BootmanLA

You make *me* laugh because in this comment, you proved *every* point that I was making - that your limited experience in a particular community and economic stratum makes you think the entire world is like that. It's like you look at your navel and think you're seeing the horizon. You don't KNOW what the situation of the victims was, and yet YOU were willing to saddle them with responsibility to get a drug that wasn't approved for regular use yet, or to have your preternatural gifts for miraculously being able to determine a condom was broken or cut. You may have an asshole filled with tiny little fingers that can detect the difference between latex and skin, but not everyone does - I daresay I know far more guys who can't than who, like you, immediately know the difference. You're going all-in trying to defend this guy not getting a life sentence for deliberately fucking up the lives - the ENTIRE lives - of at least five individuals. They're the ones who came forward. How many others might there be that we don't know about, who didn't want to bring charges? Do you think he's somehow going to be "rehabilitated" with a sentence of, say, 10 years per count? That getting out of prison in his 70's he'll suddenly have become a good, law-abiding citizen with respect for his fellow human beings? Are you saying LESS than ten years per victim, when he's sentenced them to a lifetime of being on medications to hold off a fatal disease, is appropriate? All you're willing to say is you think it's overkill for this guy to pay for the rest of HIS life, for what HE did to at least 5 guys for the rest of THEIR lives. Frankly, five consecutive life sentences would have made more sense.

We're starting to see the true colors of Trump supporters on full display - not that anyone with an IQ above room temperature couldn't see it already. In Texas, a group of Trumpanzees driving pickup trucks with Trump flags tried to force a campaign bus from the Biden Campaign off the road between San Antonio and Austin, in order to disrupt a rally in Austin. Clearly there's a contingent of Trump Twits who are scared to death of actual democracy, of people getting to vote for the candidate of their choice, and they're willing to use violence to disrupt their opponents' candidacies, just like you'd see in one of those countries Trump calls a "shithole" - the kind of place he's trying to turn the US into. And what does the candidate himself think of this? He retweeted images from the incident with the caption "I LOVE TEXAS". Categorically unfit to be president.

There's no guarantee that taking it daily would resolve this, but it's not out of the question, either. If you regularly consume a particular product (and drugs being dissolved in the digestive tract count), your body may - again, MAY - develop the means to counteract the ill effects. I develop gastro issues when I eat Lebanese food, which I like (the food, not the issues). When I'm on a kick of eating it regularly, my gut biome tends to develop whatever's needed to counteract that - but only if I eat it regularly. If I stop for 2-3 months and go get some, it's back to square one. Something like that MAY be an issue with on-demand PrEP for you. If you can swing it, you might try 90 days of daily use and see if your body stops reacting badly.

Define "unusual". It's certainly something others have done, and certainly something some others crave. What matters is not "usual" or "unusual" but whether you're familiar with, and comfortable with, whatever health risks may exist. In this case, if you're thoroughly cleaned out, and you don't mind the taste of lube, you're probably as safe with this as with any other oral and anal sex acts; anything he picks up in your ass and delivers via your mouth is a bug you presumably already had. And anything he's got coming in, you likely will get without regard for the sequence of oral vs. anal you take. Fretting about "unusual" is a waste of effort.

But that's the problem: the notion, under the law at least, is that until judgment is developed to a certain point, "consent" is meaningless. An adult can convince a teen to do or try almost anything, from sex to pot to meth to heroin, and as long as "consent" is obtained, predators can go free. Say you had a 40 year old man who had a nice, clear recording on his phone of a 10-year old boy answering the question "Do you want me to put my cock in your ass?" with "Yes". That's consent. It's also meaningless, especially if the boy was groomed to want that. And since there's consent, by definition it's not rape, so you can't charge for that. Our current age of consent laws may be screwed up in various respects, depending on what they are, but junking them entirely is a bad, bad idea.

The moderators have explained elsewhere that the algorithms used to determine these things are not public. That is to keep spammers, etc. from figuring out how to game the system by automated postings, then blasting messages to members.

*Any* significant dietary change is likely to change your defecation patterns, producing anything from diarrhea or very, very soft stools up to hard, constipation-generating feces. The change depends on what *your* body is used to doing and what sort of diet you had before. And I've seen reports of a keto dietary regime going each direction. All I can say is, if you want to try living on a keto diet, do so, and monitor your bathroom habits.

Gases tend to rise unless they're heavier than air. Contained within a body, which is much denser, they're almost certainly going to rise. So if your anal opening is up high and your rectum leads downward from there, it's not surprising that trapped air is more likely to escape in this position.

I'll add this: You say right now, if you keep living like you're poor, you can hold out for a good while on your inheritance. What happens when you can't keep living like you're poor? What happens when a drunk driver runs a red light and totals your car, so working on it isn't an option? What if you're hurt in that accident and can't do anything for yourself - and you've got thousands in medical bills that your insurance doesn't cover? What if you decide to whore it up, and one of your escapades brings Covid into your life - for you, your partner, your mom, whomever? You could easily end up having thrown over your job for sex and then be unable to have that sex for weeks or months. What happens if something happens to your mom and not only does she need to live with you, but she needs close care for six months - say, she gets COVID and it's a bad case? And on and on - the point being that forgoing work may not actually work out the way you think it will, financially speaking, so you need a very detailed plan. I'd start with accepting that you need a new job that you don't hate. You don't have to find it right away - and you don't necessarily have to keep working while you look - but bear in mind that thanks to COVID the unemployment rate is through the roof and returning to work, or moving on to another job, may not be so easy. So let's say you decide you're going to quit your job and take 3 months (or whatever) off to slut around. Commit to yourself, at least, that when that period is up, you start looking immediately for a job, and you stay on top of it until you find something. Don't make the mistake of thinking "Well, I can stop looking for a few weeks and take another break", because at some point, you're going to find yourself burning through your reserves faster than you planned. And the worst thing - as you no doubt realize, based on your comments - would be to end up with no savings, a house you have to maintain, no job, and a hole in your resume that makes it very difficult to get another one. Sex is great. But it's not worth trashing your entire life over. While there's no guarantee that would happen, you need to at least have contingency plans for aborting the fun and getting back to it, if need be.

Then it's double-likely they're strict on that kind of thing. I suspect they really wouldn't care about you having ten guys through there to fuck you. But most people who are having ten random visitors (and not as a single group, but one-by-one or so) are either dealing drugs or escorting, neither of which they're interested in allowing. (Side note: one aspect of their upgrade is the removal of those nasty thin comforter type bedspreads, which are seldom washed and usually full of germs and miscellaneous bodily fluids, replaced with nice blankets that can be laundered with the rest of the bedding. A second upgrade aspect is replacing the room carpeting with laminate floors - again, removing something that is frequently stained and full of <whatever> in favor of something that can be steam-mopped for cleanliness.)

Not everyone goes out on weekends drinking. Not everyone who does spends a fortune on drinks when they do. You are speaking from a narrow window of experience. You mentioned that you used to spend half a year in the US and half in the UK at the time. That alone puts you in an economic stratum well above an awful lot of people for whom a transatlantic trip is more of a lifetime-savings event and not something undertaken seasonally. I have a couple of younger gay friends who have entry-level jobs and for them, two nights out a month at the bars and a limit of $25 each time for their drinks is doable but pushing it. Your blithe assumption that "oh well, they can afford $70 a month" may apply to you and your income level but not to everyone else's. And as I said, YOU knew where to find a doctor that would provide a non-approved drug for you. Not everyone does. What I find mind-boggling is the assumption in everything you write on this topic that your personal experience is the do-all, be-all, end-all of what the rest of the world encounters and therefore anyone who points out a flaw in your arguments insofar as they apply to others is just wrong. The difference between me standing by what I'm saying, and you standing by what you're saying, is that I take into account that some people's experiences may be different from mine or yours. You do not.

I think most people here have hit on the key elements, save one. It's true a lot of places are being more restrictive with Covid; in some areas, drug dealing and prostitution are a major concern with some lower-cost motels and local governments are really hounding them (understandably) to keep the crime down. Motel 6 has long had a reputation as being a cheap, no-frills and not-particularly-quality place to stay, but about ten years ago or so, they started a major campaign to upgrade every property to a higher standard and to market to a somewhat different clientele - especially families traveling for vacations. They chose a consistent, clean design for the rooms, with built-in furniture, wired networking jacks at desktop height, etc. Not every property is yet upgraded (and COVID undoubtedly has slowed that down further) but they're nonetheless trying to get away from the sketchy, people-in-and-out model that works well for the kind of activity described here. I'm not critiquing that behavior in and of itself. But understand that like public sex in parks and bathrooms, it violates the norms other people expect, and so there's going to be pushback at times. What is overlooked at a no-national-brand name motel on the outskirts of town or in a more industrial/commercial zone is unlikely to get the same lack of interest in a motel marketing to family groups. Motel 6 is positioning itself squarely in that latter category, so while it's blessedly inexpensive, it's also restrictive on what's allowed on site.

Or perhaps they should spend some time in therapy examining why they feel the need to be treated this way. It would be one thing if it left you feeling wonderfully sated, but since, as you put it, it's horrible and when it's over you hate it and you hate him, sounds to me like you have issues that might benefit from some introspection.

That's $70+ a month, not an insignificant sum for many people (especially those whose wages are lower than, say, comparable jobs in the US because the NHS provides health care). And that's if you know a doctor who will prescribe something not yet approved for use. I'm not saying it's impossible to have gotten it. I'm saying that cavalierly dismissing it as "their fault for not taking responsibility for getting PrEP" is ridiculous.

My condolences.

You're simply wrong on the facts here. The first UK studies of PrEP (and remember, studies involve a very limited number of test subjects) aka the PROUD study, began in late 2012 and the first interim results of that study weren't presented until early 2015. NHS England, which provides health care for English residents, declined to start offering PrEP based on that study, and legal challenges ensued. In December 2016, the courts ruled that NHS England *could* but was not *required* to provide PrEP, and at that time NHS England commissioned a larger study to determine its effectiveness. In other words, during the period these deliberate infections occurred, PrEP was still in trial/study, and not available to the general public, in the UK. Things like facts and dates are sometimes inconvenient, but they are what they are.

Well... for starters, this took place in the UK, where (at the time) PrEP was not available. The article makes it clear the incidents in question happened between October 2015 and February 2016, years before PrEP was available there. So no, that wasn't an option for the bottoms. Secondly, as the article made clear, it wasn't a case of the condom "breaking" as in under pressure; he'd cut the condoms so that they were open from the start. It's true that even still, HIV is not a death sentence. But it's a life sentence to medications that can wreak havoc with your body. If they receive a life sentence thanks to his actions, why shouldn't he? Mind you - this is a case where the guy deliberately set out to infect others, by his own admission. What's a cop out is not reading the article for the facts presented and expressing an opinion that doesn't address the information provided.

Oh - a couple of other examples of grift I forgot (there's so many....) Donald Trump's campaign headquarters is in the suburbs of DC, as one would expect (the RNC is in DC, the president lives in DC when he's not at one of his clubs, the bulk of our political establishment lives in the region, etc.). But for some reason, the Trump Campaign also maintains a NY office, where it's been paying $40,000 per month (almost half a million per year) since before Trump was elected in 2016. No major campaign officials work there, of course; the day-to-day work is done from the headquarters office, or from the RNC. And since COVID, of course, a lot of that work has been remote. But for some strange reason, the campaign has continued to lease this office space in NYC, no matter how unneeded it really is. Where is this office? 725 Fifth Avenue, of course - Trump Tower. The money forked over by the Trumpanzee faithful is sticking half a million bucks in Trump's pocket every year just for an office that isn't needed by anyone. Secondly - it's common practice for media consultants, etc. to pay for certain campaign expenses up front, and then get paid from the campaign. For instance, the media people might book $100,000 worth of ads in a market, then develop the ad itself, and finally bill the campaign, say, $250,000, which includes the $100K fee to the television/cable system for the ad time. It hides how much the consultants are actually making vs. the expenses they're incurring on the campaign's behalf. Brad Parscale, former campaign manager, elevated that to an art form. He created companies to handle almost everything for the campaign, so that all the campaign itself had to report was a big check to the manager's company. The management company, unlike the campaign itself, doesn't have a lot of disclosure requirements. So Parscale could (and did) hire Lara Trump - Eric the Dumb Son's wife - and Kimberly Guilfoyle - Junior's shack-mate - as "consultants" to his "management" company, at a cost of $15,000 per month each. So Dumbo's wife and the bimbo Junior dumped his wife/mother of his 5 kids for are, or were at least, making $180,000 a year to go around to Trump rallies - expenses covered separately, of course - and praise Trump. When all is said and done, I wouldn't be surprised if the Trumps and their assorted entities have grifted more than $50 million dollars out of the government and the GOP, and that's before the millions spent by foreign governments and US companies and the megarich, ponying up for events at the Trump DC Hotel and memberships at Mar-a-Lago (at $250K a pop). And even with all that, the man is staring at over $400 million in debt due during the next presidential term (whoever is president), with no real prospects of how to pay it off and no bank in the US willing to lend him a buck for subway fare. And another half billion or so in debt due not long after. But yeah, let's vote for the "businessman" for president. ROFLOL.

Read above. New members - and "new" is defined by how much you've participated, NOT by how long you've been a member - can't send messages, because spammers were gaming the system by signing up in bulk and then messaging members right and left. Keep making posts and replies and comments on the message boards, and you'll be able to message eventually.

One of the things Trumpanzees always trot out when they're defending the president is noting that he doesn't even take his salary - that he "donates" it back to the government. I've always responded that he far more than makes up for the "loss" of $400K a year through all the business that the government is forced to give his businesses (like his golf clubs, his Mar-a-Lago resort, his hotels). Every time the president sets foot on one of his properties, even for a few hours, the tab starts running: his secret service teams have to pay for rooms, golf cart rentals to follow the president around the course, and so forth. Going rate on water, by the way, at a Trump property: $3 a serving. There's no choice but to pay because in order to "protect" the president, the secret service has to be where he is - as do his aides and other government officials. And many of Trump's properties charge far more than normal federal travel reimbursement rules allow - rules that the White House (ie Trump) simply waived when it was one of his properties. For instance, the maximum per night hotel charge allowed for the south Florida area where Mar-a-Lago is would normally be $182/night - certainly steep enough to cover a Marriott or a Hilton or a Hyatt. Mar-a-Lago, however, charged as much as $546 per night for single rooms, and a cottage shared by three officials went for $2,600/night, or almost five times the legal maximum. When Trump hosts an event - like his dinner with Japanese prime minister Abe - every dime spent, even on things like flowers that the club would have put up anyway, was charged to the federal government and went straight into Trump's pockets. The Secret Service rents a cottage at Trump's golf course in Bedminster (his favorite course), that sets them back a cool $17,000 per month, whether they're using it or not. How many of you would like to own a 3-bedroom cottage - not some huge, fancy mansion - and be able to rent it out to the government for $17,000 a month? At other properties, the per-night room rental charged to the secret service is as high as $650. Additionally, the Republican Party has felt obligated to host scores of events - perhaps hundreds - at Trump properties, with all those revenues going to Trump as well. A significant chunk of the $25 and $30 donations red-state Americans are sending to the GOP to elect Republicans is actually just going straight to the Trump companies. The Washington Post has identified a small fraction of the spending thus far (because most government agencies are simply refusing to release the numbers, despite it being public spending), and even so, it's documented over $8 million in such payments - most of which are from the early part of 2017. Imagine how much more there is for the full four-year term. Trump's supporters, like all of Trump's investors in every project he's ever done, have been fleeced. It's really sad to think how many old people on social security, etc. sent in money to elect this con artist and all they got was a crashed economy and coronavirus.

Never said you don't have the right. I said you're in no position. People have the right to do all sorts of things that aren't advisable given their circumstances.

To be fair: I know a few (VERY few) poz tops who don't want to fuck negative bottoms, even if the top's undetectable and the bottom's on PrEP, "just in case". They don't want to be the one to poz the guy. Conversely, I know some poz (UD) tops who have negative bottom partners they like to watch get it from others, and having them on PrEP keeps them from feeling guilty about risking the bottom's health by encouraging him to take loads from others. So I suspect going on PrEP will turn some tops on, and will turn others off. I think it makes enormous sense regardless.

That brings up an interesting theoretical question. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that people who claim to be in their mid-20's are actually 2-3 years younger; and we take notice of the fact that men in their 50's with some frequency claim to be "late 40's" and the gap persists thereafter; it stands to reason that at some point between those two, people are actually generally honest about their ages. I'm wondering what the mid-point is - that is, at what point does the the likelihood that someone's overstating his age get passed up by the likelihood he's understating it?

You live in a state where one of your two senators, in the 21st century, tried to have a highway renamed after traitor Jefferson Davis and who posed for a photo a few years ago wearing parts of a Confederate Civil War uniform, in front of the home of said traitor, captioned "Mississippi History at its Best". Said senator publicly stated she thought it would be "a great idea" to make it harder for liberals to vote, and not only did she herself attend a "segregation academy" but she sent her daughter to one as well. You live in a state where officials had to keep replacing a historical marker designating the spot where Emmett Till was lynched because white supremacists kept vandalizing the sign. You live in a state where it took until 2020 to get the state to remove the flag of the treasonous Confederate States of America from its state flag. I don't think anyone from Mississippi is in any position to describe Biden as a deranged lunatic.

You have two issues here, and they should be dealt with separately. First is the question of telling him you're gay. Only you can decide whether to do it or not, but here's the question you have to ask yourself - and only you can answer it. Is my friendship with him, based in part on the lie that he thinks I'm straight, worth more than being able to be honest about who I am with people who say they care about me? There's no right answer to that, especially since you're presumably a man in your late 50's or early 60's at least. You've lived the majority of your life without telling him you're gay; obviously it still bothers you to some extent, but you have to make a choice: keep the friendship, or risk it for honesty. There's no guarantee you'll lose his friendship, but there's also no guarantee you'll keep it, and if you do keep it, you may find he treats you differently. What's more important to you? The second question only arises IF and when you've told him you're gay. If he freaks out, or even if he tells you that it's okay but he doesn't want to talk about it or hear anything about the gay part of your life, then you know it's pointless to bring up how you feel to him. Even if he accepts you being gay and says it doesn't matter to him, though, you still have to decide whether to share that other bombshell with him. In that light, it's good to remember what he told you, in his own words: "If that is what they want to do, that is their business as long as they do not bother me." Those do not sound like the words of a closeted gay man aching to have his best friend open up to him about his love. Frankly, if I were you, I'd be looking for more openly gay friends in your age bracket to befriend, just so you don't feel so alone. You don't mention whether you know others, but frankly, you don't need "tips on how to make love with my best friend". Holding out hope for what sounds like an extraordinarily unlikely outcome, and meanwhile letting all of life just pass you by, sounds romantic in a Victorian novel but it's a shitty way to live an actual life.