Bay how come they don't have erections during this stuff? isn't it supposed to be sexual "role play" i.e. a dominant partner man handling and will "do the deed" with force if necessary i.e. helpless and submissive
I’m no expert here (well, maybe I am), but it seems to me you’ve already identified the answer. The videos above document “role play”; they are not pornography. It is not the goal of either man to reach a climax nor is it necessarily to inspire a climax in the viewer. Rather it is to perform some kind of dom/sub fantasy that apparently a segment of the population finds gratifying on some level.
There
are muscle vids that are explicitly pornographic with one or both partners displaying erections and using them, but Aiman’s vids are targeting a different audience. There are men (‘straight’ or bi-curious) who want to watch these kinds of videos. They can enjoy them and not identify as gay because there is nothing overtly sexual going on. No kissing, no erections, no penetration, etc. That may sound silly to many of us, but I believe that is what is going on. A similar dynamic is at work in all those muscle training/lifestyle videos that are sold. Again, the viewer can enjoy the visual images without conceptualizing it as sexual because nothing explicitly sexual is going on. People tend to refer to sexuality as either/or: gay or straight, but it’s really a continuum. There are ‘straight’ men who want to watch such videos, but they do not necessarily want to see anything explicitly sexual or obviously gay.
As I have said before, someone who is openly gay is perfectly comfortable getting real muscle sex or real muscle porn and therefore doesn’t have to settle for the titillation of these schmoe videos. Videos like the ones in this tread have more in common with the muscle lifestyle/training videos; they essentially target a similar audience: the guy who wants to see muscle men as a form of entertainment, but doesn’t want to conceptualize it as anything overtly sexual or homoerotic.
