BootmanLA

"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.

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.