Large Language Models are usually aligned toward broad preference averages, while users can differ in how they perceive toxic language. This paper studies whether training free in-decoding logit-difference can support such personalized toxicity alignment without changing model weights. The key idea is to use two internal generation behaviours: an expert generation branch that represents careful, respectful language and an anti-expert generation branch that represents language patterns to avoid. The resulting difference is added to the base model’s next-token scores during generation, with the toxicity steering category chosen from an inferred user sensitivity profile. Profiles are derived from PRISM, a participatory preference dataset, and Perspective API toxicity scores. On Llama 3.1 8B, I evaluate two methods, Anti-Expert Contrastive Decoding (ACD) and Expert–Anti-Expert Differential Steering (EADS). The results suggest that EADS gives the more balanced trade-off, showing that stronger steering reduces measured toxicity distance while preserving general MMLU utility better than ACD. EADS shows a 12.65% mean reduction in measured toxicity-distance, and a below 1% reduction in both Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) accuracy and generated answer perplexity. The findings remain limited by the use of automatic toxicity scores as a proxy and by the coarse user-profile representation. These results show that training-free logit-steering is a favorable alternative for personalized toxicity alignment, but it should be, in the future, validated using human evaluation. ... Read more