BootmanLA

You do seem to have a gift for inventing things you imagine I said and then asking me to defend them. I never said it was OK (or wrong) for a man to sleep his way to the top, nor for a woman to do so. I said that people who jump to pointing out that she dated a powerful politician and claim that's the only reason she ever accomplished anything in her life are rarely the sort to point out that, for instance, Hair Furor would be nothing but the owner of some generic Queens and Brooklyn apartment buildings if it wasn't for his father bankrolling his career. Personal relationships as a way of getting ahead only seem to attract negative attention from Republicans when it's a woman, or a minority, or both, who are using those personal relationships.

Moderators are members, too, and participate in the system just like everyone else. It's true that they can mark infractions, but as far as I know, all the moderators can see all the actions other moderators take, and if there's a problem, I suspect any rogue moderator would be reported to the site owner. And I say this as someone who's been both upvoted AND downvoted by the moderators, and occasionally received an infraction for going too far. As RawTop noted, the current system "is what it is", and when a completely rebuilt site becomes available someday, he'll be able to account for things like someone whose "votes" are consistently against the general prevailing wisdom. That's just not possible right now with the software tools this site has. I also say this as someone who's been the target of a concerted "downvote" campaign more than once. It is what it is, and I keep posting, and enough people do appreciate the points I make enough to upvote or thank me such that the occasional "downvote bomb" doesn't really affect my reputation score, apparently.

Of course, you can believe anything you want, whether it's that the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, or that Trump was tougher on the border. Doesn't change the actual FACTS, of course, but belief is whatever you want to make of it. But in point of fact, I didn't call you misogynistic; I said your COMMENT was misogynistic, and it was. And not because you said you'd want to bang her (and lord knows, she has more taste than that, I expect), but because you denigrated all her accomplishments by saying she got them because of blow jobs. I certainly wouldn't say that whatever you've done with your life, no matter how amazing it might be, is because you frequent outdoor sex venues and offer yourself up to any willing cock that comes along and is willing to unload in you (per your bio line on here). I would ASSUME that whatever you've done, whether it's as a governor or gas station attendant or whatever, is because you actually put forth the effort to do it. It's just a shame you can't grant that same courtesy to the Vice President.

The dictionary definitions I've seen for "raunch" are very generic, referring mostly to "vulgarity" or "earthiness" or the like. You used to hear about comics with bleepable vocabularies referred to as "raunchy comics". In the sexual sense, however, I tend to include anything involving the expulsion of bodily fluids (other than semen, or for women, vaginal secretions) or other byproducts as "raunch". Basically, if the sex involves one body or the other or both producing "output", it's raunchy. That's not meant as a judgment call - obviously, it's a range, from fairly widely accepted (like water sports) and sweat (pits licking, etc.) to pretty esoteric (scat). By contrast, for things like fisting or whipping, I tend to refer to those as "hard core" or "extreme" activities - it's not that the action introduces something common but generally nonsexual (urine, sweat, feces), but it's a more extreme/advanced/hard core version of something already incorporated into sex - insertion into orifices, percussive physical contact, whatever. Fist instead of cock, whip instead of hand or paddle, and so forth. But those are just how *I* categorize things.

That's true in some place, but not all. I know of at least a few major cities where major office towers are being converted to residential, and even here in podunk Baton Rouge, one of our only three privately-owned "skyscrapers" (each in the 25-floor range) is being converted to high-end apartments, for which there is apparently lots of pent-up demand. (The fourth "skyscraper" here is the State Capitol, also the tallest at 34 floors, but as a government building it's not part of the real estate market per se.)

They are most certainly alive. They're cells (albeit very specialized ones), and their nuclei have mitochondria to produce energy by converting glucose, which is one of the basic functions of living cells. And it's those functions, like energy production, which keep the sperm capable of doing their primary function, which is fertilizing an egg. Once the energy production stops, the sperm cell dies, breaks down, and is incapable of fertilization. If you meant "alive as separate living beings," it's certainly true that they are not that.

Bear in mind the complaints so many people have over flakes and no-shows from "the apps". Sure, it would be obvious that someone doesn't match his pics *IF* he showed up at your door, but if he has zero intent of actually showing up - either he wants a hot online session, or just gets off from "attention" (even if earned through false pretenses), then the risk is close to zero.

Separately, I'd like to point out something regarding media coverage of Trump's SC win. Trump didn't quite break 60% of the primary vote - that's ALL Republicans, no Democrats - even after several of his opponents (DeSantis, Ramalamadingdong, the other dwarves) have dropped out weeks ago. About 2 in 5 Republicans in SC wanted someone other than Trump on the top of the Republican ballot in November. Granted, many of them will vote for him regardless, but still... The New York Times headline: "South Carolina Primary: Trump Defeats Haley, Delivering a Crushing Blow in Her Home State" The Guardian: "Trump soundly defeats Nikki Haley in South Carolina Republican primary" and so on - even though Trump, as the last Republican president, is effectively campaigning as an incumbent and certainly has all the advantages of an incumbent. If Joe Biden pulled less than 60% of the vote in a primary election, the media would be absolutely apoplectic about what a dire warning this was for the Democrats. In New Hampshire, where he wasn't even on the ballot (because the DNC wouldn't sanction any primaries before South Carolina's this year), Biden - as a WRITE-IN CANDIDATE - got 64% of the vote. I'm a strong supporter of traditional media, because I believe in general they have much higher standards for news reporting than most of the garbage sites (both right and left, though the right is much, much worse), but this is typical of their inability to see reality. They're so wedded to the idea of a tight horse race that they feel the need to portray Trump as this unstoppable juggernaut and Biden as this guy who's one step away from being put into a memory care facility, all in order to justify their glowing stories about how dedicated Trump supporters are. And yeah, I get it, a big chunk of Trump's support is unwavering, and there's a lot of people who will vote for him who aren't part of that unwavering support. But still, the 7 million vote margin by which Biden beat him in 2020 is pretty substantial, by recent historical standards. It's only a little smaller than 2008's margin, which was regarded as a blowout of Republicans by Barack Obama; it's only slightly smaller than Clinton's routing of Republicans in 1996, when it was widely feared that the GOP was on track for a "permanent majority". This isn't to say I think Trump can't win, or that we shouldn't worry that he will. But I just do not believe polls that say Biden's behind, certainly not ones that show a big lead for Trump.

As noted, I don't find it hard to believe at all that any large city in 2024 might lack bathhouses. Again, nothing against them at all - I'd be happy if they were flourishing - but they met a need at one time that has largely diminished. The factors working against them - especially rising real estate values in downtowns, which is traditionally where they were located (because downtowns used to be cheap real estate, compared with thriving suburbs) - affect them everywhere they once existed.

Border apprehensions and deportations have been UP under Biden. Republicans torpedoed a deal on border security that was 100% stick, 0% carrot, all because Trump told them to, because he wants to run on the idea that the border is open. That's bullshit. Kids under 10 need to know some basic facts about sex, in age-appropriate ways. What most assholes who complain about this mean is "They're telling our kids that gay people exist" and that infuriates them, because it means they can't control the narrative long enough to raise another generation of bigots. Which is also the point about racism. If children are old enough to EXPERIENCE racism, they're old enough to know it exists. Only privileged white shits don't want children to know that yes, we have some things in our history that we're not proud of. Again, age appropriate, but if six-year old Ruby Bridges can hear "NO N*****S IN OUR SCHOOLS!" shouted at her as she walked into a formerly all-white elementary school, ten-year-old Bethaneeee can learn that her grandfather's generation was the one who did the shouting, and why it was wrong. Most of which debt was run up under Republican presidents or in response to Republican-caused recessions. Did you miss that when Trump left office, fully 25% of ALL government debt was run up on his watch? One reason we help other parts of the world is that we (not just the US, but the European nations from which we descended) stole hundreds of trillions of dollars (in today's money) in resources and slave labor from "the rest of the world". And we learned, in WWII, that if we help our neighbors defend against invasion, we don't have to fight them right at our border. Inflation is down to almost pre-Covid levels. You seem to be thinking that because prices are still high, inflation is still high. But inflation measures GROWTH in prices, not whether they're remaining high. That's simply false, Absolutely, categorically, false. A recession is when the economy SHRINKS (for 2 consecutive quarters). GDP growth in 2023 was higher than in 2022. I don't know whether you don't know what a recession is, or just not how to read economic charts, but this is simply wrong as a matter of fact. Unless of course you're into those KelleeeeeeAnne Conway "alternative facts". Unfortunately, Republicans do everything possible to make sure that people DO have to struggle - they cut all forms of assistance that might help people get ahead, in order to finance massive tax cuts for the rich, which, contrary to the delusional beliefs of most on the right, do NOT trickle down in some sort of "rising tides lift all boats" crapola. Those tax cuts for the rich finance massive offshoring of wealth to tax haven countries, fourth and fifth houses in the tropics or ski resorts in Europe or wherever, yachts that have sub-yachts docked on board for shorter excursions, and the like. What an ill-informed, misogynistic rant. It may well be true that her personal relationship with a former political leader in her state helped her career - god KNOWS that Republicans never, ever, EVER exploit personal ties to get ahead in business or anything else, right? Or is it only a problem when a Black woman does it? - but she's a lawyer who served as SF's DA for seven years, California's AG for another six, and then US Senator for four years. I'd wager she's done more with her life than anyone in this thread. But in the interest of comparing sex practices and careers, I invite you to put forth your accomplishments in both so we can compare.

That's simply false. Or, rather - yes, last month, it tied with the Trump record of 5.3%. But that's after NEARLY A YEAR of it being BELOW Trump's best rate - Black unemployment hit a record low in April 2023 at 4.8% (FOUR POINT EIGHT is a full half percentage point BELOW FIVE POINT THREE). It's only slowly ticked back up to the tie point - but only bullshit lying media like Fox tout that "tie" as something "just achieved". And it's worth noting that Black unemployment ENDED under Trump at WAY WAY WAY WAY more than 5.3% - which he only achieved for two months, in July and August of 2019. By January 2021, Black unemployment was back to 9.3% (NINE POINT THREE) when Trump left office, thanks in large measure to his disastrous handling of COVID. Nice try, but no cigar. Care to try again?

So, this topic's been around for a bit, and a number of self-proclaimed gay (or bi) men here have announced their support for the Republican party and/or Trump. But not one of them, as far as I can tell, has articulated ANY policy reason for that choice. They haven't (or can't) point to anything the Republicans have done for the country that, in fact, has made it better; they haven't (or can't) point to anything in particular that Republicans improved for LGBT+ people here. They ignore repeated examples of how the Republican party has made it clear it intends (if it gains power again) to curtail LGBT rights like same-sex marriage, and intends to push the Supreme Court to overturn Lawrence v. Texas (allowing state sodomy laws, currently barred from enforcement, to go back into effect). And when we point out that the Republicans made good on their promises to end Roe v. Wade (something that the quisling gay Republicans said could never happen), and that several GOP members of the Court have expressed the same skepticism about Lawrence that they did about Roe, we get... crickets. And on every measure that people typically point to Republican policies to say "This is why they're better," the Democrats (under Clinton, Obama, and Biden) have done better. Unemployment, especially Black unemployment. Foreign policy (our links to the debacle in Gaza notwithstanding). The economy. Investment in infrastructure. No matter what the issue, the Republican edge has long since eroded. Lord know the "run it like a business" crowd has no legs to stand on when their champion has had six major corporate bankruptcies, had dozens of other businesses just outright fail, and who's on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in civil judgments. I mean - I'm open to informed discussion. Explain why you think this party's record is defensible-and back it with facts and figures. But it all seems to keep boiling down to "I like Trump because he speaks up for the common man" - even as he screws the common man over, repeatedly, time and time again. Maybe some here can understand why we think "speaks up for the common man" is just a coded way of saying "he hates the same people I do."

I'm guessing that sperm cells live longer in a woman's vagina if only because the vagina is a more-or-less single-purpose biological entity - it's not used for excretion of either urine or feces, so nothing "going out" is going to disrupt the sperm cells. And the tissues lining the rectum are different (in some ways) than those lining the vagina, so that may have some impact as well.

While I agree addressing the root causes of the border issue would be most effective over the long haul, the reality is that in the short haul, there's an election coming up, and appearing to make no progress on the issue could result in a second Trump term. I rather doubt Spain is interested either, given that it (like most of Europe) is dealing with its own migrant crisis from Africa and the Middle East. Likewise, any effort to pressure the RCC on birth control is likely to be slow on producing results, if ever. Certainly not in time to deal with the current population.

Oddly, if I recall correctly, it was a Democratic president, Obama, who opened the door to Cuba and tried to draw it into our sphere of influence (to keep it out of the influence of our adversaries) and it was a Republican president, Trump, who slammed that door shut with his typical bellicose and incoherent foreign policy screeching. The reality is that Republicans have no interest in Cuba whatsoever except as (a) a source of votes among Floridians of Cuban descent and (b) an election issue about the big bad commies right in our back yard. It was a Republican president who planned the disastrous Bay of Pigs "invasion" with no real commitment to a winning effort, leaving it to a Democratic administration to play "mop up" as the frightened Cuban government turned to the USSR for support - and leading directly to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Just like the economy, Democrats are forever being tasked with cleaning up Republican foreign policy messes.

I voted for 0%, because that's the condition for my still-extant family. My sisters, their husbands, and their children are all 100% accepting of me and my partner, and farther out, the cousins I have left are all fine with it too. Going back, my parents weren't always quite perfectly comfortable with it - when I first came out to my parents, they didn't disown me or anything, but they weren't really overly welcoming to my partner at the time (though, to be fair, he frequently was an asshole, so....). They were much more friendly with my next partner, and with my current (going on 20 years), there was no question that he was part of the family from the start. That said, my mother, as a strict Roman Catholic, did voice the opinion that if we married, she thought we should keep it simple and quiet (something she didn't stress for my sisters), but we weren't planning to marry anyway. Nonetheless, when my father died, she had no objection to listing my partner in the obituary just as my sisters' husbands were.

If someone is undetectable, that is NOT the same thing as HIV-negative, not "basically" or factually. "Undetectable" is a threshold number for counting virus particles in a given amount of blood (one milliliter). When testing for viral load became possible, a viral count of less than 200 was considered "undetectable" because testing couldn't accurately measure less than that. But the person was still HIV-positive, because the tests that detect HIV antibodies confirmed it (and later, actual tests that detect that virus is present, regardless of the amount). Over time, as tests have become more sophisticated, labs can now accurately test as few as 20 viral particles per milliliter. That's kind of the "new" definition of undetectable - again, the tests still show that the person has HIV, it just can't be measured at that small a level. And no - just because someone has never been "diagnosed" as HIV+ does not mean he *IS* factually HIV-. HIV status is a binary, factual determination, whether or not you're aware of what your actual status is. As a kind of simile: if a person is a thief, he is a thief, regardless of whether a court has convicted him of theft. In both cases, the person's actual status (as positive or as a thief) is a fact, regardless of who knows what about it.

Actually, I don't think the "straight" man (at least, not the kind I'm thinking of) would think a trans woman is a woman. He's much more likely to think of her as a "fruity" man dressed like a woman. In fact, it's not uncommon for a trans woman to get assaulted and/or beaten up - or worse - if the "straight" man discovers that what he thought was a cis woman was in fact trans.

First, if you'd read carefully, I was responding to a previous poster, not to you. I said NOTHING about the way you asked the question - which as far as I can tell is fine. I was arguing against the idea of bathhouses being essential to gay culture, not whether we should have them or support them now. Second, no, there are no extant bathhouses in Louisiana. There were two in New Orleans, as recently as the mid-1990's, and one hung on into the early part of the 21st century. But I believe both finally succumbed to high rents (one was in our CBD, the other in the French Quarter; they opened when real estate in both was a lot cheaper, but they're the highest-dollar parts of the city now).

I would argue that bathhouses are an integral part of our *history* but not necessarily integral to our *culture*. Even at their peak, the vast majority of gay men never set foot in one, and yet gaydom carried on. I'm not opposed to bathhouses existing, even flourishing, but government regulations are only one part of the reason they closed down. At one time, for a lot of closeted gays, they were the only option (you'd go there, meet others (some closeted, some not) and have sex, then go back to an entirely separate world. That's much less common in the parts of the country (essentially, big cities) where bathhouses once existed more commonly. You still have that closet/rest of the world split in rural and small town areas, but those areas couldn't support a bathhouse at all. And I'd argue that we're not founded on "sex" but on "sexual attraction" - the kind of person you're attracted to, regardless of whether sex ever enters into it. You can be gay without ever having had sex. You can be straight without ever having had sex. And you don't become "formerly gay" if you have to give up sex, for whatever reason. We recognize that people can know they're gay long before they're old enough to consent to sex. (And I'd note that a significant portion of the people who patronized bathhouses in their heyday did not consider themselves part of any "gay" community. We can quibble over how they should identify themselves, but the fact is, they expressly did not consider themselves part of that community in any way.)

Your experience and mine vary. I know any number of guys who get their dicks sucked and swear they aren't gay or even bi (even though they're literally doing one of the acts that for centuries defined "homosexual", before the idea of "orientation" gained traction), and at the same time mock the idea that people get to define themselves, genderwise.

Not answering for the OP, but just commenting: I think it's funny how the very people who slam the idea of gender identity by saying you can't just "say" you're X or Y or Z, are the same ones who want to claim a "straight" identity while getting their dicks sucked by men.

There's no evidence, to my knowledge, that a top having a high viral load can "break through" PrEP *assuming* the bottom is taking daily PrEP and hasn't missed any doses in at least a couple of weeks (and continues to take it after the sexual exposure). A high viral load may make it him more likely to infect a bottom not on PrEP than a top with a low viral load, but PrEP is remarkably effective. Correct - to my knowledge, rare as this is, it's more common than getting infected by a HVL top if you're on PrEP and compliant with taking your medication daily. (I say "daily" because I don't know for certain that the "on demand" method is as effective with HVLs, but I am guessing that it is. Your profile doesn't say where you're from, but here in the United States, at least, prescribing PrEP is normally limited to 3 months at a time and isn't renewed without proof of a negative HIV test close to the renewal date - and ordinarily, that includes testing for other STIs as well. I'd hope regulations in other countries were similarly strict, but I know they aren't always. Again - I'm unaware of any study showing that high viral levels can "break through" PrEP when it's consistently taken. Not any. If you are aware of such, please provide a link.

Yeah, nothing says "conservative" like an ass shot gripping your cheeks to spread them open to show your hole.

Well, just realize that if and when the GOP takes power, your being trans will trump (no pun intended) everything else about you. And you having firearms won't help very much against the kind of firepower authoritarians tend to have.