I'm guessing these won't be the most hopeless odds a defense attorney has ever faced.
None of that applies in a blind test scenario, and a vast majority of the time, based purely on skill/talent, a man gives a better BJ.That is if we are going just on the basis of oral skills. Im sure in that regard, a man might be capable of giving a better BJ than a woman. Its the same argument lesbians use about who eats pussy better. Men have a penis and know what feels better to them so it is instinctual to know how to give a good BJ. For the record I'm straight and never had a man on man experience.
For me, it is not just about the oral skills that make a good BJ. Its the whole package. I like seeing a beautiful woman down there. I like to hold her hair. I like playing with her butt, pussy or tits while she is working on me. I like to have her talk dirty to me in a sultry feminine voice. I think a woman's face looks hot after I bust off on it. The act of giving a woman my load is erotic to me.
Even if a man could get me off in less than a minute with truly superb oral skills, I'd still prefer a BJ from a less talented woman.
Haha!
None of that applies in a blind test scenario, and a vast majority of the time, based purely on skill/talent, a man gives a better BJ.
I never understood guys who enjoy giving head so much that they'll go to great lengths to do it.
tbh, pretty much the only reason I'll give a blowjob is because it's an asshole move to not reciprocate.
I suspect the guy in the story gets enjoyment out of the rush/risk of doing this with a straight male as opposed to the sexual act itself really mattering as much.
I like it but I'm not going to go out of my way for it, shrug.
Eh, there are people who genuinely enjoy giving oral sex. Same as people who enjoy sucking toes and such. The mental arousing stimulus can be more pleasuring than the physical ones. I mean, look at the victim; I'm sure he just got a wicked blowjob, but he doesn't sound too happy about it.
That's of course certainly true, everyone likes something different and I don't doubt there are plenty of guys who love giving head (I know this for a fact ), but my statement more centered on the fact that this guy clearly went out of his way to target a straight-identifying male for this. It's incredibly simple to find another gay guy to go down on in about 5 minutes who would willingly want you to if you really wish to, this guy clearly has a different kink in my opinion.
That's of course certainly true, everyone likes something different and I don't doubt there are plenty of guys who love giving head (I know this for a fact ), but my statement more centered on the fact that this guy clearly went out of his way to target a straight-identifying male for this. It's incredibly simple to find another gay guy to go down on in about 5 minutes who would willingly want you to if you really wish to, this guy clearly has a different kink in my opinion.
Lol, no. Is it evident to you? The only thing that is evident to me is that he says he didn't consent to getting head from a guy... after he allowed himself to be bound and blindfolded in expectation of receiving anonymous sexual favors in a room where the only other human was a guy.
I'm guessing these won't be the most hopeless odds a defense attorney has ever faced.
Now I'm really confused. You say that he did not consent to what happened, but somehow it is not evident to you that a non-consensual sex act took place.
The victim blaming in this thread is disgusting.
He consented to be blindfolded and have his cock played with by an unknown party. The fact he was under the impression it was a girl might have been his own doing, and not the assailants. If that is the case, or can be reasonably shown it was the case, no sexual assault happened.
At what point do we consider deception to constitute rape? If I promise a girl the best orgasm ever and deliver 10 seconds of nothing, I misrepresented the nature of our sexual encounter to the fullest. Am I guilty of sexual assault because she didn't enjoy it?
The alleged victim's story is easily verifiable through Facebook chat logs. I assume the police looked at those before arresting the accused. But if they didn't, and the alleged victim made it all up, then sure there would be no sexual assault. The previous conversation in which the alleged victim declined the threesome because he "didn't want to do anything gay" is particularly damning. If everything in the article is true, there would have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of the accused that the alleged victim was unwilling to receive oral sex from him.
Some people in this thread are think that even if all of the facts are as stated in the article, it wouldn't have been sexual assault. That is what I'm questioning. How do people not recognize that the situation described in the article is sexual assault?
Deception about who will be performing the sex act is certainly on the "rape" side of that line.
Deception about who will be performing the sex act is certainly on the "rape" side of that line.