BootmanLA

That's true. But it's the minority, the other people, who have to be considered as well. Specifically, those who didn't consent to be filmed in the first place, or even if they did, with the understanding it was for no one else's eyes. Sometimes those were lies (by the recording party) from the start; other times, after a bitter breakup, the recording party violates the conditions of the limited consent given. There's a hole here, too, as the courts have acknowledged: distribution - even downloading - of child porn contributes to the problem too, because as long as the demand is there, and there's a mechanism to supply it, the supply will be found. I'm not sure I agree with the anti-child porn activists' claims that "every time that image/video is downloaded/viewed, the child is re-victimized" (I'd say the victimization is pretty complete as soon as the act(s) are done), but as long as people keep distributing the videos, there will be demand for people to make more. I'm not sure how best to stop this, but the idea that you can hunt all of them down - that they aren't going to keep popping up to meet the demand - strikes me as naive.

I don't think it's quite that simple. MC, Visa, etc. (the associations/networks) make millions or billions from adult online sites (everything from videos to dildos to slings to... whatever). They'll never back away entirely from handling charges related to adult content and merchandise - it would be too costly. As noted, there *is* a growing perception of a problem with non-consensual porn, actual obscenity (as opposed to ordinary pornography), human trafficking to produce porn via prostitution, and other actually shady activities. I'm not going to venture a guess as to whether those activities constitute 0.0005% of "adult" transactions, or 75%; the bottom line is that it doesn't take much of a scandal involving one of them to financially destroy a legitimate business associated with them. That would include amateur video posting sites where "revenge porn" ends up, child porn, bestiality, etc. How *sincere* opponents of those activities are is also irrelevant, for the real-world consequences. It may be true that "Mothers Against Revenge Porn" are actually against every form of porn under the sun, but it's still impossible to defend a site that allows revenge porn to be posted without engaging in a reasonable amount of diligence in making sure all the "performers" in the porn are fully consenting. And the card networks understand: if they're targeted for facilitating that kind of commercial transaction, it's going to cost them massive amounts of unrelated business. So they're cracking down - as noted, they're not ruling out processing cards for porn online, but the places that supply it will have to adhere to stricter rules about documenting consent by performers, the way they already have to for age. And that's going to hit the amateur sites the hardest, because the video that John and Tom shot of themselves (and friends) while fucking at P-town or PigWeek is the least likely to have that kind of record keeping.

There's a lengthy piece on the New York Times website, but it's presumably behind their paywall ([think before following links] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/monkey-business.html) - I have a hard time keeping track since I subscribe there and to WaPo. This one is shorter, but more likely publicly accessible: [think before following links] https://www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/

The problem is not that the banks don't recognize the money-earning potential of such sites. They do. But the banks are parts of large, big-target conglomerates, and bad publicity is toxic for them. "The former guy" wasn't the target of mass protests against, say, sex trafficking, and so the banks lending him money didn't have to deal with twenty state attorneys general conducting "investigations" of the bank, calling attention to what they were financing. At least not for years. Once it became widely, publicly known that Trump was a huge tax cheat and that DeutscheBank was facilitating that, you see how fast they started cooperating with investigators and cut Trump off from further loans. (And years before that, the main branches of DeutscheBank had already done that, with his current loans only authorized by a private banking subsidiary that wasn't as closely watched by the central offices.) All of which is to say: once you get the big banks involved, whether it's to borrow money for expansion, or to help conduct an IPO, or whatever, the rules - both written and unwritten - change.

The only thing I'd add is that a vaccine may carry with it its own side effects just like PrEP does - perhaps not the same ones, or not in as severe a form, but still.

Updated information: the parade (which normally runs on Sunday afternoon of Decadence weekend is officially cancelled. The block party on Rampart (not sure if that means the one by the Phoenix (Rampart at Elysian Fields), or if there was another one in a stretch of Rampart along the French Quarter, but I suspect it's the former) has also been cancelled officially. Several other events are also listing as "cancelled". That doesn't mean the streets will be empty and the bars deserted, but I suspect attendance will be down significantly.

Agree with all of your post except that meth is not an attractive problem at any age. Meth heads don't get a pass because they're young and (imagine themselves) pretty. They're still a mess.

I think part of the reason this is a perennial question is that there are at least two components to the sexual activity in question, which can be in conflict/tension with each other. Many experienced tops I know, especially the ones who are equipped larger than average, *physically* prefer a hole that's easy enough to enter without being so loose you need to strap a 2x4 across your butt to keep from falling in. The kind that with a little lubing and brief fingering, you can push right into. From a physical sensation standpoint, they don't want to try to keep an erection rock hard for the 20+ minutes it takes to ease a really tight skinny twink bottom open for a couple of fingers, then have to keep hard while you spend another 10 minutes easing your cock into him, all the while him trying to get you to go slower. On the other hand: *mentally* and *emotionally* there's something very appealing about a hot young stud boy with little experience offering up his ass for you to breed. The younger, cuter, sexier he is, the more it massages the ego that THIS boy chose YOU to top him, and all the better if you can get a picture of him impaled on your cock or sucking you to get you hard at the beginning. It's proof that you're still able to land the hotties. Some guys end up taking a stand on one side or the other of this divide. One group is the set of 45-65'ers who won't so much as look twice at anyone over 30. My perception (and it's just that, not some ironclad fact) is that they've become so enmeshed in sex-as-validation that they aren't interested in anyone who isn't a trophy. The other group is the set of tops who are blunt and say they aren't interested in anyone UNDER 30, because they want good physical sex and they're not interested in all the concessions needed for the novices. Such is life. Outside of very large urban areas, I think those kind of restrictions are likely to be quite limiting, but it's their choice to make.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think the problem lies in the words 'when not sober'. Sex with people who can't manage themselves "on substances" is always tricky. Substances either mask over existing issues, or drag them out front and center and exacerbate them in ways that the substance user won't recognize when he's sober. So let's look at this: You're versatile. You want to top because you don't get to very much. He claims he wants you to top him, but then won't cooperate (and won't do it while sober so you can work out whatever's wrong). He also doesn't want you to top anyone else until he tops you, which he won't let you do. So you have to decide: he pretty clearly doesn't want you topping, period. He won't do what's necessary for him to be able to take you, and he won't let you top others until this non-existent, not-going-to-happen topping HIM occurs first. Can you live with that? If so, accept that you are versatile by nature but committed to bottoming in this relationship forever. (If he changes, great, but you can't ever, EVER assume he's going to change). If you can't live with that - then you have to decide whether to pretend to be satisfied in the relationship with all the other good things - whatever they are - and discreetly top elsewhere with other people, in order to maintain your sanity. But if you do, understand that you'll probably, at some point, get caught. Or else the sneaking around and so forth will take enough of a toll on the relationship that it's no longer worth it. Or you can leave him. Those, basically, are your choices. Figure out which way forward works best for you, but none of them are "I just know there's a way to make him change".

You can always try it and see how it works. Give the key to a friend you trust and make sure he understands the circumstances under which he's to return it (for instance, if you declare a medical emergency where you need to get something treated; after a predetermined amount of time - say, two weeks; if you give a code word that you promise yourself not to use unless it's a desperate situation). Make sure the first trial, at least, is long enough to feel the need to cum, but short enough that it's manageable. If you get through it well and decide you like it, you can repeat for increasingly longer periods of time. Note that being locked up may not mean you don't cum. It may keep you from getting hard, but I know guys who've had nocturnal emissions wearing one because their body reached the point it had to ejaculate, and did so. That may not be commonplace, but it can happen.

Geoff, It seems to me that your biggest beef boils down to "people today don't want the same things I wanted when *I* was their age! What's wrong with them?" I'm sure that's an oversimplification, but to the extent it's valid, I have to say, it's awfully presumptuous to assume what you wanted then is what they should want today. When I came out in the late 1970's, the idea of a lifelong relationship wasn't even on the radar for most gays - not just because many didn't want it, but because society actively worked to prevent us from having it. A lot of people - even then - if you'd pressed them, might well have said "It would be nice if I came home to a bed that wasn't empty", even if the terms of that relationship allowed for lots of extracurricular fun, together or separate. It was just a lot harder to do except in the largest of cities. And again, not suggesting you were one of them, or should have been one of them; but your dreams and goals aren't theirs, and finding fault in that seems, well.... not a good look for someone. And yes, I get that part of this is tongue-in-cheek. But still: there's nothing wrong with finding random sex less meaningful or less attractive than something more committed and stable (or vice versa). They aren't "doing it wrong" any more than you were/are "doing it wrong". They're being true to themselves. One reason might be that today's parents are much more likely to be accepting of their gay kids than those of my parents' generation (mine were OK with it, but not the parents of a lot of my friends). Kids who come from households where they're loved and accepted as they are, are possibly more likely to want a household like that for themselves, while kids who get kicked out of the house or become permanently estranged from their families when coming out are less likely to look at domestic situations as something to aspire to. But I get it - conventionality, in any fashion, doesn't seem to be your thing. That's fine - really! - but it seems a tad defensive to attack how others choose to live their lives, confident you know better than they do what's right for them. Isn't that what the moralizing scolds who told you to get over that phase, that you could live a straight life if you chose to, were doing?

Oh I agree it'll be a wonderful thing to have available. I was just commenting on SmoothATLBttm's suggestion that chasing would go away. Anyone determined to chase (when there are people on PrEP) is going to continue to chase even if some of the PrEP folks switch to a vaccine. The chasers won't take the vaccine (why would they?) and I don't see it getting that much harder for them to get pozzed than it is already.

Not really. Look at Covid: There are tens of millions of people who are happy to risk getting Covid (and thus risk dying MUCH, MUCH faster than you will from HIV) rather than get a vaccine. HIV chasers will simply avoid taking the vaccine.

Because he did not say "I want to do X" - he asked *IF* he should do X. In other words, he asked for advice. Advice may differ, depending on who's offering it and their perspectives. This is not rocket science, to use an American English idiom with which you may or may not be familiar.

I'm aware.

Funny - though for the handful of people who might wonder "Could he?", the Zodiac Killer first struck two years before Cruz was born, and may (or may not) have stopped his spree before Cruz was born as well. (It's possible some earlier killings elsewhere in CA were also his work, but that further makes the point that this was long before Cruz was around).

It's funny to have a stalker so wrapped up in downvoting everything I post that he'll even downvote the advice to consult a doctor about something that the original poster is worried about. And amusing to realize how much I must be living rent-free in his head.

A few points: 1. Your doctor made the same point I did about sticking to the event schedule. YOU find it easy because you (apparently) are using it in conjunction with *dating* - something you plan ahead and can work into a schedule. It may come as a surprise to you but a lot of guys don't date - they just have sex, with whomever wants it, whenever the opportunity arises, and that occurs, not infrequently, without the 2 hour prep time needed. In large cities with sex clubs and bathhouses right in the gay neighborhoods where people live, it's not unusual at all for a guy to get horny and be naked in the club or bath within 15 minutes. 2. Your doctor also drove home my other point - that mistakes get made and the only way to stay safe, in those cases, is to realize it and take PEP. Which is great - I'm glad she's on top of that - but again, that's assuming the person isn't still high on whatever tweaking substance du jour he's on, and remembers when he took what doses and when he took a load, so as to calculate 24 and 48 hours after that. That's something you might never do - hurray for you - but again, there are plenty of guys who are not so careful. Which is why "on demand" PrEP - which I'm happy to acknowledge apparently works fine for YOU in YOUR circumstances - has a higher failure rate than daily. You seem to be misreading what I'm saying - perhaps because English isn't your primary language? - as though I were saying "on demand" never works, or is always a bad idea, or something similar. And I'm not. Nor am I telling you to ignore your doctor's advice. If your doctor has decided you're a good candidate for on-demand usage - and it appears she took into account the effects on kidneys, and knows you well enough to believe you'll be careful with your dosing - that's great. It shows she's doing her job well.

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.