Fun-Size Boys: Brian Adams Fucks Austin Lock in ‘Recruiter’s Office-Evaluation’

andrew says:

I hope Austin is making big bucks and putting a lot of it away to finance his future. He is a rarity, a guy of legal age that looks like an adolescent. He apparently fulfills the fantasies of those who get off watching men in positions of authority fuck minors. IMO it’s not the kind of fantasies that gay porn should be encouraging. Too many people in the general population already think that gay men want to have sex with minors.

joback says:

tbh Austin is getting a little boring. Is there no other twinks available …?

Erudite says:

Austin Lock needs to find himself a real recruiter. How many real recruiters wear a Marine shirt with a pair of civilian shorts?

Jasper Taft says:

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.

Nick Minaj says:

Jasper, Tempest, and McM said it all. I know what my eyes see. I very much comprehend what this site is signaling with kids pajamas, kids underwear, stuffed animals etc. The settings are also a blatant giveaway, especially when Wolf and the guy who always portrays Austin’s dad are involved. There is a disturbing scene on one of the versions of these sites where the guy who portrays Austin’s dad takes him to the doctor (Wolf). It’s very clear that Austin is being portray as an underage boy being taking to the doctor/pediatrician, where his pedo dad let’s the pedo pediatrician have his way with Austin.

But let’s also talk about the relationship portrayal between Austin and his dad, which if I’m not mistaken, he’s always portrayed as his biological father, not step-father. So, their relationship is both pedophilia and incest driven. It appears to me sites like these are trying to push this disturbing and disgusting indirect narrative that sex with underage boys is not always a situation of molestation/rape because there will be boys like Austin who will be okay with and into the sex. This type of narrative and imagery is dangerous and can have real life impact. A pedophile likes to see a narrative and imagery like this because it provides them encouragement to go out and commit acts of sexual abuse.

This type of content simply shouldn’t exit in gay porn. Not to mention, it feeds into the false narrative out there that gay men are sexual predators who prey on young boys.

moondoggy says:

@disqus_SVnM9Co3ue:disqus @disqus_O0ZucPVypp:disqus @disqus_1QpUN3vtvA:disqus

Hm, I wanted to “@” everyone in the thread, but it won’t let me add a fourth.

These arguments are not mutually exclusive. No question some scenes have features that strongly evoke an underage fantasy. Exhibit A is the scene that in my view basically launched this site even though the FSB spinoff site technically came later — Doctor’s Office. I don’t know of any 18 yo men whose fathers sit in on their routine physicals. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cfba6261cea47636a6b468ec2dd05fd0a7021bd7ce9cd648124fd125ff67bd67.jpg

But that doesn’t mean that’s the only way to interpret every scene that Austin is in. I think he’s very sexy. I’m usually more into the men he’s with because my type is Bishop Angus and company, the daddies not the boys.

I know this is a more controversial view, but I don’t have a problem with the underage fantasy as long as it’s just a fantasy. Austin is presumably a consenting adult, and role play is not a crime.

Tempest says:

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?

moondoggy says:

Why are we trying so hard to rationalize harmful and disrespectful messages about gay people and the way the have sex?

Very simple, because the principle of free speech is more important than whether you or I am offended by our representation in the media. This offends you. MEN genuinely offends me. I think they make gay sex into a minstrel show. I’m also watching their takeover of this blog with growing horror. Their ads are now nested between every single update, and in almost every frame, we are made to look like clowns. But I separate things that offend me from things that should be outlawed, and to call a porn consumer a pedo is to imply that they are committing a crime.

I’m not saying it should be celebrated. And you should absolutely speak out against it if it offends you. People who are persuaded by that should vote against it with their feet. It doesn’t seem to make a lot of difference, but it makes some, as evidenced by the disappearance of that scene with the rebel flag tattoo.

Nick Minaj says:

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.

Tempest says:

Free speech doesn’t equal “free speech without any kind of consequence”. Some of these scenarios/sites are driven by Google search results and real life situations, I mean, there’s a whole site dedicated to a global epidemic like human sex trafficking, and we are supposed to rationalize and fantasize about forced slavery? And for the record, MEN does not have any kind of interest in showcasing how genuine gay sex is, considering the whole array of gross premises and scenarios they insist on using, they only care about selling a product and making a profit out of it.

Jasper Taft says:

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.

moondoggy says:

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.

Jasper Taft says:

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

moondoggy says:

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.