viking8x6

Not true! I heard from someone who swore me to secrecy that she ate much too much food with high levels of preservatives and additives, and as a result her body lived longer than she did.

You'd probably be fine now. The tenofovir component of Descovy has a very long half-life in the body (150 to 180 hours), so even after three days missed you'd have had pretty significant levels active in your peripheral white blood cells (where it does its work). Three doses in, you'd have built that most of the way back up to the steady state level. But ideally, you should wait. You knew that.

He overstated the case. Gay men (or some of them) may have glorified that lifestyle, but we certainly didn't create it. Just ask Caligula. Though an opportunistic infection will be a lot less likely if you start meds early and thereby preserve your immune system from destruction. Besides, you could just die in a car crash first. Or commit suicide. I know, I'm just a fucking ray of sunshine... I'm not trying to say that your original point isn't valid (it completely is!). But there are a whole lot of gay men out there, both HIV+ and HIV-, who don't deserve to be tarred with that brush. Plain ordinary gay, or bi, or "straight" (kinda) men, who have ordinary lives, and spend most of their time doing mundane things and having (or too often not having) mundane sex, neither of which resemble porn in the least.

Moderator: This is NOT the Backroom!

Short answer: No, you're not (depending, of course, on what you mean by "considerable risk"). Nobody knows exactly how much risk, because nobody has ever done a controlled study on that particular usage pattern (which should be no surprise). But (1) the presumption you specify (at least one detectable top) is moderately unlikely, because the rate of detectable poz tops is relatively low these days, and (2) even if you did cross paths with a detectable top, your chances of seroconverting by taking a load from him are only (roughly) 1 in 70. Longer answer: Your body levels of medication will be somewhat lower than they would be at steady-state (if you had been taking one pill a day regularly for at least a week). Not a lot lower - although pharmacokinetics vary between individuals, it takes the body significant time to clear the drugs from your system, plus you already re-started. So your chances will be substantially lower than they would be without it. What I would do: Given what I know about drugs, antibiotics, and pharmacology, in your shoes I'd take an extra pill today and then continue with one per day. That would be exactly the same (over the next 3 days) as the standard 2-1-1 "on-demand" PrEP protocol, which has been validated to be effective (though admittedly not with Descovy, but there are good chemical reasons to believe that it will behave comparably).

Well, it's about straight people, but this current article is quite relevant to our topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2023/09/19/southern-baptist-johnny-hunt-lawsuit/?utm_campaign=wp_evening_edition&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_evening

^^^ SO MUCH THIS! ^^^

As a teenage male, is completely normal for your sex drive to feel overwhelming! Try not to let it make you crazy. Finding sex is great, but if you can't do that, jerking off helps. It's always difficult finding someone, it seems. I think a lot of that is because people have a lot of specific ideas about what they want. Sometimes it is very helpful to let go of some of those and be flexible. If you give up some of your pickiness, you can try things you might otherwise not and also as an added bonus actually get some sex! The internet can be very unhelpful in finding sex, because people there are all being picky, too, and also it throws time and location into the mix, and actually meeting someone in person can be a seemingly impossible task. This is where parties and gatherings are superior, especially ones where sex, or at least flirting, is expected. It's why people go out dancing, for example.

Well, I did say I was splitting hairs. I chose what appear to me to be the two dominant paradigms in American society with regard to perception and treatment of homosexuals. You are perfectly correct here, and I completely agree.

Note that (as explained above) if your profile says "New Members" by your avatar pic, this will not work for you. Reactions are a privilege that you earn (along with more private messages per day and other things) when you have participated in the forum a certain amount. No, I cannot tell you how much that amount is (it's some confidential formula built into the system). Somewhere between 20 and 50 posts for most people.

Well, after cogitating on this for a long while about 4am, I can't exactly say "I slept on it", but I have a bit of different perspective, which may seem to some like hair-splitting, but here goes: ethics are the societal rules within which we are acting (or which we are flouting). There are two sets in operation here: 1. The "old" ethics of the repressed anti-gay culture of the 1950s, as derived from roots in puritanism and Victorian society. These are the ethics that the closet case promulgates and purports to live by. By these ethics, there's nothing wrong with outing him; in fact, we are expected to do so. 2. The "new" ethics of the sexual revolution and the modern LGBTQ+ movement. These are the ethics that many of us here (including the site owner) promote. By these ethics, there's nothing wrong with outing him, because there's nothing wrong with him being gay, nor even with him having fun outside his partnership (as long as the partner permits that). So the problem with the outing isn't really an ethical one. It's a moral one. morals are our individual ideas of right and wrong, from wherever each of us derives those. They might align with the ethical codes to which we subscribe, and they might not. And that can vary on a case-by-case basis. Is there anything morally wrong about outing the guy? It seems to me that the question here is whether it's OK to create trouble in his life (public and private) because he's a hypocrite whose actions promote an ethical code with which we personally disagree while flouting that ethical code himself in his private actions. Ironically, if we align our morals with the ethical code he's promoting, that's OK (an eye for an eye). But if we align our morals with the ethical code that says gay is OK, we're much more likely to say outing him is NOT OK (judge not, lest ye be judged).

You've made only 16 posts. That's about the bare minimum that can get you to Junior Member status. For some people it takes twice or three times that many posts. So yes, in order to earn those privileges, you have to participate. This is a discussion forum.

I'm with @PozTalkAuthor in feeling conflicted on this one. If the person in question is taking actions in their life that harm gay people (e.g. conservative politicians and religious figures), I do think it can be justified. To be harming a group of people of which you are a member and not sharing in that harm yourself is malfeasance of the worst sort. But I am also mindful that judging and hurting other people is seldom, possibly never, constructive, and that no one should be entitled to do so. Justice and mercy are altogether too often in conflict.

Moderator's Note: The duplicate key problem cited above by many people ("Duplicate entry for key...") is, as far as I can tell, due to a flaw in the either the user database for the chat program (which is not the same software as the main site), or the code that accesses it. The only person who can fix it is @rawTOP. If you are having this problem, you will just have to wait until he can get to it. People who have the above problem cannot log in to the chat site at all, so no one there will be sending them chats, and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to see them. These are not the same as private messages on the main BZ site.

That is not the protocol that was tested in the French study. It is, however, a completely logical extension of that protocol, and there is no logical reason to believe that it would work any less well. It simply hasn't been proven to work (i.e. in a study subject to statistical verification).

If you are planning on taking fists bare (as opposed to with gloves), then you should definitely consider PrEP. Hangnails are a fact of life, and without a barrier, would allow blood/blood contact between a fisting top with a hangnail and the fisting bottom. I actually know someone who (back in the 90s when viral loads were less well-controlled on average than they are now) acquired HIV through a hangnail on his own hand when it came in contact with HIV+ blood that he was helping to clean up after a nipple piercing bleed. Or so he claims.

Just curious: how is one HIV positive "in [anyone's] opinion"? I think @chrisbb most likely meant, "I'm HIV positive and in my opinion it has no bearing on my sex life."

Because it's the most recent information they have? It does, at least, provide some proxy for risk, in that the amount of time is presumably correlated with the number of encounters via which they might have changed status. Alternatively, when they posted it, it was recent... and then they forgot all about it. I do that one myself, often.

True as far as depth is concerned, but not necessarily with regard to girth. The average anus is way tighter than the average vagina. After all, the vagina is actually evolved to pass a baby. Note that the anuses of BZ members are unlikely to be representative...

OMG that was seriously HOT!

Moderator's Note: The original poster has asked that this post be withdrawn. I am locking the topic so the existing replies can be preserved.

Condoms in my ass feel terrible. "Female condoms" in my ass feel even worse.

If he rimmed you and you had anal gonorrhea, you could have given him oral gonorrhea. Anal gonorrhea often has no symptoms. So you might have it and not know. But he only said "might have". If he's like you and me, he played with a bunch of guys between tests and only found out when he tested. Then he had to let *everyone* know they might have been the one. He was doing the polite and appropriate thing and letting you know that you might have been tagged, so be aware of that and test if appropriate.

So I'm visiting my BF in the big city, where there are actually more than the same 10 faces on the cruising apps. This creates interesting opportunities... I was out walking Friday for exercise, and idly scoping Sniffies while playing an online game. A nice clean-cut looking guy hit me up, asking if I wanted a blowjob. Now, I didn't particularly, as I'm not big on those, much more of a flip fucking kind of guy. But I was in a frisky mood, and his profile said he was into fucking and getting fucked, bare, so I continued the conversation as I walked in his general direction. He was fairly persistent - said he worked at a school nearby and had a private office where we could play, and nobody was around. Which was basically likely to be true, because school has been closing early every afternoon all week here, due to excessive heat. So I'm gradually getting closer, and I am thinking to myself, "what the hell" - it was the naughtiness of the idea as much as anything that I found intriguing... Next thing I know I'm messaging him "I'm here" and he pops out the front door of the (large, blocky, old-style) school building and lets me in. With a nod to the janitor saying he'll lock up. And takes me upstairs to his. Private. Office. Which is... (wait for it)... The Principal's Office. Because he is, apparently, the Principal. WTAF. Complete with wedding ring. Yup. And I call him a "naughty boy". And he's swapping tongue with me and massaging my crotch, and has me sit down in a chair where he gives me a fairly serviceable blowjob. Of course I talk nasty to him about how much I want to breed his ass (he objects, saying he just took a dump and isn't clean). So I just go with the fantasy and feed him my load. And he escorts me back to the door and I'm on my way to finishing my walk and getting to (remote) work. So now I can say I've been taken to the Principal's Office for being naughty. Yup. We sure were!! You cannot make this stuff up. I have to wonder how long he's been at this and whether his wife knows. Or the rest of the staff...

There are a very small number of documented cases (about half a dozen) where even with good compliance, PrEP failed to protect during sex. The chances of this happening are so small that it has never been possible to measure them accurately in any of the studies that have ever been done on PrEP. This possibility does not constitute any kind of a good reason not to use PrEP as prevention for HIV.