BootmanLA

Let me start by noting a few points. First, it's true that at least some federal courts have upheld the right of truly private clubs to restrict membership on a basis that would otherwise not be permissible for a commercial business to restrict patrons; e.g. a truly private club can have a "no black members" rule while a restaurant can't refuse to serve black customers. That said, there are no magic words that make a club "private" and simply declaring yourself to be private doesn't make it so. Courts spend a significant amount of time in such cases reviewing very closely the nature of said "private clubs". It's certainly not uncommon for courts to toss out such claims when they're clearly just a flimsy fiction covering up for what is otherwise commercial discrimination. The cases I'm most familiar with involve certain old-line Mardi Gras Krewes in New Orleans. Because they are actual social clubs, which host events for members, in which members are expected to participate, and for which members pay hefty dues, elect officers, and otherwise operate in the traditional "club" manner, their status as private clubs has generally been upheld (even as gradually most have chosen to integrate; there are only a handful that are still all-white/all-male organizations). For what it's worth, under that kind of standard, I doubt seriously this campground has a leg to stand on, if someone with a good lawyer decides to sue. I'm sure whatever "dues" there are for joining this "club" will be nominal, its primary operational costs will be covered by transactional fees for camping there, and that they'll undertake virtually no other activities other than offering campsites for a fee. Those are all classic signs of trying to dodge the rules and federal judges, in general, don't like that. (Of course, with the influx of Trumpanzees on the federal bench, you never know whether that'll continue to be the case.) Now: if they truly wanted to be a private club, they could probably get away with it. Charge every member enough dues to essentially cover all the costs of operating the campground, including paying the note, and allow members the privilege of camping any time they want. Of course, that implies having enough campground space to accommodate all the members, which they probably won't have (which is another sign it's not really a private club). It's okay for a private club to have side income - for instance, you could operate a snack bar or even an onsite restaurant, where profits (revenues in excess of costs) go to help offset overall expenses. But you'd have to sell a lot of hamburgers and hot dogs to pay the mortgage and the salaries of the people who operate the place. As for your last point (that LGBT people find it transphobic): Of COURSE it is. That's the entire reason they're doing it. They're gay men who don't want to ever have to accidentally look at a vagina, even on one belonging to a (trans) gay man, and they're trying to find a legal way to make sure they never do. They're assholes.

Don't guess when you're wondering what I think. Odds are not in your favor that you'll be correct. If you want to know what I think about something, ask me to clarify.

I believe this link probably explains the situation. [think before following links] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/media-policy#:~:text=For this reason%2C you can,mark your account as sensitive. and [think before following links] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/media-settings In a nutshell: if you want to be able to tweet adult content, you have to set your account so that it's flagged that you tweet material that may be considered sensitive. Anyone who doesn't have that set, and who tweets or retweets posts with nudity, etc. in them, may get "popped" by Twitter for violating its policies. I'd lay odds that anyone who was flagged has not properly set their account marking it as "sensitive" material.

Not speaking for the site: I'd say focus on writing, and not on trying to get around limits on posting pictures of people who probably haven't given consent to their images being shared on a bareback sex site, particularly not when associated with the particular subject matter in your story.

Just to be clear: none of that stuff was actually "free" or "what we did for each other"; someone had to pay the thousands of dollars a month for high-speed connections, servers, and so forth. You might not have paid for a membership but someone - lots of someones - had to fork out the money to keep it going. Those someones included the people who DID pay for memberships, as well as the advertisers who funded the sites. Let's not kid ourselves into believing that before "big bidness" got involved, xtube and the like were hippie communes of sharing funded out of the goodness of all the participants' hearts. They were always businesses; the business model just changed, because it had to.

FWIW, most guys I know in relationships don't let the top/bottom part spill over out of the bedroom into the rest of their lives. There's no reason the bottom should do all the chores, particularly if (as is the case with me) I substantially out earn my partner and work longer hours. What you're describing is less top/bottom and more dom/sub, and in particular a dom/sub relationship that is not bedroom/playroom limited.

I gather that the poster is the one paying for the room, since he's the visitor to the area, and he'll just be away from the room while the bottom guy shows up and gets himself ready. His identity is going to be known to the staff, obviously.

I'll add, to DrScorpio's official response: this isn't, primarily, a hook-up site. It's a discussion forum, and being both (a) international in its reach and (b) fairly esoteric in its subject matter, the odds of finding someone near enough, and willing, to carry out that purpose aren't that promising. It's not out of the question, but I suspect no more than a handful of guys have gotten pozzed from contacts made on this site.

It ordinarily is. But HIV acts differently in different people, whose immune systems may be in different conditions due to other factors; and the fact that there are lots of mutated strains out there means you can't really be sure of anything with out actual testing.

It's not impossible for this to have been an HIV infection incident, but it sounds more like (to me) that you picked up some other bug - flu, or whatever - from him.

No Democrat I know said he was not "duly elected" - including his opponent, Hillary Clinton, who conceded to him late that night after the results were clear. We said - correctly - that adversary foreign governments worked to get him elected, a fact confirmed by both the Mueller investigation AND the GOP-Senate Intelligence Committee report. We did trash him, but that's because he's trash. And unlike Clinton, Trump has STILL never conceded that he lost. Like Trump, Bush 43 became president despite losing the popular vote - and the slimmest of margins in the electoral college, winning by one electoral vote from a state he carried by fewer than 550 votes, in an election ALL sides agreed was marred by bad ballots and bad counting equipment. Yes, I do. Trump gets lots of morons to show up at his rallies, but that's not an indication of anything except how fervently his core believers worship his ass. There are many, many millions of sensible voters in this country who don't feel the need to get out, especially in a pandemic (that the incumbent was ignoring), to make themselves feel important by cheering on a moron like Trump. Of course people should be able to ask questions. But they were asked, and answered, and Trump didn't like the answers. They recounted and retallied and checked machines for accuracy and the bottom line is, he still lost. Trump can't believe it because sociopaths like him can't believe there are that many people who hate his guts - but there are. I think any number of other Republicans could have beaten Biden last year, just like any number of other Democrats could have beaten Trump in 2016 (he got lucky that his Democratic opponent was the woman the GOP despises the most). As for trying to overthrow the government: Biden was duly elected. The electoral college voted for him, 306-232, over Trump. The counting of those ballots was a foregone conclusion and is supposed to be ministerial unless there are actually competing slates of votes both duly authorized by a state (no state submitted more than one slate). Pence correctly understood he had to duly count those votes, and for that act of conscience Trump urged his supporters to swarm the capitol and "stop the steal" - ie force Congress to award him the presidency instead. Where I come from, overriding the voters to keep the outgoing loser in office is precisely overthrowing the duly elected government in favor of, well, a dictatorship. And he was only stopped at the cost of several lives.

I already had minor issues with A1C before switching to Biktarvy, which my HIVdoctor did due to elevated creatinine levels. On my nephrologist's recommendation my HIV specialist switched my diabetes treatment to Glymiperide, which, like Biktarvy, is also kidney friendly. Even after dropping to every other day dosing for the Glymiperide, my A1C has been below 5.5 since. So while the Biktarvy may be slightly boosting your blood sugar level, it may also be easy to bring under control.

I think it might be a little confusing in that the site is organized inconsistently with regard to when subforums are used and when they aren't. Not that it's an invalid way to organize, but.... For example, General has one sub forum - politics - and then lots of individual topics. Sex Health has four sub forums, but lots of other individual topics. But the Backroom area has sub forums, and every topic has to fit within a sub forum. I've often wondered whether a similar structure wouldn't be better for Sex Health, requiring all topics to fit in one or another sub forum, including a Miscellaneous Sexual Health section. I don't think the General Discussion area really lends itself to that kind of organization, since the topics are all over the board. But by the same token, Politics is much more focused; perhaps it almost merits a forum level boost? It's not necessarily as important as, say, General or Sex Health. But it *IS* as distinct a focus.

You can view anything as anything you choose, including viewing yourself as some sort of victim for shitposting. Doesn't make it actually true.

Skim through this particular thread, reading any post by the owner (RawTop) or one of the moderators (usually, DrScorpio). But read them all - sometimes, rules change, and it's a subsequent post that clarifys/explains/changes what's allowed. For instance, bestiality was, at one time, a permitted topic, but it's not prohibited throughout this site. A post noting it was allowed was later updated to reflect that the topic is now prohibited.

I would say apparently yes - there are references throughout. While chem sex belongs elsewhere, I think any STD would be at least allowed, if not relevant, for this forum.

As I tell everyone else: Engage in the discussions. Find something that's posted recently that hasn't been talked to death, and express an opinion. Ask questions (in the right places). The more posts you make, the more engaged you are, the sooner you'll reach that status. There are any number of threads on this site that, even if old, people keep going. Some are asking for stuff like the last time you had sex, or who likes X or Y or Z. Express an opinion, even if it's not something you feel incredibly strongly about. There are many topics in the Bareback porn section that ask for members' favorite <fill in the blank: film, Top porn actor, Bottom porn actor, breeding scene, felching scene, whatever). Answer the question. The formula of how many posts, in how many areas, how many likes/dislikes your posts get, etc - as well as how long, in total, you have to be a member to advance from one status to the next - is not public. But aside from any time limits (say, if you can't move up more than one level every two weeks), there's no reason you couldn't rapidly advance to get most, if not all, of the privileges that go with advanced membership levels.

I'm not sure what you mean here. In almost every forum, there is a folder/thread near the top or at the top that tells you what you can and can't post there. There are also descriptions of each forum alongside the names of the forum. While I can understand there are some nuances that are not picked up there - for instance, the rule that you can't go into detail about chems and sex *except* in the backroom areas set aside for that - the site is pretty organized. The #1 misplaced posting thing I see, day in and day out (as a user, I'm not staff) is people who think every forum is an opportunity for a personal ad. There ARE, in fact, personal ad sections, down on the list - you have to scroll a bit to get to them - but they're there, AND guess what - they ARE organized geographically, with breakouts for parts of countries or countries themselves. So unless you think there's a reason to have, say, a UK Sexual Health forum and a US Sexual Health forum and a Germany Sexual Health forum, etc. etc. ad infinitum, I can't see what parts of the system should be "specific countries".

Telling other members to "give it a reprieve" is not respectful. It's trying to tell other people what they should and shouldn't post, IN A FORUM SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED FOR POSTS ON THAT VERY TOPIC. If you call that "flaming", well,... snowflakes do have a tendency to melt in the slightest heat.

I'm wondering if the sweatiness isn't what's causing the dreams - your skin feels the sweat and the tshirt moving on it, and translates that into skin being removed.

This. Is. A. Political. Forum. JFC, how hard is it to NOT enter a forum about politics if you don't want to read about politics? Are you so incapable of self-control that if you see the word "Politics" in the title, you are drawn inescapably to read whatever is posted there? There are things I don't want to read about here, like, say, chem sex. Guess what? I don't go into those forums! Amazing how that works - somehow, magically, if you don't open up a forum in which you're not interested, YOU DON'T SEE POSTS ON THAT TOPIC! It's almost magical how it works! Talk about "give it a reprieve".

That is the death grip that Trumpism has, on the testicles of the Republican Party. Several senators have commented that if the vote to convict or acquit could be done by secret ballot, there wouldn't be ten votes for acquittal in the Senate. They KNOW how dangerous he is. But it's been demonstrated, over and over, that if you're a GOP senator in a state that's solidly Republican, opposing Trump means you will be primaried out by a challenger within your own party, if you're not forced to drop out because you don't think you stand a chance. That's one reason most of the rational Republicans - not necessarily even moderates, just those who are conscientious about their role in our republic - have been retiring rather than face the choice of supporting Trump or getting beaten. They were warned, after the previous impeachment: if you allow him to get away with this, trying to rig the election in his favor, he will be back, doing it again, only worse. And so here we are. And yet they still refuse to act. There is no saving the GOP at this point.

Playing devil's advocate here: it may be that asking if you want it is his cue for you to beg for it... or even to pretend you don't, so he can tell you "tough shit, you're getting it anyway". Hard to judge what he's going for out of context.

Like so many things with HIV, it's one of those "it depends" things. As long as you are faithful with your meds - long history of not missing doses and continuing to do so after you have sex - then there's no *inherent* reason to expect you would become toxic again. Your numbers might spike up briefly, but staying on meds should tamp that back down. I don't think the numbers would spike to the point you could be called "toxic"; you might briefly be infectious, but even that depends on the status of anyone you might go on to fuck. That said: if a toxic top had a strain of HIV that was *not* controllable with the meds you're on, that would be a different story. When you're on meds, viral replication is kept to a minimum, which itself inhibits the opportunity for mutations that occur through the virus replicating itself. That's why doctors are optimistic that if a person gets his HIV levels under control to undetectable levels, he can likely remain that way for most, if not the entirety, of his life. But introduction of a variant that your meds can't control may give the new variant a foothold in your body. And in turn, that *may* allow you to become toxic again. And you're looking at two scenarios here. One is that you get infected by a variant that is not controllable with your current medication, but which may be controllable with another. In such a case, your doctor might have to change your medication or add an additional type of pill to your regime, but there's a good chance you could be made undetectable again. The other scenario is an actually med-resistant strain of HIV for which there are no effective long-term treatments. Some of these are almost "legendary" among gay men, but they aren't (for the most part) widespread in the U.S. If such a strain were to take hold in your body, absent a medical advance finding a way to treat such a strain, you might follow the normal course of a freshly-infected person who does not get treatment again (ie a quick boom in viral levels, a temporary suppression of same by your body's natural immunity, but succumbing to the virus within a handful of years).

Some people are completely uninterested in complex topics and science because they interfere with innate bigotry and prejudices.