BootmanLA

What are you attempting to test, given that this is your first post and you joined within the last hour?

To my knowledge there are no actively maintained sites of stories related to becoming poz. There were some, and some of those stories were copied over here more than a decade ago, but those sites have largely gone away (because very few hosting providers will host that kind of content). If you mean the other part of the backroom, where they glorify drug use, I'm pretty sure that, too, isn't really condoned most places.

About the only way I can see this possibly making sense is in the context of a long-term relationship with a significant BDSM and power exchange component, particularly if the two are moving from a more conventional relationship of equals into a Dom/sub power exchange one. The sub, no matter how much he may desire that sort of arrangement, is going to find it conflicts with much of the way he lived his life before, and a lot of those kinds of things may need to be stripped away. Now, I will say that presumably the Dom's expectations will have been outlined before that process begins. For instance, the parties may pursue this kind of arrangement because the prospective sub recognizes he needs the discipline and rigor of deferring to someone else; that might be to help him save and become financially stable (so the Dom controls his spending and forces saving and investment). Or it might be to have the sub live a more healthy lifestyle, so the Dom controls the meal choices and ensures his sub exercises and eats well. (Or, alternatively, if the Dom appreciates a belly on a sub and the sub is willing to become a gainer, the Dom might force him to eat higher volumes of food designed for him to become, well, more rounded.) But for a scene? Absolutely not.

That's what you and I would think, but for a lot of these people, they actually get off more on the lying and sneaking around and being a shit person than they do the actual side sex. Take away the so-called "fun" of having to deceive someone you allegedly love and violate the rules you willingly agreed to, and these people probably couldn't get it up if they had to.

So the only people who can cuddle are dating couples? I hate to break it to you, but this is hooking up - as these people understand it. Some people think "hooking up" has to involve fucking and look down on anyone hooking up "only" for oral. If you can expand your mind to include oral as a form of hooking up, you should be able to expand it to include other forms of casual intimacy.

It's new in general, not just to you. It's only been around for the last few years, if that.

The "Duplicate entry" error is the most common one and there is no fix for it at this point. Assuming you've read this thread, you'll know that the chat module here is a separate piece of software, supplied by a third party, that does not integrate well into the forum software. Sometimes it works, often it doesn't, and no, bothering RawTop about it isn't going to get it fixed any faster, because it can't be fixed from this end. It's like if your company provided you with Excel and Word Perfect and they didn't function well together - your company's unlikely to be able to do anything about it because it's an issue between Microsoft and WordPerfect, and unless they fix the interactivity, nothing can be done.

Gotta love people who are looking to actually meet up, but can't be bothered to specify even a hint as to what continent they're on, in a completely inappropriate forum section to boot.

Lust is the *reason* bottoms take "many cocks and many loads." Physiology is the reason bottoms *CAN* take them.

For folks looking up handles posted here, bear in mind that X (aka Twitter) has been hemorrhaging users for the last year, ever since the Muskrat took over. I know a number of formerly active members who've deleted their accounts, so don't be surprised if you can't find a lot of the folks who've posted here.

Plenty of Republicans did just that in 2020, and plenty more will do that in 2024. There's a growing chunk (>40%, I think) of the Republican Party who are so deep in the koolaid that they would vote for the bastard child of Stan and Adolf Hitler on a ticket with Ivan the Terrible, if they had an "R" behind their names. They're convinced of the insane "ideas" (i use the term loosely) like "Democrats are trying to turn over the country to the blood-drinking pedophile council of the New World Order, and they'll vote Republican till the day they die (and given what we've learned about the GOP's predilection for voting dead and incapacitated relatives, even afterward). I see you've bought into the right-wing media narrative about Biden. He's only slightly older than Trump, but maintains a far more active schedule and actually works his job (as opposed to the hours of "Executive Time" Trump spent watching FoxNews and calling into radio and TV shows). He's certainly had a lot more travel of substance - and he doesn't skip out on things like a short walk to a WWII cemetery because of the rain. On what grounds? I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'm curious why you think this will be the case, when 2020's election was conducted under COVID restrictions and the issues - a megalomaniacal wannabe dictator against someone who supports Democracy - are basically the same. And this was before January 6 and before all the indictments have come down - I suspect there are at least some Trump voters who will just sit it out rather than vote for him (or worse in their minds, hold their noses and vote for a Democrat). Additionally: Trump's vote skews older - much older - and we'll have had 4 years of older people dying and more younger voters replacing them; and unlike previous generations where young people turn more conservative as they hit their mid-30's, that's not happening in recent years. Possibly in part because wealth and income disparity has grown so large that many of these voters will never be able to buy a house or start a family, which are key factors in people becoming more conservative. All that greed at the top is coming home to roost for conservatives. Agreed on the consequences of Trump returning to office. If Biden is re-elected and dies in office, his VP will take over, and I suspect policywise little will change. She may not have his skill at dealing with Congress, so that may be a limiting factor. As for the choices: I would love a younger, activist, solidly progressive Democratic presidential candidate with widespread support and good name recognition. But we don't have one. Just like we go to war with the army we've got, we go to the ballot box with the candidates we've got. And Biden is several orders of magnitude better than Trump, no matter what issue(s) you judge them on.

I don't know, but thank <deity of your choice> he did.

My guess is, it would probably help - and I think that the saltwater cleanse is also helping, to a lesser extent, with that because it's adding salt to replace what's about to be lost with the cleanse.

I would suggest that if you had bad results with counseling, try other counselors with the specific request that they be sex-positive. If the problem was that you were counseled to look more into why you deliberately run risks and you didn't want to examine that, well, agreed, counseling isn't going to help you. Because the point of counseling isn't to tell you what to do, nor is it (in general) to support you in whatever you choose. It's to help you learn how to examine behaviors and figure out what's going on. If you don't want that, then yeah, counseling isn't for you. If you do, but you weren't succeeding, it sounds more like a mismatch between counselor and patient - which can be rectified.

If I'm not mistaken, there are ancient pottery fragments depicting men fisting other men. So I'm assuming it's a very, very old practice. In the way of sex, I don't think there's been anything really innovative in several millennia.

What we're seeing now is much like what we saw in the late winter/early spring of 2016, when one by one, candidates dropped out and support for Trump consolidated. The only difference this time is there's a slightly larger "Anyone But Trump" contingent out there, but I don't think anyone believes it's enough to tilt the Republican primary base away from Trump. They're all either auditioning for VP or to be the "fall back" in case Trump is convicted in one or more of these cases and finds his support starts to crater. I agree that Haley probably is the Ted Cruz of 2024, the alternate candidate with the most staying power. Even if otherwise she and RamaLamaDingDong were evenly matched, straight white Republican Christianist men will cut her more slack than they will Vivek, because there's a long tradition of them lusting after "exotic" women, and for at least some, they'll transfer that lust toward political support. But Nimarata and Vivek are not evenly matched; as noted, she's got experience in government, both as a governor and a state legislator, plus her experience as UN ambassador. That doesn't make her qualified to be, or even desirable as, president, but at least she's not the joke that Vivek or Mango Mussolini are. But she's still got a huge uphill battle; she's got to be the "anti-Trump" without sparking too many questions about how she managed to stomach working for Trump if he's as bad a choice as she says; and if he's not as bad as the Democrats say, why is she opposing his return to office?

Since I'm male, I do not have a "cunt" or a "pussy" or any other derogatory name for female genitalia. My point was not based on me or anyone else, but on the simple fact that you can't say something as variable as "how long a top lasts" depends solely on the tightness of the bottom. Why that seems to bother you, I can't imagine.

You say you're "bicurious" but you don't give any additional information, so it's hard to give specific advice. Your profile says you're 30 years old, which is certainly old enough to explore. So here's two baskets of advice, suggesting you choose the one that fits. If you're single, not engaged, and not dating a woman seriously - that is, completely free of any entanglements - then I'd suggest posting a profile on any website that allows Male-Male connections. Make it clear you're bi-curious, with no experience. But for god's sake don't jump right into bottoming for anal sex - even if that's where you think you'd like to end up. There are lots of things you can do along the way there, to find out if you're really bisexual (that is, enjoying sexual contact with both men and women). Go slow, not excruciatingly slow; if you'd normally not expect to get into fucking with a woman until, say, the third date, then that's not a bad benchmark to use when starting out with guys. (A lot of guys WILL move much faster with each other, of course, but you don't have to sign on for that right away.) If you're attached in some form - you owe your wife/partner/girlfriend some honesty. Not necessarily a lot of detail, but I absolutely wouldn't go chasing bottoming for anal sex unless/until you're solidly sure that's not going to implode your relationship/marriage. Few things are as unsettling to *most* women in relationships as finding out their husband/boyfriend/partner likes to get fucked up the ass by men. Almost certainly that's guaranteed drama - and an unsettled partner dumped into that kind of drama could well lash out and tell everyone (on her way out of your life) about you.

Maybe he's not so much shy, specifically, as closeted and inexperienced. Maybe he's not gay at all. Here's what I would do: next time he suggests getting together, just ask, "It's fine either way, of course, but should I consider this a date?" If he backtracks and says "oh my god no, I just thought we'd hang together, blah blah blah" assure him that's fine, and you're happy to have him as a friend. He may still pull back, but you'll have your answer. And you need that answer since you're apparently torturing yourself over this. If he says yes, take a cue from him and go slow. After a couple of dates, you can be a little blunter - ask him if he's new to this, promise to go as slow or as fast as he wants, and just keep giving you feedback.

That is certainly one factor, but not the only one. Some tops have a hair trigger and can barely last past pushing the head in. Some seem to take forever. I don't think there is any answer to the actual question asked, because ""most tops" fall along a wide spectrum (with the remainder falling even farther apart on said spectrum). Of course if this becomes like most topics here and everyone just chiming in with their own (real or imaginary) abilities, I suppose someone MIGHT, if he were exceptionally bored, try to gather all the "data" (such as it is) and average it out.

So again, your interest and/or agenda includes coddling tax cheats? I can't think of any reason to oppose seeing that dishonest people pay the taxes they legitimately owe, other than that.

Not really, no, but... Sometimes people create a topic because they want guidance, or (as you phrase it) "change the way I think". Other times people create a topic because they want to know what OTHER people think, even if they've made up their minds for themselves. Create, or don't create, but it seems kind of pointless and a tad attention-getting to announce you're NOT creating a topic. Which is, I think, the point of the discussion. Nobody says that you or anyone else has to discuss something when you're not ready to share. If it's too much to ask, then don't. Easy peasy. Why? Because you think the only acceptable outcome from the discussion is the the OP announcing that "Oh, yeah, now it makes perfect sense why people chase an incurable disease"? Might it be that he just doesn't find any of the proffered rationales convincing?

It can happen even if the top is wearing a condom. They often "ride up" a bit, so part of the shaft is exposed, and depending on the texture of the fecal material, it could easily end up on the top's skin.

The question is not just how many third party candidates and how many votes they get, but who do they pull from? In recent years, the big concern has been "leftists" (Nader, Stein) who have actually been funded in significant amounts by the right, to weaken the Democratic candidate. And that's still a problem - Stein's sticking her Russian-backed toe in the race again, and the billionaires funding "No Labels" absolutely want to take votes from Biden. When RFK Jr. was talking about running in the Democratic primaries, he presented that same kind of threat - splinter the party during the primaries and hope it doesn't come back together again, which is why he was getting funding from the right to "explore" his candidacy. That's the same role Dean Phillips is now trying to play challenging Biden. But RFK Jr. is now running as an Independent, and his base overlaps Trump's to a significant measure (especially the antiscience nutcase vote). So there's a chance he could pull enough votes away from Trump to hurt him, if only in a few states.

There's a big difference between sodomy laws and these others, because there the difference isn't "outweighing benefits to society"; it's that there is no benefit to society to police people's private sex lives. And as a matter of fact, those laws against sodomy WERE enforced - at least, in some parts of the country. Not just by arresting people and convicting them of it, but by using those laws as tacit justification for denying gay people access to all sorts of things - security clearances in jobs, for instance. If being a criminal means you can't get a clearance, and you're admitting to being a criminal because you're openly gay, well, you can't have that job. That went on well into THIS century. As for passing the IRS thing: If you had a single fucking clue you'd know that was part of a much, MUCH larger law - the Inflation Reduction Act. That law contained, in addition, billions to lower the costs of home energy and to help transition to renewables, billions for helping get American manufacturing back up to where it was before offshoring, billions for improving agricultural practices - and a hell of a lot more. But apparently because you (as best I can figure) only listen to right-wing news sources, all of that IN THE SAME FUCKING LAW is overlooked and all you seem to know about that law is that it has more money for the IRS. Money that, in fact, will be more than offset because the new agents auditing business and the rich will pull in far more in new revenue (that was previously going untaxed) than the cost of the agents.