BootmanLA

FWIW I always tell people who insist on voting third-party that it must be nice to have the luxury of not caring who wins at all - because to vote for a candidate who has zero chance of winning even one electoral vote is exactly equal to saying "I don't care who wins". And I say that knowing that at times, a particular third-party candidate *might* be closer, overall, to my views on most issues than either the Democrat or the Republican. But given that one or the other of those two is going to win, it's in my interest to vote for the one whose views more closely align with mine than the other - even if one only aligns with me 15% of the time, that's better than the one who only aligns with me 5% of the time.

I would suggest this, then: comments about racism being a white-only phenomenon are valid *in the context of western European and American culture* (and in societies elsewhere created and dominated by those groups, such as South Africa before the end of apartheid. Perhaps a better way to express it would be that racism, being about *power*, can only be expressed *in a particular community* by those who wield power in that particular community. Which means yes, in Asia, where caucasians are a definite minority and even less so in the power structure, it's certain possible for, say, Chinese to be racist against Americans or the English or the French, in China. In other parts of Asia, another group may actually mistreat Chinese people even worse, because they're not the local ethnicity with power. But to suggest that, say, white people slumming it in a black American neighborhood not getting the same quality service as the locals is "racism" (or "reverse racism") is still just stupid.

Two ways to approach this, then. One is the do-it-yourself way. Get some top buddies willing to fuck you on camera, set up for filming, and go for it. Post on JFF or OF or whatever. All the work's on you, but you control the product and can work as much or as little as you choose. The other is to go commercial. In that case, though, whether *you* want to do it for fame/experience, as opposed to money, doesn't matter one iota. The company's going to have to spend money: to rent or maintain its locations, to pay its crew, to pay the post production people, to pay for permits, to pay for a million little things that go into the product. In turn, that means they have to see a path to making money via you, regardless of what *you* want to get out of the deal. Which means they're not much more likely to take you on as an actor in porn films because you're more interested in the experience as opposed to money. And there are union considerations; I don't know that APAG has implemented collective bargaining for minimum pay, etc., but you nonetheless need to be aware of them.

Oregon has had expanded Medicaid since long before the ACA offered a way for states to put most of the cost on the federal government. Between it and the ACA, you should be able to get coverage no matter whether you're jobless or at a very low income (via Medicaid) or via the ACA with your premium subsidized (perhaps heavily) if you're making above the Medicaid cutoff. Separately, there are also Ryan White Act funded programs in essentially every state to ensure that people who are HIV-positive can get and remain on treatment. Unless you WANT to have unchecked HIV, there shouldn't be too many obstacles in Oregon to being covered.

Descovy is used on its own for PrEP, but when used to treat someone who's already HIV+, it's customarily paired with another HIV medication. Descovy consists of two medications (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate), both of which are nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs, or “nukes”). This type of medication blocks the HIV virus from copying its genetic material (which is RNA) to DNA. Some of the single-tablet regimens for HIV treatment include both of these, along with a third medication from a different class of HIV drugs. For instance, Biktarvy (which I'm on) includes these two plus bictegravir, which is an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (ISTI). That component blocks integrase, which is an enzyme HIV needs in order to insert its genetic material into a cell's genetic material. Atripla, another common multi-drug pill, combines the two meds in Descovy with efavirenz, which is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI). It uses a different method to block the HIV virus from copying its RNA to DNA from NRTIs. Genvoya contains the two Descovy meds plus elvitegravir (INSTI) andcobicistat, a CYP3A inhibitor (which is kind of a "booster" drug that helps the others work more efficiently). However, I believe that's the compound that can make Genvoya less kidney-friendly than some other combo pills. Not every combination of all the various FDA-approved component medications is available as a single tablet, so sometimes a patient will need to take one pill to get, say, two of the compounds plus a third pill that is strictly a third component that you can't get in a single dose tablet.

That's because to you, "top" includes, by definition, "dominance". To others, "top" is simply "insertive partner". Not to suggest either is incorrect, per se. And some "passive tops" are, in fact, acting to get what they want. They're picking a bottom, ordering him to do the necessary work, and getting the low-effort orgasm they desire.

"Down low" is not so much "straight acting" as it is "publicly presenting as straight and not acknowledging that one is gay except in the most discreet circumstances." Down low guys lie about being straight, often date women publicly or are married, and seek dick or ass on the side, always trying to keep it secret so the girlfriend/wife/employer/buddies don't find out. Hence the term "on the down low" or "on the DL". They're the sort who freak out if a gay person acknowledges them in public because they're terrified someone might discover they take it up the ass. "Straight-acting" guys can be similar, but what most seem to mean is that they look down their noses at gays who enjoy fashion, decor, or anything else traditionally/stereotypically associated with being gay. "Straight acting" guys will, if pressed, admit to others they're gay, but they would insist that nobody would ever know if they didn't tell them. (ANNOUNCER'S VOICE: Except they can.) I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic in your final sentence, but yes, in the US at least, "poly" is indeed short for polyamory.

Unfortunately, society has become full of anti-PC people who scream "You can't accuse me of being a racist just because I said X" even when X is virtually the definition of racism. Fortunately, the world has a growing number of people who won't just sit back while others make racist comments publicly and who will call racists out for being racists. The world tried your "ignore them" approach, from about 1870 until, well, almost yesterday. When racists go unchallenged, racism flourishes.

Sperm break down in the human body all the time, because the majority are never even ejaculated, so if dying sperm in the male body were likely to cause a strain on the immune system, men would be extinct. If you read the article in question, the only downside discussed is the effect on virility. If there were serious regular complications of the immune system involved here, chances are we'd know about it by now.

Sounds to me like a desperate attempt to justify passing along a disease to another person for selfish reasons.

I suspect that's not an issue that's been studied all that well and so any recommendations will be strictly anecdotal. I'd say the load is likely to be largely gone within a day, certainly within two, if you have any sort of regularity to your bowel movements. A period less than a day undoubtedly carries *some* risk, from a common-sense perspective.

Only if you consider the virus "you". It's no more part of "you" than the dirt under your fingernails or the scum on your teeth when you wake up in the morning.

I think the shortened version often (not always, but often) is used to refer to sex with underaged persons, hence why it's banned here.

One slightly not-bad thing about Covid: since so few people are traveling or even going out to places (like, say, public buildings) where there are metal detectors in use, metal chastity devices are unlikely to cause an issue for security. One of the reasons the plastic style devices were created in the first place was to have something that could be worn through airport security - also why the plastic, numbered, single-use "locks" exist, so you can prove it's been left in place but without requiring a metal lock. Which is to say: a plastic (or now, silicone) cage as a back-up may be a good investment IF your job formerly required travel or passing through metal detectors and/or body imaging machines; when you return to that practice, you'll need something that doesn't provoke a strip search after going through the body scanner.

To address the question about legality: Under common law (which applies in most US states), there are five things required in order for a contract to be valid and thus legally enforceable. 1. There must be an offer, as in "I offer to be your slave and do the following things:" 2. There must be acceptance, as in "I accept your offer to be my slave and do these things." 3. Consideration, as in "In exchange for your agreement to do be my slave, I agree to do the following:" 4. Competency, as in the parties must be competent (over the age of majority, of sound mind, etc.) to make the agreement. 5. Legality, as in the contract cannot contradict the law nor can it be an agreement to violate the law. These are two separate things. "Cannot contradict the law" means that if your particular jurisdiction (state, etc.) requires that certain contracts (say, for the transfer of real property) be in writing, then an oral contract to transfer real property fails that test. "Cannot be an agreement to violate the law", on the other hand, prohibits contracts for, say, prostitution or murder-for-hire. The last part is the kicker. If prostitution is illegal where you live (as it is in most jurisdictions), and your contract calls for anything that could be classified as prostitution, then the contract is not legally enforceable. In Louisiana (my home state), for instance, prostitution is defined by statute as "The practice by a person of indiscriminate sexual intercourse with others for compensation". Compensation need not be in cash or cash equivalents, so if you're agreeing to serve someone sexually and he provides anything of value in return (housing, food, whatever), then you have a contract that's not legally enforceable. Mind you: that only becomes an issue if, say, you wanted to leave and he were trying to force you to stick to the contract, or he wanted to kick you out and you wanted to force him to keep you around. In neither situation would the court step in other than to say this is an invalid contract, go away. (The possibility of prostitution charges arising out of going to court like this, while pretty slim, can't be completely ignored either).

If you think ONLY poz guys are "true" gay men and that HIV is a badge of honor, then you need therapy. Seriously. It's a big deal because: 1. It's a lifetime commitment to medication that can fuck with your body, including impairing any number of other bodily functions like your kidneys. And bear in mind, most of these wonder drugs have been around for about 20 years or less, so we don't know what a long lifetime (say, 50+ years) of these drugs will do to a person. Or even if they'll continue to work for 50 years - or will HIV eventually overwhelm even the drugs of last resort? 2. It's expensive. People can argue that insurance covers most of the cost, and the drug companies help cover copays, but that's not magical free money that just rains from the skies. It comes from somewhere, and it's money that (while it needs to be spent) could have been spent on so many other things to improve life for all. I'm not saying we shouldn't cover HIV treatment; I'm saying if we didn't have so much of it to treat, we'd be better off as a society. For a long time, the argument that this was just like the danger of cardiovascular disease from eating too much fatty food or too much red meat or Type II diabetes from excess sugar consumption: that people shouldn't be expected to sacrifice all pleasurable eating to get medical treatment for an otherwise avoidable disease, so people shouldn't be expected to have less-pleasant, condomed sex. But even accepting that argument, PrEP makes that point null and void: you can have thoroughly enjoyable, bareback sex if you stay on PrEP and essentially eliminate your risk of contracting HIV. I do agree that there shouldn't be a stigma about being HIV-positive. But there is, and while we can work to reduce that stigma, that doesn't magically wish it away. No more than saying trans people shouldn't be discriminated against so let's wave our little fairy wands and make that vanish, too.

Correct. The "on demand" method, which is considered "off-label" and not officially sanctioned by most health authorities, might seem appealing because hey, doesn't it mean you take fewer pills? Not necessarily, actually. The downside to "on demand" is that it basically needs to be taken *every* time you have sex, and you have to take the initial, "double" dose at least 2, and no more than 24, hours before having sex, followed by a repeat dose 24 hours after the first, and another 24 hours after the second. So let's say you typically have sex three times a week - on Wednesday (Hump Day), Friday and Saturday. That means you take 2 pills during the day Wednesday, plus a second on Thursday and a third on Friday. But hey - you're gonna have sex again on Friday, so your Friday dose has to be double, plus you'll need one each on Saturday and Sunday. Oh wait, you're going to have sex again on Saturday. So that means Saturday's does needs to be double, too. You're already taking one on Sunday, but since it's doing "double duty" as clean up for both Friday and Saturday's sex, you might need that one to be doubled as well, plus one on Monday to finish out the post-Saturday sex. But no pill on Tuesday needed. But 2 on Wednesday, 1 on Thursday, 2 on Friday, 2 on Saturday, 2 on Sunday, and 1 on Monday, puts you at ten pills for 7 days. If you'd started a week early, one pill a day would put you in the routine, less likely to forget what your dose today needs to be, and less medication overall. Now if you only have sex once every week, or every other week, yeah, on-demand may make sense. But for anyone with any sort of steady sex life, daily is the way to go.

FWIW, TC1127, I've learned to discount anything said by people on here whose "handles" are straight-up drughead references.

TC, I believe Twinkfoot's point was to remind this guy that there are some of us who do care about trans people and trans issues even if we are white cis gay men. I don't think he was contradicting the original poster as letting him know here's an ally you can lean on, if necessary. At least, that's how I took his (and DrScorpio's) responses.

First off, you need to learn how to quote on here. Putting YOUR words in the section showing that *I* said them is fucking rude, asshole. Second off, I shouldn't be surprised, because apparently your idea of "masculine" is "maximum asshole". Why you think it's "feminine" (or whatever) to be polite to someone, I can't imagine, but since you prefer people to be rude if they're men, I'll oblige. Go fuck yourself with a farm implement, preferably a spiked and rusty one. As for masculinity, I think it's precious that you're so bent out of shape about being labeled with the clearly and highly accurate term "racist" as though your little fee-fees are all butthurt but you want to play the big butch man barking at others. Precious little fucking snowflake.

In general I think you've accurately described these terms. You hit on what I consider a common misconception - breeding is indeed about barebacking, especially no-pull-out barebacking. If you breed a mare to a stallion, you hope there will be a pregnancy, but there's no guarantee; the key thing is the delivery of semen. But the mare might be infertile or the stallion sterile. In HIV gifting/chasing terms, the top might be toxic, undetectable, or negative, corresponding to the potent/sterile condition of the stallion; the bottom might be on PrEP or immune, or negative and receptive. I'd argue perhaps that "pervert" covers a much wider swath of interests and behavior, much like "kink". Both terms describe, to me, stuff that a basic vanilla kind of person would at least raise an eyebrow at. I think also "extreme" might be an even smaller subset than 10%, but I suppose that's more of a personal judgment call. Lastly, I think there's a lot of overlap between raunch and dirty, with most of what you describe as "dirty" actually fitting comfortably into "raunch", as used on this side of the pond. If anything, though, I'd say you have the words backwards as they're used here (though certainly you may be spot on for the UK): raunch is the "nastier" stuff, dirty is the "sweaty/man smells" stuff.

For the record, though I don't disagree with anything you wrote: I don't stand up because I think black men need validation from me. I stand up against racism because it's wrong. And it's not that I think a white middle aged guy doing so has any more impact than a black guy doing so, but I think it's important for racist people to know that there are plenty of white people who are as offended by them as anyone else.

Regardless of the rest of your screed, this is just stupid. Things are either criminal or they are not, because making something criminal requires specificity. As for "creates a barrier to people receiving a lifesaving drug": LIFE is a barrier to receiving life saving drugs. Having to take a car (or bus, or walk) to the pharmacy is a "barrier". Having to pay for medication, if you don't have 100% drug insurance coverage in some form, is a "barrier". Heck, having to have insurance to be able to get the drug is a "barrier". Requiring a doctor's prescription is a "barrier". The question is whether it's a reasonable barrier. The FDA, doctors, hospitals, other health organizations, and apparently most of this board's respondents think it is reasonable. On the other side, there's you. Somewhere around here I have the contact info for a tiny violin player to share.

As I understand the term, it broadly means all of the things mentioned above: he's the "insertive" partner, but the receptive one does all the work. Doesn't require a power bottom. For instance, a passive top may sit back for a blow job and expect the bottom to do ALL the work - the top's not going to grab his head, fuck his face, or even necessarily pay attention to the bottom; the bottom is there to do a job. The top might read a book or enjoy a drink or a cigar or whatever and pay the bottom no mind and just eventually cum from the work the bottom puts into it. Alternatively, he might lay back, hands behind his head, on a bed and expect a bottom to get him hard and ride his cock until he shoots. No thrusting upward, no pushing the bottom down on his cock, just enjoying the bottom's work. Obviously that's the far end of a spectrum; some "passive tops" may offer verbal but not physical encouragement, for instance. But the overall concept is, the bottom does the work for the top's pleasure.

OK, Mr. "fairly attractive" (whatever THAT is supposed to mean): I'll offer one more free hint. When someone comes back with "but why", all you're required to do is say "I'm just not interested, but thank you." And if they persist, block them, because at that point, they're being rude. But being preemptively rude in the first place with your shitty 'no blacks' public statement just shows you're an asshole - which, you might note, seems to be the common theme in the responses here. People are people, whatever the race, and deserve to be treated with at least a minimum of respect until they prove they're not entitled to more. Doing as you do not only disrespects a huge portion of the people who look at your profile, but deprive you of any claim to the high road.