BootmanLA

And it's certainly your right to allow that. That said, it's also the right of a bottom to decide (and make clear beforehand) that he's willing to be fucked but NOT willing to take the load. The top in such a situation can honorably agree to do so; he can honorably decline to have sex at all. What he can't do with honor is agree to the bottom's terms and then deliberately ignore them at the end.

-coupled with- Fskn's point is well-taken, but the answer to the question austin raised above is "Not necessarily". The point of the poster's experience and research is that (a) the literature documents that fatty liver *can* be a side effect of one of the meds in Truvada, and that (b) he apparently is one of those who experienced that side effect. That is not a statement that "everyone who takes PrEP will get a fatty liver" nor is it a statement that "If you have a fatty liver you can't take PrEP". For starters, "fatty liver" is not a yes/no thing; it's relative, and two people affected with fatty liver caused by the meds in Truvada may have that condition to wildly different extents; that is, one may have severely fatty liver and the other may just have it to a mild extent. Moreover, one might have a fatty liver already, not caused by PrEP, and at the same time be one of those people whose PrEP usage doesn't affect the liver at all, so PrEP presents no problems even though he's already got a fatty liver. That's why it's important to get advice from a doctor.

I'd quibble with the word "minimizes", suggesting perhaps "reduces" instead. Precum can contain HIV. And of course it assumes the top is capable of, and willing to, pull out in time - and who knows whether he's going to succeed, or if the first blast of his load ends up inside? Someone needs to alert the porn industry, then, given the multitude of videos that show a guy pulling out and spraying the bottom's [choose one: ass, face, chest, back, airspace] with cum. 🙂 (Not saying people should or shouldn't pull out - just that it's clearly common enough that porn depicts it regularly.) PrEP is definitely more effective. But as for "how" - generally I'd assume the top and bottom agree that's what the top will do when he gets close. Will it stop a top from lying in order to get in a guy bare, and then deliver the load anyway? Of course not. So it depends on whether the bottom puts faith in the top's word as to what he'll do.

One thing you might consider: see if you can find out exactly which of the components of the PrEP medication you were using has the liver side effects, and see if your doctor is willing to prescribe something else - possibly something used for HAART - as an alternative. If the costs are similar, he might be able to get your insurer to pay for the alternative medication as an alternative use. *might* be a long shot, but it's worth asking.

This is precisely why I roll my eyes at all the people giving opinions about poppers. In the case of PrEP, PEP, and HAART, we're talking about meticulously studied, detailed analyses of drugs manufactured to fairly exacting standards which have been through clinical trial after clinical trial, and the side effects they have still vary considerably among different patients. But people on here brag or complain about particular 'brands' of poppers (as though there were even the slightest level of standardization in production, or even a hint of clinical testing) and treat their 'knowledge' as Gospel Truth Revealed From On High (no pun intended). I mean, go ahead and snort all the industrial solvents you want, it's your brain cells, but please lay off on the brand evangelization.

What's gone is "free porn". There's still an inordinate amount of porn out there; you just have to, generally speaking, pay people for it.

It's not weird, per se. That sort of thing does occur in some branches of the animal kingdom, where a dominant male mounts (if only briefly) other males to show his dominance. That said, I would think an awful lot of straight bosses, etc. would have difficulty getting and staying hard for that, if only because our culture so closely links sexual orientation with the particular sex acts. Straight guys can and do perform better, broadly speaking, receiving oral sex, but I suspect that's partly because they can close their eyes and pretend.

I would suggest a better way to put it would be that breeding is a subset of fucking, rather than "distinct" (which implies they have nothing to do with one another). Salt is a subset of "spices", but is not "distinct" from spices, just a more specific KIND of spice. Breeding is a specific KIND of fucking. As to the original question: No, of course that's not "breeding". Were I a top in that situation, I'd ask him if he had a uterus in his throat.

This is not so much my "experience with poppers" (don't use them), but commentary about expectations. For starters: these are generally speaking unregulated chemical products - there's no FDA or OSHA or EPA (in the US; EU and other regions may vary) regulations on what exactly they are made of, how potent they can be, quality control measures, or anything else. Companies can and do change up formulas, they can make formulas incorrectly, and you honestly have no way of knowing that what you get in bottle A is even close to what you got last year in identically labeled bottle B. That said, certain chemicals may be banned entirely from sale to the public in certain jurisdictions, but not others, and it's possible as well that what Big Popper Company sells as "Formula 1" in the US is different from what it sells as "Formula 1" in Australia or Germany or wherever. Second; I imagine they're in glass bottles for a reason. A glass bottle is less likely to split open and spill its contents, less likely to degrade from the effects of the chemical, easier to seal tightly, and so forth. I would imagine that plastic containers would be much more problematic. Any "permanent" poppers container would almost certainly be made of glass for that reason.

I'd respectfully suggest that *every* relationship is a compromise of sorts. I do not mean that two people cannot love one another completely and wholeheartedly (and even, if they so choose, remain monogamous for the duration of the relationship) but that even someone you love completely undoubtedly has quirky habits you don't really care for, or just doesn't quite share your overwhelming enthusiasm for original-colors Fiestaware, or *something*. Nobody's perfectly suited for anyone else down to every last jot and tittle. Dan Savage, the astute sex advice columnist, refers to forming relationships under these circumstances as "rounding up" - nobody is "the one", but you may find a 0.65 or a 0.71 or whatever that can be rounded up to one - by each of you compromising on some of your ideal attributes in a partner. And for the OP, that may or may not mean finding a partner who's only willing to accept, as opposed to enthusiastically endorse, his cumsluttery. That's not to say he shouldn't try to find exactly what he wants, but you can spend a lifetime looking, or at least, the best years in which you can actively BE that cumslut, searching for a partner who's perfect and who very possibly doesn't exist. It's also important to remember: substantial numbers of heterosexual couples - who've had millennia more than we have to socialize being in lifelong, legally committed relationships (of various characters) - end up divorcing, with the odds of getting divorced increasing as you get married again (a higher percentage of second marriages end in divorce than first marriages). While it's lovely that many gay couples do settle down and form lifelong pair bonds (legally or not), the reality is that very few "first" relationships for gay men last a lifetime (absent that "lifetime" being abrogated by an early death). Rounding up to one when you're first entering the relationship world doesn't mean you're forever stuck with the same math. Relationships can "end" without being drama fests as people grow (or even as just one partner grows), and it doesn't mean the couple or relationship "failed"; it means they're moving on to other places in life. All of which is to say: don't let the search for Mr. Perfect blind you to workable alternatives along the way.

You may, but not everyone. It may come as a shock but there are quite a lot of people who feel it's polite for a guy getting sucked to warn the guy sucking when he's about to cum, in case he doesn't want to swallow. So "expected"? Maybe YOU expect it, but don't assume everyone, even the tops you're with, to expect it as well.

With some tweaking, I think this is a pretty good model. For many people, "immediate family" means people not related by blood or marriage, because their own blood/marriage "families" have rejected them. My own is very accepting and loving and welcomes my partner into anything family-related (he was listed with me in the survivors when my father died five years ago), but not everyone is so lucky. I think part of the issue is bandwidth. Very few people have the emotional and interpersonal reserves to maintain large numbers of relationships at the level required for "core" or "inner circle" in your model, and competing in that bandwidth are all the other trials and tribulations of modern life, from the minor (traffic and leaky faucets) to the major (family member illnesses and job losses and the like). When something like Covid strikes, we're forced to ration that bandwidth to those who mean the most to us, in order to preserve some semblance of sanity. I am lucky in that my job wasn't affected much at all by Covid. I can do much of it from anywhere, so lockdowns weren't an issue, and neither my partner nor I faced any financial repercussions as did so many people we know. So I was able to be "available" to several friends who were less fortunate and strengthened some bonds in the process. But I also understood that some of the people I like and whose company I enjoy didn't have that same ability. As for the original question: In my view, a friendship is a net positive for both parties, and that's what I look for - someone who will be a net positive in my life. Not that I "keep score", but I am pretty good at spotting people who give back only reluctantly and avoiding them. Not perfect at it, but good enough to avoid the real sociopaths.

I don't think a "health passport" would ever be required at a bathhouse, ABS, etc. It would destroy their business model, not because they cater to people carrying infections (although there's certainly some of that present), but because they thrive on anonymity. We've got lots of states (in the US, at least) that are passing laws, as we speak, that prohibit government offices from even asking about your vaccination status to transact business with them. They're passing laws that prohibit local governments from enacting any mandate for health protection stricter than whatever statewide mandate is in place - which is usually negligible by this point. In that environment, a private business like an ABS or a bathhouse, already operating somewhat on the fringes of public approval/acceptance, is hardly likely to stick its neck out and demand proof of vaccination. What Covid proved is that a significant portion of this country, overlapping largely if not entirely with Republican voters, won't do anything to contain the spread of an infectious disease if it impacts their daily lives more than the slightest trifle. And if that "anything" they're asked to do comes in the form of a government mandate, they are even more obstinate that they won't.

Actually, I know people who do that kind of thing at restaurants all the time, and restaurants that honor those requests. (One is a friend with severe digestive issues after prostate radiation treatment; he'll ask for a dish of plain pasta with just some parmesan cheese sprinkled over it at Italian restaurants, and they're usually happy to provide it and invent a price for a dish not on the menu.) Although I don't do it often, my favorite casual restaurant doesn't offer the particular kind of sandwich I most like, but they do offer others that taken together include all the ingredients I like. They long ago got used to me asking them to make what I want, and they charge me a reasonable amount for this custom item. Likewise, a menu can describe how something is prepared or identify what side items accompany the dish; that doesn't mean, absent a "NO SUBSTITUTIONS" listing, that you can't request to swap a side salad for the broccoli. And the separation between pickles and ice cream (or plumbing and lamps), I would submit, is far greater than that between bareback and condom sex. The problem is the word "implicit". Just because something may be *implied* by the choice(s) offered doesn't mean that any deviation from that is strictly forbidden. If a profile is explicit - ie "NO CONDOMS, BARE ONLY, NO EXCEPTIONS", then your point is valid with respect to that person. He's made his position clear. But as should be obvious from thousands of posts here, there are people who are barebackers who will (reluctantly) accept or use a condom in certain situations, just as there are "bottoms" who will, in the right circumstances, top someone else. When the menu doesn't say "NO SUBSTITUTIONS" then it's not rude to ask.

About 80% of the questions/stories here.

You did not miss a memo. What you missed is the allocation of choice. Let's say "John" views himself as a cumdump. That means he does not ask anyone to use condoms during sex. That does not mean everyone (say, "Tom") who is interested in having sex with him has an obligation to fuck him without a condom. If Tom is not a barebacker, or does not bareback under certain circumstances, that is his right, just as it's John's right to opt out of sex with Tom. So: just because YOU are a cumdump doesn't mean only guys who bareback randos are allowed to ask you to fuck. It means YOU make the choice: to accede to his condom request, to not have sex with him, or to try to convince him to not use one. It means HE gets to respond to that and make his own choice, if you choose the second or third options: he gets to decide whether to give in and go bare, or walk away. The error here is assuming that by declaring yourself a cumdump, everyone else forfeits their rights to at least attempt to negotiate other options. Just say "no thank you" and move on.

I think the mistake is in framing this as a question of "why these guys don't want to bareback HIM", because for all you know, these guys do not want to bareback *anyone*. It's true that PrEP works. But some people (a) don't believe that, (b) don't want to take chances even though it does work, (c) are worried about other STI's, (d) on and on with any number of reasons a person may choose not to engage in bareback sex. The point is that none of us are *entitled* to have any particular person or persons fuck us bareback. Your friend seems to have hit a spate of guys who are not barebackers (which is their prerogative). He gets to choose: would he rather fuck with a condom, or not get fucked by this particular guy?

First, it's low-risk. Not "no-risk" but low. Second, rather than "panic", which is a useless reaction that accomplishes nothing, use the experience to learn something. You're clearly uncomfortable with risk past a certain point, so factor that into your decisions. Going off PrEP is clearly not a good option for you, so don't do that again; otherwise, you'll find yourself "giving in" to more activities and you're unprotected. It's understandable to go off PrEP for many reasons: because you lose health care coverage and you can't get on it via an assistance program, for example. Or because your body is reacting badly to one of the drugs in the medication. But the point of PrEP is to have ongoing protection when sex DOES present itself, and obviously it (whether oral only or more) can pop up despite your best intentions. It may seem pointless if you aren't able to make many contacts due to the pandemic, but that's no reason to drop your protection, especially if you're the sort to panic if you might be exposed.

So.... this was a fantasy of yours, but you nonetheless only wanted to suck him off, tried to say no and he wouldn't take no for an answer? Mm-hm. Me, when I've fantasized about something, and it's dropped in my lap, the last thing I do is try to fight it off.

You say that "for poz it's hypothetical", but the entire premise of your question is hypothetical: IF a vaccine were to become available. More importantly: a vaccine prevents infection; it doesn't cure, so for a poz person, it's irrelevant (unless HIV started stably mutating more than it already has, and the vaccine prevented infection by a new mutation). Now if you mean to ask "For poz people, would you have chosen to get vaccinated if one had been available before you converted?", that would be a reasonable question to ask.

FWIW: My ID doctor switched me TO Biktarvy (from Genvoya) precisely because Genvoya was probably one of the things causing my A1C to rise; Biktarvy is supposed to be both kidney-safe and pancreas-safe. Given the "lookback" period involved in an A1c level, you may find it continues to drop if you stay on the diet for the most part.

Indeed. Here in Louisiana, for instance, the program we have is open to people who make up from zero to roughly $48,000 a year. Once our governor expanded Medicaid as provided under the ACA, people making up to 133% of the poverty level were put on expanded Medicaid (because that pot of money from the feds is separate from the Ryan White funded program), but people between that and the program cutoff qualify for regular benefits. With the program, they simply pay the premium for you to have regular insurance - in our case, through BlueCross/BlueShield - and there's a separate program designed to cover deductibles and copays with the providers, so the cost to the patient is literally zero. Even aside from the benefits of getting back on HIV treatment, it's a lifesaver if you need other medical attention. Not sure how Texas does it, but since the program simply pays your insurance premium and handles all the claims, etc., there's no stigma attached when you provide your insurance card to the medical provider, either. He should definitely look into it.

I would note that everyone who reported a problem seemed to have it on an Apple product. I did not have any issues using Chrome, Waterfox, or Edge on Windows during that period. When n=1, obviously not a lot of conclusions can be drawn, but it's interesting to note nobody else seemed to be reporting an Android or Windows version of the problem, at least not here.

Technically, I think the term "dry orgasm" is used when no seminal fluid is produced period, as in the case of men who've had their prostate removed. What you're describing, with cum showing up later, more due to gravity and/or being washed down, is a retrograde ejaculation - instead of being propelled outward, the semen is backflowing up from the urethra, and then it's working its way back out. That may be something that can be treated. I'd consult a urologist.

I'm not suggesting BBRT would be the enforcers. I'm suggesting they perhaps do not want to facilitate events with a still significant risk of transmitting a disease for which there is no guaranteed effective treatment and which has proven deadly for nearly 600,000 Americans and millions more worldwide - and that the option of using a vaccine card requirement for admittance is like trying to bail out a bathtub using a strainer.