BootmanLA

I think as long as things remain "cloud talk" that's fine. The moment it crosses over into "let's meet up" territory, in my view, it's time for a reassessment. Because all of your talk, so far, has been just that - talk, whether it's on camera and vocal, or through IM/chat, or whatever. It's impossible to get a real feel for anyone under those circumstances, and a face-to-face meeting, non-committal in nature, where each person can feel the other out and get a sense of what he's like, is (to my way of thinking) essential. It helps separate the wheat from the chaff, the purely-masturbating from the seriously interested, the fantasizing-but-going-to-freak-out from the thought-this-through-and-am-committed. That is, if those things are important.

They are not all BB (either here or in Europe). Mares select whether they wish to wear a white hood (signifying that they are only to be mounted with a condom) or a red hood (signifying they are willing to be barebacked - although tops have the option to use a condom if they prefer). It is true that most mares select red hoods. It's also true that most tops seem to prefer mounting bareback, although there is some evidence that some tops like to start off with a condom so they don't ejaculate too quickly in the evening and have to "sit out" until they're able to get hard again. But the events are not "all BB" (either here or in Berlin) - that's the point of the hood coverings. I'll also note: a red-hooded mare may NOT, at least at the US events, decline a stallion mounting simply because he's wearing a condom. If he doesn't wish to be mounted any way but bareback, he can ask for the stallion to remove it, but if the stallion declines, the mare either accepts it or "goes on break" outside the stable/playspace.

The US events and the ones in Europe are similar, but differ in significant ways (this has been discussed extensively elsewhere and above in this discussion). They're run by separate organizations with different rules. Biggest difference: the ones in Europe make you apply to be a mare, and rather bluntly state they're going to reject you if you don't meet their (never really defined) standards, which they characterize as " you know". Based on all the evidence and testimony from participants, what they mean is if you're not the classic model type - lean to muscled, no significant body fat - you won't be accepted. Certainly not if you're a bear or otherwise non-circuit-body type. You have to submit a body photograph when applying for a ticket. The US parties, by contrast, don't ask what you look like, don't ask your stats, etc. They've experimented with a few different formats for selling tickets for mares, because they're always in much higher demand than stallion tickets; of late, the method has been a lottery drawing for mare spots, with additional drawings if and when more stallions get tickets, so that the proper ratio of stallions to mares (roughly 2 to 1) is maintained. When the parties started up again after Covid, they additionally have tried to focus on getting tickets to first-time mares, those who've never been to one of the parties before. There are a lot of things to complain about with respect to the US, but this is one where I think we take the blue ribbon.

I don't have a problem with first-person fiction at all. But there are topics that get created in there, routinely, that aren't fiction; they aren't even stories, but just discussion topics that otherwise belong in the General discussion section. I don't mean daily, but it's certainly a recurring problem - and I've seen topic after topic have to get moved from there to the general discussion area, which is work for the moderators. I think their job would be easier if the powers-that-be renamed that area consistent with the other fiction areas.

Another question ( more of a suggestion): Why is the "General Bareback Sex Stories" forum so labeled, when every other section for stories/fiction is clearly labeled, in ALL CAPS, as "FICTION"? I mean, we have: -Bug Chasing & Gift Giving FICTION -Chem Sex FICTION -Hardcore Fetish FICTION -Softcore Fetish FICTION -Fem Trans & Cross-Dressing FICTION -Straight & Bi FICTION But the broad, catchall category is simply "General Bareback Sex Stories". I see (and report) topics created there regularly that have nothing to do with fictional accounts of bareback sex, and it struck me that if the forum were named "General Bareback FICTION" instead, it might not attract posts from people thinking it's the place to tell "their story".

It would be easier to answer that broad a question if we had any idea of what you two are interested in. Without knowing your kinks, suggesting items for a playroom is impossible.

That's simply not true. You're making the assumption that a drug-resistant strain will still be stopped by PrEP (or by being undetectable). The entire point about drug-resistant strains is that the drugs to which they're resistant won't affect that strain. That means, in turn: the person with that strain can't be treated with that drug, AND anyone who's taking a form of PrEP or being treated for HIV with medications that include that resistant drug is at potential risk for infection. That's not to say that such a person is going to infect everyone he has sex with. It's to say that protection is not completely assured. PrEP is a powerful tool, but it's not an absolute, 100%, iron-clad guarantee against infection. It's pretty damned close, but if PrEP (in a particular case) consists of drugs A and B, and Joe has a strain of HIV that has become resistant to treatment by A and B, then that PrEP may not protect people with whom he has sex. Mind you, there aren't very many strains of HIV that are drug resistant and even fewer that are resistant to more than one medication. That's why PrEP will continue to be effective for MOST people even in these cases, and why undetectable people (whose medications typically consist of at least three components) are even more likely to be protected from a super-infection. But blanket statements of "won't transmit to you" and the like don't belong in discussions of risk. I suspect what your specialist said and meant was that a guy who simply has a high VL can't harm you as long as you remain undetectable - which is, broadly speaking, true. It's not like him having a high VL is going to be too much for your treatment regime to fight off. But if that high VL is drug-resistant to one or more of the meds you're using in treatment, the calculus changes. It may be that the other drugs in your treatment regime (since there are typically 3 or 4 in each pill) will be sufficient to keep you undetectable even if one of the three is rendered ineffective because you've acquired a strain resistant to one of your meds. But that's not a guarantee. What's keeping this from being a big problem, for now, is that drug-resistant strains are still relatively uncommon in this country.

Tops are hard to find in most places. That doesn't make them worth sacrificing your desires completely. To continue my thread of what if's: What if the top demands to fist you first? What if the top demands you smear yourself with his feces first? I mean, there has to be a line, somewhere, that you would absolutely draw no matter what; the question I have is - why are you drawing it well past the point where you want it to be?

Again, these are tops who don't have your best interests at heart. Screw them (not literally). Seriously, what if it was "If you don't smoke meth with me first I'm leaving." or "If you don't shoot up smack with me beforehand, I'm leaving." At what point do you say "You know, your dick isn't the fountain of life and your cum isn't some miraculous potion that cures cancer. I'll find another, thanks."

Any top who expects you to use a mind/mood - altering substance when you don't want to is not a top who has your best interests in mind. I realize some "subs" think they have no agency in matters like this, but that's bullshit. If you don't want them around, as @Hairypiglet noted, let the top bring his own. And make sure he doesn't spill them.

That's not quite the case. As you yourself note, it's increasingly difficult to "accidentally" encounter tops who are poz and infectious, given how many are on HIV treatment and thus undetectable. The propensity for the majority of HIV in the U.S. to be managed and undetectable - at least in certain communities - and the widespread availability of PrEP means that new infection rates in the U.S. are dropping. From 2015 to 2019 annual new cases dropped by 8%, and while numbers post-2019 aren't available, I suspect that Covid restrictions probably lowered that rate even further, but we won't know for sure. All of which is to say that someone who has unprotected sex but who is not on PrEP is not "only a matter of time" before getting pozzed; if it were, all the chasers out there who've been chasing for years would have gotten it done. It's POSSIBLE he might get pozzed, but the odds are improving that he won't. (And they'll improve to near-certainty if he goes on PrEP, as you noted).

Actually, I'm not entirely sure when I was infected. I did, however, get my *diagnosis* while a member of BZ. It's entirely possible that the infection was from before I joined. No need for apologies, however.

This is certainly true from a physical standpoint - there isn't any chemical in poppers that can, on its own, cause addiction the way opiates can, or alcohol, or tobacco. But from a psychological standpoint, almost anything can become an addiction, where you can't do without "x" and still remain functional. That can be a behavior, a food, food in general, a drug that's otherwise non-addictive, or whatever. I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but I think there's been a little research - not enough - into addiction of this sort being possibly heritable. For that reason, I would suggest his family trend towards addiction might manifest itself with something other than a physically addictive substance. Hence, good advice on staying away from a lifestyle that could lead him to other addictions.

It's probably true that a lot of gay men use poppers. But that's not an indication that you need to, or should, in any way, shape, or form. Fuck the guy who tried to shame you for not using them - it's no skin off his back if you don't, and it would instantly make me suspicious he hoped to use the "high" they produce to trick you into accepting something that was otherwise off the table, or that he wasn't going to ask you about. I'm 57 years old, and I used them a couple of times in my early 20's because a top with whom I played insisted they would make the experience immensely better. All they did for me was give me a headache, and frankly, I've never had trouble bottoming even not using poppers. I'm sure there are some - a few - bottoms out there who can't do the deed without them, but honestly, most men probably pass fecal matter that's larger than any cock they're getting on a regular basis, so I call bullshit on that excuse for most guys. I'm all for people enjoying sex in whatever state they best like it, but I for one prefer a mind firmly present in the here and now, for both me and my partner. I used to drink a moderate amount in social situations, but I've even quit that mostly, because I just don't need it and I notice how annoying most people who've had more than a couple of drinks get. Like you, I come from a family with some history of addiction, so I'm doubly cautious for that. In sum: do what YOU feel comfortable with, not what other people are trying to make you comfortable with. Kudos to your BF and his friends for not pushing you to drink or smoke weed - it seems like they grasp the concept of "to each his own."

But the difference is, if you take PrEP, you can stop if you know you're going to be sexually inactive for a while, for whatever reason. If, like many men, your sex drive wanes as you get older, you may find that it's not worth pursuing sex any longer (or outside sex, if you're in a relationship) and thus PrEP is overkill for your risk level. And you can use the "on demand" PrEP - which you have promoted many times - so as to limit its impact on your physiology. Once you need treatment for HIV, though, it's a lifetime. Maybe you'll get switched to a different med if your kidneys are impacted, but you're going to be on something forever, unless we someday get an actual cure.

As a highly educated professional myself (hopefully not humblebragging), I find that most of the people I meet socially, and thus may have an interest in/opportunity to play with, are others who have at least some higher ed and work in white-collar or professional occupations. That's not to say I am uninterested in service-occupation or blue-collar men - by any means - but I just don't encounter them as much in social settings. I'm not big on "hitting on" people in settings where I'm dealing with those people as a customer, because they're in a position where they might not feel free to firmly reject any advance. So most of the kink/[banned word] guys I've met and played with have been professionals and/or highly educated, kind of by default. It's also worth noting that while a lot can be done with some rope and a few other household implements, a lot of kink gear costs big $, and people who make more money are more likely to be able to afford that gear. I would not expect a barista, for instance, to own a closet of leather uniforms.

For the record, the criminality of transmitting HIV varies, sometimes dramatically, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Take anyone saying "it's a crime" with the appropriate grain of salt. There's no doubt "the gay thing" drove some of the HIV/AIDS hysteria for a long time. That said, it doesn't work the way you suggest, balancing fatality vs. ease of transmission. When a disease is easy to transmit casually, like Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2 is not a disease, it's the virus that causes the disease Covid-19, like HIV is the virus that causes AIDS, if left untreated), it's hard to criminalize transmission because transmission frequently, if not almost always, occurs with the infecting person not knowing he's infectious at the time. By all indications, a person with Covid-19 becomes non-contagious within about 10 days of developing symptoms - if you've gone 10 days since symptoms first onset and you haven't had a fever in 24 hours (without the use of meds to reduce it), then you're not contagious. Moreover, while there are certainly lasting effects for many people who've had Covid and recovered, those effects aren't fatal. A person with HIV that's untreated, by contrast, may well be able to spread HIV for years. Even in the early days of treatment (from AZT forward), treatments were more about keeping the patient alive than keeping him from being able to infect others. That's something that's only come about since the use of three-drug and four-drug cocktails and their ability to render the virus undetectable. And finally: Covid is treatable, and most people recover and no longer harbor the virus in their system, and they don't have to stay on treatment for any great length of time. An HIV infection is treatable, but you never "recover" from it and you never cease to harbor the virus in your system, and you have to stay on treatment indefinitely to survive (with the rare exceptions for long-term non-progressors). HIV may not be a death sentence any more, but it's a life sentence to treatment. SARS-CoV-2 is deadly for a small number of the people it infects, but if you survive, it's mostly in the past.

As of today, it appears you've made a grand total of 15 posts, which is (for better or worse) a drop in the bucket. You have to participate a lot more than that to move up to higher levels and gain the privileges (like sending DM's and reacting to posts) associated with those higher levels. FWIW: here's a screenshot of the badges you've earned thus far, and their explanations: As you can see, one is for finishing a week since you joined (which anyone who creates an account gets). One is for making your first post, and one is for making your 10th post - both good things, but not exactly noteworthy. One is for visiting daily for a week (great! keep it up) and one is for starting a new topic - which is also great. But those are still entry-level steps. When I first joined, the steps were different, but for a few years I had very limited posting ability. I didn't realize it because I didn't even try to post much. Then, suddenly one day, I got into a lengthy discussion with someone and hit a limit - which is when I learned they existed. So I started using my limited number of posts each day to respond when something intrigued me. I answered a few questions that people raised. And almost like magic, the more I participated each day, the broader my access got. If you stick with it, you should earn more badges soon - there's a one-month badge and a one-year badge, just for staying an active member that long. As you make more posts, you'll get badges for that, too, and your ability to post will expand accordingly.

Actually, Tumblr got rid of porn not so much due to legal challenges, but because the new corporate owners of the company (Yahoo!) wanted to position it as the next big thing social media thing, like Instagram, hoping to make it widely appealing to advertisers (which, of course, is where such sites make their money). What they didn't comprehend was that a huge portion of their base was the people who served up R+ to X rated content, and users deserted in droves (and traffic fell off a cliff) as soon as that happened. Yahoo! naively thought that the losses from people who wanted to share X pics would be far offset by others flocking to use the service and thus attract advertisers. The results can be seen in the company valuation. Yahoo! paid $1.1 billion (US dollars) for Tumblr in 2013. A substantial amount had already been written off as losses over the years, but eventually Verizon acquired Yahoo!, and then in 2019 sold Tumblr to Automattic (which also operates wordpress.com) for $3 million - less than 3/10ths of one percent of what Yahoo! paid for it six years earlier. As for the church vs. orgy thing: no doubt a lot of people would feel that way. Part of the problem is the special solicitude given to religion under our constitution. For two centuries +, it was understood that the government could neither favor religion nor disfavor it - general rules that apply to all entities should apply equally to religious and non-religious alike. But there's a radical-right viewpoint that *any* restriction on religion, no matter how broadly it applies elsewhere, is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, that viewpoint is gaining ground in US courts thanks to two decades of court-packing by the right.

Sex clubs aren't open everywhere yet. And in point of fact, quite a few shut down and may never reopen. I think the issue is that with the wide range of limiting actions taken in various jurisdictions, it's probably impossible to limit postings to places where they'd be legal. Bear in mind this is about commercial sex sites/parties; nothing's is stopping someone from posting a "Taking All Loads in My Hotel Room" in the Quick Connect section (other than common sense).

That's a reasonable distinction to make as well. Though I think if I made friends with someone who'd fucked me casually, and he continued to do so, I'd move him from the "fuckbuddy" category to the "friend with benefits" category.

I always thought that's what you called a "friend with benefits" - where the friendship was there, and sometimes there's sex and sometimes not. For me, a fuckbuddy is the opposite: it's someone you're a buddy with, but the only reason you get together is to fuck. Both concepts are fine, but I don't see a problem differentiating them.

No, it's not. As I mentioned, civil suits always involve proving one's case by a preponderance of the evidence. An accusation is simply not enough. And juries are generally wise enough that if they think it's a close case, but just barely in favor of the plaintiff, they may rule for the plaintiff, but they're not going to award excessive damages.

Again, I don't think you understand epidemiology. Why do you think during the early "lockdown" periods, people were still allowed to get out to do things where you came into contact with people, just limited numbers of them at a time, but not groups? It's because when a disease like Covid-19 is easy to spread airborne, through casual contact, having an infected person come in contact with ten people all at the same time in a room is far, far worse than if he comes into contact with ten people, one every day or every other day. Because the chances are that he'll realize he's infectious before he meets and infects all ten one-at-a-times; when they're all in close quarters at a sex party, they're all going to get it. And each one of them is then going to go on to infect several more, and so on. I believe - maybe I'm naive - that if someone realizes he's got COVID, he'd cease the revolving door until he recovers, so he's less likely to spread it nearly as widely.

I suppose it's possible he meant for you to text him as you were arriving so he'd have time to go get in place. After all, quite a few people are not eager to spend excessive time on their knees waiting "in case" someone actually contacts them and/or shows up. That's not what *I* would consider an "ETA", but that's my best guess.