BootmanLA

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).

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.