BootmanLA

That was back in the days when publishing anything, even same-sex erotica, involved editors and judgment calls and that sort of thing. You not only had to have great ideas for a story, but you had to know how to write it well so the reader could just go with the flow. Authors (or their editors) understood that short paragraphs - a sentence or two - were easier to read than forty-seven continuous lines of type. They also understood that you couldn't make forty-seven lines of type a single sentence. So very, very many of the stories here in the fiction section are great concepts completely spoiled by the most godawful writing I've ever seen. And I say that as a former TA who graded essay exams for freshman western civilization classes (an auditorium-sized class that was a requirement for almost every major) in an open-admissions (that is, no GPA requirement, no essay, no testing scores required) university where half the students flunked out by the end of their freshman year.

Having been "out and about" since the late 1970's, having traveled to many cities across the United States, and having been "online" with various services since the early days of pre-internet dialup with folks like Compuserve and AOL, I can honestly say I have never, ever heard anyone in any city or region declare that there are more tops than bottoms locally, or even that there is a reasonable number of tops where they live. How much of that is perception versus reality, I can't say, but it's commonly perceived wisdom, if not actual knowledge, that bottoms greatly outnumber tops everywhere.

Not only is "clean" offensive (as noted by fillmyholeftl, above) but you actually have no way of knowing whether any of your sexual partners was HIV positive or not. You can know what they TELL you, which may or may not be factual, and which may or may not refer to a "last test" which could have been months or years ago. He may even THINK he's telling the truth but not know that he has in fact been infected, and since people are often at their most infectious shortly after getting infected themselves, it's actually a significant risk. That's not counting the ones who'll lie to get into your pants. As for your fiance: Obviously, BEFORE you decide to indulge in this chasing, you need to make it clear to him that you're going to actively pursue making your fantasy a reality. He has a right to know, and a right to protect himself. If he decides to protect himself, whether that's by switching to using a condom with you, or going on PrEP himself, or breaking up with you, that's his choice. Not giving him the information he needs to make that decision - which may be to encourage you and to join you in the quest, for all I know - is the problem.

And I have no problem with those who choose to use them to describe themselves, or with those who know the guy they're with likes that kind of stuff. More power to them. If a guy pulls that on me, I politely but firmly inform him not to do it again. Resistance to that directive means I get up and leave.

I think the list needs refinement. After all, as has been pointed out, Pike was played by one actor in TOS and another in DSC. Kirk was played by one actor in TOS and another in the Kelvin timeline reboot. In both cases, the character was significantly different based upon the interpretation of the actor (and of the director). And the Kirk of the movies (especially Search for Spock and Voyage Home) is qualitatively different from Kirk in TOS. All told, though, I think Sisko's character is the most developed. He has a son he's been raising as a single dad for several years; he's been widowed and later remarries; he served in the Borg War, in peacetime, on the frontier at DS9, and again in war against the Dominion; we see his conflict over being both a Starfleet officer and the Emissary of the Prophets; he's willing to cut deals with adversaries (as when he traded the Defiant's sensor logs of the Obsidian Order's shipbuilding base for a guarantee of Thomas Riker's non-capital sentence); he even was willing to lie to the Romulans about the Dominion's plans to invade the Romulan Empire to draw them into the war on the side of the Federation. He certainly didn't have Picard's stick-up-his-ass approach to rules and regulations.

If you don't know how you'd tell the important people in your life - INCLUDING YOUR FIANCE - then no, of course not, you shouldn't do it. I'm curious how you have always been barebacking since your first time having sex (which implies never having used a condom) but then you say it's because you don't like the feel of condoms (which, supposedly, you've never used). But leaving aside that hole in your story, I'd point out that having "thought about the aftermath" is not the same thing as knowing how you'd handle it. You don't mention whether your fiance knows about your interest in this. If it were just a fantasy - like, say, fantasizing about being fucked by a postal carrier who was wearing a scuba suit and whistling "God Save the Queen" - then you don't have to share with him. But something that would put his own health at risk, at least during the period you'd be infectious (assuming you went on meds)? If you can't figure out how you'd talk to him about it, then you're not ready to actually do it. And I'll say this: I commend partners who stay together after one becomes poz unintentionally. That's a wonderful thing. But: if I were a negative man with a negative partner, and he came to me and said "I've been bugchasing and finally managed to get infected, surprise!", I'd dump his ass for not talking about it with me beforehand, so we could make a plan about something that will affect us both.

Here's my thought on that: RUN. If he doesn't live with you, change your locks, change your phone if need be, get a restraining order if you have to. If you live together, find a place you can get away to, then do it. Leave what you can't take and consider it abandoned. Sound overly dramatic? *Anyone* who is trying to control your body to the extent of denying your right to protect yourself against infection with a disease that could kill you, does not have ANY of your interests at heart. None. Zippo. Period. As I see this: 1. You're entrusting your health to his compliance with HIV treatment. No, scratch that; you're entrusting your health to what he SAYS is his compliance with HIV treatment. Unless you know what the medications look like, and you witness him taking them EVERY.SINGLE.DAY.WITHOUT.FAIL, you actually *know* nothing about his status, his undetectability, and so forth. 2. As others have pointed out: setting HIV aside, if he's playing raw with others, he could easily pick up another STI, and pass that on to you as well. There's no way to avoid that if you're having bareback sex, but if you were on PrEP, you would at least be getting tested regularly for other infections as well, and thus stand a chance of getting them treated before they become serious. 3. While I recognize that some people have differing sex drives and thus the one with the lower drive doesn't mind if his partner has "outside the relationship" sex, that doesn't appear to be the case here. He's claiming a right for himself that he refuses to acknowledge for you. Even with a more experienced submissive, I'd caution him to be very, very sure that's a tradeoff he's willing to make in a relationship, because that's a big flashing warning sign with red strobe lights telling you this is about controlling you. And entering into a relationship where one partner exerts substantial control over the other is something that should only be done with eyes open wide, full discussion, and clear understandings of what's ok and not ok - and an acknowledgment by the controlling person that the controllee - you - has the right to end that AT ANY TIME. I look at you saying ""and well I didn't object" and that tells me you two didn't discuss the terms of this relationship at all - he dictated, you went along. And frankly, that's essentially an admission that you're not mature enough to MAKE that kind of informed decision - because you didn't take advantage of that opportunity to become informed. You should have asked why it was important to him that you not be on PrEP. I don't mean this to be critical of you per se - everyone of us was naive at one time. I just think you have a long ways to go before you shed that.

For those of us who started watching gay porn in the 1970's, the notion of 2000 being "old school" cracks me up. Thanks for making me feel ANCIENT. LOL

I can't imagine why he wouldn't want you on PrEP, unless he thinks you'll feel free to sleep with other guys bareback if you don't have to worry about them infecting you. But you'd have to ask him "why" to be sure. Assuming he tells you the truth.

I kinda doubt they could find the hole to even get in.

Hate to be pedantic, but sperm are the tiny, microscopic motile cells that fuse with an egg (if lucky), merge DNA, and result in fertilization. SEMEN is the fluid that shoots out during a male orgasm, and it contains some number of sperm cells. I assure you, you cannot feel any difference whatsoever as to "lots of sperm" vs. "very little sperm" in sex. You CAN experience varying amounts of SEMEN. As noted by others, some guys shoot a lot, some less; some shoot more under some circumstances and less under others; some shoot in one or two spurts, some shoot repeatedly through 6 or 8 or more spurts, each of which can be a large or small amount of semen. Some guys routinely shoot several feet; others almost always just barely dribble out their orgasm. There's no rhyme or reason to it.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with this perspective, though I can see how the shows superficially resemble what you suggest. Star Wars is, I think more like the story of the Cold War than WWII. Less invading and conquering, more infiltration and then co-opting of democratic norms in favor of authoritarianism. And while WWII involved victory by superior military might, the Empire in Star Wars *was* the superior military force, by far; it was defeated by a vastly outnumbered contingent of rebels who were nimble enough to find the weaknesses in the system. In WWII, we didn't have a crafty spy smuggle us the plans for Hitler's bunker that showed us how we could drop a grenade to a ventilation shaft that would blow him up and leave his empire leaderless to fall apart; we bombed the holy fuck out of Germany and its vassal states until we'd destroyed most of their war-making capability. As for Star Trek: westerns were about 'murricans subduing all the nasty savages and bringing them education and culture (or just killing them off), in an attempt to gain control over all the territory between the Atlantic and the Pacific, both to strip its natural resources and to utilize the land for agricultural, commercial, and residential purposes. Star Trek is far more idealistic; it's an alliance of worlds that preserves each world's unique characteristics while combining resources to work towards common goals of peaceful exploration. There was certainly no Prime Directive in the west or in the westerns about the era, unless you count "Keep the Injuns under control or just kill 'em if they act up" as a prime directive. It's true that some of the fight scenes in Star Trek are reminiscent of westerns, but only in a broad sense. Hand-held phaser battles are vaguely like gun battles in westerns, but given that phasers can shoot right through almost anything, it's not like westerns where you can duck behind the rain barrel to avoid the bullets. And yes, some of the areas explored are on the frontiers of the galaxy, where the latest and greatest tech isn't found yet. Except it is, onboard the Enterprise; it's like exploring the frontier west in 1870 in a giant 21st century all-terrain-vehicle that can not only transport one of pretty much every piece of technology you might need complete with giant weapons mounted on top. Doesn't sound very western-ish to me.

Here's the thing: You acknowledge "unnatural" is not the right word, but then retreat right back to it when talking about the "Nature of the male". I'm not disputing that biologically, we probably have inherited (from our more primitive antecedent species) a predisposition to mate widely so as to spread our genes. My point is that we go against our "natural" instincts all the time, for the sake of harmony with our fellow humans. We eat in most societies with utensils, be it a fork, spoon, or chopsticks, not by grabbing food out of a pot with our bare hands. For that matter, cooking food, itself, is entirely a human adaptation against our "natures". We soften food for our young by mechanical means, not by chewing it up and spitting it out for them. We poop in toilets rather than a corner in our room or in the back yard. We do these things not just for ourselves but to make living with other people possible, too. So saying it's contrary to nature doesn't tell us anything about whether it's good or bad, given how many OTHER things contrary to nature we accept as standard. Sexual monogamy is another one of those adaptations humans made. It's arguable WHY we adopted (in large measure; certainly there's never been 100% compliance, and variations like one man/many wives have long existed) that practice. But blaming it on Christian (or Judeo-Christian) religion isn't entirely fair. Buddha himself was a monogamist and while he did not declare it the only acceptable option, he recommended in general against multiple partners. Native American tribes had a wide variety of practices with respect to pair-bonding (since most did not have any formal marriage rites), but serial monogamy was not an uncommon thing and variations on that most often took the "poly" route as opposed to the "sleep around while also having a spouse" route. Finally, I'm not saying anyone should "base the validity of an entire relationship on the willingness not to have sex with anyone else, ever." I'm saying that people who prefer a more open situation should do so, without feeling the need to denigrate those who have chosen something more restrictive as suitable for themselves as "unnatural" or insisting they're basing the relationship on control and jealousy. I never suggested or even hinted that sexual monogamy works for all, or the majority. I just don't see why so many people who demand that others respect their choice NOT to be monogamous can't pay the same courtesy without the snide asshole comments about those who DO choose it.

Correct. But OP: You said he was negative in the beginning, but as of about 5 years ago he told you he was poz undetectable. There's a lot going on between those things that needs to be explored. Assuming he's being honest that he was negative to start with, were you actively having sex at the time he was pozzed? You were most at risk not long after he was infected, and until a few months into his treatment. Did he tell you immediately that he was poz, before reaching undetectable, or did he keep having sex and only fess up to being poz once he was undetectable? If there's any chance he wasn't 100% truthful at all points, you should get on PrEP (in part because it'll keep you getting tested regularly). Even if he IS truthful, the way to protect yourself best is NOT to rely on him to be UD, but for you to be essentially uninfectable, via PrEP. Because while it's true that UD=UT, that puts 100% of your eggs in the basket of him being and remaining undetectable. It's turning over control of your health to another person. That's always, ALWAYS a bad idea.

That may have been how it started, and I'll freely admit it doesn't work for all (and I don't look down on anyone for whom it doesn't, including me). But dismissing it as "only" something Christianity forced on society, when you find it in many other spiritual traditions as well, is as foolish as dismissing it because it's "unnatural". As I note, we do all sorts of things that are "unnatural", including - for most of us - pooping in a small, designated area designed for easy removal of waste. The real question is whether it works for the individuals in the context of whatever society they may live in. There are places and times where one would be a social outcast for nonmonogamy, and there are individuals who wouldn't accept anything else in a relationship. Those circumstances and those people deserve as much respect for their way of life as we expect them to show for ours.

It's undoubtedly true that monogamy is the exception, not the rule, in the animal kingdom. That said, because something is "uncommon" in the natural world doesn't mean it's unsuitable for us. Upright bipedalism, for instance, is essentially absent from all of our closest animal relatives. That doesn't suggest we should naturally be going on all fours most of the time. Most of our relatives are herbivores, but that doesn't mean our animal-heavy diet is unnatural. While it's sometimes questionable to think so, given the behavior of people in this world, we are ostensibly a more evolved species, with non-biological reasons for doing many things. This is not to say that monogamy is good (or bad, or indifferent), but the fact is that as an evolved species, we have much more of an ability to shift our behavior based on agreed-upon social norms. In the animal world, for instance, there's no real sense of private property belonging to the individual, and animals will routinely steal food from each other to feed themselves and their offspring. Birds that collect objects, like many corvids, will steal from one another right and left. That behavior may be "natural", but as an evolved species we (mostly) recognize the need to curb that impulse for the good of all. So evaluate monogamy among humans not in the "natural" context but the social one. If it doesn't offer advantages to you and your partner(s), you don't have to practice it. Denigrating it as "unnatural", however, is no more valid than saying that taking a dump in a toilet is "unnatural" given that most animals just shit wherever they want.

Agreed. Look, I'm all in favor of people *fantasizing* about whatever gets their weenie hard, no matter how "out there" it is, as long as it remains fantasy. Discussions of fantasies ought to be clearly labeled. When one raves about some practice that's likely to result in a substantial prison term, loss of a professional license, or some equally momentous consequence, and it's not clearly identified as masturbatory fodder only, then, well, expect me to call it out for what it is.

Sounds to me that he's one of those who thinks he can "tell" if a particular guy is "risky" for bareback, like he has convinced himself he can tell that a guy is negative and not lying about it. Sad thing is that relying on "waiting till he feels comfortable" is a pretty good way to end up getting pozzed when his judgment proves faulty.

Yes, of course he "can" - assuming that he and the boyfriend are both mature enough to handle the situation. As you note, there can be problems from two directions, either the boyfriend resenting the fact that his partner is having sex with others, OR the boyfriend objectifying and fetishizing his partner as a sex worker (including those people who answered "it would be hot for my BF to do that"). I think it is probably hard to find someone who doesn't do one or the other - who views his partner's escorting as "just a job" like being a file clerk or a water or a nurse or a software developer. As for the bonus question: yes, that too is possible, but probably unlikely to be commonplace. The reality is that most people don't "love" their jobs - a lot of people "like" their jobs, a lot "tolerate" their jobs, and a significant number hate their jobs but don't have a lot of options (or are unwilling to do what it takes to change the job). The problem is that if the "straight" escort really enjoys his job, he's probably not really completely straight. And if he IS completely straight, I suspect he wouldn't be a particularly good escort with other men.

There are very few clinical studies, if any, done regarding popper use, just like there are very few clinical studies done for inhaling paint fumes or swallowing lye soap. As for consistency of formula and regulations, etc.: it's one step above bathtub gin and outhouse crystal meth. There's nothing to stop Big Popper Co. Inc. from sending out a thousand bottles of "X brand video head cleaner" (because of course there are still so many video cassette players in service) that contain nothing but turpentine. Or diluted Lysol concentrate. Or whatever else they might have on hand. Do they? Probably not. Are you willing to risk snorting something based on trusting the company not to have screwed up some formula? Long-term side effects haven't been identified again because there are no studies about what the long term effects of inhaling solvents deliberately at close range might be. I think common sense would tell anyone that given how fast they distort your brain cells when you use them, there's almost certainly going to be slow, microscopic, but steady damage over time, but then the people who need to hear that message have almost certainly snorted too many bottles of solvents to be able to grasp the elementary logic there.

Captain is a rank, not a job title, in this context. Sisko was indeed promoted from Commander to Captain during the run of the series. Admirals sometimes command ships, but that does not make them the ship's "Captain" any more than Sisko being the commanding officer of the Defiant made him "Captain" until he was promoted to that rank.

If I had to guess: a regularly fucked man's ass is not going to be as tight as some might like, and adding the second "cock" tightens things up again for him. It's also a solid surface to thrust against, if they don't move exactly in tandem (I'm assuming they do not), which may help tops who are used to a really tight/firm grip on their cock while masturbating.

Any doctor who gave a patient crystal meth anally while doing a fake "rectal exam" should lose his license. Fuck no. The idea of encouraging and eroticizing sexual predators is pathetic.

Not really inconsistent at all. You recognize that other people may prefer to keep their information private, and so you err on the side of caution. Admirable. Conversely, you don't mind if your number is shared, so there's no harm done no matter what the other guy decides (share or not).

That, too, is fine, if that's what you make clear to your top. But your assumption that *you* have told him you want him to breed you does not hold for everyone else in the same circumstances.