BootmanLA

Same suggestions/tips that would apply in any such situation, no matter what the age(s) of the parties involved. Some of these may become less important over time as you become more confident in approaching others for sex. 1. Keep a record of where you're going and what you've talked about with someone. BBRT auto-deletes messages after a few weeks, unless you specifically choose to mark them "saved" (and that may be dependent on being a paying member, not sure). Save *every* message to/from anyone in whom you have any interest. In the unlikely event something happened to you, there's a record of where you planned to go and the other guy's intentions. 2. This one is tougher, but I'd advise it anyway: find a buddy you can confide in - at least about the basics - and make plans to "check in" with him while you're out. As in, "I'm going on a date (or just admit it's hooking up) with a guy at 8:00 PM tonight. If I don't text you saying 'All's well' by 9:00, call my phone." If need be, you can use that call as an excuse to leave. 3. The more "hook-up" and less "date" it is, the more pressure you'll feel to meet the guy at his house, or him wanting to come to you. Until you're experienced and better at reading people, I'd suggest meeting in a public place - coffee shop, etc. - so you can get a feel for the guy and decide what you want to do, if anything. That said, with Covid restrictions on, that's likely to be more difficult than usual - but by the same token, going to strangers' houses and breathing in their faces and vice versa is problematic itself. 4. Understand that you'll have two types of guys to deal with: those who are single and happy to have you come over, and those who are married or in a relationship and have to sneak around (open relationships technically fall into the first category, though so many of them can't play "at home" because the partner doesn't want to know). That means the married guys are going to be much harder to arrange to fuck unless you bring them back to your place, which you may not want to do (especially if you're still in a dormitory or student-type apartment). There'll be pressure in some of those cases to do it in your vehicle, or some other semi-public place - and you may not want to take that risk. (Public play can be hot, but it's not necessarily for beginners; you have to have a reasonable ability to monitor for others coming along and that is an acquired skill.) All that said: there are plenty of guys in that age range who are bottoms and who will be happy to have you fuck them. Keep your wits about you and trust your instincts, but otherwise relax and have fun.

To clarify - since I wasn't clear apparently - I'm not saying that all bottoms/submissives are equating themselves to females. I'm a bottom myself, and sometimes (though not always) submissive in nature when it comes to sex, and I don't equate myself with women either. But when one reads post after post from people posting about how they're nothing but a pussy hole for a REAL man to use and their tiny little "clits" don't need any attention, it's hard to overlook the use of terms pertaining to female genitalia coupled with the notion that the person is "less than" the "REAL" man using them, and what that suggests about their views on women and women's sexuality. It's not universal among bottoms or submissives, no. But it exists and it seems to be rampant among at least one subset of this community.

FWIW, I'm not saying it's equivalent to the N-word by any means. I'm saying it's a slur against black people - whether it's saying that the white person so called is trashy enough that he might as well be black, or whether it's saying he's appropriating a culture that's beneath him (which is a knock against black culture as allegedly inferior). Either way, to me, it's an insult to black people as much as an insult to the white guy being called one. I'll admit that I overlooked the usage of that word as applied to cultural appropriators, but that's not the only usage (I can remember it being used as essentially "white n-words" in the mid-70's, when Eminem was about four years old, so it long predates the phenomenon of whites appropriating hip-hop/rap culture.) It's conceptually like how straight people will call a gay man "pussy boy" not because they want to fuck him, but because they consider pussies (ie women) something lower than themselves. Sadly, I see a lot of gay men on this board adopting that attitude that because they "service" tops or alphas or whatever, they're inferior beings, just like the women that otherwise take care of these men's needs. It's misogynistic, and "wigger" is racist.

The problem is: Covid is not a bathhouse-specific issue. The same interactions that spread Covid in a bathhouse are present at underground BB parties and in individual hook-ups arranged on Grindr or BBRT. Obviously, the more interactions you have, and the more people present at each, exponentially increases the risk, but fucking some guy you pick up off Grindr because you can't do without sex can spread Covid just as readily. And once it's passed on, you're likely to spread it further (because anyone who can't keep his dick/ass to himself in a pandemic is probably not going to otherwise socially isolate himself). I'm so sick and tired of selfish shits telling me how much they NEED NEED NEED sex, as though they're literally going to die if they don't get dick this week - when people are literally dying already because someone like them couldn't stop himself from getting dick, got Covid, and spread it to a store employee or someone else they came in contact with.

That does clarify things a bit. I'd say that the same things that make us gay are what make other men straight - it's just that things work that way a lot more frequently. So much so, in fact, that (coupled with biological imperatives like reproduction) it suggests heterosexuality is the norm, what's to be expected. That's not to say that being gay is wrong, or deviant, or a mistake, or anything like that; it's just that a different outcome (heterosexuality) is the most common expression of whatever "features" make one gay/straight.

I think, based on the history of the word, that it's most definitely derogatory. As I have understood it since the first time I heard it, it originated as a way to create an equivalent to the 'n' word for white people - conveying the venom usually included with the original epithet, suggesting low social status, poor behavior, and all the other stereotypes embedded in the original but directed at whites. I saw (and still see) several problems with this. First, the original word was used indiscriminately against all black people, from the slums to the pulpit, from janitors to lawyers, as though race itself rendered the person unfit for white people to associate with. No matter what else, that race-wide opprobrium was never embedded in "wigger". Secondly, it seems to suggest that the white person it's aimed at is so low, so disreputable, that he might as well be black. In other words, it's STILL a racial slur against black people, this time by reference.

I'd say that for many, the answer is exactly as simple as "not gay". I have zero interest in sex with a woman, period. I don't think it's that hard to believe that vast numbers of men are straight and have no interest in men. Now, some of them might accept a blow job from a guy in situations where sex with a woman is off the table - military deployments one-woman in combat duty, for instance. But let a man fuck them? Not gonna happen. Of course, there are some guys who are farther along the bi spectrum than that. But lots of guys aren't, and while you might want them to be something other than what they are....that's not your call.

I doubt you'd find that in Thailand (or many other places). In most of the world, sex workers are female or bottom men, because the customer base is men who want to fuck. The vast majority of those customer men are straight or mostly so and looking to get off in ways they can't at home or otherwise. I don't think there are many places where there are any equivalents like "top male brothels". Partly I think that's because tops (being a limited resource almost everywhere) are in sufficient demand that they can have as much sex as they choose with the men they want. Sex workers (especially in exploitative countries like most of south Asia) typically don't have that freedom because they're competing against thousands of other women (and girls and boys and ladyboys), so they take what the pimp lines up, including high-paying westerners.

A huge portion of gay culture seems to be based on the notion that those reproductive instincts still thrive in gay men - the idea of spreading one's genes through as many mates as possible, for instance. I'd be surprised if whatever it is that makes us gay somehow managed to negate all the other sex-related instincts that have accumulated in us over thousands of millennia.

Something I'll never understand is people who come into a discussion that's been started on a very specific topic, asking a very specific question - in this case, "best bate lube", and two-thirds of the initial responses boil down to "I'm not going to talk about THAT - I'm going to hijack this thread and talk about what *I* ME ME ME ME ME want to talk about instead. My answer: I like variety - Elbow Grease, Cornhusker Lotion, Spunk - not sure there's any particular one I'd call "best". May have to try that Albolene stuff next.

Starting with location: roadside/highway location is probably best unless it's a highly trafficked area with lots of new fast food places, newly built hotels, etc. Those tend to be more abundant on highways through the suburbs. Downtowns work if it's an old motel kind of place in an otherwise declining or declined downtown; if it's in a vibrant, gentrified area, not so much. Independents are (broadly speaking) a little more tolerant than chains that are supposed to adhere to brand standards, although some brands, on the lower end, have lax standards to start with. You're better off always with the kind of place that has the rooms facing out to parking lots and/or courtyards. Avoid anything where guests have to go through a lobby to get to the rooms, because invariably some desk clerk will demand to see your guests' room keys and insist you come down to escort them to the room. I don't think room category matters much. Places either care about the noise and such, or they don't. Ask for a room next to the parking lot on the same side of the building as the highway, maybe (tell 'em road noise actually relaxes you). Have your guests keep it reasonably quiet so there's no reason for them to even investigate noise, and for god's sake keep the party favors away - the last thing you want is the cops showing up arresting everyone on drug charges.

One way to handle that might be to create the topic and ask only people who posted more than X years ago about having been newly diagnosed poz to recap their subsequent experiences. Or if that's too limiting, perhaps "Members who posted more than X years ago about some significant change in their lives as poz men", and likewise updating on where they stand now.

Here is what (I think) is setting off little warning flags for people - at least for me. I'm all for people being open to various kinds of men - bodywise, lookswise, agewise, racewise, whatever. I also understand that for some people, only certain "types" really turn them on; I have a friend who simply has zero interest in anyone clean-shaven, for instance - won't even look at the person. Some guys are only interested in hairy (or smooth) guys. A significant number of guys I know in their 40's only want younger guys. What I'm hearing echoes of, in the OP's posting, is this: "I have to be the young and pretty one, so I'm not taking any chances on someone who's not as handsome but young like me, or someone who's older but has that handsome daddy look." That may not be the case - I don't want to put words in his mouth or thoughts in his head - but it's kind of hard not to think it. I'm also put in mind of Benjamin Franklin's advice to a young man to choose an older woman over a younger one, much of which is (in his sexist way) talking about how appreciative the older woman will be for the attention, how much better she will be at attending to your needs, and so forth. It may be, as the OP notes, that the sex is great. There's nothing wrong with that. But given that unattractive men, in general, probably have less (rather than more) opportunity to get lots of practice at sex over a lifetime, you'd think if nothing else they might lack in experience what they can try to make up for with enthusiasm. So that again, suggests: if he's not interested in an attractive older man with (possibly) more experience at pleasing a partner, is the issue not so much "great sex" but looking good in comparison. Not saying that's the case here. But I don't think it's unreasonable for people to question what else might be the motivation for always choosing older & uglier (his word, not mine).

The way I see it is: you had an open relationship already. The fact that he was no longer interested/capable (in some balance between the two) of participating himself doesn't (or shouldn't) mean you are similarly restricted. And he put you in an untenable place: you'd agreed "no secrets", but he also wanted to hold it against you if you DID have outside fun - damned if you do, damned if you don't. In my book, that changes the terms. And I should add: I'm opposed to cheating, but there are times when it's the least bad option: married person, spouse loses all interest in sex but refuses open arrangements, divorce would be devastating for all including possibly children, access to health care for one party might be jeopardized - in a case like that, sure, cheating to preserve one's sanity, if it's done discreetly and without taking time away from family responsibilities, is probably the only workable solution. But (not addressed to you, DrS) bragging about your cheating to the joint friends of you and your partner? The lot of you finding it funny that he's oblivious to it - and to the risks to his health you're imposing on him? That's shit moves by a shit person.

Technically, it's clearly consensually *made* (it's not a hidden camera video, in other words). It may be being *shared* non-consensually, but that's a different issue, and one the legislatures and courts are still wrangling with.

FWIW I don't think that qualifies as cheating in any event. Cheating is the act of breaking a promise of fidelity (at whatever level it's promised). That means what is cheating, and what is NOT cheating, depends on the people involved. A couple who has agreed to be absolutely monogamous: cheating occurs when either one has an encounter with an outside party that can be characterized as sexual (whether that's mutual JO, oral, or anal sex). Anything less is a (possibly partially) open relationship, and the rules for those vary: e.g. No anal with anyone else, no oral or anal but JO is okay, nothing with any of our friends, nothing with any one guy more than one time, nothing in our own house, nothing in our own bed, only when we're in different places for work or vacation. Whatever those rules are, if one of the partners breaks one (or more) of those rules, it's cheating. And personally, I don't respect cheating. Cheating shows (as BBArchangel noted) a complete lack of respect for the other partner and for the relationship. I'm not going to call names, but if some asshole thinks it's hot to cheat on his partner even as he loves the stability of his "relationship" (a relationship he's busily shitting all over) and his partner's "big dick", I think it would be karma if his partner discovered the cheating, cleaned out all joint bank accounts, sold all the cheater's personal property, and arranged for the cheater to be caught transporting child pornography near a school. The consequences of that might - MIGHT - come close to being sufficient, karma-speaking, for being such a dick of a person.

Right now, I would imagine that virtually all such events have been put on hiatus until covid restrictions are mostly lifted (and not just in the area where the party is to be held, but more broadly, because most hosts for such events logically care about the health of their participants). There are undoubtedly some still going on, essentially underground. But I'd wager such parties are open primarily if not exclusively to regulars - that is, people they know won't rat them out to the authorities for exceeding guidelines for contact, etc.; and I'd further wager that given the high demand for *anything* like this, they are probably going to be even more picky about "qualifications".

That's a pretty good sign the video has been taken down.

Not necessarily, and I think it depends on the level of friendship. I've had lots of friends come and go over the years, too, but there are a handful - fewer than five - that have been friends for 25+ years even though some of them I don't see but once in five years these days. There's just a bond between me and each of these guys that I know will always be there and none of them are guys that I'd jeopardize that deep friendship over what could turn out to be forgettable sex. Now, more casual friends? Sure. There are some guys I consider friends - not close, but I would introduce them as "my friend John" - that I'd happily sleep with, and if it got weird afterward, I'd count that as an "oh well". But those, although not as rare as my closest friends, aren't that numerous either - the reason I'd hop in bed so readily is that they're physically exactly the type(s) I like.

My point isn't the content of your drivel. It's that this particular part of this website is for discussion, not blathering on about sexual fantasies and ESPECIALLY not fantasies involving chem sex. That's supposed to be kept in the backrooms for a very good reason.

I do think it's possible to draw a distinction between "preferences" and "requirements". I prefer guys who are hairy, for instance. I've had great sex with many who are not, and I'm not going to turn someone down specifically because he has a smooth chest, and I don't think it's an "exclusion" wall. Maybe it's because I'm careful to make clear it's a preference and not a requirement. And yes, I'm sure there are some smooth guys who aren't self-confident enough to approach me after seeing that preference, assuming they aren't going to "pass muster" or whatever. But you know what? I'm kinda okay with that, because overall, the most important thing that I want in another guy is confidence. But I don't list THAT as a preference, because I want it to come out naturally. I don't want someone who's going to put on bluster and pretend to be confident when he's not, just to try to prove something. Because I don't want the guy who thinks he's got something to prove; I want the guy who isn't worried about that and knows he'll do his best, period.

I really don't think a discussion about the ethics of being attracted to medical professionals is the place for fantasies about transvestite doctors inducing patients to take drugs and have sex in clinics. There's a fiction section in the backroom "chems" area for that.

Raw bottoms can be on PrEP. I think that's prima facie evidence that categorically contradicts your first sentence.

Personally, nope. I could see someone I had sex with (whoever seduced whom) becoming a best friend, and continuing to have sex along the way; but if someone starts out as a good friend and becomes "best" and there's been no sex, I wouldn't risk that for much of anything. I can go months or years without sex, if need be, but I couldn't go that long without a best friend.

That would be Bully Barrett. I rather suspect the claims of this being posted by the guy who's bottoming and that it's someone he met on a hookup site are, shall we say, embellished.