BootmanLA

I would just note that I never used the word "should" - a word I consider one of the most useless in the English language (at least insofar as it's typically used). Nor did I mention obligations or dues. I pointed out that opportunities diminish. I'm not a strict believer in karma, but I do think that in the long run, what goes around generally comes around. I get your point about how you wouldn't feel pleasure "servicing" a bottom who took no delight in penetrating you. I would just note that I suspect most bottoms get at least some pleasure on the (perhaps rare) occasions they top, or they likely couldn't get hard enough to do it; and that for some bottoms, it's not about "servicing" but enjoying the sensation of getting fucked, by a real cock and not a dildo. Sure, if you're wired such that you only get turned on being a hole for pure tops to use, this isn't for you. For people who simply like sex as a bottom, trading off/switching occasionally so that you both get what you enjoy on occasion may be a necessary compromise.

In part that's true. But Facebook and the like are less subject to pressure because they run on ads, not on subscriptions or other forms of user payment. When you take payments from users, you have to accept credit cards. And if you accept credit cards, you're a much, much easier target for anyone trying to shut you down, whether it's for legitimate trafficking/revenge porn cases, or just for moralizing busybodies. If they make it uncomfortable enough for the credit card processors, they'll block your site from accepting that card, and then you're toast.

Certainly anyone who nags or tries to use shame to coerce someone to have sex - in ANY role - is in the wrong, and if it's repetitive enough, grounds for blocking/avoiding. That said: I will speak from the perspective of someone who's in his mid/late fifties, who's been out for right at forty years, and who himself is essentially all bottom. As we bottoms age, our opportunities for goodly amounts of sex shrink. There are always far more bottoms than tops, anywhere you go (especially if you count the "bottom/versatile" men who are technically versatile but top maybe once for every two hundred times or more that they bottom). While there are certainly some tops who'll say "I prefer older guys because they know how to take a fuck" - and a small percentage of younger tops are actually more turned on by gray hair and the like, in my experience far more tops relish the thought of the new, the un-broken-in, the eye candy that marks them as the stud who landed the hot boy. So opportunities are going to start drying up - not necessarily tomorrow, or next month, or even next year. But at some point, it's going to happen. And if you've been the sort of bottom that never, ever would top another bottom, even if you're more than adequately equipped to do so and capable from the standpoint of maintaining an erection, then you certainly won't have any ground to stand on hoping someone *else* is going to switch to top *you*. And if you're okay with that - recognizing that at a certain point your sex live is going to markedly dwindle and continue to do so for the rest of your life - then get whatever you can while you can. Because that bottom/versatile guy you turned down the opportunity to flip-fuck when you were 30 is probably not going to be in the mood to top you when you're 55 or 60. And neither will the 20-somethings, 30-somethings, 40-somethings, etc. that themselves are refusing to top each other, much less us "oldies". And obviously, yes, there are exceptions. Just don't count on being one of them as your sexual equivalent of a retirement plan.

To be slightly fairer: Although child porn is one of the big problems they want to solve (and I'm not saying this is the way, just acknowledging the problem), another is "revenge porn", where a person being recorded for sex may not have given his/her consent for sharing or distribution of the recording, but it's shared anyway - sometimes to get back at one of the people in the recording for some slight or another. Requiring verification of users to upload means that if X person claims to own the copyright to the footage and has permission from the participants, he can be identified and tracked down if it turns out that's not the case. And yes, we all know that if you take explicit pictures or video of yourself, or others take them of you, you should expect that they'll make their way onto the web. Losing battle though it may be, however, a person still has the right to refuse to give that permission; and sometimes, the person in the videos isn't even aware there was a camera filming. At present, US law shields most online content hosting sites from liability as long as they take certain actions to hide or remove potentially illegal content when it's identified (the infamous "takedowns" that get a bad rep). But because such content can spread like wildfire and be impossible to track everywhere it ends up, advocates for those who are harmed by such distribution are pressuring for a change in the laws to hold such sites more accountable. These are defensive moves, designed to reduce the pressure on Congress to curtail the freedom from liability that hosts now enjoy. And unfortunately, there are enough bad actors out there who abuse the system that the status quo is becoming unsustainable.

I wouldn't dispute what you say about hetero couples (though I can't say I endorse it 100% either; I've never been hetero-married and the couples I do know run the gamut from "still having sex regularly 30 years in" to "had mostly stopped even before they married". But I can say it's not necessarily any different for gay couples. Some who are perfectly matched sexually may keep going at it like rabbits for decades, but there are also plenty of guys whose reactions are different. Sometimes one of the couple loses interest in sex; sometimes both do; sometimes they both lose sexual interest in each other but both still want sex. What I see as different in gay couples is that some of them, at least, are more practical about what to do when one of those things happens. Open relationships (that is, honestly open, not cheating on the side) seem MUCH more common to me in gay couples than in straight ones. That doesn't mean there isn't cheating as well (when one member of the couple won't accept an open relationship and his partner isn't satisfied within, for instance) but if there are lots of open marriages out there, they're much better at keeping them secret (which, given societal expectations, wouldn't be surprising). It's also true that many men are more open to casual, no-strings sex with no relationship option down the road than many straight women are. How much of that, too, is based on societal expectations and misogyny (men who have lots of sex partners are studs, women who do are sluts), I can't say, but men benefit from that. And mind you, we're at this point a good 50 years into the sexual revolution. I wouldn't expect things to change much in the foreseeable future unless some other big societal upheaval happens.

So, to clarify, all the men who had safer sex during the period when we had no effective treatment for HIV and no preventatives, are not "real men"? What a shitty attitude. Like or don't like condoms or condom porn, but to think somehow you are the arbiter of what a "real man" is, is pretty much laughable.

Forbidden? You do realize that some people believe all gay sex should be "forbidden". It's one thing to say "I hate condom porn." It's one thing to say "I refuse to watch condom porn." To say it should be forbidden is the height of arrogance. No one should tell you where or how to stick your cock in someone else (of legal age and consenting), NOR SHOULD YOU.

This homeless person incident - are you talking about on film, or something you witnessed? "In broad daylight" suggests something outside of porn.

All true. And I note your point about Latins and Asians who come from cultures of anti-black racism. In those cultures, they're the majority with privilege, and the darker skinned people are still the ones against whom the racism is targeted. Heck, in this country, at the turn of the 20th century, being Italian was barely a step above black. People reminisce about "italian neighborhoods" without always realizing the reason those neighborhoods existed was that Italians were unwelcome in areas that already had been settled by "white" (ie English, German, Irish, Dutch, etc.) people. Most ethnic enclaves in the US were created not so much as a way of cultures clinging together (though that did happen) but because people of that culture were rejected by the society at large. The oldest country club in my southern home city had a rule that pretty much anyone whose name ended in a vowel other than "e" or "u" was ineligible for membership. Those two letters were acceptable (though hardly a guarantee of acceptance) because of the number of French names ending in one or the other. By contrast, "a", "i" and "o" were associated with people of Latin or Italian descent, which was an absolute no-no.

There may be, but it also could be that some men simply do not want to cum that way. You say six guys fucked you last night, which I assume means you were in a bathhouse, orgy, sex party or some such. Some men can only cum once and then an hour or more before they can fuck again, so sometimes guys will (especially in a group setting), fuck a guy for a while and then move on to the next without orgasming - holding that for later. I realize you prefer the cum, but if the guy wants to hold off and you do something that makes him shoot faster than he wants to, he is unlikely to consider you for future fucking if he wants to last a while at the event or facility you're in.

When you say "people", do you mean porn producers, casting directors, etc.? 'Cause that would be who you'd be looking for in the Bareback Porn forum. If you mean on a personal ad basis, you're posting in the wrong place.

One thing I think is interesting - I have to wonder if all the Trumpanzees who were so adamant here that Trump was going to win in a landslide overdosed, or have packed up and moved to a country where there's no internet, or what. It's sure been quiet since Biden won the same number of electoral votes that Trump, in 2016, called "unprecedented" and a "landslide", while also winning, at last count, more than 7 million more votes than Trump did, as well as winning the largest number of votes in US history. (To be fair for that last: with steady population growth and people living longer, the total votes cast each presidential election grows, but this far outpaced the population growth.)

Pushing this to the top: Is there any movement on the notion of "seeing if someone's negativity is shared by others"? I've apparently pissed off someone here, who's decided to go downvote post after post of mine. I have no idea if he's trying to drag down my reputational points or just acting out. Even if I "ignore" the user, he's still apparently free to flag my posts with a downvote, regardless of what I wrote or the topic or whatever. I realize it's kind of pathetic that he's so bent on something so petty, and I should just quietly laugh to myself at how pitiful this is, but it could have longer term impact on here. I can cease engaging with the twit, but that won't stop him from trying to torpedo my posts.

The best way I've heard white privilege explained is this: No matter how tough you may have it, how many struggles you face economically, personally, or whatever, you don't have the additional burden that being a person of color would add - and it essentially *always* adds to the burden.

Not to speak for HungandMean, but since your question aligns *only* in part with my own view, I thought I'd address it. It's not that individuals can only be prejudiced but not racist. It's that individuals *not of the race with power* can't be racist. Individuals who ARE of the race with power - absolutely can be racist. They may NOT be - but (1) that's usually because they work at recognizing racism when they see it, and (2) even if they themselves are not racist, they almost certainly benefit from the racist structures that exist. I'm curious as to whether his views align with mine and where, if anywhere, they differ.

I'll take that as a compliment. 🙂 though I will say, none of this is especially secret information; while I knew the contours of it, I was able to double-check the winners of those first twelve presidential elections in about 2 minutes total using Google. You just have to want to find it. As someone who was originally slated for a career in teaching history before getting sidetracked, I still have my interest in digging up the facts.

First - congrats on the new job! I hope things hold together (as well as is possible) until you can get on the company health plan. Second - I'm honestly shocked that Oregon, which is usually at the forefront of fixing things like this, could have these kinds of problems. It's especially concerning because under the ACA, loss of health care coverage (whether through losing one's job, having hours cut back to where you don't qualify for their plan, etc.) is considered a "qualifying event" for triggering the ability to get a plan on the ACA even if open enrollment is closed. The fact that it was in March shouldn't have changed that. Third - you might consider going on the ACA now, during open enrollment, for January and February (and March, to start the month) to have coverage until the new job's benefits kick in. It may be a strain on finances, but it's short term, and it might be cheaper to pay for that plan than to pay for meds out of pocket. You can always drop the ACA plan once your other benefits are kicked in. Just double-check to make sure that you won't be excluded from your new employment benefits if you have another plan; normally, they can't do that, but you'd want to have something definitive before making that choice. But it would end the medication rationing a few months earlier and might help keep you healthier. Just a thought. Lastly - I'm really, really disturbed that the designated Ryan White organization doesn't have some workaround that would apply in a case like yours. They should (at a minimum) have a network of PCPs who will agree to see a patient at least once for a fixed fee, to get the referral to a specialist, so that you can stay on meds. I'm lucky that my HIV doctor agrees to bill for routine care as a PCP - it's less money for the practice than if he were billing as a specialist all the time, but it means ONE doctor overseeing my care, who understands my HIV history. I'm doubly lucky that he has a network of other providers with whom he has a good relationship, so I don't have to worry about going to any other specialist (my urologist, kidney doctor, etc.) and getting less than great care. Something else I can be thankful for this season.

Very well handled. And if it ever happened again, I'd simply block the person. Repeat problems with one guy who can't understand, to me, is a different issue than multiple people asking the same question.

I think this is one of those cases where I believe "words matter". The thoughts you express here - that the two aspects of "being gay" and "being poz" are inseparable, for you, doesn't mean that being only one or the other makes one "incomplete." The OP said - and I quote directly - "For me being a gay transman its a rite of passage to being a true gay man. So when I get it its going to be my badge of honor." That's awfully dismissive of the millions upon millions of gay people who are NOT HIV-positive, and extraordinarily snubbing to the hundreds of thousands of gay men who died not wanting this "badge of honor" and who would have given anything to trade that "award" for a few more decades of life. I'm HIV-positive. I accept that, and it's part of my being just like being 57 or being of Cajun descent or having marginally high cholesterol. But accepting that it's reality is a far cry from claiming it's some sort of trophy or something that makes me "more gay". I think that's an attitude that needs examining, by a competent mental health professional. It's like bragging that having cardiovascular disease after a life of eating excessive amounts of fatty food makes one more authentically American, and that needing a quadruple bypass is a badge of honor.

And I agree - you shouldn't *have* to compromise what you want, if it's important enough to you! The solution you have - ignore locals, avoid the apps, and go to another city when you really need it - works for you, apparently, and there's nothing wrong with it. My only issue is with dismissing the locals, who may not have those options, as being unable to read. I think that's gratuitously cruel.

I was with you, mostly, until the part about "nearest big city". In my experience, guys in smaller towns are much more accustomed to compromising on things because of a lack of options - and that applies whether you're shopping for men or paper towels. That doesn't mean *you* need to compromise; it's just that other local guys may be used to doing things that are not their first choice, in order to experience *some* form of M2M interaction. Again, not suggesting you need to compromise, but being understanding about the fact that most people in your circumstances probably *do* have to compromise might make your stress level go down a notch.

The only thing I might (gently, I hope) point out is that saying you bareback is not the same as saying you ONLY bareback. I know guys who prefer bareback but will use a condom if requested and they want the other guy bad enough. So *if* your profile isn't clear that it's "bareback ONLY", maybe that might improve your results. The hosting thing is harder to excuse, although some people assume that means "it's hard to find a time when it would work to do it here" and they're hoping this might be one of the rare times. If the issue is more permanent - ie "my partner and I agreed that all outside sex happens outside our house", then again, maybe a clearer statement ("I do not host at home; please don't ask") might cut out all but the terminally clueless.

The one thing that gives me a little hope: Gorsuch's opinion this past June in the employment discrimination cases, where the Court held (6-3!) that the provisions of federal law that ban discrimination in employment based on sex included, by its very nature, discrimination against LGBT people. Chief Justice Roberts was in that 6-3 majority. Having established that, even with replacing Ginsburg with Barrett, it'll be hard not to see how that would govern most laws that prohibit discrimination "on the basis of sex". Unfortunately, the oldest conservative justices are only 72 and 70, with the others being 65, 55, 53, and 48. So none of them may retire during this term. Breyer is 82, so he might want to think about doing so and letting Biden replace him with a younger liberal sooner rather than later. Sotomayor and Kagan are 66 and 60, respectively, so they could still have 15-20 years on the bench.

I don't know what any "protocol" for druggie sex might be. That said, if you've got a site that caters to a wide range of interests, you'd likely want to put the most widely discussed and shared topics first, so that a casual user who hits the site isn't slapped in the face with, say, chem-induced orgies or nullo eunuchs right away; if that's the first thing a user sees, there's a significantly non-zero chance (if he's not into those) that he'll turn away and not scroll through the rest of the site to see the variety of topics.

We actually have the electoral college because the slave states wanted to ensure that slavery would be protected, and thus they refused to sign onto the Constitution until (a) the idea of giving every state two senators, regardless of size, and placing that provision outside the amendment process, was included; (b) the House was apportioned by counting enslaved people, who could not vote, albeit at a 40% discount; and (c) having the president selected by electors, who equaled in number the senators and representatives from a state. This meant that after the first census (in 1790), VA ended up with 19 House seats and 21 electors, while PA only had 13 House seats and 15 electors, even though it had virtually the same number of men eligible to vote. It's also true that we have a republic, but a republic is a FORM of democracy. "Republic" means simply that we elect people who make most of the decisions of governance for us, as opposed to having a referendum on every single thing that comes up (we'd be voting full-time if we did). It never was about people being "very smart" or "well read"; you could vote for Congress if you were a free white male over the age of majority (with the additional qualification, in some states, of owning some form of property). Rather, the "official" justification for the electoral college was that the candidates for president would likely not be known to anyone outside their home state area, and thus state legislatures, who would know the most widely traveled residents of the state, could use them as electors to then choose the president. In reality, once political parties formed - which happened during Washington's second term and which permeated the 1796 election between Adams and Jefferson - identifying with a particular state was no longer the issue; it was which party backed the candidate. And as for slavery preservation being the basis for the EC: look at the results for the first twelve races: 1788 - Washington (slave state) wins 1792 - Washington (slave state) wins 1796 - Adams (free state) wins, but only barely 1800 - Jefferson (slave state) wins 1804 - Jefferson (slave state) wins 1808 - Madison (slave state) wins 1812 - Madison (slave state) wins 1816 - Monroe (slave state) wins 1820 - Monroe (slave state) wins 1824 - Adams (free state) wins, but not via the EC. 1828 - Jackson (slave state) wins 1832 - Jackson (slave state) wins There's a reason all those presidents from slave states kept winning. The votes of white slaveholders and their fellow state residents counted for a lot more than those of white free men in non-slave states, because of how the electors were apportioned. In any event: in the 21st century, the excuse that people wouldn't know the candidates is ridiculous, as is the notion that electors would exercise independent judgment to keep lowlifes out of the White House (see, for instance, the 2016 election). There's no reason the vote of a person in Wyoming should count for more than three times what the vote of a person in California should (or, to flip the party issues: the vote of a person in Rhode Island shouldn't count for three times what the vote of a person in Texas does).