BootmanLA

Playing Devil's Advocate here: is it possible that something else triggered the warning to you? You mention you'd "just" paid for a membership renewal. Could it be that something on their server end is set to that if a membership is renewed and it contains a banned word, that triggers the block you encountered? I noticed looking just now that there are now only 15 accounts with "wired" in the name, and most are non-paying members, so it could be that for whatever reason, BBRT decided to implement the policy on renewals going forward. That's not to defend the policy itself, which is kind of ham-handed. And lord knows that (without seeing the emails from you to them, and their actual responses, but assuming you've characterized them fairly) they could have handled things with you much, much more professionally. And I say that knowing how I can fly off the handle on occasion myself, so it's possible your complaints/questions rubbed someone the wrong way: there's still a professional way to handle customer complaints and a myriad of unprofessional ways.

So Recon has TWO Android apps? Because the one I have (presumably from the Google Play Store) clearly doesn't allow nudity in pics you can see there. (Just checked and found it on the recon site. It's not a 100% solution, since there's no guarantee (unlike with stuff on the Play Store) that it's been checked for viruses, etc. but I suppose it's at least an option. And no, I'm not blaming Recon for Apple and Goggle's crappy policies. ) (Just checked again: it won't install on my not-terribly-outdated Galaxy Note 8, even with the appropriate security settings disabled to allow it. Could be a Samsung thing or a carrier thing. Whatever it is, it's clearly not a 100% workaround, but kudos to them for at least trying.)

THIS. Here's the thing for me: I get it that many of you want to be pigeon-holed into some very specific role, usually something subject to degradation, and that's fine. Do your thing. And I get that for many of you, every "question" asked here (except, I hope, in the HIV/Sexual Health forum) is really designed to provoke long strings of fantasy shit, with every poster egging on the next with a "top this" attitude. Frequently it's phrased in the form of "should" - should cumdumps thank their tops, should faggots take any load, should [fill in the blank with term du jour degrading bottoms] do [fill in with degrading action], often with qualifying details like "no matter what", "no matter how disgusting the top is", "any time he's told", blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Honestly it's enough to merit its own entire section here, but, here's the thing. I know it's here, and I find it essentially useless and a waste of electrons, but I can ignore it, because that, to me, is what it's worth. It would certainly be easier to ignore if all the made-up bullshit about how X person will take any load any time any where from anyone even in front of the entire US Congress because that's just how depraved X person is were actually stuck in a section of the site specifically for that, but thankfully, they make the subject lines so outrageously silly that they can be overlooked easily. Just please stop treating every corner of this site as though it's one more spot you have to mark as "your territory" by pissing all over it.

Yeah - I give new guys (who may not have figured out how to post everything yet) a bit of slack, but if you're still saying "ask me" about every answer, it tells me your answers vary depending on what you think the other person wants to hear. Or that your answers, if honest, are the one(s) that would turn off the most people and you're hoping it won't come to that.

I don't think it's so much a question of "agree or not agree" - it's kind of off topic for the thread. When someone asks a question - like "Why did you stop doing X?" - which rather implies it's directed at people who DID start doing X, and then stopped, it's kind of pointless to note "I never did X". It's a valid point in other contexts, like "How many of you are considering starting PrEP?" or "How many of you will never start PrEP no matter what?".

I don't entirely disagree. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy, and also the short-sightedness. Trump has done ZERO for those people who are looked down on and left behind; in fact, he's actively tried to harm them, by trying to slash programs on which they depend for their very lives. Sadly, these people let their irrational hatred for Clinton cause them to screw themselves, because she would have done a thousand times more for them than Trump has. Part of the problem was that Trump has charisma in groups - at least, among groups who support him - and he can blather on and lie to their faces and bullshit them about all the things he claims he's done that he didn't actually do or that other people had already done before him, because he's a shameless liar. Clinton is just not good in large groups, and she's a private person. One-on-one, or in small groups, you realize how very smart she is and how attentive to detail she is, but she didn't have Trump's ability to just lie to an arena full of people and promise them they'll be wiping their asses with $100 bills the week after she became president. One reason Democrats frequently lose to Republicans among people who SHOULD be their natural allies is that tendency for the GOP to just attack any and all weaknesses of their opponents, and to break any and all norms and rules if it means remaining in power. Too many Democrats operate as though somehow, their better character is going to carry the day, and they keep bringing butter knives to gunfights. Which is one reason I'm so thrilled with the Lincoln Project, Republican Voters Against Trump, and other third-party groups who are jumping in, bringing the same skills they've used to eviscerate Democrats in the past to flay Trump and his enablers in the Senate. And it's richly deserved.

I endorse pretty much all of the above. I'll add that some of BBRT's problems seem self-inflicted in their coding choices, and it's possible their choice of hosting companies is more limited than, say, Scruff's or Growlr's or whatever, because of the specific nature of the site. I don't know to what extent they're aware of the speed problems their site has, or whether they're doing adequate investigation of where the bottlenecks are. And again, the nature of the site presents a problem: there are thousands of companies that will step in to help a generic commercial site overhaul its data storage & retrieval routines, for instance, to optimize site responsiveness, but how many of them are going to jump at the chance to work for a company that promotes bareback sex right in its name? Lower supply means the contracted price is likely to be considerably higher than it would be, say, for a company selling orthotic shoe inserts. All in all it's still a better option than most other hookup apps for certain populations. A4A, as noted above, is so full of bots and scams that it's basically useless. The best thing I find about BBRT is that the content is available across both the mobile and web platforms. In order to conform to Google and Apple rules, apps like Scruff and Growlr have to restrict certain things in the app from being available to anyone without a paid account (since the apps are downloadable from their app stores, pretty much by anyone). Recon's app differs from its website in that even paying customers can't see X-rated photos on the app; for that, you have to use the website on a mobile device, and it's not completely scaled for the mobile environment. I hope they get their shit together. BBRT does have one of the best searching interfaces out there - it's amazing that in 2020, virtually no gay hook-up sites other than theirs allow you to search for something as basic as smoking vs. non-smoking, for instance - and letting you choose multiple options for a particular characteristic (ie "top, versatile top, or versatile", to screen out versatile bottoms and bottoms) is easy. Too many sites only let you pick one of the above at a time.

I agree on the "no limits" people who then post a series of limiting attributes, though I kinda get what they mean (if you meet the threshold requirements, you can DO whatever you want). But I would disagree (pleasantly, I hope) on the meaning of the word "anonymous". Strictly speaking, anonymous means "not identified by name". It's not the same, exactly, as "unable to identify". After all, meeting some hot guy in a bathhouse and having sex without ever exchanging any identifying information could certainly be called "anonymous". And anonymous absolutely doesn't mean "I'll let anyone fuck me". It's possible to want anonymous (non-identified) sex while limiting it to people one finds appealing. That's not to say your approach - wanting appearance to be a complete surprise - is wrong in any way. It's just not inherent in the word "anonymous". And I will add this: Back in the day, I had a reasonable amount of sex (and offers of sex) from people who didn't want to share a photo ahead of time. But I had ZERO qualms about declining them when they showed up if they didn't match their self-description. Including one who actually flew in 500 miles thinking once he was there, I wouldn't turn him away even though he'd gained 200 lbs and shrunk 6 inches in height since our last conversation.

Even worse is the guys who say "Only interested in younger..." and then don't ever say what their own age is, and post no pictures that might give a hint. We're not mind-readers, dimwits.

It's amazing that when Hillary Clinton correctly described half of Trump's supporters as a "basket of deplorables" his people lost their shit - how DARE some uppity woman call fellow Americans deplorable? - but now his asshole supporters think nothing of calling patriotic Americans who oppose him traitors. They screamed bloody murder when Bill Clinton spent a few minutes on a plane with Loretta Lynch talking about family things, but they're blissfully silent when Bill Barr admits under oath today that yes, he's spoken with President Trump about inner workings of the DOJ including open cases involving his friends. They threw a fit when Barack Obama wore a tan suit to some governmental function - how dare he violate such a long-established norm as a dark suit for men! - but turn a blind eye to the president's personal businesses raking in tens of millions of dollars from (a) government contracts, (b) GOP political campaigns, (c) "Independent" SuperPacs tied to GOP figures and (d) foreign governments. They brag that he donates his salary while ignoring that a hundred times that amount is pouring into Trump coffers that wouldn't be there if he weren't president. Deplorable is right. A huge chunk of his supporters are deplorable, white-supremacist assholes who are fed up with the fact that decent people look down on them as the scum of the earth that they are, and so they cheer on a criminal almost solely because - as one of those deplorables inadvertently admitted here - he hates the same people they do. What a wonderful qualification for a president of a large, important, diverse nation like ours - he has to hate the majority of its citizens.

Indeed. It could even be a Trump supporter, although you'd figure that out because he'd last six seconds and you'd barely feel anything, and your wallet would end up missing.

Tell ya what. Take him to Australia and you can have him for as many more years as you choose. Because Americans clearly do not want him.

I've reached the point where I tell guys up front to - at MOST - lightly lick them, no pinching or grabbing. And I warn them, the first pinch gets a sharp reminder, the second one and they'll be slapped so hard their mama's gonna feel it.

Ditto! And there's nothing worse than a guy who, even after he's told that mine aren't erogenous for me at all, keeps trying and gets rougher and tougher with them, figuring HE knows better. I've had more sex ruined by guys like that than any other situation, bar none.

Yeah, he's certainly stood up to Russia (not). He's certainly stood up to North Korea (if "standing up" means 'we fell in love'). As for not caring who dislikes him..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Sorry, lost my breath for a second. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Donald Trump's entire life has been about trying to get the approval of his betters. He had a chip on his shoulder being from the working-class borough of Queens and basically being one step above a slum lord. Knowing that the rich of Manhattan looked down on people like his family, no matter how many millions of dollars they might make screwing working class tenants, Trump set out to get recognized and approved by the people who matter (at least who matter in his world). And it still burns him mightily that he's never gotten the respect of old money New York. Now, you can quibble how much it's actually worth to be liked by such people; you'd be perfectly right to think it's silly to be concerned about that. But the point is, it matters to TRUMP. He so desperately wants to be part of the A-list and yet knows, deep down, he's nothing but D-list material no matter how much tax fraud he commits to prop up his bankrupt enterprises. Who else would make FAKE covers for Time Magazine with his own picture on them, touting stories that were never written? Who else would spend tens of thousands of dollars earmarked for charity to buy shitty portraits of himself to hang up in his golf courses? Who else would gold-plate the toilets in his penthouse just so he could show them off to visitors? Who else would keep trading in wives for newer models in order that people would think he's still a playboy stud at heart? Why do you think he's so desperate to get back to rallies where people throng into arenas to chant his name? Because he's an egotistical blowhard who craves adoration and approval, which has also (not coincidentally) made him an easy mark for every two-bit dictator like Putin, Kim Jong-Un, Erdogan, Abdel Fatah el-Sisi, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Xi Jinping (until coronavirus that is).... they all know that all they have to do is praise him and compliment him on some fake accomplishment, and he's putty in their hands.

Technically, the logical term for the fallacy timfreo is committing here is the fallacy of the undistributed middle. When you say All A is X, and all B is X, therefore B is A, you've committed that logical error. All condoms are barriers; all PrEP is barriers; therefore PrEP is a condom. Could just as easily be: All elephants are mammals; all humans are mammals; therefore all humans are elephants.

I see picture-book-boy is blathering again.

Now I understand how you could classify PrEP as a chemical condom. Words and their meanings are clearly not your strong suit. Employment? In January 2017, Trump inherited an unemployment rate of 4.7%, which his predecessor had achieved inheriting a rate of 7.6%. And given that unemployment numbers are a lagging indicator - what happens today affects the unemployment rate three to six months from now - it's not surprising that unemployment continued to rise in Obama's first months, given that he inherited a crashing economy. The rate reached 10% at the depth of the Bush recession, which means Obama brought down the rate from 10% to 4.1%, or almost 6% of the total labor force. Trump inherited that 4.7% rate and got it as low as... let's look. 4.1% in January 2018, a year into his term. It was at 4.0 in January 2019. In January 2020, it was down to 3.6%. In other words, the improved trajectory it was already on continued, but slowed down. So much for "basket case" or "turning around". And now, thanks to mismanagement of the coronavirus response, what's our unemployment rate running these days? In May, it was 13% officially with a footnote that it was probably more like 16%, but a classification error had spoiled the numbers. In June, it fell to 11%. With stimulus-related money ending, look for that to spike back up. Budget deficit? Obama brought the annual deficit down from a Bush recession peak of nearly 1.5 TRILLION dollars, down to below $500 billion late in Obama's term. Thanks to Trump's marvelous economic skills, including a massive tax cut in the middle of a otherwise booming (inherited economy), his pre-Covid budget deficit was back up to nearly a billion dollars. And now, with Covid, the deficit's in the several trillion dollar range. In fact, Trump's added almost as much, or more, to the national debt in his less than four year term than Obama did in eight - and Obama really DID inherit a basket case economy, unlike Trump. As for making America great - what countries think America is great any more? Not our allies. Our adversaries gloat over what a moron he is and how easy it is to get whatever they want from him, just by kissing his ass. Name one ally that's willing to go on the record and say that Trump has strengthened the bonds between America and that country. I'll wait. Hint: Yours is definitely not one of them.

I think it's also important to point out: Those of us who loathe Trump aren't "angry" or "bitter" and we're not hung up on the fact that Hillary Clinton lost when she was supposed to lose, yada yada yada all the delusions that Trumpanzees tell themselves to make themselves feel better than the loathsome, bottom-feeding wretches that they are. What we are is determined. Trumpanzees can whistle past the graveyard all they want, thinking that somehow Trump's going to win this re-election bid because there's some secret number of people out there supporting him. We're working night and day to make sure that doesn't happen. He was so convinced that the growing economy he inherited (just like the fortune he inherited from his daddy, who was actually a real businessman and not a con artist) would help cover up the fact that he'd done absolutely nothing for four years except play golf at his failing golf clubs and leech money off the GOP and taxpayers into his businesses. Ah, the best-laid plans.... a pandemic hits, and of course NONE of the usual bullshit denial/distraction/coverup tricks he relied on as a private sector con artist would work against a virus that didn't care how many times you declared it was soon going to be gone. And then an American police officer murders a detained suspect in cold blood, on video, and suddenly a big chunk of suburbanites go "Holy shit! They've been saying that about the cops for years, and it's true!" And naturally Trump, with all the finesse and sensitivity you'd expect a clod of his demented, emotionally stunted upbringing, decides what America really wants is a crackdown by anonymous federal goons, tear-gassing and rubber-bulleting peaceful protesters. And he's shocked - terrified! that it's not working. And he's left to try to attack the mental competence of his opponent - a man who can actually write a speech and read it without meandering into a thousand "I'm so mistreated" grievances - by BRAGGING that he passed a test designed to detect the onset of dementia. "Person - Woman - Man - Camera - TV" That sums up Trump's entire skill set in one glorious, brief phrase. I remember what it was like to have a president who could have bragged (but didn't) that he'd won a Nobel Prize. I look at other countries like Germany who have leaders with doctorates in the sciences. And we have an obese sociopath who's proud he can remember five words in a row.

Name something Trumpanzees find offensive: 1. Intellect 2. Learning 3. Education 4. Concern for one's fellow humans 5. Books without pictures 6. People who can spell 7. People of other races who don't grovel before Hair Furor 8. Women who don't want to be grabbed by the pussy

Every white supremacist adores him, as do all the people who can't communicate with words, only picture books. That tells me he's the right man for them. And the wrong man for America.

Just remember that for some guys, talking about certain things may turn them on in a way that actually doing those things may not. Especially for a younger guy just starting out, who's figuring out what does and doesn't turn him on. Keep feeling him out, keep asking questions, but don't push too hard or worse yet, surprise him with something he may not be ready to handle in real life.

My general rule of thumb when someone asks "has anyone else ever experienced this" is "Of course someone has." I don't mean this in an insulting way in the slightest, but it's highly unlikely there are any sex acts/emotions/reactions that have never been experienced before. But even if nobody had ever felt that - it doesn't matter, because YOU do. Some of the questions to ask yourself, therefore, are: 1. How do I feel about these feelings? 2. How will my partner react if he knows I feel this way? 3. How does my partner feel about emotional attachments developing outside our relationship? 4. What, if anything, do we do about it? In other words: Are you feeling this way because you want a multi-partner relationship? Are you feeling this way because at some level you're bored with your partner, and want to him to move on to someone else (and for you to do the same)? Does my partner look at this outside play as sex only, and I don't? Am I worried my relationship won't last if he is willing to move on from guy to guy instead of developing feelings for a particular guy or couple? In any event, the answer is communication. Ask him how he feels, and LISTEN - don't make it just about how YOU feel. You can ask in hypotheticals - "What would you do if one of us developed feelings for one of the guys we play with?" For guys who are open to outside sex as long as it's just sex, it's not uncommon (though hardly a "rule") that there's a limit on the number of times an outside party can be involved, for instance. You won't know any of the answers to these questions unless you talk. Nothing ANYONE else can tell you here is particularly relevant to your circumstances, because this is a question of how YOU two deal with this. There are no rules, there's no system that works for everyone. But I can pretty much guarantee if there is a disconnect here - if your partner doesn't want any outside emotional entanglement, and you do - then addressing it and deciding which is more important is something you'll have to face.

What was it that Jed Clampett used to say? "Pit - ee - ful." But you're correct that it's a 5 word statement, and it does contain language, so I'll have to give you that much. You can count and recognize words, I'll admit that.

Candace Owens is a fucking nutcase. She's a whore for the right-wing, who correctly deduced that as one of the few African-American people willing to sell out publicly for a high-profile job defending Republicans, and has parlayed that into a multi-million-dollar career as a 21st century Aunt Jemima. You need only look to her background with Turning Point USA - perhaps THE premier grifter organization in the United States - which has done nothing but suck up tens of millions of dollars in donations from suckers and paid them out to people like Owens, its founder Charlie Kirk, and others. They have, like their hero Trump, discovered there is no limit to which credulous rubes will pour their money into right-wing coffers as long as there's a promise their lives will somehow be better. I used to think right-wing prosperity gospel preachers had the market cornered on this shit, but I have to say, Trump has learned from them and he and his circle have outdone themselves. What's sad is that Owens knows about the racism on the right first-hand; she received death threats from white students on her voice mail while in high school. In her career running a marketing firm, she wrote about the "bat-shit-crazy antics of the Republican Tea Party" and mocked Trump for his obvious issues. Then she realized how much more money she could make as a black "conservative" pretending to believe the kind of garbage Trump spewed, and parlayed that into a new career denying she ever believed any of the things she was on record supporting. I could sum up what a moron she is with just one of her positions - she claims blacks in America were better off in the first hundred years after slavery - complete with Jim Crow, Plessy v. Ferguson, the rebirth of the Klan, and more - than they have been in the years since (which includes the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and more). This one case where I felt it was necessary to leave the childish pictures that some unfortunately intellectually disabled members seem unable to post without. I realize that their hero is proud that he can repeat "person - woman - man - camera - tv" and that he correctly identified an elephant, but I think the rest of us can quietly shake our heads and realize that people who are limited to making points with picture books are to be pitied.