BootmanLA

Fair. I forget sometimes that most people have had exactly zero coursework in logic and don't realize that the opposite of "good" is "not good", not "bad". "Not good" could and should cover a wide range of possibilities. That's why I hate almost every discussion topic that has the word "Should" in it, like "Should a bottom do X". Aside from the binary option, it's also typically mostly a pissing contest to see who can think up the most extreme thing that "real" bottoms should do, whereupon of course the usual cast of competitive characters all come forward to say of course they do that, they're lowly bottoms who must do whatever, nothing matters about what they want, blah blah blah.

My guess is that it's one thing for an openly gay man in NYC, LA, SF, FTL, etc. to go to his doctor and ask for PrEP. It's another thing entirely if you live in a rural county in Mississippi, or Texas, or Alabama, or Wyoming, At least as of a few years ago, there were 35 counties in Texas (out of 254 total) that had ZERO physicians in the entire county, and quite a few others that had only one. While doctors and other health care professionals are bound by HIPAA not to disclose patient information, the reality is that in small towns, people gossip, and even if the fear of gossip is overblown, that can discourage people from seeking PrEP. Online services like MISTR, while not really a complete substitute for preventative care through a primary care physician, may be better than nothing.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment of "good" vs "ideal", but.... I don't think "good" and "bad" are binary, on/off, 1/0 type choices. In asking an opinion of something, I frequently use the construct "Good, bad, or indifferent?" to indicate the option for something that's okay, serviceable, but not really good or bad. But indeed, starting to pile on things like "3 or more orgasms in short succession", or limiting "good tops" to those who can meet A, B, C, D, E, F, and G through S, is restricting the designation "good" far too much. In my opinion.

It is indeed possible for a person to contract HIV but maintain a low viral load and good numbers of T-cells. They are called "Long Term Non-Progressors" (LTNPs) and while they exist, they are rare (fewer than 5% of HIV-positive people, possibly considerably fewer). That said, "Long Term" does not necessarily translate to "forever"; in most cases, there is a measurable but slow lowering of CD4 counts over time, such that if HIV infection occurred fairly young and those declines continue throughout life, ART may still become necessary eventually.

Is there a way to report a member's entire existence on this site? i.e. so that the moderators can block his access, then systematically remove his rules-violating posts, uploaded pictures, profile statements, and the like? Somehow someone got past the initial screenings and suddenly went apeshit on here. I suppose it's possible he was hacked, but I don't think so. However, there's no "Report" option I can find on the profile page.

At the risk of being pedantic, I'm going to reiterate here: "Sperm" are the little single-celled entities swimming their way from the testicles, through the vas deferens, and out the penis, all the way surrounded by semen or seminal fluid. "Semen" is the liquidy (more or less) substance you ejaculate, which may or may not contain sperm (a man who's had a vasectomy, for instance, may not have any sperm in his semen). And I sincerely doubt any of you could tell the difference between a man whose semen was teeming with sperm cells and one whose semen was devoid of them. So no, I don't think "sperm" has any critical essence whatsoever for gay sex. Semen, on the other hand...

Not only that, he's demanding that you trust him that he won't skip doses (deliberately or otherwise) just to knock you up. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't trust him, but it's clear he doesn't trust YOU, and frankly, if you did become poz and then he dumped you, you would be the one responsible for your health. So take responsibility for your health NOW.

I'm not questioning their containers. In fact, I recognize and commend their "If it has X, then it goes in 1, otherwise if it has Y, it goes in 2, otherwise..." approach. It allows a writer to determine, based on what elements he's going to include (eventually), to determine the proper forum for his story. In the absence of mandatory "tags" (visible before you open a topic/story), that's about as reasonable a solution as I can think of. My questioning isn't about the approach; it's about the logical construction it uses. As I read it, the "tree" of decision making reads "If it has pozzing/chasing content, it must go in 'Bug Chasing/Gift Giving', otherwise, if it has a hardcore fetish, it must go in 'Hardcore Fetish'". I'd fathom a guess - just a guess - that there are far more people on this site who are into fiction about poz/neg sex but NOT, say, fisting, as there are people who are into fisting but not poz/neg sex - which (if true) would suggest that the first test should be 'Does this cover hardcore fetish?', and if so, put it in that forum to start with, even if it also has poz/neg elements. Separately, I'd question your point about "straight sex shoved in their faces everywhere". Yes, straight *sexuality* (ie men ogling women, women dressing provocatively to appeal to men, models/ads aimed at enticing men) is commonplace. Straight SEX is not - as a gay OR straight man, you don't encounter people having straight sex on the streets, at least not where I live. You have to seek out actual depictions of straight sex, and the point is that when one is seeking depictions of *gay* sex, I'd imagine that the typical gay man has zero interest in women being involved. There's even a forum specifically for that kind of story, and if you planned to put straight/bi sex into your story, you could have easily begun the story there, instead of giving the moderator the job of splitting off your story.

I know bottoms in their 50's who could serve 3-4 tops on a regular basis. It's not an age thing. The problem is that the numbers don't support that; there are, in fact, more like 3-4 (or more) bottoms for every top, which is why so many tops have multiple bottoms they rotate among. It's also why many tops, even as they age and perhaps become, shall we say, "worn around the edges" still feel confident in seeking young, hotter bottoms, because bottoms usually learn that the number of guys who are in their age bracket, and hot, and top, is severely limited.

OK, so I (more or less) get the distinctions between the various fiction forums. For instance, I know that if there's straight or bi content, it goes in that forum; if it involves pozzing, it goes in the Backroom's Bug Chasing/Gift Giving fiction; if it's a softcore or hardcore fetish, it goes in that respective forum; if it's ordinary gay bb sex, it goes in the regular fiction section. What happens when a topic extends between two of the categories? My gut feeling says that in some respects, it's hierarchical - that it goes in the most restricted category into which it fits, and since the backroom is the only section where one can request "block me from seeing this", that's the hardest-core section. For instance, there's an ongoing storyline in the Bug Chasing/Gift Giving section that involves a considerable amount of watersports and fisting. But because it involves an attempt to poz convert a guy, it's where it is, even though the "ick" factor items would be enough to segregate it into the Hardcore fetishes section. And I'm not sure that's exactly the message this site otherwise seems to be conveying. It's unabashedly pro-Poz, reminding us that there's nothing to be ashamed of in being HIV-positive, and we're free to discuss poz-related issues in our lives in lots of places within the forum. But to read fiction about this means you have to accept the risk that your fiction is going to otherwise contain "icky" factor fetishes. Put another way, I can see where there would be guys who are into stories about piss or fisting, but squicked out about HIV, just like I can see there would be guys into stories about HIV, but squicked out about watersports or hands in asses. Stories that contain elements of both, then, have to fall into one group or the other (it's just not practical to have separate fora for HIV with hardcore, HIV without hardcore, BB with hardcore, BB without hardcore, etc.). I just am not sure why, on a site that celebrates barebacking and encourages open discussion of HIV-related issues, that area of fiction has to accept intrusions of unrelated hardcore fetish (ones that the site otherwise normally segregates precisely because of the "ick" factor), instead of requiring that the "ick" factor fetish determines that such stories have to go in the Hardcore fetish forum (where visitors will accept that HIV stuff may "bleed over", so to speak). Thoughts?

Oh, they may be aberrant. I just don't think they're as uncommon as you might think. I think the politics of this country suggest otherwise.

Because they're into it for the cruelty. That shouldn't be hard to understand. They wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly so much if they'd ghosted someone from down the street or across town. There are assholes out there who actually *live* for the opportunity to con someone like that.

I would react with the "Laughing uncontrollably" emoji but that, according to RawTop, gives the reacted-to member a point towards reputation and I refuse. The idea that both the parties in this country are basically the same is insanely uninformed. Only if you look at one or two small aspects of the political spectrum - for instance, that both parties expend a large amount of money on elections - is there any congruence whatsoever between the positions they take and what they advocate for. But I do commend people who are so spectacularly uninformed for not voting.

Which is why, on this site, discussion of chasing HIV is permitted, but encouraging/glorifying progression to AIDS is not - a decision with which I heartily agree.

Certainly NOT to downplay any sexual assault on someone unable to legally consent, but I read most of the "I was opened up by my uncle and my dad and my grandfather and my four older brothers" stories with enough salt to offset a decade's worth of hypertension meds.

Here's where I think he's going to have difficulty with a legal case. 1. Presumably, at the time he signed the contract, he was not intoxicated and able to consent to being filmed and specifically to be filmed having sex. 2. Apparently - based on what I've read here, which I realize is not from the horse's mouth and thus involves some assumptions - he chose to go under the influence of something - alcohol or other drugs - that may have impaired his perceptions - such that he didn't feel he could withdraw consent. It's the interaction of those two choices he made which will likely limit his options, particularly since it's been ten years since the incident. Most torts - a wrongful act that leads to civil liability - have a corresponding statute of limitations, limiting your ability to file suit based on that tort to a certain period of time after the tort occurs (or after you discover it). So the question would be, what type of tort was committed? For instance, if he were to allege a personal injury tort (ie a physical injury), the statute of limitations lapsed two years after the filming date, because that's the date on which the injury occurred. At best, he could claim he was so intoxicated he didn't know the extent of the injury until he saw the video, but a judge might look askance at an "injury" so serious that it justifies suing over, but of which the victim was nonetheless unaware for ten years. If he were to allege a violation of the contract, the problem there is that (written) contract violations have a 4-year statute of limitations, and I think he'd have even more trouble proving a violation of a contract from that far back, that he could claim to be unaware of until he'd seen the video. There would have to have been some clause in the contract, for instance, that forbids the studio from filming or continuing to film if your friend was under the influence, but it's highly unlikely the studio would put that in (studios draft the contracts to protect themselves, and that provision would do the opposite). In other words, waiting this long is likely a huge problem for legal compensation. And even if he could allege some circumstances that called for tolling (that is, extending) the statute of limitations, he's still up against the problem that he signed the contract in good faith while sober, and then (again, apparently, I'm assuming) chose to be non-sober at the time he carried out his obligations under the contract. Unlike, say, a date-rape type case, where a victim can say his or her consent to sex was never legitimately given because he or she was drunk or drugged, there's a contract in black and white here that says otherwise. And unless he was forcibly intoxicated by the actions of others, I'm guessing he's out of luck here. I'm not opining above on what SHOULD happen, by the way. But porn studios are not, in general, noted for beneficence. They are money-making enterprises in a highly competitive industry that faces formidable headwinds on the one side from regulators and moralists, and on the other from amateurs willing to give away for free what they're trying to sell. In an ideal world, approaching them about this video would be enough for them to restrict its distribution. But this is, clearly, not an ideal world.

Because the system is set up to protect them. That protection usually comes in one of two ways: either the abuser is personally connected to, and thus protected by, a network of the "old boys club" who look out for each other and turn the other way as long as it's possible (which used to be "forever"); or else the abuser is connected with a big-money sports operation (LSU football, Penn State football, women's Olympics gymnastics, OSU wrestling, etc.) and so ranks close around the abuser in order to protect the revenue streams. Because victims are shamed when they come forward - the same cops that asked women "what were you wearing when you were 'raped'?" to imply they were asking for it (and thus discouraged women from reporting it) are the ones investigating this kind of abuse - with the added implication that because you were asking for it, you must also be secretly gay, right?

The state can (possibly) forbid the *production* of condomless porn under workplace health rules, but it can't forbid the sale or distribution of condomless porn, once it's already made. So if it's still being made, clearly there's at least some market for it, enough to sustain it. Because if, as you seem to suggest, people always prefer condomless over condom porn and only accept the condom variety reluctantly, then porn produced in other places, where condoms aren't required, would quickly put the condom studios out of business. The cost to send high-def video files around the world for distribution is so low that there's not even an advantage in distribution costs to "go local".

Not saying the ability to message mods (at any stage of membership) is a bad idea. But what do you mean by "verify with you"?

I don't think it's a case of the viewers wanting condom porn (though there are certainly some) as much as it's performers wanting to avoid various STI's, up to and including HIV. It's not that it's a perfect protection system, but if you really don't want to be picking up syphilis or gonorrhea or whatever, a condom does offer some protection. Also bear in mind that a lot of porn exists from the days before PrEP and the sex video industry felt obligated to model responsible behavior lest local governments impose such draconian rules that filming would become impossible.

You have a good friend in that roommate.

March, 2015

Indeed. The architects of that travesty of circumventing judicial review, Texas's law that allows private citizens to become bounty hunters to enforce an otherwise unconstitutional ban on abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy, have made it clear that if they succeed, they plan to come after the ban on states criminalizing consensual private sodomy and requiring the recognition of same-sex marriages.

It is not simply a function of time. It's a combination of time, number of posts, number of reactions your posts have gotten (you advance for upvotes, regress for downvotes), the number of different forums in which you post - a number of things go into proving your commitment to interacting here that gradually lengthen your leash, so to speak. And the "short leash" IS relative. You might initially be able to only make 10 posts in a day, for instance, and not be able to send private messages or react to posts. After X number of posts, you may be able to post 15 or 20 posts in a day. After Y number of posts, you can post 25 times in a day and react to 10 of other people's posts. And so on. The idea is to keep bad actors under control, in particular with messaging (because that clutters up private message boxes) and reactions (because reaction votes affect other users' reputation scores in the system here). Two months, in the scheme of things, is a pittance. If two months were sufficient to get past the restrictions, all spammers would have to do is create a bunch of accounts, have them lie dormant for a set period, and then use them to pounce. The reason the details aren't revealed - how many of X and Y and Z move you to a higher level - is to avoid those people gaming the system. That said, it's the system that is in place. If you really do enjoy the forums, then keep participating and your restrictions will lessen automatically.

I'd note that Gilead produces multiple single-pill HIV treatment meds, not just Biktarvy, and Expanding Access covers access to most or all of them. That said, when evaluating you for their program, they're likely to try to push you into one of the government sponsored programs I mentioned (because that means they're not eating the entire cost). Expanding Access typically only covers full cost IF the patient really has no workable options for insurance, although it does offer a copay waiver for those who do have insurance that requires a copay. In my case, for instance, Blue Cross covers up to $2,500 a month for my HIV meds, which leaves a copay of a couple hundred dollars. While I could cover that if I had to, Expanding Access deemed me qualified for the copay assistance so my HIV medication is essentially free (though my Blue Cross premium is substantial).