BootmanLA

I have a question, not sure why it never dawned on me before. Why isn't this a pinned post in the "Your last load..." forum? Since there's an entire forum for that, why is it repeated here? Surely it would be easy to move this folder, in one swoop, over there?

Bear in mind that the "on demand" is an off-label, not clinically tested and approved, usage, and while it appears to work reasonably well, in many situations, there's no hard data on it (because the studies simply aren't there to back it up). The only reason, really, to go "on demand" is when it's impossible to take daily for some other reason - cost, or bad reactions to the medication, or something like that. Now, going with 2 pills the first day, and daily after that, is probably not a bad idea if you're going to start off having sex before the normal "wait a week" is up. It might - MIGHT - even be a good idea to take 2 pills each day that you plan to have sex, for that first week. The important thing, I would think, is that once you start, don't go off the pills at all. Take AT LEAST daily once you start. Otherwise, you're not really going on a daily dosage; you're simply repeat-dosing "on demand", which just opens up multiple possible doorways to it failing to protect completely.

Don't be sorry. I tend to rant a bit myself, now and then. And you're right: in this day and age, there's no excuse for being ill-informed about STI's. Maybe in some benighted portion of Appalachia where all internet is still dial-up and there's no cell service that can deliver even basic internet, but not in most of the country. Certainly not in any metropolitan area. And I live in a red state where realistic sex ed is pretty much forbidden, period.

Something else I just realized: You called taking undetectable loads "the next step". That sort of, but not definitively, implies that there are more steps beyond that, which you may be also considering. That, in turn, suggests (for instance) taking detectable, no-med loads. But my advice earlier remains the same. Steps are largely irrelevant markers along a path; they only tell you how far you've gone, but what matters is your destination. If you want to remain negative while taking loads, that path needs to include PrEP. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. And if you're on PrEP, further steps (like taking undetectable loads, taking no-med loads, etc.) return to just being markers. Without PrEP, your eventual destination is becoming poz. If you understand that, and are 100% prepared to deal with the consequences of that - the cost of medications, foreclosure of certain other paths in life, etc. - then that path may be an option.

"Bad" is one of those useless words in this context. Either you want to become poz, you do not care if you become poz, or you do NOT want to become poz. If it's either of the first two, just keep taking loads from whomever. If it's the last of the three options, get on PrEP. "Stick to undetectable guys" is like "Stick to negative guys" - either way you're putting your fate in trusting what someone else is telling you. Someone could even have lab results from a month earlier that say "negative" or "undetectable" and no longer be at that status. Worrying about whether something is "good" or "bad" is, well, a huge waste of time.

I don't think it's that simple. I think most people who support M4A are going to vote Biden regardless - there may be some marginal falloff from people (aka idiots) who think it's tainted to vote for anyone who doesn't support 100% of your own values, and stay home, but my own opinion, based on the 2018 mid-terms, is that Trump's major vulnerability is the centrist voters, whom he won by a small margin in 2016 but who deserted the GOP in droves in the 2018 midterms. Keeping those people in the Democratic fold for 2020 is critical. The problem, as I see it, is that while M4A is wildly popular among the Democratic base, and has some traction among moderates, that's mostly when it's framed as an alternative to traditional employer-based health plans. When you start talking about M4A replacing those, support drops dramatically (even though I think it's a better option for everyone). Yes, that's because Big Medical has managed to frame the debate as "losing" choices rather than "gaining coverage", and yes, people are dumb and don't realize that single-payer's cost savings alone would end up saving most people money. Right now, the worst thing Biden could do is spook soft Republicans who are mostly fed up with Trump by embracing too progressive an agenda. Yes, he should immediately after winning stake out some big positions, especially if the Dems take the Senate, and be prepared to support killing the filibuster if need be to get most of it passed. (Obama could have done a lot more in 2009 and early 2010 IF he'd had 60 votes for more than a few weeks here and a few weeks there; with only needing 50 + the VP, a lot more could get through between 2021 and January 2023.) Which is why I hate seeing the most progressive wing of the party still pushing him so hard. Right now, publicly committing to, say, the Green New Deal in its entirety or M4A as the mandatory option will only cost him votes. And while I'm glad you see getting rid of Trump as Job #1, unfortunately, for some on the far left, they're willing to endure four more years of him, in the hopes that it will be so bad the backlash will push someone like Sanders or AOC into the White House. The problem with that scenario, as I see it, is (a) there's no guarantee the backlash will be that strong, (b) there's no guarantee Trump won't have so eroded the norms of government that his son or daughter won't just skate right in, (c) Sanders himself would be 83 at the time of the next election, so he's almost certainly out, (d) AOC will not turn 35 until right before the election, so she'll barely be eligible, and I don't know that six years in the House is really sufficient prep for the presidency, and (e) I can't think of anyone, other than those two, who'd be acceptable to the far-left end of the party at this point, though four years is a long time for someone else to rise to prominence.

That's as much of a "theory" as the theory that I can't find my keys in the morning because magical pixies are hiding them from me overnight. 😁

Looking back, this was spot-on prescient. Had Trump been prudent, we'd have a lot more "headroom" to prop up the economy while fighting the coronavirus pandemic. And it's telling that a significant number of Republicans in the Senate (and some in the House, but they're outvoted) think we shouldn't do ANYTHING else to help people, because of course the rich are still rich and doing fine in their summer houses in the Hamptons or wherever, so fuck the rest of us. Here's how bad it is: despite the country gaining 2.5 million jobs in May (over April), 4.8 million in June, and another 1.76 million in July - the only three months in history where we created more than a million jobs - we're STILL at a record high unemployment rate since World War II. We're still at a higher unemployment rate than at ANY point during the Great Recession. Seems we didn't even have to get rid of Trump to tank the economy. Which isn't surprising. Most times in the last 30-40 years, when the economy has tanked, it's been during the presidency of a Republican, and most often it takes the election of a Democrat to pull us out.

I'm going to start by challenging your first premise. It's not a question of a "top's right" at all. If you *choose* to allow a top to fuck you in any particular way, that's your *choice*. Now, you may *choose* to allow him to decide how he wants it, but don't lose sight of the fact that it's YOUR choice to do so. Otherwise: what if he decides he wants to fuck you with the barrel of a loaded gun? With a hand on the trigger? You say you're "done fooling [yourself] that you have a choice at this point"; but you do. Allowing "whatever" to happen is choosing to let it happen. By all means, go on PrEP, if you want to *choose* to take loads from men. Make THAT choice, so you can choose to let go, otherwise. Because otherwise, frankly, insisting that you have no choice sounds remarkably like trying to offload responsibility for what happens onto other people, when the simple fact is, you're responsible. Period.

Exactly. If a man willingly engages in sex with another man, he's not straight. Maybe "Bi leaning straight" or "Bi mostly straight" or some such.

I'm the last person to say Biden stands for everything I want to see. But I think he's still a move in the right direction, even if only a short distance; and I think another four years of Trump could easily spell the end of our system of government as we know it. And before I'm accused of hyperbole, bear in mind he keeps calling for an extra term beyond the next one, and his apparatus is already pushing forward Junior as the heir apparent. That's often how governments get overthrown nowadays - not by a military coup, but by a duly elected leader trashing all the constraints that used to ensure peaceful transitions of power, then changing the laws to allow the leader, or his family, to remain in power indefinitely. Russia thought it had achieved a system where the presidency would be limited to one six-year term in a row. Putin found a hole in that "guardrail"; forced to step down as president, he instead ran for the Russian Parliament, while pushing his own former chief of staff as President. When elected, the new "President" selected Putin as Prime Minister, and things continued pretty much as they had, with Putin calling the shots from his new position. After sitting out a term, Putin was eligible to run again for President, and won; since then, he's pushed through constitutional changes (by dubious votes) that allowed him not only to serve two consecutive terms, but the clock was restarted on term limits, meaning he's now got another 12 years in power. Trump can't do exactly that, but there's still plenty he *can* do. Despite the fact that only Congress can appropriate money, and that when it does so, it's for *specific* purposes, Trump just keeps changing the appropriations to allow himself to spend money on what he wants even when specifically forbidden to do so by Congress. And if the courts refuse to get involved - if they deem it a "political" question that can only be resolved by the voters - then there's simply no stopping much of what he wants to do. Right now, some of Trump's worst excesses have only been stopped by 5-4 votes in the Supreme Court. If one of those 5 (typically, the four justices appointed by Democrats, plus one of the Republicans, often Roberts) were to be replaced in a second Trump term, I don't see there being any means of stopping virtually anything he wanted to do. And remember: the official platform of the Republican Party, as of this convention, is "Whatever Donald wants, Donald gets". If that doesn't scare the shit out of you, I don't know what would.

Like others here, I was switched to Biktarvy (from Genvoya) because of kidney issues. My nephrologist mentioned (just yesterday, in fact) that Biktarvy is probably the best of the anti-retrovirals insofar as effects on kidney function goes. And that can be important if you have any risk factors for kidney issues: high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, etc. You wouldn't want to go to all the trouble of getting HIV under control only to have to submit to dialysis three times a week because your kidneys failed. And while HIV+ patients are not categorically ruled out as kidney transplant recipients, with the demand for donor kidneys outstripping the supply, that's not an option you can count on.

As I understand it, this particular forum is supposed to be about this site's mechanics - helpful hints, questions about rules, etc. The original post here was sort of relevant to that - questioning whether the site was too permissive about incest postings - but that question's been asked and answered. There are already multiple threads where people can post about their incest experiences in the General Discussions forum - I'd strongly suggest the moderators either close this topic, or at least relocate the "here's my personal experience of sucking my dad's cock as a boy" posts from here to another forum.

I would add, to the comments above: It's important to BE ABLE to talk with anything, without reservation, with your therapist, IF you choose to share that subject. (If a therapist can'd do that, time for a different one.) It's not MANDATORY that you talk about everything under the sun with your therapist. Since you're talking about sexual issues, you might *assume* that you need to share everything with the therapist, but that's not necessarily true. Since you're taking PrEP, you're already demonstrating an awareness of protecting yourself. I think most human beings understand that condomless sex is always going to "feel better" than condomed sex, so the therapist is undoubtedly going to assume you understand that. Now, the cumdump fantasy thing - that may or may not be something to explore. For instance (and I'm just spitballing here), it's possible that your desire to do this has deeper implications, psychologically. As an example, it's conceivable - again, just a guess - that this could be tied to your hyper-religious upbringing; you could be, at some level, trying to punish yourself for being a sexual person by seeking what could be (for some) a degrading situation. Or, flipped, you could be seeking this as an affirmation of a sex-positive role for yourself where you don't feel constrained by traditional mores about sex being an intimate act between two and only two people. That's not to say you HAVE to figure that one out. Not every detail of our psyches "needs" to be explored in order to be healthy individuals. But if you find this desire is growing - if it's keeping you from anything else in your life, or otherwise somehow interfering with day-to-day living, if it keeps you from seeking other kinds of relationships, or whatever - then it's more likely to be something that you should discuss.

I assume you posted this because you think "marxist/socialist/communist ideas" have permeated the left and this is supposed to be a warning about leftism. You have it exactly wrong. Completely and entirely wrong. It would be an outstandingly funny example of the pot calling the kettle black, if the topic weren't so serious. Bezmenov was warning about Soviet infiltration of American ideas, and the biggest example of that is Donald Trump. Russian (that is, the successor to Sovietism, headed by an autocrat who was right at home in the old Soviet system) interference stoking division in America on behalf of Donald Trump has been well documented - not just by our intelligence agencies, not just by the special counsel, but even by the REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Bezmenov's real message wasn't about capitalism vs. Marxism, or capitalism vs. socialism, or capitalism vs. anything else. It was about Soviet disinformation campaigns - convincing people to believe things that were not true, such that even factual information would fail to penetrate the "shell" people built up around their beliefs. He used the term "demoralization" - convince enough people that they couldn't trust authoritative sources like the media any more, and then they were ripe for manipulation. "As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell him nothing, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization." - that was Bezemov in 1983. Fast forward to 2015-16, and what do we have? A sophisticated demoralization campaign on behalf of Trump spread by Russia, and one Trump's campaign, wittingly or not, echoed loudly. By denouncing the (very accurate) news media as "fake news" and insisting that he was the only one you could believe, Trump echoed the Russian message of dividing the US and rode that to an exceptionally narrow victory in the electoral college even while losing the popular vote by a huge margin. And he's never stopped; if anything, the rhetoric has gotten worse, and the lies and disinformation bigger. He insisted, against photographic evidence, that his inaugural crowd was the biggest in history, and dared people to contradict his word with the evidence of their own eyes. And too many morons, already invested in his lies, chose then and afterward to believe him over massive evidence that he lies incessantly. I can understand how people can have been swayed by the disinformation. But how anyone can take a warning about Soviet/Russian disinformation, like Bezemov's, seriously and then STILL support Donald Trump is a mystery.

Only to a degree. First cousin marriages in European royalty weren't all that common. Second cousins, yes, more common. And of course, after generations of cross-marrying, many European royals could trace a relationship to another royal through multiple bloodlines. For instance, the Tsarevich Alexei, the only son of the last Tsar of Russia, was related in several ways to George VI, Queen Elizabeth's father (they were of the same generation). Both were great-grandchildren of Queen Victoria (George through his father George V and grandfather Edward VIII; Alexei through his mother Alexandra and grandmother Princess Alice). They were also both great-grandchildren of King Christian IX of Denmark, whose daughter Dagmar married Nicholas's father Alexander III and whose daughter Alexandra married Edward VIII. Christian IX also had a son, George, who became King of Greece and married the daughter of Tsar Alexander II; their son Andrew married Princess Alice of Battenberg, one of Victoria's great-granddaughters, and they were parents to Prince Philip, who is Queen Elizabeth's husband. So their children can trace roots back in the English, Danish, and Russian royal families, as well as the German line through which Victoria herself descended. And many of those lines go back, via different routes, to the same people. But that's basically a pre-WWI phenomenon. So many royal families were deposed and stripped of their status in the aftermath of the Great War that most royal houses started allowing children to marry commoners - mostly noble commoners, but commoners nonetheless. Elizabeth's mother (the one we knew as Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother) was the first commoner (the daughter of an earl) to marry directly into the line of succession. Philip was born a prince of Greece, but that royal family had been deposed after WWI as well (he was made a prince of Great Britain immediately prior to his marriage to Elizabeth. Diana was a commoner (the daughter of an earl) when she married Prince Charles, and since then, British royal spouses have basically been just plain commoners without even noble backgrounds. It's largely the same for the handful of other royal houses of Europe, most of whom are descendants of Victoria's many daughters being married into those other families. By now, those families are very, very genetically diverse.

It does not. This has been widely discussed elsewhere in the forum; because of links to spam sites, etc., you can post the URL to a site, but it won't be clickable, and if you try to insert an embedded link, you only get the title, not the URL.

I would echo most of what ErosWired wrote, above. First, ascertain what your legal options are, and yes, you may have to consult with an attorney where you live. It may be that you simply can't get rid of him at this point; it may be that you can't get rid of him for a set period. It may be that you can't raise his rent if you have an agreement in place about that, written or otherwise. And the less of it that's written down, the more that may be subject to the legal "defaults" in your area - which can lean very pro-tenant or very pro-landlord, depending on the governing philosophy in your jurisdiction. The bigger question, though, as ErosWired notes, is the ethical/moral issue of turning someone out who has few resources to go somewhere else. You might be legally allowed to give the guy 30 days' notice and expect him to be gone then (that would be the case where I live, assuming he doesn't have a written longer-term lease). But you might also be a real shit for doing so, depending on his circumstances. Without more background - all those questions others above me here have posted - there's no clear 'right' answer. But one way to look at it is: if I were in his exact position, and I were frustrating my landlord, what would I want him to do with regards to me, and what would I be willing to do in order to heal this breach? Walk a mile in his shoes and see what you come up with.

That's good in theory, but not always practical. There are places where notes/rents are so high that even two jobs full-time isn't enough to cover the cost. We don't know where the OP lives, but that is a potential factor. Secondly, that's a great theory if you're starting from scratch. But as several have noted, the guy already lives there, and whether the guy is subleasing from the OP who is himself leasing, or whether he's leasing part of a place the OP owns , many jurisdictions have fairly strict laws on lessor/lessee obligations. Many others have passed Covid-period restrictions on evictions. So simply declaring that "living alone [is the] only way to go" is not exactly helpful advice for this particular situation.

I think that would come as a distinct surprise to the owners/developers/staff of several such sites. For instance, barebackrt.com. Their logo carries the slogan "Bareback Real Time Sex". The site's motto, appearing right at the top of every page on the site, says "Meet Real Men Online for Realtime Bareback Sex". That doesn't mean every single person who's signed on there is looking strictly for sex, right this minute. It does mean that the primary purpose of the site is for members interested in sex to hook up with each other. That is, I'm willing to take the site's own word for it.

A quick look at his profile shows he's "liked" posts from others here as recently as a few hours ago, and his last actual post was earlier this month. Presumably he's okay.

Yes, there are. If I don't log on A4A for a few days, the messages dry up completely. Then I log in to check mail, and within minutes I'm getting hits from either hidden distances (with no location listed) or 4K-6K miles away. And like you note, they seem to be studio pics and their profiles always talk about how they're seeking true love and all that bullshit. A related problem occurs, to a lesser extent, on Growlr periodically. I'll open the app, and apparently some bot(s) somewhere that are snagging "new" sign-ins start sending messages that are clearly just links/ads for (probably virus-laden) porn sites. My guess is that those spammers pay for accounts (so they can appear "premium" status) and the sites figure the revenue from them is worth pissing off a bunch of (mostly non-paying) members. They certainly don't seem to be interested in plugging whatever leak there is on the server end that allows these spammers to automate their work.

This is more of an advisory to RawTop and/or the moderators as I'm guessing this is something just inherently unworkable in the forum software. I can choose to ignore user X and have it hide pretty much everything that user posts. But if another user "quotes" that ignored X person, it's all visible in the quoted reply (the poster's name, all of what was said, etc.). I'm sure it's because the software doesn't "track" that the quoting reply links back to an ignored user; it simply inserts the quoted text and author's name into a new post, and if the quoting person isn't also ignored, then it's all visible. I can conceive, programmatically, how that could be fixed, but I doubt it would be high-enough priority for the forum software developers to do the work.

Perfectly and concisely put. Of course, there are some people who will come along and say "You aren't ENTITLED to not experience dickishness, so stop being a snowflake!" It's as though those people never grew out of third grade where the response "YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!" is the most commonly uttered set of words in the English language. Oddly, those same people who demand the right to blurt out racist things are the most offended when someone else accurately pegs them as a racist. Sometimes it seems to me that the "No X Y or Z" people are offended by the idea that they might have to take the initiative to say no, directly, to someone. They'd rather put up a dickish declaration of what they don't want, in their profiles, than be obliged to directly say "no thank you" to someone in whom they have no interest. Talk about snowflakes.

Just to be clear: I have no personal opinion on whether anyone else's sex should be fun for one party or both - that's the call of the parties involved. I just find it helpful to point out contradictions in arguments and gaps in logic. I might (or might not) tend to agree with NLbear for my own life, but that's not to say it's the only valid path.