What are you talking about? You stated that you have no problem with underage fantasy as long as it’s just fantasy. I provided you with a scenario of a grown man fantasizing about underage boys and asked if you would be okay with it. Your handcuff comparison is just a ridiculous as your defense of underage sex fantasizing. And on that note, I said what I said. I’m not going to go back and forth with you. Goodnight and goodbye.

Am I to understand that you just stated that you see no problem with pedophilia type narrative and imagery as long as it’s fantasy…? So, you’re telling me if you had an adolescence son, nephew etc.and found out a grown man has pictures of your underage son or nephew and has been masturbating to them, you would have no problem with that because it’s fantasy??

It also appears you completely ignored the point I made regarding how this fantasy can lead to reality. Let’s be clear, if you are a grown man who fantasizes about sex with adolescent boys, you ARE a pedophile, period. One is not exempt simply because they only fantasize and don’t or have not yet acted. I’m not understanding your logic. I never said role play was a crime. However, pedophilia is a disgusting traumatic crime against minors, which makes this type of role play problematic. Your view is beyond “controversial,” it’s troubling and rather problematic…

Far too many people are using the “fantasy” excuse to justify the kind of porn that’s been insulting and highlighting gay sex under a negative light. For fuck’s sake, this is also the same owner that launched a site with the premise of sex trafficking. Why are we trying so hard to rationalize harmful and disrespectful messages about gay people and the way the have sex?

Size has nothing to do with domination. A true domination scene will have a willing master and a willing sub, both of which can be of various sizes. Most of the guy-guy domination scenes I have seen have involved the subs being guys that were muscular, tall and fit. And to that extent, although I never watch straight porn, I know there’s a lot of it out there where the women control the men.

I get your point but respectfully disagree. I’m 6’6″ and much prefer being with very short guys. It’s more to do with enjoying being dominant and nothing to do with ‘underage boys’. That’s why Fun-Size is one of my favourite sites and nothing to do with a paedo nature.

But I agree this Brian dude is sexy af 👍🏼

Not new. Not hot. He tried at NDS. They did one scene with him.

I really thought you were joking with the article but if you’re serious and are going to call me out for hypocrisy, does that really qualify to you as sexual violence and/or human trafficking? A man pretends to be a woman, and the men he had sex with are now pissed? Why is that case even going to trial?

As for mainstream movies and porn being two different things, that is your personal judgment, and it sounds like we agree that Legrand Wolf and I are entitled to our personal judgments, which was my point all along.

No. You wanted an evidence (without saying the kind) of porn scenarios based on real life situations and I gave you one, now you’re just flipping the coin because my proof doesn’t fit your narrative.

And let’s be clear, mainstream movies and porn are two different things. While both cases require actors to play a role, the interpretation is different, one is supposed to bring sexual pleasure and arouse those that watch it, the other isn’t.

If you want to watch these scenes, that’s fine, you do you, I’mma continue calling out porn that harms the image of gay men.

But every time someone in this thread challenges my point, they do so by
equating porn with real life violence, and when the performers are
adults playing a role, it’s a false equivalency. If the implication is
that this free speech has had the consequence of real-life sexual
violence and human trafficking, I would have to see actual evidence of
that.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d0e3128f50d9fc3fd6ca74feb10222d338c20280df7b934998ed2318f7f9e34b.png

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bc6b5414cdacac9c29204508ffa06d0cdbdbba362933f39bed0bcb37ddef96a6.gif

Oh, I absolutely believe porn qualifies as art. No question about it.

I understand the subtext of the site. I’m only objecting to the “offensive = ban-worthy” principle. I hesitate to call porn art, but it is an extension of someone’s imagination. I think it’s philosophically authoritarian to tell someone that they can’t think a forbidden thought. But this is a difficult discussion to have in this forum.

Omg, seriously?lol! I’m not talking about anecdotal evidence. I’m talking about studies that demonstrate a causal link. John Hinckley Jr. is not evidence that the movie Taxi Driver should be banned.

I can’t speak for others, but I think the issue people are having here is how the webmaster of “Fun Size Boys” (that was painful to type) is marketing his brand. More to the point, the issue is that it’s completely unnecessary. I would imagine that pedophiles can fantasize about (what it is they fantasize about) without needing the write-ups that come with the scene. And yet, the webmaster feels obligated to connect the dots when they didn’t need to be connected.

Take this scene, for example, where Austin is referred to as a “growing boy”. Had he just simply used “boy” that would probably be innocuous since adult men are referred to as boys all the time (there’s even the term “boyfriend”). Instead, he goes a step further and refers to Austin as “growing boy”. Since people stop growing when they enter adulthood, the suggestion here is clearly that Austin is a child, as in: underage.

I don’t have an actual problem with the scene itself considering it apparently involves two consenting adults. The issue is the write-ups are suggesting pedophilia — even though that’s not what’s occurring here.

That’s as best as I can explain it.