rawTOP

Would "softcore fetish" be a better term (since the non-mainstream fetish is defined as "hardcore")? Or is there a better term to use? (Please suggest if you can think of a better term). BootmanLA sorta hit the nail on the head when he said "hearing that an acquaintance does enjoy it, is not particularly likely to be squicked out." To me, work environments are probably the ultimate test. If a straight (and straight-laced) boss learned about your fetish, would it affect your chances of promotion or bonuses, etc.? If they learned you were into sports gear fetish, almost certainly not unless they think your fucking the 15 year old high school soccer star. Foot fetish, they'd probably think "that's weird, but whatever", so probably not. Furries / cosplay fetish, they'd get a laugh out of it, but again probably not. But hardcore BDSM, being a fisting bottom or a piss bottom, or large gauge genital piercings, or brandings – those could seriously affect your career if they were found out by certain people. I make the distinction because of how I market porn. Certain fetishes I can show on "mainstream porn" sites, and other fetishes need to go on a site dedicated to hardcore fetish. In other words I make the distinction based on the fetish's need for a "safe space", or how likely it will be to turn off the target audience of the mainstream site. But certain fetishes cross the boundaries. A twink with a pink fluffy "whip" casually hitting his sex partner – that's not really "hardcore" or true BDSM. It depends on if you're "playing at" the fetish, or actually truly doing the fetish.

Given that when I was younger I was a member of GMSMA (Gay Men's S/M Activists), there at least used to be a vibrant BDSM community. It's waned as being gay has become more acceptable and the hyper macho type has gone out of "fashion". And the fashion component of it isn't to be discounted. I remember getting close to some hot guys at the LURE (NY's top leather bar), only to realize they were actually rather fem/campy when I heard them speak to friends. To them the leather scene was theater. But them participating in that "theater" gave a physical space for people who were more serious about it to express themselves. Now those physical spaces are gone for the most part. IML, MAL, CLAW – the community still exists there (believe it or not those events aren't just about being a cumdump for a weekend – they actually have other things going on). But I get the sense that the leather / BDSM scene is more of a thing in red states where being gay is still a bit edgy.

Hucows is hetero. Posting hetero content anywhere but in the hetero section will get you (temporarily) banned. The fetish section is only for gay masc content.

Realize that unless you do many of the steps above, VPNs have data on all your browsing and they sell that data to the highest bidder. VPNs can get you around blocks, but most of them do not increase your privacy.

Well, some of the bigger fetishes (Watersports, Fisting & BDSM plus poz fetish and fem fetish) do have their own sections. But there are a lot of other fetishes out there, which is why I have the broad, general categories of "Hardcore Fetish" and "Mainstream Fetish". As far as fantasy/fiction… There's a fiction section for both hardcore and mainstream. Put your stories there if they focus on the fetish. If they just make a passing reference to the fetish, then they can stay in the main fiction sections.

You'll have to make that change before uploading it. What's happening is that the image was captured as you see it on the site, but whatever took the pic inserted metadata saying that a rotation was required. This site doesn't honor the metadata. Typically when you bring things into an image editor and resave them they're saved in the proper orientation without the rotation metadata.

@daemien – thanks for bringing that up. I've had a watersports section here for a long time, but I was missing sections for all the other fetishes. I've just created a Fetish Forum which I've broken down into… Hardcore Fetish (watersports, fisting, BDSM and other topics with an "ick factor" like large gauge and temporary piercings) Mainstream Fetish (things with no "ick factor" like foot fetish and sports gear fetish) Poz Fetish should continue to go in the Backroom. Fem-oriented fetishes should go in the Trans Fem & Cross-Dressing section.

Very important! The site cannot host obscene content or promote obscene sexual activities. Scat, blood sports, snuff (killing), etc. are considered legally obscene so those topics are prohibited on this site. Legal obscenity is a murky topic. If in doubt, shoot a moderator a question before posting. That said, it's completely OK to discuss issues surrounding obscene activities (e.g. how to deal with sex partners that may be into scat or blood sports when you're not into them). It's the promotion of obscene activity of posting of obscene content that's the problem.

I believe so, but can't say for sure. I still use Safari on iOS.

The government of Thailand has blocked 190 porn sites. Presumably more will be blocked in the future. Other countries are talking about age verification systems, etc. While it may seem trivial to fight to see porn, the same blocking mechanisms they use block porn they can use to block political discussions, access to objective news, etc. Here's a rundown of how governments and corporations block you and what you can do to circumvent the block. Even if you don't need these technologies, it's good to support them because other people do need them… DNS Blocks ➜ DoH (DNS over HTTPS) The most common way to block a website is to block it when you first try to connect. When you type in "breeding.zone" into the address bar, your computer needs to convert that domain name into an IP address. So it asks what's called a DNS server to tell it the IP address. If your government tells your ISP to block Breeding Zone they'll simply return a "I don't know the IP for that site" and you can't connect. So you might think, "I'll just ask a different DNS server". The problem is that some ISPs won't let you talk to any DNS server except theirs – they block the port for DNS on their connection to the Internet so you can only talk to DNS servers in their network (which they control). The solution is DNS over HTTPS (DoH). It makes DNS requests look like regular web requests so your ISP can't tell you're talking to a DNS server outside their network. Ideally DoH should be configured in your OS. When it's configured in your OS everything on that device will use it. Supposedly it's possible with iOS 14, but I can't figure it out. And configuring it on MacOS won't be possible until v11 (which is about to be released). I'm not a Windows or Android person, so not sure about those. So, for now, the one way you can use DoH is to use Firefox. In Firefox go to Preferences, search for DNS and simply turn on DNS over HTTPS. It's actually really simple. For this reason I strongly suggest everyone use Firefox. AFAIK, it's the only browser that has really embraced DoH. UPDATE: You can also turn on DoH in Chrome. At least I think it's DoH, it might be DoT (which can be blocked). They call it "Secure DNS" and don't say which type of encrypted DNS they use. To turn it on in Chrome, go to Settings ➜ Privacy and Security ➜ Security, then under "Advanced" you'll see "Use secure DNS". Toggle the option if it's not already toggled, then choose one of the providers listed under "With", and you're done. Packet Inspection ➜ ESNI (Encrypted Server Name Indication) Once you have an IP address each time your computer requests something from the site it will encrypt the request if you're using HTTPS, but the one piece of information it can't encrypt is the server name (e.g. "breeding.zone" – essentially the domain name) – it's sent in clear text because there are usually multiple sites on each IP and the encryption certificates are for each site, not for the IP. Sending the server name in clear text allows the server to know which encryption certificate to use to decrypt the request. What this means is that your network provider can look at the packet, see the server name and block your request at that point. It's a lot more work for them than blocking you at the DNS level, but they can do it. Encrypting the server name requires "ESNI" (Encrypted Server Name Identification). Not all sites are configured to use ESNI, but you can tell Firefox to use it when supported if you do the following… In the address bar type "about:config". It will ask you if you're sure you want to go further, say yes. Then type in ESNI and you'll see a few lines of information. The top one will have the word "false". Double click on that word and it will turn to "true". Once you do that ESNI is enabled. Blocking IP Addresses The last way network providers can block you from seeing sites is to block the entire IP address. To do that they need to resolve the IP address themselves and then block the IP for the site. There's nothing YOU can do to stop this. But hosting companies can fight it a few different ways. They can mix desirable content and undesirable content on the same IP, so if the IP is blocked they're blocking stuff they didn't want to block. Or they can constantly change the IP address, so it's a huge game of whack-a-mole and the government / corporation can never keep up with all the changes. That's difficult with IPv4 (IP addresses that consist of 4 numbers separated by periods) because IPv4 addresses are pretty limited, but it's completely doable with IPv6 (IP addresses that consist of 8 alphanumeric strings separated by colons). There are literally billions of available IPv6 addresses. I'll update this post as more information becomes available, but for now, use Firefox and tweak the settings to protect yourself.

Self-hatred is definitely a thing… 41% of LGB Republicans wished they were heterosexual and 38% see their being gay as a personal shortcoming… https://www.out.com/politics/2020/11/02/almost-half-queer-republicans-wish-they-were-straight

Well, it's starting… The day after the election (11/4) the Supreme Court will hear a case where a Catholic adoption agency is saying their first amendment religious rights trump the City of Philadelphia's anti-discrimination laws. The Catholics had a contract with the city to handle adoptions for the city. When the city had children it needed adopted they would contract with various agencies to get them adopted. The Catholics refused to place kids with gay families. Since they were doing work for the city (not independently) the city canceled the contract when they refused to abide by the city's law and place kids with gay parents. So far the courts have ruled consistently for the city and against the Catholics. The case isn't about whether Catholics have the right to discriminate when they do adoptions on their own. Saying the city can't demand the city's own contractors abide by the city's anti-discrimination laws when those contractors are performing governmental duties on behalf of the city would be a pretty big landmark decision. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/08/19/supreme-court-sets-nov-4-to-hear-if-adoption-agency-can-reject-lgbtq-parents/ https://www.aclu.org/cases/fulton-v-city-philadelphia I'm sure Alito and Thomas will find some justification to side with the Catholics. Where Barrett sides will tell us a lot about how she will be as a Supreme Court justice – whether she's a worst case scenario, or something a bit more moderate. Remember they don't actually have to get rid of gay marriage to put us back to second class citizens. They can just keep chipping away at our rights until our we as a community simply don't have equality.

For those of you using an email service run by Apple (@icloud.com, @me.com), just realize they censor emails based on the content of the message. They don't appear to allow emails with adult content to be delivered.

Because we're a republic our national government can't lock things down the way a totalitarian system like China can. But there's a hell of a lot they can do… The federal government can insure adequate supplies of PPE, testing supplies, etc. The federal government can coordinate the distribution of a vaccine when it's ready (they're leaving this to the states). The federal government can aggressively determine the facts and disseminate those facts clearly and then market them to convince people to follow evidence-based health guidelines. The federal government can coerce state and local governments to follow certain guidelines by withholding funds that the states and local governments rely on. For example the federal government could withdraw federal money for schools that have in-person classes in areas that don't meet strict criteria for reopening. (This "power of the purse" is true of a lot of things and lets the feds call the shots in major ways). The federal government can give state and local governments the funds to do the right thing. Sometimes the state and local governments don't do things simply because they don't have the funds to do what really needs to be done. The federal government can lock down borders to limit the spread. (They were too slow doing it and now they're sloppy about enforcing it.) The federal government can test and quarantine everyone coming into the country. Local governments are actually less accountable. This is something Cuomo has encountered. He set health rules for the entire state and then there were notable violations and the local governments were like "Oh, that was just a one time deal and that bar is owned by so-and-so's cousin". In other words local governments are too close to their constituents. It takes someone who's more impartial to enforce this sort of thing.

When they start protesting outside restaurants at the beach that have signs saying "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" then maybe I'll take them seriously. "You must wear a mask to enter" is no different than "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" – it's a health regulation. If they can put on a shirt and shoes, they can put on a mask. While it may be about personal rights, it's not about freedom. We have less freedom in the US today because of people who refused a short period of sacrifice so we could be free from the impact of COVID. People in New Zealand have freedom because they don't have to worry about getting COVID. We're not free. We can't travel to other states, let alone other countries. We can't visit our elderly relatives without worrying about killing them. We can't visit loved ones who are in the hospital dying. We can't go out to bars with friends without worrying about killing people, or getting killed. Ditto for bathhouses, circuit parties, large pride events, etc. Because of these people who keep talking about "freedom", we are not free. It's no surprise that the people who are fine with school shootings (their right to own assault rifles is more important than the lives of thousands of kids) are also fine with spreading COVID. Both indiscriminately and randomly kill innocent people. That's not freedom. It's not ethical. It's not moral. And it's not honorable. Do not let people like that define terms like "freedom" or "moral" – they don't understand either concept.

This is a false statement. Look at our experience here in NY with a Democratic governor and compare that to the red states that have followed Trump's advice. The differences are shocking. For example, North Dakota has an infection rate that's 13 times that of NY. Hillary's approach would have been much like Cuomo's approach or Canada's approach and a lot more people would be alive today if she were president. That's what your family is trying to say. Here's a reputable site where you can get good data about the state of COVID in the US: https://www.covidexitstrategy.org/

Just a reminder – false statements and promotion of conspiracy theories will earn you an infraction. "New Members" who do it will probably be banned permanently. In the case of false statements in this particular thread, it's election interference and in many cases it's advocating harm against the gay community. Neither will be tolerated on this site. https://www.glaad.org/trump

To be a little more specific… There were a few days where there were hundreds of new account registrations. They then used those accounts to send out spam private messages. The accounts were deleted and the PMs deleted as well. But in some ways the damage was done. People who had "send me an email when I receive a new PM" got the spam messages in their email inboxes. Clearly I can't delete email from your inboxes, so that couldn't be undone. Some of those users then reported those emails as spam to their email service providers. For example Google lets me see the percentage of emails that I send that are marked spam by their users. Most often it's 0%. Sometimes it's 0.2%, but it almost never gets above 0.5%. But this past Friday (days after I'd deleted everything I could) it spiked to 3.3%. Luckily it went right back to zero the next day, so Google should see it as an anomaly, not a meaningful pattern. The logical way to deal with all that was to simply turn off the messaging system for new users. This is (primarily) a forum site, not a private message system. So now if you come on here and immediately complain that you can't send PM, I'm gonna assume you're a spammer. Participate in the public parts of the community, earn some trust, and in time you'll be able to send PMs. Just not right away.

"New Member" isn't just about when you signed up, it's about whether you've participated in the community. So you ARE still a New Member. It says as much right under your (default) avatar.

As much as I liked RBG, her one major fault was not retiring when there was a president who would have preserved her legacy. That alone was an enormous mistake. So yes, let's hope Breyer doesn't make the same mistake. And fingers crossed that Thomas and Alito's seats become vacant.

What's really encouraging is that the logic used for the decision means that in many (if not all) cases "sex discrimination" now covers LGBT discrimination. They said if two people – one male, one female – are both in love with the same person and you treat one differently than the other because of their love of the other person, then that's discrimination based on sex because the only difference between them is that one is male and the other female. Sex discrimination is written into a lot of laws, so that's huge. I'm not sure Judge Barrett will uphold the precedent, but at least it's on the books.

I just did a quick scan of the sexual health section and was generally fine with what I saw (not that I looked at every post). Bottom line I'm fine with honest, thoughtful discussion on any sexual health topic being in that section. Going completely without meds is absolutely a health topic that's sexual in nature. Having been through the AIDS crisis and having watched a lover die of AIDS, it bothers me that people would choose to do that to themselves. But it's their body and (in the age of PrEP) they're only harming themselves. They're more likely to get a balanced caring response to their question/issue in the sexual health section than in the backroom. The backroom will be more of a fetishy echo chamber and they won't hear as many people urging them to take care of themselves. Going no-meds "full blown" is the extreme case to me. Encouraging guys to not use PrEP or stop PrEP is a lesser case. It can be said in a fetishy "go for it dude" sorta way, or it can be said in a compassionate/thoughtful "figure out what's right for you" sorta way. If you see any cases of clear "fetish-driven" responses that don't seem thoughtful or compassionate, then please feel free to report them so a moderator can take a look.

ALL of Western Europe is successful with socialism – at least socialist in the way the Republicans define it – universal health care, strong rights for workers, a comprehensive social services system, etc. No significant person in the Democratic party is suggesting more than what Europe does in terms of socialism.

The attack is continuing. I've deleted another ~300 new registrations (apologies to the few new members who were legit who got deleted). I've also deleted over 16,000 private messages that were from users who've been deleted. Most of those will be spam messages. Also – "new members" are no longer allowed to send any messages. Hopefully the spammers will realize it's now pointless to join. But I expect the next thing they'll do is try to do spam posts in the forum hoping to get to the next level of membership where they can send messages – though that will NOT get them to the next level of membership. Please continue to report any spam you see.

I just also deleted all private messages from those 9 hours. You may see message threads with no messages as a result. (Too tired/drunk to get it right). I'll clean things up on Monday morning.