(LOL, sorry about the length of this post, I'm moderately buzzed right now and i just rambled on. I'll get to you with the rest of the tips and my guide ASAP...)
If plugging some h would u need a higher dose than what u would normally iv to get the same effect? Im assuming theres no rush right?
Well, depending on a number of variables (for examples, your own personal genetics/system or the cleanliness of your rectum [whether it's full of shit or not]), heroin's rectal bioavailability can be quite high. It's hard to find numbers on it, but based on ones I've seen in the past, between 70%-95% is a good estimate of how much gets absorbed into your system from the whole dose when you administer it rectally and you had a bowel movement before the dose. 95% would definitely at least be approaching the upper limit. I've seen 99% listed before, from a mod on this very forum, but I don't know if I can agree with that much. That means you'd need to use between 5%-30% as much more as if you went the IV route. But still, that's a huge gain, compare that to oral heroin at ~35% (65% more to use for equal effects), smoked heroin at 52%-55% (45-48% to get equal effects), or intranasal at 44%-61% (39-56% more to get equal effects). Really, the only things that can be higher than rectal admin are intramuscular and intravenous injections, with IM being ~85% and IV being 100%. So rectal administration can sometimes even be higher than an IM injection, and occasionally, depending on circumstantial variables, it can be only 5% less efficient than an actual IV shot.
You do get a rush, but it is somewhat less potent of a rush than an IV shot. Still, it is very powerful, with many people suggesting it is as, or more, powerful than an IM injection. What happens is that it takes longer to start, lasts a bit longer, and is less overwhelming, but all in all very worth it, and it you use a high enough dose it CAN rival IV admin.
Takes about 30mins. MAX to kick in, more likely to be 10-15 mins, though, again, circumstantial variables would change this. The biggest difference is that the rush isn't instantaneous, but washes over you a little bit after you've administered it.
Basically, to administer, you need to have had a bowel movement, then you dissolve your heroin or bupe in water (maybe with a small amount of alcohol to up the bioavailability even more), and then you put it up your rectum about 2-4 index finger middle knuckle lengths. It doesn't have to go in far, really just an inch or two. It's definitely not like being fingered or fucked in the ass. It's literally only in there for a second, and after you squirt your homemade suppository in, you take it out. At this point, you have to lie down on your side, for about 5 minutes, at most 10. This allows the blood vessels in your rectum to absorb the drug fully, straight into the bloodstream.
Why people would think that's gay, I don't understand. It's what the rectum is meant to do, absorb water, some nutrients/minerals, and other soluble substances. The only way to make it gay is if you yourself make it gay. If you just think of it as what it actually is, merely a way to take a drug, no different than smoking, shooting, snorting, or parachuting, then I fail to see why it should bother someone. The only reason I can think of is that you have some sort of deep-seated aversion/fear/complex that compels you to feel anxiety over something as innocuous as administering a drug. Where the drug goes has NOTHING to do with how it feels, at least, not beyond bioavailability. Using a rectal administration technique just means you're being smart, because you save a LOT of your money and drugs, while still getting a type of rush, and getting a great high after the rush. The best part is that you risk very little at all. No dangers near what their is for IM or IV injections.
Hmmm....You know it depends on the person's perspective about the way u r talking of consuming the bupe...
Sure, I understand that others may have a different perspective on rectal administration of drugs. What I can't get my head around is why you think that doing something to yourself that is not in any way inherently sexual should get the label of "gay". Again, I mean no offence, but it just seems silly to me. I'm not gay, and have no desire to be fucked in the ass whatsoever. That said, an oral syringe is not a cock. Just like a lollipop or popsicle is not a cock. You don't call it gay when you put a popsicle/lollipop in your mouth, even though it's certainly a phallic looking object. Not unless you are putting it in your mouth in a sexual manner, then it is just a neutral action. It's not gay, it's not straight, it's just a thing you can do. Sure, if you fuck yourself in the ass with an oral syringe, yeah, you could make a case for that being gay. But why would you do that if you're not gay? lol, you just put it one to two inches into the rectum, squeeze out the liquid, and then boom, you're done. It takes less than half a minute, if that. How the f*** is that gay?
Mabye u can convince ur self that taking it that way is not homosexual...
See, that's the thing, I'm NOT "convincing myself" that it's not homosexual to administer a drug rectally. It actually isn't, for all intents and purposes it is a neutral act; not sexual in the least. I don't mean to offend and please don't take this the wrong way, but since logically, biologically, and chemically, this route of administration makes sense and is not at all linked to any kind of inherent sexuality, it would be the person who chooses to see sexuality in it (thinking it's "gay") who is convincing themselves of something. Acts that don't give you sexual pleasure are not considered to be sexual acts in any way. The only reason to think of them as gay is if you are unreasonably afraid of "gayness"/"being gay"/"looking gay". I think I'd know if I was gay, don't you? And, yet, in the privacy of my own home, I can plug any drug I want. You just have preconceptions that make you unable to view it any other way, and that's on you, not me. I know it's not gay, but you have chosen to be convinced that it is (for whatever reason).
To put it another way, logically, I don't have to prove a negative, because that's not how logic works. You have to prove a positive. If I say that I have a dragon/unicorn in my garage, and you don't believe me, that's fine, because the burden of proof lies with me, because I made the positive statement "there is a dragon in my garage". You make the negative statement that "no, there is no dragon." You can't prove a negative, so the onus is on the person making a claim to provide its proof. So consider this difference in perspective on rectal administration: This time YOU are the one making a positive statement ("Rectal drug administration is "gay"), while I make the negative statement "No, rectal drug administration is neutral and without an intrinsic sexual nature").
Since I make the negative, I need not prove my statement here. You are the one who must prove that such an act is, by its very nature, "gay". Until you do prove that, you are the one who has convinced himself of something, def. not me. That's just basic logic, you have to prove your positive statement. Just feeling that something "is" doesn't truly make it so.
lol, I mean, dude, you shit, don't you? Your shit is several times bigger than a small oral syringe. An oral syringe is neither a dildo nor a cock. It is a tiny thing, it can be smaller than a pencil. It's just another ROA (route of administration). You literally barely feel it, and to get caught up in worrying that it's gay, when the pleasure comes from the drug, not the syringe, is just silly and illogical.
That's up to the person...
Yep, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But that doesn't mean everyone's opinion is right or logical. Some abide by the rules of logic and operate from a rational standpoint using scientific methods. People have every right to their own opinions, but having that right doesn't mean you have the right to your opinion being respected as necessarily correct. For that to be one's right, one'd have to prove whatever positive claim one'd made.
But don't tell me that in most cases it's not a gay act...
Why shouldn't I? It's not a "gay act", lol. I should know, being straight and having done it myself. Or the many people I've known in the past who do it to save money, drugs, and veins. If the person doing it doesn't think it's gay, based upon sound logic, than how can it be gay? Again, I'm making the negative statement here. I say it's not gay, not unless you want it to be, fantasize it to be, or imagine it to be. So unless you have proof that it is "gay", beyond the "eew, that's icky, and since I irrationally feel that it is a sexual act, it is!", then you can't say it's gay. Not logically. Your personal taboos don't count as proof, unfortunately.
I could just as easily claim that masturbation is "gay". "Oh, dude! You're touching a cock, a penis! Wow, that's gay, dude. How can that not be gay! Don't tell me that masturbating yourself isn't gay, you're touching a prick, even if it is your own, that's gay!" Or that breastfeeding is somehow paedophilia: "Wow, tits are for sexual purposes because they brings sexual pleasure to both males and females, and you're letting infants feed from them! Damn, that's paedophilia, because of course a body part that is involved in sexual acts of some kind in some situations can ONLY be defined from those acts! Since breasts are can be used sexually, then doing ANYTHING with them MUST be sexual! Who cares if it's not inherently sexual, other things done with breasts are sexual acts, so EVERYTHING you do with breasts is sexual!"
Or even better, it's more equivalent to a female giving herself a self breast exam. Again, breasts can be a part of sexuality for both men and women (in different ways). So, just like a rectum CAN be part of sexuality for both men (gay sex, or straight prostate massage by a girl) and women (anal sex by a man or a strap-on wearing female), the breasts can be used in sexual acts. But, just because you use your breasts in another fashion to accomplish a non-sexual goal (checking for breast lumps by feeling them all over), does not suddenly mean that doing that action is sexual by nature. A woman is not a lesbian because she feels her own boobs for health reasons, and a man is not gay just because he uses his rectum for a purpose that is not at all sexual, dosing a drug in one of the most effective routes available. Can't you see that?
HOW you use a body part is what makes it sexual. It's not sexual until it's giving you SEXUAL pleasure. Getting high FROM A DRUG is NOT sexual pleasure. Therefore, using any body part for the SOLE PURPOSE of GETTING HIGH, not SEXUALITY, can NEVER be "gay".
By all means, feel free to prove that it is, but please use logic and preferably available scientific evidence, don't just say that it is because you feel it is without any real describable explanation for why it is.
Just think about it man...From so many ways of consuming it,u choose to take it up the ass...
I don't take opiates anymore, except my suboxone. Even that I rarely want to plug. But, yeah, I've plugged before and I'll probably plug again. What's so hard to understand about getting at least TWICE as MUCH BANG for YOUR BUCK? Why shouldn't I save money and drug volume? Because other people mistakenly think it's "gay"/"immoral"/socially-unacceptable"? In terms of bioavailability, it's generally vastly superior to use rectal admin. as opposed to oral or intranasal, and can often be much better than inhaled/smoked, and even more efficient than IM injection, at times.
Why should that be gay, unless I get pleasure from it in a sexual way? Why should you be the one who decides whether someone else's actions are "gay"? You only know if your own actions are gay, you're the only one who "feels" the pleasure of your own acts. So, yeah, if you think it feels/sounds gay to use a superior method of drug administration, so be it. But, frankly, that says more about you than me.
"To get a pleasure from putting something in ur asshole..."
No. More accurately, it is to get pleasure from applying a drug solution to a mucous membrane, after which the drug alters brain chemistry. It is absolutely no different than the mouth's oral membranes, or nasal membranes, or intestinal membranes after the stomach. It's a way to get a drug into your blood, not a way to get pleasure in and of itself. The pleasure comes later, when the drug reaches your brain, and has nothing to do with the actual administration.
I don't know what size is the rectal syringe and i don't wanna know...
Well, I already posted it in reply to the guy above you, so I'll say it again (sorry, lol): Less than a pencil width. It can be at LEAST as small as the width of an IV syringe.
I think that this tells a lot...
I think it tells a lot more about your preconceptions and perceptions than it does about the guy who plugs it so he can get better effects without once even THINKING that it's gay. I just don't get why you have to think in those terms. Again, it's not a cock, nor is it a dildo, and the pleasure doesn't come from it, it comes from a drug going into your veins and to your brain, just like any other ROA (like snorted or smoked).
Fuck it man just fuckin snort it...
Why? Why should you snort it and need twice or more as much when you can just plug it and get much better effects? You're the one choosing to make it gay. If you're secure in your sexuality and you know you are straight, then why the hell would you think just administering a drug is gay, regardless of which route is used? It's not gay unless you choose it to be so.
But that way... Just not my thing..{/QUOTE]
That's fine, no one is forcing you. It's just a good idea to save your money, your drugs, and your life. If you keep shooting IV, you WILL die from it eventually. We don't like to think that way, I know I didn't, but odds are f*****' high that it'll happen.
However i don't judge on how some1 takes his drug,it's up to them.
K, it just seemed like you were by calling it gay and not backing that up with empirical and logically grounded proof. I know I'm not gay, I KNOW that plugging is just an action that gets a drug in your veins, not a sexual action, so for you to call it gay is sort of judging me. Can you see that?
I'm not trying to offend you, I just want you to think critically and logically about this. Being icky or taboo (or related to/using a body part that COULD be sexual in other situations) does not make something gay.
I mean, what about girls who plug? Since it's not gay for a girl to get anally fucked by a guy, does that mean that in your mind, for unclear reasons, females can administer drugs rectally and not be gay, while males can't? Cause that's kind of shitty for us dudes; we lose out on one of the best ROAs for using drugs, while females get to use it. Do you think it means the female thinks it's a sexual act? No, of course not, the female might not even like anal sexually, but she can still be smart and know that it's just a better ROA. Just like a male can.
Because this thing we do is kind of a ritual.Apart from being addicted to the drug,u become addicted to the ritual.
For me, I've always been addicted to the drug. Rituals change. Drugs stay relatively the same. But I know what you're saying.
The whole preparation,(let's not mention that ur doing something that's sociably unaxeptable-whitch gives u a thrill),
I thought you weren't going to judge me? Well, you just judged me and decided with zero evidence that rectal drug administration "gives [me] a thrill". Dude, why can't you get that it isn't sexual at all? Why can't you understand that this has nothing to do with a "thrill" from it being "socially unacceptable"? You're the only one of us that thinks it's gay, so you're imagining that it provides me with some sort of "thrill". That doesn't mean it does, in objective reality, it just means that your thinking on the subject may be faulty. I wouldn't accuse you of not knowing your own sexuality, so why do you accuse me of doing "gay" things without knowing it? I'd know if I was, and I'm not. You're the only one thinking of it sexually, and neither you nor the society/culture you are a part of gets to determine the end all be all concerning sexuality.
And, btw, you are doing socially unacceptable things, too. Drug use, for one. Arguably, IV injections are even more taboo and socially unacceptable than real homosexual acts. If I were to say that you get a thrill from that, to just assume you get a sexual thrill from it, wouldn't that be kind of insulting toward you? There are plenty of psychologists who would claim that injection is connected to phallic symbols, just like stabbing a knife is. That doesn't necessarily make injection sexual, not unless ther person injecting or receiving it thinks it is.
And why the f*** do you equate homosexuality with socially unacceptable acts? My sister is a lesbian. Nothing wrong with that. Even if it is socially unacceptable to some people, that's those people's loss. No one should have to answer to standards of social acceptability regarding their own victim-less sexualities. The people who judge them as unacceptable are the ones who are truly unacceptable.
So, please, get over your own preconceived notions about what makes something gay. Even if it's true that the majority of society considers homosexuality to be "socially unacceptable", that just means these are sad, judgemental, homophobic people.
Don't claim you don't judge how I neutrally administer a drug for maximum effect as "socially unacceptable (even claiming I get a "thrill" from it!), or that you don't judge me when you claim that NO MATTER WHAT I say, think, or feel, doing this one thing (again, just for more potent effects) is somehow "gay".
The only way it's gay is if you think it is due to either being gay or being homophobic (wether you realize it or not). If something is a neutral act, as this logically is, considering it doesn't cause sexual arousal for most likely EVERYONE of the millions who've done it, then calling it gay is just an admission of paranoid ideas about homosexuality and what constitutes "gayness".
the first cigarette and etc.I don't see why some1 would like to ritualise such an act..Pleasure from behind..Exept if it is some kind of fethis to them.Mabye it is practiced in the medicine for some special cases,but if u r doing it constantly on ur own...It resembles a sexual act...But nvm,eve
It's not ritualized. It's just a method of administration, not even one I always use. It has nothing to do with sexuality, I wish you could understand that, because I know you're a nice guy, and I'm not trying to be a dick, but it's simply not gay.
Again, if you think it is, than please, use scientific evidence coupled with logic to prove your positive statement that it is.
You can't just say "It resembles a sexual act! Therefore GAY!". That's homophobic (whether subconscious or not, at least slightly, though I don't like to use that word). Like I said, if I was using that logic, than I could say that because a woman checks her breasts for tumours, resembling the sexual act of another female fondling her breasts, then she is performing a lesbian act. That's just not true, though, and I would be completely wrong to claim it was. Especially if I didn't provide proof.
ry man to his own( i think i hit the phrase correctly).
It's cool, I'm not angry or anything. I only rambled that long because I'm intoxicated, and I apologize for any unintentional offence I may have caused. I just think you can't call an act gay unless it brings sexual pleasure to an individual, which WOULD indicate a (homo)sexual nature. Since it doesn't provide sexual pleasure, it simply can't be "gay". It's just another ROA.
P.S. PM me anytime i cleared the inbox
Thanks, I'll get to it as soon as I get home.
Btw, what country are you from? I'm from Canada.