viking8x6

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!

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.

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!

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! 🐷

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.

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.