BootmanLA

Bullshit. Not everyone is being labeled a racist. Of course it's okay to have types that turn you on, and types that don't. But if one of those "types" is based solely on a broad ethnographic group like "black guys", then yes, that's racism. That's the very essence of racism, which is to draw distinctions solely on the basis of race. Perhaps the reasons that more people (not "everyone") are being labeled as racist have something to do with increasing numbers of people being comfortable making racist statements and more people being willing to call them out over it.

You should be aware that there are many STIs that can be transmitted from one partner to another even with the use of a condom. From the CDC: "Similarly, studies have shown that condom use reduces the risk of other STDs. However, the overall strength of the evidence regarding the effectiveness of condoms in reducing the risk of other STDs is not at the level of that for HIV, primarily because fewer methodologically sound and well-designed studies have been completed that address other STDs. ... Overall, the preponderance of available epidemiologic studies have found that when used consistently and correctly, condoms are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV infection and reduce the risk of other STDs." Notice that last bit: REDUCE THE RISK, not "eliminate the risk". Herpes, for instance, frequently manifests itself during outbreaks in places other than the surface of the penis (ie in areas that are NOT covered by a condom, even one used correctly). If a person has a herpes sore other than on his cock and is actively shedding virus, he can transmit it to you. HPV is also transmissible with skin-to-skin contact other than directly on the genitals. And bear in mind that HPV is the virus that can lead to assorted cancers; cervical cancer is the most commonly reported, but I know personally of a man who developed an oral cancer via HPV from performing oral sex on someone with that virus. While it's not technically an "infection", pubic lice can spread this way as well; in fact, since lice nest in the pubic hair, a condom does zero to prevent them. And even syphilis can produce sores either at the base of a cock where it's not covered with the condom, or nearby, thus negating the protection a condom provides. That's not to say condoms are useless for STIs; besides HIV, they're generally effective in preventing transmission of any STI that travels through semen, like gonorrhea, But simply using one will NOT protect you against all the bugs besides HIV that are out there.

But "The Lord of the Flies" is a novel. An actual situation much like this did occur in the 1960's, when a group of six boys set out on a fishing boat from Tonga, were blown out to sea, and spent more than a year on a rocky, deserted islet before being discovered and rescued. Granted, they weren't English boys (they were Tongan locals at a Catholic boy's school), but instead of reverting to some form of savagery, they set up a very cooperative form of dealing with collecting food, storing rainwater, and so forth. And these weren't kids who came from generations of "civilization". Not to discount childhood bullying, but I suspect much of that comes from parents who teach their kids, deliberately or not, by example or not, to be shits.

Precisely. There's an underlying attitude I sense here, of "How dare someone actually be concerned about an increase in STIs as a public health concern when I don't want any responsibility for acknowledging to other people that I have <fill in the blank>." Funny how so many "out and proud" gay people who are the first to trumpet how proud they are of how slutty they can be, suddenly don't want anyone knowing they're facing potential consequences of that slutty behavior, like having contracted an STI.

You raise a good point. I don't think it contradicts my original point - most people in "amateur" films knew they were being filmed - but if the video's being made as a way to generate paying viewers, it's probably going to change how the sex unfolds. I think you see more editing after the fact with "amateur" video made for OF/JFF/etc. type sights, including more than one camera angle so you can make 3 minutes of fucking seem more like 9. So I guess maybe what's changed is the purpose behind the video, as you note here; from a celebration of doing something kind of daring and slutty (letting people watch you have sex) to a supplemental income stream, small as it may be.

It takes about four seconds to tell people that you don't reply to people without pictures. But you don't really care if they have a picture or not - as long as they're not black, right? The idea that you think it's "polite" to put "not into blk, chubby or fem guys" in a profile tells me you really don't grasp the meanings of simple words, like "polite", so I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to see you also don't understand what "racism" means, or that you're showing it. The only upside to posting something like that is that for people like me, who have a "not into assholes" preference, it's a nice big red flag waving that says "Stay away". Here's the thing: Nobody's saying you need to sleep with black guys. You're free, naturally, to have sex with anyone willing, and to avoid having sex with anyone you don't want to. But dismissing entire classes of people on the basis of race is the very essence of racism, and if you're too fucking lazy to type "Thank you, but no thank you" to black men who hit on you, then you're not only racist but lazy and probably a shitty fuck on top of it all.

I wouldn't be so quick to write them off as simply being teenagers trying to be annoying. I think there's always been an element among some young people, everywhere, that is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc., but for a good while now, until recently, those sorts of things weren't publicly acceptable to vocalize. Certain public figures in the US and the UK (and elsewhere) have emboldened bigotry to speak up again. It's always been there, beneath the surface, but they're coming out of the shadows. Not even necessarily growing in numbers, but we're seeing how many of them there have always been, and what some of them are capable of when societal pressure to be a decent human being is removed.

Standard advice: Go on PrEP. In your case, it's too late for daily (standard) PrEP for the encounter you have planned on Thursday, but you can start with the "on demand" dosing and then just stay on daily after that. Or recognize that (a) you've already demonstrated you're likely to take this risk repeatedly, (b) you're playing with a man who cheats on HIS partner, without protection meaning he's an excellent candidate for a sexually transmitted disease, (c) you're placing your wife at risk at the same time, and (d) if you get infected and pass it on to her, she'll probably take everything you've got in a divorce.

You're not wrong here, but I would argue that "mainstream fetish" might have an alternative, valid meaning: a fetish (as per a definition like this: "a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.") that while uncommon, is accepted by the mainstream as quirky but harmless. I think a foot fetish is a good example: someone not into it, hearing that an acquaintance does enjoy it, is not particularly likely to be squicked out. "Most common of the uncommon" of course plays a role in that: the more practitioners of a fetish there are, the more likely it is that other people are to take a "live and let live" approach. But I think both factors (commonness, and acceptance) are important.

I can ignore a lot of things, but openly advocating for a legal system that would, in effect, render child rape legal under many circumstances isn't one of them. You're right that he doesn't owe me an explanation. He also isn't entitled to have his arguments in favor of it go unchallenged, within the rules of this forum. This topic asks a question "What age, and why?" (boiled down for simplicity). The why implies defending your position. I'm going to defend mine.

That's not true. There's an entire section on sexual health issues, for instance, and while there are some people who insist on posting ideas that are UN-healthy, there are a lot of folks who promote PrEP and other ways of staying healthy. A lot of what's presented as "bad ideas" are, in fact, a way of discussing and letting off steam about "bad ideas" precisely so they DON'T transpire - ie a fantasy release. That's not to say there isn't a large contingent here who push for "bad ideas" as well - there are - but it's not "nothing but".

That's the part that would worry me. Eager is one thing, but constant calls - AT WORK, when you're both supposed to be working - is a huge red flag to me. What happens if you have sex once, he loves it, wants it regularly, and you're not interested in dating? A guy who calls that regularly while you're both working sounds like stalker material. So I'd be VERY clear - spell out in writing, if need be - if all you're interested in is casual sex, and make it clear to him upfront if you're not the sort to go for repeats. Normally, that last isn't necessary since most people understand sex once is not automatically a promise of anything else, but I'm not sure, based on what you're saying, that this guy thinks that way. If he does, great.

I haven't run out all the possible permutations of this, but it's possible something like this could work. I'd note, however, that you could end up with two twelve-year olds having sex; a 17 year old having sex with someone just over 14; a 20-year old college junior having sex with a 16-year old high school sophomore; a 22-year old college graduate having sex with a 17-year old high school senior - that is, using this formula. I'd tweak it some, maybe make step 3 to be "add 7". That's getting closer to spreads I think are reasonable. That's not an edict, just a personal opinion.

Without meaning to suggest people should "like" condom porn - that's a personal choice - there are LOTS of BDSM practitioners who prefer safer sex. Nowadays, that may (or may not) be more likely to involve PrEP instead of condoms, but kink is not an equivalent term for "unsafe sex", and before PrEP, a condom was the only way to have safer sex (involving fucking, that is). In fact, there are quite a few afficionados of BDSM who don't even mix sex with the BDSM. I know any number of guys who love all manner of kinky practices but who will not fuck or get fucked. It's just not their thing.

BDSM stands for Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism. That does not mean all four have to be present in an activity for it to be BDSM. You can bend someone over your lap to paddle and that's discipline, whether or not he's tied down, and whether or not it rises to the level of sadism or masochism. You can tie someone up in a comfortable position and leave them for hours, and that's bondage, whether or not there's any discipline or sadism or masochism involved. I'd think that however one might classify Hucows (mainstream or hardcore), simply tying the person up for it does not make it BDSM, particularly if it's an otherwise pleasurable experience. If it's milking to the point of extreme discomfort or pain, however, then it might be BDSM regardless of whether there is bondage involved. Hucows may be mainstream or hardcore (I can't judge, since I don't know much about it other than what it is, technically). But not all hardcore fetishes have to be in one of the three "subgroups" listed at the top of Hardcore; it could be its own topic in the bottom section. Likewise, if it's a mainstream fetish, start a topic there.

That may or may not be the case. For many people, BDSM and sex are separate activities and do not necessarily overlap AT ALL. Blanket statements like that are the reason so few people actually understand what BDSM is. Whoever told you that "it's so you can fuck then [sic]" shouldn't be demonstrating how to use a broom to sweep a floor, much less teaching kink.

I quote people when I'm arguing the points they made, not to make it a personal attack, but to clarify what I'm responding to. The poster in question argued point-blank for an abolition of all age-of-consent laws, letting everyone decide for himself. I asked repeatedly how he'd address situations where someone too young to understand were coerced into "consenting" (which I use in quotes to indicate that it's no such thing). He insists his proposal doesn't lead to such situations, and I've asked him to explain how they're prevented with his "decide for yourself" rule, and he has yet to do so. I'm open to a frank discussion of the issue, but not one which ignores, repeatedly, the issue of coerced consent - which is the reason we currently acknowledge that there's no way for a person below a certain stage of development to meaningfully consent to sex. We can argue what that age should be, but simply discarding the notion entirely without addressing the inevitable consequences is something I'm damned well going to attack - as an idea, not the person pushing it.

To everything ejaculate said above, I'll add this: Say the supervisory positions are reversed - you're the worker, and the guy you're interested in is the supervisor. If you have sex with him, and word gets out, there can be just as much hurt for both of you. He'll be in trouble for sex with a subordinate (which is an HR nightmare) and everyone will look at everything you accomplished with the lens of "Oh, he slept with the supervisor, that's why he's gotten x tasks or y promotion or whatever". HR policies vary from company to company regarding non-supervisory people having "personal relationships" (whether it's dating, engagement, marriage, or just fucking). Perhaps perversely, the larger the company, the more likely it is to have formal policies governing such relationships even though the larger size makes it easier for the parties involved to be kept separate. On the flip side, really small family owned companies are notorious (or at least, used to be) for junior executives dating the boss's daughter so that the business could stay "in the family". My general advice: unless you're desperate for one more cock (or ass), it's almost certainly more trouble than it's worth.

It's not immediate. It's not as though the moment you have any PrEP components in your bloodstream at all, you're safe from infection. Some studies suggest that if you take PrEP every day, it reaches its maximum protection in blood at 20 days, in rectal tissue at about 7 days, and in vaginal tissues at about 20 days. Meaning: at least a week before you get fucked bareback. Think of it this way: If you take a single pill, it will take several days for it to completely leave your system. But it starts leaving shortly after you take it (as your body begins to distribute and then also filter it out). Let's say for the sake of argument that over the 24 hours following a dose, 20% of it has been filtered out of your system. So after 24 hours, you only have 80% of a dose in your system. Take another dose, and a day later you have 60% of the first dose and 80% of the second dose. Take another dose, and in 24 hours you have 40% of the first, 60% of the second, and 80% of the third. I made up those percentages, and it may not be a steady decline, but the point is that it takes time for any particular dose to get filtered out of your system and if you keep taking it, your system eventually hits a plateau where it's keeping your system at a "working" level. Because it's easier to contract HIV through contaminated blood or vaginal sex than through anal sex, it takes longer for therapeutic levels to be attained in blood and in vaginal tissues.

So you can downvote, but not explain how my clear description of what your position would mean, in practical terms, is in error in any way. Snowflake.

You said, and I quote - specifically - "Let people decide for themselves." If a 40-year old man says a six-year old told him he decided he wanted it, and has the a video clip of the six-year old saying he wants it, how do you square that evidence and your "let people decide for themselves" statement with any way of protecting that child? Serious question. As I understand your statement - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - you're saying that someone of any age should be allowed to decide for himself about sex. Under criminal law - which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of a crime, for a conviction - he would have clear, convincing evidence that the child consented. You could never prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the consent was coerced. What am I missing here?

Including, presumably, children who are too young to be able to make such decisions, under the influence of adults who want to influence the decision in one direction and one direction only. I'm not saying *I* decide. I said there should be an age, on which *society* decides. You, apparently, think there should be no repercussions if, say, a six year old gets coerced into "agreeing" to have sex with a thirty-year old man.

Do you honestly think guys who film amateur scenes don't "know they are being filmed" - especially since so many seem to involve a cell phone being held by the top pointed down at his cock going in and out of the bottom? Absent a blindfold (or a blind bottom) it would take a pretty slow-witted person not to get the idea. Ditto with the ones that seem to be a phone or laptop pointed at the bed. Eighty percent of the videos seem to start with the guy adjusting the angle of the device while the other party watches and waits.

Does that translate to "People don't want to give me free stuff any more, now that they realize they can charge for it"?

Oh, I get it now. You'd rather have untreated syphilis or gonorrhea than face the indignity of being told you have a sexually transmittable disease, or worse yet, have to disclose other partners for contact tracing. Message received.