BootmanLA

*some* man bottoms like yourself. Don't assume you speak for all of us. In my opinion, this attitude derives from the traditional-but-thankfully-dying mentality that men get pleasure from sex and women are there to provide that pleasure for him - if they enjoy it, great (maybe, or maybe not because that means she's a slut), but it's the man's pleasure that counts. This is just sticking a man into that woman's role and subjugating him to the pleasures and demands and desires of the top. Well, fuck that. I'm as proud a bottom as there is, and I don't acknowledge ANY difference of "power" in our sexual roles. In fact, if anything, I have MORE power because I can deny him what he craves - a hole to fuck. I can even deny it to him mid-fuck, if I so choose. I'm not a psychologist so I can't opine whether people who have such a damaged view of their own autonomy and power have a disorder or not.

Maybe find some phosphorescent day-glo body paint and have a buddy draw a circle around your anus? I mean, you're talking about sex in the dark. Men's hole locations vary quite a bit, with some barely behind the scrotum (little or no taint) to well in the back with a taint you could camp out on in an emergency. Or just reach back and guide the cock into your hole. it's not rocket science.

So, to put it another way, they don't think of bottoms as women; they just think of bottoms as inferior, and so they use a term originated for women, because women are inferior too, right? This is exactly why I'm not interested in any asshole top whose masculinity is so fragile he has to denigrate not only me, but bottoms and women in general, by using a term like "pussy" or "cunt". Poor emotionally stunted "masculine" guys whose sense of self is so fragile they can't admit they're fucking another MAN, probably because to admit that, they'd have to admit that as MEN, they might get fucked themselves one day. Pitiful.

but Frantic - don't you know that when a white guy does something, he's always a lone wolf, a disturbed soul, someone who got shafted by the system and he's lashing out in pain. When a black guy or a brown guy or a Muslim does it, it's "what do you expect with people like that, that's why we shouldn't have any of them here".

It's not a question of time; it's a question of how much you engage with the system by making posts and commenting on others' posts. If it were time-based, the spam folks would simply seed lots of dummy accounts, sit back, and let them "mature" into accounts that have much more access, then wreak havoc on the system.

Don't be sure. There are people here (before RawTop clamped down a bit, rightfully so) who were thrilled to have progressed to AIDS. Or at least, they claimed to be so. And many others who publicly aver their desire to progress to that state. One thing this site has taught me is that no matter how odd or extreme some particular fetish or desire may seem, once it's mentioned, a chorus of people will rise up claiming to share that interest with zeal.

That would make sense. One thought: I've occasionally thought about suggesting an "Angry" reaction, but I'm not entirely sure it's a good idea. If it were to come about, though, I'd suggest it also be neutral on points, because one could be angry about a situation described in a posting, or angry about the opinion expressed by the poster. My gut feeling is that a single reaction (downvote) that generates a negative point, and the three (upvote, piggy, thanks) that seem to generate a positive point, are probably sufficient for points-affecting reactions. I'm assuming that "HaHa" is likewise neutral, in that one could be sharing the laugh at a joke posted by someone, or laughing at a ridiculous take in a post.

True, but unfortunately, far too few parents know about it, and far too few school systems have any sort of effective sexual health and education programs to inform students and parents about this. In fact, far too many schools have state laws that prohibit any teaching of sex that is not strictly about abstinence. A sane country would offer such vaccines free of charge to all students of the appropriate age and require them for attending public school after a certain age. We are not, unfortunately, a sane country.

In other words, a shitty politician attracts a shitty following. Yeah, I see plenty of evidence backing that up and I don't have to look very far, without pointing any fingers or other appendages at anyone's face.

The United States had many states which criminalized - as a FELONY punishment by imprisonment at hard labor - "sodomy" (defined variously in different states, but often including ANY form of sexual contact between people of the same sex, or even certain acts, like a woman giving her husband a blow job). Given that you want to stop Islamic immigration to the West, were you also in favor of banning immigration from people from, say, Louisiana (which criminalized and prosecuted such crimes right up until the Supreme Court struck down those laws in 2003) back before that decision? In any event, "wanting" something that even you acknowledge is "far too late for that now") seems the attitude of a crybaby who wants the piece of cake that Jimmy ate, not the one sitting in front of him, because it's not THAT piece and it's not fair he got that piece and I'm going to throw a fit because I can't have it now. Leaving aside, of course, that many Islamic countries do not have such harsh penalties, and many who immigrate from those places are fleeing a repressive society to live with people with a more enlightened outlook., but of course, simple minds can only handle simple concepts like "Ban immigration from Muslim countries". Or as someone - I forget who exactly it was - running for president in 2016 said, "I am calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." Simple minds.

I think there are two separate issues here: How long warnings/demerits/strikes/points/whatever appear on your profile, and how long they have an impact on your ability to use features and advance levels. With respect to the former: If you don't want to see visible reminders of past infractions, don't look at them. The system's management is absolutely, 100% within its rights to keep a permanent record of all past infractions. It's not like (as far as I can tell) other people looking at your profile see the infraction history - I believe that's limited to one's own record. There are people I'm fairly confident have gotten significant penalties assessed against themselves on here, and it's not visible on their profiles. The issue of how long it should affect one's ability to do things online is separate. Presumably, though, continuing to participate in the various forums (within the rules) should eventually not only negate, but subsume, any bad effects of "having a record". And if a person DOES earn another infraction/penalty, the staff ought to be able to see that entire history, to see if there's any sort of pattern. If the poster, for instance, only gets an infraction once a year, and it's always for the same thing, it's perhaps a sign that the penalty levied isn't having the desired effect of changing a person's behavior online - and that an alternative or more severe penalty may be needed.

There's no way to know without a test. There are numerous threads in this forum about how viral load varies dramatically over the course of an HIV-positive person's life, depending on many, many factors.

Because it doesn't work that way? The US barely has any sort of mental health "system", period, hardly one "fit for purpose". Again, given that you do not live here, I suspect you are woefully under-informed about this country (as I freely acknowledge I would be about yours). In this country, no, someone cannot simply "call up a number...and have somebody committed". Doubt all you want. I stand by my statement. You don't know me, so kindly don't assume I'm as craven an opportunist as you might think.

435 is hardly "approximately 500", which drives home my point that you don't know enough about US politics to comment. I cited four as examples, not as the only ones to care about. I could cite dozens more. More importantly, virtually the entire GOP caucus in the House voted NOT to impeach Trump for his role in trying to overturn the election by force, and virtually the entire GOP caucus in the Senate voted to acquit Trump of those impeachment charges despite clear evidence of what he'd done. Citing a few key players doesn't mean the rest are trustworthy. Because both the House and the Senate are very closely divided, with the overwhelming majority of the GOP members in both chambers scared to cross Trump because they're scared of his ignorant base of voters. There's no "balance" when nearly half in both chambers are impervious to any reasonable argument whatsoever. Again, if you knew anything about US politics, you might realize that. First: stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Challenge what I write, if you want, but don't pretend I said something and then strike it down thinking you're clever. You aren't. You're like a pigeon on a chess board, strutting around knocking over pieces and thinking that means it won a game. In this country, presidents do not "simply have [people] arrested". Maybe in whatever fascist dream state you want to live in, a president can do that sort of thing, but in the United States, for now at least, it doesn't work that way. Trump tried his hardest to shift this country in the direction of authoritarian fascism, but failed because (for now) our institutions are stronger than his followers' power to intimidate authorities into obeying the whims of a wanna-be dictator. If the GOP continues down the path it's on, that may not continue to be the case. I am not "scared" of Margarine Greene. I'm scared of the masses of idiots people like her (and the others I cited, and hundreds of other GOP politicians) derive their support from - the same fucking morons who demand that government keep its hands off their Medicare and other inane beliefs. I'm scared because it's clear a significant number of people in this country are too stupid to be allowed to roam about unsupervised, much less vote, and there's not much we can do in a free society to prevent either one.

Agree with mblad. It's not the son's business you're fucking the dad, it's not the dad's business you fucked with his son. They're entitled to a degree of privacy.

After only an admittedly quick glance, I can pretty much guarantee no one is buying "sperm" on this site. They may be buying *semen*, which may contain some number of (probably mostly dead) sperm cells. Sperm are the little active guys swimming in the semen (seminal fluid) trying to get to an egg to fertilize it. They don't live that long outside the human body, unless they're frozen for further fertilization efforts. These guys are selling remnants of loads.

I think in turn, that depends on how you define those terms. Are you saying certain "bottoms" aren't really bottoms because.... why? Because they don't take loads from strangers, because they don't accept anyone who wants to fuck them regardless of <fill in the blank>, because they limit themselves in some other fashion? That doesn't make them non-bottoms or "those that fantasize about being a bottom". I may be completely misreading what you're getting at here, but it sounds to me like you are discounting a lot of bottoms as "not really" bottoms, for some reason.

In case you weren't aware, being across the ocean and all, the four people I mentioned are members of Congress, not just people who "tweet stuff" and "say stuff". Please don't make the obvious and clear mistake that my objections are simply "not liking" what they (and countless others like them) say. I don't comment much on British politics (other than to note the insanity of "Brexit") because I don't follow it enough to understand it thoroughly. I would highly recommend you do the same with respect to U.S. politics, which you clearly understand even less than I understand your side of the pond.

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.