BootmanLA

Smaller hemorrhoids normally heal without problems. Is the ointment you're using prescribed, or something over the counter like Prep H? Chances are it'll still heal OK, but it can't hurt to have a doctor look at it. And now you know: if you're having fisting sessions, don't eat foods that would antagonize a rectum that's already beat up. Human body's just not made for that.

That's part of the problem with the existing studies. There's a huge difference in risk for a receptive anal sex partner and an insertive anal sex partner, and there's also a goodly range in how sexually active different people can be. It's difficult to control for those variables, even if you have completely accurate data. And of course, you often don't. Some guys may inflate the number of times they had sex to sound more appealing. Some may, at some level, be a tad embarrassed about how much sex they're having and understate it. A guy who plays in dark rooms during the period may not actually know exactly how many partners he had or how many sex acts or how many times he was ejaculated into. Throw in the fact that the sample sizes in the studies I've seen to date were relatively small, and I'm not sure you can get a good number by which you can say the risk has been reduced, other than that it appears to be significant, yet not as good as daily. It seems to me that if you can tolerate daily dosing, and you can afford it, it makes far more sense. It's a hell of a lot easier to set a reminder on your cell phone, or whatever, to take your medication daily than it is to KNOW you're going to have sex within two hours (what happens when it's more spontaneous than that?) and then remember again 24 and 48 hours later.

But that still leaves the central question unanswered. For oral, is the top the "insertive" partner or the "active" partner? I generally assume the former, but I've encountered lots of guys who consider themselves "oral tops" because they actively suck cock.

Hence my point about the cost of a house. A full treatment for Hep C, depending on the drug needed to treat it, can run $85,000 to $95,000. And that treatment, while it clears the current infection, does NOT provide immunity. So you could face those costs *multiple* times.

I think when I first came out, there was definitely a rejection (in the popular culture, at least) of hetero-type relationships. People bonded, but it was more often somewhat open, whether discussed/shared or not. HIV/AIDS cut into that dramatically. As more and more long-term couples became "outed" (in a sense) because one or both of them were positive, and it became clear that (even if organized differently, gay relationships could last just as long as straight ones, I think that's when the real push for recognition of same-sex relationships really got some traction.

I still think it would be too easy to game the system. So it requires people to be a member for a week before reviewing? So you create 200 fake accounts, give them a week, and then they start. Rave reviews, every day or two, from one or two more of the new "members". Or, alternatively... five or ten people piling on someone who managed to piss off somebody. Suddenly, every Sunday, six or eight "tops" all claim that member X pretended to set up a gang-bang and they all showed up and he didn't. Do that to someone twice and their reputation on the board would be shot. Review systems only work, imnsho, when only someone who's completed a transaction with the reviewee via the same site on which the review is posted.

Perhaps not. But he'd have to be willing to cut himself on a part of him that would be inside you - I was thinking cock, but I suppose it could be a finger or two. I can't imagine going to that kind of trouble to get a disease that can cost as much as a small house to cure. But your mileage may vary. Tax, title, and license extra. Void where prohibited. Yadda yadda.

Maybe if you had your hole brushed AND found a Hep-C top willing to fuck you after opening some blood flow of his own on his cock. Otherwise, it's just not likely. It's a blood-transmitted disease and pretty hard to acquire in any other way.

It's a great theory, but I think kind of impractical. You'd have people gaming the system from day one: fake accounts raving (or ranting) about particular people, to boost traffic or to give them a bad rep.

This is one of those questions that screams out for multiple-choice answers. Something like: a) I don't like repeats, even once; I might repeat if I had to, but I'm all about a successful chase. No chase, no interest. b) I'm okay with repeats, but I get bored pretty quickly with the same guy, so 3-4 times, and I'm done. c) I like repeats just fine - the important thing to me is getting it regularly, so I don't care if it's the same guy steadily for a while, or if I mix it up. d) I like repeats - if there's a connection, or the sex is really good, why wouldn't you? Doesn't have to be a relationship, but a regular partner is a good thing. e) I really prefer repeats - I'm not opposed to NSA/random sex, but it seems better to me as you get more used to each other and you learn how to push each other's buttons just right. f) I don't really like one-offs - I realize there's no guarantee of ongoing sex but I don't sleep with someone unless there's something already developing that could lend itself to a longer-term interaction, if not exactly a relationship. g) I don't have sex outside a relationship and don't have it until we're clearly headed into one. I think many guys start out near the top of the spectrum (at least, they did back when I was first coming out in the late 70's and early 80's), and may move closer to the middle over time. Conversely, some guys brought up that casual sex is just wrong may start out near or at the bottom of this spectrum, and as they shed some of the guilt over sex, they may move closer to the middle as well. But not all. Some guys, once they find a guy they really like, may zoom from c to f/g pretty quickly. Some guys may start at g, move up to, say, b, then return back to e or f. Some guys get jaded down at e/f/g and say "screw it" and move towards a/b because they're convinced no monogamous/mostly-monogamous relationship will actually work out. Personally, I'm at (d). But I also recognize that not being a "hot commodity" type, repeats aren't a really frequent occurrence.

Or the 20-year old "top" who describes himself as a "Master".

Additionally: Paragraphs, people. This is really more of an issue with the fiction section (and sometimes other posts) but putting twenty-seven sentences into one paragraph, especially when half those sentences are run-ons and should be further divided, renders the text essentially unreadable. Signed, another Grumpy Old Man.

Some people (I'm guessing) think it's "proof" that the guy got off, so somehow that must be "better". It might be better if the top produces really, really huge loads so that the size of the load is the turn-on, but I've seen "pull out and paint the hole" with less cum than you could put in a demitasse spoon. Pointless.

Also... we see so damned many pull out scenes for the top to cum. We know what cum looks like. It would have been a hundred times hotter to have the top spasming inside the boy and you see it on ultrasound.

Glad to be of help!

Most plug-type toys (the kind you can wear and they stay put) have relatively narrow necks precisely because they're designed to NOT stretch your hole - they're designed to fill your rectum full, but otherwise let your hole close around the stem, so that it stays put. If it stretched your hole, there would be a good chance it wouldn't stay put. And if it wouldn't stay put, neither would feces later on. What you need to do is make the muscle able to relax and stretch "on demand" - not permanently stretch it out. For that, a dildo is better than a plug. You loosen your hole up with the dildo, keeping it in for a while, then let your hole close up. Repeat regularly, and if need be, upsize periodically. But it's the closing down regularly after each session that retains the ability to keep things "inside" as needed, and the regular stretching that makes your hole easy to expand on demand.

One more thing: You say you're 39 and your partner is "older" but not how much older. Food for thought: Let's say he's 50, so when you got together, he would have been a little younger than you. At that age, he might well have rejected the idea of an open relationship, but his perspective might be different now. If he's older than that - if the age gap between you is 15 or 20 years, say - that might be even more likely. Most men with significantly younger partners put some thought into what's going to happen as they age, and even if he's not eager to face it, the choice of being alone (at an age when finding a new partner could be more challenging) and letting you explore your sexuality more deeply might result in a surprise. I'm not suggesting he's going to be excited about what you may want to do, but he could surprise you.

I agree it looks like a folliculitis. That said, folliculitis can be either bacterial or fungal in nature; a bacterium can't cause a fungal infection or vice versa, and fungal treatments won't cure bacterial infections, nor will bacterial treatments cure fungal ones (though there are some treatments for skin conditions that may contain both). I'd definitely suggest an urgent care visit, especially if you can't get in to see your regular doctor right away.

I'd mostly agree, though I don't think anonymous needs to be "no talking" so much as "no identifying". Anonymous (to me) can include verbal about what's going on, just nothing that tells the bottom who the top is (and sometimes, the other way around as well).

Lots of questions to unpack there. So let's deal with them separately. First, dispense with the "something really fucked up with me" or "evil" ideas. Those are value judgments and, unless you're violating someone's consent or otherwise putting that person at risk, they're useless terms. The question you don't ask here is "Can I keep my desires in check and not act on them?" Only you can answer that. That isn't to say you MUST keep them in check; but your partner is operating under the assumption, presumably, that you have no such desires. So, IF you can't keep them in check - or even if you're not sure you can do so - then you owe it to your partner to tell him. (If you were sure you could keep them in check, though, I don't think you'd be asking for advice, so I'm going to assume you figure you'll eventually give in to the dark side.) That doesn't mean you tell him you're going to do X or Y. You tell him you have these feelings, you've had them a while, and you do not want to put him at risk, nor do you want to hurt him, but you recognize it's not fair to him to not know what's up, and ask him what he wants. Tell him you're not acting on anything in the interim, but y'all need to talk about the status of your relationship. He may insist on your foregoing those desires as the price of staying with him. He may reject the idea of staying together outright anyway. But he may come to decide that he'd rather remain in the relationship (even on a non-sexual basis) with you able to indulge certain things on the outside. He may want to know about them; he may prefer not to know. He may insist that if you're going to do it, you go on PrEP, so that you don't end up with a lifetime of treatment costs ahead of you (that may impinge on your ability to financially plan the future). I'm not saying that's likely - but then I don't know you or your partner or what your relationship's like. But it seems to me like part of you wants to keep him, if possible, as your partner. And if that's the case, breaking it off pre-emptively is a bad idea. Give him the chance to weigh in on how you might be able to make it work. If he breaks it off because he can't handle that, you're no worse off than if you ended it on your own.

You're correct. I should have said there is a lack of sufficient, quality data. One of the two studies (the latter one) wasn't a double-blind study; it just put a group of guys on 2-1-1 and checked to see who became poz. I note that they started with 279 patients. Of those, nearly one-fifth changed to daily PrEP during the study (meaning they weren't really on 2-1-1). A significant number (less than 10%, but closer to that than zero) dropped out entirely from the study. Only half, as it turns out, actually used event-based PrEP for the duration. Most importantly, there's no indication that they monitored any of the patients for volume of sexual activity, or filtered by type of activity (we know, for instance, that bottoming is much riskier than topping; the study itself acknowledged that was a significant limitation on its value. The first study referenced looked into that a little bit better. But the median number of sex acts over a four-week period for the participants seems to be between 8 and 11, meaning the median was typically between 2 and less than 3 sex acts per week. Moreover, the study notes that many of those acts - some weeks, a full third or so - didn't involve anal intercourse without a condom, and of those that did, some participants apparently only topped. Finally, the results are still sobering for this (better) study. Looking at the 16 people who did get HIV within the time period of the study, 2 (or one in eight) were using event-based PrEP (the others were on a placebo). That's not a 1 in 8 chance of becoming poz on event-based PrEP (just to be clear) but it's showing that it only removes some, not all, of the risk over not using PrEP at all. I'd say that if you intend to be, or are, significantly sexually active, either with multiple partners or with someone else who may have multiple partners, daily PrEP is still the way to go if you want to avoid HIV. Overall, I'd say if you placed HIV-prevention methods on a spectrum of riskiness, event-based PrEP is closer to the "safe" end, but not as close as daily PrEP, though still well ahead of things like "pulling out" and "asking partners their status" as a sole means of prevention.

Agreed. I'm pretty much of the opinion that the entire profile's a fake, from the picture on down. I wouldn't be surprised if the IP address from his postings resolved to someplace other than Texas.

I think what he was trying to say is that despite posting that he only gets fucked BB, too many tops will expect him to make an exception just because they want to fuck and they figure he'll want it bad enough to change his policy for them. Being a self-described "FuckWhore" doesn't mean one has to accept getting fucked from anyone and in any fashion whatsoever desired by the top.

Precisely. I have what I will (somewhat immodestly) call a large vocabulary, and it's full of words with particular meanings. I choose the ones that express as close as is possible the meaning I want to convey. Hence, one of my least-favorite things in the world is correcting people who tell me "So you're saying X" when I said Y, very clearly and unequivocally - and the only way to get X out of that is to assume I'm also saying Z and A through F (which, if true, would make X a logical extension of my original thought). It's a lost cause, though, because too many people don't even read what you DO write; they come to what you write or say with some preconceived notions and everything - literally everything - that enters into their minds is filtered through those notions. So all the care one may take with writing a profile (or a message post, or whatever), using exactly the words that mean what you wish to convey, is wasted.

Reasonable. But still, I think for the sake of orderliness (and encouraging people to use an entire forum for the purpose instead of a single file that nobody's ever going to read start to finish....) Also: technically, neither was "here first" - both the other forum and this topic date to early 2010.