BootmanLA

While the German version (which appears to be the original, but who's to say it wasn't ripped off from somewhere else, way back?) is well known in the European fetish scene and is highly-rated, I am not surprised by the comment you mentioned. With the caveat that there are always exceptions, I find Germans to default to a kind of rigidity of outlook - you either fit our image or you do not, you pass the bar or you do not, etc. The German version, for instance, does not allow mares (bottoms) to wear any clothing except shoes (required) and socks (optional). They make some pious statements about how real mares don't wear clothing, so why should the ones here? They'll force mares to strip or eject them. But stallions (tops) can wear chaps, jocks, other fetish wear - even though the same statement could be made about real stallions. The German version also stresses it's about "safer sex"; while not prohibiting bareback sex, the official line is that it's strongly encouraged, and bottoms willing to be "covered" (how twee) bare wear some sort of identifying sign - it's not specified, but I don't think it's as prominent as the red hood vs. white hood of the SF-based HorseMarket. I've not been to any of the above, but speaking with some participants of the SF-based version, I've gotten the impression that they aren't nearly as strict about body types and upper limits on age as the German version.

My theory - based on nothing but conjecture, so maybe "hypothesis" is a better word - is that Saturday morning cartoons were devised as a way to keep suburban kids (already accustomed to waking early for school) entertained while Daddy got up to do basic tasks like mowing the yard and Mommy got to sleep in a bit. They found ready funding from toy and cereal companies and others who marketed to a captive audience of kids. Not only are there lots of dedicated channels for cartoons (and a wider range of cartoon shows), but there are DVDs and streaming shows and even more important, video games, all competing for their attention. Without a built-in captive audience, advertisers would have soured on pouring lots of money into those timeslots, and in turn, the networks lose the money used to buy the shows in the first place. You're spot-on, of course, about the casual glorification of cartoon violence for laughs. It's not that kids need a diet of nothing but rainbow ponies and unicorns, but there are better ways to entertain and educate kids at the same time.

Without speaking for anyone in particular, in this thread or otherwise: It's important to keep in mind that there are undoubtedly considerable numbers of people whose presence on this site is entirely based in fantasy: they are HIV-negative guys on PrEP pretending to be chasers, HIV+ undetectable guys pretending to not be on meds, men who haven't had sex in a decade pretending to be overly promiscuous bareback sluts; and more. There are even some guys who slip up and change their story from claiming to be HIV-positive not on meds, to being HIV-undetectable, to being HIV-negative, either having forgotten previous details of their online personnas or not thinking it matters much. There are guys who claim to be "straight but bi-curious" who haven't been near a woman's private parts since birth. There are actually bi-curious (ie completely inexperienced) guys who claim to be mega-players in the gay BB sex world. How much the publicly presented "persona" any particular member here matches reality is something that varies from individual to individual. This isn't something limited to BZ; there are people online on almost any gay site who are happily yanking other guys' chains, with fake/stolen pics, claims to be X when they're Y, or whatever. But since this is a site where claims of great sexual exploits are not only welcomed but encouraged - a position I don't quarrel with at all - one needs to understand that at any given point, a non-measurable but definitely non-zero amount of it is no more real than an animated cartoon on Saturday morning TV (if that's still a thing; I'm old). And because of that, sometimes those guys lose interest in portraying their "avatar" and abandon, temporarily or permanently, their online existence. Sometimes it's not negative reactions from other members that drives people away; sometimes it's just exhaustion from role playing. Sometimes they sense another member is asking too many questions and they realize their fake persona is coming apart. That doesn't mean we should assume that of anyone in particular. But it's perhaps a cautionary reminder that not everything on the other end of a cyber connection is real.

You mean like the doctors that are asked about IN THE VERY QUESTION YOU'RE RESPONDING TO? Sheesh. In any event: if you are going in for a routine checkup with a doctor these days, and they know you are HIV+, it's almost a certainty you will be directed to have certain lab work done before the appointment and among those tests will be for viral level and for immune system levels. You could, presumably, direct the doctor not to order those tests, but I suspect most doctors would put up a fight over that and argue they cannot ethically treat you as a patient unless they have the information needed. There's a difference between refusing to take medications that your physician wants to prescribe, and refusing to have tests done to monitor a known condition while expecting the physician to continue to provide you health care.

@rawTOP It looks to me like whatever "icon" is used for the heart "like" logo is the culprit, not displaying properly on an iPad (presumably with Safari, since most people use the default browser there). That may give the support team something to work with.

For what it's worth, there are similarly themed parties elsewhere. While the Fickstutenmarkt parties are limited to Europe (at least for now), there is (in the United States) the HorseMarket, which is based in SF but holds parties at leather and fetish events around the country. Your profile doesn't indicate your location, but if you're in the US, that might be a more accessible option. That said, I believe both sets of parties are on hold and have been for a while due to COVID-19.

You can ignore people - thus not seeing their posts (hateful or not). I'm not sure whether that means they don't see your posts, as well. Very few message board systems I've used allow people to edit or delete their posts more than a minute or so after posting, because otherwise you'd have people posting inflammatory comments and then changing or deleting them before getting written up. Or editing posts to remove things they'd stated as facts, that contradict other things they'd stated as facts elsewhere on the site, which contradicted (in a different way) other things they'd stated as facts in still other places, all on the same site. I'm strongly supportive of only the administrators/moderators being able to remove or alter content as they see necessary under the rules.

If you already know you want to be poz, as your title suggests, what does it matter what *other* people felt like when they found out? It sounds like you already know what you want your experience to be.

Read up to the top of the thread. They were outlined many, many years ago.

Obviously, this is a bareback-positive site (and I'm all for that). But I think we can do without the condom bashing. Some people don't have access to PrEP and want to remain negative. Some people are concerned about other STI's. Just as it's not other people's place to rag on you about your preference for bareback sex, it's not your place to criticize them for making a different decision than you have. Those who bash monogamy, or safer sex practices, are the first to get indignant if they're denigrated for being sluts or engaging in risky play.

I'd add this: the nicer the hotel, the harder it's going to be to get people in and up to your room - *especially* if it's anywhere near a major festival event, when hotels frequently have security to prevent anyone who's not a guest (or with a guest) from entering. Also, be forewarned: I'm sure it depends on the bottom in question, but as is the case in most places, the bottom-to-top ratio is very skewed. New Orleans has a reputation for debauchery at times (and in some ways it's warranted) but the idea of being able to go ass-up and find a score of guys to come over and fuck you is about like it would be anywhere else in the country.

Why not go on PrEP? If not becoming poz is important to you, then don't trust someone's "paperwork" - it's only as good as some point prior to the actual test being done, for starters, and that's if you'd know whether the results shown are real or fake. I guarantee you I could, in half an hour's time, craft a realistic looking lab report that would clearly indicate the subject was HIV negative, even if the "subject" didn't really exist. If you don't want to become poz, YOU need to take responsibility for that, and get on PrEP if you're going to risk taking raw cock. Period. If you don't go on PrEP, then the fault is 100% on you if it happens - not "I was lied to", not "He promised he was safe", not "I thought I could trust him". Trust yourself and get protected.

doubtful, as the last post by the author is coming up on 11 months old. Most stories here just drop off; few have confirmed "the end" bits.

Posts in a topic that's fairly active get an extra column to the right of the main posts - it shows the top posters in the topic, along with the most-liked posts. That's probably what you're seeing in terms of columns. As for the "React" icon - @rawTOP will probably need to look into that, if he's not already (with this info about platform and browser, it may help them track down the problem).

This vaguely reminds me of that quote falsely attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time." I'm sure that some people can detect when some men are about to cum. I'm sure that some people can detect when MOST people are about to cum. But I doubt there is anyone who can always tell when any man is about to cum.

If "things relax a lot" when on the edge of passing out, people would shit themselves every night while sleeping.

One useful divider is between sports that involve lots of rough physical contact (US football, hockey, rugby, boxing, wrestling, MMA, and increasingly others where teams get into brawls during games) - which are all more or less ways to letting men be violent in somewhat acceptable ways - and those without such contact, including tennis, swimming, track and field, etc. The former group, unsurprisingly, seems filled with people who have violent streaks. Look at the huge numbers of players who've had to deal with domestic violence charges. And those are the sports where CTE is becoming abundant. We have a serious problem in this world with the vast number of people in this world who find entertainment in people pounding the crap out of each other.

Are you referring to the large white circles on the RIGHT (not left) of the post? That's where the "React" button (ie Like, Upvote, Downvote, Thank, HaHa) should be. They appear normally on my system. You should probably specify which operating system & version (ie Windows 10, Windows 8.1, Mac OS, etc.) you're using as well as the name and version of your browser (ie Chrome 85.0.4183.102 (Official Build) (64-bit), Safari xxxxxx, etc.). Looks like the icon for the button (normally a white heart on a light gray background) is not loading properly, but why that is, I can't say.

Strictly speaking, you're able to cum; it's completely within your power, since you have the keys; you're just not allowing yourself to do it. It's no different than willing yourself not to cum except that it's marginally more involved. Once you've turned the keys over to someone else, of course, it's a different story. But as long as you have it within your power to unlock yourself at a moment's notice, "unable" is simply not accurate. Now, if you want to (at least for short periods) make it truly "unable" - you have more options. 1. You could put the keys in a small envelope, addressed to yourself with the postage in place, then mail that envelope in a larger one to a trusted friend out of town. Tell him to hold the package for X days, then mail it back. That takes the power out of your hands for the period. 2. Go rent a safe deposit box at a bank. Put the keys in it on a Friday afternoon. You won't be able to get them until the next time the bank opens, presumably on Monday morning. That makes it truly "unable" for at least the weekend. 3. Go dig a hole in your yard at least, say, 2-3 feet deep. Bury the keys in a non-degradable container and pack the earth down. If you got really horny, you'd have to dig them up, which might take long enough that the horniness passes. There are lots of options like this - be creative. But it's not "unable to cum" until you really, truly can't just grab the keys and use them.

Any way you could do a screen shot of what you're talking about? I could probably (though not a moderator) explain what it is, if I were sure of what you were talking about).

Clicking on the title always took you (under the old software) to the first post in a topic. There used to be little "cartoon speech balloons" next to topics with new posts (actually, "hollow" balloons for no new posts; solid balloons for ones with new posts). As I'd pointed out in a separate topic, in the old software, though, clicking on the balloons did different things depending on whether you were pointing at a particular thread, or at a topic board. If it was for a particular thread, it took you to the new posts directly. If it was for a forum or sub-forum, it marked the entire forum or sub-forum as "read". The new system is much clearer because it doesn't use one symbol for two different actions depending on context. FYI, RawTop mentioned "red dot" and "red star". A red dot means new posts in a topic. A red star means new posts in a topic WHERE YOU HAVE ALREADY POSTED, so you know it's something you have already had an interest in and may wish to check out.

OK, here's some advice (which, standard caveat, is not binding arbitration). You were discussing doing this in early June, and yet your partner has still not gone off his meds. That suggests, to me at least, that he's turned on by the talk but not ready to take that step. I would not suggest forcing the issue. Why not? Because something's holding him back, and you need to get to the root of that (and understand what he's actually feeling) before you take the irrevocable step of converting. Imagine, for a moment, that he's turned on by the fantasy but is horrified, deep down, at being responsible for that kind of result. It may be that he'd feel enormous guilt over actually making you poz, for instance. If that's the case, and if you force the issue, it's entirely possible that he'd end up breaking off with you because he can't handle the guilt. Since you're looking at being pozzed by him as a means of strengthening the bond between you, it would be ironic if in fact it pushed you apart - and then you'd be poz WITHOUT the bond you were hoping to strengthen. It seems, based on your post, that you like the closeness and intimacy of a relationship. So, assume for a moment you get pozzed and you split up over his guilt. While reactions in the gay community are better than they once were, nobody can honestly say that the dating pool doesn't shrink, in some cases significantly, if your HIV status changes - look at all the "Neg UB2" profiles. This isn't to say that if he decides to pursue this, of his own volition, you should discourage him. But if you are looking for how to convince him to do it while not understanding completely where his head is at, you could torpedo your whole relationship. Proceed with caution.

Risks like this cannot be expressed numerically. Suffice it to say that if you are taking prep on demand, your risk is higher than if you were on it daily. Because he is not on meds, your risk is also elevated because of that factor. Again, you can't say it's 2 times greater or 4 times greater or any other number - it's just 'more than' or 'less than'. So far, everything you've mentioned pushes you into the "more risky" category.

Valid point, but just because "you know" someone, doesn't mean he's being honest either. Or, in the alternative, that he even knows (perhaps he thinks he's negative but hasn't actually been tested in a few years). That's not to say that you need to ask for a condom from everyone. But I wouldn't for one moment consider the fact that I know someone as a reason to take his word that he's negative or undetectable.

I'm going to express a contrarian view. Yes, *some* tops would find fucking a nullo hot (there are some people out there who are into just about anything you can think up). That doesn't mean they are numerous. I remind people that finding a partner (whether it's just for sex, or for dating, or a long-term relationship) can be expressed by (WARNING: traumatic call-back to grade-school math!) Venn diagrams - those overlapping circles that can illustrate which characteristics (each represented by one of the circles) any particular individual has. A very picky man, for instance, may want only guys between 6'0 and 6'3", muscled, furry-chested, dark haired, blue or green eyes, mostly top, definitely hung, good job, You overlap those circles in a given area population and you might easily find there's nobody within, say, 60 miles that meets 100% of those criteria. When you add in "turned on by nullos", you're imposing a restraint that will exclude the vast majority of men (whether that's fair or kind is another issue, but it's true). Expanding that to "guys who won't mind a nullo" will enlarge the possibles list a bit, but my guess would be that they'd still be rarities. I suspect far more men would prefer a small and mostly non-sexually-functional cock over none at all, and you have the option, of course, of having fake testicles put in (possibly not covered by insurance, but it's an option). I suspect you'd have far more success getting laid going that route than the nullo one. I'm not suggesting you should or shouldn't pursue the surgery you're considering. I'm saying that if you're pinning your hopes on finding someone who's interested in a nullo, you should know that's going to limit your options significantly. Unfairly, perhaps. But significantly nonetheless.