rawTOP

For those who find the policy confusing… I had to draw the line somewhere. It took a while to think through the issues to identify what it was that had changed recently in the posts and tweets I’ve been seeing. There had always been an undercurrent of harmful fetishes, but it’s really gotten quite bad the last year or two. My guiding principle previously was that people can do what they want with their own bodies. But I came to the realization that STDs (other than HIV) effect more than the individual, and that while a person has the right to kill themselves, it’s perfectly reasonable to say this site won’t encourage it. If you can explain a better, more clear policy, I’m all ears.

There are times when cancel culture is a good thing. This is one of those times.

Try condoms for a while and you'll realize all the other reasons why barebacking is better. The sensations (for both the top and the bottom) are like 100 times better. And the exchange of fluids can be really intimate and powerful. It actually makes me sad that you see barebacking only as a form of self-harm. That's what I'm trying to correct with this policy. No infraction is ever given to someone who sincerely seeks personal life advice (well, if they put it in the wrong section they might get an infraction, but not for the question). When someone comes on the site and says they're thinking of self-harm people who respond will absolutely get an infraction for anything less than a well-considered, sensitive answer. For many years now we haven't allowed "harm to another real person". The members who seek advice are human beings who deserve to be treated in a compassionate manner. "Go harm yourself" is never appropriate, and never has been allowed. So there's no change in policy on the types of cases you're talking about. The new rules are about AIDS FETISH in the sense of holding out illness/morbidity as a desirable goal that people should strive to achieve. I don't want the members to use this site to form a death cult which is literally what's happening on Twitter right now, and to a lesser extent here. My gut tells me that many of the guys pushing the destructive form of AIDS Fetish are meth addicts with a distorted view of reality. You'll see them pushing the destructive form of AIDS fetish, and then all of a sudden you'll see a tweet from them like "Kind of hard to say this, but I'm now apparently meds resistant and cd4 count slightly over 100", but then a week later they're back to potentially destructive behavior.

HIV fetish is fine. It’s AIDS fetish that’s being banned. So fictional stealthing for HIV infection is still OK (the bottom should have been on PrEP).

@Sum1 — trust me, having gonorrhea sucks. Getting syphilis is even worse. You’re not missing anything. Been there done all that far too many times.

@demonicpup I know exactly what you’re saying. For brevity I simply said that OIs were one of the criteria for having AIDS. But the fact remains that an AIDS diagnosis is meaningful because your future medical condition is significantly more challenged. Guys are encouraging other guys to “go there” and it’s not healthy. I understand someone like you can be healthy after an AIDS diagnosis, but I want people to be more proactive than that. I don’t want this site to give the impression that having AIDS should be some sort of goal guys should work towards. But once you’re “there”, I also don’t want you to feel like your life is over. Hence the continued acceptance of finding “AIDSy” guys as sexy.

This past fall I extended the rule against promoting harm to a real person to cover harm to the community and applied it to political discussions where people were expressing support and encouraging others to vote for political candidates that had a track record of harming our community. That policy of not allowing things that harm our community is being expanded in some rather significant ways. Specifically… ➤ Certain types of AIDS Fetish are being BANNED What is still allowed is expressing that you find "AIDSy" looking guys hot. Saying you think they're hot harms no one, and after everything those guys have gone through, it probably helps them to know people still find them sexually attractive. What is being banned is encouraging other people to progress to stay off meds so long that they progress to AIDS. I know many of you didn't live through the AIDS epidemic, but it was truly horrible. I cared for my lover as he died of AIDS. I wouldn't wish that experience on anyone - even the experience of being a caregiver was pretty horrible. There is a huge difference between being HIV positive and having AIDS. You can live a reasonably healthy life and have a completely normal life expectancy being poz. But the same is not true once you progress to AIDS. Once you progress to AIDS your life expectancy goes down and your quality of life can completely plummet. In case you don't know, an HIV positive person is considered to have AIDS if they get one of a number of opportunistic infections, or when their CD4 ("t-cell") count drops to 200 (or sometimes 250 - depending on the standard used). Doctors will want you to do on meds before you CD4 drops below 500. But then there's a gray area between ~350 and 500 which is also relatively safe, though you do up your risk of complications slightly. This ban also applies to encouraging people to become highly drug resistant. Since that's another clear path to AIDS. Simply put, wanting to progress to AIDS or become highly drug resistant is a form of self harm that's borderline suicidal. Encouraging someone to progress to AIDS or become highly drug resistant borders on encouraging them to kill themselves. It's not OK. ➤ HIV Fetish, Bug Chasing & Gift Giving are still very much ALLOWED As I mentioned there's a huge difference between being poz and having AIDS. So I have no problem with guys who want to become poz. Simply put, it's right for some guys. I also have no problem with gift giving. Thanks to PrEP, gift givers can't harm guys who don't want to be harmed. And most guys have at least two years before their CD4 drops below 500, so there is a period of time when they can be a gift giver without risking their own health. But be careful… do not use the word AIDS when you mean HIV or poz. "I wanna give you HIV" or "I wanna poz you" are both fine. "I wanna give you AIDS" is not OK. Fetishizing poz or toxic loads is fine. Fetishing AIDS loads is not OK. Learn to say what you mean. Words matter! ➤ STI Fetish is BANNED Fetishizing STIs other than HIV is also banned. STIs are a fact of life if you bareback, but we want to keep them to a bare minimum since they're a literal pain in the butt (or dick). Sex is supposed to be fun, but when guys stop going to bathhouses and the sex parties because they keep getting STIs when they go – that harms our "sexual ecosystem". Big crowds at bathhouses and sex parties helps everyone. It's more fun for us, and more profitable for the bathhouses and sex clubs. ➤ These bans apply to fiction as well as real life situations Fantasizing about things often turns into real-life behavior, so the bans apply to fictional stories as well. ➤ Generally, things that do significant harm to the community are BANNED Basically I'm banning anything that causes permanent, significant harm to individuals or significant harm to the community as a whole. That said, there's a lot of gray area. In the gray area if it's harm to a real person it will be more likely to trigger an infraction. So for example - a bottom is getting spit roasted and the top fucking him slips him a booty bump without him knowing. Since drugs wear off after a few hours, that's not permanent harm. In a fictional story that would be allowed provided the story doesn't progress to him becoming a drug addict (which would be significant harm). But encouraging someone to do that to a real person - that wouldn't be allowed. Or another example - castration. If a bottom is considering castration and you encourage them to go through with it - it all depends on how you encourage them. If you encourage them to take months to fully think it through, and then find a qualified doctor to do the procedure - that would be fine. If you encourage them to take a less careful course of action - that would be a problem and would get an infraction. ➤ The stories of victims are still very much allowed Victims are always allowed to tell their stories provided they state the abuse factually and don't overly fetishize the abuse. They can even say that since the abuse they've gotten turned on by it and seek it out. Though there is the risk of that going too far into fetishizing the behavior. So tread carefully there. Why I'm implementing the new policy Recently here and on Twitter I've been seeing a lot of AIDS and STI fetish and I've found it deeply disturbing. Simply put, it's a level of harmful that I haven't seen before. The bug chasing back in the late 90s (post ARVs) and early 00s would have violated these new policies, but it was different back then. There was this immense fear of becoming poz combined with the realization that sooner or later bottoms especially would probably become poz. So bug chasing "got it over with". From that point of view the improvement to the person's mental health probably balanced out the risk to their physical health. And with the advent of PrEP it's a huge step for some guys to come to the realization that they want to be poz, then choose to go off PrEP, and then actually get pozzed. To put it in simple terms it seems to be a tribal thing for many of them. Belonging to a tribe can have an upside, and that process doesn't harm anyone else. But AIDS fetish and STI fetish cause significant harm with zero upside. They're pure harm. I don't want this site to be the catalyst for that type of behavior. Implementation of the new policy For the next week if you violate the new policy you'll just get a warning. After that there will be an infraction. If you see old posts that violate the new rules, please report them and a moderator will do one of three things: 1) edit them so they comply, 2) add a note that posts like that are no longer allowed, or 3) hide the post or thread if the violation is serious enough and not easily remedied via editing. Confused? If you're confused as to whether something is allowed under the new policy, I constructed a series of questions that you go through to figure out if it's banned or allowed… https://breeding.zone/topic/64867-read-this-significant-change-in-rules-effective-31/?do=findComment&comment=683626

It's there because most of the site is about sex, and that's not, hence it's a general topic. What do you think would be a better way to organize it?

Sub-forums need a critical mass to be successful. You're talking about thousands of sub-forums, so it wouldn't work (and it would be a nightmare to set up). That said, When I redevelop the site (which is not any time soon) it will be tag based, and location will be a tag. So I totally get the problem and understand how the current structure is limited sub-optimal. But there literally isn't an off-the-shelf solution that does what's needed. I've never seen pictures as a primary draw of the site. And clearly the developers (it's generic forum software) don't see it that way either. As I develop solutions to replace this site pictures will come sooner rather than later. There are basically two types of picture use cases - pics of you on your own profile, and shared pics in a social media type scenario. I'm hoping I'll get to both of those by the end of the year. In each list of forum topics there's the option to sort by date. Use that and you can see what's new. I use it all the time to moderate some of the backroom areas to make sure that new threads are in the correct place. Yes, searching by user name isn't simple, but that's out of my control. When you say "URL hiding" – if I understand what you're talking about, that's a browser option that can be turned off in your browser settings. It is not something that we're specifically doing on this site. When I redevelop the site (again, not any time soon), I'll be much clearer about where you're posting and the rules for that area. In the meantime it sorta just is what it is.

Unless you give details, that type of comment isn't particularly helpful. The rest of you guys who commented, I'll respond when I'm less tired (just got back from a bike ride).

Every now and then when I'm deleting accounts I see a comment that they're deleting their account because the site is hard to navigate. If you feel that way, can you explain what exactly is difficult about the navigation? That said, I understand that we're pretty rigid on things being posted in the correct area, and I can see where "the correct area" is confusing sometimes. If you can explain a better way to handle content categorization, I'm all ears.

This has been suggested previously (I'm too lazy to look for the other thread, if someone finds it, I'm happy to merge them). But yes, what you're suggesting makes sense, but is not possible with the current software. In a few years if I move the stories to something I develop, then I can sort by things like last post by the original poster.

^^^^ What he said ^^^^ To which I'd add that certain types of speech are abhorrent in modern society. Imagine if someone wanted to speak on why white people are genetically superior to brown and black people. Some of these topics are personal to our community since those conservative speakers often mention things like how marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Or that people should not have control over their own bodies (that assertion on abortion affects our trans brothers and sisters, and even bug chasers). So yes, many college campuses will not allow hate speech. If that bothers you, then it says a lot about you. Universities also don't tolerate fiction being presented as fact. You get to have your own opinions, not your own facts. When science generally agrees to certain facts they typically have gone through multiple rounds of people trying to disprove them (that is literally the "scientific method"). In those cases you're free to publish a paper that tries to argue otherwise and convince the experts in the field that they're wrong. But a university probably won't want you standing in front of a crowd and attempting to discredit years of work by a community of experts. At most they'll want balance and you'll be one of several voices in a debate on the issue.

There isn't actually a mobile version or a desktop version. The website is "responsive" which means the interface changes as you make your web browser narrower or wider. Which means a desktop computer can mimic a mobile experience, but a phone can't mimic a desktop experience.

Just logged in as you to see what you see and you're right, it's not in Settings. On the desktop version there's a drop-down that lets you go into Messenger and tells you when you try it that it's disabled and asks if you want to re-enable it. BUT that isn't an option on small screens. I've enabled it for you. If others are having the same issue, login on a computer and do it from there.

When I look at your account it says you've disabled your messenger. The option to enable it should be in Settings.

It should be next to the bell. But it isn't, clearly.

Click on the "hamburger" menu in the upper right corner. Then you'll see an envelope icon. Click on it and you'll have the option to start a new message.

I see what you mean. (I rarely message people, so hadn't noticed). But you can always go to Messenger and type in their handle and start the message thread that way.

If you had your profile deleted, there is no proof you are who you say you are. This is why we discourage people from deleting their profiles.

I get that, but if someone comes on the site and starts posting a bunch of unwanted stuff the established members of the site can stop them dead in their tracks by downvoting the posts. That is one of the factors that determines whether you can progress to the next membership level. Basically, if you haven't proven yourself, you don't get to determine whether other people progress and get more abilities on the site. And the more we trust you, the bigger voice you get.

Use downvote in that situation. It has a clearer meaning of disapproval of the post itself, rather than the topic being discussed in the post. Correct.

Just wrapping this up. I've re-enabled 'sad' (it was in there, but disabled). And I added piggy 🐷. Like and upvote can't easily be combined because like can't be disabled and making like upvote would result in a weird UI/UX. I think that about takes care of it.

Or a lube like Crisco. If bottom puts that up his ass it often comes out all white and frothy, like he had cum in his ass. You see this is a lot of black-on-black videos.

Scat is considered legally obscene. It is not tolerated on this site. PLEASE report the image and the person will be banned (for quite a long time).