BootmanLA

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.

I'll add: another reason for the ban on unaccompanied guests is there's a huge problem in the French Quarter with drunks urinating wherever the mood strikes. Despite the fact that the lower half of the Quarter (where most of the gay bars in the neighborhood are) is a largely residential area, people will just piss on people's doorsteps, windows, sidewalks, and wherever, because the place is full of 30 and 40 year old boys who can't manage their drinking and think they can just 'let loose' somewhere, figuring someone else will clean it up. Hotels don't want that shit wandering their hallways, for good reason.

For what it's worth, Kylerd, a huge proportion of the posts on this site boasting of sexual exploits are probably at the very least embellished, and sometimes complete fabrications. Every once in a while, people who've been around here for a while note some inconsistencies in the posts (a guy will post his first time was at 16, then four years later he'll claim his first time was at 12; or a guy will claim he's poz and toxic, then later say he's on PrEP, then later still he'll say he's undetectable). Unfortunately, it's part and parcel of (some of) the kind of people attracted here. Personally, I'm always suspicious! of guys! who can't type more! than 4 or 5 words! without throwing in! an exclamation point! along with! lots of "Oh! My! God!" and other crap like that. But that's just me.

and While I am not a moderator here, I think both of these are covered quite adequately by this rule, as articulated by RawTop: "Basically I'm banning anything that causes permanent, significant harm to individuals or significant harm to the community as a whole." I can't imagine anything that would cause more permanent harm to anyone than killing them. And as far as where that applies: "These bans apply to fiction as well as real life situations." I would interpret those two policies to prohibit posts about snuffing, regardless of whether it's fictional or not.

Most hotels, big or small, whether in the FQ or CBD, will be screening visitors if there is a front desk. You don't get in without either a room key of your own, or with someone who has one (and the hotel may or may limit the number of people who can enter at one time with a registered guest). So don't plan on having guys come in unaccompanied - and that's not just a "after 10 PM" thing, it's all day, every day. They aren't particularly interested in policing who you have sex with, or how many guys, but they do NOT want unaccompanied people wandering the halls, looking for open rooms, etc. Property crime is an issue there and nobody wants to add to that. The situation is not likely to be much better at a lot of the short-term rentals. You might luck out and find one that has a private street entrance that the owner isn't monitoring, but no guarantees on that. You'll probably have to pick up guys the old fashioned way, in person. For what it's worth, there is no "host hotel" for Decadence. The Bourbon Orleans frequently gets flagged as such, probably because it pays for some sort of sponsorship for something connected to Southern Decadence, but SD itself is a big street and bar party. There's no ticket to attend (individual bars will have cover charges, and some offer multi-day passes, but that's ordinarily only for the bars with dance floors). For the most part, people are out on the street enjoying themselves (not having sex in the streets, but open containers are allowed in the FQ), or in the bars - they're not likely to be glued to the apps looking for cumdumps in a hotel that they probably won't be able to get into anyway. It's just not that kind of event. As for eating and playing tourist and such: good luck, but I think your 2,000 calorie meal idea is unlikely to do you much good. Once the food has passed deep into your guts, you're going to get hungry again. Finally: I'll note that there ARE some parties - circuit type things - but the vast majority of Decadence attendees don't go. It's a street event, and most people are going to be out in the streets in the areas between the bars (or in the bars along those strips).

I think all the responses here pretty much conclusively demonstrate that yes, in fact, one CAN argue that a particular position is not "the best". This is yet another example of the kind of thinking that "Real X's do Y" or "The only possible best A is B". There are things which are facts (the earth is an oblate spheroid, the moon is made of rock and not green cheese, and so forth), and things which are opinions. We know what is said about opinions.

But just because SARS-CoV-2 and HIV are both viruses does not make them equal, in terms of risk, in terms of transmissibility, or anything else. The dots aren't connecting because there are no dots to connect. HIV is a is a retrovirus transmitted essentially exclusively through the exchange of bodily fluids, i.e. semen and blood. It's possible to avoid HIV infection by preventative medication which stops virtually any chance at HIV from infecting another person. And for the extra-cautious, condoms can provide another layer of protection (though obviously this site is primarily for those who choose not to add that layer). Even for those who abuse injectable drugs, using a clean needle every time is a way to reduce the risk down to near zero. Moreover, except for some very uncommon drug-resistant strains, treatment is available to manage HIV infection that is highly effective (albeit expensive). With treatment, HIV infection may eventually result in death but only after decades of life; scientists are cautiously hopeful that, in fact, it's possible to keep HIV at bay for a lifetime. SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus spread primarily through aerosol contact - breathing virus particles in from an infected person. Masks do an acceptable though not complete job of blocking much transmission, but there are no "behavioral" changes one can make, such as not barebacking or not doing IV drugs, that actually eliminate the risk. Because almost everyone has to come in contact with other people on a daily basis if life is to resume as normal, the risks are completely inapposite to HIV risks. Moreover, there is no known single treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection that works in the same percentage of patients as we have for HIV. Nearly 2% of COVID patients die, typically within a month. Even when HIV was at its worst with no treatment available, people lived for years after infection (albeit not knowing they were infected) before their health collapsed. In other words, these are two extremely different situations linked only by a single word: "virus". There is no logic to connecting "dots" that are not there.

I'm not sure why a bathhouse should be necessary to bottom, even to bottom bareback. Surely there are other tops in your area who are barebackers. For that matter, if you posted a personal ad somewhere or updated a profile on "the apps" to note you're a top looking to lose his bottom cherry, raw, you should have your pick of takers. Substances may be more of an issue - you do you, but lots of guys prefer to play with others who are in the moment and can make informed decisions. And at least some bathhouses don't let you bring that shit in. It happens, clearly, and some guys fuck themselves up before they go, but they're not especially thrilled with it. Especially since if the guy OD's, it puts a real crimp in business while everything's shut down for an investigation. And if you're worried about what you'll feel for your first time, definitely don't "relax with substances". You won't know how it actually feels, only how it feels filtered through drugs. And if you HAVE to have drugs in order to bottom, maybe bottoming isn't your thing.