BootmanLA

On the flip side: good studio porn (and yes, it's not abundant) makes you feel like you're invisible, watching the sex going on, because the performers focus on each other. Far too much amateur porn is filled with self-conscious people who look over at the camera(s) every ten seconds. I don't WANT to feel like the participants are watching me watch them. I want them focused on each other, making the sex hot, not constantly seeking validation from the camera.

I wouldn't worry much at all. For starters, sex work has been around since the beginnings of recorded history. It always finds a way. Secondly, OF is not the only site of its type out there. There's JustForFans, for one, which I believe is owned and operated by sex workers FOR sex workers. There's one called 4my.fans, which I don't know a lot about, but which may (or may not) be more oriented toward full-time sex workers. I'm not saying it's a good thing this is happening - just that efforts to ban sex work always, inevitably, fail. Site note: I remember reading several years ago about a scientist who taught capuchin monkeys the rudiments of money, using small silver disks with a center hole as "currency". They were given a small number of these disks on a regular basis, which they could exchange for a treat, like a grape. The monkeys independently learned to budget (not turning in all their tokens at once, so they'd have more for treats later); they learned that if the "price" of something went down, they should "buy" more while it was cheap, and buy less when the price went up; and so forth. Then, completely independently, some of the female monkeys started resisting sexual advances from the males unless the males forked over one of the tokens first. Apparently at some level, once primates (these, at least) figured out the concept of buying things, sex becomes one of the first things to hit the market.

So... you're saying if you have to pay for a bunch of sites, it adds up, but.... here's a bunch of other sites that you get plenty from without having to pay, so there's no cost there, either. Where exactly are all these sites that you have to pay extra for that add up to so much? I agree you get more from, say, Adam4Adam - as in lots, lots more spam, fake profiles, junk messages, etc.

Please do not assume that you know anything about my "personal situation". Though I do appreciate you acknowledging that I am right (and that so are the doctors I'm mentioning). In reviewing the link you so helpfully provided, it notes that THE (not "a") recommended way to use PrEP is daily. It acknowledges that people CAN use it in the "on demand" manner - as a throwaway comment, with no detail as to how one should do that. I am not suggesting that gay men do not, or should not, use the on-demand PrEP option. I have made it clear that it's harder to stick to a non-standard routine than a standardized daily one - taking a pill every day, especially in conjunction with a daily activity like a meal is easier to remember than planning ahead of every time one might have sex, avoiding sex long enough in a "spur of the moment" situation if the medication was taken too recently, remembering what time you have to take the follow-up doses to maximize their impact after sex, etc. But speaking factually: --It undoubtedly works most of the time, but there are multiple potential points of failure with the on-demand method; --It has been studied, but not nearly as extensively as daily dosing. That's all I'm saying. Some people seem determined to cast that as "he's saying on-demand doesn't work", while others seem determined to keep popping up and saying "PrEP fails all the time". To both groups I say: read the literature, examine the data, and stop with the bullshit.

So the best you can do is a post from more than ten years ago, long before the rule in question was adopted? When the adoption of the rule made it clear that older content violating the new rule might take a while to clear? Lordy. In any event, reading through the post, it refers to stealthing, which is not "promoting AIDS". Stealthing results in becoming HIV positive - a condition which, though at this time permanent, is treatable and manageable and need never progress to AIDS - which is a disease resulting from untreated HIV infection. You really ought to educate yourself better about the difference between the two. It's expressly permissible, on Breeding Zone, to eroticize HIV infection. What's prohibited is fetishizing or eroticizing progression to AIDS.

Funny how that works in an era when people employ adblockers to deprive websites of the only other significant revenue source they have. I mean, realistically: It's $6/month for the most expensive option. If you pay by the year, it's $5/month. As I understand it, that's less than the average cost of a cocktail in NYC. For people who seem to think sex is so very important, an awful lot of people seem unwilling to spend even the slightest pittance on helping find better access to it.

This is not an official statement of anything, but... I've gotten word in the last hour-ish that essentially all the *official* Southern Decadence events have been canceled thanks to Covid. That doesn't mean the bars will be closed, but the parade, the big dick contest, and most other organized events are very possibly "off". Again, there's no official statement out yet, but I'm not surprised if it's true.

Not my style, no.

Something to bear in mind: people bullshit on Grindr and like apps All.The.Time. For many, it's purely a means of gathering masturbation material to fill the imagination with things the guy would never do in actual life. Not saying that's the case here - you know him, I don't - but it's entirely possible most of the nasty messages he's sent out are pure fiction. Of course, if there are messages *to* him that reference things that have been done *to* him, that's more confirmatory.

When navel-gazing, navels seem enormous.

Incorrect. In fact, fetishizing progressing to AIDS is *expressly* prohibited on this site, as per rules announced months ago by the site's owner.

You can, yes, if you are a shitty human being willing to put others at risk in pursuit of a particular orgasm.

From what I have been able to find after a quick scan of available research, Truvada (and its generics) do not *appear* to interfere with each other's effectiveness. Instead, it appears that a more likely result is *increasing* the levels of both medications in your system. See: [think before following links] https://www.drugs.com/drug-interactions/metformin-with-truvada-1573-0-971-1696.html However: I would note that each one, separately, CAN impact kidney function. Taken together, they may accelerate a decline in kidney function - but a good doctor will be monitoring kidney function on both accounts (for prescribing/maintaining PrEP, AND for treatment of diabetes), so he or she should note any change quickly. If by chance you have different doctors prescribing the two medications, make sure each is aware of the other; the doctor handling your diabetes care may find that a different medication will do the job as effectively and with less chance of kidney damage. (It's possible that this impact on kidney function is what results in the increased levels of both drugs, as it's the kidneys that remove a lot of stuff from your system.)

The extent to which I "know" the only moderator from Louisiana (that I'm aware of) is from this site. We have never met, we have never spoken, we have only corresponded on here regarding rules & infractions. Perhaps you are unaware that where he lives (specified in his profile) and where I live (specified in mine) are about three hours apart by car? That's like saying you and some guy in Luxembourg must know each other because you live that close.

You're right, we're not going to agree, because you're comparing bacterial resistance to a treatment with retroviral resistance to a preventative. Different infections, different methods of dealing with them. You might as well talk about acetaminophen-resistant headaches.

Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say there were NO studies of on-demand PrEP. I said that it has not been studied AS EXTENSIVELY as daily PrEP - which has been subjected to an order of magnitude more trials and studies than "on demand". One "studie" [sic] does not mean that the two methods have been equally researched. I will also note that at least as of earlier this year, EVERY published study on "on-demand" PrEP only studied Truvada (and its generic equals), not Descovy (which is chemically different, and which is being prescribed in an increasing number of cases. I noted on-demand is "largely effective". That doesn't change the fact that it's not AS effective as daily, most likely because it's harder to adhere to a regimen that isn't part of a set routine. It's easier to get into a routine of taking a pill every day with breakfast, or lunch, or whenever, than it is to figure out you're going to have sex later and start taking it then - and then remember what time you had the sex so you can time the 24-hour and 48-hour post-sex doses properly. Let's face it: if a guy is kicking around his house on a Friday evening, bored with TV or whatever, and gets horny and decides to hit a bathhouse or sex club for some relief, he's not likely to take his pills and then sit and wait 2 hours before he goes off to have sex. Or if a buddy comes over on short notice and gets frisky, they're not likely to postpone sex for two hours while he waits for the pills he hurriedly swallowed to kick in. It's harder to manage - not impossible, but harder - and thus EVEN IF the two methods are equally effective, the fact that circumstances will likely render at least some "on demand" PrEP ineffective ought to be of concern. Especially for someone who's worried about PrEP-resistant HIV. The way to avoid developing a strain of HIV that is PrEP resistant is to stay on a level of medication that prevents HIV from taking hold, period, such that someone doesn't end up accidentally pozzed via mistiming of limited doses, assuming he's negative, and continuing to "on demand" his infection into something that PrEP can't resist (if and when he infects another person).

And at the same time, other members may - and sometimes/often do - decide to attack the member for overlooking something the "other member" thinks is important, rather than add to the discussion by contributing missing context. Especially when those other members mistakenly assume (sometimes perhaps because they're not native English speakers) that the OP's choice of words was not "acceptable" in the almighty, exalted opinion of the other user. That can be exacerbated when the other member is so intent on navel-gazing, assuming his own experiences (with, say, mental illness) are shared by the vast majority of other people.

I'm not saying it could never happen. In fact, I'm almost certain it will be. What I said (for the third time now) is that I don't anticipate it becoming a major problem, for the reasons given. How resistance develops in bacteria like gonorrhea is very different from how resistance develops in retroviruses like HIV.

Except "intermediately" [sic] PrEP is not an approved use of PrEP and while apparently *largely* effective, it has neither been studied as extensively as daily PrEP nor is it as easy to manage. For instance: it requires that the first, "double" dose be taken at least 2, but no more than 24, hours before sex. We all know of people who don't plan an hour ahead, much less 2. So if Johnny goes out and happens to meet Bob, and they're both horny and decide to get it on, chances are high they aren't going to wait 2 hours after Johnny takes his pills to get started. I have my doubts that in such a case, he's also going to remember the doses 24 and 48 hours after the sex (the timing of which is apparently considerably more important than daily PrEP because the level of medication in the system is not already at a protective level). Some doctors may advise off-label use like this, but every one I've asked has said, point blank, take it every day. It's probably better than nothing, but unless PrEP is inordinately expensive for the individual, he's *always* better off following the standard, approved daily regimen.

It's true that diabetes can be a serious problem for people's health, not least because of the effects it has on other organs in the body. I'd question whether it's "more dangerous" for the body (assuming both go untreated), but I'm willing to acknowledge that if nothing else, diabetes is more prevalent and thus affects more people (and if uncontrolled, probably would contribute to more deaths). That said, if I had insulin-dependent diabetes, I can't imagine wanting to complicate that with chasing HIV unless I had a death wish.

Moreover, it was when single-pill HAART was in its infancy, and only a couple of drug combinations were available - and those weren't nearly as effective as today's treatments. I have no doubt that there are still some number (how many, I can't fathom to guess) real "chasers" out there. Based on this website you'd think they were everywhere, but I suspect quite a few are people who are turned on by the idea while not actually wanting to experience it directly.

"Should" is a question only you can answer, and anyone else who responds here with either "yes" or "no" is not you and can't make that call. Here are the basic facts, with which you can make that decision for yourself: 1. *IF* you want to remain HIV-negative, whether or not you decide to bareback, going on PrEP is a good idea, providing that you can adhere to taking the medication *every* *single* *day*. If you are the sort who forgets to take a dose of medication as directed, and you don't have some sort of way to force you to remember it (like a phone alarm reminder), then PrEP is probably not a good idea. In that case, if you want to remain HIV-negative, use condoms even if you also try to stay on PrEP. I assume you want to remain HIV-negative or you wouldn't be asking, but this is to clarify that if that if remaining negative is your goal, you have to commit to sticking with the medication. 2. Remember that PrEP, used alone, will only protect against HIV and not any other form of sexually transmitted infection (STI), such as syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and so forth. Those may also not be completely prevented by condoms, but they do offer at least some additional protection (at a cost of sensation, more for the top than the bottom, but still). That's basically all you need to make the decision for yourself, assuming that PrEP is readily accessible where you live.

Under new orders from the city administration, you must have proof of vaccination or a negative Covid-19 test within the past 72 hours to enter any bar, restaurant, gym, and most other indoor venues. Some places are taking a break from being open for business in order to properly implement those restrictions, so it's best to call ahead to any place you want to visit and see if they're open. As far as I know, there are no porn theaters in town at all. There are some adult "bookstores" and novelty shops but I don't personally know of any that allow, shall we say, "activity" on the premises. Why would they, when sex can be had so readily elsewhere?

I have no idea how many different guys you have sex with each day, week, month or year, Kimberly, nor do I particularly care. I still maintain that while PrEP resistance is a thing, and we need to be cognizant of it, it's not likely to become as big a problem as HIV was for the gay community at the start, for the multiple reasons I cited.

Therein lies a good example of what I was talking about in my previous reply to Close2MyBro. If what a member says is worth challenging, fine - challenge it. Telling the member to shut his trap hole is not challenging the ideas he's put forth; it's an insult to him and a direction to self-censor. If you can't challenge the information without attacking the user, and you can't read what he posts without feeling the need to attack, you're free to put that member on "Ignore" so you don't see his postings.