rawTOP

I'll be clear then… Any overt reference to the narrator of the story doing illegal chems or any of the other main characters doing chems is a problem and should be reported. DrScorpio's example of "That night at the baths, a few guys were clearly tweaking, but I didn't pay any attention to them" is a good example of what IS allowed. The point of that statement was that the narrator had zero interest in doing chems or playing with guys on chems – and he still had a great time that night. Along those same lines – references that imply (or clearly state) that chems don't make sex better are also perfectly OK. For example "There three of us taking loads in the backroom – there was a muscular job who was in a K hole and just laying there, and there was this skinny twink who had done some T and was all fidgety. The tops would fuck them briefly when another top was fucking me, but I was getting most of the loads because I could focus on the top's body language and give them what they wanted – whether it was 'connected sex' or just a nice tight hole." Also allowed are passing, implied references. For example… "After hanging out with John my head was spinning and I wasn't thinking all that clearly but was horny as fuck". If the phrase can be read in a way that could be innocent and it's not the focus of the story, then it's fine. But if you wrote "After smoking up with John I was spinning and horny as fuck" – that's a problem unless you had previously mentioned that you were smoking pot (which I consider legal). In other words, it's all about word choice and phrasing. Bottom line is this… Could the mention be problematic for a recovering drug addict? If the recovering drug addict could look at what was written and not be certain it was a reference to illegal drugs, then you're fine. If the reference implies that one can have a great time not doing drugs, then you're also fine because that's actually the type of thing recovering drug addicts need to see – it supports their choice not to do drugs.

3% of the US is 10 million people. I agree there will be places that don’t or can’t control what’s about to happen and they will be lessons for all of us. If 10 million Americans die it will destroy our healthcare system. It will take years for it to recover. Buttigieg liked to say that “freedom” was not having to worry about things. Turning on your faucet without worrying whether the water will kill you. Imagine knowing anything that happens to you could kill you because you can’t get proper care. But there’s also the awareness that we LET 10 million of our friends, family, and neighbors die. It’s one thing if you’re a poor country and just can’t cope. But for the richest country on the planet to let it happen — that will destroy us. It’s literally the opposite of Make America Great Again.

Just so you guys know, I'm actively working on something. When I'm done chat will change a lot. But give me another week or two.

There was a report out of China that someone had gotten COVID-19 a second time. It got a lot of press and then went unconfirmed. So it's assumed that once you clear the infection you're immune. Though there are 8 strains of it going around. There are also examples of people in China who get through the illness but continue to test RNA positive for quite a while (indicating an active infection with the assumption that they're also infectious). But eventually they do test negative AFAIK. I haven't heard of any cases where people aren't able to eventually be RNA negative. IMHO, the "immunity passport" should work. It means the person can't infect. So if they shower and change their clothes at the beginning of a shift (at a nursing home), then there should be no risk. But if localities only have 1-2% of the population that's been infected that means nursing homes only have 1-2% of the staff they used to have. That's a problem. Having that "immunity passport" will be both a blessing and a curse. You'll be able to resume your life more quickly, but more will be expected of you.

Good points and this is precisely why I'm glad I'm in NY with Cuomo as my governor. He gets the importance of testing. NY State has developed a rapid antibody test that tests the correct antibody (many tests don't). Some tests show positive if you've ever been exposed to the type of coronavirus that causes cold symptoms. Other antibodies can show positive when you have an active infection (and hence don't tell you if it's safe for the person to go back to a normal life). There's just one particular antibody that you can test that tells you if the person has recovered from a COVID-19 infection – that's what the NY test tests. And it's a rapid test. BUT they're only able to create 50,00 tests per day, which isn't enough for a state with 20 million people (plus they need to test CT and NJ as well). So he's actively looking for companies that can produce the test in really mass quantities. To your other point – we're not barred from going outside, in fact we're encouraged to do so (in moderation). The problem is it's creating crowding in the parks. I won't cycle in Central Park anymore because it's difficult to maintain 6 feet from everyone else. The NJ governor just closed all the parks in the state. I'm hoping Cuomo doesn't follow suit. For now Cuomo has increased the max penalty for not social distancing to $1000. Hopefully that will be enough. But apparently even married couples who sleep in the same bed have to stay 6 feet apart when out together. On the one hand it's silly, but it makes things simpler for the cops. Apparently in Switzerland they have plenty of hospital capacity, but people heeded the "don't go to the ER unless you have to" so well that people with non-COVID problems are showing up with really advanced symptoms and some are dying, untreated, in their homes. So Switzerland is having to get the message out that if you need the ER, then go. So yeah, there are unexpected downsides to all those stay-at-home orders. As far as shielding the vulnerable, from what I've read it's pretty much impossible. Even nursing homes that have gone on lockdown are still getting infections since the staff come and go from the "real world". Ditto for seniors who have home care attendants, etc. Apparently there are hundreds of clinical trials on right now trying to figure out what might work. My hope is that one of them turns up something (but I really hope it's not the one Trump's been pushing – I don't want him to be able to say "see, I told you so").

I'm aware there's some issue with confirming emails (I haven't been able to replicate the issue so far). BUT right now there's nothing to do when you login, so I'm sorta ignoring the problem. That said, I'm actively working on profile stuff for those sites, so I'll care about the account confirmation soon enough. Then I'll be pouring over all the emails I've received and try to figure out what's going on.

Gothamist has really great breakdowns per 100,000 population. Currently about 0.65% of Manhattanites are infected. That goes up to about 1.15% of people in Queens. On a per capita basis Rockland County is up to 2% but only because the Hasidim (ultra orthodox Jews) refused to alter their behaviors to flatten the curve. They might achieve herd immunity, but it's not going to help anyone else given how insular they are. Even if you assume that a lot of people who have it haven't been tested and hence aren't counted and you double those numbers, you're only up to ~1% in Manhattan and a max of ~2% elsewhere in NYC – nowhere near the 60% you need for herd immunity. Even if you say the numbers will triple again during the next few months you're only up to 3 and 6%. "Flattening the curve" means the problem will go on for a very long time (until there's a decent treatment or vaccine). But the alternative where you shoot for herd immunity means millions of deaths and our entire way of life collapses. I have a friend who calls himself an "ethical slut" – that's an approach we should embrace. We need to start thinking through what comes next – how we can still be sluts without creating chaos in the society around us.

Bug chasers (and gift givers) never created a strain on the healthcare system like what we see now. With the advent of ARVs (1996) they weren’t really even risking death if the go on meds within +/- 2 years of infection. And with the advent of PrEP (~2013) they can’t even infect people who are responsible and take care of their own health.

Somebody is an optimist. Which, right now, isn’t a bad thing, but… NY State is clearly an epicenter. We have 82,000 infections with a population of 20 million (with some of the highest per capita testing in the world). That’s just less than 1/2 of 1 percent. You need >60% for herd immunity. Even if you say we missed half the cases, that’s still just 1%. We’re not racing toward herd immunity. Instead we flattened the curve. It’s gonna be years before we’re back to where we are unless someone figures out a decent treatment (or vaccine). 🤞

As you can see in the screenshots it’s a restricted account. That said, he has a surprising number of followers for being locked. Given that the account is locked down and he’s not stating anything that’s false (he’s “just” a COVIDiot), I doubt Twitter would care. If I wanted to shut him down I’d report him for his banner pic which is X-rated. But I sorta want to see what else he does. He’s young(ish), but has “underlying health conditions”, but not sure if they’re enough to make this whole experience difficult for him. I don’t really want to say where he’s from. I’ll just say it’s a 1st world English speaking country.

When I went cycling yesterday I went to the most vacant big park I could find near me and just rode around and around in circles a bunch of times. It was a bit monotonous, but it kept me away from cars (that could land me in the ER). My biggest risk would have been a low-speed accident (e.g. a slip on loose gravel) where I skin my knee or something. As far as keeping away from people I literally counted the number of times I was within ±12 feet of another person. It averaged 23 times per 5 mile loop, and in the vast majority of those cases I was passing 8-10 feet from them and literally only for a second. To me that's sensible risk reduction. A lot of places have banned cycling completely. And I sorta get it since people underestimate their risk and overestimate how far they are from other people. So it's not what you do, it's how you do it. If the guy had set up a gloryhole in his apartment with antiseptic wipes on both sides I wouldn't have called him out. Maybe he was reducing the number of partners, but that just isn't enough given what's happening right now. As @BiggerJigger mentioned healthcare workers (and I'd add other first responders) are dying right now. Cancer patients can't get chemo, people who have a heart attack are literally being left for dead here if the paramedics can't revive them. In this situation you need to not do things that are clearly dangerous (such as indoor activities with physical contact).

Totally agree. It was when I saw him use the word "bitch" to describe the nurse that I knew he was the example of a true COVIDiot and needed to be called out. Every step in what he did just showed a complete lack of concern for other people. I don't really give a shit that it was hooking up. I'm equally upset with the fundamentalists who are still going to church. They're also stupid, possibly even bigger COVIDiots. And to be clear your mention of "contact" is spot on. I do a fair amount of cycling and I see people online attacking people who are still cycling. Yes, for something like cycling you need to reduce the chance of crash as much as possible. But done right, cycling can be a very low risk activity. To me it's about risk reduction, and that's the way it's similar to the AIDS pandemic.

I thought about holding off on this story to see how it ends, but I think it's more important that it be told now… This is something I saw on Twitter yesterday. I'm dumbfounded… March 27th… So the guy is under "lockdown" (a stay-at-home order), and he's still hooking up – and proud enough of it to post it on Twitter. March 31st… 4 days after the first hookup, he posts a video of another hookup.… April 3rd… 3 days after the 2nd hookup he posts pics and videos from yet another hookup… April 7th… And then surprise, surprise… That's right… 3 hookups later he's in the hospital with COVID-19. He's stupid enough to think he's in the ICU when he's not – he's probably just in a ward with all COVID patients. If he were in ICU he'd have breathing support (either be intubated or be attached to a BiPAP machine). Oh, and the kicker is he's calling the nurse a bitch and mocking the fact that she says she's tired! I just want to strangle the guy. If he reads this… "You're a fucking asshole. If karma doesn't catch up to you this time around, it will at some point. And guess what, I won't give a shit when it does." People, seriously, be responsible! Hospitals are over capacity. People are dying. There's no cure. There isn't even a decent treatment. Even in the middle of the AIDS crisis hospitals could manage their core caseloads. This is a whole other order of magnitude above that pandemic. It's gonna be a long time (probably years) before we're back to where we were before with big sex parties and crowded bathhouses. Even when the stay-at-home orders are lifted people will still need to be vigilant to avoid another peak of the pandemic. You'll need to focus on risk reduction – fewer partners, 1-on-1s, maybe sex in parks, maybe gloryholes. But being legs up in a bathhouse taking all loads isn't going to happen again until there's at least a decent treatment. If for no other reason, that sensible gay guys are gonna stay away. Here's a poll I did on Twitter a few days ago… Only a bit over 1/3rd of guys will risk a crowd when the stay-at-home orders are lifted (and that's now when they're horny and jacking off to Twitter, before the pandemic hits their city/town)… We can hope the clinical trials they're doing now turn up something, but who knows. Don't be like that guy above. Don't be a COVIDiot!

This is from a guy who's really into gloryholes…

Tops don't always know they have gono. Often, yes, but not always. So wasn't necessarily intentional.

I doubt many guys are getting their STIs treated during stay-at-home orders. So yes, there's less transmission, but doesn't mean they won't come back once the lockdown is over.

That was the initial protocol that came out 8 years ago. Since then "PrEP On Demand" was proven effective in numerous studies starting with the IPERGAY study. It shows that 2 pills 2+ hours before sex and then one pill daily until 48 hour after the last sexual encounter is sufficient to stop infection in men who have sex with men who's primary risk is anal sex (I don't believe it's approved for folks with vaginas). Bottom line, most people on this site don't need to take it for 28 days, 2 days is sufficient.

Not quite sure how to answer the question… I had my first sexual experience in 1990 at the height of the AIDS crisis. I was pretty adamant about using condoms 'cause getting HIV was a literal death sentence back then. BUT I'd often do 2-3 strokes raw and then put on the condom. But I'm not sure 2-3 strokes counts as bareback sex when you then put on a condom. In terms of zero condom sex it was definitely unplanned. There was this guy I hooked up with (in either 1990 or 1991) who was a trainer at one of the gyms in Hells Kitchen (so great body). I fucked him with a condom (and probably did the 2-3 strokes of raw), then he fucked me (I was pretty vers back then). He probably started with a few strokes of raw, then he resisted putting on a condom when I asked him to rubber up. I was pretty nervous and kept asking him to put one on. He kept saying he'd pull out before he came. Then he pulled out and came like a 1/2 second later. In hindsight I probably got part of his load in my ass. I was pretty furious with him and left. In terms of intentionally going bareback I didn't do that until a few years later (1995). I had this rebound relationship right after my lover died of AIDS and the guy was a voracious bottom who talked me into going raw. We both got tested and then after that never used condoms. I loved the sensation of fucking him raw after all those years of condoms and basically dumped as many loads as I could in his ass the months we were together. When we broke up and I started hitting the bathhouses again it was really hard to rubber up since bareback felt so much better and more and more I found myself fucking anonymous cumdumps raw.

Would love to breed you when this is all over, before you go back on PrEP 😉 But yeah, there's no need for guys to take PrEP if they're not having sex. And unless they're fucking someone in their household, they shouldn't be having sex right now.

102 years ago it was the US government who did it and we wound up killing 2.7% of the people around the globe (1 in every 37 people!). The Spanish Flu originated in Kansas and was spread around the globe by the US military. Our military was warned by health experts to do certain things and they repeatedly ignored the advice and did them anyway. We also suppressed information in the name of "we're fighting a war and don't want our enemy to know how this is affecting us" (the very same excuse our military used to suppress information a day or two ago). So as Americans it's not our place to judge the Chinese government. About the furthest we can go is to say "We made that same mistake 102 years ago. It turned out horribly. If only people would learn from history and follow the advice of experts."

Situations like that are a good example of how the current laws are seriously flawed. You were lied to and had zero intent to break the law. That said, it's tricky to devise a law that fixes situations like that without giving actual rapists a free get out of jail card ("but the teen was in control of the situation, wanted to do it, and even initiated it"). Meanwhile the Justice Department goes ape shit whenever someone mentions jurors right to do "jury nullification" where they refuse to find the person guilty because they don't see that instance of the crime as criminal (or they just fundamentally object to the law). Juries have that right, but it's getting taken away from them. Likewise the importance of intent is losing weight. While intent still plays a part in whether a person is guilty of murder vs manslaughter, in most cases "I never intended anything like that to happen" won't help the defendant when, in certain cases it absolutely should (IMHO).

I've bred a guy I thought was 18 only to realize later that he was younger (but still legal to fuck here in NY). Good thing I didn't take any pics… Moral of the story – if they look particularly young when you meet them, ask for ID and know the law in your location (start here: US, worldwide). But to answer the question, if it's legal, I'd do it…

My understanding is that they're redundant. I suppose I could disable one of them…

AFAIK, they should be in a consistent order. I can't explain why that's happening.

Those of you who can't connect… Can you help me do a little research for me? I need to know if, when you have problems accessing, you're on IPv4 or IPv6. In other words, does your IP address look like this… 65.250.9.6 or like this… 2601:5b1:4580:58b0:3d98:236c:52c2:fdcf If it has 4 segments of numbers (1-255) separated by periods then you're on IPv4. If it has lots of segments of letters and numbers separated by colons then you're on IPv6. To find out your IP address go to Google using the network connection where you have problems and type in "What is my IP address?". Don't tell me the IP address of your computer that you might see in Network settings. I need to know the IP address my server sees, which is different than the IP of your computer since you're probably on a "NAT'd router". And I don't actually need to know your IP, just whether it's IPv4 or IPv6. A guy on Twitter hit me up with the same problem and in working with him I realized that it could be a case of the IPv6 / IPv4 gateways having their IPs banned. Basically my server only uses IPv4. So if you're on IPv6 then you have to go through a gateway that gives you an IPv4 IP address. A gateway for a major ISP would have so much activity that it could seem suspicious. Either way I'm going to have to make some changes. I either need to turn on IPv6 for the server and then modify my routines to support IPv6 (which is "non-trivial"), or I'll need to figure out how to detect and be far more permissive with the IPv6 gateways (but that could create security issues).