rawTOP

You don't report people for BEING something. You report them for DOING something. There's a report option under every user-submitted post, message and picture on the site.

If anyone ever sees scat pics on this site, PLEASE report them. They are considered legally "obscene" and strictly forbidden from this site.

While hetero folks have very good reasons for bans on incest given the birth defects that happen when close relations have sex, the bottom line is that none of those problems exist for gay folks. Jessy and his brother can swap loads all day long and nothing bad will happen (at least nothing worse than if they had sex with strangers). Chronophilia is a thing. You don't have to be into it to accept that it's fine for other people to be into it. I have a friend who's really into guys who are 70+ years old. I wouldn't have sex with his boyfriend, but he's genuinely into the guy. Apparently it's pretty normal for girls to get their periods at 9 and 10 years old these days. I know it happened to my niece YEARS ago and wasn't normal then. Back then they traced it to the hormones in the Purdue chicken they were feeding their kids. They switched to organic meat and her periods stopped and came back at a normal age. But my husband's cousin's kid just had her first period at 10 and apparently most of the girls in her school are getting it around the same age. Point being – puberty is happening earlier. And I'd guess all the sexual feelings start earlier as well. But beyond that kids can be curious and it's not out of the realm of "normal" for them to be curious about their genitals (and the genitals of others). If they're not in a sexually repressed environment I suppose that could lead to sexual exploration before puberty. IMHO, it's harmful to label that explorarion "deviant" / "wrong" just because it happens to be sexual. Where problems come in is when adults get involved given the power dynamics between adults and kids. The statutory rape laws exist because too often damage is done, but not always.

No one should be embarrassed either about actual abuse or any of the sex they have willingly. I mean, yeah, sometimes the scene goes wrong to the point that it's embarrassing, but a general embarrassment about being abused or consensual sex? I don't endorse that type of normative sexual repression. My goal for the site is to help people get over their hangups about sex and approach their sex lives realistically and honestly. That's the only way people can have a healthy sex life. If talking about their early experiences gets them to that place, so be it.

FYI, I just did another batch of deletions. Took about an hour and a half to do ~300 deletions. The process had improved slightly. I was expecting it to take me longer.

We allow people to discuss what happened to them in a factual, non-erotic manner. It's also OK to have a clinical, non-erotic discussion of stories that are in the news (e.g. when pornstar Mike Dozer got convicted for having sex with a 14 year old). We do not allow perpetrators to tell their stories. If you see anything that violates those policies (too erotic, or told from the point of view of the perpetrator), please report it using the report button immediately below the offending post. We do impose pretty stiff infractions for people who go over the line. That said, my unscientific impression is that a surprising number of gay guys were abused as kids (using "abused" in the legal sense – a fair number of the "victims" don't see it as abuse). And people who start young tend to be pretty kinky later in life. So it makes sense that a lot of the guys here have experienced what you're talking about.

It should be mentioned that, while Descovy is better than Truvada in some regards (not all), Truvada is completely sufficient for the vast majority of people. Truvada is about to go generic in the US (it already is generic in other parts of the world), so if your doctor switches you to Descovy when you've had zero problems with Truvada, then your doctor is probably getting paid by Gilead (the drug company) and can't be trusted. (It's time to look for a new doc.) Back many moons ago I actually worked in pharmaceutical marketing and saw all this first hand. I coded and maintained a database that organized paid vacations for docs funded by pharma companies (actually they'd spend a few hours talking about how wonderful the drug was and then the rest of the day on the golf course or on the ski slopes). On top of that I had one doctor around that time where EVERY TIME I went to his office there was a pharmaceutical rep sitting in his waiting room wanting to talk to him. The kick backs the doctors get are real and can be rather obscene. A year's supply of Truvada costs a few hundred dollars to make. Yet, if they switch you to Descovy Gilead will charge around $15,000/year. It's not like they just discovered Descovy. They waited to release it now, just as Truvada is going generic, so they can keep their profits up. And we wonder why we can't seem to afford universal healthcare in this country… The difference in the costs of these two medications could provide basic healthcare for maybe a dozen or more kids. To me it's immoral to switch from Truvada to Descovy unless there is a medically valid reason for doing so (e.g. you're experiencing non-trivial problems and can't tolerate Truvada, or you have a family or personal history that requires you to reduce certain medical risks that are an issue with Truvada, but not Descovy).

BTW, if anyone is having side effects in the hours after taking PrEP simply take it before bed. Then you'll sleep through the side effects.

There's a lot of misinformation in this thread. So let me clear up a few things… [Everything I'm about to say is about Truvada, but may not be true about Descovy.] You can stop and start PrEP as much as you like. Poz guys cannot start and stop their meds as much as they like because their virus can become resistant when the drug levels are low. But neg guys don't have HIV, hence they have no virus that can become med-resistant. [Not that anyone implied otherwise.] When PrEP first came out they told people to take it for 7 days before having sex. But now "PrEP on Demand" is a thing and it's been validated (for gay men) by numerous studies. PrEP on Demand means you take 2 pills (at the same time) at least 2 hours before sex, then one pill every day until 48 hours after your last sexual encounter. That protocol works and is approved by a number of major countries (France being the most prominent). The initial IPERGAY study involved people who were having sex regularly to the point that they averaged ~4 pills/week, but later studies have shown that that protocol is also effective for guys who don't have much sex. The other thing to know is that Truvada has a very long half life. So if you're taking it daily and stop, you still have >90% protection a week later. But then the levels of protection drop off pretty quickly, so you'll hear stories about infections 10-14 days after stopping. The other thing that the studies have showed was that almost no one who took at least 4 pills in a week has become poz. That said, it also depends on the nature of your risk. Drug levels are quite high in the digestive system (e.g. in your colon), so if your risk is primarily anal, then lower doses are possible. However, people who have vaginas (and possibly tops) probably need to take PrEP every day. In other words bottoms take more than they need so women, trans guys, and tops get enough. The bottom line is start and stop as much as you like provided you remember to actually take the pills when you're supposed to. No harm will be done if you're taking it daily and forget a pill here or there. But if you're using PrEP on Demand you can't forget to take the pills – there's much less margin for error. I hope you can parse all of that into something that will work for you…

It's done. The data wasn't deleted. I've had really bad results from deleting data (I've managed to bring down the entire site). But the expiration date on the infractions was changed. I don't know what happens when something expires. I don't know whether it gets deleted or just doesn't count toward points next time you get an infraction. What I see when I read that is "I came into your house, made a mess, was asked to leave and not come back for a few days. That's just completely rude of you do to that." Ummm. No. It's rude to make a mess in someone else's house. Be happy they're OK with you coming back (after a cooling off period). Intent is irrelevant. They had to clean up after you. Please folks, no more discussion about the current infraction system. That's not what this thread is about.

So, after talking to DrScorpio I realized that the current infraction system wasn't working the way I thought it was working. Infractions will now always expire – anywhere from 90 days for minor stuff to 2 years for serious stuff (most often 1 year). The number of points and expiration period are now always moderator modifiable (which means be nice to the moderators!) Old infractions that weren't set to expire have had their expiration dates set. (180 days from date of infraction where it was 1 or 2 points, 1 year for 3-5 points, and 2 years if over 5 points). That's still pretty strict, but better than it was… My apologies for not realizing what was happening.

I've hidden a number of posts. This thread is about a future infraction system, not the current one. It's fine to mention the current system if you tie it back to ideas for building a better infraction system in the future. But it's not OK to just gripe about the current system. There are other threads for that.

The 737 Max debacle is a good example of corporations regulating themselves. But that's an example of deregulation – the government stopped regulating Boeing and trusted them to do what was right. But they didn't – they designed a plane that can't fly without computers and the software didn't work. All because they put profits over safety. So you were close with the role of big corporations, but you drew the exactly wrong conclusion. Businesses and the country actually do best when there's active and comprehensive regulation that's fair and balanced. That said, I'm a libertarian, and sometimes there isn't a good, factual basis for the regulation. Requiring condoms in porn is a good example.

When the content is moved to the new platform it will be split among multiple sites… Bareback Breeding will be on BBBH.men Oral will be on OralPigs.com Hardcore Fetish (fisting, piss, BDSM) will be on TwistedPigs.com Vanilla, Exhibitionism, etc (including "condom-free" sex that's not focused on breeding) will be on SpunkBuds.com Poz Fetish & HIV related health stuff will be on PozPigs.com Chem Sex will be on PuffPuff.cloud So when I said you'll need to first pick the main theme of the thread you're starting, that's what I meant – you'll have to pick the site that it will appear on. Actually you'll pick the "canonical" site – meaning the one that we tell Google is the official location of the thread. It's possible it could appear on one of the other sites as well. But based on the site you pick, it will then tell you the rules your post needs to follow. So basically if you're on BBBH.men you won't (or at least shouldn't) see any poz fetish. If you're on PozPigs you shouldn't see any chem sex. And so on. So no one needs to pick what they're interested in. At least for the categories that you mention – that will be controlled by them being on the site that is of most interest to them. My response above applies to this as well. But again, a brief version of the rules for that site will be near the submit button when you post a comment. Some things I might make only appear based on what you type. Yes, it's not easy enough with the current software to understand what you did wrong if you missed the initial email that explains it to you. That will be improved.

Let's discuss this in the moderator forum or on What's App. We can expire points now, and we do do it in some cases.

The current seniority system is based both on activity and time. You can make the max number of posts each day and still not get to the next step until a certain amount of time has passed.

One thing I think we can agree on is that we need term limits. But were you paying attention when nearly everyone Trump hired initially went to prison? How exactly has Trump drained the swamp if he's hiring criminals? And I find it ironic that a Republican is complaining about the size of government when the government typically gets biggest under Republican presidents. (Ditto for deficits). The way Trump has been reducing the size of government (hiring contractors rather than employees) leads to corruption and higher costs for government services. Here's a decent quick read on the issue… https://fcw.com/articles/2017/10/05/federal-workforce-volker-size.aspx

Off-topic question… Do you still see the banner ads on this site (they're "first party" ads, not part of any ad network). And which Javascripts are blocked on this site? (It would affect functionality – like you' wouldn't see how many people are in chat, etc.)

If you trust the proxy service, yes proxy services are a good idea. I've actually been meaning to start advertising a few. But a bad proxy service can put you in a worse position than no proxy service at all. And a corollary to that is there is no trustworthy "free" proxy service. They need to make money and they'll do it by selling your data. Man in The Middle (Transparent Forward) proxies fail completely when they encounter a site like this one. I have HSTS enabled on all my sites. If there's a transparent forward proxy you'll get an invalid certificate error warning you that the connection is not secure. It will look like this… I went through this the other day with a user who didn't want to believe he was being spied on by his ISP. So let me explain transparent forward proxies as well… Basically if you use a device owned by your company and their tech "set up the computer for you" with their "standard build" before giving it to you, then there's nothing you can do about it. Your computer has probably been configured to let the corporate firewall spy on you. And it's probably been locked down so you can't stop it from happening. Bottom line, buy your own computer and phone!! But if you use your own device (laptop, phone or tablet) and corporate IT hasn't touched it, then when your device hits their firewall (that acts as a transparent proxy) the firewall will attempt to "proxy" your request meaning you talk to the firewall, and the firewall talks to to the server. They can do this one of two ways – 1) present you with a fake encryption certificate for the site, or 2) force your browser to downgrade from HTTPS (encrypted connection) to HTTP (clear text connection). They'll then connect to the server on your behalf, request the page, examine it. If it passes their tests, they'll pass it onto you either in clear text or with a fake encryption certificate. If corporate IT has meddles with your device your browser can be taught to accept the fake certificate from the firewall as authentic. If they haven't meddled with your computer all they can do is downgrade you to clear text. The thing is the webmaster can configure their site in such a way that browsers know that the connection must be encrypted (the protocol to do this is called HSTS – HTTP Strict Transport Security). That means your browser won't allow the firewall to downgrade you to clear text. And if they try to present a fake encryption certificate your browser (because it hasn't been meddled with) will show you an "invalid certificate" error like the one above. The problem is that it's up to the webmaster to configure HSTS. There's no way (that I know of) for a user to configure their browser so it only does encrypted connections. The browsers will tell you when a site is insecure, but it's just an icon above the page. You may miss the fact that you were downgraded to clear text.

So some good news… The UK gave up on their porn filter because emerging technologies were being deployed that would make it impossible to enforce the law. Here's a basic run down of how things can be blocked now and how that's all changing… When you type in something like https://breeding.zone what happens is that your computer asks a DNS server for the IP address of the server. That request happens in clear text, so the DNS provider (probably your ISP) and everyone between your computer and the DNS provider know that you asked for the IP address for Breeding Zone. The DNS provider probably won't have the IP address, so they then have to ask my DNS server for the IP address. That's also done in clear text, but it's less of an issue since it's server-to-server. No one can tell that YOU made the initial request (unless you're dumb enough to run your own DNS server that only you use). OK, so next your browser has the IP address and it connects to BZ's server. You entered HTTPS at the beginning so it knows the connection needs to be encrypted. That sounds great, the problem is on the first, initial connection, it needs to send the domain name of the site in clear text because my server handles multiple sites on the IP address. Each one could possibly have a different encryption certificate, so the domain name has to be sent in clear text so it knows which site's certificate should be used. This is called "SNI" (Server Name Indication). Before there was SNI you could only have one encrypted site per IP address. So once again, everyone between you and my server knows you asked for a page from Breeding Zone. After that point everything is encrypted. The only thing anyone can tell is that you're talking to some site on a particular IP address. They can do a query and find out what sites are on that IP, but they can't tell which site you're on or what it is that you're viewing. So the British government decided that the way they were going to enforce their law is to block sites that violated the law at the DNS level. They'd force everyone in the UK to use a UK-based DNS server and then they'd require everyone running a DNS server to block sites that were in violation. That's how most firewalls restrict access to particular sites (say a corporation that doesn't want you looking at porn on company time). Then came encrypted DNS, which encrypts the DNS request so it's no longer sent in clear text (which is a VERY good thing). There are two leading contenders – DNS over TLS ("DoT") and DNS over HTPPS ("DoH"). Corporations and governments like DoT because the DNS requests are happening on their own port, so the corporation/governemtn can block people on a network from using anything but the approved DNS server. DoH however is a complete game changer because, to the network, the DNS request looks like a normal web request, not a DNS request. It uses the same port that you'd use to retrieve an encrypted web page. That means there is no way for the corporation or government to block you using DNS. That's what ended the idea of a porn block in the UK – DoH makes it impossible for them to block anyone. If you can't enforce the law, then there's no point going forward with it. But actually, they could still enforce they law – they'd just have to listen to the web request and block requests based on the domain name that's passed in clear text in the initial request. So that means SNI can be used against you. A number of people tried to close that loophole, but no one could figure out a way that would actually work. Then the guys at Cloudflare (one of the big cloud hosting companies) devised a plan. They're calling it ESNI (encrypted SNI). Basically when you make an encrypted DNS request instead of just getting the IP address you'll also get an encryption certificate. Once you have that, you can encrypt the domain name in the initial request. The issue is that governments and corporations could simply block anyone doing a request with ESNI, or they could block particular IP addresses that host the "problem" sites. That's where Cloudflare comes in. They're HUGE. They've committed to deploying DoH and ESNI for all their customers. And they plan on randomly hosting a variety of sites on any particular IP address. That means that any government that tries to block all requests that use ESNI or block any particular IP address will be blocking quite a few "legit" sites along with the problem ones. That means blocking will fail when granny can't get to her recipe site because the government blocked the IP. The big companies like Clouflare and Google aren't pushing this stuff to help porn. They're doing it for people like the Chinese who are behind the "Great Firewall of China" and don't have access to balanced news sources. It probably irks Google to no end that they have to censor their results for the Chinese. This will end that. Sure, Google.cn will have the censored results. But when DoT and ESNI are widely deployed the Chinese will be able to go to Google.com for uncensored results. And I should mention DoH is available now and easy to use. Simply use Firefox, go into preferences, search for "DNS" and turn it on. Hopefully soon Apple and Microsoft will make it an option so all requests done by your device are done via DoH, but for now it's just the requests done by Firefox. ESNI is still being tested, but will probably be ready for widespread deployment in the near future (~1-2 years).

Both questions hit on a common theme, so I'll answer both at the same time. New users will still be on a very short leash and it won't take much for them to get banned (same as it is now). The accommodation for them is to have it designed in a way to inadvertent mistakes are less likely. That leaves intentional sloppiness which sorta deserves a ban. I'll have to rethink the points system based on the new architecture. But, similar to how it is now, there won't be a ban for doing anything that doesn't have a lot of consequence. But doing something like putting restricted content in an unrestricted area will still probably get the person banned (as it does now). But again, mistakes will hopefully be far fewer. One thing I didn't mention is that right now there's banned and then there's restricted from posting. I'll continue that idea and refine it a bit. And I'll also make it so if a senior, trusted member contacts you, you can reply to him if you're restricted from posting. But you can't initiate a conversation. Stuff like that.

This was the logic behind deregulation. It didn't work. Alan Greenspan (a disciple of Ayn Rand) actually apologized for believing too much that successful corporations could be trusted. He basically had to apologize after the financial collapse that happened on his watch… https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html I totally agree about participation trophies when we're talking about trivial levels of participation. That said, recognition of things like perfect attendance (over long periods of time) and "most improved" do have merit. Being there day in and day out consistently is one of the recipes for success (the turtle vs the hair). But welfare exists primarily to take care of the kids, not the parents. The kids didn't choose to be born into the environment you describe and it's cruel to blame them for the shitty motivations of their parents. So welfare programs are necessary. All you can do is structure them on evidence-based approaches in order to achieve the best possible outcome. When people cut the funding "because those people are lazy bums" it's not going to end well. But I think you're too hard on government. Governments educate people. Governments build roads. Governments can create jobs through good policies. Governments can provide stable environments for living and business (e.g. universal healthcare). By focusing on a small percentage of people becoming dependent you're throwing away the baby with the bath water.

One of the things people really dislike about this site is the infraction system. The most vocal critics seem to be spoiled brats who think they can do what they want, when and where they want. Honestly, I don't care about meeting the needs of spoiled brats. But I do recognize that the infraction system is imperfect. While we're running this forum software, we're stuck with what we've got. But as I build new software that can change. So give me your feedback on how you think a good infraction system should work. For starters it has to start with a design that minimizes unintentional mistakes. Right now a lot of infractions are given for posting in the wrong area. That's because people don't always think about where they are in the structure of the site before posting. So I'm envisioning a site with less structure. It will actually be tag based. So threads can show up in multiple places. So a thread like the one about LA banning the production of bareback porn could show up in LGBT Politics, and in the LA section, and in the bareback porn section. I'd have you pick the general theme that most matches the thread (bareback, cocksucking, fetish, etc.) and then everything else will be determined by tagging. There will also be reminders that in certain types of threads certain other types of discussion aren't allowed since HIV fetish, chem sex, and other sensitive topics will still only be allowed in certain areas. The person who starts the thread will determine what of the restricted topics are allowed and the thread will be placed accordingly. So first question for you guys – what are the other things I should think about that can reduce the number of inadvertent rule violations? Is there something you've gotten an infraction for that, if the site worked a different way, you might have avoided the infraction? Next, I'm envisioning an infraction system that's based on credits and debits. So when you do something good for the site, you get credit. When you violate the rules you get a debit. Bans will be based on your balance (credits - debits). So if you've done a lot of good for the site, you can make some mistakes and all it will do is deduct from your credits. Whereas if someone who's new to the site does the same thing they might be banned. If you're wondering, credits will be given for starting popular threads. Or making comments that get a lot of upvotes. Or reporting a problem that gets validated by a moderator. There will also be ways to earn points on my other sites – so on the porn sites stuff like cropping an image you like, or choosing a filter that makes the image look better would get you credits. On the hookup sites, uploading images that get a lot of likes and making them public will earn you points. Also, hooking up with a "trusted" member or attending certain sex parties will get you points. Some people will accumulate a lot of credits. So in those cases surplus credits will turn into things that have actual value. So big discounts (possibly free) branded gear (e.g. a t-shirt with #BBBH on it), or discounted (or free) entrance into certain sex parties. As I build out hookup site type features, the credits can be used to "advertise" yourself on the hookup site. All of those things are things that people will also be able to pay for (buy a t-shirt, pay an entrance fee for a sex party, or pay for better visibility on the hookup site). I can also envision letting users with surplus credits transfer them to friends so their friends don't have to go through the process of proving themselves like other new members. So there will still be an infraction system, but trusted senior members won't ever really feel the effects of it (other then a slap on a wrist and a reduction in credits). And they'll be able to give their friends the same experience by granting them some of their surplus credits. Basically saying "I trust this person, and the site should as well". The only problem I'm seeing here is that there may be so many ways to earn points that people rack up a crazy number of points. So I may limit the number of points a person can earn in a day. And I'm also thinking that once a credit is marked "surplus" it can't be used to pay a debit for an infraction. That means that a long-time user with lots of credits can't suddenly cause total chaos on the site and get away with it. And if a person has surplus credits and gets a large number of debits, then it will draw down a percentage of their surplus credits as well. (Small infractions won't draw down surplus credits, just major ones). So if you would… Think through your experiences with the current infraction system and tell me whether what I've laid out above resolves the problems of the current system.

I think it's important to understand the people who like Trump. This article boils it down to "Shit Life Syndrome". https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/03/shit-life-syndrome-trump-voters-and-clueless-dems/ In other words, if your life is shit and you see no way that's going to change, then suicide rates go up, drug use goes up, and you just want things to change – even if that change will ultimately hurt you. Basically if your life is shit with no chance of it getting better, then you want everyone else to feel the same pain you do. In that context, Trump's approach seems appealing… This is why I'd love to see Buttigieg win the nomination, or possibly Warren. Buttigieg is from a "flyover" state and turned around a city that people were talking about as one of the nation's biggest failures prior to him becoming mayor. He gets Shit Life Syndrome because that's what his city was suffering from. Warren is another possibility. Somehow, despite being a Harvard academic, she seems to have the ability to connect with people from Shit Life Syndrome areas. At the start of her campaign she went to West Virginia, into coal country, to tell them straight to their face why coal is dead and how that could actually change their lives for the better. And they listened and didn't think she was crazy. Before you vote, ask yourself if the candidate you're voting for can connect with Shit Life Syndrome voters. If s/he can't, then Trump could very well win again. [To be clear… I'm not saying all Trump voters are suffering from Shit Life Syndrome. I'm just saying a big part of his base is suffering from it so it explains much of his popularity.]

Well, then you have your answer. You need to stay off PrEP and only your dom gets to fuck you (unless he tells you otherwise). Have you told him your feelings about the possibility of him infecting you?