BootmanLA

They are not "inseparable". Plenty of men have casual sex without barebacking, and plenty of men have bareback sex but not casual sex. Yes. A quick perusal of profiles on any dating/hookup site that includes an option for safer sex options will show that plenty of guys still say "condoms only" and even more show that condoms are sometimes used. It seems to me these are two unrelated things that sometimes go together, and sometimes don't - like "Does eating fast food always mean using your hands?" Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you can't eat the fast food without a fork or spoon or something. And sometimes even "nicer" food requires using the hands without utensils. I think the most you could say is that in recent years (thanks to advances in PrEP and HIV treatment both), bareback sex as a component of casual sex has increased. But they're by no means the same thing.

I'm willing to take your word for that, but it does call into question why you identify with - those are your words - the female characters in these illustrations. Especially when there are so many, many, MANY male role models with whom you could identify more readily. And when you use terms like "whore bitch" that historically are applied to women, not men.

One reason word lists like that aren't made public, at least on some sites, is that members can then argue the *particular* word they used wasn't on the list, so they can't be cited, much less punished, even when the post itself clearly violates a rule. Knowing just a couple of the words that are banned, I've been able to almost always decipher what was intended when I see "[banned word]" in a posting by someone else. Not necessarily every time, but I can't remember the last time when I couldn't deduce it from context.

It would be easier to answer this if you gave more info about what you're looking for. Is all you want the maximum potential for sex and sex partners, for instance? Is fetish important for you, like leather or bears or whatever? Folsom in SF, for instance, has evolved into a broad-based kink festival attracting large numbers of straight and bi people as well as gay men, and it's more exhibitionistic than a purely sex event (although there are associated sex parties, and so forth, scheduled at the same general time as the street fair). By contrast, the Dore Alley Fair (Up Your Alley), also in SF, is much more gay-male centric, but also more leather- and leather-adjacent (ie latex rubber, etc.) focused. Other events that you might consider, based on whatever your interests are, might be Mid-Atlantic Leather (which is in January, so that's next year), International Mr. Leather (IML), Chicago's Market Days, Los Angeles Pride (or really, almost any very large city's Pride festival - such as Toronto's). If you like bear men, International Bear Convergence, Texas Bear Round-Up, Bear Week in Provincetown, and any of several bear-themed cruises might suit your fancy. New Orleans has Southern Decadence at Labor Day, but it's blisteringly hot and humid usually, and there's always danger of a hurricane threat disrupting things.

I understand that sense, but it's misplaced. He's being forced because he agreed to it (and you and I agree he shouldn't have agreed to it if he had no plans to abide by that agreement). That happens - people outright knowingly lie going into relationships promising one thing while fully intending not to live up to that promise - and it's reprehensible, but I don't think that's the case for a majority of cheaters. (The number here who insist that they get off on it, etc. I think is a combination of fapping material and fantasies about being transgressive, with a relatively small number who actually do that.) The majority of cheaters, on the other hand, expect to abide by whatever the rules are, but something changes. Desire for their partner wanes, too many other desirable men are in reasonable proximity, whatever - and sadly, far too many men hate having difficult conversations like "I think we should be free to see other people, but I don't want us to end this. How do you feel about that?" and just follow their lusts and hope and pray they don't get caught and torch their relationship. And I do get that most of that is socialization to demand monogamy, because that's what society as a whole holds up as an ideal, even when it's clear that a large portion of the population can't live up to that ideal. I'm also of the opinion that (a) cheating ought to be a forgiveable offense, especially if the cheater is contrite, (b) cheating is a sign that maybe monogamy isn't going to work for these two, and (c) it's better to hash out what's acceptable, what each partner can live with, so that whatever relationship they do have doesn't turn to shit trying to live up to unattainable ideals while covering up behavior.

There isn't one, insofar as I know. What you'll find is that if you use a banned word, it will be replaced with [banned word] automatically by the forum software - I do not think that this generations an infraction report, but I don't know that for certain. What MAY WELL get you an infraction is using a deliberate misspelling of a word that's banned in order to get around the ban. The reason for that is simple: most banned words are not banned because the specific word is offensive or something, such that a workaround (like "n-word" for, well, the n-word) solves the issue. Banned words are banned because they almost always lead to discussion of topics that aren't permitted. As an example, there is a five-letter word that starts with "t" which is derived from a Polynesian term for "forbidden", and it's often code for topics like bestiality or pedophilia. So changing it to a homonym by changing the vowels, for instance, makes it clear you're trying to evade the ban on a word while maintaining its meaning.

I find it curious that despite tens of thousands of pictures of men presenting as men, depicted in positions and activities just like this, you say you identify with these. Are you absolutely certain you don't have some repressed desires to wear makeup or women's clothes? Not saying you do, but again, there's a buttload of porn (both photos and drawings) depicting men at gloryholes, being just as wanton and slutty as these depictions. If you're certain you're not interested in cross-dressing or makeup, maybe time to broaden your porn horizons?

Time for a reminder that "should" is one of the most useless, over-used words in the English language. Nobody else gets to tell others what they "should" or "shouldn't" do. Now, if a particular top doesn't want his bottoms to have access to their cocks, then it's incumbent on him to (a) get their permission to (b) lock the cock up for (c) whatever period of time they agree upon. Or, if the top prefers and the bottom is game, he can simply order him not to touch himself, and see how well he adheres to that. If it's the bottom who thinks he shouldn't be touching his cock, despite temptation to do so, it's on him to express that to his top(s), to see if that's something the top is good with. Or he can lock himself up and handle the keys as he chooses - he can give the keys to a trusted friend who won't give them back absent an emergency, he can lock them in a lockbox to which he doesn't know the combination (but a trusted person does), or whatever. But "should X be allowed to" questions are just dumb, because they depend solely on what the people involved want. And it doesn't make one fucking bit of difference what other people "vote" or express an opinion on. It's no more meaningful than asking "Should people eat Rocky Road ice cream?"

1. You say "most insurance companies pay for these (ie PrEP) nowadays", but guess what: if they pay for PrEP, they're paying for HIV treatment meds, too. They may prefer PrEP over treatment because it saves money over the long haul, but that doesn't mean the same entity isn't paying for both. It's not like all the cost of HIV treatment gets shifted to the government - certainly not in the U.S., at least. In fact, typically, whether it's an employer plan, an individual private insurance plan, Medicare/Medicaid/VA/other govt. plan, or what have you: the same entity that would cover your PrEP will cover your HIV treatment. The plan may prefer (as noted) that people get on PrEP rather than get infected and need treatment, but getting HIV doesn't mean that it's going to be a burden on taxpayers. For several years I had an individual insurance plan for which *I* paid, out of pocket, 100% of the premiums, and now I'm on my partner's company plan as a domestic partner, which they offer. Neither one of those options cost "the taxpayers" a fucking dime. 2. Here in the US, even with the Affordable Care Act, there's a tier of people who make too much for traditional Medicaid (govt health plans for the poor) but not enough to qualify for a subsidy on the ACA exchanges for a plan. Part of the ACA is an "Expanded Medicaid" plan to cover those people, but the courts here ruled that because Medicaid is a cost shared between the federal and state governments, the feds can't mandate that a state participate. As a result, 13 states (at last count) still refuse to participate in Expanded Medicaid, meaning people in those states who make less than the poverty wage can't get a subsidy on the exchange nor can they qualify for traditional Medicaid. They have NO insurance, because when you make less than $15,000 as a single person, there isn't an individual plan out there you can afford. So at least here in the US, while the uninsured rate is the lowest it's been in decades, it's still almost 8 percent, or more than 25 MILLION people with zero health insurance coverage. 3. Prevention sometimes fails. Some people brought up in restrictive circumstances don't know about prevention. Some people don't even know they might be at risk because sex education in this country largely sucks - it's left up to local school systems, many of which are run by highly conservative, religious people who don't want kids to be taught the facts. Some people are going to get infected no matter how much "prevention" is preached. 4. Lots of things are preventable. Heart disease is heavily influenced by factors like diet, exercise, and smoking. Are you prepared to tell people we won't treat them for a heart attack because we all know how to reduce the risks for that? Are you going to be making exceptions for people with a genetic disposition towards heart issues, and are you going to spend the millions of dollars it would take to screen every heart attack patient to determine whether they're one of the lucky "deserving" ones or one of the "too bad, hope all those hamburgers tasted good, you're on your own" unlucky ones? This whole idea smacks of who "deserves" health care and who doesn't. That, to me, is a nasty way to look at the world.

I agree that relationships should be based on compatible outlooks. But where you are looking at it as the monogamous-preferring guy "restricting" what the other guy needs; I look at it as the non-monogamous one making a promise to do something he has no intention of fulfilling. And that's the problem I have with this: yes, I understand that even people who think they want monogamy may be tempted by someone else, and they may screw up and cheat. It's not that I think cheating is unforgiveable. As Dan Savage says, monogamy is hard, and isolated instances of slipping up ought to be manageable in an otherwise solid and long-term relationship. But the key is "isolated". What I'm seeing here is a steady stream of asshole personalities bragging about how they actually get off on cheating, so they lie and tell someone they'll be monogamous just so they can have the thrill of cheating. That's a shit thing to do, done by shitty people.

Sure you CAN deny yourself the pleasure; you just don't want to, so you don't. You make it sound like you have no choice at all.

Some people get off on choking other people to death. Telling them they can't do that may be "too restrictive for them", but it's still the right thing to do. Both harm the other person; the question is, do we condone harm simply because the person doing the harming "gets off" on it?

Movitrem is the brand name given to one of the non-Gilead, out-of-patent status PrEP medications (I believe it's essentially the same as Truvada). As such, it should work the same way. You posted this question in a topic about PrEP for oral sex. As has been well documented and discussed elsewhere, HIV infection is a lot harder (but not impossible) to transmit during oral sex, unless you have sores in your mouth, bleeding gums, or some other "easy" entry point for the virus. As such, PrEP for oral sex may be overkill, but it will *probably* protect you against oral infection about as good as anything else. Just remember that on-demand PrEP is more sensitive to timing than daily, because you aren't building up a preventative level in your system like you would with a daily dose. That means wait AT LEAST 2 hours (but no more than 12, and preferably somewhere in the middle) after taking the initial 2 pill dose BEFORE you have sex. And try to time the two follow-up doses as close as possible to 24 and 48 hours after sex (which means counting from the time you first get ejaculate in your mouth). If you have sex more than once, keep taking the daily dose until 48 hours after the LAST time you take a load.

It happens to most people, eventually, at times, and it can be triggered by any number of things. My own soars in the spring and fall, with the weather changes, but plummets in the heat of summer and even in winter, sometimes it's just too much trouble. Diet, medications, stress - all these and more can affect your libido, and only you (possibly with the help of a medical or psychological professional) can figure out what's causing yours and what might help bring it back.

But if you have bareback sex with a variety of partners - or with anyone, even a steady partner, who also has sex with multiple partners, an STI is more likely than not. 13 pages of responses (actually, 15) does not mean people are "sadistic and sick" - it means that STI's are a common byproduct of condomless sex (and some of them can be transmitted even when condoms are used). That doesn't mean anyone should celebrate getting STI's - in fact, fetishizing them is expressly against the rules of this site, now (there is older content that may not pass muster under current site rules, but that's only because searching it all out is too time consuming for the volunteer moderators). But just because a lot of people have experienced an STI does not mean they are "spreading STDs and claiming ignorance or not getting tested". Shit happens. We deal with it. And if you think your attitude is somehow protecting you from STIs when, by the words of your own profile, you "never refuse a fuck", then you're delusional.

For material, I'd say silicone is the easy top choice. It's firm and durable and you can use water-based or oil-based (and SOME silicone-based) lubes for insertion. They tend to be somewhat flexible for comfort but firm enough to feel. Softer silicone may be a little harder to insert but will probably be more comfortable longer-term. Stainless steel is more rigid and durable, but the bigger it is, the less comfortable it will be. Shape is strictly personal. For size: as long as the part between the base and the bulk of the plug allows your anus to close around it, size is strictly a matter of comfort.

The last part was posted in 2017, so I really, REALLY doubt you're going to see more.

From the limited research I did on this today (which I'm certain is not comprehensive), there is a higher incidence of erectile dysfunction among HIV-positive men than among men in the general population. That said, it's not clear to what extend that HIV medications are the cause. The studies are limited. In one such study, for instance, the average age of the participants was 42, meaning half were already at an age where ED starts to become more common. The studies I saw didn't control for things like alcohol consumption or other "party favor" usage, which may well be higher among gay men and which can also contribute to ED. An ideal study, in my view, would have three age-matched groups of men who have sex with men (that is, bi or gay or whatever), who are also matched in terms of levels of sexual activity and substance usage - one group HIV-negative, one group HIV-positive on treatment, and one group HIV-positive not on treatment (which presents some ethical problems, but we're presumably talking guys who choose not to go on meds). That would give a much clearer view as to (a) whether the groups experience ED at different rates, and (b) if so, is it HIV or HIV treatment that is the likely culprit.

*Generally speaking*, no. The reason is that before you start PrEP, any prescriber worth his salt is going to have you HIV tested - and not just the rapid test kind, but a more accurate test - to verify that you're actually HIV-negative. Those results usually take a few days. (You can say "definitely negative" but a prescriber is going to want to know for sure.) The reason is that if you're HIV-positive, you don't want to start PrEP, which only prevents HIV; it can't treat it, because it only contains some of the types of medication needed for effective treatment. As a result, you could become resistant to the parts of the medication that are in PrEP, and then later, if you're diagnosed (correctly) as HIV-positive, many of the standard meds might not work. Also, bear in mind that a month's supply of PrEP (assuming you take the daily dose) is going to be very expensive if you pay out of pocket. There's a lot of talk of PrEP being available in the US at no cost to the patient, but that's when the cost is transferred to an insurer, government medical program, or whatever - and all of those keep records. Going to the "on demand" dosing is cheaper, but 30 tablets, whether they last you one month or six (because you need at least 4 each time you have unprotected sex), that's still anywhere from $1500 to $2000 a bottle, if you pay retail pricing. And if nothing else, the place that fills the prescription is going to have your name, address, etc. on file, because that's required for filling the prescription.

FWIW I'm absolutely a night person.

I'm sorry if my comment wasn't clear. I said I agreed with you for YOUR sexual interactions. But your comment was in direct response to one where the poster claimed it was the top's decision where to cum, with no input from the bottom. And that is within the context of a long thread of people saying that once a bottom lets a top inside, he's giving up his right to object. THAT is what I'm talking about as rape. If a bottom tells a top, before fucking, that he needs to pull out, anyone encouraging a top in that situation to cum inside is encouraging rape. Not you, but the long thread to which you were replying. Again - if you want to give up that control and say you can't object, that's fine. But that's an affirmative choice you're making, not having your choice overridden by someone else.

Consent can always be withdrawn.

That's fine, if that's what you want. Forcing a bottom to take it, when he's made it clear he does not consent to that, is rape.

I think you'll have to (wait that is) as the last update was nearly four years ago. I suspect this story is officially "closed".