BootmanLA

That's entirely different from what the OP's situation is - posting in the wrong forum. That's not "bull shit" - that's an accurate statement of what happened in his case. You (by your own admission) elsewhere made a reply that the moderators deemed inappropriate. Not knowing what the post or your reply said, I can't judge, but there's a difference between vulgar language and a personal attack on another member, for instance; the former is permissible, the latter is not. Whether that's the reason your reply was sanctioned or not, I can't say; but I do know that I'm correct that penalties are not handed out for posting in the wrong place (again, unless that's done deliberately, after being informed about how the forums are organized). That said, if you don't like the rules here, you're not obligated to stay.

Those are all valid points. Remember, IML is (at its heart) a leather contest, surrounded by a bunch of adjunct stuff, like a large vendor market, assorted parties (of the social, dance/circuit, sex varieties, some overlapping), an awful lot of "stand and model" stuff in the public areas, and more. Sex among the participants isn't rare, exactly, but it's not a 24/7 orgy either. A lot of the play that goes on is expressly kinky but non-sexual (in the penetrative sense) - and among some of the participants, they're expressly NOT looking for sex at all, but for chances to explore their particular kink.

One thing to remember: IML is not, per se, a sex party. A lot of sex happens there, of course, but not as much as some might think, and it's very unevenly distributed. The best advice I can give you is to go with as few expectations as possible - none, if you can somehow manage it. Nothing will be more disappointing than to go expecting to be a major slut taking lots of loads and to end up only getting laid once or twice - if that. Otherwise, like any other time you want to get fucked: being prepared means cleaning out. Be prepared to do that before you go out looking, and recognize that if you DO clean out multiple times over the weekend, it may take a few days for your system to "return to normal".

You might be surprised. I know any number of tops for whom a preloaded ass is a major turnoff. (I'm agnostic on the issue - would be happy to do either for a top depending on his preferences.)

Note to all: A part of this thread veered off into urging contacts/discussion about chasing HIV strains. That's a topic for the Backroom forums, not the Health threads.

I'm going to disagree (politely, I hope) with @BlackDude and @topblkmale, with the understanding that as a white guy, my own experience with such programs is mostly lacking. If we truly had a color-blind (and sex-blind) society, a la Star Trek's Next Generation era (TOS was sadly lacking on the sex-blind front), then sure, DEI would be essentially useless or superfluous. But we don't. Broadly speaking, we tend to respond differently to (and deal differently with) people who are "like" us - whether it's racially, genderwise, or sexual-orientationwise - than those who are not. It may be subtle or not subtle, but it's often there, and worst, when it's subtle, we're often unaware of it. And those different responses can make the difference between a hiring "yes" or "no", between being admitted to a program and not being admitted, and so on. We can talk till we're blue in the face about merit and "let the best person win", but the reality is that "best person" is a nebulous concept at best. Two candidates for a job, program or whatever are highly unlikely to be identical except for a couple of selected measurements (where it would be easy to pick the "best" one). Rather, it's more likely that A has three years of experience in exactly this particular job or program, while B has only 18 months of that experience but has four years in addition in a leadership role in a related field. In other words, the very act of picking which qualifications merit what kind of assessment for "best" is itself subject to personal biases - what do you value more? And once you get into "what do you value more?", the inherent bias to look for "others like us" frequently kicks in without recognizing it. An assertive white guy, for instance, might well be ranked highly because he's considered a "go getter", while a woman displaying very similar personality traits can be thought of as "too aggressive" and a similar black guy might be considered "too militant". Even if all of that is dealt with, somehow, there's still the inherent bias for, say, people from a similar educational background, or who had internships (frequently doled out to the kids of higher-ups in a given firm) with the kind of people we identify with. All of which is to say that "meritocracy" - let the best person win - is a mirage, for the most part. The primary beneficiaries of that mirage are (unsurprisingly) straight white males, often Christian ones, because those are the people who have the power and that power flows down through the people they hire, who are (again) the beneficiaries of that mirage of merit. As long as that mirage exists, there's a place for DEI, if nothing else but to remind us to look more carefully at all the options out there (which is, after all, the original meaning of "affirmative action" - to affirmatively seek out qualified candidates who aren't like us, because they are likely to get passed over even when they're as qualified or more so than others).

That's actually what most "wrong forum" posts get - the moderator moves the post, and notifies the member that it belongs in this other spot. Penalties are generally only levied, in my experience, when someone is *deliberately* breaking the rules, or else has crossed a line in terms of attacking another member, etc.

Actually the rationale against term limits is that they're unconstitutional under the current system, and only a constitutional amendment could change that. On a more practical note: the problem of re-election-seeking is far more acute in the House than the Senate - at least for even marginally competitive seats - because the next election is always less than two years away from the last one, and primary elections are frequently barely more than a year away even if the last general election was yesterday. Senate seats are held for six years at a stretch, so while fundraising for the next election is always ongoing, there's a lot less electioneering in the first few years of a term.

Important note: the Pope authorized blessing of same-sex individuals, but I do not believe he has sanctioned blessing the relationship itself. Rather, he's recognizing the inherent good involved in agreeing to take care of a partner, without stepping into the messy ground of what form that agreement takes. I could be wrong in translating what was written, but that's how I interpret what other, more adept Catholic scholars have commented on it. As for me: No interest (as a former Catholic) in a religious blessing for my relationship, from any religious figure. But that's just me.

Generally speaking, stories in this forum are intended to be taken as bareback without HIV being involved. In other words, the characters (a) are on PrEP, (b) are undetectable, (c) are all HIV-negative, (d) are interacting in a pre-HIV world, or (e) are in an alternate reality where HIV doesn't exist. If HIV *is* involved in a fictional story, it (usually) belongs in the Backroom section. That said, there's nothing prohibiting discussion here of undetectable people barebacking, per se.

The thing to remember is that this isn't some conscious act on the part of the pathogen; rather, it's simple evolutionary pressure. The variations that produce fewer or less intense symptoms go undetected, and thus survive because they're not treated. I suppose in the sense that man applies the treatment pressure, that's "interaction", but it's certainly not conscious interaction on the part of the pathogen.

While not disparaging any particular form of treatment, I will note that a single sentence in a single study in one foreign country is hardly evidence that a particular herbal remedy cures cancer. It's quite possible that other enlarged prostate conditions, including prostatitis or benign prostatic hyperplasia, might well benefit from an herbal treatment - and that may well be the case you have. But cancer - particularly one that is highly variable in growth rate, like prostate cancer - is a serious enough health condition that relying on some herb one study tested is foolish. Rather than self-medicating, I would urge anyone with similar issues to have his doctor investigate the prostate to see whether it's cancer or not. If not, experiment to your heart's content with herbs. If it is cancerous, I'd certainly want an actual medical opinion for my options.

Bifurcating your medical needs is certainly a workable solution for a lot of people. But one caveat, and one suggestion: Make certain that your PCP is aware of what you're getting/seeing at the sexual health clinic, including bringing copies of any test results, etc. whenever you see the PCP. One significant source of medical errors is when the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, and interactions between medications (and medications affecting tests) figure prominently in those problems. You might also talk with your PCP about your issue, and he or she may be able to reassure you about examinations when you have issues, etc. - or the PCP may suggest you continue to use the sexual health clinic but ask that they copy him on all test results, etc. One way for doctors like your PCP to get better at handling such things is for patients to bring those concerns to them. Can't promise yours will make you feel comfortable enough to handle everything, but either way, communication is always a good thing.

Not that I disagree, but it's not just "career" politicians - it's everyone who holds a political office. It's called "compromise", and in situations where we have a divided government (as we do now, with one party holding the House, another the Senate and the Presidency), it would be virtually impossible to get anything done on any issue where the parties disagree. Obviously, I prefer it when my party has the upper hand and can negotiate from a position of strength, but that's not always the case. What I hope for is that we never negotiate away fundamental principles, and when we give up something, we get something that's worth more to us. And then we go out and try to win more elections so that less compromise is necessary. But that means voters have to suck it up and vote for imperfect candidates instead of sitting it out because the choices aren't ideal. Too many people, for instance, are saying they won't vote for Biden because he's accepting "genocide" on the part of Israel - as though Trump wouldn't have given Israel an even bigger green light to do what they want.

One thing you might consider is finding an HIV/infectious disease doctor - just because that's their primary area of focus doesn't mean they can't see HIV-negative patients, and in fact they may appreciate the chance to treat patients who are trying to prevent the spread of infectious diseases (as opposed to only getting to treat people who already have something). And even if you can't use one of those doctors as a PCP (insurers are more open to that, I think, if you're HIV-positive because keeping THAT under control has ripple effects throughout your body and affects all sorts of other things), an HIV specialist may well know someone to refer you to.

Some are, though not a huge number (in my opinion). The bigger problem is not people who think X is the top concern; it's the idiot voters who think "I want X position on A, Y position on B, Z position on C, and if anyone fails to live up to any of those, I won't vote for him." Sensible voters know that it always comes down to a choice of which candidate is closer to what you want, not imposing an ideological filter that eliminates anyone with whom you disagree on some issue (unless that issue, like pro-choice for an awful lot of suburban women, is a firm line.)

For reference: it's okay to mention any other member in this thread as long as you have a crush on him. If by "not allowed to say my crush" you don't mean an individual, but a particular "type" of guy, then yes, depending on what that type is, it might be prohibited.

Perhaps. But I always find it odd when people's minds immediately go to the worst possible outcome - especially one like this, where the "slighted" guy plots revenge by waiting until he's infectious again, seeking out the guy who said something originally using a different ID, and then deliberately attempting to infect him. It takes a certain mindset to "go there", and I'm always curious why.

What they mean is that hotel personnel and/or security guards prohibit anyone from using the elevators that go up to guest rooms unless they are a registered guest (ie have a key card) or are accompanying someone who is a registered guest. In other words, you can't just go up and wander the halls looking for guys hanging out in the halls, with open doors, or playing in areas like the stairwells. That's increasingly common in hotels during major tourist events (and in some areas, 24/7/365.

When someone suggests that people are automatically going to act in an antisocial manner, I assume they themselves are of similar character, since that's the first thing that comes to mind.

Older tops, particularly skilled or gifted ones, seldom have to pay for sex. Older bottoms, however, may not be so lucky.

I would presume that you can't upload a profile photo as a guest, because guests, by definition, don't have active accounts to which the photo can be attached.

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, and I'm not sure what the availability status is for you, wherever you are, but that's exactly what PrEP is designed for. When used as directed, the odds of contracting HIV are infinitesimally small. If PrEP is not available where you are, or it's too expensive, then that's not a solution for you; but if it is, you'd be in a much better position to enjoy bare sex without HIV concerns.

You've raised multiple questions here. As for why you were able to penetrate this time, when you couldn't before, that could be due to any number of factors. Maybe this partner inspired you more than others have. Maybe you were hornier this time than in the past, or it had been longer since you'd ejaculated, or maybe he was already used to taking it so it was easier to penetrate. Hard to say why without knowing more - it could be a mental thing or a physical thing. As for being able to cum from fucking: it may be that you're unused to getting that kind of stimulation, and so your system isn't used to getting the "ejaculate now" signal from it. That's not an uncommon thing for guys who mostly masturbate to get off, especially if they use a really tight grip for masturbating. Your body becomes "trained" to expect a certain kind of stimulation, and fucking provides a different kind. What sex therapists often suggest in such situations is refraining from masturbation for a period, or using a much lighter grip to do it when you do. If your body doesn't get the rougher, more intense stimulation it's used to, eventually it can become more sensitized to a lighter effort. Or by foregoing masturbation almost entirely and only getting off when you fuck, your body will learn this is what it needs to respond to. As for the shyness: it's anybody's guess. You could be embarrassed about what you did. Talk it out with him. Communication is the key to resolving most issues between partners.

To add to what Close2MyBro wrote (and endorsing what cub84 noted): medications in sealed original bottles (just like blister packs) are more likely to retain potency than the typical supply put into a plastic amber prescription bottle. Historically speaking, pharmaceutical companies would produce bottles of 100 or 250 tablets or capsules for pharmacies to use to dispense prescriptions - especially for medications that moved quickly and which were dispensed in small quantities, like a 7-day supply or the like. For longer-term maintenance drugs, like PrEP and HIV treatment, some companies have gone to supplying 30-tablet sealed bottles, so that the pharmacy can simply label the original bottle and dispense that instead of opening a larger container, counting out 30 pills, and putting them in the little amber bottles we're used to getting. (Some drugs are also dispensed in 90-day supplies the same way, though HIV drugs, because of cost, are typically done in smaller batches.) If the medication is still in the manufacturer's packaging (as opposed to a pharmacy's), and it's still sealed, it's almost certainly good for some period after its official expiration date, particularly if it's been kept in a cool, dry environment. But there's no absolute certainty as to *how long* the medication is still good. If the medication is in a pharmacy-provided bottle, it's less certain. Something like a pain killer I'd consider safe longer than, say, an antibiotic. I'd put HIV medication - whether for prevention or treatment - in the latter category. Couple of months past the expiration? Probably not an issue at all. A year or two? More problematic.