GermanFucker

It was of course meant in as an ironic exaggeration, hence the inverted commas. I didn't mean it in a negative sense nor did I intend to imply that you made your decision lightly. But I am not ashamed to say: I personally do bareback because it is fun. I enjoy it immensely. The alternative being condoms or abstinence (frankly I don't really know which would be worse), I will frankly admit that I prefer to have that particular bit of fun in my life.

Forgive me my bluntness, but here are my thoughts: 1.) First of all a tattoo is a personal thing. It's you who has to live with the thing for the foreseeable future. It shouldn't be something you just get because it's cool right now. Or because you want to belong to some group. It should be something you desire on an intimate level. 2.) Still you should consider if such a tattoo rubs some guys the wrong way (you wouldn't get a white pride tattoo if you're into blacks and latinos, would you?). To some it might look like rubbing it into someone's face that you were lucky enough that you can take PrEP "for fun" while for others it's a matter of life and death. 3.) But in the end it's your skin, your decision. If you're not sure about it, just wait. But don't let others talk you into something.

Would accidentally replying to a question that was posted in the wrong section once disqualify me? If you are still looking for some help / or might need a replacement at a later point in time: although I maybe don't write as many posts here as some others (mine tend to be longer, though *LOL), I check in regularly, I've been on this forum for quite some time now (i.e. not likely to disappear in a few weeks), I'm multilingual and I have previous experience moderating large forums.

With all due respect, but what you say makes no sense. If you look at the real world numbers: Guys who prefer the feeling of raw sex: at least 95% Guys who'd prefer to stay neg: also at least 95% And of the common 90% at least half engage in unprotected sex given the right circumstances or contemplate doing so. That's exactly like saying "abstinence works". In that it's technically true, but meaningless when talking about real-life circumstances. Just like socialism might work if people were different. Problem is: They aren't. Sex isn't black and white. It's impulsive, it's messy, it's sometimes weird. But IMHO that's also what makes it wonderful. Since I came to accept that sex isn't always straightforward and adopted more of a go-with-the-flow attitude, my sex life has become a never-ending buffet of amazing adventures. When I talk with sluts I sometimes hear: "Why do I never meet some Arab thugs (black bodybuilders etc.), like in those (e.g. Eric Videos) porn movies?". My impression is: because some sluts are set in their ways. Because I do meet those types all the time. If you try to put people into categories, e.g. (to use the terms of another forum member) "neggies here, pozzies there", you limit yourself to these categories as well. You shouldn't expect others to think along the same lines as yourself. At least you have A LOT more fun if you're open to a wider spectrum of human sexuality. But that also means that simple answers don't work. IMHO the answer isn't "if you're neg, you have to protect yourself" or "if you're poz, it's your obligation to use a condom", but rather: "don't be a shmuck!". The problem with newspaper articles is that you never know what EXACTLY happenend. So most people just make up the rest of the story and instinctively jump to conclusions, often either condemning or defending the accused. If the bottom attended a bareback orgy advertised as being poz-friendly... yeah, that's his own fault. If he was expertly deceived and lied to, then the other guy's to blame. If someone lied about being a plastic surgeon, he would get sued over a botched facelift as well - and rightfully so, even though some might argue that surgery in general is risky and vain. Generalizations never work. That's why these newspaper stories (and the responses to them) propably you more about BZ forum users than about what actually happened. And that's why I hate taking a position without knowing what ACTUALLY happened.

I think everything written online has to be taken with a grain of salt. I remember when I had my first real (as in: not deleted after 3 hours of horsing around) serious gay dating profile (I was 19, I think), I went for two weeks with a normal, friendly text (looking for fun with bottoms up to the age of 34). I was constantly contacted by men in their late fifties and sixties, who thought they had a chance with someone young and inexperienced. Then I, too, added some insults to the profile (not a necrophiliac, geezers fuck off etc.) to make them understand. Not because I wanted to be a nasty person, rather because I'm not into someone, who - agewise / biologically speaking - could be my father. Which is still true today (at least the guys in the mid-sixties keep away, either because I'm too old for them now or because now they're scared of my sexual prowess). If you're 20+ years older than me, chances are pretty slim we will fuck (frankly speaking: chances are slim I will get an errection, it's just not in my genes, so there isn't really a point in trying.). But other than that I don't really care about age. Whether you just became legal or you're 15 years older than me matters less than if you are attractive and interesting to me. Also experience per se (as in: having slept with hundred / thousands of guys) isn't what makes someone a great fuck. Only if it's coupled with mutual sympathy and an intuitive, uninhibited and adventurous approach to sex, it really makes a difference. I've seeded 19 year olds who were naturals and it was mindblowingly amazing... and I've fucked promiscuous sluts in their mid-fourties who were still clueless about anything that went beyond the purely mechanical aspects of sex. In short: personal chemistry beats age any time.

With all due respect: If PrEP is availabe to you, the only valid reason for getting infected instead is because YOU want it. Being afraid of getting tested, being afraid of sex being awkward, all that is not good enough to base a life-altering decision upon. You are old enough to take responsibility for your own life. So just take a deep breath (ideally get tested ASAP to know if you already have it) and decide for yourself: What is it that YOU want? If that means getting pozzed, that's ok as well. It is YOUR life. Just make sure you didn't do it just to please someone else. As to avoiding the awkwardness: The best way to do that is just being your own man and standing by your decision, be it PrEP or not. You cannot control how your boyfriend reacts. When it comes to him, maybe HIV is the best way to go, maybe PrEP is the right decision. Either way, you will never know and it does not really matter. What you can control is whether you feel that you made the right decision for yourself.

Great! Sex is best if both guys have fun, So I think you did the best thing: You talked about it beforehand and found a solution everyone enjoys. One can take the other guy seriously as a person and still be a total cumdump whore. (IMHO many awkward situations come from one guy having a fantasy and expecting the others to just play parts.). I think one should keep in mind that if a top fucks a bottom for the first time, he usually has no idea what kind of guy the bottom usually plays with and how "low" he will go just to get a load of cum up his ass. Of course some guys will wonder if the last top was a disgusting troll.

The answer to that question is simple: If it's not something you yourself really want, DON'T GET THE VIRUS. "Eh, what's the point" is not a good enough reason for such a life-changing decision. Neither is the feeling of being "left out". Sometimes a relationship requires making choices and thus limiting your own personal options for the future (moving in together, getting married, having children etc.). But getting pozzed is NOT something you absolutely HAVE TO DO to make your relationship work, as your experience with your poz boyfriend clearly proves. So don't expect an emotional reward for getting infected. You might feel regrets and even your husband might feel weird about it. True partnership is not about getting matching outfits (or serostatuses for that matter), its about meeting on the same level, about seeing eye to eye. And for that you sometimes have to retain some independence. So you shouldn't make life-altering just decision to please anyone, not even your partner. In fact he might respect you less for it. From personal experience with poz friends, including those with serodiscordant relationships: Like most people you will adapt to having HIV. It will be different, but over time it will be just fine. But don't expect it to solve any problems. If you don't feel the need to get infected because of a fetishistic obsession with bugchasing, it won't make you happier or your life easier. (E.g.: If you are the worrying type and constantly think about what might be if you get infected, you will then worry about what might happen if you develop side effects or resistances to meds). The only differences is: You can't go back. So you have to ask yourself: DO YOU REALLY WANT ONE MORE THING TO WORRY ABOUT UNLESS YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO? IMHO and from what I've seen serostatus has nothing to do with a relationship's sucess. It's the same as with everyone: Mutual respect, communication, honesty, sincerity and caring is what matters.

Easy...virgin! Especially if they are naturals, so as the evening progresses, you can turn up the intensity and in the end fuck them like a whore. Thing is: I can have 10 whores a week. Virgins are a challenge. There are far fewer. And then I have to get them to take my more-than-average-sized dick. Seeding a virgin for the first time is always a nice story to remember ... and jack off to. Taking over a untouched ass is very, very special. Because to me, what it's all about is having a nice sexual adventure. But it doesn't have to be a virgin, I like playing around (and seeing where the situation takes one) with an experienced, like-minded dude just as well. I've had great nights with total whores, where there was that personaly chemistry, openness and sense of adventure. The kind of nights where you wake up and think "Where am I, how did I get here... and man, what a ride!". So if whore means exploring the world of men and truly enjoying oneself without inhibitions, i.e. just being one of the guys who happens to enjoy sex a lot, well, that's more than fine by me. If whore means sending out 1000 messages like "Door is open, I'm waiting blindfolded on all fours, I just need to be filled" to more or less random guys online every night, ummmh,.... yeah,.... no thanks. If you can't tell the difference between promiscuity and indifference, well I'm not interested in you.

I think you need to click on the large black dot that's to the left of the thread title on the index page.

Right now it's just different and needs a bit of getting used to, but everything seems to be working just fine and I haven't yet encountered any "shocking" changes. Liked the old site, like the new one, business as usual. But I think I understand where you're going with it

IMHO a good or even great bathhouse is not only about sex (I can have sex in the woods without having to pay a dime, so what do I need a steam room for?). It's about the whole atmosphere. It's also about leisure, about the male body, about just letting oneself go and enjoying oneself. A good bathhouse not only offers a steam room and a cruising area for sex, but also a nice bar / common area for meeting new people, but also spaces where you can exchange a few words with old friends - or new ones you just met (like a garden deck or a semi-private corner with a few comfy chairs). Don't get me wrong, the old rule still applies: THE STEAMROOM IS NOT A CHATROOM! But a bit of bathhouse culture doesn't hurt either. If it's one of those places where everyone is just franticly and single-mindedly looking for sex, it's not really a bathhouse, it's just a sex club with showers. To misquote the Village People: A bathhouse is a place where you also "can hang out with other boys". In a yacuzi. I hate it when uppity bottoms think they can dictate the rules (and yes, that was meant ironically).

Why is that "shit"? How is YOUR desire to "go from top to top collecting cum" more important than HIS preference for "dry" holes? Tastes are different. Being a grown-up means realizing that sometimes it doesn't work out. Good sex isn't just about one guy getting his way, but rather a meeting of minds and sexual preferences. One shouldn't berate others for being different or liking different things. Just move on to the next guy. There are so my other guys who apparently like cumwhores.

You might be surprised, but I actually like it natural, guys just being themselves. Of course there are other guys who have a fetish for dirty talk or begging as part of dom / sub play. So if you discussed it and both like it, sure, why not indulge in it? But under normal circumstances, please: Stop the play-acting! That will only fool inexperienced tops. Moaning has it's place during sex. If I hit the right spot or push a bottom to his limits, it's normal that he will moan, and it's appreciated feedback. But not ALL them time, that just sounds like a cheap prostitute putting on a show. Same as talk during sex. If you like what is going on, feel free to say so ("Oh yeah, right there"). Also nothing wrong with suggestions / encouragements ("Fuck me doggy style".. "shoot that load in my ass"). But not too much. If it's too exaggerated, it will just sound fake. Also, a top worth his salt usually doesn't like to be bossed around. Same about being loud during sex: It's normal if you're in the throws of passion to get loud once or twice. But screamers are rather annoying. If during the first few thrusts you're just finding a nice rhythm together and the bottom already pretends to be climaxing, it's not only unbelievable, it's also keeps you from getting into that enjoyable pace that feels oh-so right. Personally, I'm self-confident and mature. That's why I go for manly bottoms rather than needy bottoms. Begging as part of domination play is fine, so it depends on the roles and dynamics that have been established up to that point. But out of the blue it's just that: NEEDY. And that's NOT attractive. So: Just BE YOURSELF and do what comes natural.

I think that is the main point: Some bottoms don't make an effort and might even lie about it. Every good top understands that accidents do happen. But most experienced tops can also tell the difference between an accident and someone who just doesn't bother to prepare. During the fuck it's pointless anyway, as you notice soon enough. But if you expect tops to "get over it", you shouldn't have any hang-ups about being asked beforehand and then be honest about it. After all, we are ALL adults.

I agree with Slowfuck: It's always better to be honest. It's also better to move on to the next guy instead of forcing a situation that both end up not enjoying at all. Personally I'm not really into cumwhores. I prefer mutually enjoying each other's sexual energy over just playing a minor role in somebody else's script. Just being used as a tool is simply to indifferent for me. Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with somebody else's cum on my dick. I like threesomes, gangbangs and bareback orgies quite a lot. But that's about a bunch of guys getting together to have fun with each other as a group, not about one guy collecting spunk from whomever. So when it's one-on-one I usually prefer fresh holes.

I think it's one of these unwritten rules and should be a given that a bottom has a clean hole for fucking. Unfortunately it's not always like that in reality. I've come to the point that I try to brush the topic BEFORE actually meeting the guy, making sure that the bottom knows beforehand that I'm not into dirty holes. That's why I try to be humorous / nonchalant about it and never make it sound like a suspicion / accusation ("I don't trust you to properly clean out that's why i pester you"). Having a big dick, I usually go with something along the line of: "Dude, I have real 8 inches and know how to use them, so I hope you've cleaned your ass well." The other guy usually is very understanding (and hot for my dick ). I imagine variations like "I've got stamina for hours" etc. should work as well. But if you've got a small dick and suffer from premature ejaculation, then I'm afraid this trick won't work.

Personally, I don't have an underwear fetish, so there is no special type of underpants that rocks my boat. For myself, I like boxers, boxer briefs and briefs alike. On others I also enjoy jockstraps a lot, which as a top I personally don't wear (don't want to send any mixed signals). It's a question of season, occasion and personal sense of style (but no grandpa briefs, please). In winter, boxers just seem the normal thing, whereas in summer I go commando A LOT. Not a fan of g-strings / thongs. Those are girl's panties that look ridiculous on men (rare exceptions prove the rule).

I think some bottom sluts will be surprised to hear this, because in their fantasy world tops are just interchangeable pieces of meat to fuck and fill them with cum, but: NOT EVERY TOP LIKES A CUMDUMP I, personally, am not a fan of sticking my dick into some stranger's cum. Even though I'm a big fan of gang-bangs and don't mind cum-filled holes per se. Tag-teaming and filling a hole with Grade A stud juice together with some top buddies of mine? Attending a bareback sex party where there's a nice crowd? Sure, sign me up! But being number fourteen in a succession of anonymous squirt toys? That's too random and arbitrary for me, it's just not the sex I'm looking for. (The exception: if I know the other tops who came before or know the bottom so well that I exactly know his type). It think, as always, it boils down to fairness: If you give the wrong impression, it will come back to haunt you sooner or later. Just be open about the game from the start. If a top knows who he's playing with, he won't (have any right to) freak out and complain. But he also won't make the mistake of saving a week's worth of cum to make the evening special, he'll rather use the cum bucket at his own convenience.

Yeah, it's meant as a humorous thread, but I think it can be a very insightful one, too. The way you see yourself in culinary terms could really shine a light on your sexual persona. So what kind of food (or drink) could be best compared to an evening of sex with you? Maybe sushi, a succession of a thousand small pleasures? Or chili: hot and spicy? Whatever comes to your mind. Of course, I guess, I'll have to go first: Personally, I'd be a steak dinner. Nothing too fancy, fussy or avantgarde, yet high-quality and huge satisfying. Sure, some guys don't like a big piece of meat, but most will enjoy it very much. There's a clear dominant (protein) component (i.e. the assfucking), with the sides - while still good on their own - taking a somewhat secondary role. All in all, it's juicy and manly. So how about you?

If the date forgets stuff (like socks, underwear etc.), yeah, I keep it as a memento. But no stealing

In my personal opinion, there's something like a 20 / 20 / 20 / 20 / 20% distribution: 20% will have unprotected sex no matter what - because they like it (and usually say so openly) 20% will have bareback sex if given a serviceable EXCUSE - because the other guy is so hot, because one is drunk, because one has fucked before twice etc... basically a very low threshold. 20% will go raw if given a good enough REASON (to trust the other) - e.g. long-term fuckbuddies, maybe even the fuckbuddy of a fuckbuddy, former boyfriends etc. Can be convinced, but it takes time and effort. 20% will really only have safer sex outside a stable, long-term relationship. Usually not wort the hassle. 20% are hopeless. They're either largely asexual, only have a very limited sexuality due to inhibitions (e.g. only handjobs or oral) or fetishism (e.g. voyeurism with masturbation) or are of the romantic persuasion, so that they really don't have much sex at all outside relationships.

AFAIK the average time from infection to AIDS is around 9 years, so 12-13 years are on the longish side, but not extraordinarily so. Even if it takes 17 or 20 years, that doesn't necessarily make on a long term non-progressor. For that your immune system has to supress viral replication to a point were the viral load stays constantly low and doesn't rise. But one only know that if the VL is check regularly. He might be LTNP (less likely) a slow progressor (far more likely) or he might already have one foot over the abyss and his immune system will soon collapse (lets hope not). A personal thought your friend might find helpful: One of the greatest qualities in humans is our almost limitless potential to adapt to basically anything. Of course it takes a bit of time to come to terms with the changed situation, but soon we accept the new normal. It will be a different normal, but it will feel just as natural.

Same here: If I have something that is currently being treated (haven't had anything for a long time), I ask my doctor how long it takes for the antibiotics to be effective and I'm staying abstinent for that time period (wouldn't want to fuck anyway having that on my mind). If I have a suspicion / I'm noticing symptoms I also won't have sex until I have the test results (having had most STDs already in my early twenties helps, as my suspicions are usually spot-on). If I just have a regular / routine check-up I see no reason not to have sex, even if it takes two weeks for the results to come in. It's not the test that makes you sick, it's the bacteria. The test only shows what is already there. Or in the case of routine check-ups most likely isn't. My personal opinion: If you know you have a communicable disease or have a strong suspicion and you keep fucking without telling your partners (if they like having the clap, ah well, it's their business), that's pathetic. And pathetic guys are usually shitty lays. The peace of mind that comes from doing the right thing really helps one enjoy oneself during sex and the other guy will notice that, too.

I'm saying that we have to separate two different kinds of discussion: the academic and societal discourse on the one hand from everyday personal decisions on the other. It is certainly not my business if a 15-year-old girl finds out she's three weeks pregnant and decides to have an abortion. However, I believe that when discussing legal and societal questions like whether one should allow on-demand abortions two weeks before delivery (yeah, a somewhat unrealistic scenario, I couldn't come up with a better one) one should follow the best scientific knowlegde. That doesn't mean MEN know better. It just means that there are certain aspects to a question where gender becomes irrelevant. Just like I can imagine certain aspects where serostatus becomes irrelevant, e.g. when it comes extending the duration of ARV patents because a pharmaceutical company has found a new use for them (e.g. PrEP). Maybe I gave you the wrong impression: For the most part I do agree with you that if a poz guy is ranting just because he doesn't like the idea of PrEP, it really is none of his business. I just don't think that a poz guy can never say anything if it has remotely to do with PrEP. I think there are specific aspects and broader implications that can be discussed academically regardless of gender or serostatus. That is exactly what I said / meant: There are certain ASPECTS (like side effects) where having more voices can be helpful. You also gave an example of what I meant by discussing such topic in a respectful way: keeping in mind that the experience for a neg guy will most likely be somewhat different. It also means looking at broader picture. I do belive that PrEP will also help poz guys with their therapy. Because for the first time you have a reference group to compare and contrast. Like some side effects that were considered to be caused by meds, but might also be the result of viral activity. With a multitude of PrEP users, over time, we will know for sure.