woman sucking you off then that is what you had consented to and you have a right to expect that it would be a woman. If a man then decides he wants to suck you off instead then consent should be obtained for that. " If we are applying the same rules regardless of gender then its really coming down to 'I thought anonymous person A was sucking me off but it was actually anonymous person B sucking me off in which case there isn't much to get upset about here to the degree that we seem to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surely the anonymity of poking your cock through a hole is consent that you dont know who is on the other side? Not saying its right, but its certainly a possibility If you want to know whos lips are on your bell end, dont poke it through for an unseen stranger But if they have been led to believe it was the female, they would be consenting to 'that' not the male. Legally I'm not sure where it lands, but it certainly isn't cool. I van confirm.... it would be illegal as not 'True' consent.... if i told a woman I was a Fireman, she sleeps with me, then finds out i'm actually a lifeguard, this would actually be R-ape as True Consent not gained.... as its argued if she knew i was a lifeguard etc, she wouldnt have slept with me.
So by that argument If you tell someone you are single and you are married then that would be r*p*?
That doesn’t end well for a lot of people on here
Exactly! This is perfect example... technically not True Consent... So yes, intotally agree.... lots of ppl might need to consider their choices. Lol"True Consent is often too difficult to describe in these circumstances and that’s why it will be for a jury to decide based on evidence and circumstances | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And at every point I said it was wrong We only differ in that I reserve my outrage for the innocent
So that is the “she was asking for it” defence?
Oh wow! Am I really communicating that badly?
No no no no, in fact I am arguing the very opposite of what you have inferred
Someone on an innocent night out cannot and must not be compared to a glory hole punter
No clue how to be more clear on that view
Seeking random sex with unseen strangers is by definition non consensual, its the very point of the activity"I'm in same boat with you _allnlong, you're speaking the most sense here! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And at every point I said it was wrong We only differ in that I reserve my outrage for the innocent
So that is the “she was asking for it” defence?
Oh wow! Am I really communicating that badly?
No no no no, in fact I am arguing the very opposite of what you have inferred
Someone on an innocent night out cannot and must not be compared to a glory hole punter
No clue how to be more clear on that view
Seeking random sex with unseen strangers is by definition non consensual, its the very point of the activity
I'm in same boat with you _allnlong, you're speaking the most sense here! "But the point of the initial status is that it is not anonymous. There are known individuals - the husband and wife. That is the difference. If it was truly anonymous then I think consent is probably actually given. In this case the identities are known. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By definition the act cannot be consented to. And here we agree! A glory hole does not imply consent, its random and hidden, unknown and all of that is the appeal (to those who indulge). The very essence is a lack of consent, some unseen lips are going to wrap around my throbbing cock and drain my balls To complain that you did not know whos lips they were is missing the point of it all. Surely? If you have been specifically told it was a woman sucking you off then that is what you had consented to and you have a right to expect that it would be a woman. If a man then decides he wants to suck you off instead then consent should be obtained for that. If we are applying the same rules regardless of gender then its really coming down to 'I thought anonymous person A was sucking me off but it was actually anonymous person B sucking me off in which case there isn't much to get upset about here to the degree that we seem to be." Again, it was not anonymous. The guys were made to believe it was the wife who was there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, I’ve just seen a couple post that they enjoyed fooling straight guys into thinking the F of the couple was giving head at a gloryhole but it was instead the make of the couple. This isn’t cool right? This isn’t consensual? " Well every club we have been in say very clearly if you're in a dark room or glory hole need to be comfortable knowing it may be a same-sex play so take your chances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm in same boat with you _allnlong, you're speaking the most sense here! " I do love a boat! 
Thank you though
As I said from the start, for the others who prefer to skip the early posts, it is deceitful and manipulative. Not at all in line with Swinging and should be reported to the admins for their sage consideration
But! Taking umbrage at having the wrong cock sucker suck cock seems petty, especially when wilfully comparing it to actual assault on the innocent
I have made some bad ideas when arranging meets, but would never think of blaming anyone but myself for where I was thinking of sliding my dick | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And at every point I said it was wrong We only differ in that I reserve my outrage for the innocent
So that is the “she was asking for it” defence?
Oh wow! Am I really communicating that badly?
No no no no, in fact I am arguing the very opposite of what you have inferred
Someone on an innocent night out cannot and must not be compared to a glory hole punter
No clue how to be more clear on that view
Seeking random sex with unseen strangers is by definition non consensual, its the very point of the activity
I'm in same boat with you _allnlong, you're speaking the most sense here!
But the point of the initial status is that it is not anonymous. There are known individuals - the husband and wife. That is the difference.
If it was truly anonymous then I think consent is probably actually given. In this case the identities are known."Well I wouldn't get your knickers in a twist over it too much hun, as someone else said maybe they were joking around with the guys in the club afterwards getting them to believe that's what happened and that's why it was the highlight of their weekend as for most people involved in this scenario it would be a great excuse for lots of playful banter, drive a few laughs, push people's buttons etc. I think we take everything too seriously these days, looking out for what's wrong. It's not that bad OP, whatever you've created in your head about the situation most likely is wrong anyway. See the funny side and lighten up x I'm off to bed, love a good debate! X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, it was not anonymous. The guys were made to believe it was the wife who was there." If it was not anonymous then it was not a glory hole. Simple Was the wall made of clear glass? I suspect not The offer was - put your willy in here and get it sucked. If you want more contact arrange a feckin date! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And at every point I said it was wrong We only differ in that I reserve my outrage for the innocent
So that is the “she was asking for it” defence?
Oh wow! Am I really communicating that badly?
No no no no, in fact I am arguing the very opposite of what you have inferred
Someone on an innocent night out cannot and must not be compared to a glory hole punter
No clue how to be more clear on that view
Seeking random sex with unseen strangers is by definition non consensual, its the very point of the activity
I'm in same boat with you _allnlong, you're speaking the most sense here!
But the point of the initial status is that it is not anonymous. There are known individuals - the husband and wife. That is the difference.
If it was truly anonymous then I think consent is probably actually given. In this case the identities are known."In a club scenario it could be that it was implied the female was the sucker after the event We don't know the facts, as I've said before the profile needs reporting so admin can deal with it If of course the were told before the act happened that the woman would be sucking when in fact it was the man or both then I of course agree it's assault But if it happened in a club I've never had a discussion with someone before I entered a Gloryhole nor have I had someone try and speak to me once inside I'm often inside with my husband so it could be either of us they get or both but I understand this is different as we haven't spoken to the owners if the cocks being stuck through the hole | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, it was not anonymous. The guys were made to believe it was the wife who was there. If it was not anonymous then it was not a glory hole. Simple Was the wall made of clear glass? I suspect not The offer was - put your willy in here and get it sucked. If you want more contact arrange a feckin date!" The wording of the post implies that they told the guys that the wife was going to be in the gloryhole. You seem to base your arguments simply on the fact that it was a glory hole without considering the context that the guys were told something and what happened was something else. Just because a woman is there in a female glory hole, it doesn't mean everything is permitted. One's preferences have to be respected. A man blowing of a straight guy after deceiving them to believe that it was woman is sexual assault. Bisexual/gay men need to stick to other bisexual/gay men. Deceiving a straight guy into having a homosexual experience can be traumatic to some. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree with Cherry it was a good debate and pretty civilised I thought - I think we all deserve a forum medal!" I doff my cap to you sir | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Deceiving a straight guy into having a homosexual experience can be traumatic to some." Yes, they were deceitful. As has been agreed throughout this topic But a straight guy offering his dick up to an unseen mouth is risky at best! If he wanted to be sure of the situation why willingly introduce an opaque barrier? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But a straight guy offering his dick up to an unseen mouth is risky at best! If he wanted to be sure of the situation why willingly introduce an opaque barrier?" And you were concerned that people were telling you were victim-blaming? How is your argument different from "That woman walked alone d*unk into that dodgy are wearing skimpy clothes knowing well that it was risky"? The rules of consent apply no matter what the situation is. Some people like blindfolded sex. Some people like the fact that they couldn't see the other person. That doesn't mean that rules of consent magically disappear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, it was not anonymous. The guys were made to believe it was the wife who was there. If it was not anonymous then it was not a glory hole. Simple Was the wall made of clear glass? I suspect not The offer was - put your willy in here and get it sucked. If you want more contact arrange a feckin date! The wording of the post implies that they told the guys that the wife was going to be in the gloryhole. You seem to base your arguments simply on the fact that it was a glory hole without considering the context that the guys were told something and what happened was something else. Just because a woman is there in a female glory hole, it doesn't mean everything is permitted. One's preferences have to be respected. A man blowing of a straight guy after deceiving them to believe that it was woman is sexual assault. Bisexual/gay men need to stick to other bisexual/gay men. Deceiving a straight guy into having a homosexual experience can be traumatic to some." Decieving anyone into a sexual experience can be traumatic and nobody wants that no matter what sexuality but as _allnlong said if you want more contact then arrange a proper fecking date! I was howling when I read that! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And you were concerned that people were telling you were victim-blaming?" That you keep coming back to a point that I have tried and tried again to be clear on makes me think this is a one sided debate Popping your cock out is NOT the same as wearing something nice for the evening | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By definition the act cannot be consented to. And here we agree! A glory hole does not imply consent, its random and hidden, unknown and all of that is the appeal (to those who indulge). The very essence is a lack of consent, some unseen lips are going to wrap around my throbbing cock and drain my balls To complain that you did not know whos lips they were is missing the point of it all. Surely?" I would aggree with this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And you were concerned that people were telling you were victim-blaming? That you keep coming back to a point that I have tried and tried again to be clear on makes me think this is a one sided debate Popping your cock out is NOT the same as wearing something nice for the evening" You have not made anything clear. The situation was a clear case of deception. And you were blaming the victim saying that they asked for it by using a gloryhole. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, it was not anonymous. The guys were made to believe it was the wife who was there. If it was not anonymous then it was not a glory hole. Simple Was the wall made of clear glass? I suspect not The offer was - put your willy in here and get it sucked. If you want more contact arrange a feckin date! The wording of the post implies that they told the guys that the wife was going to be in the gloryhole. You seem to base your arguments simply on the fact that it was a glory hole without considering the context that the guys were told something and what happened was something else. Just because a woman is there in a female glory hole, it doesn't mean everything is permitted. One's preferences have to be respected. A man blowing of a straight guy after deceiving them to believe that it was woman is sexual assault. Bisexual/gay men need to stick to other bisexual/gay men. Deceiving a straight guy into having a homosexual experience can be traumatic to some. Decieving anyone into a sexual experience can be traumatic and nobody wants that no matter what sexuality but as _allnlong said if you want more contact then arrange a proper fecking date! I was howling when I read that! " Can you point me which of the parties involved asked for more contact? It was a glory hole scenario where one party promised who would be there on the other side and deceived the other party. If you think that the guys shouldn't be doing this if they cared about the gender of the person on other side, it is victim blaming and not different from blaming women for getting into situations of sexual assault. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, it was not anonymous. The guys were made to believe it was the wife who was there. If it was not anonymous then it was not a glory hole. Simple Was the wall made of clear glass? I suspect not The offer was - put your willy in here and get it sucked. If you want more contact arrange a feckin date! The wording of the post implies that they told the guys that the wife was going to be in the gloryhole. You seem to base your arguments simply on the fact that it was a glory hole without considering the context that the guys were told something and what happened was something else. Just because a woman is there in a female glory hole, it doesn't mean everything is permitted. One's preferences have to be respected. A man blowing of a straight guy after deceiving them to believe that it was woman is sexual assault. Bisexual/gay men need to stick to other bisexual/gay men. Deceiving a straight guy into having a homosexual experience can be traumatic to some. Decieving anyone into a sexual experience can be traumatic and nobody wants that no matter what sexuality but as _allnlong said if you want more contact then arrange a proper fecking date! I was howling when I read that! Can you point me which of the parties involved asked for more contact? It was a glory hole scenario where one party promised who would be there on the other side and deceived the other party. If you think that the guys shouldn't be doing this if they cared about the gender of the person on other side, it is victim blaming and not different from blaming women for getting into situations of sexual assault." Wow do you actually read what people write? I'm not even gonna bother debating with you sorry but you're consistently misinterpreting or ignoring what people are actually saying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have not made anything clear. The situation was a clear case of deception. And you were blaming the victim saying that they asked for it by using a gloryhole." I have been as clear as I know how, sorry if you found my repetition of the same points confusing or vague Yes, a clear case of deception as I said in early response to the original post and have reiterated since. Others have said the same and everyone but you would seem to accept that And no at no point what so ever have I blamed the glory hole user, you may have chosen to think I was but it was neither my intent nor phrasing What I have said is that seeking anonymous sexual gratification carries its own innate risks, that those risks cannot and must not be muddied and muddled in with what happens to people who are not engaging in sex acts but who nonetheless are assaulted and attacked What the couple did was predatory and wrong, but they preyed on someone who wanted their balls drained without any interpersonal contact. To call the latter person a victim is a stretch and to compare them to a victim of sexual assault is something else entirely | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, it was not anonymous. The guys were made to believe it was the wife who was there. If it was not anonymous then it was not a glory hole. Simple Was the wall made of clear glass? I suspect not The offer was - put your willy in here and get it sucked. If you want more contact arrange a feckin date! The wording of the post implies that they told the guys that the wife was going to be in the gloryhole. You seem to base your arguments simply on the fact that it was a glory hole without considering the context that the guys were told something and what happened was something else. Just because a woman is there in a female glory hole, it doesn't mean everything is permitted. One's preferences have to be respected. A man blowing of a straight guy after deceiving them to believe that it was woman is sexual assault. Bisexual/gay men need to stick to other bisexual/gay men. Deceiving a straight guy into having a homosexual experience can be traumatic to some. Decieving anyone into a sexual experience can be traumatic and nobody wants that no matter what sexuality but as _allnlong said if you want more contact then arrange a proper fecking date! I was howling when I read that! Can you point me which of the parties involved asked for more contact? It was a glory hole scenario where one party promised who would be there on the other side and deceived the other party. If you think that the guys shouldn't be doing this if they cared about the gender of the person on other side, it is victim blaming and not different from blaming women for getting into situations of sexual assault. Wow do you actually read what people write? I'm not even gonna bother debating with you sorry but you're consistently misinterpreting or ignoring what people are actually saying. " I did read everything. The other guy said: But a straight guy offering his dick up to an unseen mouth is risky at best! He also said: if you want more contact then arrange a proper fecking date! You were applauding these statements of victim blaming that we have seen for years. "If you don't want to be r*ped, don't do this or that". I am not sure how you can say this isn't victim blaming. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What I have said is that seeking anonymous sexual gratification carries its own innate risks, that those risks cannot and must not be muddied and muddled in with what happens to people who are not engaging in sex acts but who nonetheless are assaulted and attacked " By your definition, sexual assault of a woman in a dogging situation is less severe than sexual assault that happens outside in a normal event because dogging comes with its own risk. Is that right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You were applauding these statements of victim blaming that we have seen for years. "If you don't want to be r*ped, don't do this or that". I am not sure how you can say this isn't victim blaming." Explain, please, how a glory holer is a victim when their pursuit is one of gratification without contact This seems to be the core issue for you, that by using a hole one is entitled to some kind of connection without connection | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By your definition, sexual assault of a woman in a dogging situation is less severe…" Not by my definition at all, far from it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. " This is a silly and dangerous opinion. If a straight guy is lead to belive it's a woman on the other side (as in that was the meet details posted) its sexual assualt plain and simple. He didn't consent to a guy touching him. That's the issue. If however it's "anonymous" then yeah, there is a point. Context is key. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You were applauding these statements of victim blaming that we have seen for years. "If you don't want to be r*ped, don't do this or that". I am not sure how you can say this isn't victim blaming. Explain, please, how a glory holer is a victim when their pursuit is one of gratification without contact This seems to be the core issue for you, that by using a hole one is entitled to some kind of connection without connection" Pursuit of gratification does not mean gratification by anyone. Someone going to swingers club for sex doesn't mean that person is fine with having sex with anyone. If there was no discussion beforehand and a guy just went to the gloryhole, it means that he was happy with anyone. But in this case, there was clearly an agreement which meant the guy didn't go for just anyone. I was at a club where three couples went into a dark room. But they told others that they did not want others to come in. We all respected that decision. If a guy had sneaked in and touched any of the women, it is 100% the guy's fault. Or would you say that it was stupid of the couple to enter the dark room because of the inherent risk of the dark room? When an agreement is established, the onus is on people involved to respect that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"By your definition, sexual assault of a woman in a dogging situation is less severe… Not by my definition at all, far from it" But you just said that we shouldn't be calling these guys victim of sexual assault because of the inherent risk of gloryhole. If you are going to define assault victims based on the situation and not based on whether something was consensual or non-consensual, then assault cases in dogging scenarios are obviously less severe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
are they even a real couple ?….  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"100% with LID on this one although some of the comments have to have been badly worded here, surely they're not intended as they read, "Please tell me how seeking casual and blind/brief sexual gratification is an act of innocence" for example would make anyone in a club fair game. Consent is separate to what leads up to it, if a woman is in a room getting gangbanged by a dozen men she can still stop when she wants for any reason she wants. Another point is a lot of people are applying this to a specific glory hole or scenario, some scenarios for example in the couples home with the agreement it'll be the wife on the other end should be risk free as you've put your trust in the couple and there are no other parties involved. " Thank you. You put it much better than I did with those long essays | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. This is a silly and dangerous opinion. If a straight guy is lead to belive it's a woman on the other side (as in that was the meet details posted) its sexual assualt plain and simple. He didn't consent to a guy touching him. That's the issue. If however it's "anonymous" then yeah, there is a point. Context is key." You clearly haven't read the rest of my comments on this thread, I suggest you do that before jumping in on this thread last minute and having the final word whilst calling my opinions silly and dangerous. The cheek! Bottom line, don't go to the bi couples blind buffet if you're a vegetarian (insert sausage joke here) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. This is a silly and dangerous opinion. If a straight guy is lead to belive it's a woman on the other side (as in that was the meet details posted) its sexual assualt plain and simple. He didn't consent to a guy touching him. That's the issue. If however it's "anonymous" then yeah, there is a point. Context is key. You clearly haven't read the rest of my comments on this thread, I suggest you do that before jumping in on this thread last minute and having the final word whilst calling my opinions silly and dangerous. The cheek! Bottom line, don't go to the bi couples blind buffet if you're a vegetarian (insert sausage joke here)" I don't think they need to it's a stand alone point, you could say what you've about any situation which goes past the point of consent and it'd be wrong every time, if she bent over and slid onto his cock without protection is that fair game too because he stuck it in the hole? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. This is a silly and dangerous opinion. If a straight guy is lead to belive it's a woman on the other side (as in that was the meet details posted) its sexual assualt plain and simple. He didn't consent to a guy touching him. That's the issue. If however it's "anonymous" then yeah, there is a point. Context is key. You clearly haven't read the rest of my comments on this thread, I suggest you do that before jumping in on this thread last minute and having the final word whilst calling my opinions silly and dangerous. The cheek! Bottom line, don't go to the bi couples blind buffet if you're a vegetarian (insert sausage joke here)" I think inserting the sausage is what lead to this discussion quite frankly ahah | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. This is a silly and dangerous opinion. If a straight guy is lead to belive it's a woman on the other side (as in that was the meet details posted) its sexual assualt plain and simple. He didn't consent to a guy touching him. That's the issue. If however it's "anonymous" then yeah, there is a point. Context is key. You clearly haven't read the rest of my comments on this thread, I suggest you do that before jumping in on this thread last minute and having the final word whilst calling my opinions silly and dangerous. The cheek! Bottom line, don't go to the bi couples blind buffet if you're a vegetarian (insert sausage joke here) I don't think they need to it's a stand alone point, you could say what you've about any situation which goes past the point of consent and it'd be wrong every time, if she bent over and slid onto his cock without protection is that fair game too because he stuck it in the hole? " That's why I said read the rest of my comments so that you don't preech to the converted out of context. Of course I agree that non consensual sexual anything by anyone is not okay but I don't think it's silly or dangerous at all of anyone not to suspect or be shocked at the prospect of being sucked off by someone at a gloryhole other than the stranger you've met online and maybe seen a pic of. I think it's being vigilant actually and it's our responsibility to discern who we meet for sex and in what context. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. This is a silly and dangerous opinion. If a straight guy is lead to belive it's a woman on the other side (as in that was the meet details posted) its sexual assualt plain and simple. He didn't consent to a guy touching him. That's the issue. If however it's "anonymous" then yeah, there is a point. Context is key. You clearly haven't read the rest of my comments on this thread, I suggest you do that before jumping in on this thread last minute and having the final word whilst calling my opinions silly and dangerous. The cheek! Bottom line, don't go to the bi couples blind buffet if you're a vegetarian (insert sausage joke here) I don't think they need to it's a stand alone point, you could say what you've about any situation which goes past the point of consent and it'd be wrong every time, if she bent over and slid onto his cock without protection is that fair game too because he stuck it in the hole? That's why I said read the rest of my comments so that you don't preech to the converted out of context. Of course I agree that non consensual sexual anything by anyone is not okay but I don't think it's silly or dangerous at all of anyone not to suspect or be shocked at the prospect of being sucked off by someone at a gloryhole other than the stranger you've met online and maybe seen a pic of. I think it's being vigilant actually and it's our responsibility to discern who we meet for sex and in what context. " I think I get what you're saying is by "you can't be too shocked" you mean it's naive to not see what their plan was, it comes across far more as "well what do you expect" than what I think you actually meant though which is why it just looks like victim blaming and saying it was fair game. Half of this thread is probably like this so many of the posts as read appear to contradict themselves by saying yeah it's wrong then appearing to say it's the victims fault when really that isn't the intention. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. This is a silly and dangerous opinion. If a straight guy is lead to belive it's a woman on the other side (as in that was the meet details posted) its sexual assualt plain and simple. He didn't consent to a guy touching him. That's the issue. If however it's "anonymous" then yeah, there is a point. Context is key. You clearly haven't read the rest of my comments on this thread, I suggest you do that before jumping in on this thread last minute and having the final word whilst calling my opinions silly and dangerous. The cheek! Bottom line, don't go to the bi couples blind buffet if you're a vegetarian (insert sausage joke here)" Who give a flying monkey what your other comments are? You're not special, posted a ridiculous comment and got called out for it. I dont have to read jack what you wrote before. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So, I’ve just seen a couple post that they enjoyed fooling straight guys into thinking the F of the couple was giving head at a gloryhole but it was instead the make of the couple. This isn’t cool right? This isn’t consensual? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Judging by the status itself its clear that this couple are up to mischeif! I know we are a nation with a fetish for getting offended at every opportunity but honestly this seems quite harmless to me and my guess is its been taken out of context already. As many have stated here already, if you're willing to go to a gloryhole to get anonymously sucked off at a couples place you can't be too shocked to discover the bj you enjoyed was preformed by both of them. This is a silly and dangerous opinion. If a straight guy is lead to belive it's a woman on the other side (as in that was the meet details posted) its sexual assualt plain and simple. He didn't consent to a guy touching him. That's the issue. If however it's "anonymous" then yeah, there is a point. Context is key. You clearly haven't read the rest of my comments on this thread, I suggest you do that before jumping in on this thread last minute and having the final word whilst calling my opinions silly and dangerous. The cheek! Bottom line, don't go to the bi couples blind buffet if you're a vegetarian (insert sausage joke here) Who give a flying monkey what your other comments are? You're not special, posted a ridiculous comment and got called out for it. I dont have to read jack what you wrote before. " That's the point, you've misinterpreted my comment and have 'called me out' on your perception and not on what I'm actually saying. So if you can't be bothered to read the comments above that show the true context I don't feel you can actually engage with the debate in a way that can be taken seriously as you've only got tunnel vision. I stand by my words and they mean something different to the conclusion you've jumped to. Not fair of you to attack me for your own misinterpretation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
