Hotload84

I would ignore the advertisement.

Certainly couldn't say for certain, syph is native to the the americas so a partial reason could always simply be geographic isolation, a much lower number of europeans sleep with americans than americans sleep with americans every year (obviously), so the disease stays relatively focused in the americas

It seems very possible that rigorous screening in the UK also reduced cases to a background level by the 1990s (less than 300 cases a year nationwide), but since then there has apparently been a bit of an outbreak which started in 1997 and spread to London by 2001, but still low numbers, i.e. 1900 cases in London between 2001 and 2004 in a city of 8.2 million

Found the data here: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=497

Thanks, Ked239. Food for thought.

Yeah - Miguel Temon is a big turn-on for me.

Interesting, Ked239. I did a quick search on the 'net, including the WHO site, but didn't find current figures on syphilis rates (1999 was the most documented year I found). It would be interesting to know why the UK would have a lower syph rate than the United States. If I remember to do so, I'll ask my doctor.

Genuinely perverse, Bleeding)*(starfish. Well done!

If a bottom handed me a condom, I'd put it on as that's what he wants else why bother handing it to the top? If they were lying around and he didn't bother to hand me one or say anything about playing safe then I'd take it that the decision to warp it up was left to the top.

A reasonable (and responsible response), Totop, but I have had bottoms who who have presented me with a condom, and when I've inquired about the bottom's intent, self-protection, or my protection, more than once the bottom has said, in effect, "I don't care, but if you want to use it...." You can surmise what choice I generally elected.

Interesting nuance, Hungry_hole. I guess the question you've raised is 'how specific does a bottom need to be?" I can see how someone could register ambiguity where, as in Simonuk23's example, the bottom merely handling the top a condom without (a) conveying specific directions to the top, or ( ensuring, through gestures or non verbal indicators, the top is expected to wrap-up. I suspect, however, the high road, so to speak, would have been for the top to discuss the question of bareback or safer sex before he fucked the bottom.

The example Simonuk23 put forth is dissimilar to anonymous sex in a dark room where the bottom does not make any effort to bring-up the subject of raw or safer sex - I should think truly the gesture of handing a condom to the top, even without elaboration, would in and of itself merit some exploration.

Amen, Totalasspig, amen. (I'm almost tempted to throw my arms in the air and shout 'hallelujah'). Words to remember: YOU PLAY RAW - YOU PAY LATER. Short and sweet. Now the challenge is to remember the implications of raw play when the opportunity presents itself....

Perfect, TheBreeder. I dare say the bottom with whom you were playing will, without regard to his specific role, re-live your choice utterance in his future spank fantasies and other sexual encounters!

On one or two occasions guys have e-mailed me (through A4A) asking, with a very antagonistic tone, "How could you, an HIV positive guy, bareback?" I didn't respond to the e-mails. I probably muttered to myself "Fucking Asshole" as I deleted the message. I also seem to recall both guys who wrote me deleted their profile from the site - one hit wonders, of a sort.

I'm surprised I haven't seen anything in Philadelphia Gay News, the local fag rag about the AIDS 2012 Conference - after all, Philly is only 120 miles from Washington. I hadn't even heard the conference is convening later this month. Here's the website:

http://www.aids2012.org/

Good summary, Matias47!

No way, I'd run away in the opposite direction.

Same for me!

"'Manly/masculine' is, to me, a heterosexist cultural construct built on stereotype, and also entirely subjective and relative. Ditto 'feminine'. Calling a male 'less manly' than another male is an insult that goes all the way back to the first schoolyard. When the bullies called you a sissy, did you take it as a compliment? Probably not. It was meant to rob you of your self-esteem and power.'"

Building on Einathens' observation I suppose is the question how does the individual who is described as less manly respond to the (presumably negative) construct? Whereas some with perhaps a frail sense of self-worth, may be crushed, others possessing a strong sense of self-confidence will find such descriptions to be meaningless. Perhaps this is an aspect of the Ayn Rand protagonist that I found admirable: someone who, as a consequence of his sense of self-worth, seemed generally immune to the barbs of society.

Like you, Einathens, I need "...wonder, awe, mystery or faith" in my world, notwithstanding, or perhaps because so much life is measuring - time, resources, results. Shame is out there, of course, but more simply born of taking taking the easy way out, where my sense of morality demands I take the high road.

Ayn Rand certainly had good plot lines, and some of her arguments were worthwhile, but if I was looking for a writer who found the correct balance between selfish and self-aware, I would look at Taylor Caldwell. Her protagonists embraced the fullness of the human condition: flawed, yet striving to better themselves. In this I would find my own aspiration.

the topic is probably better suited for a thread of its own, but i don't know where the idea came from that a bottom is somehow less of a man than a top is. cultural conditioning? internalized homophobia? bad PR? anyway, i don't agree with the premise.

I agree, Einathens, so I've separated your posting from the discussion where you posted it.

I'll also add, that when I generally cringe when I read stories and/or postings that suggest (or clearly assert) a bottom is less of a man than a top, but I surmise some guys really get off on the argument, so generally I've left such postings alone (although I would still undertake normal editing - for egregious syntax, grammar, spelling and plot-line problems). I for one admire the skill level of a consummate bottom who can readily take the biggest and widest of cocks up his ass, and can't imagine why doing so makes him less of a man. Frankly, I wish I were better at bottoming!

A good sexual partner knows what turns-on his or her mate, and such knowledge is born of individual-specific knowledge as well as general experience. Guess you have both in abundance, TheBreeder.

I have experienced some of the reticence you've been noting in yourself, Rubio2001: the prospects of contracting one type of VD or another really gives me pause when I'm contemplating a night (or afternoon) of debauchery. I occasionally have gone whole-hog, so to speak, but far more often decide not to - just to reduce the likelihood of contracting something. HIV has been, overall, manageable for me, and my doctors and I get along well. I'm not sure I'd be able to face them quite so cavalierly if I had to explain how I contracted syphilis or some other exotic form of VD.

I know my reticence puts a cramp on my sexual outlets, but it's my decision, and I'm not complaining.

The individual mandate part of the affordable healthcare act was put in place to appease the insurance companies. In one debate I heard someone say it was to keep health insurance companies from going bankrupt. Health insurance comapines are a huge part of the problem here in the US, so I say let them go under. Conservatives claim Obama's law will put the government in between you and your doctor, which is exactly where the insurance companies sit right now, so what's the difference?

There is certainly a degree of visceral pleasure, Subtenor, in the thought of the healthcare insurance companies disappearing from the face of the earth, but it's hard to imagine we would ever have the collective courage to accept the chaos that would immediately follow such a collapse. I agree with Mike_thierlot - a single payer arrangement is a much more sensible arrangement, but how to get there? Crash-and-burn or incrementally? I'd choose the later, and trust the future to continuously tweak the arrangement with the hope we would eventually adopt a better system.

Quite an experience, Noexitfastlane! Although you indicate this was an actual experience, I've moved your posting to the Bug Chasing & Gift Giving FICTION section because it will get more notice here.

Thanks for posting!

I love the US and Americans, but you guys are nuts if you don't improve access to healthcare, which I get totally free

We struggle with collectivism and individualism, Mikealec. Moreover, reaching a consensus is all the more troublesome when it entails money (as in the healthcare debate) or the loss of perceived status (as in the same-sex marriage argument). Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we fuck-up. Moreover, because the way we tally votes is skewed by political boundaries, the majority does not always get its way. Finally, add into the mix the challenge of the court system, where the multiple levels of courts at the state and federal levels, each interpreting the laws with the strengths and weaknesses of the individual (not to mention the roll of money and/or profile in determining outcome), it's no surprise American can reach decisions that are, perhaps, counter-intuitive, if not counter-productive.

I imagine everyone has a way of expanding his scope of experience. Some guys can make the move without much outside support, others need to be guided. Guess the two guys you encountered, TheBreeder, found it convenient to utilize your services in expanding their repertoire. Glad they chose a guy with such expertise.

One would think the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") will make it easier to get insurance, particularly where pre-existing conditions are at issue. I understand, moreover, the insurance companies cannot charge higher prices for policies issued to such individuals - so I should think it will be a boon to our community generally, and specifically may reduce the fear-factor related to post-seroconversion medical costs.

Sounds like quite an experience, Jacobs. I've cleaned your story up a bit - run on paragraphs are very, very hard to read, and there were quite a few stray key strokes that distracted from the excellence of your work. Thanks for posting.

i don't have many standards; that's one of my few. basically, i've been cheated on and i do not care to participate in making anyone feel the way it made me feel.

also, i don't care to share myself with men whose word is meaningless.

I understand, Einathens, and concur. Your standard may well result in foregoing liaisons where the man's spouse is indifferent to philandering, but absent a way of weeding-out such instances, good call.