BootmanLA

Because it's dishonorable to lie? Because it's a shit move to do? Good to know you get off on "cheating". I hope your employer is ripping you off on your wages and overtime, because he's cheating you and that should make you happy, right? Cheating is not a victimless act. If your partner was OK with you running around behind his back, that would be one thing - but I suspect you wouldn't be turned on by that. So as long as you're okay with people shitting on you - maybe some thieves need to pay a visit to your vehicle and go stereo shopping, or just bust out all your windows because that's what "gets them off" - I suppose it's okay for you to do it to others. <turning off sarcasm filter>

Basically, I lost all sympathy for your situation with this post. This isn't a "Health" topic; this is trying to talk about the pleasures of stealthing behavior under the guise of "pretending" to give a shit about the guy you're sleeping with, maybe, and oh, how conflicted you must be. Bullshit. The sad thing is that this guy, recently divorced from a woman, probably has no idea what sorts of risks he's running because being (presumably) disconnected from the LGBT community during his marriage, it's never occurred to him that someone could (a) be wanton about their sex life, taking loads from known poz guys while also (b) NOT disclosing that to a new-to-the-scene partner who's coming off a failed heterosexual marriage. Technically, you're right: not knowing if you're poz means you don't have to disclose that you are. You got it wrong, however, when you said it was "a bit manipulative" in justifying a lack of culpability. It's more than that; it's a shit move by someone with shit motives. It's crap like this that prompted my earlier suggestion that all discussions like this be kicked out of the "Health" section - since it's not about health, it's about stealthing and pozzing. If people want to discuss that, fine; there's a place for it. Mislabeling it a "health" discussion when it's clear from the wording (dark pleasure, twisted) that this is about the erotic benefits to the lying-by-omission scum rather than any health concerns for the partner. If there was the SLIGHTEST hint of concern for the partner in this case, it would SCREAM "tell him what you do".

Agreed. Though waiting 10+ years for generics to be allowed is not, long-term, a workable solution for the cost of medications in the US.

Something to bear in mind, since nobody seems to be noting it: Drug prices around the world vary substantially, with the highest list prices in the United States. In some other countries, the drug manufacturers offer low-cost options because they know nobody's got anywhere near the list prices. In some countries, drug prices are controlled or negotiated by the government. Naturally, the US has the worst system for pricing drugs of any developed first-world nation. Yes, there are lots of gimmicks that help bring down the cost for many, even most, people. If you have a health care plan that covers prescriptions, for instance (not all company plans do) you're probably in decent shape. There are state-run plans that help low-income people get prescription coverage, and yes, many Big Pharma companies offer discount cards to cover copays. Programs like GoodRx can reduce some costs, too. But lots of people still fall through the cracks. My partner, for instance, works for a large insurer (rather than mainline health, they offer vision, dental, disability, and other "specialty" forms of insurance). In some ways his benefits are great. But for prescription drugs, his company only pays for generics, and only when ordered through CVS, because they have a special contract. Anything else is completely out of pocket. Copay cards don't help when there's no copay, just a full-price (or GoodRx-discounted) price to pay.

It might not technically qualify as stealthing, because "stealthing" isn't exactly a rigidly defined word in the context of sex. It "broadly" means an HIV-positive top having unprotected sex with an HIV-negative bottom, either while concealing his positive status or while removing or damaging protection (ie a condom) without the bottom's knowledge. Since you don't know your status, this is at best perhaps "stealthing adjacent" behavior. To the extent there's a difference between an unsuspecting stranger and a regular fuck buddy, it's due to the FB perhaps unwisely placing trust in you to disclose what you know about your status. He may (and I stress may, because I don't know him or you) be assuming that surely being "out" longer, you'd be on top of your sexual health, and would have warned him if you had any reason to suspect you had "issues". drScorpio's advice is right on target here: tell him what you know, and see what he wants to do. He may say "fuck it" and keep going as is; he may suggest you both get tested; he may freak out and not want to play any more. But it's the right thing to do. If you were simply fucking some hole in a bathhouse or glory hole, I'd say the onus was certainly on that bottom to be on PrEP if he was negative, to protect himself. But this is someone you know, and I think advertising yourself as "negative" - a definitive status - when you don't honestly know that any more is misleading at best and a lie at worst.

Post a link proving what you said, from a reliable source and not some whacko right-wing fake news site. The only *possible* thing I can imagine you're talking about is that Biden did speak at the funeral of the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who at one time, in his youth, had been a member of his local KKK. He not only resigned that many decades before, but forcefully denounced them and stated publicly that having joined them was the biggest mistake of his life. If you were told that was a KKK rally, you were misinformed. If you were told he was openly supporting the KKK, you were misinformed. I will agree that what he said, how he said it, is problematic. I believe that what he meant was that black people who would support Donald Trump (after his long, well-documented career in racism) "ain't black", in the sense that they clearly haven't been directly impacted by the racism he and his party espouse. I wouldn't have phrased it that way, but I agree with his underlying point: Republicans have done everything they can, for the last 40+ years, to undermine minority voting rights, to slash programs meant to help make up for centuries of racial oppression, and more, and to reward them with votes at a time when they're trying very hard to roll back much of the progress made is, well, self-defeating. Nobody's trying to "force" anyone. People are trying to "persuade". That's the fundamental essence of campaigning - to impart information about one's candidate and his/her opponent(s), in an attempt to persuade other people to support or oppose particular candidates. I'm not sure why anyone would object to that, unless they're afraid their opinions on who to support won't stand up to scrutiny. Let's posit one thing up front: because of our electoral system, for better or worse, only one of the two main party candidates is going to win the election, because with a winner-take-all electoral vote system, a third-party candidate would have to come in first in multiple states (or one huge state like CA or TX) in order to get enough electoral votes to keep both other candidates from reaching the 270 needed to win. Of those two parties, one is far more sympathetic to your status as a gay man, as a transgender person, as someone with Native American heritage, as someone with Mexican heritage, and so forth, than the other. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that to the extent the GOP wants your vote, that's literally the *only* time they want you. The Democrats are far from perfect, but they're an order of magnitude better for you, on the issues that should be of importance to you as a marginalized person, than the Republican party. That's not to tell you that you MUST vote or that you MUST vote for Biden. It's a way of letting you know that there is a choice between, say, a bland chicken sandwich and a stew made of urine and feces with a vomit coating. If you're the kind of person who has to stop and think and then ask "Well, can you tell me how the chicken was prepared?", then voting may not be for you.

There is literally NO evidence, whatsoever, that Biden is a pedophile, nor is he a member of the KKK, devoted or otherwise. That's a nasty rumor being circulated by people out to wreck our country by discouraging people from voting at all. However, it's documented fact that Trump's father, Fred, was arrested as a young man at a KKK rally in New York, which is in keeping with what we know of his racially discriminatory rental practices and which attitudes he's passed on to his son. That said, if you're that ill-informed, and given that you live in a solidly blue state, I'm glad you are passing on voting - we don't need more uninformed people polluting the ballot box.

Technically, all a top needs is a cock and all a bottom needs is a hole. But if "needs" were all that mattered, men would never get anything else done because they'd be having sex all the time. The reality is that there are also "wants", which can occupy at least as high if not higher a priority than "needs". Or meeting needs may be "necessary" but not "sufficient". So, for men whose "wants" include "man with a penis", sadly, you won't suffice. This isn't to defend or attack those people; it's simply an acknowledgment of a fact.

I'll say this - one month isn't a long time, but with an assertive medication, IF he wasn't freshly pozzed, just freshly diagnosed, it might be that he already had a somewhat lowered virus level naturally, in which case medication could drive him into "undetectable" range pretty fast. Remember that shortly after infection, viral load spikes, but comes down quickly over time; not to undetectable levels, but frequently to "hard to infect with one fuck" level. It may take a particular individual a month, or two months, or longer to hit that level - which is a result of the body's natural immune system knocking the infection back - but if he gets there before going on meds, who knows where he'd be in a month? As I noted in my response to your status, heat's more of an issue than freezing for killing HIV.

Not necessarily so for the "you can have other..." part. That really depends on the dynamic of the relationship and the agreement and consent between them. For some - not all, but certainly a significant portion - of the BDSM/DS community, a significant factor is the dominant partner having some to total control over the submissive partner's sexual interactions. It may mean the sub has to seek approval for anyone else to play with him; it may mean that any requests to play with the sub need to be made to the dominant directly, rather than having the sub ask. It may mean that the sub will be expected (within limits) to play with those the dominant directs. As long as those terms are freely negotiated as part of the relationship and as long as there's no gaslighting or other psychological manipulation designed to keep the sub from opting out, then it's OK for that agreement to specify that the dom can have sex with whomever he chooses, while the sub has to seek permission (or have others seek permission). But it's easy for people new to the scene to be manipulated into agreements they wouldn't otherwise agree to. That's where the problem comes in. It's also a problem when some inexperienced but top-leaning twit decides he's a "Master" because he wants things to be all about him; an inexperienced sub in those cases is a disaster waiting to happen.

Maybe this will help. A good friend of mine once told me that submission is a gift - a precious gift, from the sub to his Dom, and as such, it's incumbent on the Dom to value it and show his appreciation for being entrusted with such a gift - by respecting it in the spirit it's given. That includes honoring, without question, any limits you place on your submission. And because it's an ongoing gift, not something you OWE him, it's something that can be withdrawn at any time as the circumstances require. As LetsPozBreed notes, it might sound counterintuitive. But there's an acronym you should be aware of: RACK, which stands for Risk-Aware Consensual Kink. For me, the "consensual" part is the most important - anything done without consent is illegitimate, and consent may be withdrawn at any point. Now, consent doesn't have to be explicit every single time for every single action - this isn't like the right-wing's mocking scripts for college kids to use ("I would like to touch your breast. May I touch your breast now?"). You establish limits - make that YOU establish limits, they're YOUR limits, and YOU get to set them - and then it's his job to respect those limits. He can negotiate the limits up or down, and that's why you should know yourself thoroughly, what you want/don't want, what you find acceptable/unacceptable, so you aren't coerced into agreeing to something you don't want. It's why all good BDSM play has safe words (and for advanced players, safety signals), because there are limits that must be respected. Any Sir/Dom who has issues with this shouldn't be trusted. Any Sir/Dom who has issues with this with a novice is a hazard.

Taking PrEP doesn't change you physically, if that's what you mean. The only way he'll be able to tell is if he finds the medication. And until you're sure he wouldn't throw it out, flush it, or try to replace it with a placebo (which admittedly sounds far-fetched, but then so does refusing to let you protect yourself), you should keep it somewhere he simply does not have access to. If you live together, keep it somewhere else - in your vehicle, at work in a locker or desk drawer, or whatever - until you're sure he's actually OK with it. I wouldn't feel the need to give that advice if you hadn't mentioned how he was opposed to you being on PrEP at all. The other way he might figure out you're on PrEP is if he is actually detectable/toxic and/or has friends who are detectable/toxic fuck you enough that you should probably convert and yet you manage to stay negative. That might arouse suspicions if he were trying to stealth you into being poz. I'm hoping that's not the case, but your original posting raised enough red flags I think you should be very, very careful.

or just take a really cold shower. That oughta remove any starch in the shirt, so to speak.

Smart man.

The reality is with condoms breaking on occasion, etc., it's not really true that "only a condom gives the best protection", unless it's used carefully, exactly according to instructions, with space left at the tip; it's not old or having been subjected to heat (like being carried in a wallet for months); only condom-safe lube is used; the fucking isn't TOO vigorous (even in the best of conditions a condom can break if the top is really aggressive, especially if it's put on with no space at the tip); and so forth. PrEP, by contrast, requires one thing: taking it regularly. It's one thing if you forget doses (that's a problem that can be worked with by automating reminders, etc.). But when you deliberately stop taking it, that's like a big old neon welcome sign saying "HIV welcome here". Contrary to what you think, it's only "inevitable" if you keep inviting it.

A slight variant of the "Should x do y" but essentially the same question. More masturbatory fantasy crap from people who can't find the fiction sections here, apparently.

Of course it's speculation. My point is, if the Rethugnicans who said in 2016 that no justice should be considered 10 months before an election had any sense of principles, we wouldn't even be speculating whether Barrett might do this. Incidentally, it's "bear" arms, not "bare" arms, which is what you get with sleeveless shirts. It's also "cherish" not "churish", "country" not "contry", "hypothetical" not "hyperthectical", and "probably" not "probaly". Your arguments might sound more sensible if they were actually written in plain English.

I suspect that's due to at least two factors, one good and one not as good. A lot of guys are smart about getting on PrEP as soon as they can. That's the good factor. The other is that guys that age often think they're indestructible, and none of them lived through the 1980's and 1990's when friends were dying every week. They figure HIV is "no big deal" and maybe they'll go on PrEP sometime but if not, well, if they get HIV they'll take a pill every day and it's still no big deal. Compared with what it was like in 1988, they're right. But they don't have the long-term vision to see what life may be like when they're out of school and off Mommy & Daddy's insurance, when they have to start paying copays for medications that run $2,800 a month. Or worse, finding themselves at a job that has no health insurance benefits at all, and they live in a state where they make too much for regular Medicaid and the state doesn't have expanded Medicaid, and they don't make enough to really qualify for a discount on the exchanges. Even when HIV is far from a death sentence - which is a wonderful advance! - it's no cakewalk.

And as mentioned to you earlier: GO ON PrEP. Some people here seem to be conflating "100% bareback" with "cumdump not on PrEP". They are not the same thing. You can be on PrEP and be 100% bareback and still be pretty much as protected as someone who uses a condom every time - without the discomfort that can come from condoms.

I'm not sure I understand 100% here. You're on a road trip, and when you reach your destination, your partner is staying there (his home base) for a couple of months, while you return to where you live, right? Or are you saying you're on a road trip, and you'll both return to where you live, then he's heading home for two months? If it's the first option, then no problem: you'll be able to play with those other guys on your way home, and for now you can focus on your partner during your time before "the goodbye". If it's the latter option, ASK. Tell him you want to spend as much time together as possible, but being on the road is a rare opportunity to play with others together, and see what he says. Tell him you're not urging it, but just noting it's an option. If he doesn't want to, you can drop it, focus on him, and go back to sex with others once he's gone for a couple of months. In my view: if two guys are in an open relationship and each has *reasonably ample* opportunity to play with others, time with the partner should almost always take precedence over outside play. For me, reasonably ample doesn't mean you get to play with every single guy who shows interest, but that you get enough on the outside that you don't feel stifled on the inside.

You may want to think long and hard about that. Right now, supposedly, he's undetectable. You can't be 100% certain that he'd tell you if that changed. I'm not suggesting he's not trustworthy; I'm saying that ANY man might turn out to be not trustworthy, and right now, if you're having unprotected sex with him, it's only safe as long as he stays in that condition. What if he decides it would be hot to see you become poz, and he stops taking his meds for six months, but keeps breeding you? What if he develops a resistance to the meds he's on, and doesn't find out about it until months later, when he goes in for a check up and he learns he's now very much detectable? I do agree that keeping you off PrEP is his way of controlling you. But I don't think that's a particularly healthy way to do it. You're the one bearing 100% of the risk if he decides to become detectable, if he becomes detectable without his awareness, if you slip up and succumb to temptation, or whatever. And he's restricting you from doing the ONE thing that could protect YOUR health. If I were in your shoes, that would be a dealbreaker for me.

Very non-helpful advice. It's fine if the couple is in an open relationship, but advising someone who's not to cheat is, to put it politely, ethically challenged (and to put it bluntly, a shitty thing to do).

The exact formulas for how many posts and how long a member = how much freedom to participate aren't published anywhere. The site owner set that up, presumably deliberately, to prevent people from gaming the system to try to get to higher levels faster (to then cause trouble). The universal recommendation is to keep posting and participate in the forums. Find things that interest you and comment on them. The more you do, and the longer you do it, the faster you "level up" (in gaming terms). Your posts don't have to be masterpieces of insightful thought, but you'll get a better reputation, I suspect (even if it doesn't directly impact your level) if you put a bit of thought into what you write. The thing about this site is that it's not primarily, at heart, a hook-up site. There is a personals section, divided geographically, but most of the interactions are topical and discussion-based rather than "looking for someone to fill this hole". That's why the system requires participation in order to advance to the levels where you can interact more directly with other members.

I'm not intolerant of people who think it should "still be Boystown". I understand very much the desire to keep things the same. I've simply pointed out that it should also be understandable why a significant portion of the community might find it non-inclusive, and my personal belief (and yes, it's just an opinion) that inclusivity is a higher value than sentimental tradition. I'm tolerant of those who feel differently, even if I think they're valuing something trivial.

Here's another point that Barrett's non-answering glossed over: Even if you don't think a particular case challenging a prior decision is ever going to reach the court, refusing (internally) to accept that prior decision as fixed precedent means you can be aggressive at limiting its reach. Barrett noted a couple of cases that she classified as "super precedent", by which she meant they were so widely cited and the basis for so many further decisions that they could never be overturned. Among those she included Marbury v. Madison (establishing the principle of judicial review) and Brown v. Board of Education (striking down "separate but equal"). One case she refused to comment on was a case from 1965 called Griswold v. Connecticut. At that time, Connecticut state law forbid the sale of contraceptives, even to married couples. In striking down that law, the Supreme Court found that there was, inherent in the Constitution, a right to privacy that was not precisely defined, but which (at a minimum) encompassed the right of a married couple to control their own procreation. They clarified this right had been described, in various terms, in earlier cases such as affirming the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children. It's true that it's essentially inconceivable that any state, in the 21st century, would ever try to pass a law like this again (the one in question had been enacted in 1873 and was almost never enforced). But that's not the important part. This case, establishing a right to privacy over certain aspects of one's life, serves as the underpinning of numerous other decisions, including Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas (barring states from criminalizing private, consensual gay sex), and Obergefell. If you reject Griswold - if you refuse to acknowledge it as a precedent that can't be overturned, like Brown or Marbury, it may not mean you'd overturn the decision or that it's likely a challenge urging overturning it would come up. But if you reject its central holding - as some "textualists" like Barrett do - then you have no reason to ever, ever find that any other situation presents a right to privacy. At a minimum, you put that decision in a storage box, never to be used as the starting point for future cases. Say, for instance, a state passes a law that refuses to recognize a sex-change for legal purposes. Using Griswold as a guide, you would probably hold that such laws are unconstitutional, as there's little that could be more private than how you define yourself genderwise. But reject Griswold, and suddenly there's nothing to hang that opinion on in prior law; you just say that Griswold's holding applies to the facts of that case alone. In fact, five textualists can argue that the constitution is completely silent on that issue and so states can do as they please, even though you haven't overturned Griswold at all. That's why answers like hers are so disingenuous and dangerous. There are already two justices on the court - Alito and Thomas - who have on multiple occasions called for abandoning precedents they think were wrongly decided. Kavanaugh has exhibited some tendencies in that direction and so has Gorsuch, though less so. Add Barrett into the mix and you have five justices who are solidly committed to sharply limiting, if not outright overturning, any precedents they don't like, with the exception of a few "super-precedents", the criteria for which are poorly defined. This isn't to say she should isn't qualified to be a justice (that's a separate argument). It's to say that she is going to shift the balance on the court dramatically, and yes, gay rights issues are likely to be in the crosshairs of this Court's decisions.