Jump to content

rawTOP

Administrators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,082

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rawTOP

  1. rawTOP
    Sounds like trouble to me.
  2. rawTOP
    Just so you understand - what you're having problems with are controlled by cookies. Sometimes the cookies go wonky. Just today the cookies I was sending to BZ exceeded the maximum size allowed, and I had to delete the cookies with long values. Dumping your cookies is something else you could try. In the meantime - one trick I do when I need to moderate the forum and don't know if I can do it all in one sitting is that I first page through the results and work from the last page to the first. That way what your describing can't happen to me if I just hit the back button - the pages will still be there.
  3. rawTOP
    That's my point - the guy was bisexual in real life, but the film portrayed him as a homophobic straight guy… Read all the ways the movie is fucked up here… http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/feb/12/dallas-buyers-club-accurate-matthew-mcconaughey
  4. rawTOP
    All I can suggest is 1) restart your browser, and 2) try a different browser. One other thought - do you have security software on your computer or a browswer plugin/addon that may be altering the cookies that are passed to the site in the name of "privacy"? If so, turn off the software, or set it up to not alter stuff for Breeding Zone.
  5. rawTOP
    Poz1956 - I used to teach stats when I was in grad school. I know what I'm talking about. I'll just point out one flaws in your thinking that sorta goes to the heart of the issue… If you're playing a lottery where you win 1 in 100 times and the lottery I'm playing I win 1 in 1000 times. We both play every week. Who's most likely to win their lottery first? Now if we both put something in our profile saying "haven't won the lottery", which one is most likely to be wrong first? How long is a reasonable time to put such a statement in a profile? I'd say I can put it in for a period of time that's 10 times longer than you can because you're 10 times more likely to win your lottery. The per incident chance doesn't change, but the cumulative chance does. Do the math. Yes, I could win the lottery the first time out, but that's 10 times more likely to happen to you. Hence, in coming up with community guidelines I have to take you as an average person playing your lottery and me as an average person playing my lottery. The guidelines have to use averages even though individual results may vary. Misinterpreted stats helps no one.
  6. rawTOP
    Well, I said I was a day ago. But I said I was looking for <35, lean, and reasonably intelligent. According to your BBRT profile, you're 48, chubby and you're asking questions that have already been answered. I don't think we're a match.
  7. rawTOP
    I proposed not showing HIV status on BBBH.com and people didn't like that idea at all. So then the question was how do I best display it in a way that does reduce HIV stigma. For example, I want to communicate that sex with poz guys on meds is safer than sex with a guy who thinks he's neg. At the same time I don't want to make people think about the issue too much since it's a bit of a turn off.
  8. rawTOP
    From what I hear Dallas Buyers Club is sorta hated by the gay community. It makes a bisexual man out to be straight and has highly stereotypical portrayals of trans people. So if you managed to get all that out of such a questionable movie, imagine what you'd get out of a good one… I highly recommend you read And The Band Played On. It was an incredible book that detailed the early years of the AIDS crisis. You'll get angry reading it. IMHO, it should be required reading for every gay man. It was made into a movie. I don't know how good the movie is. The other movie to see is Longtime Companion. It was the film that really captured the pain of the AIDS crisis on a personal level.
  9. rawTOP
    I get that, but only if I walk away from reading for an hour or so.
  10. rawTOP
    You're seriously going to tell me that per-incident risk is irrelevant to individuals? Seriously? So walking across the street in a rural town where you can't see a moving car is the same as running across the street on an icy New York street when there's a bus coming that doesn't have time to stop? You treat both situations the same exact way? There's no difference to you personally? Bullshit. Per incident risk is totally relevant to individuals - you live your life that way - calculating "how much risk am I really taking right now?" Everyone has their personal threshold of risk that they're OK with. You'll run across the street against the light when it's just you, but not when you're accompanying your sister's kid, etc. Sorry, but around here science is king. So getting back to the original point - my differing times were based on the average length of time that someone can claim to be neg. People build up a certain amount of cumulative risk. Bottoms accumulate risk faster than tops, so they can't claim to be neg as long as a top. Science. Facts. Let's stick to those please.
  11. rawTOP
    To me a slave is someone who turns their live over to their master and lives to please their master. IMHO, restraints aren't needed - they're just for play/show. I have the ability to employ a slave (working on my sites) which is why intelligence is important to me. I want him to be able to extrapolate what I'd want in new situations based on what he knows about my preferences in other situations. In many ways that's no different than a corporate secretary who follows the guy she works for from job to job because she knows him and understands him. Where it turns to slave is that it's 24/7/365 - slaves turn over their entire lives not just their work lives.
  12. rawTOP
    I'd really like a live-in slave. But the dynamics of it would be a little tricky since it would be a triad relationship. And healthcare would need to be figured out - though I guess the first year the guy could have COBRA or something. Any volunteers? I'd be looking for <35, lean(ish) body, total sub with some intelligence.
  13. rawTOP
    You just answered your own question - because tops are at much lower risk. 7 times lower risk to be precise. Hence their claim at being neg is more likely to be true. Either way, I'm leaning towards showing a testing date for neg guys. And to the point of the person who said too much detail isn't sexy - I'll probably make it something you have to click or hover to see. So what's presented is simple, but the additional detail is there for those who care.
  14. rawTOP
    I like bottoms with small dicks. A small dick means the guy knows his place as a bottom.
  15. rawTOP
    I have as many hookups off A4A as I so off BBRT. Here in NYC it's A4A when you're uptown, and Manhunt when you're downtown.
  16. rawTOP
    I was just talking to someone in the biz today who works for a studio that has Eastern European models applying and he said a lot of the Eastern European guys are actually poz - even the ones who are str8 / gay-for-pay. They get into gay porn, then start hustling to make a living, and wind up poz. And apparently testing on those Eastern European shoots is spotty at best - so it's a little unclear whether they're getting pozzed on set or from escorting, though the guy I was talking to assumed it's probably mostly from escorting since that's where the guys are having the most sex. So when you watch sites with Eastern European guys you may be watching guys get pozzed. And Billy is wrong when he says the guys on Lucas are all neg. Lucas has said they serosort. They actually outed some of their models with that announcement since some models are open about being poz but others aren't. So the ones that are paired up with openly poz models you can now assume are actually poz themselves…
  17. rawTOP
    So what? Within a month or so of being on meds they mean the same thing. The scientists say that if your viral load is below 400 you won't transmit the virus. So on a practical level you don't have to be "undetectable" to not transmit - you just need a low viral load. If he does that he's doing substantial harm to himself. I'm more concerned with that than what he might do to others. It doesn't bother me because only fools think the HIV status stated in a public online profile is accurate. If the status of the guy is important to you, then you need to have a talk with the guys you have sex with. A lot of poz guys don't feel comfortable with their casual social acquaintances knowing they're poz, so they put 'neg' in their profile. That doesn't mean they won't tell you their poz if you ask them face to face before a hookup.
  18. rawTOP
    So this site is to be faulted for getting people to tell the truth about their HIV status? But to answer your question - most poz guys are on meds. It's safer to have sex with a poz guy on meds than it is to have sex with a neg guy. HIV status is somewhat irrelevant these days. So no, it doesn't bother me. (What's relevant is viral load). I always find it a bit amusing to read a story here about how some guy pozzed some neg guy and then I go to his profile and it says he's on meds. He's living out a fantasy. In reality, he's shooting blanks and couldn't poz someone if he wanted to.
  19. rawTOP
    I think even now marriage is an exception to the age of consent laws. I doubt that was the only (or even primary) reason why they were so low 135 years ago.
  20. rawTOP
    Well, a lot of what you're talking about is fantasy talk. And you have to opt-in for it. So basically you opted into something and then were offended by it. Just opt-out.
  21. rawTOP
    I just came across this quote on Wikipedia: Next time someone talks to you about "traditional values" add that one to your list - fucking a 10 year old (and in some areas a 7 year old) is apparently "traditional". Of course, so was owning slaves. But a little more seriously – can someone please explain to me how the kids today are less ready for sex than they were in 1880? I mean if anything they're more ready. They have sex ed now. They have the Internet where they can see pretty much anything. Kids today understand sex in a way their counterparts 134 years ago would never have imagined in their wildest dreams. The issue isn't that sex is riskier now. I mean Syphilis was a big problem back then. If it's an issue of better understanding the impact sex has on kids – haven't we overdone it a bit? I mean we live in a world where kids are pampered like crazy, and many types of risk are considered "unacceptable". The whole risk avoidance culture we live in is a rather big problem IMHO. It makes our society less creative (and interesting). And then layer on top of that how we see sex as dirty and evil and it just compounds the problem. I guess what I'm saying is that, if there isn't any coercion or force, what's the big deal? Why can't we just teach our kids to say "no thanks" or laugh off sexual advances like we teach them to do in other non-sexual circumstances where they're not interested? [bTW, I'm playing Devil's advocate a little bit with what I just said. I'm not saying we should go back to 10 as the threshold, but honestly the more I think about it the more I think the whole age of consent issue is rather fucked up. We need something more sensible.]
  22. rawTOP
    The only significant risk is if you encountered a top who was not on meds and had a strain that was resistant to Truvada. That's relatively low risk. And of course there's the risk of other STDs.
  23. rawTOP
    2104 - That's what I call advanced planning!
  24. rawTOP
    Well, this isn't a random sample of people on this site. The site would attract the extreme HIV fetishists who may be doing things (like seeking out new strains) which would make their results atypical. You know, that was my recollection too, but I thought to myself - "that can't be right - how would antibodies go away?", so I changed it thinking I had gotten it wrong. Glad to hear your explanation.
  25. rawTOP
    No, you're completely wrong. (On average…) You have the highest viral load shortly after infection. Then it gradually drops and it stabilizes for a while. Then it goes up again and then falls again and it's typically at this point that your t-cells drop down below the 300 mark. It's not seen much anymore, but back in the days before ARVs guys were sometimes testing undetectable right before they died of AIDS. There was a group of guys who didn't believe HIV caused AIDS and that was one of the facts they liked to cite in support of their theory. But what they failed to realize was that you didn't "die of AIDS" you died because you had no immune system and that happened because of HIV. So it's just the opposite of what you say - high viral load just after infection, and low just before death.

Other #BBBH Sites…

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Top Bareback Porn Sites…

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.