BootmanLA

One example does not mean that broadly speaking people interested in transvestism are likely transgender in nature. It may be the case for Izzard (who, I would note, described herself as "gender fluid" and wanting to be "in girl mode from now on"), but that's not necessarily the case for a majority or even necessarily a significant number of people who are into transvestism. People's self-evaluation, self-understanding, etc. can change over time.

What's offensive is assuming your own lived experience is superior to, and better informed than, those of other people - ie dismissing their life experiences as merely "a trend". This is exactly what straight people did with gay people for centuries - denying that we could be anything other than "deviants" who "chose" a "lifestyle" that was sinful, criminal, whatever - all because THEY couldn't envision THEMSELVES as innately interested in the same sex and therefore it couldn't be a valid identity issue for anyone else. Your flippant dismissal of trans people as "saying 'I feel like a woman'" tells me you don't actually know, or at least have never had any serious discussions with, any trans people. You might try educating yourself on them and their experiences before you shoot your mouth off with such bigoted, ill-informed crap.

Seems to me that if you're just ignoring his messages and never responding (which is what's heavily implied), you're letting a powder keg sit with a fuse attached and just waiting for a match to be struck. I'm not sure why you couldn't tell him that (a) you remember your times together fondly, (b) you appreciate that he's still interested, but (c) you're in a monogamous relationship now and so (d) you wish him well but need to discourage him from hitting on you any more. Because if you don't have a clear message to him that you're no longer available and not interested, your "monogamous" partner may end up stumbling onto the messages. Or the guy may track you down and show up wanting another round. And at that point, you're left scrambling to try to prove that nothing has happened since you and your current partner got together - and messages that were sent within the timespan of your relationship will at least cast doubt on that. Now, if you've already told him that, and he keeps trying to pressure you into hooking up again, he's an asshole for trying to get you to violate the terms of your relationship. And if you enjoy his ongoing infatuation with you so much that you don't want him to stop, you should recognize you've got the lit match already in your hand and all it will take is one misstep to drop it and set the powder keg off.

I understand this rationale, but I (for one) approach these these two differently. I generally use "Like" when I like (ie derive pleasure) from what the person posted. I use "Upvote" to signal agreement or feel something is important to note, even if he's talking about something I dislike. That difference may be too subtle, however, to matter. Again, I think these are (subtly) different things, though I'm not sure it would matter much. Any of the three would work, broadly speaking, for what most people want to convey. Agreed. This suffers from the same problem I see in merging "downvote" with "like". And none of those perception problems, really, would matter except that some of them are linked to the system that rates membership.

Thanks for clarifying that. I had looked up the profiles of a few relatively new members (just to see if I could send to them) and none of them had "Send Message" as an option on their profiles. Not sure what that's due to, in their cases. I'm wondering, though: is it possible that on your first day, someone posted a message on your page, and you got a notification of that via the message system? I'll be the first to acknowledge I don't know all the details of how the site works.

It is indeed universal, with variants. For instance: What's the difference between a US military guy and a gay man? Two six packs. What's the difference between a US Marine and a gay man? One six pack. (My other favorite USMC joke: Why do they put marines on navy vessels? Because sheep would be too obvious.)

The main reason it's not disclosed in detail is to keep spammers from gaming the system. If they knew, for instance, that having a minimum of 40 posts spread over at least 10 topics in at least three different forums would do the trick, they'd be setting up accounts and almost immediately jail-breaking them. Not knowing the # of posts, # of threads/topics, # of forums, or period of time over which the posts must be spread is really more of a security feature than anything else.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense a sort of disconnect in this. Capturing the event to enjoy again later may technically be covered by the laws that govern record keeping - the act of filming is what triggers the requirements. But since the authorities have to have probable cause, now, to search your records, if the person who films the event keeps it for himself, it's unlikely probable cause could ever be found. (The one way might be if the person in the video went to the police and swore out a complaint that he was filmed and never asked to sign the paperwork or provide ID, but I'm not sure a bare allegation, without some sort of corroborating evidence, would be enough to trigger probable cause.) On the other hand, you talk about content of this sort "that's now disappeared", suggesting that those videos were NOT just for private enjoyment - they were shared on a tube site or whatever. And that's a whole different ballgame. It's kind of hard to argue that a video clip was made for the video guy "just to enjoy again later" but somehow it ended up distributed on a tube site open to the internet. Someone had to make a conscious decision to share that video beyond the original stated context of "to enjoy again later".

The opposite is likely to be the case. As RawTop noted, record keeping is onerous. Compliance with the law can be onerous. You have to know what's required, what's legal, and what's forbidden, and the average home producer of spontaneous porn is unlikely to know. Studios, who have lawyers who study the statutes and regulations and court cases, will know. Or at least, their trade association will know, and share with its members.

I suspect that's because there are two ways, essentially, to handle the concept you're talking about. The simpler way, and the way things are most usually implemented, is that each time you change a search parameter (including search order) the search is resubmitted to the database. Full-text searching (that is, looking for words or phrases as used within posts) is one of the most computer-intensive tasks for something like this, because the entire post has to be indexed for searching. (On something like Amazon, by contrast, all the assorted text within an item's description is not indexed or searchable; typically, it's the description, the seller, location, and a few other key fields, so even though there's far more data, the indexes are structurally much simpler.) The reason for the "pull fresh data every time" is that's how the web was designed to operate. When you access a page of content from the provider, it sends whatever results it's supposed to send (unless there's an error), and then the connection ends. If you choose "sort by date" afterward, then the server on the other end has already moved on; it has to retrieve the data again sorted with the new parameters, then give you updated output. Sometimes you'll see sites, however, that retrieve the data once, and then allow you to re-sort the results immediately by clicking on one of the column heads, or whatever. That's dependent on the language/development environment for the site. Those tools each work in different ways to fake keeping the data connection "live" so that re-sorts are almost instantaneous. But doing that requires an environment that supports that, first, and then it must be implemented by the developer.

You may not yet be at the level that can send messages. And as I understand it, if you can't SEND messages, you also can't RECEIVE messages; when you get access to one you get access to both. Once you are, if you pull up a member's profile, you'll see a link to the right of the "Follow member" button that allows you to message that member.

Read this thread again. There has been a problem with "newly created" members spamming others via the private message system. As a result, new members are blocked from sending private messages to other members until they have posted an undisclosed number of messages in the public forums, thus proving they're here to participate in the community. Bear in mind this is *primarily* a discussion board, not a hookup app. There is a section for personal ads (farther down the list of forums) sorted by geographic location. But it's not intended by its developer/owner/manager to be a Grindr for barebackers.

The fundamental difference is that PH made money selling memberships - which had to be paid for by credit card. Since FB is basically free to the user and paid for almost entirely via advertising, FB doesn't have to worry about whether Visa/MC is going to pull their merchant agreements, as it did with PornHub. That doesn't mean the FB or Twitter or other sites don't have a much bigger problem than the specifically porn sites, but it does mean that not all tools that can go after the latter will work on the former.

Yes, it's still a real issue. 1. Even with financial assistance programs, etc., many men can't afford PrEP yet. While certain classes of plans, primarily individual and marketplace plans, must offer a set of essential benefits, including prescription drugs, that rule does not apply to all group plans (like those offered by employers). One large local company here, for instance, offers its employees a prescription benefit that only covers generic drugs and only when purchased through CVS (which is also their designated pharmacy benefits coordinator). I'm sure they get a steep discount on the cost of those drugs, but it means non-generic medications just are not covered. 2. A small number of people can't tolerate PrEP. They're a very small subset of people, but it's nonetheless very real for them. 3. Many younger people are on their parents' health care plans (which, under the ACA, have to allow parents to cover kids up to age 26 under most circumstances). Quite a few of them aren't out to their parents, or even if they are, they're not eager for them to find out they're sexually active to the point of needing PrEP. 4. PrEP doesn't protect against anything except HIV. 5. Despite, as you said, the fact that many poz men are undetectable, many are not. You need only look around on this site to see the number of men who brag about being poz and unmedicated, and having "Don't Ask Don't Tell" or "Not sure, probably Neg" as a status, to realize there are a lot of opportunities for infection out there. Undoubtedly condom usage has dropped in the gay community from its peak (whevever that was, probably sometime in the 90's). But the fact that HIV infections continue to happen, and in some areas are rising, is an indication that condoms, for many men, still make considerable sense.

Strictly speaking, only.fans and justfor.fans are not, for the most part, amateur sites, unless the posting person provides all content for free. If the poster accepts payment for "subscriptions" or whatever, then he is not an amateur; he's a professional because he's getting paid for porn. (I have no objections to that arrangement; I'm just stating a fact.)

While certainly we're all entitled to keep our medical histories private (except insofar as it may affect others directly), I can understand those who treat their HIV status as public. There is so much stigma still attached to being poz, at least in some areas and parts of life, that being open about it helps break that down. Or at least it may. As others have stated, it's one thing to be open about barebacking with anyone who's a potential sex partner. I can't imagine, though, how it might be relevant to people in general. I'm sure I know married heterosexual couples who practice anal sex, for instance, but I don't have any particular need or desire to know.

It's good news "for now" (as you noted), but the article itself is wrong in saying that you can take this as a signal that SCOTUS isn't interested in limiting marriage equality. All we can say is that "this case" wasn't chosen for that effort. And that could be for any number of reasons. It may be that some justices are sensitive to the idea of using a case involving children (imagine the headlines: SCOTUS rules children of gay couples can be tagged 'illegitimate'). It may be that some of the details of this case don't lend themselves to a clean, fast rule that the justices would want to use. All we can definitely say is "they didn't take this case, so the law in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin) is, for now, pretty set. That doesn't mean that, say, a similar case in the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) couldn't go the other way. Or in the Eleventh Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama). Circuit court rulings are binding precedent only within the particular circuit. It's true that when two or more circuits "split" on an important question of law, coming to different conclusions, that's often when SCOTUS will finally agree to take a case to resolve the split between the circuits. But even that is not guaranteed, and there are any number of points of law that are treated differently in federal courts in, say, the Fifth Circuit as compared to the Ninth Circuit.

Good thing I didn't hold my breath waiting on you to say "I told you so". I love the color blue but I don't think it would suit me as a skin tone. Shorter version: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Seven MILLION votes more for Biden than for Trump. 306 electoral votes to 232 for Mango Mussolini - the same vote spread that Trump, in 2016, called "historic", "unprecedented", and a "landslide".

I would note that here, at least, your profile says "versatile top", not "top", not "100% top", not "top who would never consider bottoming". Maybe on other sites you describe yourself differently?

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.