BootmanLA

I am loathe to suggest that the problem is entirely on your end, but given that you have a very "niche" phone and you're using a very "niche" browser on it, I'd suggest you try using other browsers on the phone first, to see if it's a bug in this browser implementation. If the problem persists, it could be something on the site, but it also could be something with the phone and its operating system. Unfortunately, website developers can't code to get around every quirk in every browser out there. Since Bromite is trying to block anything it thinks is an ad, I'd be willing to bet that it's the cause of the problem. I hate intrusive ads as much as anyone, but for a free site, ads are pretty much essential, so I wouldn't expect sites to want to put effort into making their content work with ad-blocking browsers.

I've seen any number of people rant about people on certain apps (Scruff comes to mind, but probably others) listing both "Treatment as Prevention" and "PrEP" as their sexual health strategy. "You can't be on both! It's one or the other! If you're poz then it's TASP and if you're negative then it's PrEP!" Except those ranters aren't thinking it through. Here's an analogy. I'm a bottom. Let's say I wasn't interested in any form of protection but condoms, so I list "condoms" as my sexual health strategy. That wouldn't mean *I* wear a condom; it means I would want the tops who fuck me to wear one. Apply that to the prescription-drug-based strategies. A poz person might himself be on treatment as prevention, but ALSO want his negative partner(s) on PrEP for an extra level of protection. A negative person might himself be on PrEP, but also want any poz person he has sex with to be using TASP. It's possible for ONE person to employ BOTH methods in his life, because like condoms, a particular method may be USED by one person, but be relevant to protecting BOTH.

That right there is precisely why so many amateur sites are having to shut down. "Hidden cams" are recording people who haven't consented to being recorded, and then those videos are being uploaded and shared widely. No doubt many of the videos uploaded were consensual, but enough weren't (and the legal liability the sites faced for facilitating those being distributed) was enough that no site was going to be able to survive if sued. And frankly, while I know people want good porn, I'm not bothered by this. The entire reason sodomy laws (in the US) were struck down by the Supreme Court is that people have a reasonable expectation of a right to privacy over what they do in their own homes - that it's nobody's business. If someone secretly records you having sex (with themselves or with someone else) and distributes that recording online to the world, that privacy has been egregiously violated. We can't have it both ways; if we want the right to do what we want in private without government interference, we can't also have sex sites violating that privacy without repercussions. Of course, there's nothing wrong with people uploading consensual videos as long as they're subject to the same rules as commercial porn: signed actor releases from everyone involved and permanent record keeping of proof of age of majority and proof of consent. The problem is that the "anon hidden cam" videos you like can't have those because (typically at least one of) the people involved never consented to recording and/or release of such video.

There aren't going to be a lot of studies that are specific to these circumstances - no reputable health care professional is going to have subjects skip PrEP while also taking a high viral load ejaculation, just to see how well protected someone is. Moreover, timing matters: Let's say you normally take your PrEP pill around mid-day. The results might be different if the dose you miss is the one the day before you took the poz load, the day you took it, or the day after you took it. In any case, almost certainly a doctor would advise a PEP-like regimen: take two doses (together) as soon as possible, and keep on the daily dosing faithfully afterward for the best protection possible. That's the best answer I could give someone who's already just experienced this event. Now, if you're speaking "what if": I would say anyone who goes into a situation like this wondering what's going to happen IF he misses a dose while simultaneously taking a high-viral load ejaculation that he's playing with fire and is likely to get burned. The medication might or might not protect him, but anyone who can plan ahead that far and knows a load he's going to take is HVL should be able to take his damned medicine on schedule. Otherwise he should just admit he's chasing and quit pretending he cares about his health.

For what it's worth: there is a similar (though not identical) event here in the U.S. called "HorseMarket" (website: [think before following links] https://horsemarketsf.com). The team that created the U.S. version is based on the west coast, but they have held HorseMarkets at other places pre-Covid (for instance, during MAL) and expect to do so again. The limiting factors seem to be finding a suitable hosting facility at a reasonable cost, and transporting the equipment needed there. There are some differences, as I understand it. The U.S. version sells tickets in advance, but they don't really screen for "types" - you don't have to be any particular body type or whatever to attend. My understanding is that, at least at some of the European venues, there is something of a screening process - if you don't "fit" the body image they're aiming for, they just won't admit you. To quote from their website: "To make the things quite clear, we have nothing against a small belly or mature men -who are very welcome-, but we insist upon ensuring a certain standard, a certain quality, i.e. body build/physique-, overall appearance, age and hygiene acceptable to all participants involved. We are certain that you understand what we mean 😉 If you are not sure, if you meet our set standards for entrance to and participation in the market, please send an up-to-date, sharp, clear photograph picture of yourself to the stablemaster via e-mail, who will then send his assessment back to you. Your photograph picture will be destroyed immediately afterwards. We handle all enquiries confidentially." (emphasis added) I think we can all read between the lines there. By contrast, the US version makes it clear these things don't matter. There are other points to the European version (review their FAQ page) that suggest they think it's something of an "elite" event - not in the classic sense of "you have to be old money" or "very rich", but in the sense of "we want a particular look at the party and don't want ordinary men here".

If I had to guess, it's because many (if not most) gay couples in open relationships aren't open about that fact, at least not with everyone. And the people they're closest to, the ones who would know that kind of detail, are probably too close as "friends" for someone to consider them as a side piece option. So, if A and B are in a closed relationship, and A wants to cheat, for whatever reason, he could ask his friend C, who's in a relationship with D. But C's relationship might be closed, and C would be insulted. C might be interested, sort of, but unwilling to risk his relationship with D. C and D might be open, but then sleeping with C, even if that's OK with D opens the possibility that D might let it slip to B. Or C and D might only be "open" when both are involved, and A is only interested in C, not D. And if C really does have to cheat to be with A, just like A is cheating to be with C, then you've got two sets of scheduling/availability/location issues to work out. A's only available mornings between 9 and 11, because B goes into work two hours before him, but also arrives home before A. Meanwhile C is available every evening because D works evenings, but A is never available then. All in all, a single guy is (a) more likely to be available and have a flexible schedule (because no partner to adjust for), (b) is probably free to sleep with whomever without having to get permission, and (c) is possibly not interested in a relationship, which makes him all the safer for a fling.

That depends. For instance, "Only interested in white guys" does, yes, invert to "No people of color". But the "positive" racial preference statement like "I tend to prefer [white/black/Hispanic/Asian/fillintheblank] guys as a general rule" doesn't invert to "No [other types of people] should message me." Or even more so: "Mostly attracted to [Nordic blonds/swarthy Middle Easterners/southeast Asians]" makes it clear there's a "type" you like, and yes, it may be mostly people of one race, but it's not the same thing as "No blacks", which I used to see routinely in personal ads. I can't speak for Grindr as I haven't used it (yes, really), but it sounds like "taps" are some sort of non-word communication indicating some interest in another person. If so, I agree: no harm done by being tapped by someone in whom you have no interest. But most other apps I've been on allow direct verbal communication with someone - ie you can say "Hi, you're hot, I'd love to suck your cock" as an opening line and there's nothing to prevent the other guy from seeing your message when it comes through. Or sometimes it's innocuous ("Hi, how are you doing?") and politeness seems to demand you reply SOMEHOW to the polite guy - even though you're dreading it because once you do, he's going to want to talk more, and you're not interested. Very few guys seem to have the social skills needed: the ability to just say "Hi, doing OK here, thanks. Heading offline in a few, have a good evening"; even fewer have the skills to recognize the subtext, which is "I'm not interested, thanks, but don't want to offend, so please accept my declining as is, instead of making me spell it out".

Of course it's not "magic". It's a highly effective, exceptionally low failure rate medication developed by science, not elves working in a hollow tree or something.

The part about effective rates is simply untrue. It is true that PrEP is not "magic", and it is true that it does not protect against other diseases. It's worth noting, though, that staying on PrEP requires regular STI testing including for HIV, so you're more likely to quickly find out if you've contracted an STI, and you can adjust your behavior, if you are so inclined, to minimize spreading of those STI's. As for side effects: since the medications that make up PrEP are ones used in HIV treatment, about the only thing that can be said against PrEP is you might spare a few months or years of not taking the very meds you're going to have to take the rest of your life if you contract HIV (assuming, of course, you don't plan to just let yourself die of AIDS in a few years).

FWIW, I don't have an opinion on everything. I come to the ones I have after careful consideration. Apparently some people here think that the only opinions allowed to be expressed are those with which they agree, and any attempt to discuss or debate those opinions is met with hostility. Sad. Last I checked, the point of discussion boards was to... let me see... discuss things. Not a place to make self-congratulatory declarations that no one is allowed to question. But hey, you do you.

The only part of your (well-written and reasoned) post that I have a quibble with is this. I'm not saying people HAVE to respond to any message from someone who's interested in you, but it's possible to respond politely but firmly with a negative and not hurt the other person's feelings, unless they're irrationally sensitive. "Thank you, I appreciate the interest, but I don't think we're really a match" is polite, to the point, and should be (for any reasonable person) a clear statement that there's no point in further pursuit. It avoids going into the reasons - and generally, there's nothing to be gained by explaining those reasons. If the pursuer insists, a repeated "I'm sorry, but just not interested. Have a good night [day/evening/afternoon]" should put an end to it. Anything beyond that is worthy of blocking, because you tried to be polite. At least with such a response, no one can claim they didn't know.

And for the record, I'll stand by that comment even when the same people then downvote the comment simply because I downvoted their insistence that someone else has to follow their rules. Not that they can actually speak up and defend what they said - lord no.

Before I give any advice, let me say it's predicated on my reading the following into what you're saying: 1. You consider yourself somewhat on the bisexual spectrum, though most of your experience has been with women; 2. You are curious about/interested in expanding your limited experiences with men; 3. You had some performance issues the one time you tried to top; and 4. You wonder if you might be a bottom. Assuming all that is true: First, it's not the case that all bottom men lack the ability to penetrate another man (or a woman), and it's not the case that one episode of erectile dysfunction means you can't get it up to fuck men. That's a lot of work to impose on one experience that didn't go as well as you'd like. I've known tops ("100%" tops) who had trouble getting hard in a particular situation. Sometimes it's stress, sometimes it's lack of interest in the particular bottom, sometimes it's being tired - any number of reasons, but don't assume you have to be a bottom because you weren't successful in fucking this one guy. Add in the fact that you've never done it before, hence nervous about how you'll do, and it's not surprising you might have difficulty. You can keep at it, and try again, either with this same guy, or another. I'd recommend you tell him up front you've not done it before, and you need to work up to it - and then do exactly that. Take your time, get hard, make out while you do, but hold off on trying to fuck until you're so hard and worked up you feel like you're about to explode - and THEN try. You may not last long, but you're more likely to stay hard enough to penetrate, and then you've broken the first barrier. With more practice, whatever nerves you may have been facing should dissipate. That's not to say you shouldn't try getting fucked, if you want to! You can even simulate some of the experience with a *rational-sized* dildo (that is, don't start with one of those foot-long things as thick as a beer can), use lots of lube, and find out if you like that part of the sensation. It's not the complete experience of being fucked by a man, just like jacking off into your fist isn't the complete experience of fucking a woman, but it's a starting point. And it may be that you find you much prefer bottoming to topping - there are a lot of guys in that situation! And there's nothing wrong with that, either (except that, as you'll learn on here, there are almost always a lot more bottoms to go around than tops). Either way: if you're thinking of more experiences with men, GET ON PrEP. Not "soon", not "once I start playing more", not "if I decide I like this" - NOW, before you reach the point of being active enough that it could be critical.

And here we are with another round of people telling other people what they "MUST" or "NEED TO" do. Understand - I have zero problem with people deciding for themselves they will always take the top's load. I have no problem with people publicly stating that's how they operate and encouraging - not directing - others to do likewise. I don't even have a problem with people describing it in over-the-top terms as the most spiritual, benevolent, life-affirming experience they've ever had (right up until the next load, I suppose). I do have a serious issue with people who take it on themselves to insist that others make the same decision they have.

It's up to you to decide how involved you want to be in this. I don't know how he'd be tested either, or whether it's worthwhile to find out. It doesn't sound like he's interested in changing his behavior no matter what he learns, so....

Oh, as a theory kicked around by economists in ivory towers, yes, supply-side bullshit goes way back. But it didn't gain credence among politicians, who used to understand how the world actually works, until the Reagan era (and I include the period leading up to his election, when he started promoting it, as part of the "era"). Ever since some idiots in the Reagan administration deliberately misinterpreted the Laffer Curve and sold it to the uneducated masses, it's been an article of faith for conservatives even in the face of ample historical evidence that it didn't work.

This is mostly true, but event-based PrEP is not *proven* to be as effective as daily PrEP. If he was on daily PrEP I'd say you were 100% accurate. On-demand PrEP simply hasn't been subjected to the same sort of rigorous, long-term studies that daily PrEP has. The limited studies that have been done show that few people using it in the studies have been infected, but they haven't tested the people they had sex with, and with so many people on anti-retroviral treatment, the data just isn't substantial enough to warrant a statement that on-demand/event-based protects as well as daily. I don't think the OP has much to worry about, but he'd be safer with daily PrEP for sure. So if he has that option, it would make a lot more sense, especially for his peace of mind, to switch to daily dosing.

If I had to guess, I'd say his "belief" that he is not immune is not grounded in science. Yes, it's possible he's just "lucky". I'd say the odds are actually higher that he's got a genetic barrier to infection. But hey, if he's comfortable with thinking he's not immune AND avoiding PrEP and trusting luck, there's not much anyone with sense can do to convince him otherwise.

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.