BootmanLA

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.

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.