BootmanLA

I'd also note: this is the HIV/AIDS and sexual health forum, not the "what's the true role of a slutty cumdump" forum. It seems to me given how broad an area BZ is and provides for sexually charged postings and indulgence in fantasy chat about how truly degraded one can be, perhaps this small corner of the forum - dedicated to factual discussion of health-related concerns and issues - could be left free of the "if u r a true cumdump u should accept all loads and stds as a badge of honor" crapola.

That's certainly a start. But it's certainly not sufficient. It's quite possible to get an STI through a single act of unprotected sex with someone you know well and respect - if that person has an STI and is in an infectious state. The only way to ensure you never catch an STI is to not have sex, period. Anything short of that only reduces - not eliminates - your chances of contracting one. There are STI's you can catch despite both partners wearing a condom and being on PrEP (though, obviously, if both partners follow both those rules, HIV transmission is essentially impossible).

You assume that offense has to be intentional. I'm quite sure that a lot of really nasty racist comments are made NOT with the intention of being offensive, but just because the person making them has an offensive perspective and just blurts out what's on his mind. When one of my male redneck cousins asked me, at my grandmother's funeral, who I thought "the n-words" were going to vote for that year for governor, it wasn't that he was trying to be offensive; he just was saying what was on his mind and it was an offensive thought. As for your comment with the wife and the underwear: The problem there isn't that she wanted to be a victim; it's that she had one standard for cleanliness and he had another. Whose is correct isn't an answerable question, because there's no inherent "right" or "wrong" there. Advice columnist Dan Savage coined the term "price of admission" for relationships; we're all entitled to set certain terms as the price of being in a relationship with us, and other people are entitled to choose whether they're willing to pay that price. For instance, I won't be in a relationship with a cigarette smoker. And I'd end any relationship with someone who took up that habit. It's not that cigarette smoking is definitively bad or good, moral or immoral, or whatever; I've just drawn a line there, and I'm entitled to make that my line. For the wife, part of the price of admission was him keeping his dirty underwear off the floor. That was a price he was unwilling to pay. The problem wasn't her wanting to "be a victim"; the problem was a mismatch as to what each expected in the relationship.

Here's where I see a huge gaping flaw in your argument. You say you are "just here for their pleasure." So, if it pleases them to watch you cum, you should allow them to make you cum. If it pleases them to keep fucking you even if you're not horny any longer, then you should allow them to keep going. If it pleases them to fuck your hole after it tightens up, then you let them continue to fuck you after you tighten up. You give the game away in your last point in #3: "it's tough to enjoy dick". Well, tough. If the point is to please the top, then what YOU enjoy isn't that important, is it? Now, a more balanced, rational approach would discard your initial premise that you are "just here for their pleasure". It's clear, based on your other comments, that you expect it to be about pleasure for BOTH of you - and there's nothing wrong with that! Stop trying to live up to some fantasy image of "just" being used for their pleasure, and acknowledge you enjoy the sex as well, and want both of you to get something out of it. Radical concept, I know.

I hate to bring this up, but if someone's routinely having unprotected sex, "all sorts of sti's that [you] don't want" are kind of an occupational hazard. The idea that you can *expect* anything a guy fills out on a hookup profile to be accurate and completely honest seems - what is the right word? Naive? Silly? Ill-advised? People are going to do everything from outright lie (ie claiming to be negative when they're undetectable), to fudge the truth (saying they weigh 170 lbs when that's only if you discount both legs), to bluff (claiming to be negative when their last test was sometime in the 20th century). Now, it may be that the *odds* are, *most* people are *mostly* telling the truth, but to extrapolate from that anything specific about a particular person is a fool's errand.

Personally I think an equal or larger problem is that nowadays some people feel so entitled to be assholes to others in public forgetting that the world out there doesn't always approve of assholes. Trying to force the entire world around oneself to accept one's assholity so that one never feels constrained to hold back any thought, no matter how rude or obnoxious, makes no sense because that will never happen. It's best to learn how to deal with the fact that living in a society means, to at least some degree, accepting the limits that society expects. In other words: Sure, a person can say racist things. He just shouldn't expect not to be called out on them, if he does. And he shouldn't whine about "emotional safe spaces", which makes him sound like the snowflake he's allegedly protesting.

THIS. I'm as in favor of a healthy fantasy/masturbatory-inspirational life as anyone, but I recognize that it has its place. And that place does not - per the site owner/management, not me - does not include the entirety of BZ.

What matters is: Assuming you are negative, do you want to risk becoming Poz? If not, don't take loads from strangers until you're on PrEP and you've waited the appropriate amount of time for it to kick in, whatever the prescriber tells you. If you don't care whether or not you become poz, then it doesn't particularly matter whether his "knock you up" talk is code for pozzing you or just hot chat. In other words: Don't listen to what he's saying. Do what YOU need to do to protect yourself, if you want to stay negative. Relying on someone's claiming to be negative is about as stupid as it comes, because he could be mistaken, or he could be lying. Your fate's in your own hands.

Except that the widely used acronym is "BBC" and not "BC". The very existence of a widely recognized acronym that has EVERYTHING to do with ethnicity/race kind of flies in the face of that assertion. Yes, it's true that there is a broader preference (among at least a notably-sized portion of the gay community) for large-sized cocks. But the fact that big is popular doesn't render the term "BBC" race-neutral.

We clearly don't "all" love it, nor does everyone who does like it somewhat enjoy it to the same degree. You're free, as someone suggested, to look at men as nothing but transportational assistance and life support for a penis, or to look at yourself as nothing but a hole for penises to unload in. Just don't be surprised that not everyone shares your outlook. Hopefully you make that belief system clear in public profiles, etc. so that anyone who might want even a little more than that knows better.

This, exactly. It's why I hate the term "BBC" - often used as a shortcut to refer to the entire man. "A BBC came over yesterday and bred my hole". I always want to ask if it rolled itself the entire way or did someone put it in an Uber for delivery to you.

I dunno, maybe, people who have attention spans longer than four seconds? "Next" buttons and scroll bars exist precisely so that people can skip over things they don't want to read. What I don't understand is people who aren't satisfied with controlling how much information they themselves take in, but want to limit the opportunities for others to do more.

It's up to you if you want to call a moderator a name, but that's the fastest way I know, on almost any website (adult or not, general interest or specialized), to get yourself banned permanently. Moderators are volunteers, on most sites, and at most they may get free "premium" access on sites that charge for higher levels of service. This site is free, so they aren't even getting that. They're hard to recruit and give of their free time to help improve the site, and site owners do not appreciate having their staff publicly denigrated. If you have a problem with the action taken by a particular moderator, by all means message the site owner and ask for an appeal. (I will say this - when a member is under a ban here, they can't message the site owner, and there's no easily visible way to reach him OTHER than by message here, so it's hard to appeal a lengthy ban on a timely basis. Perhaps some thought could be given to outlining an official appeals process that works OUTSIDE the regular member message system, so that a banned member can appeal and perhaps get his suspension shortened or lifted.) I've had disagreements with moderators before, including here, but it needs to be handled behind the scenes instead of publicly on the message boards. Even when I vehemently disagree with my treatment compared with other members, for instance, I see no reason to make that a public spectacle.

Undoubtedly, yes, though it's fair to remember that the Christian Bible mentions at least three offspring of Adam and Eve (Cain, Abel, and Seth), and Adam is noted as siring additional children (because it's the patriarchy, Eve isn't mentioned after that initial wave). That said, the bible never says anything about everyone in the world being descended from Adam and Eve; the people who are meant to read the Old Testament (aka the Jewish people) may be, but the book could be silent about God creating other people elsewhere/later (for instance, for Cain to procreate with, away from the line established in the OT). All those other non-Jewish tribes had to come from somewhere. So it's *possible* one or more females from subsequent creations were introduced to the line founded by Adam and Eve (ie Seth or his other siblings).

The one in this list I have trouble with, from a consent perspective, is "boss and employee". It's possible, yes, to have such a situation if both parties truly are eager AND there aren't other employees similarly situated to either of the couple. After all, there are husband-and-wife teams who run family businesses. But when A is dependent on B for his livelihood, can he really give full consent without any sense of coercion, knowing that there's a possibility of a job loss or bad reviews or whatever if he turns the boss down, or worse, dates and then breaks up? And if there are other employees: what happens with both A and B are expected to do particular work, but A is sleeping with the boss? If A gets shown any favoritism, B's going to resent it, If there are people above the boss, they're going to hear about it. It's a huge minefield - not necessarily for the tah-boo factor, for the fair employment factor.

Nothing's wrong with the statement. I look forward to the day when a Republican actually proposes something that would in fact accomplish that goal and not enrich our Grifter-in-Chief. Nothing's wrong with being a patriot, either. I look forward to the day when it's a term that can accurately be used to describe Republicans. Nothing's wrong with wanting America to succeed. Some of us just don't believe you show love for country by blowing a multi-trillion dollar hole in the budget to give ginormous tax breaks to the 0.01% top wealthiest people in the country so they can buy a seventh vacation home. Some of us don't believe you show love for country by deliberately expanding our poisoning of the environment. Some of us don't believe you show love for country by setting out to cripple the United States Postal Service deliberately, in order to ensure voting by mail this fall is screwed up beyond repair. Some of us don't believe you show love for country by steering millions of taxpayer dollars to the private companies owned by the president. In other words, we want the same things you claim to. We just know you'll never be able to produce them with Hair Furor in office.

It's also possible the guy in the picture was indeed in several porn films, and he may not be the individual you're talking with.

Given the mechanics of gay sex and HIV infection, I'd imagine it's extremely difficult (ie close to impossible) for a top on PrEP to become HIV positive fucking a poz person, and if the bottom is undetectable, I'd say the odds are for all practical purposes zero. With a detectable bottom, the odds would shift a bit. If a bottom has a high viral load, and the top fucks him roughly enough (or he's large enough) that the bottom bleeds, that opens a source of infection. And if the top has, say, any abrasion on his cock through which blood might enter, it's *possible* that even on PrEP he might get infected, but that's conjecture based on direct blood-to-blood transfer being potentially harder to stop. But that's a convoluted scenario that I think would seldom occur in real life.

Not to mention that on this side of the Atlantic, at least, we've never actually had the extended lockdown period that would be needed to achieve a long-term shift in anything. Individual places have had more-or-less strict closures, and certainly *some* individuals are having less sex, but I suspect most of those are the ones who would have been being responsible in the first place, with regular testing and avoiding play while they were aware of being infectious for anything. Meanwhile plenty of people I know are willing to break "quarantine" (not that it's actually quarantine) in order to get laid.

I take your point on that, but I'd (politely, I hope) suggest that there are almost certainly people who've figured out how to game the system to some degree. For instance: if the number of posts is a factor, the people who respond "So fucking hot!" to every chapter of every story posted in the fiction sections are racking up "post points" by contributing almost nothing to the system. And then the author of the post "likes" all those comments, which gives each of them whatever level of points for posting material that attracts likes. Multiply that by the number of fiction sections on here - general, bug chasing, chem sex, trans, etc. - and the path to higher levels is a lot easier for, say, someone who doesn't really care about all those tales but is willing to pretend to do so for the points. At least, that's how it would appear from the outside. Maybe there are secret algorithms that somehow discount short postings like those. That's not to suggest I have a better idea, partly because I'm not privy to those inner workings (nor do I need to be). I'm just suggesting that the system isn't likely all that game-proof.

I don't know how much this had to do with it, but as I recall, Manhunt ran into some serious PR problems when it came out that one of its principal owners (the founder? details escape my memory at this point) was a big GOP donor/fundraiser. This would have been around the time of the Obama-McCain race in 2008, so long before the battles over same-sex marriage were won in our favor, and not long after the GOP had started winning elections based on demonizing same-sex relationships as leading to the downfall of the country. The idea of giving our money to a company that enriched a man working against our basic civil rights caused, to put it bluntly, a shitstorm of bad publicity. There was considerable backlash and in a lot of progressive parts of the country, the site was abandoned in droves. Add in the shift to GPS-based apps on smart phones in the same time frame and I think that's what spelled doom for Manhunt.

Spitballing here, but I'm guessing that most tops' cocks aren't as sensitive to that sort of thing as, say, their fingers might be. Not that cocks (and especially cock heads) aren't sensitive places, but the human brain isn't used to interpreting the sensations one might get there in great subtlety.

I often say that "should" is the most useless word in the English language, at least as used in so many topics here ("should x type of person do y"). But "normal" is a close second in many respects. It's pointless to approach this from the perspective of what's normal, or as some would phrase it, "natural". There's nothing "normal" or "natural" about using a toilet, for instance, and yet we as a society have reached the point where squatting in the backyard or a corner of our houses and pooping on the floor is not exactly acceptable behavior. Instead, look at "what is". You're a person and you have certain desires and feelings. It's good that you recognize them. You don't mention whether you currently have a significant other or partner, but look at your options based on each situation. If you're single and have no partner: congratulations, you've eliminated one significant concern in making your decision as to how to proceed. Now you just have to decide whether this is something you want to explore, and if so, how and when? Is it imperative you start now, even with Covid-19 spreading rampantly in some countries? (You don't mention where you're from in your profile, so I'm assuming for now you're not somewhere that it's been almost totally contained.) Is it something you can wait to explore until after Covid, whenever that might be? Once you do start to explore it, understand you aren't obligated to continue that path forever, if you don't find it satisfying. Know that some people who know you during that phase of your life will forever see you as "that slut", but that's more reflective of themselves and their thought patterns than of you. Understand that you can get on PrEP if you're not already, assuming you have affordable access to it; also understand that it may protect you against HIV but not against any other sexually transmitted infection, some of which, like herpes, are incurable. Only you can decide how much weight to put on each of those factors in deciding what behavior is OK for you. (And remember that anyone who urges you to "let go" and "release your inner slut" is not going to be the one writing the checks to pay for any health care you need as a result, nor are they likely to be around if some potential consequences of that behavior end up sending you into depression. That gets back to the uselessness of "should" - it's always other people telling you what you "should" do that's useless. Now, if you DO have a partner: this becomes more difficult because you have to involve him in your decision, either in figuring out what you want, or in letting him know after you decide, so he can make an informed decision about your relationship. Some guys will be excited that you want to indulge this kind of thing; others will be disgusted. If yours is one of the latter, it's not fair to him to hide your decision and keep seeing him while pursuing all this outside sex; he's entitled to honesty. And if he breaks things off with you over it, you're back to step one. Lastly, if you pursue this, understand that any future potential partner may also have an opinion on whether he's willing to get involved with someone like you. You may at some point decide you've had enough of this, and you miss/prefer the comfort of an ongoing relationship even if it means giving up being a slut. Or you may find a guy who is happy to have you indulge that side of you as long as you come home at night, and he may himself do his share of slutting around. But in any event: "normal" is a useless way to look at things. You have feelings. Don't worry about whether they're normal; worry about whether or not you're willing to give up whatever you might have to, in order to indulge those feelings. Then proceed accordingly, understanding you made an informed choice you can't blame anyone else for.

How widespread? I'd say fairly, but not an order of magnitude more than the average lying on other social-interaction (date/hookup) apps & websites. One of the things about BBRTS working in its favor, for honesty, is that it's a place that's unashamedly about bareback sex, whether that's on PrEP, with someone undetectable, with sero-sorting, or just not caring one way or the other. Virtually every other site out there pushes (at least as an option) condom sex, either as a searchable characteristic or via ads and "sexual health" promotional information, etc. By being honest that it expects its members to be at least willing to engage in bareback sex, it should (in theory) encourage more honest discussions about that behavior. As for how we got to the point where expecting that people can lie is a new norm: well, as I note, I've been expecting that people will lie about many things, since my early days as a young gayling back in the late 70's. I learned guys will lie to you about being single, they'll lie to you about their stats, they'll lie to you about their substance habits, they'll lie to you about anything that they think may paint them in a less-than-flattering light. Not all guys, certainly. Probably not even most. But enough that I never assume people are telling the truth about anything that's not immediately verifiable, until I have a better idea of how trustworthy an individual is. And as someone on the spectrum, I recognize you may have more difficulty with that last than some other folks even when you have ready access to the same observations and information, and in pure online hookup culture, you may not have any access to those observations for a stranger. That's not to suggest it's good behavior, to say you're going to show up for something and then not, but...

Of course we're not talking about the same population of men here. That's my point. If you want people who are going to be true to their word and do what they say, you're less likely (much less, in my opinion, but that's just my opinion) to find that reliably among guys who are solely hunting for a hole to dump in. There are too many other options that may present themselves along the way and once he's done, he's done. That's not being judgmental of either quickie tops or cumdump bottoms. I'm saying it's part of the quickie culture that reliability pretty much goes by the wayside.