BootmanLA

You are probably right (most of the time). But there's just enough possibility that it's true, that some people will take that leap of faith. If the guy isn't coming from the other side of New Zealand, I ask what's the gas station closest to him where he can fill up, and offer to meet him there with my gas card. If there's any hesitation - he doesn't need gas, he wants money. There's no much any of us can do about this kind of guy. But I'll come back to this guy in a moment. That's why I would never set up any sort of major planned activity (whoring out, gang-bang, whatever) with a stranger, no matter how how that may be. Because you have no way to judge the sincerity or honesty of strangers online, and that applies not just to people on the spectrum, but to pretty much anyone. Which brings me back to the flaking guy. Again, I get how hot it can be to talk with some stranger who wants to fuck you RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, and how eager you must feel to jump into it. But this is exactly why I always meet guys in a non-sexual context first. If a guy says he wants to fuck me on a moment's notice, I'm a lot more likely to believe him if he showed up once before for a non-sexual meet-up and was willing to invest even a small amount of time proving himself. Of course, that means he's not a stranger any more. But that's the entire problem: strangers are much, much more likely to screw you over than someone you've actually met and talked with (and possibly exchanged contact info with).

Harnesses are like men's morning coats - a specialized type of wear that most men will never have need for, but which will look great on many more; when it's expected, it can't really be replaced by anything else, but there are other times when you just look silly in it, such as at the grocer's.

Here's where I perceive at least some difference, Ranger Rick. The original post asked about "thug used as synonymous with large muscular hung black male. " Synonymous has a specific meaning - that the two terms are equivalent, ie all thugs are large muscular hung black males, and vice versa. That's what a synonym is. Not all white guys from rural areas are rednecks (and not all rednecks are from rural areas, and it's at least debatable whether all rednecks are white). I wouldn't use the term redneck for *all* rural white guys, and I'd call out someone who treated the two as synonyms, but I think the term can have some use. I'd also point out: when the term thug is applied to black men, it's usually (in my experience) casting him as a criminal or criminal-adjacent, at least, and often to suggest that "thugs" need to be locked up away from decent people. Given this country's long, storied history of racism being used to marginalize black men, painting them as uniquely dangerous and in need of "control", I'm a lot more squeamish about the use of that term than I am about "redneck" - one which many of those to whom it's applied thinking it's a term of pride, and none of whom are subject to the kind of institutional oppression so-called "thugs" are.

I respectfully disagree. If I'm looking for a potential sex partner in a given geographical area, if there are no filters (since I'm already limiting to the area) then there's no advantage whatsoever to using the app over walking down the street. Worse, because at least on the street (or in a bar) I can observe potential hookups and gauge my response to them. Whether I'm looking for a guy who's tall enough to make me feel small, or small enough I could pick him up in my arms; whether he's the shy quiet type that catches my eye or a fun-loving extrovert who intrigues me because he seems enthusiastic - I can at least see those things in person that I can't see looking at thumbnail pictures. Eliminating filters suggests that nobody's preferences for anything - height, weight, hairiness, preferred role(s), whatever - are valid, and you're therefore obligated to give every single profile a shot hoping there may or may not be a match. If this is how Squirt wants to differentiate itself in the marketplace, I suspect it'll be a spectacular failure. That doesn't mean I think guys who will only have sex with (for instance) guys who are +/- 3 years of their own age, at least 2" taller, dark-haired, smooth, muscular, and a versatile top shouldn't open themselves up to other possibilities. I think they'd be surprised at what they find and like. But I seriously doubt trying to impose that behavior by eliminating filters is going to work as a market strategy.

I am not sure this is anything new. "Trust me, I'll pull out in time" goes way back in the hetero world. "You're my first" does too. So does "I usually don't do this with guys I don't know well, but...". Men have been willing to lie to get sex probably since language was invented.

I would simply tell him - Your actual current status doesn't bother me, but I'd like to know which is correct. That is, assuming you don't mind one way or the other. That's not going to provide proof either way, of course; it simply allows him to come clean, if he wants, and let you know whether one is outdated, or he's trying to attract different kinds of guys with the two profiles, or whatever. Ultimately, "verify" is a kind of useless term in this situation, unless you have real-time access to his medical records and can see (for instance, a blood test from two or three days ago. Which is, shall we say, unlikely. As for offending him: Well, he's the one with conflicting information. Asking if one's out of date gives him an out, if he wants to cover for one of them being a lie. If he's still offended after you give him that opportunity, well, you can't please everyone.

Will do. That's what I figured, but wanted to be sure before I started bulk-reporting what I perceived to be misplaced stuff. I'm sure some significant portion will be deemed "OK" just as they are, and no skin off my back if that happens.

This is a clarification question. Assume a user comes across a posting in a forum that clearly belongs somewhere else. If it's a new posting, it's easy to report that post to the moderators with a suggestion that it be moved, and perhaps even a broad suggestion which forum. What if it's a topic that's clearly in the wrong place but nobody's grasped that it's a bad fit where it is? For example, the HIV/AIDS and Sexual Health forum is supposed to be health-issues related. It has a sub-forum called "Making the Decision to Bareback" which carries the specific caveat "Even discussion of bug chasing is OK provided it's thoughtful and serious." Should the user report the first posting, even if that post is possibly tangentially vaguely related to the topic, but asking a question in such a way as to guarantee the discussion quickly devolves into raunch? Here's a partial list of topics in that sub-forum visible tonight on the first couple of pages of threads: --Did you allowed "repugnant" tops to cum deep inside you? --Bottom should accept poz loads? --Relationships --white dicks treats me good --Reconnecting with old fb --What Does It Feel Like To Be Gangbanged? --Douching never successful! I see no relationship between any of these topics and the stated forum purpose of "Making the Decision to Bareback". I have no objections to the content, but it's like books that have been misshelved at the library or bookstore (for the youngsters out there, these are buildings where you can go and actually borrow or buy a physical book, which is a bunch of words printed onto paper, without downloading them to a tablet or Kindle). This is just one sub-forum example, but it stands out to me because it's all crammed into a spot that's OSTENSIBLY about serious sexual health discussions. It would be nice to have a place where those can be had and you don't have to sort through 11 pages of people rhapsodizing about what filthy cumdumps they are that they will take loads from drug-addicted homeless people to prove their lack of worth. I don't mind, as one of the moderators once phrased it, "being that guy" - reporting shit left and right to help get the place cleaned up. But I want to know that's the proper way to do it.

Make up a name for it. Like about 3/4 of the supposed hanky code colors, nobody actually uses all those names for exotic (to some people) sex positions. It's not competitive figure skating. It's fucking. Just fuck however you like and enjoy it.

The point is, behavior can be rude even if a person is not "entitled" to not experience that behavior. I'm not "entitled" to walk down the sidewalk and not be accosted by tweaking druggie PNP assholes who are tripping. They're still rude to do it. I'm not "entitled" to be able to read in peace and quiet in a coffeeshop. It's still rude for another customer to walk in and turn on a portable speaker loud enough to drown out even quiet convesation for a four-table radius. I'm not "entitled" to a forum thread that stays on topic. It's still rude for someone to come along and reframe the topic so he can pretend to be "above" a behavior that wasn't even under discussion.

NOBODY said anything about "entitled" to a response. Obviously nobody is. There's no obligation imposed. The question was about whether it's RUDE to not respond, which is an entirely different thing. I think it's rude for people to reinterpret and rephrase someone else's question in order to make an unrelated point just so that they feel superior to the original poster. Just don't answer the question if you don't feel like it pertains to you as posted. In other words, "just move on".

Yep, I was right, the Trumpanzees are becoming incoherently ranting nutcases. They prove my point daily.

ErosWired - To answer as best I can: I definitely consider the "main" question at the top to be one of those that starts out with a lot of assumptions. One could argue it only is meant to be answered by people who think "fag" is the proper way to refer to themselves - in which case I can just skip over it, because I don't self-identify that way at all; and in fact, I seldom can stomach being in the same room as people who do, so from that perspective I should just skip the topic entirely. But it can also be read as a challenge - calling ALL of us "fags" and assuming we chose, in some fashion (as you outline possibilities) to be one. I try to avoid that interpretation because I don't want the thread to become a long argument over how people self-identify. There are plenty of those "assuming" threads, such as "Do you regret having a loose ass?" (instead of "If you have a loose ass, do you regret it?"). Or "Bitch, Fag, Slave, or Object: what are you or what do you like?", as though those are the only possible options. They're not that far removed from the "Should" topics that I also steer clear of, as you note. So no, it's not necessarily vapid. I just think it, like many others here, start out with an assumption about its audience that perhaps should be made clearer. Or perhaps even better, put in a section of its own, so the self-flagellators whose every enjoyment is derived from thinking of themselves as the lowest of the low (and which thus spills over into EVERY freaking post they make, somehow) could have a place of their own to root around in like the happy little pigs they are/want to be. And then those who want to discuss topics without every other reply being a tiresome variant of "As a scum-sucking bottom-feeding worthless whore whose only role is to please SUPERIOR men..." even if the question is something like "Is it presumptive to leave a fresh toothbrush in its package on the counter in case you have an overnight guest?"

Some nameless people sound increasingly desperate that their insistence on false narratives - that Democrats are imploding, that Trump is wildly popular, that he's going to sweep to an unprecedented victory in November - is not, shall we say, catching fire. But then when you barely skate into the presidency via the electoral college despite losing the popular vote by millions, and when polls show less than 85% of the people who voted for you last time are planning to do so again, and when you've done absolutely nothing whatsoever to grow your base beyond its racist underpinnings, I suspect there's not really much more you CAN do than sound increasingly desperate. And when you start making noises about delaying the election - the kind of thing dictators in failed nation-states do, to maintain power - and even your own party says "Sit down and shut up, asshole, the election is set by law and you have no power to alter it", then expect those desperate bleatings of Hair Furor to increase in number and volume - along with those of his white supremacist trash base.

I was about to ask what this has to do with politics, but yes, if it's bought to wear to protest rallies, by all means.

Agreed as to both possibilities. Both represent people I have no interest in interacting with, whatsoever.

No worries - I know there are some people who think it's polite (not including you there) but that's one of the few hills I'll die on. When it's a bot, I like to respond anyway, with nonsensical answers, just to see if I can make the bot break. I'm easily amused sometimes.

That, too, is possible. I'll never give in on "no response" being a polite way to show non-interest (polite interest deserves polite response, not polite ignoring), but you are onto something with the "I might be desperate enough sometimes so I'm not going to turn him down outright". If so, the joke's on them, because I'm not getting out of the house at 215 for anyone and ain't no stranger coming in here at that hour either.

This is most likely how it happened, but it's possible (just barely) that the information was better protected than that. If I were designing a reporting system to try to maximize confidentiality, here's what I'd do. I'd contact the admins of every hook-up type app/site I could find out there, and ask them to develop a means of securely entering a list of user names from their site, for the purposes of sending them such a notification. Obviously, there would need to be updates as new sites and apps are developed. In turn, when interviewing patients who'd possibly exposed others, I'd ask them for whatever contact info they had - site and screen name, if nothing else, on paper. Then I'd go to that site, use whatever means they'd devised to submit names, and then destroy the paper copy. Voila - nothing to hack, except the hookup app/site you used, which already has your contact info anyway. Have they actually done all this, to safely anonymize the notifications? probably not. But it is feasible to do, with trustworthy people.

Could be lots of reasons. Sometimes, it doesn't go well - "It's because I'm X, isn't it? You Y's are all alike" and then the turner-down has to defend that he's not anti-X, which drags out the interaction. So to avoid the possibility of that kind of reaction, they just say nothing at all. Also: if you are anything less than 100% adamant that you're not interested, there's a population of folks who treat that as a challenge, to get you to say yes instead. Women face this kind of thing all the time from straight men, only they're socialized (or at least used to be/some still are) to give in, to give the guy a chance, blah blah blah. Straightforward, honest answers work better, as you know, but not everyone is comfortable giving them, and lots of others are willing to exploit that.

Correct. That's about the only way such a thing could happen. Otherwise, HAART (the kind of treatment poz people receive to get their virus levels down to undetectable) is effective long-term. As long as you're not being reinfected with a new AND far more aggressive strain of HIV, your existing meds should protect against that kind of boost in your HIV levels, assuming the undetectable guy is diligent in taking his meds.

You and I are both old, but that doesn't mean it isn't rude. My rule of thumb: anyone who contacts me politely - and I don't mean obsequiously polite, just not one-word messages like "lookin?" - gets a polite response back, Even generic, canned approaches (woofs, oinks, grunts, growls, whatever the site provides) get, at a minimum, a "Thank you, that's kind of you" response. If the person persists, I try to stay polite even if I'm not interested, but I try to be clear as soon as possible if there's no interest. (If I'm interested, I'll say something more specific, like "Thanks, and back at you, handsome!" and hope it leads somewhere, even if it's a friendship.) The one-word "lookin?" crap, etc.? No, I don't reply to those, although if someone else wants to, that's not my business. It's not that I'm better than anyone else, it's just not how I want to be approached online. My sense of things is that there's an entire generation of people out there who are so conflict-avoidant that they don't want to have to say "no thank you" to anyone. It's especially rude when they post it outright in their profile that "I get lots of messages and I can't always reply in person to turn each of you down". That's the kind of egotistical asshole who, if he DID approach me, I'd gladly turn down and tell him why.

Again - it's true that U=U, but who's to say that a person claiming to be UD is actually UD and taking his meds the way he's supposed to? A person can lie about being negative, about being positive, about being undetectable, about being on meds, about being on PrEP - and I'm not going to suggest lying is any more or less common among any one of those groups. But to correct your point: if you want to bareback and stay negative, your safest play is to get on PrEP yourself and stay on it religiously. That's significantly safer than relying on someone else to tell you the truth about being undetectable.

Not necessarily. With the advent of PrEP, there are an increasing number of guys who will frequent a BB site like BBRT, so they're not all Poz, undetectable, or unknown. Of course, it's always a crap shoot to some extent, given how many people lie about the least little thing. But a guy could lie about being Poz (to lure in guys who want to be converted) just a guy could lie about being UD, or on PrEP.