BootmanLA

I suspect that's because in the last year or so, as BBRT has cracked down on certain topics, quite a few people were kicked off that system and a lot more quit more or less in some sort of solidarity with them. Additionally, some people use(d) BBRT primarily for its "local party" and "quick connect" listings, most of which went bye-bye during Covid. Add those to the normal attrition rate and I think that largely covers it.

I didn't originate it, so I have no claim to it whatsoever! I think - as you apparently do - that it's a very useful reminder that this one incident or these couple of things I saw are not the equivalent of a rigorous study.

OK, here's real data: [think before following links] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC315530/ Per that article (which dates from 2004, thus before MOST of the current HAART regimens were developed, which are-broadly speaking-far less toxic and troublesome than early ones), even then only 25% of people failed to stay on HAART and achieve undetectability, and only SOME of those were due to the side effects. (Others dropped out because either their case was too advanced and they failed to achieve VL reduction, or because they had trouble adhering to the regimen for taking the medication. We're almost 20 years past that, with much better options, medication-wise. New innovations in treatment come out every year, and we know more and more about which combinations of medicines in the treatment are problematic for particular things, like kidney function. There is a phrase in the scientific community with which you should become familiar. It is " The plural of anecdote is not 'data'." Even with the study from 2004, 75% of people receiving treatment didn't have side effects (and I'd call that the vast majority), and the treatments have dramatically improved since then. So no, I'm not backing down from my statement that most people don't experience major side effects. You had a bad experience after diagnosis and initial treatment? Sorry about that. So did I. My doctor, who was quite properly monitoring everything in my system, having established a baseline for kidney function, blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol, and all that stuff when I was diagnosed, early on noticed an issue with an apparent shift in my kidneys and changed my medication immediately to a newer med that didn't impact kidney function - and mine returned to its previous range very quickly. When my blood sugar got out of control (a dietary issue, not a problem with the HIV meds), he consulted with the renal specialist to make sure any diabetes medication he put me on wouldn't bring back the kidney issues. That's how modern medicine is supposed to work. As for the rest of your garbage take on "everyone's experience is completely different from everyone else's" - the science speaks for itself. I frankly don't care whether you take meds or not - if you'd rather die from HIV/AIDS than prolong your life with medication, that's your choice to make. I just will continue to object to people spouting misinformation that somehow HIV treatment is toxic and worse than the disease. Because the jury is in on that one, and it's not even close.

You mention a problem getting PrEP through your current provider (do you mean your insurer, or your actual medical provider, ie doctor/clinic?). You should know that recent guidelines have been issued by the federal government that PrEP, as a preventative health care item recommended by the body that governs such things, MUST be covered by all health insurance companies, without co-pay. So if you have actual health insurance (whether employer/group or individual) it should be covered - and if they haven't in the past, they're going to have to. The feds recently gave all insurers notice that they had a very limited time to make this happen or they're in deep shit. If you have some sort of fake insurance - the kind of "promise-to-share-the-expenses-of-the-group" fake plan that religious groups frequently promote - it doesn't apply to them. When most people say "provider", they don't mean insurer, though - they mean the actual provider of the health care (the doctor, the clinic, the hospital, etc.). In other words, the people the insurer *pays* for providing health care. If your problem is with your doctor not wanting to prescribe it, find another doctor. It's not worth having a doctor who doesn't want to protect his patients' lives.

This is the best explanation I've seen, with the caveat that new strains can develop. [think before following links] https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-science/types-strains

Also: The only reason I didn't "react" with the "Haha" emoticon (because this is really a ludicrous, silly, inane, laughable take on reality) is that "haha" reactions give the user a reputation point, and I'm not about to let a piece of shit like this drivel enhance anyone's reputation.

Except your situation isn't similar at all, in the most important part. You told him up front (or at least, when you made that decision) that he would either have to have an open relationship or you'd break up. The asshole cheater, on the other hand, asked for an open relationship, didn't get it, and so is lying in order to keep the relationship going under false pretenses. YOU were honest with your partner. HE was/is not. THAT is the critical difference.

If the person described in the rest of this screed is supposed to be me, it's further proof of how delusional your fevered, incoherent mind is. Virtually nothing in it accurately describes me (or my experiences) at all, starting with this first line and proceeding to the end. Sad that you have to invent entire fantasy worlds in which to place your stick-figure caricatures in order to feel superior to them, instead of engaging the actual person or his posts.

While it isn't formally known by that name, "trickle down economics" is widely studied and promoted (under its more formal, ritzier-sounding name of "supply side economics") and was basically the economic policy of the US and many other countries from the beginning of the Reagan administration. In a nutshell, TDE posits that the best way to promote economic growth is to boost the "supply" side of the economic picture - that is, cut taxes and regulations on business so that there's money money on the "supply" side of the equation, which will then be used to boost production, hire more people, and so forth. It's called "trickle down" because the idea is that the money pumped into the "supply" side trickles down through the workplace to boost the economic prospects of workers, who will be making more and thus living better. Underlying this theory is the notion that the money has to be put to use somewhere - if the business has more money available, of course it will expand itself and pay better and so forth, right? That money won't do businesses any good just sitting in the bank, so they'll put it to productive use! What could be smarter? Unfortunately, that's not what the actual real-life experience has shown. The reality is that a business is only going to invest money into its operations if it feels like it will be a more productive use of the asset than, say, paying the owners higher wages or profits, or investing in overseas expansions that have lower operating costs, or whatever. And that, in part, is predicated on whether there's even demand for expanding the market for their product or services. If there isn't, any money pumped into the supply side there simply enriches the suppliers. And as we've seen over the last 40 years, for the most part middle and working class wages in the U.S. have stagnated in real terms, while the upper echelons of the economy acquired massive wealth. That wealth isn't "trickling down" anywhere; the rich are just buying fourth or fifth mansions, yachts that require a secondary supply yacht to actually operate, trips into space, or whatever. Demand-side economics suggests the opposite: if you can boost demand by enhancing the ability of consumers to buy, that money doesn't get hoarded like rich people's extra cash, but instead get spent - poorer families spend more on food so that kids don't go hungry, for instance. Or maybe the kid gets braces now instead of four years from now. Or, god forbid, they actually get to take a week of vacation somewhere, spending on some accommodations and food and entertainment for the first time in seven years. Whatever it's spent on, the point is that money pumped into the demand economy (again, through tax cuts, or direct transfers like the stimulus payments, or whatever) are much more likely to have economic impact than supply-side priming. Nonetheless, right-wing economists (of whom there are plenty) continue to spout supply-side/TDE as the solution to everything, and in the face of evidence that it hasn't worked, only double down and say the problem is that we didn't go far enough - that we shouldn't tax income at all, for instance, replacing income tax with a national sales tax; or that we should keep cutting regulations and let industry run rampant. Basically, supply-side/TDE has become a system for ensuring the poor stay poor and the rich get richer, because economic growth under supply-side economics always benefits those with the supply.

I've always said that you could take all the tact I possess, shove it into an olive and still have room for the pimiento. Tact is sometimes overrated. I'm not saying it's useless, but if 80% of respondents to a post are giving the tactful, comforting, and completely non-informative type of response (don't worry, it'll all be OK, you're probably fine, relax, blah blah blah) it's not out of place for someone else to ADD to that by saying "going forward, though, to keep yourself out of this kind of stress, here are some tips". You just chose to put a different spin on it because you're butt-hurt I call out cheating for the sleazy behavior it is.

If he's said that much, you could be right, OR it could be that it would only bother him if he had to think about it. It's possible that he can convince himself it's not going on as long as he doesn't know for sure - in which case you have to be reasonably careful not to let him find out. That can be difficult. Even if you don't volunteer the info, you can be put in the position of him asking questions ("I tried to reach you this afternoon but you never picked up. What were you doing?") or unintentionally interfering with your plans (You: I'm gonna go hang with my buddy Joe for a while. Back in a couple hours." Him: I haven't seen Joe in ages either. Hold on, I'll come with you!"). Of course, if you have different work schedules (he's at work from 8-5, you work 12-8), you can probably find times when he's not around and not likely to check up on you, so fewer questions raised. If he doesn't want to know, you'll probably have to go elsewhere for sex (unless again you have different work schedules and can get it done and all evidence of sex cleaned up right away). That may limit what you can do. What I definitely recommend AGAINST is lying just to get away to have sex. A white lie, like telling him you're going to run errands and hit the mall (and unspoken: stop off and get fucked at Joe's) is one thing, but if you lie routinely about where you are in order to have opportunities for sex, it's likely to get discovered. And once he's got the idea that you lie to him, he'll wonder what else you lie about. It's caustic for relationships.

Suggestion: there's a search box in the upper right corner of the forum (on a regular computer, that is; presumably one on the mobile site as well). Try searching for a term that relates to what you want to post about. For instance, if you're curious about how often condoms fail, try searching for "condom failure" and see which threads show up. If most of them are in one particular forum, that's probably where it belongs. Moreover, you may find that someone has already asked your question before and gotten lots of good answers, which saves the trouble of moderating a duplicate thread. Won't always help, but you'd be surprised how often something turns up that way.

Yes, and no. It's certainly true you don't have to tell any family or friends. But in many jurisdictions, it's flat-out illegal to have sex with someone IF you know you're positive and fail to disclose that fact. Even if you're on HAART. Even if you're undetectable. And yes, there are places where this is still actively prosecuted. So - if you have sex with anyone, disclose. Period. And beyond the legal ramifications, it's the right thing to do. Yes, we all are responsible for our own sexual health. But let's face it: many of us were young and immature (or older and immature) at one point, and I think we have a general moral obligation to protect others absent a clear indication from them that no protection is wanted.

FWIW, I don't think that's how most people define the term. It's borrowed from the field of animal husbandry, where "breeding" simply means injecting semen into the vagina of another animal. Horses are bred, cows are bred, pigs are bred, goats are bred, and none of them, to my knowledge, involve transmission of HIV. In gay male terms, "breeding," then, means fucking raw and ejaculating inside the ass of the guy being fucked. Positive, negative, unknown, whatever - it's all breeding. If "breeding" meant "intentional transmission of positive cum" then 95% of the posts on this website would be off-topic for "Breeding" Zone - and there wouldn't be any forums on PrEP, etc. What you're referring to is "pozzing", which is separate and apart from breeding. Pozzing can be deliberate or accidental. There's a sub-category of pozzing, called stealthing, when the transmission of positive cum is done both deliberately and without informing the receiving partner.

It's difficult but not impossible. There's no way, precisely, to quantify the odds because you'd have to fuck a guy who was poz AND had a high enough viral load to infect you, AND the sex would have to be conducive to that (like a tiny tear in his rectal wall that bled and infected you that way). Without that happening, you won't become poz; but there' s no way to guess how often that might happen or what the odds in that particular circumstance might be. They're low, but not zero. If you WANT to remain negative, though, get on PrEP. There's no reason to, other than the cost (if there's a cost for you) and having to take a pill every day. But remember, if you DO end up converting, you'll be taking a (different) pill every day, and unless you want to progress to AIDS and die, there's no option to quit.

Absolutely, go on PrEP. There will be others telling you "if you're on PrEP it's not really bareback because there's little risk" and other such bullshit, but YOU are responsible for your health, and YOU have to make that decision, without some rabblerousing chorus of people urging you to become poz. That's not to say you can't make that decision someday. I don't recommend it, but it'll be your call. But make it CONSCIOUSLY, because you've considered all the downsides and can live with them, rather than people telling you how "hot" it is.

You completely imagined that I was heaping blame and guilt on the OP in that thread. I gave him SERIOUS advice that you can't trust people to tell the truth when they say they're negative (as he'd already learned!), that he's better off considering undetectable people rather than trying to sero-sort for negative, and so forth. Just because I didn't coddle him and say "there, there, it'll all be fine" (which is nice, but completely unhelpful as guidance for the future), you want to assume I'm trying to blame him. Plenty of other people were taking the comforting role; I was giving him valuable advice on not getting into that situation again. If there was any blame in that OP's situation it was on the guy who claimed to be negative but who really had no idea and was un-medicated poz. I'm not blaming the OP for having had sex with him. You just imagined in your fevered brain that's what I was saying. But don't worry, I have zero interest in DM'ing you for anything whatsoever.

Then he shouldn't post questions here asking advice, should he? If nobody here can know, what's the point of asking? He CHOSE to ask, he got answers. Funny how lots of people agreed with my approach that lying and cheating is wrong, but you only chose MY response to attack.

While that's true, it's easier to "not mind" being objectified when you're already occupying a place of relative privilege within a group.

But "trap-hole" is nice? My.

[think before following links] https://www.aidsmap.com/news/jul-2020/demand-prep-highly-effective-some-may-find-it-confusing [think before following links] https://prepster.info/ebp/ [think before following links] https://mantotman.nl/en/everything-about-sex/hiv-and-stis/prep/forgot-take-prep-pill

Double-dosing (two pills a few hours before sex), coupled with single doses 24 and 48 hours after the sex, is the recommended dosing for "PrEP on demand", which is what he was describing, as he'd stopped taking his PrEP meds and was just starting back up. The single dose he'd taken (after some period of days, weeks, or months without taking any) would have been useless for the sex he had that same day, if he hadn't double-dosed. He didn't say he was taking two doses all the time.

You're making my arguments for me. All the points you make literally SCREAM, at the top of your voice, that the OP and his partner want different things and shouldn't be together. But you twist that, somehow, into making it the responsibility of the partner to accept his partner's wishes. You're invalidating the wants and needs of the partner, insisting that he should sublimate his own preferences to please his partner, with ZERO suggestion that the OP has any responsibility to do the same in return - because YOU think your polyamory and/or open relationships are superior to other people's monogamous ones. I'm giving both partners credit for knowing what they want and standing up for it. I'm saying that if they can't come to an honest agreement on what the relationship should be, they should end it, as amicably as possible, and move on and find new partners who are more amenable and like-minded. Your solution seems to be to advise the OP to cheat and have as much sex as he wants and his partner just has to put up with being lied to. I think that's very revealing of your character. Contrary to what you seem to imagine, I'm not judging the OP for wanting more sex than he can get with one partner; I'm judging him for being a lying skunk about it.

Not that all three of these events aren't fantastic, but I don't think that's what the poster was asking. He asked for *organizations* that throw sex parties, not locations where sex parties tend to occur. Not the same thing at all. As far as I know, for instance, MAL does not have any official "sex parties" at all - rather, organizations like Cumunion decide to have a sex party at the same time as an event like MAL, and promote the party to attendees. To answer the actual question asked: there are other groups that arrange sex parties, but they tend to be local and/or regional at best. In fact, as I understand it, Cumunion itself is more of a federation of local sponsors/promoters of sex parties, operating under a common banner/theme and with pooled resources for promotions, etc. That may not be strictly accurate, but it's not like the same core group of people travel non-stop around the country setting up, taking down, and managing monthly sex parties in 40+ locations (at least, that was the number pre-Covid). There *are* some traveling sex parties (or again, there were, pre-Covid, some of which may not return). For instance, there's one called HorseMarket, which has held parties in a number of locations around the country. They've been on hold for a year, but are slowly gearing back up. They're organized differently (it's themed, top/bottom roles are strictly enforced, and bottoms aren't allowed to see who the tops are), so it's not as "free for all" as Cumunion can be. They're to be found at [think before following links] http://horsemarketsf.com. The bigger and more liberal the city, the more likely there are periodic regional parties. Bear in mind that some parties are restrictive (that is, you have to apply to attend, and if you don't fit their "image" for the kind of guy they're looking for, you get rejected).

And if you'd read what I wrote earlier, I said hogging the sling waiting for Mr. Perfect is wrong. But that doesn't translate to "must accept all fucks immediately upon offer or surrender the sling." Joe is in the sling and X comes along and wants to fuck him. Joe sees that Y, who he does want to fuck him, is right behind him and looks interested - he's jacking himself to get ready for his turn. In your view, Joe needs to vacate the sling on the spot if he won't let X in him. Suppose no one else is wanting the sling? Or - suppose - X, the guy who wants to fuck someone there, is such a notoriously crappy, obnoxious top with bad breath, BO, and open sores on his cock that *none* of the bottoms at the place want him to fuck them. Can X stand at the sling, demanding that nobody can get into it unless they're willing to let him fuck them? As I read what most of the people complaining here, yeah, he has that right, because his interest in topping outweighs any issues the bottoms may have with him fucking. And yes, I've known guys like that at sex events - nobody is interested, for reasons that are largely or entirely within the guy's control - and yet he'll dominate some favored spot or sex equipment the entire duration, determined that if he doesn't get what he wants, nobody does. Slings are for all patrons to use, not just cumdumps who take all loads from anyone. Yes, that means sometimes a cumdump may have to wait a bit. Yes, that means sometimes a guy who is more particular should yield if others who are READY to use the sling are present. It does NOT mean if you get in the sling, you surrender consent.