BootmanLA

As I understand the studies that have been done, if you take doxycycline at the doses recommend for treating active infections, it can indeed impact some (though not all) of the bacteria normally present in the digestive tract. When taken at lower doses - which may or may not be what is prescribed off-label for prophylactic use - the changes were less dramatic. See, for instance, [think before following links] https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e035677 for a summation of studies of various antibiotics and their effect on bacteria in the human gut. But in general: yes, this is another concern with overuse of antibiotics prophylactically.

I assume you're familiar with the concept of edging - when someone masturbates until he's close to orgasm, then stops until he's "backed down" from the edge of orgasm, then starts up again. Doing it to someone else is even more intense, especially if he's restrained in such a way that he has no control over the edging. That's the closest thing I can come up with to describe one of the reasons darkrooms/blindfolds are so appealing to some people. With seeing comes control - if you can see the guy who's trying to fuck you in the dark, you might reject him. The darkness takes away that control, just like being edged by someone deprives you of control over your orgasm. When you're in a dark room and you have no idea who's fucking, you also can imagine him to be anything you like. Once you see him, that illusion is shattered. That's not to say that seeing is a bad thing. But sometimes NOT seeing is a hot alternative.

Your profile says nothing about where you are, so, no, no tips. What you can get a doctor in Mexico to prescribe is likely very different from what you can get a doctor in the U.S. to do. Antibiotic resistance is a serious concern, and most doctors are understandably reluctant to prescribe antibiotics for non-existent, "potential" future infections.

Mostly true. But the devil is in the details. You're on PrEP - great. Assuming you've not missed any doses in the month before you have sex with him, you're almost certainly good to go. If you have missed doses, you may want to wait until you've had a month of steady dosing. Or - double dose on the day you plan to have sex, then make absolutely sure you take a dose 24 and 48 hours after the double dose, as though you were on 2-1-1 scheduling (and then resume the daily doses after that). Secondly: PrEP-resistant HIV is rare, but it does exist. If you're really concerned about his med holidays having made his HIV PrEP-resistant, ask which med he was on before he stopped taking it, and compare the ingredients to what's in your PrEP prescription. If they're entirely different, it's probably not an issue (as any resistance would be to the meds he was taking, not yours). If there is overlap (PrEP typically contains 2 compounds, and most HIV treatments consist of three, sometimes four), then there's a small chance. Mind you, the odds are still heavily in your favor that (as timfreo notes) he can't poz you.

It may well be idiotic of Americans to, as you say, "lump everyone non-white into one category and call them people of color." I'm not defending that. But to the extent that we do this idiotic thing: Ted Cruz is not "mostly white" simply because one parent is (50% is not "mostly"). Under our admittedly (for the sake of this discussion) "idiotic" classifications, Cruz's father was absolutely a person of color. Ditto Geraldo Rivera, whose father was Puerto Rican, an ethnicity we "idiotic" Americans absolutely consider a person of color. And of course, I get the racism inherent in classifying only "pure" (insofar as people can tell) "white" people as authentically white, while recognizing anyone of mixed ancestry as a "person of color". It's unquestionably racist. But no more so than deciding that someone with one white grandparent is "white". Put another way: if it's illegitimate to call someone with one parent who was unquestionably black a "person of color" or "black" because of that ancestry, it's equally illegitimate to call someone with one unquestionably white parent a "white person". If you want to argue we're all, with few exceptions, rather a mixed lot, you won't get much argument here.

The only correction I'd note to your excellent post: in most of the states that did not expand Medicaid, "basic Medicaid" frequently doesn't cover most people who would need/use PrEP. For instance, in Texas, in addition to meeting the "low income" threshold, you must be one of the following: --Pregnant, or --Be responsible for a child 18 years of age or younger, or --Blind, or --Have a disability or a family member in your household with a disability. --Be 65 years of age or older. None of those applies to the vast majority of sexually active people, men or women, gay or bi or straight. And those are typical of the limits of non-expanded Medicaid. For the 12 states that have not expanded Medicaid, virtually none offer any benefits of use to an otherwise healthy working-age person.

Well, this is a tough one. Certainly no other species "divides" itself by race in terms of names, because no other species uses language (as we understand it), as we do, to describe things. So in one sense, you're absolutely right that no other species claim "race". But if you mean how WE look at other species: in science, "race" is essentially synonymous with "subspecies", although this usage is now rare given the disreputable uses for the word "race" in the last few centuries. If you look at scientific works from as recently as the 1960's or so, you'll see references to "race" in this context. And in this context, it's something like how we used to view race: an identifiable population, usually visually distinct, that nonetheless can successfully breed across the subspecies lines if the separate populations come in contact with each other, and where the offspring typically have features intermediate between those of the two parents. The reality is that there's "race" as it's been used in human history (which is a social construct used to divide and oppress, and which is a blight on humanity), and "race" in the sense of a broad bioethnic sense that's valid as long as one bears in mind that a significant number of people are descended from more than one such group, and thus it's impossible to use other than to describe one's ancestry in a general sense.

I'll also add: this is a reverse variation of the "one drop of black blood" that marked all mixed-race people in the US as "black", because you're suggesting that as long as someone in Central or South America has some white ancestry, they're white.

To make things clearer: No one would look at Ted Cruz's father and think of him as "white". Ted's grandfather on his father's side (Rafael) came from the Canary Islands - the population of which is heavily mixed with Spanish, Berber, Moroccan, and other ethnic strands blended together for centuries. He emigrated to Cuba in the early 20th century where his son, also named Rafael (Ted's father), was born. If you look at any photograph of his father, it's hard to see how Rafael Cruz would be classified as "white" by anyone with an understanding of how racial/ethnic categories were understood either at the time of his birth or even at the time of Ted's birth. Ted's mother, Eleanor, is where most of Ted's "whiteness" comes from, because she's about as white bread (mostly Irish) as they come. She was from Delaware, as I recall, and was the daughter of a DuPont company executive. Her family moved to Baton Rouge, LA, while she was a youngster and she grew up here, attending a socially prominent Catholic girl's high school. Somehow, after marrying and divorcing in Texas, she met Ted's father (also a divorcee, who worked in the oil industry) and married him, later giving birth to "Ted" (real name: Rafael Eduardo Cruz). He ditched his given names in favor of "Ted" (for whatever reason). That's not to say that his mother's Irish genetics are overwhelmed by his father's Canary-Cubano genetics. It IS to point out that Cruz doesn't just "happen to have" a Spanish name. (Also worth noting: Ted Cruz is vehemently anti-Communist but his father was jailed by the Battista regime in his youth for his work with the Cuban revolutionaries, and after his college career he advocated strongly for the new Castro regime - only changing his tune when Castro seized some of his relatives' property. And Ted Cruz is also vehemently anti-illegal immigration, but his father only got a student visa to the US by bribing officials to get an exit permit. Apparently with the Cruz family what's good/bad, right/wrong vary depending on whether a Cruz is benefiting or being harmed.) Also: Geraldo Rivera is also very much not just someone who "happens to have a Spanish name". His father was Puerto Rican; his mother a Russian Jew. His actual name is "Gerald", not "Geraldo"; he changed it when TV producers felt he was more marketable as an identifiable Latino, even though his family had done as much as they could to hide their ethnicity as he was growing up. Names are often more complex than we give them credit for.

I think the contempt you feel for those less fortunate than you are shines through loudly and clearly here. You can deflect by calling it "virtue signaling", but I'm not sure what you would call advocating for a system where if you're poor and can't afford health care, you die. And I love how people use "meritocracy" to mean "people who have more money than others", as though more wealth automatically means a better person. Some of the shittiest human beings I know are exceptionally rich materially, through no effort whatsoever of their own other than being born to wealthy parents, who themselves were born to wealthy parents. And best of all is the attribution of "stupidity" to people who disagree with any of these positions you've taken.

Bear in mind that if the story involves "knocking someone up", it belongs in the Backroom pozing fiction section, not here in the porn discussion forum (which is for discussing porn video and related topics).

I'd like to point out that this is the help and tips section, where we can raise questions about what is permitted where, hence the op's query about whether there is too much incest discussed on this site. There are extant topics in the general discussion area about incest experiences and that's where you should discuss what you've done (within the site's policies), not here.

It almost certainly won't be "one and done", but I don't think that's a big deal, as long as it's a reasonably priced vaccine. If I were HIV-negative I'd happily pay a $25 copay every year to get an HIV vaccine booster. I get a flu vaccine shot every year as it is, and I've got a feeling we'll need Covid boosters for years.

Lyndon Johnson once observed to Bill Moyers, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." The Hispanic people you're talking about lump themselves into that "lowest white man" group to avoid being tagged as a person of color. Considerable numbers of Hispanics (especially Cubans) and Asians figure they're better off throwing in their lot with the white majority that looks down on them, rather than with the white minority that doesn't and which is allied with black people and other minorities who don't, in large measure because they think they'll benefit by association.

As they say.... Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Just to be clear: you're asking people on here to speculate, without any basis beyond "I heard", on the health status of prominent people? I thought this was Breeding Zone, not Teen Idol Gossip.

Have you checked dumpsters and trash heaps?

If you can't define what that "certain aspect" includes, then your point is useless. But I'm more curious as to why you think this. The "entire society" is responsible (via our laws, legal system, regulations, etc.) for providing clean air and water as essentials for life. We don't tell the people who live downstream from a chemical plant that they're responsible for taxing themselves enough to keep the chemical plant under control. The U.S., unlike Canada, primarily uses the private sector as a means of paying for health care. Result: despite spending more than twice per capita what Canada does, we have somewhere around 10% of our population with no coverage whatsoever, and with a considerable number of the rest getting substandard - that is, far below the level you get in Canada - care. Join the club. We had just as strict a lockdown early on, and longer ones in many places, and that, too, was to protect our health care system. So our private system fared no better than your universal one, AND it fails to deliver care to millions on top of that. The idea that you consider health care a "luxury of life" tells me all I need to know about your outlook, and it's not a pretty picture.

Yes, you're missing something (a lot of somethings, actually), and unlike Cosmaz above, I'm willing to spell them out for you. 1. It's probably true that relative to the overall population in the world, or in the US, or even just among gay men, gifters and chasers are a relatively small community (though I would not say "miniscule". That said, there are plenty of them who are not on this site. 2. You find it "hard to believe" there are lots of guys who are negative but not on PrEP. You live in Canada, a place which has universal health care. Until this year's determination in the U.S. that PrEP is a recommended preventative measure (and thus must be covered without copay by insurance under the terms of the ACA), many insurance companies did not cover PrEP, and those that did frequently had a large copay (sometimes hundreds of dollars per month). And of course, there are still plenty of people in the United States who (a) live in places where the state has not expanded Medicaid and (b) they make too much for traditional Medicaid, and (c) work for an employer who doesn't offer health benefits or who has them priced so high they're not affordable. Millions of people in the United States still lack any health insurance coverage at all - somewhere between 25 and 30 million people, the vast majority of whom are adults. If we guess that 5% of those are LGBT people (I'd wager it's higher, as we tend to be overrepresented in marginal occupations in the service industry) - that would still be over a million LGBT people at a minimum with no insurance coverage. Those people are far less likely to be on PrEP strictly due to cost concerns. Your Canada-induced myopia is perhaps keeping you from seeing what your large neighbor to the south experiences. Beyond that, a certain number of people prefer condoms over bareback sex, even PrEP-protected bareback sex, because condoms offer additional protection to other STI's. Not to all of them, and not in every case, but still - it's their call to make and they make it that way. What you or I or anyone else thinks about the desirability of bareback sex over condom sex, a lot of people are still making that decision every day. And beyond THAT - if an undetectable-poz top bareback fucks a bottom who's not on PrEP, he's almost certainly not going to infect the bottom. That means that in sharp contrast from our community experience in the 1990s - where fucking assorted guys bareback was almost a guarantee towards getting pozzed, eventually - in 2021 as long as one of the two participants is undetectable OR on PrEP, the chances of transmission are negligible. While I think it's still crazy to roll the dice that way, the odds of getting pozzed have gone way, way down (as evidenced by the frustration of so many chasers on this site). 3. Once a person recovers from the initial "fuck flu" - if he experiences that - health complications from HIV take a pretty long time to develop for most guys. Some don't want even the minor complications that HIV treatment regimens can produce. And even in later stages of infection, when HIV begins multiplying rapidly in the system, opting into treatment at that point is frequently successful at reversing the effects of years of not being treated, although such a patient has fewer options for "med holidays". So yes, it's entirely possible to believe some people would rather wait until it's absolutely necessary to begin treatment. Beyond that, there are some guys who figure "Live hard, die young" and take that seriously - they don't want to be 80 years old with joint problems, unable to walk up a flight of stairs and unable to remember what they had for lunch yesterday. They would rather live a shorter but fuller life, and that's their choice to make. 4. What *you* believe is "criminal" and what actually *is* criminal are highly likely to be two different things, so let's make sure we define our terms. Canadian law - which covers where you are - is somewhat murky in that exposure to HIV is covered under general sexual assault law. "Criminal exposure to HIV" is defined as a "realistic possibility of transmission" of HIV during sexual intercourse. "Realistic possibility" is not spelled out in Canadian statutes, but the Supreme Court of Canada has held that it does not include sex with a condom OR sex where the infected person has a sufficiently low viral load. There are proposals floating around that would codify "no realistic possibility of transmission" to cover four situations: when the infected person is undetectable, when condoms are used, when the non-infected person is on PrEP, or when the particular sex act (e.g. oral sex) is itself very low-risk - but those proposals haven't been adopted into legislation yet. In some (not all) jurisdictions in the United States, by contrast, you have 50 different sets of laws, because this is a state, not federal, matter, and while the laws in one state may resemble those in another, none are identical. In some states there is no specific criminal provision at all. Now, if you mean "morally wrong" and not "criminal", that's a different kettle of fish entirely. But in that case, you shouldn't use words like "criminal" that have a very specific meaning, especially not tossed around willy-nilly with no understanding of what is actually criminal and what isn't.

Oh boy. This is a can of worms if ever I saw one. Let me preface by saying I understand the issue with the previous roommate - when you live with someone who's negative all the time, especially if they hold you accountable for it, there's just no way to even relax at home. That said: unless you're an Oscar-worthy actor, this potential roommate is likely to figure out you're ogling him, sooner or later, and that could go bad really, really fast. There are guys (both gay and straight) who don't mind being ogled as eye candy, but even so, they might well get tired of it from a roommate, particularly one who controls the lease. There's a whiff of exploitation there - the same kind of thinking that led, say, Donald Trump to hire an endless stream of bleached blond big-boobed women to work in public-facing roles. If he notices you're "looking" at him, it won't take much for him to wonder if you're, say, listening to him when he's got someone staying over for sex, or whatever. I'm not saying you shouldn't look for the kind of roommate you want - just be aware it's not so much "hoping for a fantasy" as it is "planning to live life balanced on a tightrope".

I'd advise some rethinking on this. As someone noted above, four bottoms is a LOT of bottoms for something like this. Assuming you want each one to get bred by at least three guys, that's 12 tops you need to find, and while NYC is obviously a huge city, it's also famous for guys not wanting to travel more than a subway stop or two for sex. If you want the real "gang bang" experience, where a guy takes on multiple tops to the point where he's really sore from the experience, I think this plan has a high likelihood of ending with a LOT of disappointment.

I'm not sure why you think working in a sex shop or sleazy motel would give you more time to have sex, unless you're planning to be having sex while on the clock supposedly doing other things. Given how leanly such places are staffed, I'm fairly certain most employers would be distressed to learn that, say, their desk clerk (often one of the only people on duty in the late evenings) is abandoning the desk to go suck off a guest. And frankly, if you define sex worker as "someone who's getting paid for sex", and you're slipping out from your regular job to have sex, then you are, by definition, a sex worker. It's just that it's your regular employer paying you for the sex you're having, rather than the guy you're having sex with. If you're talking about hanging around after work for it: you could do that anyway, right? Even if you had some other, non-sex-related job.

I certainly am not in a position to advise you "yes or no" on that, but I will say it's good that you're aware of this potentially turbulent situation. What I would do, if *I* were in your situation, is talk with them - individually, and together - about what they see happening in the relationship, what they want from it and from you, and what they think they can bring to this "enhanced" relationship. And then I'd listen very closely to their responses. For instance, try to get a feel for whether the older guy is looking for an ally in his "management" of his partner, or is looking for someone less volatile to enjoy doing certain things with (in or out of bed). Is the younger one looking for a partner who WON'T be "managing" him? In other words, there's a chance each is looking for a new partner that will be "different" in some ways from the partner he has; that's ok on its face, but if the issues where they want "different from what they have" are the same, and one expects you to be X and the other expects you to be Y, that's a potential disaster in the making.

I'd personally think it was really contrived.

Not necessarily, or we wouldn't have a need for phrases like "high functioning addict" (or "high functioning alcoholic", for when the addiction is alcohol). Addiction can be defined (in plain English) as "a compulsive, chronic, physiological or psychological need for a habit-forming substance, behavior, or activity having harmful physical, psychological, or social effects and typically causing well-defined symptoms upon withdrawal or abstinence." In psychological terms, it's defined as "a biopsychosocial disorder characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli despite adverse consequences" (for those who follow the "brain disease" model of addiction. Going by the plain English definition, there are several elements: -the need (whether it's compulsive, chronic, physiological, or psychological); -for something (substance, behavior, or activity); -that is habit-forming; -that has harmful effects (whether those are physical, psychological, or social effects); and -typically causing well-defined (ie predictable) symptoms when you stop the substance, behavior, or activity. Under this model, certainly, "sex addiction" is possible - if you regularly feel the need for sex, AND indulging in it has a harmful effect (like, say, you lose your job because you keep missing work to hook up, or you've been dumped by partners in the past because you can't stop having sex with other people), AND you have issues when you try to do without - like, say, getting highly irritable, breaking off otherwise good relationships with friends because you're in a shitty mood from not getting sex, etc. But based on most of what I'm seeing posted here, I don't think most of you are "sex addicts". You may be hypersexual, and that's fine, but I've never known an addict (to anything) who was self-aware enough to recognize his addiction and actually bragged about it.