Rubbing Up Against Strangers On Trains While Seated

thewestwing1

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Posts
5
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
13
Location
London (Greater London, England)
So lately I have discovered something that I'm now a little obsessed with. It originally happened on a plane trip, and now it happens on trains.

It's basically this: you are seated next to a (male) stranger, and your legs come into contact with their legs. Either below the knees, at the knees, or even above the knees.

Some guys instantly move their legs away and that's the end of the matter. Some guys keep their leg touching your leg, and depending on how things go, you might get more or less touching through the trip. Then there are some guys that are clearly up for some touching, and bring their leg closer to yours, which is a really hot experience.

Sometimes I'm not sure if the guys that are happy to have our legs up against each other are 'enjoying' the experience or just indifferent. I had one guy on a plane where our legs where very very firmly touching, but he seemed totally indifferent.

The other variation is guys that move their leg away initially, but then there is some 'accidental' touching, and they realise that they are happy to have more touching. These experiences are the hottest in some ways, as you've managed to 'persuade' someone to get touchy.

Has anyone else noticed this?
 

Eyoc

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 29, 2017
Posts
348
Media
226
Likes
2,872
Points
413
Location
Lisbon (Portugal)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't know about others but if that happens to me I will be just indifferent.

I commute to work by train and most of the time is full and very often we the train is full and we go smashed against each others so touching is inevitable and maybe that's why I became indifferent by the touch being up or seated.
 

F_Man

Superior Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Posts
1,743
Media
9
Likes
6,123
Points
418
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yess :) I was making a 2-hour train trip and sitting in the middle seat in a cabin for 6, 3 seats in front, and all taken. Directly opposite me sat a handsome young man, about 15 years my junior. I have very long legs so I kept them mostly under his seat. He showed interest and let his legs brush mine; and smiled. Then I decided to make it sexual, despite the 4 "serious" businessmen sharing the compartment. I simply starting looking at his body, so that he noticed it, let my eye wonder and focus freely, as if I owned him. He LOVED it. Some minutes later he was sporting a growing bulge, and then a raging hardon in his pants. I just looked and smiled. At the end station he rushed out, and I managed to slip him my card which he happily took.
 

DorianGray86

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Posts
48
Media
0
Likes
63
Points
238
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Sometimes I'm not sure if the guys that are happy to have our legs up against each other are 'enjoying' the experience or just indifferent. I had one guy on a plane where our legs where very very firmly touching, but he seemed totally indifferent.

I've definitely not classified all the sorts of types of leg rubbing in this sort of detail, but I've certainly been in situations where it's been perhaps not quite a real turn on but a sort of nice, quasi-sexual connection, which could very well have not even registered in the other guy's mind as an experience at all.

I'm always astounded with the many different things guys can somehow make sexual.

This seems like a fairly natural thing to "make sexual", as it is literally about making a physical connection with a stranger, even if it's not mutual. Sex is not just about fucking and not just about genitals. And I suspect that women are probably, if anything, more likely to feel something sexual in such an encounter.
 

spaj8987

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Posts
1,792
Media
5
Likes
1,700
Points
123
Location
United States
Gender
Male
I've definitely not classified all the sorts of types of leg rubbing in this sort of detail, but I've certainly been in situations where it's been perhaps not quite a real turn on but a sort of nice, quasi-sexual connection, which could very well have not even registered in the other guy's mind as an experience at all.



This seems like a fairly natural thing to "make sexual", as it is literally about making a physical connection with a stranger, even if it's not mutual. Sex is not just about fucking and not just about genitals. And I suspect that women are probably, if anything, more likely to feel something sexual in such an encounter.

I would disagree on it being natural. Being aroused by a significant other's leg touching yours while at a movie i can understand. Netflix and chilling with someone you're dating and your bare arms touching i can understand. Two consenting adults laying in bed for a nice cuddle i can also understand.

Getting aroused sexually from touching someone else who has no idea and will not or cannot share in it or consent to it i cannot.

I can even understand if it's a young or younger person having a crush on someone else in that situation. When it comes to adults in public areas who have no idea...well no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanzzzz

DorianGray86

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Posts
48
Media
0
Likes
63
Points
238
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I would disagree on it being natural.
By natural, I meant “easy to see how something like this might happen”. You say that it is something not understandable, so this disagreement seems to amount to saying that it is not part of your experience.
Getting aroused sexually from touching someone else who has no idea and will not or cannot share in it or consent to it i cannot.
The kind of touching described here is one that happens regularly without either implicit or explicit consent. Sometimes as a result of limited space, sometimes as a result of someone taking up more space than is allotted to them (either because their bodies are different or they’re inconsiderate). If there is no particular discomfort felt by either party, does it matter what’s happening in someone’s mind? (so long as no harm results) If so, why?

What happens when someone is aroused by the sight of someone attractive? Is this “unnatural” and “not understandable” because that person either doesn’t know and/or cannot consent?

It is, of course, quite a different story if the touching is unusual for the situation or there is discomfort of some type involved (which could come from being stared at in a particular way, for instance).
 

spaj8987

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Posts
1,792
Media
5
Likes
1,700
Points
123
Location
United States
Gender
Male
By natural, I meant “easy to see how something like this might happen”. You say that it is something not understandable, so this disagreement seems to amount to saying that it is not part of your experience.

The kind of touching described here is one that happens regularly without either implicit or explicit consent. Sometimes as a result of limited space, sometimes as a result of someone taking up more space than is allotted to them (either because their bodies are different or they’re inconsiderate). If there is no particular discomfort felt by either party, does it matter what’s happening in someone’s mind? (so long as no harm results) If so, why?

What happens when someone is aroused by the sight of someone attractive? Is this “unnatural” and “not understandable” because that person either doesn’t know and/or cannot consent?

It is, of course, quite a different story if the touching is unusual for the situation or there is discomfort of some type involved (which could come from being stared at in a particular way, for instance).

I agree. It is easy to see that people in their every day lives will end up touching each other. What i can't understand is making public touching with strangers without their consent sexual. I'm just gonna flat out say it's creepy and wrong.

Sight and invading someone else's personal space for something sexual is two different things. Sight is bad enough considering how it's done but touching them amps up the creepy factor to about 60.

Also, it isn't natural. And shouldn't be for the same reason it's wrong to take a camera and record up women's skirts. It's natural to respect other human beings.

Again, touching is normal. Forcing that touching into a sexual area in your mind is not. For the reasons i've previously pointed out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanzzzz

DorianGray86

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Posts
48
Media
0
Likes
63
Points
238
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm just gonna flat out say it's creepy and wrong.
So not backed by any sort of reasoning.
Sight and invading someone else's personal space for something sexual is two different things.
Clearly! However, the touching described here was neither invasive nor intentionally sexual beforehand.
Also, it isn't natural. And shouldn't be for the same reason it's wrong to take a camera and record up women's skirts. It's natural to respect other human beings.
It’s obviously wrong to look where it is reasonable someone doesn’t want you to (especially when it comes to their body, which they have covered). I don’t see how this situation is analogous though. The skirt-peeker is actively and physically doing something which violates the other’s privacy. The person who finds their leg touching someone else’s and finds it pleasurable differs from the person who is indifferent to this by a mental act. Why is this person not entitled to a good feeling in their own mind which doesn’t hurt another person?
 

thewestwing1

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Posts
5
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
13
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Clearly! However, the touching described here was neither invasive nor intentionally sexual beforehand.

Yes, 100%. I would never “actively” touch someone.

Today I experienced someone who was totally into it. Initially our legs brushed each other’s, and then they rested a bit more closely together. That didn’t last long - our legs were then firmly pressed against each other and the other guy was clearly not oblivious or indifferent. I’m feeling horny such thinking about it!

What I love about it is the “plausible deniability” - you can’t for certain say that it’s anything more than an innocent thing on public transport. And I try not to be too obvious about it - I’d prefer the other guy to make a “move” or send a signal. It makes my heart race wondering where it will go (I’m taking about his leg, not anything more significant!).

Yes I know this sounds strange!
 

spaj8987

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Posts
1,792
Media
5
Likes
1,700
Points
123
Location
United States
Gender
Male
So not backed by any sort of reasoning.

Clearly! However, the touching described here was neither invasive nor intentionally sexual beforehand.

It’s obviously wrong to look where it is reasonable someone doesn’t want you to (especially when it comes to their body, which they have covered). I don’t see how this situation is analogous though. The skirt-peeker is actively and physically doing something which violates the other’s privacy. The person who finds their leg touching someone else’s and finds it pleasurable differs from the person who is indifferent to this by a mental act. Why is this person not entitled to a good feeling in their own mind which doesn’t hurt another person?

[Evidence or arguments used in thinking or argumentation.
The use of the faculty of reason; discriminative thought or discussion in regard to a subject; rational consideration.]

My argument and thinking here is that it's creepy. And after that it's proved by how it happens, who does it and the very real fact that consent isn't care about.

(However, the touching described here was neither invasive nor intentionally sexual beforehand.)

[invading, or tending to invade; intrusive.]

(So lately I have discovered something that I'm now a little obsessed with.)

(Then there are some guys that are clearly up for some touching, and bring their leg closer to yours, which is a really hot experience.)

(I had one guy on a plane where our legs where very very firmly touching, but he seemed totally indifferent.)

Aren't these wild assumptions? That as were said based off absolutely nothing? Did the guys offer consent for their touching to be considered sexual? Were they happy about it? Sad about it? Upset with it? What about the issues of privacy? What constitutes an invasion of privacy?

(The skirt-peeker is actively and physically doing something which violates the other’s privacy.)

And this does not?

(These experiences are the hottest in some ways, as you've managed to 'persuade' someone to get touchy.)

I'm curious. If multiple people were to rub their hands on your junk in public areas for the express purpose of getting off on it. Would you defend that as well?
 

Eyoc

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 29, 2017
Posts
348
Media
226
Likes
2,872
Points
413
Location
Lisbon (Portugal)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
On my experience, when I'm seated on the train and the person next to me press is leg against mine I don't even bother moving my leg I just be indifferent or if I see that the person is trying to push their leg against mine on purpose what it makes me feel is angry and again I wouldn't move my leg.

This if I'm in the considered space of my seat, doesn't even make a difference if it's a man or a woman.
 

DorianGray86

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Posts
48
Media
0
Likes
63
Points
238
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Aren't these wild assumptions? That as were said based off absolutely nothing? Did the guys offer consent for their touching to be considered sexual? Were they happy about it? Sad about it? Upset with it? What about the issues of privacy? What constitutes an invasion of privacy?
Well, no, these assumptions are not based on absolutely nothing. If anything, the OP seems to be thinking quite a bit about whether the other person is ok with this minimal touching, which we have agreed, regularly occurs. Being outright physically disrespectful of another’s space (manspreading, leaning on them, letting your bag rest on them) is another story.

I think your further questions are related to what I asked about the mental portion. If the physical situation is such that it is indistinguishable from one in which no one is turned on, why does it matter whether one or both of them are turned on?

In this case, it seems as though consent to the physical action is not in question. Except in some situations, it’s usually possible to move your leg a little further away to express discomfort with the legs touching. In any case, we can assume that the two parties are ok with that level of touching itself (even if they’d prefer to have the entire train car to themselves!) What’s at issue, apparently, is whether consent was given for the other person to be turned on by this. This seems unreasonable to expect. If two people shake hands without much thought, as a part of a social convention, but one of them find the experience a turn on (the warmth of their hand, the prolonged hold, etc.), is this wrong? Catholics might find a reason to feel guilty about this, but I’m not sure why one person needs consent from another to feel a particular kind of pleasure in this.
If multiple people were to rub their hands on your junk in public areas for the express purpose of getting off on it. Would you defend that as well?
Slippery slope fallacy? I have no expectation of anyone rubbing anyone’s junk in public. This isn’t something that anyone would reasonably expect as a result of merely being in public, unlike having legs touching another person’s might be expected (and frequently tolerated) on a train. So, obviously, no, I wouldn’t defend these actions, but they’re also completely different in character.
 

spaj8987

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Posts
1,792
Media
5
Likes
1,700
Points
123
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Well, no, these assumptions are not based on absolutely nothing. If anything, the OP seems to be thinking quite a bit about whether the other person is ok with this minimal touching, which we have agreed, regularly occurs. Being outright physically disrespectful of another’s space (manspreading, leaning on them, letting your bag rest on them) is another story.

I think your further questions are related to what I asked about the mental portion. If the physical situation is such that it is indistinguishable from one in which no one is turned on, why does it matter whether one or both of them are turned on?

In this case, it seems as though consent to the physical action is not in question. Except in some situations, it’s usually possible to move your leg a little further away to express discomfort with the legs touching. In any case, we can assume that the two parties are ok with that level of touching itself (even if they’d prefer to have the entire train car to themselves!) What’s at issue, apparently, is whether consent was given for the other person to be turned on by this. This seems unreasonable to expect. If two people shake hands without much thought, as a part of a social convention, but one of them find the experience a turn on (the warmth of their hand, the prolonged hold, etc.), is this wrong? Catholics might find a reason to feel guilty about this, but I’m not sure why one person needs consent from another to feel a particular kind of pleasure in this.

Slippery slope fallacy? I have no expectation of anyone rubbing anyone’s junk in public. This isn’t something that anyone would reasonably expect as a result of merely being in public, unlike having legs touching another person’s might be expected (and frequently tolerated) on a train. So, obviously, no, I wouldn’t defend these actions, but they’re also completely different in character.

Here is what you're referring to.

[A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is often viewed as a logical fallacy[1] in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[2]]

The problem with you mentioning it is this. It's only a fallacy when there is no logical expectation that said small steps will lead to larger ones.

If there were no way legs touching could lead into say upshorting or upskirting then you'd be correct in mentioning it. And correct in mentioning it as a negative. Or as it were...a fallacy. Meanwhile....

(the OP seems to be thinking quite a bit about whether the other person is ok with this minimal touching)

There's a difference between thinking about consent and understanding that you shouldn't do anything sexual without a person's consent.

(Being outright physically disrespectful of another’s space (manspreading, leaning on them, letting your bag rest on them) is another story.)

Actually it isn't. There's two issues at hand here. Consent and ignorance. Depending on how both are addressed we could be running directly into invasion of privacy. Ignorance meaning the other human being not having knowledge of the event and consent being that they do know and are ok with it. And again...

(These experiences are the hottest in some ways, as you've managed to 'persuade' someone to get touchy.)

[to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action]

Is this true though? Have they managed to persuade someone into something? Or is it that odds are much much larger that the person has yet to understand the possibility that someone else is getting off on touching them in a public place?

Lets imagine for a second that 2/3 of the world knew about this thread. That they either learned it from the news or some study or just something to that effect. Learned that people in general are getting off sexually just from touching them. Don't you think the reaction there would be disgust?

How would you that's different from upskirting, upshorting, manspreading, leaning on them, letting your bag rest on them and so on? Isn't all of this across the board considered at the very least an evasion of other people's privacy? And now we've added the element of persuasion. Where one party or type of person now thinks they've somehow tricked or convinced others to do something they think is sexual in nature without this sort of thing having ever been discussed with more than just six people. Not including the amount of people who liked comments and then ignored this thread.

Right. At that point people would then be on the look out for people attempting to do this. So they won't have their privacy invaded without consent.

Ignorance.

Now back to consent.

[to give assent or approval : agree]

Are we now about to assume without evidence that someone NOT moving their leg in a situation like this is somehow an offer of consent? Since we're now talking about consent i feel it important to bring up other topics where consent needed to be defined. As in people being drunk.

I'm of the mind that drunk people cannot consent. That drugged people or people who are high cannot consent. And they cannot because their minds have been altered. Now, consent before getting drunk, doing drugs and so on is a different story. Still leans toward them not being able to give consent but that's again another story.

Why do i feel that way? Information. Ignorance. A person should be able to end sex at any point. Even if spoolges have already happened and it's spoon cuddle time people should be able to end it at any time.

Can someone end someone else getting their rocks off by touching their leg when they have no idea that's even a thing, weren't talked to at any point and the person who did it somehow thinks they've mind melded the person into it? No. They cannot.

There is no consent there because the other party has no idea what's even happening. So they can't consent to it. We aren't talking blowjobs in a bathroom stall in which there are signs that can be given and taken, taken and given as forms of consent. We're talking about someone tying something as normal as human beings touching each other to something sexual without their knowledge.

How could they know? And, how could they consent? If this weren't immediately taken into being of sexual nature i wouldn't have said anything. Random people cuddling or just NOT reacting negatively to someone touching them is a far leap from getting sexual pleasure from it.

So yes. This indeed a valid slippery slope issue. Because consent is important for anything of a sexual nature. Because ignorance, information and people being informed is also a very important when it comes to anything of a sexual nature. If we as human beings try to ignore either in any instance with a sexual nature it will without doubt begin to erode our definitions of those things.

Leading to less respect for each other. And more creepy people. Again, consent and ignorance. Are extremely important when it comes to these topics. Do you disagree?
 

DorianGray86

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Posts
48
Media
0
Likes
63
Points
238
Location
Toronto (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Here is what you're referring to.

[A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is often viewed as a logical fallacy[1] in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[2]]

The problem with you mentioning it is this. It's only a fallacy when there is no logical expectation that said small steps will lead to larger ones.

If there were no way legs touching could lead into say upshorting or upskirting then you'd be correct in mentioning it. And correct in mentioning it as a negative. Or as it were...a fallacy. Meanwhile....

(the OP seems to be thinking quite a bit about whether the other person is ok with this minimal touching)

There's a difference between thinking about consent and understanding that you shouldn't do anything sexual without a person's consent.

(Being outright physically disrespectful of another’s space (manspreading, leaning on them, letting your bag rest on them) is another story.)

Actually it isn't. There's two issues at hand here. Consent and ignorance. Depending on how both are addressed we could be running directly into invasion of privacy. Ignorance meaning the other human being not having knowledge of the event and consent being that they do know and are ok with it. And again...

(These experiences are the hottest in some ways, as you've managed to 'persuade' someone to get touchy.)

[to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action]

Is this true though? Have they managed to persuade someone into something? Or is it that odds are much much larger that the person has yet to understand the possibility that someone else is getting off on touching them in a public place?

Lets imagine for a second that 2/3 of the world knew about this thread. That they either learned it from the news or some study or just something to that effect. Learned that people in general are getting off sexually just from touching them. Don't you think the reaction there would be disgust?

How would you that's different from upskirting, upshorting, manspreading, leaning on them, letting your bag rest on them and so on? Isn't all of this across the board considered at the very least an evasion of other people's privacy? And now we've added the element of persuasion. Where one party or type of person now thinks they've somehow tricked or convinced others to do something they think is sexual in nature without this sort of thing having ever been discussed with more than just six people. Not including the amount of people who liked comments and then ignored this thread.

Right. At that point people would then be on the look out for people attempting to do this. So they won't have their privacy invaded without consent.

Ignorance.

Now back to consent.

[to give assent or approval : agree]

Are we now about to assume without evidence that someone NOT moving their leg in a situation like this is somehow an offer of consent? Since we're now talking about consent i feel it important to bring up other topics where consent needed to be defined. As in people being drunk.

I'm of the mind that drunk people cannot consent. That drugged people or people who are high cannot consent. And they cannot because their minds have been altered. Now, consent before getting drunk, doing drugs and so on is a different story. Still leans toward them not being able to give consent but that's again another story.

Why do i feel that way? Information. Ignorance. A person should be able to end sex at any point. Even if spoolges have already happened and it's spoon cuddle time people should be able to end it at any time.

Can someone end someone else getting their rocks off by touching their leg when they have no idea that's even a thing, weren't talked to at any point and the person who did it somehow thinks they've mind melded the person into it? No. They cannot.

There is no consent there because the other party has no idea what's even happening. So they can't consent to it. We aren't talking blowjobs in a bathroom stall in which there are signs that can be given and taken, taken and given as forms of consent. We're talking about someone tying something as normal as human beings touching each other to something sexual without their knowledge.

How could they know? And, how could they consent? If this weren't immediately taken into being of sexual nature i wouldn't have said anything. Random people cuddling or just NOT reacting negatively to someone touching them is a far leap from getting sexual pleasure from it.

So yes. This indeed a valid slippery slope issue. Because consent is important for anything of a sexual nature. Because ignorance, information and people being informed is also a very important when it comes to anything of a sexual nature. If we as human beings try to ignore either in any instance with a sexual nature it will without doubt begin to erode our definitions of those things.

Leading to less respect for each other. And more creepy people. Again, consent and ignorance. Are extremely important when it comes to these topics. Do you disagree?
:joy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: spaj8987

spaj8987

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Posts
1,792
Media
5
Likes
1,700
Points
123
Location
United States
Gender
Male

I agree, it is hilarious that you thought you could lessen the importance of consent and the lack of knowledge of this kind of thing. Even more hilarious that you thought you were being logical when you ignored both. Unless of course, that laugh emoji is your attempt at trying to belittle what i said without ever even trying to address it. In which case you become even more funny.

Ego is a hell of a drug ain't it. It will have you jumping head first into an issue you know very little about. And when someone disagrees very slightly it will trigger a negative response. Your feelings get hurt by the concept that something you like isn't deemed normal by most other human beings and you lose it even further with replies.

Not really realizing that the person who disagreed with you to begin with would have just as soon left it alone. Then after you push said issue it gets worse and worse for you. Until you now look as creepy as you are ignorant.

Great job. What will you do for your next trick i wonder. Attempt to reason that consent is always given unknowingly? That everyone knows that other fairly creepy human beings get off on just touching another human being?

I'm guessing you have nothing else to say because the argument you thought you had because of your ego...never actually existed. We'll see though i guess. :)
 

thewestwing1

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Posts
5
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
13
Location
London (Greater London, England)
I want to make it clear that I would never invade someone’s personal space or touch them inappropriately. I stay within the confines of my seat and I do not spread out.

But because trains are slightly cramped, inevitably legs will brush up against each other. If this happens and the other person maintains the touching, then I don’t pull away. If they pull away, I would never move closer.

On the issue of “persuading” - what I meant was this: when you brush up against someone for a moment, and then because of the jerkiness of the train it happens a few more times, I’ve been in situations where the other person gets comfortable with our legs touching and moves closer and maintains the touching.

For me, it’s a homoerotic thing. I like the feeling of our legs against each other, and I like that the other person wants our legs to touch. I’m not interested in touching someone that doesn’t want to be touched - that’s definitely creepy and a turn off.

On my experience, when I'm seated on the train and the person next to me press is leg against mine I don't even bother moving my leg I just be indifferent or if I see that the person is trying to push their leg against mine on purpose what it makes me feel is angry and again I wouldn't move my leg.

This if I'm in the considered space of my seat, doesn't even make a difference if it's a man or a woman.

I definitely think this situation exists. But I usually try and work out if the other person is just refusing to move their leg, or whether they are interesting in touching. I do this by moving my leg away slightly and seeing if they “follow”. When they don’t, I interpret this as your situation and stay away. I would never press my leg harder against someone - that defeats the purpose. I want them to touch me.

I’m also just curious about guys putting themselves in slightly homoerotic situations even though they are straight and are not interested in fucking another guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6376781

ronin001

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Cammer
Joined
May 16, 2009
Posts
10,294
Media
54
Likes
47,046
Points
618
Location
New York (United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Public Service Advisory

DO Not press ones legs against other passengers on New York City Mass Transit !!!!

It may not be taken as a humorous; or amorous act; but as an act of aggression
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisterB