BootmanLA

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.

I read what he wrote. I can read between the lines. He's in a relationship. His partner wants it kept closed. The OP made that crystal clear. The OP is turned on by cheating on his partner - violating the terms of that relationship. That, too, the OP has made crystal clear. I don't have to be "privy to the functioning of their relationship" to take what he made expressly clear. He's looking for justification to cheat. You seem to think it's "moralizing" to ask people to be honest. Apparently, you don't think honesty is a good thing, right? As I said earlier: the problem is not that wanting an open relationship is wrong, or bad, or immoral. I'm all for the OP being as big a slut as he wants to be. But he can't be in an honest relationship with his partner and do that. He needs to choose. But I do get this much: clearly, you don't think keeping one's word is an important thing.

I downvoted not because you disagree with me. I downvoted because you made a dangerous statement about consent. I take consent VERY seriously and to suggest that you automatically give consent to anyone to fuck you just because you get into a sling is dangerously wrong.

OK, let's run this pop fly out. Joe's in the sling. Two guys show up, one about five seconds behind the other, both want to fuck him. Joe wants the second guy, but not the first. Does he have to let the first guy do it first, even though the second guy is ready, willing, and able? Let's say 10 guys show up as a group. Joe's "consented" to getting fucked, right? So by your argument, he can't get out of the sling once they've shown up, because he's "consented" and presumably "owes" them something, according to your "logic". Or are you saying he has to vacate the sling immediately if he doesn't want guy X to fuck him, even if nobody else is waiting to bottom in the sling? Even if guys Y, Z, and A through F are lined up ready and he wants all of them? The sling has to go unused because Joe doesn't want guy X to fuck him? Sounds like X is being just as big a sling hog as y'all think Joe is. Why is his desire to fuck more important than Joe's desire to get fucked by guys he particularly likes? Does this apply to non-sling locations? What about, say, a locker room-syled play space with benches, all the same except one is much better located for prime visibility? Does a bottom have to relinquish that spot if he doesn't want to accept every top who comes along, even though there are a dozen other identical benches in the room?

I'll add my usual caveat that "should" is the most useless word in the English language. What you SHOULD do is be true to yourself, honest with him, and decide between yourselves what's best for you two. That may be bareback from the beginning. That may be condom sex until some future point, which may or may not be determinable (like "once we're monogamously committed" or "when we feel ready"). But the important thing is to decide it together, and be frank about what you want. Anyone telling you you "should" do X or Y or Z isn't the one who has to deal with the consequences, and only YOU can know yourself well enough to make that decision.

You're jumping to conclusions, and they're wrong. What my "normal" is doesn't matter. I'm saying that *IF* a person makes an agreement, he should stick to it. If he wants an open relationship, polyamory, or whatever, that's fine. I'm all in favor of people living the lives they want - but he needs to be HONEST about it with his partner, and if the partner doesn't want that, they shouldn't be partners. You seem to think that if a guy wants sex bad enough, it's okay for him to lie about it to the person who supposedly is the most important person in his life. For someone who says sex isn't that important. you sure seem to be placing a huge priority on the "right" of a cheating asshole to have sex when that's a violation of the agreement he has with his partner. Sounds like sex is a lot more important than you want to admit. And frankly: if the asshole is willing to lie to his partner about having outside sex, why in the fuck would you think he's going to have enough sense of right and wrong to be careful about HIV and STD's and possibly infecting his partner? If you'll lie about one thing, you'll like about others.

I'm going to point some things out that others have hinted at, but that you should keep in mind as well. 1. People lie. A guy can say he's negative knowing full well he's positive. 2. Even if a guy isn't lying (because he doesn't know otherwise), a guy who says he's "negative" could well be positive and just not know it. 3. Even with a negative HIV test in hand, that documentation is only as good as of the date of the test, and it's possible that he has converted since (and does or does not know it). He could even have converted slightly before the test and there wasn't time in his system to develop the antibodies that the test would reveal. 4. Serosorting for "negative" guys, then, is risky. Even discounting the liars, there are plenty of poz people who don't know they're poz. That doesn't mean you don't have sex with guys who claim to be negative, but you ask about testing. You stay on PrEP. You don't engage in practices (like drug use) that may interfere with your judgment. (Sorry, but while I think most drugs ought to be legalized so that people can make that choice for themselves, I think it's one of the stupidest things you can do.) 5. Consider undetectable guys. They're brave enough to admit they're poz (ie they're not lying and claiming they're negative), so they're probably* not lying about their undetectable status. The odds of an undetectable top infecting a bottom on PrEP are so vanishingly small that it's not worth being concerned over at all. *I say probably because yes, of course, a guy can be HIV-poz and have a toxic viral load, and lie and claim to be undetectable. But such a guy could just claim to be negative, and I think mostly likely that's what he would do.

No. That's the point. The point is that cheaters promise something *MORE* than sex - that is, monogamy - to a partner and then do something else. YOU may not care whether a partner is monogamous, and that's fine. In such a case, it's not cheating. It's no different, really, than (for instance) going into a business partnership with someone agreeing to split the profits 50/50, but then padding the expenses with side payments that end up in your pocket so that profits are lower and you end up with more than 50% of the actual profit. You make an agreement, you stick to it, or you end the agreement. Cheating on the agreement makes you a sleazy person.