BootmanLA

No, just the authoritarian ones, like the kind he wants to run.

I've occasionally "thought" I noticed this before, but I'm sure of it today, so thought I'd mention it. Ordinarily the four forums under "The Backroom" are, in order, HIV Fetish, Bug Chasing & Gift Giving Fiction, Sex with "Enhancements," and Chem Sex Fiction. But occasionally, like just now, Sex with Enhancements is second, with Bug Chasing & Gift Giving appearing third. For those of us used to scrolling to a particular section and clicking on the first or second or third option, that can present a really odd experience wondering where you ended up. Any thoughts on why this is happening? Clearly it's not life-or-death, but still....

Not that I disagree with expressing likes/wants in the affirmative rather than the negative, but those "affirmative" statements can be almost as off-putting. For instance, someone saying "I'm ONLY attracted to VERY muscular men - if you have to ask if you qualify, you probably don't". I also don't see how "I'm ONLY interested in WHITE guys" is any less offensive than "No blacks/Asians". What really underlies this attitude, I think, is that these self-centered asswipes think they are somehow inconvenienced by having to politely turn someone down, as though "Sorry, but I'm not interested - but thanks!" is beneath their dignity to utter.

And your point? Nobody suggested Trump is virulently anti-gay the way, say, Pence is. The fact is that Grenell has been a shitty ambassador in Germany (very few ambassadors manage to fuck up on their FIRST DAY in their diplomatic post the way he did), and he has continued to do so throughout his tenure. DNI is a job scores of levels above his competence, and more importantly, being a political whore for Trump means that just as Barr has hopelessly compromised the impartial administration of justice at the DOJ, Grenell will do the same for intelligence. Do you really think that if the intelligence community again determines Russia (or China, or whomever) is interfering in our elections to benefit Trump that someone with Grenell's background would let that information get out? Do you think he'd even tell Trump for fear of setting him off? Incidentally, Grenell stuck by Mitt Romney after Romney promised he would veto ENDA if it reached his desk as president. And sadly, despite being gay himself, Grenell is something of a misogynist, having tweeted that Rachel Maddow needed to "take a breath and put on a necklace" and that Hillary Clinton was "starting to look like Madeleine Albright." Lest you think that's just anti-liberal bias showing through, he also went after Callista Gingrich, saying her hair looked like a snap-on. So please, spare me from your efforts of trying to make Hair Furor look like a decent guy. He's the worst president in my lifetime and I lived through Nixon.

It's one study, conducted by one man, who is a non-tenured lecturer at MIT, not a study done by either of the universities themselves. The Hill (which is a pretty crappy "news" source to start with) erred in describing where he works, since he hasn't worked at Yale since 2018, and even then it was only as a postdoctoral associate (which is a polite way of saying "didn't qualify for a tenure-track position but we paid him a little money to teach a few courses". He is not a demographer, nor in fact has he any experience in demography whatsoever. He has a master's degree in industrial engineering and a Ph.D. in "Operations Management" (whatever that is, but it's not demography). Interestingly, no other demographic study has been able to reproduce his results. So while that's not hard proof that there are only about 11,000,000 people here illegally, his paper suggesting otherwise is far from conclusive either.

Like the "landslide" they had in 2018? The one that, despite the worst gerrymandering in US history in favor of the incumbent party in power, saw them lose 40+ seats in the House? The one that, based on the number of seats the Democrats were defending, should have produced a filibuster-proof majority for the Republicans, and only netted them two seats? Like that landslide? Or do you mean like the "landslide" Hair Furor claims he got in 2016, which was actually in the bottom 25% of electoral college wins and a LOSS of the popular vote by nearly 3 million? (That popular vote loss, by the way, was the sixth out of the last seven for the Republican party, which has won the popular vote for president once since 1988.) The fact that you, like most troglodyte right-wingers, call it the "Democrat Party" tells one all one needs to know about you. No, they don't. But frankly, that's what it's going to come down to if Republicans keep opposing sensible gun registration and other common-sense reforms that are supported by 80% of the public or more. Don't say you weren't warned. There aren't that many people here illegally except in the fevered imaginations of Trumpanzees. Any woman who is seeking an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy is not using it as a casual method of birth control and is almost certainly facing delivering a stillborn child or one that will die in short order after delivery. Why some idiots seem to think that decision will be made any easier by the hand of big government sticking itself into the situation, forcing her to go through a full delivery, etc. in such circumstances while simultaneously trumpeting their support for "small government" is a mystery, except that it's not, because it's really all about controlling other people. The Democrats were indeed the party of southern racists. However, those southern racists abandoned the party in droves for the Republican party once Barry Goldwater came out against the Civil Rights Act and Richard Nixon promised to crack down on the blacks. Jesse Helms, the patron saint of the racist white/right wing of the Republican party, was one of the first. Byrd repudiated his early KKK stances as early as the 1950's and called it the biggest mistake of his lifetime. How many Republicans can you name who've listed their own racist policies and support as a major mistake - hell, as a mistake of any sort? Abraham Lincoln couldn't get elected dogcatcher in the Republican party today. If he ran for president he wouldn't make it past the first primary. For that matter, Ronald Reagan wouldn't get the nomination. The GOP has been taken over by a coalition of mega-millionaires and billionaires who want no taxes, sham preachers who get rich off the "offerings" of the people they dupe, and a bunch of racists who are scared to live in a country where they're the minority, because they know from personal experience how minorities get treated.

I think "takingdeepanal"'s medical source hit on another key point: you not only have to have been ON PrEP for at least seven days before you're protected well against exposure; you have to stay on it for a while AFTER exposure, to prevent infection. So you can't stop taking it as soon as you stop having bareback sex, without the possibility that your last act or two might still infect you.

How it works is pretty simple. Being gay wasn't illegal; *having sex with someone of the same sex* was illegal. You're conflating orientation and activity. I'm gay. I *could* have sex with a woman, but that wouldn't make me straight (or bisexual). That doesn't make laws restricting sex between consenting adult partners acceptable. But those are not the same thing as making being gay illegal.

As that meme with the young Hispanic girl suggests, "Why not both?"

You've hit the nail on the head, einathens - you can be clear without being rude. Yes, some people are apparently so starved for attention that if you respond "Thank you", they take it as an invitation to start outlining how your first date's going to go. That can be handled politely too. Here's how it goes with me: PersonI'mNotInterestedIn: Nice pics guy! Me: Thank you, that's very kind of you. PINII: Nice pics guy! Me: Thank you, that's very kind of you. PINII: YW, I'd sure love to meet you and shower you with attention Me: Again, very kind of you. Thanks - and good luck in finding what you're looking for! Keeping things polite but formal isn't hard and you eventually get across the message. And sometimes, yes, you do have to be clearer: PINII: So when do u want to meet so we can fuck? Me: I'm sorry, I don't think I said I was in a position to do that. I don't see that happening, though it's always nice to know someone's interested. Good luck! Note: while I do believe one must always respond to polite compliments, there's no need to respond to impertinence or rudeness. PINII: your hot Me: Thank you, very kind of you. PINII: always answer ME with SIR YES SIR u wrothless fagit Me: [sounds of crickets chirping]

More to the point: Dave, you ask if it's *possible* to bareback regularly and remain negative. Of course it's possible. Whether one gets infected with HIV or not depends on a number of factors, each of which can increase or decrease the odds of becoming HIV+. It's impossible to estimate the odds, though, with any sort of accuracy.

Like most "rules" these need to be taken with a grain (or shaker) of salt. They may be *this* top's rules but I can assure you they aren't agreed upon by all tops, nor should any bottom feel at all negatively if he fails to "live up" to one top's preferences. "Ten things I insist on from bottoms who I'm lucky enough to get to use" might be a better title for the list.

Actually, in the United States, each state sets its own age of consent for sexual activity, and some states already have a tiered system. For instance, in Louisiana, it's non-consensual if one partner is under 15 and is at least 3 years younger than the other partner. Further, the penalty is enhanced if the younger partner is under 13 and the older partner is 17 or older. In some states, as long as one partner is under 16 it's non-consensual. In others, it can be much more complicated. Most criminal law in the United States is set on the state level, not the national level. As a result, the legal age to do anything in particular usually varies considerably from state to state. The main exceptions are voting (the U.S. Constitution guarantees all 18-year olds the right to vote) and drinking (the states set the age, but the federal government reduces highway funding to states that don't set the drinking age at 21).

It seems to me that the bracket option mentioned above would take care of that, for the most part. If we set an age under which sexual activity is simply illegal, and then make it legal (or more properly put, "not illegal") for anyone within (for instance) 24 months of the age of the younger party, you cut out the chances of someone 12 years old getting pozzed, at least to almost zero. Assuming (for now) that the current rate of HIV infection for people under 16 is negligible, you'd need a specific chain of people within 24 months of each other who all led back to someone who was poz - that is, the 18-yr old poz person would have to infect the 16-year old who would infect the 14-yr old who would infect the 12-yr old. I think the chances of that are exceedingly slim, especially since most 12-yr olds would continue to not have sex, as would most teens (I know that a significant number of teens are already sexually active, but I don't think it's an absolute majority).

I will add this: just as there's concern about a bottom not showing up or not being all that prepared, there's a corresponding concern about tops. I've been privvy to a couple of gang bangs that failed miserably because, for instance, fifteen tops were invited, eight confirmed they were coming, three showed up, and one of them couldn't get a hard on to save his life. In a case like that, the bottom got only two fucks and had he been sharing with another bottom, he'd probably have only gotten one. Unless the other guy got them both. Bottoms haven't cornered the market on flaking or not being prepared. I grant you that Tops don't like to wait. But I've always thought it might be more interesting for the ones "waiting" if they took part - helping hold the bottom down and spread-eagled, for instance.

As in all things, it depends on what one means by "submissive" and "top". If by top, you mean strictly the insertive partner in a sex act, and by submissive, you mean one who takes direction from another or is controlled by another, it's very possible to have a submissive top. I had a boyfriend many years ago who liked to be tied down so that he couldn't control anything, but he wanted me to ride his cock and make him cum when *I* chose to. Another partner some time later always wanted to be the one fucking, but wanted me to tell him how to do it, when to do it, how hard, how fast, what position, etc. Admittedly, these guys aren't abundant. But to say nobody likes pushy bottoms discounts the very existence of this kind of guy.

I don't mean to minimize your experience in any way, Boyhood, but your argument holds no water. You say that it's "one man's story", but then extrapolate YOUR experience to 25 million others in this country, as though every one of them, no matter what his experiences, must inevitably be affected the same way you were. I'm always suspicious of huge numbers like "25 million men" because the only way such a large number could be true is if a very, very broad description of "abuse" were used. With a population of 308 million people, the US has about 150 million men, meaning that about 16% of men had been sexually molested as children. To reach that figure, you'd have to count every boy who ever had a clothing salesman feel him up while fitting a pair of pants and every football player who ever had his ass patted by a coach on the field. It would have to include every 17-year old boy who had consensual sex with a woman over 18, which not so long ago was a rite of passage. That may (or may not) all be abuse, but I can assure you that most of the men in those latter categories don't become suicidal or need PTSD therapy. Again, I'm not belittling your experience - which, as related, would be clearly traumatic. But you can't lump 25 million other people's varied experiences into that same context.

I guess I'm the odd man out; it just doesn't bother me that much. I prefer watching raw but there have been some hot guys in gay porn back when condoms were everywhere and there was no such thing any more as raw porn. I'm not going to discard that for the sake of a little latex.

At my house, the issue is almost the opposite of what the poll suggests might be an issue: I *love* to watch my boy get fucked by other guys, but it's not something he actively seeks or encourages at all. Not because I'm all that great at topping him myself; he's just more of a bondage/gear bottom than a fuck bottom. I do what I can to change that and he does do what he's told but I really wish I had more help in getting him fucked.

In my experience, tops who pay close enough attention to details -- the kind who would never use an inept phrasing like "married guys to a woman" -- are the ones who make better tops. Addressing the bi/married point, though: most bi/married men I know are total bottoms because they want what they can't get from a woman, and the handful who do top are usually so inexperienced at sex with a man that it's usually not worth it. There have been a few exceptions but almost every really good Top I've ever known was unashamedly 100% gay.

It's not just sexual terms that can mar communication. Brits are fond of referring to someone as "sorted" - which I gather is roughly a way of saying "has a good head on his shoulders". There are other personality terms like this that can really throw off international personal ads.

Librayboy - you're making an assumption that the "true bottom sub" you reference is such *to every man he meets*. There are "true sub" bottoms who have met a Sir/Dom/Top/whatever to whom they are faithful, and if he both is negative and does not give permission to his sub to take loads from anyone else - then he's unlikely to get pozzed unless his Sir does first. Focusing on the issue of "truly submissive" is beside the point - the real issue is, does the bottom take loads from a variety of men, or not? All other things being equal, the more men whose loads he takes, the greater his risk of infection.

This one has two answers for me. Physically, it's almost always better for me when I'm on my back - legs up, classic missionary position. Most tops seem to fit in me better that way, and it's more physically intense. Mentally, I love the feeling of being face down, either doggy style or lying down - it's a little less personal and the top's energy is focused on fucking.

Andydeck, There is a difference between "freedom of speech" (as a concept) and "Freedom of Speech" (as referred to in the US Constitution). They are related concepts, but the former is a general term and the latter is a specific application. I don't know which universities you are referring to, but a quick survey of the academics I know resulted in a 100% contradiction of your suggestion that Wikipedia is an appropriate source to cite in a term paper. I don't discount its value (it's often the fastest way to find the (likely) answer to a question, such as "When was George Washington born?", but none of the professors and instructors I consulted would accept that as a citation. The point they made was that being user-edited, and with often-questionable sources, Wikipedia was at best a guide to finding other, more authoritative sources. It's certainly not a dictionary, and I would never cite it for the definition of a word or phrase. In any event, it's not that there are simply two states: free speech and censorship. Beyond the fact that TIM has a "right" to edit or remove content from its site, in order to be useful, it HAS to be ready to prune off-topic information; otherwise, I could post a recipe for prune danishes in their forums and scream "censorship" when it was removed. TIM decided, presumably, that a post accusing one of its performers of racism was not on-topic for the discussion board. Even if you're right that he's racist, even if telling the world about racists is a moral imperative, TIM doesn't have to provide you with a platform from which to do that. And it's not censorship if they simply decline to do so. It's editing. There is a difference. And please don't go citing Wikipedia entries in an attempt to prove me wrong.

I don't think there's a question that it's censorship (broadly defined). But editors of publications have always done that, especially for reader contributions; they can only devote so much space to letters and select those they think are most fitting and relevant. It goes without saying they had to fit within the scope of the mission of the publication. In the internet age, with virtually unlimited 'publishing' space, we tend to think that any time a reader post is removed, there's something nefarious at work. But if TIM's purpose for its website forums doesn't include discussion of whether TIM performers are racist (or sexist, or whatever), then it's not only within its rights to edit, but may find it necessary, in order to avoid having the board deteriorate into a flame war. Simply being right on the facts isn't enough to justify a "right" to publish via someone else's site. Even if you're right on a moral issue.