BootmanLA

For once in my life my view is close to the consensus (I voted 5). Like others have said, three is a threeway. Four is closer, but in my limited experience, it tends to devolve into two two-ways, even if the partners swap out periodically. Five means that if everyone is playing, there's always something going on besides regular pairings of two - either one guy is getting it at both ends, or one guy is getting sucked and fucked at the same time, or he's getting DP'ed, or... well, almost any combination of things. It's true that any even number of x players can devolve into x/2 pairings, but I think the more players, the less likely that is to happen. And as others have noted, there's got to be a mix (and at least two bottoms). If there's one bottom, it's a gang bang, and that's not an orgy.

In theory. Assuming the online pharmacy is a reputable one, that is. But Doxycycline should be cheap to get filled at any pharmacy in the US - it's a very old, long-established antibiotic that's been in commercial production since 1967 (so, generics have been available for 50+ years). If you have no access to a local physician who will prescribe it for you, I suppose an online "prescription/pharmacy" service, like the ones that prescribe and sell ED meds, is better than nothing. But realistically anyone who's sexually active really ought to have a physician who monitors them for infections of this sort, even if it's a local STD clinic.

You're not one of the few - you're one of the many. Probably nowhere near a majority, but a significant number of those who opposed Trump's re-election are very, very concerned about what an administration like his might do unfettered by any thoughts of being prosecuted after his term of office is up.

Oh, I'm sure there are many reasons porn might be shot in south Florida - good weather for outdoor work most of the year, for one thing. As for the specific payment methods, you're probably right about privately produced, one-on-one porn. But I think the original discussion was more about quasi-studio porn, where record keeping (as you've eloquently discussed before) is legally required and where I'm sure the "producer" in question is going to have financial records for payments to performers regardless of their preferences.

I did not yet listen to the entirety of the arguments from the Court, but I've seen reports from various legal scholars who did, and those reports lean both ways. On the one hand, there seems to be a pretty clear agreement among the justices that the lower court used the wrong standard by which to judge the constitutionality of the law. The Fifth Circuit had held that the law was subject only to rational basis review (that is, if the government has a rational basis for passing the law, it's constitutional). That's the standard used for most laws, such as (to use a basic example) jaywalking: the government has an interest in preventing traffic accidents with pedestrians, so it can inconvenience them by requiring them to cross at intersections rather than randomly on the street. While people have a general right to walk about freely in public, it's not such a significant right that minor burdens on it can't be made. But First Amendment issues, because they deal with a core right under the constitution, are generally subject to higher scrutiny, and when the right is spelled out - as the right to freedom of speech is - then strict scrutiny is required; that means the government interest being addressed must be compelling (ie extremely important), and the law must be the least restrictive way of accomplishing that interest. (There is another level, called intermediate scrutiny, where the rule is that the governmental interest being asserted must be "important" and the means by which it's being addressed must be "substantially" related to that interest.) And several justices seemed to think that the Fifth Circuit erred, from the start, by using rational basis review instead of strict scrutiny review. When that happens, the Court usually (but not invariably) will remand the case back to the appellate court with instructions to reexamine the law under the proper standard. (The other alternative would be for the Court to find that the trial record is complete enough for it to render a decision as to whether the law meets strict scrutiny, and make a decision now rather than wait for it to percolate back up to them after further lower court review.) Justices Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett seemed inclined Contra what @ellentonboy noted, if *anyone* is inclined to uphold the law as is, with no further discussion, it's Alito. He specifically cited back to the same cases the Fifth Circuit had cited in upholding the law, saying it was no different than the laws that prohibit stores from selling "girlie magazines" like Playboy to minors, which have been consistently upheld.

Regarding porn production in Florida: As some have noted, there are some in power who have opined that since you're paying the porn performers, and you're specifically paying them to have sex, that amounts to prostitution. Which is at least a defensible, if not entirely valid (in my view) position to take. So why is porn still being produced even in those jurisdictions? Most likely because it's a lot easier to prove "porn was produced" (which is not illegal on its face, especially if no money changes hands) than it is to prove prostitution (which generally requires either documentary evidence like financial records, or direct testimony from someone who witnessed someone being paid for sex. That witness would have to (a) witness the payment, or the agreement to accept payment, and (b) witness the agreement to have sex - that is, connecting the dots between the payment and the called-for activity. For street prostitution where an undercover cop solicits a prostitute, that's easily accomplished by the cop's testimony (leaving aside questions of the possibility of him lying). But for porn production you'd have to have someone on the inside willing to flip, or else you'd have to have, say, ledgers of payments that can be linked to bank payments (cashed checks, transfers, etc.) - and the authorities aren't likely to be able to get those without probable cause to seek them in the first place, and without someone on the inside, say, willing to testify, probable cause is going to be hard to meet. So even if porn is prostitution, proving it's a lot harder than street prostitution.

When polls are created, I *believe* that the creator specifies how long it's open for voting (and there's a default that kicks in otherwise). When a poll closes, it doesn't disappear (because people may wish to see the results, and they may wish to discuss those results).

The poster didn't say poz guys were "shit". He said that a cum dump was potentially a likely place to PICK UP shit like HIV. Not the same thing at all.

The bottom in question may well have been on PrEP. However, that's pointless in terms of protecting you if there's already cum (particularly substantial amounts of it) in the bottom when you fuck him. While topping is, as noted, much less risky than bottoming, that's referring *PRIMARILY* to the idea that a poz/detectable bottom might infect the top. The calculus changes - and we don't know by how much, but it's definitely significant - if there's poz/detectable cum in the ass when you fuck. (If all the tops before you were negative or undetectable, of course, AND the bottom was on PrEP, then the risk is zero. But you can't really know that.) More importantly, cum dump situations are ripe for picking up other STIs. If any of the tops had syphilis or gonorrhea, for instance, there's a good chance of picking it up.

The problem with age verification, as it is generally practiced, is that it mandates disclosure of the identity of the person accessing the material. In the United States, the courts have generally held that adults have a First Amendment right to read/view any legal material without providing identification. (Libraries can require a card to check out books, etc., but that's more to verify your eligibility to borrow, rather than your right to read - you can go into any public library here, even in places where you don't live and have no library borrowing privileges, and read whatever books you want within the library.) Coupled with this is the fact that you can rest assured once some age-verification service (whether run by the site directly, or, more likely, an outside service it utilizes under contract) has your identifying information, the service will undoubtedly cross-reference your identity not only with what you view on that site, but with any other "big data" it can match up. So you can imagine the data hacks that such services will absolutely bring about.

FWIW I use NordVPN, which has both desktop and mobile versions, and which I've been very happy with. I use a paid version, but there's a free basic version as well (IIRC).

Vast majority my ass. Trump won by one of the smallest popular vote margins in the last 100+ years, his lying lies to the contrary not withstanding. Put another way, the margin of Biden's victory over Trump in 2020 was more than double the margin in 2024. So if that pathetic finish counts as "vast majority", what did Biden's finish counts as?

Today Terra Cotta Hitler refused to rule out military action to take Greenland and the Panama Canal if need be. I used to be fairly sure that something would stop that kind of crap - like the 25th Amendment - but nowadays I'm not so sure.

Whenever I get back to Wisconsin, you know you're the first person I'm contacting.

Apology accepted, and I'm sorry if I misinterpreted the following: It sounded to me (and again, I may be misreading this) that you mentioned a bunch of details about porn actors that people might wonder about, and then immediately said that the CoR is responsible for keeping that. I linked those two together, but you may not have intended that.