BootmanLA

On a tangentially related topic: I'd like to suggest that the HIV/AIDS and Sexual Health Forums be scanned more closely for bug-chasing-related posts; if it's not already policy, I'd suggest that topics (or individual postings) that encourage people to go without meds so they can share the bug, discouraging people from PrEP, etc. be barred entirely from that forum. It's not that I'm against people making those choices for themselves, and I'm not even opposed to people encouraging that behavior in the Backroom areas. But this is supposed to be a forum about health issues, not about deliberately choosing to be unhealthy and/or make others unhealthy. When one part of this site is unabashedly devoted to one side of that issue - chasing/spreading/gifting/etc. - then it seems only rational to keep that influence OUT of the area where people discuss how to remain healthy. And if that is/becomes the policy, I'd recommend a pinned post in that area clarifying that policy. I'd be happy once that's clear -if it becomes so - to spend some time flagging posts and topics that would seem to go against that policy, so they can be moved to the Backroom.

Sorry, but yeah, it pretty much is. It's the equivalent of going out in an off-again/on-again rain without an umbrella or hat and saying you're going to just avoid the rainy spurts. Your odds of remaining dry are about the same as his odds of staying safe. I'm with all the others: PrEP is too widely available - with financial help, if need be - for someone to be taking these kinds of risks unless he's afraid the PrEP would disclose that he's having sex with someone other than a partner.

Here's a figure for everyone to consider: 63.6 million. That's the number of people who've filed first-time claims for unemployment in the Trump Recession since mid-March. That's more than half a million people MORE than actually voted for Trump in 2016. Well done Grampa Donnie! Nobody can get more people unemployed than you!

Nobody should have gotten you started. You're as raving mad as Crazy Grampa Donnie is. Most of your ill-informed, poorly executed, doctored, borderline libelous "memes" reveal a seriously deformed personality. More importantly, they seem to be exactly like the kind of thing we had trouble with a previous poster who was allegedly in Arizona posting - the same nutty ravings, the same reliance on stupid memes. I suspect we have a ringer.

So, before there was HIV, there was no true gay sex? Because it only counts if there's a risk of acquiring a potentially fatal infection? That's bullshit. I have no qualms with people who want to have bare sex; that's what PrEP was invented for. Sex on PrEP is "safe sex". To claim that's not authentic or real sex is destructive propaganda to be promoting to people. Now, if they're really bound and determined to die young by seeking out HIV infection, well, I can't force them to seek therapy to curb their suicidal impulses, but to promote that behavior as something positive is reprehensible.

I'm sure there will be more of this sort of thing happening, but I doubt it's quantifiable (as you note, it'll be mostly anecdotal). I hate to see it, because we all know what the eventual result will be. And I get the risk appeal - but I'm still surprised by the number of people who are willing to take that kind of risk with their health when they can actually get 100% of the actual physical sensation of bareback sex with essentially none of the HIV risk.

There are fetish sites out there which will go into some detail about what sort of support is needed in the ceiling to support a human body's weight. I realize you aren't looking for full suspension, but you should account for that now, anyway. First off, should you want to move in that direction, whatever you have will likely be unable to support that additional weight, so you'll have holes to patch in the ceiling and you'll have to move the setup at least some distance away. Secondly, what if you have someone standing and attached to the bar, and he passes out (for whatever reason)? His entire body's weight is going to suddenly be pulling on that spreader bar and however it's attached to the ceiling. You don't want it pulling loose, with him collapsing on the floor and being hit by the bar on the way down. If you have attic access, your best bet is to straddle multiple ceiling joists with a thick board - something like a 2x8 or 2x10 - and mount whatever you need to the underside of that board. The weight will be distributed across multiple joists, and you can use eyebolts going through the board (with washers and nuts) instead of screw eyes that might rip out. But that would involve cutting a hole in the ceiling for the hoist to hang through. Obviously none of this is really feasible if you're renting rather than owning.

The problem is proving you informed the person. Generally speaking, when something is a crime, the government has to prove each element of the crime. So, for instance, if the law reads "It shall be a violation of this section for any person, who knows himself to be HIV-positive, to have sexual intercourse with another person without informing that person of his HIV-positive status," then the state would have to prove: a) that the person was HIV-positive; b) that he KNEW he was HIV-positive; c) that you had sex; and d) that he did not tell the partner he was HIV-positive. That last one is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the criminal standard; if the poz guy says "I told him" and the other guy says "No he didn't", it can be very hard to judge credibility. In some states, the law is written differently. It might read "It shall be a violation of this section for any person, who knows himself to be HIV-positive, to have sexual intercourse with another person", period, with a second sentence that reads something like "It shall be an affirmative defense to this crime if the HIV-positive person revealed his status to the other person." That shifts the burden; now, the government only has to prove that you were poz, knew it, and had sex. If you want to assert that you told the person, the burden is on YOU to prove, somehow, that you informed the person. If you know that going in, you can make sure you tell him in writing, via text or email or whatever, and get him to acknowledge that, but a lot of guys don't realize that may be necessary. Given that knowledge of HIV is now widespread, preventative measures are well-known, and treatment is available, it's time to decriminalize this. I feel bad for people who are lied to, but people have been lying to get sex for millennia, and anyone who has sex predicated solely on something someone has told them is choosing to run that risk.

So, nobody is allowed to change a position on anything, gotcha. As for Trump giving a gay man top secret clearance: That's only because Trump doesn't give a shit about intelligence clearances. He gave a top-level clearance to his hopelessly corrupt and compromised son-in-law. He's casually "declassified" military secrets in front of our adversaries, just blurting out shit that ought to be highly classified because he thinks it makes him look good. The only reason the loathsome, vile, corrupt Richard Grennell (who was a disaster as an ambassador and an even bigger one as acting DNI) got a high-level clearance was so that Trump could get him to cover up some of his corruption. Hardly a ringing endorsement for Trump's views on gays; to him, we're useful as patsies to help him, not people worthy of respect.

Both are true. Prior to Clinton, you couldn't serve in the military, period, if you were gay; you were dishonorably discharged if you were discovered, and the military made ACTIVE efforts to root out gay and lesbian service members. Hanging on the wall in one of the older gay bars in New Orleans is a framed copy of a letter from the Navy command banning sailors from even going into that bar under penalty of dishonorable discharge for homosexual conduct. Just for being in a gay bar. That ban was a military policy, not a law enacted by Congress. Under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the military leadership was generally prohibited from inquiring into the sex lives of servicemembers ("Don't Ask") and the servicemembers were told that if they did not bring up their orientation ("Don't Tell"), they were free to serve. That was a compromise between Clinton - who had initially prepared an executive order allowing openly gay people to serve - and Congress, which had ALMOST enough votes to statutorily ban gay people from serving, period - something that would have later been much harder to overturn. DADT was enacted as federal law, which was an advance in gay rights - you no longer had to worry about being kicked out simply for being gay discreetly. Under Obama, who had a Democratic majority in Congress for his first two years, and thanks to somewhat of a change in outlook by some of the Republicans, Congress passed a law repealing DADT and granted the right to serve openly.

Of course the number of people on food stamps skyrocketed under Obama. He inherited the worst recession in US history since the Great Depression. Doh. I'm not attacking you, your family, your beliefs, or anything else. I'm questioning whether something you stated was factual, namely, that your family suffered egregiously under Obama and nothing changed for them until after Trump was elected, because I can't see a single policy change that Trump made which would explain such. I could be wrong; I'm open to having my mind changed, if you can tell me what it was that Trump did that changed things for your family. But in the absence of anything other than a bare assertion that "it happened" I'm going to be skeptical. As for the rest of your (sadly not atypical) "young college-age guy" beliefs: knock yourself out. There's a reason Libertarianism rarely works in practice, particularly on any sort of large scale. Bad luck has a tendency to screw people over and make them realize that it's working together for the common good, not always looking out for oneself, that enables people to thrive. Libertarian hunter-gatherers would have starved to death.

As noted, you can "ignore" problematic users, keeping their posts from appearing in any of the forums you visit. You can also block messages from them. It's true this lacks "editorial capability" (assuming what he meant is "the ability to edit what you already posted"). That, I think, is a good thing. It keeps people from denying they posted something later.

I'd suggest letting him take the lead in the discussion once you open the topic. Let him ask questions, answer them as honestly as you can without making demands, and see what he says. At his age, he's probably not looking to start over, relationship-wise. And while that's perhaps more of an option for you, you can reassure him that this isn't your intent/preference either, but there are some things, like fucking/getting fucked, that you'd like to experience more. I wouldn't lead with this, but if he lives to be, say, 84, you'll be 59, not exactly a ripe age to start trying to experience all the things you passed over when you were younger. He may or may not be open to any changes. But if he's not, that itself presents you with a choice: stay in this as things are; end the relationship; or cheat discreetly. I will say that I'm not a fan of the last option here, if only because it *sounds* to me like he's been up front and honest about what a relationship with him would be like, all along, so it's not like he's withdrawn sex from the table (but expecting you to be faithful). So I'll hope he's open to options that let you get what you need. I don't know that you need to tell him you're interested in BB with others. I would simply tell him that you want to go on PrEP so there's no question of being protected, even if a condom were to break - especially if your insurance covers it. Frame it as a way of protecting both of you from anything out there. Now, if he tells you it's OK with him if and only if you use a condom every time, you may have to extend the discussion.

And yet the people who got 40 cents more per week in their paycheck after the Trump tax giveaway will insist that's more important.

Could you cite a study that documents this? I've not seen any documentation of any study showing a large population of Covid-positive people who test negative from the nasal swab, much less that such people have a preponderance of GI problems.

Beyond that, of course, there's the problem that prophylactic antibiotics just result in the antibiotic-resistant strains muscling their way to the forefront.

Unless, like some people allege on here, they'll just let themselves die before they take any meds. Personally I think very few actually go through with that - this place is full of people who live fantasy lives on this forum - but to the extent such idiots exist, they don't end up costing their insurers that much. (of course, depending on how widely they infect others, they could be responsible for a hell of a lot of costs for other people).

I could be wrong but I suspect that the majority of people who want "chat" are looking for yet another venue where they can swap outrageous stories about being cumdumps for 40 tops so they can jerk off. I'm with you that this is not exactly a high-priority item in terms of value or usefulness.

So in other words, you create straw men out of thin air, shoot them down, and think you won the argument. You're like the pigeon playing chess; no matter how carefully his opponent considers his moves, the pigeon struts around, knocking over pieces, shits on the board, and then pretends it "won" the game. Trump is trying, very hard, to overturn the ACA in its entirety. If it falls, poz gay men who have individual insurance (whether on the exchanges or just self-purchased) will no longer have protection for pre-existing conditions. We'll no longer have community rating that makes insurers spread their claims more widely over broad populations. So the $1,150 a month I pay right now for insurance, on which I know Blue Cross loses money (because my HIV meds run about $1,400 a month MORE than that, before any other expenses), will quickly become more like $3,500 a month - which is simply not doable. Tens of thousands of gay men, if not more, are in the same boat I am. So yes, it's a matter of life and death for some of us. If Trump had, at ANY POINT in his four years so far, actually proposed a health plan that showed a path forward, this might be less of a sticking point. But it's all imaginary bullshit, just like his promises to show his taxes, just like "Infrastructure Week", just like his alleged "billionaire" status, just like every other fake element in his facade. He's a fraud, and that fraud, if unchecked, will be fatal for lots of us. So I don't give a flying fuck about your imaginary claims that we worried about electrocuting gay teenagers. I worry about real, demonstrable problems.

You're right that I don't know your family's circumstances. I do know the "big picture", however, and the rich made out like bandits. I have no idea why your family didn't prosper during that period, but you have pointed to absolutely nothing Trump did that would explain how suddenly they're doing well when they were downtrodden and poor before. So I rate your claims "unproven at best".

That's just insanely stupid. California was part of Mexico, itself a colony of Spain, when the Electoral College was established. And the discrepancy in population between, say, California and Wyoming today is an order of magnitude greater than that between the largest and smallest states in 1787. Your overly simplistic and ill-informed explanation notwithstanding, the actual reason was so that southern states, where close to half the population was enslaved non-citizens or Native American and couldn't vote, could still exert overwhelming influence over the selection of the president. It's no coincidence that five of the first seven presidents were slaveholders personally and representing slave states. And I'm sorry, but it takes a special kind of dumb to think that the problem is large states dominating. What really happens, as is patently obvious to even the most dim-witted among us, is that when a state is consistently 55% voting for one party, 45% of that state's votes are essentially thrown away. Almost one-third of Californians voted for Trump in 2016 (why, I don't know, but they did). More than 1/3 of New York voters voted for Trump. Nearly 40% of Illinois voters voted for Trump. Those are all votes - for your favored candidate - that counted for ZERO. A popular vote would ensure that wouldn't happen - that the substantial minority of voters in CA and NY and IL would be heard, along with the substantial minority of Democrats in places like Georgia and Texas and Florida. Big states wouldn't dominate any more because all the other voters in those states would be "in play" just like the handful of voters in places like Wisconsin and Iowa and other swing states. Candidates would have every incentive to turn out the vote in every state, not just the few where the vote is close. The real reason Republicans want to keep the Electoral College is that it's the only way they can win national elections any more. Their policies and candidates are so unpopular that they've won the popular vote just one time since 1989. ONE TIME, in over 30 years. But they've held the presidency half of that period. Mark my words: When Texas flips into the Democratic column - and it will; demographically, it's almost a certainty - Republicans will suddenly discover that a popular vote has a lot more appeal.

It really, really depends on the cock in question. And it's not just a function of size, though that (length, girth, or both) can be important factors. So can how it's used. So can the position taken.

I found your allegation about percentages odd, so I did some research. Here's what I found. 1. The commonly cited statistic is that we consume "75%" of prescribed medications - not "95%". 2. That itself seems to trace back to a 2011 WHO report, but that report doesn't say what the commonly cited statistic says. Rather, it was looking at the percentage of a HANDFUL of prescribed drugs - not "ALL" prescribed drugs - and those were ones with a high potential for abuse: opioids, amphetamines, cocaine, marijuana, and ecstasy. 3. In much of the world, for instance, marijuana is not a controlled substance or even one that requires a prescription. In the U.S., until very recently, the only way to get it legally was through prescription (and at that, prescriptions that skirted federal law). So yeah, when you're one of the few countries who requires a prescription for Drug A, you're going to have a high percentage of the worldwide prescriptions for it. 4. A big part of the demand for amphetamines is people who don't actually need them, but who like the effects, and compliant doctors write the scripts. That's not a medical doctor agenda; that's a consumer agenda. 5. Ditto for opioids. There's a serious overprescription problem for opioids, but it's not because doctors want everyone taking opioids; it's because we have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people addicted to them, and unscrupulous doctors are milking that for money. Again: it's not a medical doctor agenda; it's a consumer agenda fed by doctors willing to skirt or outright break the law. 6. Finally: we have pretty damned good reporting of distribution and use of medications in this country. Not enough people are looking at the data, but it's there. I'd argue that very few countries in Africa, South America, or Asia have anywhere near as accurate a set of records, and I suspect drug consumption there is dramatically under-reported in the official numbers. And again: this is only for a handful of types of drugs - not counting antibiotics, statins, blood pressure meds, HIV prevention and treatment, blood thinners, and scores of other categories of drugs. In many countries, drugs that we keep as prescription-only (like antibiotics) are widely available over the counter. So it's impossible to do any sort of apples to apples comparison in prescription consumption. Ours is undoubtedly higher than many, if not most, but that's also partly a product of being one of the (overall) wealthiest societies on Earth. A $10 monthly supply of a generic statin is within reach of a huge portion of the US population, if needed; that's not the case in Bangladesh or big parts of India or central Africa.

You're correct, but none of what you wrote contradicts anything I wrote (other than clarifying that they use the "red hood" as does the US/SF-based version. My point was that this isn't specified on their website, just that there's something to identify those who are willing to go bare. And it's clearly described throughout their site as a safer-sex party, even if bareback is tolerated and accommodated.

Because the polls never predicted any such thing. The polls predicted that she would win the popular vote by a reasonable margin (which she did) and that Trump had a very narrow path to victory in the electoral college, which would involve flipping states that had gone Democratic for the last six elections - something that was thought to be not attainable. As it was, thanks to Russian-sponsored third party candidates like Jill Stein, just enough votes were siphoned off from Clinton in three of those states to flip them to Trump. (Given that Green party members are generally liberal - certainly not Republicans - it's a reasonable assumption that most of their votes would have gone to Clinton in Stein's absence. The Libertarian candidate's votes are more difficult to parse, but Libertarians tend to pull votes from both sides equally, broadly speaking; so without the Libertarian and the Green, Clinton would likely have won all three states.) If you're wondering why I care about politics: I could ask the same thing of why some snot-nosed brat from Great Britain seems so heavily invested in American politics, a subject he clearly knows nothing about. But I will say, it's right on brand for Trump apologists to hope their political opponents die. He attracts the very worst of the worst sort of people. And incidentally, when you're discussing countable items, including people, like "democrats, socialists and liberals" the proper words is "fewer", not "less". Fewer is used when you can count things, like people, or dogs, or morons teenagers in Great Britain. Less is used for non-countable but measurable things, like flour, water, and stupidity.