viking8x6

On 12/27/2021 at 2:22 PM, Hairypiglet said:

30 RSVPs and only 10 show up. Is this a true story? Lol

That ratio certainly adds verisimilitude!

WOW! I came like a fountain at "...left a mark on his face" - and while I sprayed my mind jumped ahead to the reveal without even reading it. Well done!

FUCK that's hot!

On 11/12/2021 at 11:30 AM, DenverBtmDude said:

Man wouldn't you love to run into these guys in the woods!

Yes... I could teach them that real woodsmen do it bare and they need to lose the condom if they really want to experience it naturally.

Thanks for a great story! I really enjoyed following it.

You're sexy! Love the ink.

Cuts off before the money shot, but it's 8 minutes of nice verbal (if you can stand the background music).  Teaser for an instagram

[think before following links] https://xhamster.com/videos/daddy-bear-breeding-a-hungry-hole-9706479

Snakes are very popular tattoo subjects (as are most venomous creatures) way beyond our little sub-subculture here, and have been for centuries. Snakes in general are a very old symbol with quite a few powerful meanings, and so the symbology of the tattoos can cover quite a lot of different topics.

[think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_(symbolism)

The CDC has a tool that will help you get an estimate of risk based on your sex choices and risk reduction practices:

[think before following links] https://hivrisk.cdc.gov/risk-estimator-tool/#-sb

Bottom line is that based on what you stated above, your risk is pretty low and the chances that you are currently HIV+ are slim to none (way less than 1 in 1000). That's assuming your BF is negative, of course. But it's extremely easy to find out: Just get tested already!

If you decide that your risk is low enough that you choose not to use PrEP, I'd strongly recommend getting regular screening for HIV and other STIs, especially if you play outside the relationship. Because (1) the others are much easier to catch than HIV, (2) they increase your odds of contracting HIV if you are exposed and most importantly (3) if you do pick up something, you'll be passing it on (whatever it is) until you get it treated.

Excellently written - delightfully hot!!

Awesome! Intense! Kudos!

Bummer! I missed you by a day. HMU on your way back if you're interested.

12 hours ago, Mcv69 said:

there is way to [sic] much talk about illegal issues involving under age and rape etc, this is wrong and ... this page needs better moderators on here!!

This site actually has excellent moderators and a seriously responsible webmaster/site owner. You might like to read the actual rules of the forum before dishing out criticism:
[think before following links] https://breeding.zone/topic/12285-read-this-before-you-post/
[think before following links] https://breeding.zone/topic/64867-read-this-significant-change-in-rules-effective-31/

Also, if no one reports a post that is against these rules, they have to read all of the posted content in order to catch it. They have lives outside the site, so that's an unreasonable demand on them (though they do read an amazing amount of it!).

Very hot!

Very hot!

Very hot!

Another delightful episode. This is so hot - love the writing and the wonderful variety between the different parts of the story. One of two fiction topics I actually have in my follows. Kudos!

On 10/16/2021 at 4:47 PM, ErosWired said:

Ooh! A chemist! Nobody’s deviant like a chemist. 😈

Perhaps you could explain (in layman’s terms) which of the formulations we might expect to be more volatile, in terms of both how quickly they lose their potency, and whether it has any bearing on their effect?

Sure thing... though my explanation (mostly) won't be about measured data (I wasn't able to find any), only about the theory and predictions I can make from it.

There are three factors that I expect to make differences: evaporation, stability, and affinity for water.

Evaporation - within a series of similar substances, the lighter the molecules, the more easily it evaporates. Faster evaporation will mean you'll get a bigger dose from a hit, and you'll go through a bottle faster. Lighter molecules are those with fewer heavy (non-hydrogen) atoms, so isopropyl > isobutyl > isopentyl / cyclopentyl > cyclohexyl.

Stability - the bond between the nitrite and the carbon atom where it attaches is rather weak. When it breaks, the molecule breaks down, and this is also how it releases the nitric oxide (NO) molecule that causes the effect of the poppers. So, a weaker bond will mean they have a somewhat faster effect in the body (probably doesn't matter much, as it's very fast anyway) and also that they go bad faster (which can be slowed by keeping them in the freezer). The property that matters here is how many other carbons are attached to the one with the nitrite, and in this group we have molecules with one or two. Those with two have the weaker bond, so the order here (less stable to more) is isopropyl / cyclopentyl / cyclohexyl (all 2) > isobutyl / isopentyl (each 1).

Affinity for water - the greater the affinity for water, the greater the tendency of the liquid to absorb moisture, which then reacts with the poppers to degrade them. The carbon part of the molecule tends to have a low affinity for water (think oil and water), so the smaller molecules (which have more nitrogen/oxygen part per carbon) have the greater water affinity. So the order here winds up being the same as for evaporation, isopropyl > isobutyl > isopentyl / cyclopentyl > cyclohexyl.

Of course, some of these are banned in various jurisdictions, so what you can get may vary by location as well.

Happy snorting! 🐷

56 minutes ago, TonyBear said:

So, I found out he was on biktarvy and has been taking a break since about 2 weeks before I made this post. I think that has one overlapping ingredient with what I'm on, descovy...

IF the biktarvy kept him undetectable, then the three meds in it were effective (ie any resistance was not enough to keep it from working). The descovy gives you two of those three (yes, that's correct; let me know if you want details). I think it's very likely that simply by staying on the regular dose, you'd be completely protected.
 

On the other hand, IF the biktarvy DID NOT keep him undetectable, that would be evidence that his virus may have some resistance to one or more of the three meds in it, in which case you might want to think twice about taking his load.

13 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Are you thinking of cyclohexyl? I’ve heard of that being a popper ingredient, but I haven’t actually encountered it. I can’t find any reference to cyclopropyl nitrite in this context, and have never seen any mention of it in association with the amyl nitrites used in this way, and haven’t seen any mention of it in any of the various information sources I’ve consulted specifically about poppers. I’m certainly not a chemist, though; perhaps someone else on here can enlighten us further.

Thanks for catching that! In fact I misspoke (must have killed one too many brain cells).

The ingredient I have seen is cyclopentyl nitrite, not cyclopropyl. I do remember being surprised that it would be used rather than cyclohexyl. And actually I am a chemist, though it's no longer my day job.

2 hours ago, ErosWired said:

The types used in poppers are: propyl, isopropyl, butyl, isobutyl, amyl (aka pentyl), isoamyl (aka isopentyl), and (possibly, though I haven’t come across one containing it yet) octyl nitrite.

I am pretty sure I have also seen cyclopropyl nitrite poppers at some point, but I don't recall what brand they were.

Well done! Looking forward to the continuation.

I would definitely get a new doctor. As others have said, you don't need a reason. But in fact, you have several good ones. To be blunt, she is (apparently deliberately) making it difficult for you to get and adhere to the healthcare you need (and which is currently recommended by the medical community as the standard of practice).  Regardless of why she is doing that or whether it's intentional, it is unacceptable and there's no reason you should put up with it.

I believe that @rawTOP has plans, as the improved site takes shape, to make the "topics" (various ick-factor fetishes and gay, straight and bi categories as well as drug and chasing topics) tag-driven rather than subforum-driven (correct me if I'm mistaken). Once that transition is implemented, it will become much simpler both to search by specific topic and to filter what you see by topic (in either a positive or negative sense).

While it would be possible to set up an entire parallel tree of fetish subforums within the Backroom, I expect if the tag implementation is coming any time remotely soon, it would not be worth the effort. It would also have the disadvantage that it would make it considerably harder to find content if it were scattered among a collection of subforums.

All that said, if authors would start practicing tagging their content going forward, it would improve @BootmanLA's experience (because he can see the tags at the top of the piece and skip reading it) and make the moderators' jobs a lot easier when the eventual transition happens (and everything will have to be tagged to get it to show up in the right feeds).