BootmanLA

Yes, but they were posted in invisible ink and you have to have your Captain Caveman Super Decoder Ring in order to see them.

I think the point is that in the real world, absolute fidelity to the daily regime for Truvada is not a universal condition, and thus the injection, which only requires one shot every 8 weeks, has better results (because the doctor's office will likely schedule your appointments in advance, you'll get a reminder, etc. and that beats the sometimes irregular PReP regimen some guys have. A clinical trial wouldn't call the Truvada people every day and remind them to take their pills, and you can bet some forget, some skip a dose or more for any number of reasons, etc. Because that mirrors the real world, where people are imperfect.

You do know, don't you, that the only reason the Republicans have been able to have a House majority at all, in the last 20 years, is because of extreme gerrymandering? You do know, don't you, that state after state is ending that practice (in some cases, by order of the state supreme court), which is contributing to ongoing and heavy losses in GOP house seats? You do know, don't you, that "the American People" cast more votes for Democrats for the House every year, year after year, than Republicans - by a margin of nearly 9 million in the last midterm (which usually benefits Republicans)? I'm not sure what fantasy world you're living in that you think people are moving towards the Republican Party, but I would suggest you re-anchor in the real world, where in the last midterm 41 House seats flipped from Democratic to Republican (the third largest such flip since Watergate, which coincides with the onset of modern campaigning). And they flipped across the board, in liberal states like CA, NY, and IL; moderate states, like IA, MN, MI, and PA; and conservative states like UT, GA, TX, and SC. How you turn that momentum around when the top of your ticket is losing support almost on a daily basis and is increasingly deranged, I have no idea.

Could be. But I think (again, just my opinion) that there's a difference, somewhere deep down. In your bananas/ketchup example, you sound like you'd be surprised if other people didn't share your like for this (perhaps offbeat) food combination - that to you, it's ordinary. In your example about the arrogant guys, you seem very clearly aware, at some level, that these are guys you personally can't stand, and yet you crave them sexually. There's a difference, and I don't think you'd have mentioned this attraction if you didn't sense there was a difference yourself. You don't seem to think that's ordinary - maybe common, but not normal. In your own words, "But most galling of all is that I absolutely want to let them fuck me because of what they are." If it's galling, then you know it upsets some system of order inside yourself. I'm not in a position to judge the cause, but I'll note your original post itself you insist that the very obvious answers don't apply to you. Which reminds me of those guys who insist they're straight; they'll let a guy suck their cock, and yeah, okay, a guy's ass is tight and feels great around their cock, and yeah it's rude if they don't give the guy a reach-around, and once in a while, yeah, they feel they have to return the favor because they're bros and bros take care of each other, but they are STRAIGHT, not GAY. Got that?

I don't mean this to sound snarky, but it sounds like something you might want to talk about with a therapist. "I have a compulsion to have sex with people I can't stand precisely because of the things I can't stand" sounds like a years-long exploration is overdue (that is, if you really want to find out the "why"). Some related questions you might ask yourself include "Do I prefer this kind of guy over ones I like (as people) better?" and, if so, "Why am I less interested in people who would actually be nicer to be with?" I wouldn't venture to guess the specifics, but it sounds to me rather like a case of doubts about your self worth.

In that case, leave on the socks. Shoes aren't going to help that much more and take a lot more time. And honestly, if they've been inside going at it for any length of time, his feet shouldn't be cold any more. But, you know, if it doesn't bother you to have this totally illogical "event" to have occurred off-camera in the middle of filming, no worries.

Yes especially on the barefoot part. I'm all for using boots, etc. in sex scenes, but porn scenes where a bottom starts off in jeans and sneakers, strips naked, then puts the sneakers back on (and laced up!) never fail to crack me up. Yeah, if I'm fifteen or twenty minutes into foreplay and otherwise getting a guy revved up, the last thing I'm gonna do as I'm stripping to get fucked is stop and put my shoes back on (and tie them!). I could see - MAYBE - a top who's going to be fucking while standing up (bottom bent over a bed, in a sling, on his back on the edge of the bed, etc.) wanting shoes for traction so he doesn't slip on a slick floor. But if your feet are going in the air, what, they're afraid they'll get cold?

I think that's the key problem. The Venn diagram of "Men who look like the kind of guys wanted in gay porn" and "Men who can actually act without having to look at the camera every ten seconds for a line prompt" has a very small overlap section.

This is also why it's critical for anyone who lives in a state with a US Senate race this fall where the Democratic candidate has even the slightest chance of winning, to vote for that candidate. As long as the Republicans control the Senate, even if we elect a Democratic president, there's no guarantee Cocaine Mitch will allow a Senate vote on any Supreme Court nominee, even in the first year of the president's term. He blocked virtually every court nominee (for district and appellate courts as well as the Supreme Court) for the last two years of Obama's term, and there's no guarantee he wouldn't try to do the same thing for four years under Biden. That means you folks in Georgia, Nevada, Montana, Arizona, North Carolina, Maine, MIchigan, and Iowa, especially, need to turn out to vote for whoever's the Democrat on the ballot for the Senate in your state. Luckily, most of the Democratic challengers for those seats are competent and deserve election in their own rights. I certainly hope Alabamans will turn out to vote for Doug Jones, but I'm a realist enough to know his win for the unexpired term a couple of years ago was basically due to even Republicans being disgusted with their child-molesting candidate Roy Moore. This time, Jones will face the winner of the Republican runoff between a popular football coach and former senator, Trump AG, and current Trump attack target Jeff Sessions, either of whom has an excellent chance of avoiding Moore's fate. The only potential twist is if Sessions makes the runoff and Trump refuses to make nice with him, splitting the R's or causing them to skip that race entirely.

Not sure if you can do this within the software you have, but can you flag accounts with bouncing email addresses, such that when those people log on, they get a big, impossible-to-ignore popup or something that notifies them their address is rejecting BZ mail and it needs to be dealt with? You could, if you wanted, make it part of your terms of service that in the event of email bounces, all email notifications (and the ability to follow new topics) will be disabled until you change your email address, or something like that. But I think the "in your face" notification will be the only thing that gets their attention to know to fix it.

Except they don't. LGBT conservatives always, always, always vote against LGBT issues when the conservative leadership so demands. It's particularly instructive that they're almost always, without exception, white non-Hispanic men. Because "LGBT conservative" basically translates to "I promise not to publicly do anything even mildly embarrassing to the straight white Christian men and women who make up the party, and to vote for every ill-advised tax break and corporate giveaway, as long as I get to keep all the privileges I have for being a white man with the ability to pass."

I'd point out that "Congress" is in fact not significantly red at all. One chamber out of two is solidly blue at this point (and has been, for more than a year), and the Republicans hold a slim majority that is almost guaranteed to shrink in November. As for the advice on the major parties: while you're correct, there will always be purists, aka nuts, who think that THIS time their handful of fragmented members scattered by the tens and twenties over multiple states will somehow triumph over adversity. Instead of aligning with a major party and helping shape its platform, they prefer to "not be corrupted" by "special interests" (ignoring that they're the most "special" interests of all) and they prefer to sit on the sidelines and bitch instead of actually pushing candidates with a chance of winning. Bless their hearts.

And it may not climb much at all if his natural immune system hasn't been severely compromised. As I understand it, after the initial infection, most people's viral load spikes briefly, then the body starts fighting it off, keeping it fairly low on its own. The person's still infectious but not nearly so much as shortly after his own infection. Going off meds, the body may well be able to keep things at that level for years, until the immune system can't keep up any more.

If you were taking anonymous Grindr loads before starting chemo, you were already taking significant risks, but those are indeed raised when you are undergoing chemotherapy. It's impossible to quantify how much, as different chemotherapy drugs affect different people different ways, but you can assume your body's natural immune system is at least partially compromised. As skylon suggested, talk to your doctor. PrEP may or may not be feasible while you're undergoing treatment (there may be interactions between the drugs). But you can't know until you ask. It's very possible he will advise against unprotected sex in general while you're in chemo, because other infections are also possible and they may be more difficult or impossible to treat while you're in chemotherapy. But if you're in chemotherapy, you clearly have some desire to go on living. If that's the case, and your doctor says PrEP is not an option (or that other infections are too great a risk for unprotected sex) then you'll have to decide whether those loads are worth possibly risking whatever gains you've made from chemo.

I'm with DrScorpio on this one, especially about this particular part.

I'm sure the both of you are more than a few members' fantasy pairings for a video to watch.

Bear in mind that it's possible that all, none, or only some of those cases are the result of intimate contact. I'm not defending people who violate instructions or guidelines to stay home, but it's the not staying separated, not what they do once they're together, that is the real problem.

But then I'm not sure I would trust anyone who calls him self "Meth" in code to grasp the meanings of complex words like "conservative".

The problem is that there are approximately zero "real conservatives" left, at least in our national government. I consider "real conservatives" to be: -people who value society and the support systems it provides, even if that means taxing people who luck out and make it rich at a significantly higher level than everyday people in order to maintain that society. -people who recognize that the world will always be undergoing change, and that it makes more sense to plan for that change and be prepared to adapt to it, even if that means ceding power to groups other than straight white Christian men. -people who realize that natural resources are finite, including clean air and water, and that we must conserve, rather than always exploit, our natural resources so that they will fill our needs long into the future, even if that means some regions will have untapped potential for now. There's a lot more, but that's what conservatism means to me. It doesn't mean "cut government down to the size we can drown it in a bathtub."

"What's up with that" is that there's only one president, with enormous power consolidated into one person's hands. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators, none of whom, by himself or herself, has a fraction of the power to "do" things that a president does. About all that a single powerful senator, like Majority Leader Cocaine Mitch, can do is obstruct. Otherwise, term limits typically do nothing but ensure rapid turnover, producing a new crop of dummies who think things like you can cut welfare spending enough to balance the budget. In state legislatures with term limits, that means the only people with institutional knowledge of how to get things done are staff and lobbyists - neither of whom is elected or accountable to anyone. Math isn't your strong suit, is it? Pelosi, the longest-serving of the three you mention, has been in Congress for 33 years. Schumer's been in the Senate for 21. Waters has been in the House for 29. None of those is "give or take" 40. You know who's been in Congress "give or take" 40 years? Chuck Grassley (45+ years). Don Young (47+ years). Richard Shelby (41+ years). Jim Sensenbrenner (41+ years). Pat Roberts, Hal Rogers, Chris Smith (all 39+ years). ALL of these guys are Republicans. That doesn't count some now-gone "luminaries" like Strom Thurmond, who stayed in office 46 years, including the last two or so when he was barely sentient and had to be told which button to press to vote. It doesn't count Thad Cochran, 45-year veteran who noted how proud he was to get to use the traitor Jefferson Davis' old desk in the US Senate. It doesn't count 42-year senator Orrin Hatch, who pushed through legislation that cut the powers of the DEA to police opioid distribution just as the opioid epidemic was spreading across the country, including lots of rural, ruby-red Republican areas. Thurmond, Cochran, and Hatch are all - wait for it - Republicans. "Collapsing" is a strange way to describe a party that picked up 41 seats in the most recent Congressional midterm elections. If it weren't for gerrymandering, the gain would have been larger, because the raw vote spread (total votes cast for Democrats vs. total votes cast for Republicans) was over 9 million - the largest spread in midterm election history. The 41-seat pickup was the third largest "flip" of seats since Watergate. It's a strange word to describe a party that flipped nine governorships, six state legislative chambers, and over 350 state legislative seats in total. Quite a few more were picked up in 2019, including another governorship in Kentucky and holding Louisiana's. They flipped both the Virginia Assembly and the Virginia House, giving the party control over state government. But go on bleating like a sheep, imitating the plutocrats who try to convince you that this is about "socialism" or "Marxism", because the GOP, the party of no new ideas since at least 1980, has bolted itself onto the rotting carcass of Donald Trump. And he's taking the entire party down with him. You do realize that the primary reason he still has high approval ratings within the Republican party is that large numbers of sensible people, appalled by the witless reality-show clown act, have fled the party, leaving mostly the ones who have tied their fortunes to him, don't you?

I was addressing the rest of his drivel, which followed in subsequent posts, about what's natural and so forth. Regardless, I've also come to realize that there's an element of superiority in his responses - that those of us who know we're gay men are somehow disordered and "less than", and he, because he embraces the image of himself as disordered and sick, is superior to us un-enlightened folk. I call bullshit on that.

A cameraman helps. What also can help is a remote control, which allows you to position the phone in a stationary place, pose so that what you want to appear is showing on the screen, then trip the button on the remote. (Most smart phone cameras can be controlled by a generic wireless bluetooth remote, available for less than $10 online). Finally: digital pictures don't cost, like film used to. Take a hundred. Even if you discard 98 of them, that's two possibles left over. Then another hundred. All it takes is time and patience.

It goes to demonstrate that "Covidiot" isn't the only kind of idiot out there.

Name aside, he's been flirting with running for president for two decades, even launching an exploratory committee or two. That's pretty close to a career politician. Additionally, "businessman" is a very loosely used term there. He's a serially bankrupt con artist. As has been said many times by people far wiser than me, a casino license in a state where it's highly regulated (thus limited competition) is largely a license to print money. The fact that Trump managed to drive *multiple* casinos into bankruptcy is telling. So is the fact that US banks no longer will do business with him (and haven't in more than a decade). Must be why the New York Times and Washington Post have been having banner years for the last few years, with the former experiencing *record* subscriptions even at a time when print newspaper subscribership has plummeted. Maybe you mean cable news, but then again, CNN and MSNBC's numbers, taken together, hold up well against FOXNews and decisively drub Nutcase Network (aka OANN). FOX leads overall, but its audience skews much older (younger people tend to get news online rather than on TV). As its audience literally is slowly dying off, I don't any room to recover, much less grow, for a network aimed at making sure old white people are pissed off.

Food for thought: I know I'm not privy to any of the calculations that went into figuring who could "react" to things, and how often. But I will note that when I first join a new forum of any sort (hobbyist, professional, "personal life" such as this, etc.) I tend to prefer to "react" (like, dislike, upvote, whatever) stuff well before I feel comfortable responding publicly. I get that a place like this really needs people willing to post and comment and discuss, and I'm sure there are other considerations that go into who can do how much and how soon, but I think it's worth considering that some people may never feel comfortable posting because they could never interact on the less-involved basis first.