I don't think Gramps is a prude. I don't have much insight into his views in this particular case, but I'm sure he has his reasons. At the same time, it's not hard to tease out why certain other posters abhor the idea of someone suggesting a sexual encounter with a man (and a very unorthodox and submissive one at that) ended without causing extreme mental anguish. It completely demolishes their entire premise that interacting with a man must, by definition, be a terrible, scarring event. Once you knock away their foundation that sex with a man is a supremely traumatic thing, they have nothing at all to stand on. The reasoning is not so much anti-gay as it is anti-man, but for obvious reasons, the impact is the same.
It's because the things you have to say are non-sequitur ad hominems that don't address anything anyone else says.
Your comment is especially ludicrous since the event Libertas described clearly DID cause him mental anguish. It's amusing that when someone explicitly describes events in their life where they were sexually abused my men you STILL refuse to acknowledge it and even go so far as to imply it is a good thing. The reasoning is not so much anti-Libertas as it is pro-rape, but, for obvious reasons, the impact is a lot worse.
Poll
