BootmanLA

Suggestion: put yourself in chastity, or wear a hard cup with a jock, to make it clear to anyone who grasps at your crotch that there's nothing to feel there. Just because you're a bottom doesn't mean some tops won't enjoy (or even require) playing with your cock. There are some tops out there who will only play with bottoms who have bigger cocks than they do, I presume on the dubious theory that they're even more of a "man" by topping someone with such a big cock. Those kind of tops make me yawn and roll my eyes (along with the ones who insist on capitalizing the first letter of every first-person pronoun (Me, My, etc.) when talking about themselves.

For what it's worth, I don't use racial epithets. Given my background (growing up in the deep south in the U.S.), I heard them non-stop, and still occasionally do, but I've made a concerted effort to make sure those words never come out of my mouth. And for the record: I have no problem with guys who find black men (and only black men) attractive, or with those who are open to others but prefer black (or Asian, or Hispanic, or Middle Eastern, or whatever). I do have a problem with people who reduce the other person to a racially identifiable object, as in "I got fucked yesterday by a BBC". Not "by a black guy with a big cock" but by a big black cock acting on its own volition, untethered to an actual human being. Given the long history in this country of black women being objectified for sex by white men (first as slaves, then as second-class citizens unable to meaningfully object to being raped), I'm sensitive to also treating black men as purely sexual objects for the gratification of white guys.

Just curious what makes you qualified to decide, on behalf of "real" bottoms everywhere, what they should do, how they should behave, etc..? Was there an election for Bottom Dictator that I missed somehow?

Am I imagining things, or was there once an "Ignore user" button on member profiles to make it easier to ignore a particular user, that is now gone? I can pull up the list of people I'm ignoring (from my own profile settings), and add a member name manually there, but I could swear there used to be an option of opening a profile, clicking on "Ignore Member", and then choosing which things to ignore (posts, messages, etc.). If it SHOULD be there - I can't see it. If it's been removed, okay, but it was certainly convenient, as I recall.

The one thing I would note in addition to tallslenderguy's comments: if you are on PrEP to remain negative, consult with your physician to see if the particular medication you're taking might or might not interfere with any medication you may be taking for diabetes. While the options for PrEP are more limited than the options for treating HIV, I know that some HIV treatment options are less friendly to diabetic treatment than others. It may be that if there's a conflict, it could be easier to change your diabetes medication (if any) rather than PrEP.

I'm not sure where you're reading this, but to my knowledge, it's false. I am unaware of any study showing that having another STI increases the odds of HIV infection for anyone, let alone people on PrEP. If you find such a claim, it would be interesting to see where this is being promulgated to see if they can back up this statement with any evidence whatsoever.

Several years ago. The emoji itself was approved and released in 2015. I'm sure it wasn't long afterward that gays started using it as a phallic symbol.

The Biden administration today announced a change in regulations under the Affordable Care Act: PrEP must be provided under most insurance plans in the US with NO copays. Under the ACA, insurance companies must provide services and drugs classified as "preventative" that have been recommended by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force at no cost to their policy holders. PrEP technically became so classified in January of this year, but today, the government announced that companies have 60 days to begin including this coverage as required by law. As always, there are a few exceptions. There are some pre-ACA plans "grandfathered" in under the law, which do not have to comply with the changes required under the ACA as long as they do not make certain changes to their plans (any such change immediately subjects them to the ACA). And of course, anyone who does not have insurance coverage (whether employer/group-sponsored, individual, Medicare, Medicaid, or whatever) doesn't get this benefit. Important to note: This means that the doctor's appointments, tests, and so forth as part of the PrEP process will be covered as well, with no cost-sharing.

Everything is "personal choice" insofar as the owners of a site get to decide what's acceptable. But in any event, the rationale for that decision has been made very clear, repeatedly, by the site's owner. In a nutshell, though: thanks to PrEP, anyone who wants to remain HIV-negative almost certainly can (with the caveats, of course, that PrEP has not always been widely available to everyone). There is no pre-exposure preventative for most other STI's, so people can't protect themselves against bad actors.

That's explained in the rules (see the post below), but in a nutshell: scat can be (and usually is) considered legally obscene, and thus can result in criminal charges/liability. If you have a beef with that, the place to take it up is with the courts that have so held, not with the forum owners/managers/staff who have to abide by the law.

Badjujuboy's point - what rules will you have - is essential to handle up front, because there are many, many types of open relationships with many different sets of rules. Here are some questions (not an exhaustive list) that might get you two started discussing what this could look like for you two. 1. Does "open" apply to both of us - ie, can your partner with the erection issues get fucked by other guys, just like you can? Or is it only open for you, because he can get what he's capable of from you? 2. If you have sex with someone else, does he want you to keep him from finding out? If not, does he want you to share, or just doesn't mind if it comes out? 3. If you have sex with someone else, are you allowed to have it at your own house, or do you have to go elsewhere for it? If it's OK in your own house, is your bedroom okay, or does he want it restricted to other spaces (guest room, living room, whatever), to keep "your" bedroom as your own space? 4. Are you allowed to sleep over if it's late, or does he want you to come home each night regardless of where you've been? 5. Is it okay to have sex with someone you both know (friend, acquaintance, etc.) or is it limited to people he doesn't know? 6. Is it okay to have sex more than once with the same guy, or does it need to be "once and done" to avoid developing any side feelings? And so on. It's also important that you decide between yourselves what you're going to do if you both try this and it doesn't work as well for him as he thought (ie he is bothered by it more than he thought, he feels you're spending too much time elsewhere, he feels you're growing apart, whatever). My suggestion is that you should agree that either of you can unilaterally close the relationship, pending a discussion about how you're feeling and how you see your future. It's like an emergency stop button that you can press before things deteriorate past the point of saving the relationship. It may not be savable in the long term anyway, if problems develop, but a "We need to talk about this" option that stops the outside sex until either you're both OK with it opening up again, or you part ways, is a good thing. It lets both partners know they can stop and work on things if need be.

Without pointing fingers at you (because I'm not suggesting you're racist, at all), the very use of the phrase "BBC" is such an objectifying thing. The fact that it exists at all, and that you feel comfortable using it, even in this context, suggests you may understand more than you realize. The worst are the ones who say things like "I was fucked by a BBC". Not "fucked by a man with a BBC", just "fucked with a BBC". Inherent in that - not implicitly, but explicitly - is the notion that all that matters about that individual is his cock. One could argue (and some do) that because it's meant to be complimentary, it's not racist. Bull. It's as racist to reduce a black man to his genitalia as it is sexist to reduce a woman to her breasts or vagina.

I think that says more about you than about black men as tops. WHAT it says, I'm not sure. My take is that this statement, like so many phrases and statements, is just more racist objectification.

I think it depends on how it's framed. For instance, I agree that having sex, for people judged to be of the age of majority (and that's a can of worms that needn't be opened, for the purpose of this particular discussion) is essentially a human right: no one should have the power to tell person A of the age of majority that he can't have sex with person B of the age of majority. (With the obvious exceptions, such as legitimately incarcerated individuals, and even then, I'm open to discussing requiring the option of conjugal visits for inmates with partners, if that can be managed in a way that doesn't compromise prison security.) But elevating it to a "need", in my view, shifts the focus. We need food to live; if a person simply hasn't got food, it's a reasonable thing to demand that the government provide food programs that will meet that need. If a housing unit doesn't have access to clean water, it's a reasonable thing to insist that the water utility, no matter who owns it, extend its services to that unit. And so on. Needs, in my view, are things that, when not met naturally, can be compelled, via taxation of the community, if necessary. The problem I see with defining highly desirable things that make us happy (like sexual contact) as "needs" is that there's no end and no limiting principle. It's possible to calculate how much it costs to reasonably feed an individual. It's possible to calculate the costs of extending water infrastructure, or building subsidized or free housing, or providing health care coverage. But sex? Aside from deciding how you compel individuals to provide sexual contact with another person, how much is sufficient? If a guy wants sex three times a day, do we have to supply that much, to meet his "need"? What if he insists that only certain types of partners meet his "need"? Mind you, I'm aware that you may not accept the dividing line I draw between "want" and "need". But then it's incumbent on you to tell me where YOUR line between the two is. How do YOU define "need" in a way that distinguishes it from mere desire?

"Competing for", in and of itself, isn't a problem. "Hogging access" to particular features of a public playspace, though, can be. If there are five slings in a place and you're in one and two or three others are essentially always empty, that's not really an issue (although IF that one sling is the preferred one that everyone likes to use, then it could well be rude). If there's only one sling, and you stay put in it even if others are waiting AND nobody's fucking you, then yeah, you're a rude cunt. Golden Rule, people. Golden Rule.

Sometimes sex is lousy. Sometimes sex is fantastic. Just being bareback doesn't transform lousy sex into fantastic sex. I gather English isn't your first language, so I had to struggle with what you wrote. But it sounds to me like he didn't fuck you much at all - that he mostly fingered you and then entered you right before he ejaculated. If so, I'd probably consider that lousy myself.

I didn't say "just don't have sex, it won't kill you". I would never advise someone not to have sex because it's not my place to do so. Even if I were talking with someone in a country following a strict version of Islam, my only advice would be "Be careful and make sure you understand the risks of whatever you decide to do." On the other hand, I'll still reject sex being a "need". You want to draw a distinction between "living" and "surviving". I'd posit those are synonyms, for the most part, but I'll acknowledge that one can draw a distinction; I assume you mean "living" encompasses more than merely "surviving", correct? If so, then "living" doesn't have "needs". It has "wants". It has "desires". It's the things that you WANT precisely because they elevate "surviving" to "living." Because the moment you start classifying the things that make "living" better than "surviving" as "needs", it raises the question: What if you can't get those "needs" met? Or, perhaps more darkly, What if you can't get those "needs" met by methods society considers acceptable? For instance: if sexual intercourse is a "need" for your version of "living", what if nobody wants to have sex with you? Does that justify rape, because sex is your "need" and it's the only way to get it? What if, as I suggested, having a Maserati is what you "need" to believe you're living - can you steal one if you don't have the money? Can you demand one from the dealer because, after all, it's a "need." "Need", to me, connotes something that you're entitled to simply by being a living human being. Food (though not necessarily the exact kind you want), water, air to breathe, shelter - those are things I think meet the definition of "need". I'm also firmly in the camp that health care is in the category of "need", though a lot of societies fail to meet that need, just as some even fail to meet the needs of food, clean water, and shelter. In fact, I think that's a good working definition of "need": the things that we, as a society, are obliged to provide for those who can't access those things on their own. I have no problem with society's governing bodies being mandated to provide housing for those who can't afford it, or food, or health care; I have no problem with those same bodies mandating access to clean air and water even if that treads on business's toes. I can't see government being required to provide sexual outlets for people, though. And that (in my view) makes it not a "need".

With all due respect, Kyler, it's a public discussion on a public board. Don't open the topic if you don't want to read the messages, but it's not up to you to decide whether others continue to discuss it. Ignore any notifications you get about this topic, and move on.

I wouldn't sue you. I just think perhaps "need" either doesn't translate well from English to Dutch, or perhaps its meaning isn't clear. We NEED air to breathe. We NEED food and water to consume. We NEED shelter during inclement weather. "NEED" implicates something that is necessary for survival, as opposed to a WANT, which may be something necessary for mental happiness (depending on the individual). Physical contact - whether you mean sexual or otherwise - may be desirable for mental health, but it's not a NEED in the same sense. You will not die solely from lack of contact; you may be unhappy, you may neglect your health if you are unhappy for that reason, and so forth, but that doesn't make it a NEED any more than severe disappointment over not having a Maserati causing depression that results in suicide means that owning a 6-figure Italian sports car was a "NEED".

Oh granted, as long as there are people who will fuck anything with a semblance of a pulse, STI's are going to spread much more widely than if people were less promiscuous (or even just more serially monogamous). I'm not saying everyone ought to be such; just that our community's sexual practices (in the global sense) means STI's spread quickly. The most that we could have reasonably expected from the lockdown was a dramatic downturn in the numbers of STI cases. And there was something of a decrease in reported cases, I believe, but not as many as one might expect if in fact people were adhering to the guidelines.

I think there are two broad classes of AirBnB to consider: those where it's one room or suite in a house otherwise owner-occupied, and those where it's a whole-apartment or whole-house rental. In the former, I would certainly NOT expect to be able to host people for anonymous, find-the-door-unlocked kind of quickie, even if the rental unit has a separate, private entrance from the main space. There may be rare exceptions - Close2MyBro's acquaintance in Puerto Rico as an example - where the owner is fine with strangers who have no contractual obligation to him traipsing into his space to fuck the guest. The friends I know with AirBnB rooms, on the other hand, would be monitoring that pretty closely. The second type - where the owner is off premises - is probably more conducive to that, IF it's set up with the features you need. As skinster points out, lots of places have controlled access to the building, whether it's through a doorman or through a buzzer system. And I have to say, I'm grateful for hotels and other lodging places offering that level of security. I'm not opposed to people being as sleazy as they want in their own spaces. Just not in places where other people's safety can be put at risk.

Assuming no change in your behaviors, probably moderately high. Surely you can't think otherwise.

To be fair to the original poster, I think the thought process was something like this: STI's are spread by sexual contact between two people, one of whom is infected (from a sexual contact elsewhere). If the lockdown had been taken more seriously by more people, with people only having sex with others "in their bubble", it might have been possible to mostly eradicate many STI's by treating the entire population of the bubble with whom the person had had sex. The idea, then, is that when lockdown ended, you wouldn't have reservoirs of people with untreated STI's ready to spread them as "bubble lines" were being crossed. The reality, of course, worked out differently. If I had a dollar for every guy who asked a question like "since covid is spread by breathing in virus particles wouldn't getting fucked at a gloryhole be safe enough?", I'd be retired and rich. A significant number of gay men in this country would NEVER give up anonymous raw sex, even if there were a disease ten times as transmissible as COVID that was 25 times more fatal floating around out there. There's a significant number of them who feel zero responsibility toward the overall health of the community, even though the community is what provides them with sex partners. That rugged individualism and freedumb they espouse ends the moment they need to get laid.l

FWIW: I believe people when they post things like "I was abused by a [fill in the blank: relative/priest/scoutmaster/teacher/local [banned word]] from the age of 8 to 13". I have a lot more trouble with the ones who say "I had my first cock at age 9 and I loved it but then I'd been wanting someone to fuck my tight little hole since I was 6 and it was hell waiting that long, after that I had sex with at least 20 of my teachers and six uncles and cousins, all before I was 15".

Rawtop, The error came up when I clicked on a link in my notifications. The notification was that " quoted you in a topic: Poz tops at a bathhouse" (member name hidden so as not to drag him into this, but I can provide it if needed - it's in my notifications for last Wednesday, July 7). When I clicked on that link, it took me to this page: [think before following links] https://breeding.zone/topic/41193-poz-tops-at-a-bathhouse/?do=findComment&comment=707914 As drscorpio noted, it's probably because the thread is hidden and needs to be split up into two forums.