BootmanLA

If you mean a privately owned library, of course it's OK for it to be restricted to members only, just as any other privately-owned facility can be. Public libraries may restrict checking out of materials to local residents (because they're the ones paying the taxes for the library), but I think pretty much all public libraries allow non-residents (ie "non members") to at least use the materials while in the library. And I've never known any library to demand ID proving you're a local resident in order to enter the building. Three points: First, it's the OWNERS of the bathhouses that bar women - not just lesbians, but women in general, not other patrons demanding that they not be present. That's not to say one way or the other that the owners are morally, ethically, or otherwise "right" or "wrong" to do so, but it's a different issue from other patrons demanding accommodation of their own prejudices. Second, given that bathhouses are oriented towards *men*, and lesbians are (by definition) looking for *women*, I don't think there's a line of lesbians who are just itching to get into bathhouses and only kept out by the whims or caprices of the owners or other patrons. Third, it seems to me that such places have (in large measure) decided that it's the gender identity of the person that matters, not whether he has a penis or not. That seems to me to be a valid way to operate (and again, it's the owners' call). Absolutely! There's no problem with saying "This place isn't for me, it doesn't meet my tastes" - whether that's a Chinese restaurant that doesn't serve your favorite tacos, or a bathhouse that allows trans men. The problem comes when patrons demand that the Chinese restaurant not serve Lo Mein because they don't like Lo Mein. Or when the patron demands that a bathhouse exclude trans men because they don't want to be near a vagina. I'm not sure what to make of this muddle of a paragraph. Are you describing a person who was assigned male at birth, but identifies as female (which is what "trans" means)? If so, continuing to call her "he" and "a man" and saying "he" was "dressed as a women [sic]" is insulting; she's a woman who was born in a body that doesn't conform to her identity. And parenthetically if she's still attracted to women, that would make her a transwoman who is a lesbian. ErosWired addressed this better than I can, but I would note that while racial bigotry is unquestionably (from a historical perspective) America's biggest bigotry problem, that's in large measure because of a combination of severity and numbers. Women were oppressed in greater numbers, but not to the same degree as African-American slaves or Indigenous peoples. Treatment of those deemed "crazy" or "mentally defective" was often as cruel as what was handed out on the basis of race, but the numbers affected were much smaller and thus flew under the radar for longer. So in some measure it depends on whether you look at severity of treatment or the scope of affected persons when deciding whether two forms of bigotry are "equal". It depends on what you're measuring.

I mean: let's face it. Nobody on here - NOBODY - is arguing that trans men don't belong in bathhouses simply because they think there's some language line being crossed. The reason people object to trans men in bathhouses is they don't want to be around (or see, or both) a vagina while they're having sex. That's the only reason. Now, some may object to calling that bigotry or prejudice. I disagree, but I'll at least grant that maybe there's a better word (though I can't think of one). But it's not some noble cause of "preserving gay spaces for gays" or anything like that.

It's fine if your subjective opinion governs your own behavior, ie if you don't want to have sex with (choose one or more: trans men, white men, short men, small-cocked men, smooth men, whatever), then don't. It's not fine when you want to use your subjective opinion to exclude (choose one or more: same list) from a public place simply because you don't want to have to see or interact with people from that list. If the group you want to exclude poses some potential threat (say, "known muggers"), that might be rational. But there's no difference between "I don't want to go to a bathhouse where they let trans men play" and "I don't want to go to a restaurant where they let Black people eat." Neither one affects you, except to the extent that you may have to say "No thank you" to a trans person proposing play or "No thank you" to a Black person who wants to share your table (assuming that the trans-ness or Black-ness are the reasons you say no). And yes, both are bigotry.

Some guys do not, in fact, know what "breed" means. If they're accustomed to condom-protected sex, they may not be up on the lingo that most barebackers (and some non-barebackers) use. Some - and I can vouch for this from personal experience, discussing the issue with other gay men - think "breed" is a synonym for "fuck", and don't understand the implication that "breeding" means "ejaculate inside without protection". With a new partner, I'd suggest clearer language - either in a sexually charged manner ("I wanna put my load up your ass so you're dripping it out for hours") or in a clinical one ("I only fuck without condoms - is that OK?"). When a significant number of gay men still don't understand what PrEP is, what it does and does not protect against, or even that HIV is still a thing to worry about, you can't assume that they're going to correctly interpret a slang term the way you (and admittedly, the majority of gay men) mean it.

Which gets back, apparently, to the notion that you don't consider trans men "men". Which, again, reeks of anti-trans bigotry.

As noted, my VPN is also blocked, and it's blocked whether I connect through a site in Colorado, California, or Illinois. I think it's much more likely that it's a case of BBRT blocking VPNs, or at least certain VPNs.

I've had the same problem using NordVPN. My guess is that BBRT has identified blocks of IP addresses that are used by (at least some of) the various VPN services and blocked them. It's not you - it's the IP address from the VPN that's blocked. Now, as to WHY BBRT has decided to block VPN access, I can't say - as you probably know, the owner is notoriously opaque about customer service issues, and complaining about anything is usually a shortcut to being banned.

Oddly, though, I don't see anything in here which explains why you stay in a "boring and vanilla" relationship that (apparently) he wants to keep closed, if that's clearly not what you want. I mean, I realize there are all sorts of rationalizations for staying in relationships that aren't perfect, though many apply more to heterosexual relationships than same-sex ones. And I suppose it can be comfortable to have a "partner" who splits costs and provides companionship, though I really question how much of a "partner" one can be when one is constantly lying about something fundamental to the relationship, like the other party's belief that you're monogamous. I mean: if two people get into a relationship and agree to each contribute, say, $250 a month towards a joint savings account by automatic payroll deduction, and one of the partners has routinely (for years) been taking his money back out of that account to spend elsewhere, unbeknownst to the other partner, I doubt most of you would consider his actions benign. Then again, maybe those who have a high tolerance for deceit about sex probably wouldn't be bothered by their consciences over financial fraud.

And your point? Again, it boils down to "I don't want to be in a sexual space where X are". And that doesn't change simply because you - or anyone else - thinks there's a distinction between characteristics that can change and ones that can't. If you don't want to have sex with a person who has a vagina, then don't. If you don't want to look at someone who has a vagina, don't. If you can't get an erection knowing that somewhere in the mass of spaces, rooms, hallways, and so forth that constitute a bathhouse there may be a person with a vagina, then maybe a bathhouse isn't the place for you. And yes, there's no difference from someone saying "I don't want to fuck black guys and I don't want them around when I'm fucking." Or overweight men, or hairless men, or bald men, or whatever other characteristic one might choose to focus on.

Last time I checked, trans men can suck and get fucked (in one more orifice than cis men), so they certainly can participate in most of activities, at least in certain roles. Why would a trans man (who can get fucked in the ass) be unwelcome when a cis man (who can also get fucked in the ass) IS welcome? More to the point, who gets to decide who is "welcome" in those spaces? The owner of the space. If he wants to allow trans men every night of the week, or just every other Tuesday from 2 PM to 6 PM, that's his choice (within certain legal guidelines, depending on locality). It sounds like what you MEAN is "I don't want them in those spaces." Which is fine - you're allowed to feel how you feel - but you don't get to dictate who's welcome and who's not. That's understandable, but (a) again, trans men CAN participate in fucking and (b) it's up to the event organizers to monitor and see whether people are participating within the event guidelines or not. If you want to fuck and there's another guy who wants to get fucked, or vice versa, I don't see how the presence of other people (including trans men) affects that. Unless, again, we're talking about a fucker or fuckee who is so bigoted he doesn't even want to have sex in the presence of a trans person, when he'd happily do so in the presence of other cis people. I applaud you on this - not hat it's especially praiseworthy but in this part of your post, you make the point I've been trying to make. If any person (trans or not) is actively interfering with the activities going on, that's a matter for management to deal with, and most such places have policies to handle problem guests. If they're not interfering, then any objection to their presence is, by its very nature, bigotry.

As I understand it, the primary benefit of 4th Gen tests is that by detecting antigens in addition to antibodies, they can "spot" HIV earlier than other tests. But that antigen testing is also, as I understand it, the reason for many of the false positives (because other things are known to give a reactive result besides the p24 antigens). For whatever reason, you've had two false positive results from this kind of test. My guess - purely conjecture - is that you have something else in your system that sets them off; as noted, that could be as simple as having had a COVID vaccination and/or a COVID infection in the past. If so - and getting the same false positive result from another source would tend to suggest that's the case - then you might consider whether, given your circumstances, taking a less-sensitive test might serve you better. Especially if you're have a limited-enough "outside the relationship" sex life that your risks aren't that high, generally speaking. Otherwise, my concern is that every time you take a 4G test and it comes back reactive, you'll be in a mild panic mode, which isn't good for your mental health.

No. But people who say "trans (men or women) do not belong in this space that I like" are.

The bigger picture in all of this, of course, trumps silly angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin debates over what "real" men are and things like chromosomes (which none of us can see, in evaluating another person). What it really boils down to, in no uncertain terms, is "I don't want to have to look at people like that." There aren't enough trans men interested in bathhouse sex to create any real obstacle to anyone else getting laid - except insofar as some of the potential partners one might desire avoiding the place out of bigotry. And I have no doubt that if everyone were hooked up to a lie detector, we'd learn pretty quickly that someone likely feels that way about the loud complainers here - that they don't want to see overweight or thin or less-than-endowed or smooth or sweaty or Black or Asian or whatever other characteristic some people find unappealing. The difference is that we (mostly) understand that there will be other people in such a setting who aren't our cup of tea, and we just manage to avoid them when it comes to sexual contact. Anti-trans bigots are roughly in the place that anti-Black bigots were in 1960; it was still considered acceptable by some to express those opinions, but society was moving quickly in the direction of recognizing that bigotry for what it is. We're doing the same here, but sadly, we're still in the earlier stages of this change.

All retirement choices, of course, are a balancing act - there's nowhere (as far as I know) that is gay-friendly, is culturally alive, has lots of opportunities for older men to be very sexually active, has good weather most or all of the year, and is both affordable and unlikely to rise in cost dramatically over the course of retirement. Everyone has to balance his own budget, interests, and so forth. That said, I think it's worth remembering that some aspects and issues you'll be considering are longer-term than others. For instance, if you're 65 and about to retire, you may well have 10 years (give or take) of being really sexually active. Some men may be fortunate to remain active even longer. Some, though, will find themselves with a flagging libido or performance issues long before that; and if you live well into your 80's, you may have as much time (or more) when sex is unimportant or almost impossible as you had for a final sowing of oats. On the flip side, access to good medical care is never going to be unimportant. In fact, that's one thing that you can almost guarantee is going to grow in importance over time. Another thing: costs tend to rise, especially if you're going to be renting rather than owning a home. Moving to X city may well be an affordable option today, when you can rent for X. If X increases by 10% or 15% a year, as it does in some places, you may well find yourself priced out of the market long before the end, or you may be reduced to living on (meager) public assistance in order to stay housed. Given that very few people who are not yet retired have any sort of traditional defined benefit pension plan, careful attention to where things may be in five or ten or fifteen years is really important. If there's a significant market downturn (like we had in 2008 and following), while you're drawing funds from a defined contribution retirement plan that may therefore be declining in value, having chosen a more expensive place to live may mean a dramatic reduction in circumstances along the way.

But that refers to false NEGATIVE testing. The OP was getting false POSITIVE readings, and the follow-up to those DOES involve testing for an actual viral load, period. In other words, you're proposing a potential solution to a problem the OP doesn't have, a solution that nonetheless he would already have experienced during the care he reported.

I can't speak to Sydney's attractions (which may be wonderful), but as I understand it, Sydney is on the expensive end of places to live. For a retiree on a fixed income, or with resources that may not last decades, that may not be quite so appealing.

A viral load test is part of the confirming test that the OP already mentioned - that's part of the retesting procedure after a positive/reactive result on the original test. That's how they rule out false positives.

If you mean that the doctor offering a 27-year payment plan for a "refresher lift" to be delivered 27 years from now is 70ish, that even further highlights the ethical issues. Assuming he is, say, 70, the idea that he'll be practicing to deliver on what people paid for over the last 27 years at the age of 97 is pretty ludicrous on its face.

Not to mention, of course, that none of the people bleating about "real" men have any fucking idea what someone else's chromosomal makeup is.

It's probably helpful to describe what a 4th Generation HIV test is, and how it works, and then look at why you might have a false positive. Traditional HIV tests rely on testing for HIV antibodies - the cells produced by a body in response to an HIV infection. So strictly speaking, what these traditional tests are looking at is not whether you currently have an HIV infection, but whether your body is producing those antibodies. And while it's generally true that your body won't be producing HIV antibodies unless there's an infection present, that's not necessarily the case. 4th Generation tests look for both HIV antibodies and something called P24 antigens - a part of the virus that usually appears within a couple of weeks of infection, usually earlier than HIV antibodies, and so these tests can detect HIV earlier. But - they aren't foolproof, and there's documented evidence of several things that can cause false positive results. One of these is SARS-OoV-2 antibodies, which can be generated by having had a COVID-19 vaccination or by having had COVID-19 itself. There are other issues like liver conditions (including hepatitis) and autoimmune conditions that can also cause a false positive 4G HIV test. The important thing is that the follow-up tests revealed no infection. Those tests are much more thorough; they take longer, though, and are more costly, hence why they're only done if there's an initial reactive (positive) test result. Given that normal blood testing for HIV-positive individuals can find HIV even at the "undetectable" levels - that is, "undetectable" doesn't mean that HIV isn't present, it's just in such small numbers that it's clearly under control - the likelihood that THOSE tests were wrong is very, very low indeed.

I don't have a problem with anyone's personal preferences for sex partners (assuming, of course, we're talking legally-aged consenting partners). If a guy wants only hung guys, or only black guys, or only guys under 30, that's his business, and while I may have an opinion on the appropriateness/silliness/wisdom of making such a declaration, I'm pretty much going to keep it to myself (or at least, within a small, closed circle of friends in whom I may or may not confide private opinions like that. Put more simply: "I like X" or "I want X" is fine. "People want X" or "Gay men want X" or "Real men have X" is not. What I have an issue with is declaring categorically what other people want, or deciding that you and you alone are the arbiter of what a "real" anything is. If you only are interested in men who were "born with a cock that works", by all means, say that. Declaring that those are the only "real men" is rude.

So now you're the arbiter of what a "real man" is? Again, this is your perspective, and you don't get to speak for everyone. Declaring that what Trans men have is "none too appetizing" as a general statement is arrogant and rude.

I think my only beef with this kind of twaddle is that inevitably it leads to (a) discussions/debates about whether X person is a "real" sigma male and (b) fracturing the categories even further as people identify yet another cluster of characteristics that they want to name.

I get what you're saying, but I disagree to a large extent. A big chunk of people's perception of us is how we carry ourselves - a pretty physically fit body inhabited by a wallflower personality can get overlooked, and someone who may not be as fit but who carries himself with confidence and an outgoing personality may well attract a lot more positive attention. Moreover, while there are some "general" things that many or most people like, saying someone's body "looks bad" is incredibly insensitive, not to mention misleading. Every body type, from the most anorexic-looking twink (or former twink) through fit, to muscle-bound, to pudgy, to obese, is attractive to some people out there. Clearly there are some types that appeal to a larger audience than others, but saying some bodies "look bad" is, as I so often point out on here, navel gazing and projecting one's own interests onto the world at large. And frankly, I would MUCH rather be with someone who is, say, somewhat overweight but not obsessed with improving his body than someone who is super-fit but who is constantly worried about whether he can "afford" to eat a richer meal today because he might gain half a pound. If all you're concerned about is whether someone is hot enough for you to want to objectify all the time, of course, well, yeah: you're going to want a guy who is "try[ing] to be the way [he] wants to be". Me, I'd much rather have someone who's happy with himself.

No need to apologize to me - I'm not the cops, I just like seeing an orderly forum 🙂 And I hate to see conversations fractured (some people participating in one, other people participating in the other) when it's possible to avoid.