BootmanLA

Role play is when you tell a partner "Pretend to be X and I'll pretend to be Y and play out this scene." Fantasy is "man it's hot to THINK about X happening to me even though I have no intention of making that happen." This is "I want X to happen but I'm not willing to do what it takes to have it happen, so I hope somebody overrides my decisions someday and makes me do it." Not the same thing(s).

Here's another thought that's just occurred to me: what benefit, if any, does the HIV+/non-AIDS (ie mostly undetectable) community gain from welcoming pro-AIDS people into their group? When a key part of their message is that being HIV-positive is NOT, in fact, a death sentence nor a significant health risk for partners if medication regimes are adhered to? What benefit does the PrEP-positive community, which promotes responsible sex through prevention of infection, gain from welcoming people who not only glorify infection, but promote the most dire result possible of that infection? This community exists. The onus is on those who want to join it to explain how their different perspective (to use a euphemism for promoting early death through irresponsibility) provides benefit to the community that exists.

So in other words, you have sex with people expressly against the consent they've given. Which makes you a... what's that word for people who violate consent and have sex with someone against it? Oh yeah, a rapist.

Why? Clearly you want it bareback, so just do it. Are you trying to avoid responsibility for making a decision you've clearly already made?

You might start by explaining what it is you want and/or expect to happen. You're poz, you're not on meds, and you have a boyfriend who is negative. Does he know you are poz? Is he comfortable with having sex with you? Is he on PrEP, or do you use condoms? Is he aware of the risks he's taking *if* he has unprotected sex with you?

I think that's the same line that drug pushers use to hook new addicts/customers. If you have to fuck yourself up with drugs in order to "go for" what you really want, something's wrong.

Here's where I take issue with the above: it's all good and fine to talk about "free will and sane minds" but if those "sane minds" are poorly educated - or getting bad information via eroticization of things like progressing to AIDS - then they're not going to be making informed decisions. And given the exceptionally piss-poor sexual education systems we have in this country, people *will* take much of what they read in erotic fiction as accurate depictions of the reality of sex. In another HIV-related thread earlier today I came across a posting that suggested "Muslims" have a natural resistance to HIV infection, for instance. While it's true that some diseases are known to be more of an issue for people of certain racial or ethnic backgrounds - sickle cell disease, for instance, for black people, or Kaposi's Sarcoma for Mediterranean people (before HIV, that is) - HIV is not one of them, and in any event, "Muslim" is a religious, not ethnic, distinction. When you're confronting that kind of ignorance, free will is meaningless if you're not informed. As for marginalization: would you feel the same way if the marginalized group were, say, gay serial killers? Surely we don't want to marginalize that specific group of gay people by treating them with any less respect than non-serial killers, right? People who promote deliberate progression from being HIV positive to having AIDS are also pushing a killing agenda, just one that acts more slowly. I get the eroticization of an infection changing one's body, even if the reality rarely lives up to the fantasy (the obscene number of braggadocious posts here notwithstanding). I get the idea that worrying about preventing infection can be wearying and with effective treatments available, it might have made sense at one time to just give in and let it happen (before PrEP became an option). But I do not, cannot, and will not accept the eroticization of deliberately shortening ones' life with a disease that kills as horribly as AIDS does. Like RawTop I went through all the early years of the AIDS crisis watching people get sick and die. I have a close friend who relocated from San Francisco to the southeast US here a few decades back because he'd reached the point where he just couldn't watch any more friends die. I have no statistical evidence to back this up, but I suspect very few of the pro-AIDS crowd are gay men who are in their late 50's and 60's who've been out since the early 80's and understand what AIDS does to people. I don't really see much of an issue with relegating those who push a pro-AIDS agenda off to another site for them to deal with.

If this were true, we would not have evolved a prostate so susceptible to anal stimulation. While it's true that evolution often emphasizes reproductive fitness, not everything can be explained by its link to reproduction, and it's ignorant to assume that it can be.

For the record: in the US at least, the CDC recommends that no more than six weeks, at a maximum, elapse between the two doses of either of the two-shot vaccinations. A first dose in March with the second three weeks from now (depending on exactly when in March and whether it's 3 full weeks from today) could be outside that recommended timeframe. And if anything happens to delay that appointment, that might compromise the protection they provide.

So, he took away your ability to consent by plying you with drugs. What a lovely individual he must have been. <turning off sarcasm>

Thank you for answering the question. Sad that some dickwad decided to downvote my asking what I thought was a respectful question, one which you answered respectfully as well.

Not to be judgmental, but: Why do you reject the option of PrEP? Is it a cost issue, concern about the medication's effects on your body over time, you enjoy running at least some risk with sex, or something else?

It doesn't matter whether he's cut or uncut. It doesn't matter whether he's Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, atheist, agnostic, or any other system of faith or belief. It doesn't matter whether he's freshly washed or dirty. It doesn't matter whether he's hung or not hung. NONE of those things determine whether he's HIV-positive or not (or has any other sexually transmitted disease). But the one thing that does imply a greater chance that he is? The part where you say he's the sort of guy who asks "what are stds?". Anyone who's poorly educated about sexually transmitted diseases is at much higher risk for contracting one and spreading it to others, because he's not going to recognize the symptoms, he's unlikely to seek treatment, and he's likely to continue having sex while he's infectious. You say you're in central Europe - you don't specify a location in your profile, but I will assume (for the sake of argument) that you are in a country with universal health care. You should WITHOUT DELAY find a clinic or doctor that focuses on STDs and determine whether PrEP is available in your area. (If you are unfamiliar with PrEP, it is a medication you take daily to prevent you from being infected with HIV; it may or may not be available in your country and it may or may not be covered by your national health insurance.) Otherwise, you should assume that you are going to become HIV-positive if you keep having bareback sex. Not today, and not tomorrow, necessarily, but eventually, your luck will run out. And if you're okay with that, that's fine. If you are NOT okay with that, do something about it: either get on PrEP, if available, or use condoms.

When you call it a "boipussy" you are doubly feminizing yourself. "Boi" originated as a term used for a submissive lesbian who wasn't femme; "Dom" was usable for both men and women, but "boy" didn't work as a term for a woman, hence the creative spelling evolved. Many years - MANY years later - puritanical online services like AOL banned the use of the word "boy" in any context that implied sex, and as gay people are wont to do, instead of leading a respectful charge to allow the term in context (ie Dom/boy or Dad/boy) when used for actual adults, chose to just misspell the word in an attempt to get around the automated censoring the services used. (I see lots of people on here trying the same shit - if a word is banned because of certain associations, it's just as banned when you hide certain letters or misspell it deliberately to evade the censors, and you're proving yourself to not actually care about following the spirit of the rules.) "Pussy" is a long-standing term used for vaginas. While there are trans men who have vaginas, "boipussy" is almost always referring not to a trans man's vagina, but to a gay submissive's ass. So "boipussy" is doubly feminizing, just as calling one's pectoral muscles "boobs" is feminizing as well. You can claim to be "not feminine at all" but that's a peculiar way to demonstrate it. If (and I have no reason to doubt you) you are a man who exists in the bedroom to be used by top men, then I'm not sure why you wouldn't use the terms that apply.

With approximately (at last count) 47 billion bottoms on this planet, it boggles the mind that a top would find it necessary to waste his time trying to convince this one, particular bottom to go bare when he's made it clear that's not how he wants it. Move on to someone who does. There's something borderline rape-y about knowing that a bottom wants condom-protected sex only and doing whatever you can to convince him otherwise, especially that bullshit move of pushing a bare cock against his hole. I prefer bare sex now myself - and have for a good while - but I guarantee you, if you'd pulled that shit with me when I still wanted condom-only sex, your cock would be too sore (once I let go of it) for you to fuck anyone for at least a week.

The whole point of keeping what moves you up from status A to status B is to keep people from gaming the system. Given that the reason for the limits is bad behavior by previous 'members' who were essentially disruptive ad bots, displaying a road map for how they can quickly gain the status needed to resume their previous spamming and other activities would be stupid.

That's true for groveling, submissive, no-self-esteem bottoms, sure. It's not true for all bottoms and there's no rule designating "proper" bottoms as the ones who'll take anything no matter what.

Exactly. I'm sure that if anyone is fucking stupid enough to engage with these people, he'd find they were a scammer looking to con people out of whatever, but reporting does no good because A4A imposes such a low barrier to joining that the spam/con houses can crank them out by the thousands. What that means is that real people get ignored and leave, which increases the noise ratio relative to the actual signal, until there's nothing but noise.

I'd also add that hotels, in general, frown on non-registered guests spending any significant amount of time in the hotel rooms, for a number of reasons unrelated to gay sex. For starters, there are liability insurance issues - the hotel's policy, for instance, might require that they make all reasonable efforts to keep non-guests to specific public areas like the lobby or ballrooms for events. Another might be that in the event of a fire or other disaster, a bunch of unidentified and unidentifiable bodies presents a problem. Or, say, a guest goes down to the lobby to check on some stuff, get a drink, or whatever, and leaves his door propped open slightly so that he doesn't have to deal with a key card, and one of the "party" guests peeks in, sees an expensive laptop, and ka-ching, he and it are out of there. I don't think most hotels really care whether someone is having gay sex (as contrasted with straight sex), and unless an "event" is being advertised pretty widely, it's unlikely that they really care from a morals perspective. But from a security perspective, it's something of a nightmare. It's another reason that lower-end motels and hotels, for instance, are less fussy.

My thoughts: it's one thing to report cruising activity and public sex to the police if it's, say, in a park frequented by families with younger kids. Not required, but it's certainly a defensible move. It's another thing entirely to report activity in a park that nobody goes into at night except those looking for sex. And there's a special place in hell for people who themselves go to have public sex but call the cops when none of the people there appeal to them.

Most skin problems like this are not diagnosable from a single photograph - and certainly not by non-medical personnel. This is precisely the kind of thing (in the United States, at least) urgent care clinics were developed for - things that aren't emergencies, but may not be something you can wait for days or weeks for a regular doctor's appointment. Unfortunately you don't list anything relevant at all in your profile online so there's no way to tell whether you live in a place that has easy access to health care. That said, see a doctor, nurse, or whatever you have access to, and let them determine what it is. Asking randos on a sex forum is not likely to be an enlightening course of action.

Famous? Please. Like anyone's gonna care.

In my experience it's been that way for years. I quit almost a year ago and it had been bad for a long time before that.

So, in other words, you were raped, and in a case of Stockholm Syndrome you have become attached to your rapist. That is not advice I would recommend to anyone else seeking to ingratiate himself with a virgin, in part because it's illegal to "forcefully [make someone] take his cock in [your] mouth against [your] will and ass." Good for you, I suppose, that you came to enjoy it, if that's what you wanted, but as advice, this sucks.

Pills sold over the counter run the gamut from totally useless to mostly useless. To the extent they work for erectile issues, the effect is probably 95% psychological. I mean, let's be real - if people had actually discovered an inexpensive substance that dramatically enhanced virility, the details of the substance would be known worldwide, given what horndogs men are in general. That said, that doesn't mean they are harmless substances that can't affect any other part of your body or interact with other drugs. Without knowing the specific compound you're referring to, it's impossible to know how it would interact with poppers - which themselves aren't exactly a model of rigor in terms of quality controlled production. Predicting the interaction between two essentially unknown substances is, well, unknowable.