BootmanLA

I think, hntnhole (with much due respect) that this view kind of glides over a lot of racial issues that are present and pervasive in many Latin communities. It may be true that, say, Cuban business owners start out trying to cater to their own communities. But there's frequently a big difference in the way they treat a white customer who happens into their store, or shop, or restaurant, and a black customer. More importantly, though, the wealthy Cuban class that fled the country in the very late 50's and early 60's absolutely considered themselves, if not "white" per se, certainly as close to it as you could get. They absolutely considered themselves socially a cut above (or several cuts above) other Hispanic groups, like Dominicans or Puerto Ricans - not least because those groups were frequently intermarried for generations with the native population. The same is true in South and Central America, where the descendants of the "purer" upper castes of European descent look down on those who came from families mixed with native blood. In other words, many immigrants to this country from Latin countries are already well versed in our racial attitudes because they're used to it back home. What's new, for them, is that the "whitest" South American or Cuban family of immigrants here would still be considered "Hispanic" and lumped in with Mexicans, Guatemalans, and everyone else from south of the US border. And if you don't think that irked the fuck out of Cubans who thought of themselves as essentially white, you never met one of these dispossessed Cuban exiles. I'd venture to say that the reason Cuban immigrants don't get quite as much backlash, though, as other Latin immigrants is that conservatives feel sorry for them. While Cuban refugees come from all social strata there, there's this myth of how everyone who fled Castro was a hard-working well-to-do businessman whose life's work was confiscated by the state - something that certainly happened, but not to nearly as many of the refugees as they make out. It's kind of like how virtually everyone with deep southern US roots thinks of themselves as displaced aristocrats who would have been living a much more leisurely and luxurious life except for that awful invasion by the North that destroyed all their property and turned it over to Yankees. The truth is that very, very few people are descendants of that leisure class, and most are in fact descended from what other generations frankly called poor white trash. (And I'm solidly in that group myself.) Cubans managed to evoke a sympathetic response, particularly among anti-communist conservatives, resulting in much more favorable immigration treatment than any other population in the western hemisphere. None of that, to be clear, is to suggest Cubans don't deserve their hard-working reputation. But then so do the Puerto Ricans who pick up garbage in the streets of big East Coast cities, and the Salvadoran and Guatemalan maids who clean hotel rooms and office bathrooms and the like. They're all hard workers, but we certainly don't treat them all the same.

Again, seems like an awfully complicated game to play, but I guess it takes all kinds. Or at least, there are all kinds.

I get that we all have our kinks and they're hard to explain sometimes, but honestly, this sounds so very much like fifth grade girls trying to find out if Johnny likes them without asking Johnny if he likes them.

Strictly speaking, that might or might not be true. However, there is a proposed "workaround" floating about, called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, whereby states that have signed on agree to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote nationwide. It will only take effect when enough states representing a majority of the electoral votes (or 270) sign on. To date, 16 states (plus DC) have passed legislation to implement the Compact: California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia. They represent 205 electoral votes, so there's still a ways to go. But more importantly: EVERY one of these states is dominated by Democrats, which belies your statement that "each party only moans about it when lose [sic]". Progressive states are stepping up to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. The truth is that the EC only benefits the right - in this case, the Republican party. We have not had a Democratic president elected by the Electoral College who lost the popular vote. But that happened for both George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016. The EC has a solidly pro-GOP bias built into it, and to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

AFAIK, there is not yet any "gay gene" identified, much less whether it's located on the X chromosome for men (which is the one inherited from the mother). However, a few random thoughts: Assuming for the moment that there IS a "gay gene", and that it's the same gene for men and women, prompting attraction to the same sex (whichever it may be), then it would stand to reason that gene would need to be on the X chromosome, as women do not have a Y chromosome*. I think there may - and I stress MAY - have been a study (or studies) that showed clusters of same-sex-attracted individuals in families on the maternal side. I vaguely remember this as possibly explaining how I had several cousins and a great aunt who were/are all lesbians - all of them are related to me on my mom's side of the family, and there are a few other older relatives who I think were "suspect" as well, again on her side. But of course, without having identified any such gene in the first place, this is all speculative at best.

Understand I'm not a medical doctor nor an expert in viral levels, but my understanding about untransmittable is the same as yours: they determined that 'old' undetectable (200/ml) was untransmittable, and that what's changed is simply the level to which we can measure - so while you may not technically be "undetectable" any more, you're still in the safe zone for untransmittable. I would also note that, given your particular proclivities about sexual activity, I'm not sure you'd pose a risk to a partner anyway, given how very hard/rare it is for a top to get infected from fucking a poz bottom. I'd say a top had a much greater chance of being infected if he were to fuck you after a poz top had done so, but that infection would be the result of the first guy's ejaculation, not you. And in fact that risk is there, obviously (to the extent it's a risk) whether you're detectable, undetectable, or negative.

The problem is that if you're on a mobile device using a cellular network - and I assume you were, rather than using wifi - then your cellular provider may be shuffling IP addresses around all over the place. When you access the web over a cellular network rather than WiFi, the communication between you and the cellular network isn't TCP/IP-based at all. Once your request (for, say, breeding.zone) is received at the cellular network, it then sends a TCP/IP request to this site to connect; but the TCP/IP address represents the proxy server (at the cellular network), not your phone. And you have no control over where that proxy is located, or what IP address range the cell company is using on the proxy, so you can't tell what it looks like to a site like BZ. And BZ, in turn, doesn't know where you are; all it knows is that an IP address of A.B.C.D is trying to connect, and based on what the internet says, that address was given to TMobile (or ATT or Verizon) and registered to X state, but the company could be using it pretty much anywhere. So your cell company's proxy server - the thing BZ recognizes - could well be in a banned state. This is less of an issue with non-cellular ISP's (ie home computers) because those ISPs tend to have local/regional IP address blocks registered to a server in the user's state, which makes location information more accurate. Even big national cable companies are broken into much smaller operating units, which almost always have their own IP address pools and DHCP servers. And since pretty much 100% of the network traffic from a home computer is IP-address-based, those DHCP servers tend to be robust and static - they don't take chunks of addresses and move them from Colorado to Texas readily.

I don't have a problem per se with the Green Party, or any other party, on its face. The problem with the Greens, and with every other U.S. "third" party, is that they do zero work to build their party as anything except a protest against the two-party system, and then only run candidates, for the most part, for president. Because they have spent zero effort building a party, they have zero chance of winning a majority of votes in any state. And because we do not have direct election of the president, but rather Electoral College votes, which are awarded for any given state to the candidate/party who gets the largest number of votes in the state (with the minor exceptions of Maine and Nebraska, which award some of those votes by congressional district results, but the 3rd parties can't win those either), they win zero electoral votes. And all too often, starry-eyed idealist little shits think they can "change the system" by voting for a Green for President, always siphoning votes away from the Democrats and in at least some cases costing them victory in an otherwise closely; divided state. They are electoral spoilers under our system, and nothing they do will change that system. Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, and their ilk just help pave the way for the George Bushes and Donald Trumps of the world. That's it. Otherwise, a vote for one of them is just electoral masturbation: voting to feel good, not voting to actually affect the outcome or get a good officeholder.

Men in general have active sex drives to later (sometimes significantly so) ages than women, and "approaching 40" (ie still in your 30's) is well within "prime time" for a healthy adult male. That's not to say some men aren't slowing down a bit by then, of course. But it's far from unusual. That said, I expect responses to be all over the map, with some guys around your age having already seen a libido decline and others just as randy as ever. But to really understand you'd need to know where they started; if they had a lower libido than typical when they were 20, they're unlikely to have an elevated one now, for instance.

So today it was announced he's pleading guilty to a felony - "assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain law enforcement officers." His sentencing is set for early February, which is typical - the government will conduct additional investigation, assess his cooperation (if any) with the Dept. of Justice in other, related cases, and then a pre-sentence report (PSR) will be produced. That last is a straightforward but complex calculation that accounts for the level of the offense, criminal history, acceptance of responsibility, and so forth. That will produce a suggested guidelines range of X to Y months in prison. That may be revised by additional factors like cooperation with the Dept. of Justice in other cases or enhancements to the sentence based on aggravating circumstances beyond the sentencing guidelines. Generally speaking, federal judges have broad discretion in sentencing - they can go higher than the guidelines if they feel the circumstances warrant, but they have to explain their rationale or they're likely to have the sentence overturned on appeal and returned to them for resentencing. They can also go below the guidelines if, for instance, the judge is convinced the defendant is truly remorseful and has actively helped DOJ with related cases. One thing judges will often take into account is letters of support from the community, particularly well-respected people (officeholders who know him, businessmen who worked with him, etc.) who voice support for the defendant and vouch for his remorse. Somehow, though, I don't really think Miles is going to have a lot of that kind of support pouring out, and to the extent that it does, I'm not sure how much the judge is going to credit porn industry people's vouching for his character.

As I said, "cheating" and "monogamy" are not necessarily related. Cheating means breaking the rules. There can be rules in open relationships, and breaking those rules is also cheating. And look - I don't give a shit if someone says "I can't be monogamous" or "Monogamy is a stupid social construct we should abandon" or whatever. Fine - abandon it. Just don't PRETEND to recognize it, and then shit all over it. Be honest and say "I will not be exclusive with you" and let the chips fall where they may. Compromise - for ADULTS - means you actually work out a compromise. It does not mean "I promise to do X, but I'm going to do Y instead." And the guys who brag about getting turned on by cheating? That's not compromise. Compromise is about working out a solution when two people want different things. Bragging about how much cheating turns you on isn't compromise - it's sociopathy.

This - this is why I say it's a myth that "all HIV is today is one pill a day and everything's hunky-dory". Yeah, it works out like that for most guys - almost all of them, in fact. Until it doesn't. And it's worse when they have to account for interactions of other medications you may end up on. For instance, I was pre-diabetic when I was HIV-diagnosed. The first HIV med I was placed on (Genvoya) did a fantastic job of rendering me undetectable, but it was also starting to slightly affect my kidney function - enough that they monitored it closely. When my blood sugar situation got a little worse, I was put on a daily medication for that, too - but it and the Genvoya both started doing a number on my kidneys, and it was clear one or both had to be changed, ASAP. They opted for both to change, and for now, my kidney function on Biktarvy is pretty stable - but it's not improving much from the damage rendered already. My other conditions are likewise "under control" - blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. - but there's no telling when one of those might need a stronger medication than I have now. And there's no way to know, at this point, if such a med will combine with Biktarvy to start doing a number on my kidneys again, the way it was for ErosWired. Basically, there's a whole host of conditions that many - if not most - of us will face as we get older, any of which may complicate HIV treatment enormously. We don't hear about a lot of these cases, but they're out there, and not as uncommon as one might think.

This is sort of a tired, well-worn topic (see: dozens of similar threads in this forum alone), so I'll recap what I've said before, short and sweet. 1. Monogamy is hard. That doesn't mean it's not worth the work, for some; it does mean you can't just declare "okay we're monogamous" and expect smooth sailing. 2. Cheating is not something that ONLY occurs in the context of monogamous relationships. Cheating, literally, is "breaking the rules". If an open relationship has rules (not with a mutual friend, not with a coworker, not more than X times with a single individual, not at home in our bed, whatever) and one person breaks the rules, that's cheating even if they're open. 3. As such, cheating is far more about dishonesty to your partner than it is about sexual monogamy. If you can't live up to an agreement with someone when you're in a committed relationship with him, then either it's the wrong guy for a relationship, or you're just not cut out for an adult relationship, because you're untrustworthy. 4. Yes, some guys get off on cheating. To me, that's like saying "I get off on stealing wallets from other guys' gym bags" or "I get off defacing other people's houses at night." It may be a true statement, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a shit thing to do. I simply do not understand why guys so regularly get into relationships while knowing they're completely incapable of living up to the relationship commitments they're making. Just stop. There's no shame in being single and playing the field. There is shame - or certainly ought to be - in shitting on the agreements you willingly made to be in the relationship in the first place.

Without addressing the main question (which I can't answer, so I would defer to others or at least suggest going to an urgent care/walk-in clinic), I will note this: references to urine's sterility is in terms of "sterile to the conditions of YOUR body". Obviously, if you have an infection in your bladder or urethra, for instance, your urine will contain those bacteria. And even if you don't: just as your gut contains bacteria that are necessary for your body to function, your bladder likely contains bacteria that help maintain the integrity of its lining. What they mean by the "sterile" comments is that pretty much everything normally in your urine is something that is being filtered out of other parts of your body - as opposed to foreign bacteria, viruses, or fungi, which you might find in (for instance) water in a stream or puddle. But if you have an infection or similar condition in your urinary tract somewhere, all bets are off.

This is your periodic reminder that a huge chunk of the country's population lives in areas where there are none of these things nearby; and "cruise park" is still (in many areas) a one-way ticket to jail for lewd conduct. In increasing numbers of even quite large urban areas, there is no bath house, no gym where you can seek sex (without being banned), and while there MIGHT be an ABS, there's no guarantee of that either. Also: while obviously there's a difference between what one looks for in sex vs. "something more", there's an awful lot of guys who want to know a little bit more about the guy who's fucking them than just seeing a hard dick, and many want something a little less sleazy, shall we say, than behind a bush in a park or a plywood partition in a sticky-floored, fluorescent-lighted commercial strip shopping center back room. I'm not knocking sleazy - if that's what someone wants, great! - but there seems to be this assumption that everyone needs to lower their standards for sex to the absolute pits in order to have any sort of sex life. And maybe that's what we're coming to, but if so, that's really fucking sad.

I hate to say it, but this kind of thought reminds me of Lloyd Christmas in Dumb and Dumber. After being told by the girl he has a crush on that the chances of them getting together are like one in a million, his only response is to be excited because "You're telling me there's a chance!" The odds of this being anything but a complete clusterfuck are roughly the same as the odds of winning a multi-billion dollar lottery without buying any lottery tickets.

This question comes across as "How can I get really close to torpedoing my job and possibly my entire career?" There is no way to "subtly" convey that to a coworker, much less a boss. And anything more than the subtlest approach is likely to result in a shitstorm of awkward, ending in either getting fired for sexual harassment or for generally inappropriate behavior. This has to be the most spectacularly bad idea I've seen in a long, long time.

I'll also add: this is strictly a personal view, so take with the appropriate grain of salt. There are some topics here where a photo added to a post makes sense - if you're wanting people to help identify a porn performer, for instance. But by and large, most discussions are hampered, not enhanced by people sticking dick pics and ass pics into the discussion, even if the discussion is about sex. We all know what dicks look like, we all know what asses look like, and just because you're giving an opinion on how nice a bare cock feels in your ass, or whatever, there's really no need for an image to back that up. We all (or almost all) enjoy porn - and that's fine, but this isn't a porn site. It's a discussion forum. I've seen posts in the past that added exactly nothing to the conversational thread except "me too", followed by eight or ten photos of randos having sex. Give it a rest.

Broadly speaking, I agree with you. But here's the thing: I get messages on the apps from people 5,000 miles away. I get messages from guys who describe themselves as "sissy bottom looking for rough Top Daddy" even though my own profile says I'm a bottom - not versatile, a bottom. I get messages from people whose first question is "where are you from?" even though every profile I create lists my city and state. I get messages from people who open with "Looking for tonight?" even though my profiles always state "I plan ahead for sex, almost never looking for "right now". I don't respond to those idiots. If they can't bother to read a fucking profile and UNDERSTAND the words before sending me a message they've forfeited any claim to a polite response declining what they're offering, so to speak. It's a mystery to me how people that stupid don't drown looking up at the rain wondering where all that water is coming from.

Your post seems perfectly on-topic, and not every topic here needs to be about sex. Certainly the more there's a tie-in to bareback sex, the more appropriate the post is, but one of the fun things about this site is that topics can spiral into all sorts of directions that interest at least part of the community. Those who don't want to read about things like retirement locations can just move to another topic. And I think you did an excellent job of covering some of the many areas that anyone considering relocating in retirement should take into account.

Most likely with a fake rectum or vagina, in which a camera has been installed.

This reminds me of the periodic calls to revive the hanky code, and left (or right) earrings, or whatever. Overly fussy, complicated, and pretty much doomed to failure.

I certainly understand as well as anyone else the appeal of bareback sex. Nonetheless, condoms prevent some other STI's (note the extensive discussions in the health forum) and many men prefer to avoid those as much as possible. I would suggest that, in the future, if you're willing to accept condoms, then that means ACCEPTING them, not just grudgingly allowing the fuck while you hope to wear the guy down. If you're really determined to only get fucked raw, then say that up front, and forego those men who want to use a condom. And if you STILL want to try to talk them out of it, the place to start is finding out WHY they prefer to use one. Their reasons are important, far more important than your preference (and again, if the preference is that important, refuse condom sex). It may be that he has outdated information about HIV safety. It may be that he has concerns about contracting another STI. It may mean he doesn't want even a remote possibility of his dick contacting feces, no matter how cleaned out his bottom may claim to be. When you know his reasons, you can then decide if there's room to compromise or not. Just trying to talking someone into something they're clearly not wanting to do is kind of a shit move.

I just read the judgment in its entirety. I will admit upfront that I have no specific knowledge of UK defamation law, other than a few ways in which it differs from US defamation law. Nonetheless, assuming the evidence (including testimony) is as the justice recounts it, I don't think it's fair to say that Taylor got fucked by the court. Rather, it looks to me like he fucked himself by some exceptionally careless, defamatory tweets and a YouTube posting. I'm also not sure I'd describe this ruling as "hard-core". I'd say it's definitely explicit, but I think of "hard core" as pornographic bordering on obscene, whereas this opinion is just, well, clinically very explicit.

Mind you, I haven't run any distance in more years than I care to admit. But back then, I was acutely aware that things like fanny packs could throw off my gait as they bounce around. You can't put it on snugly at the thinnest part of your waistline without it looking remarkably stupid (because it's riding way above your hips), and if you put it on any lower, it's going to work its way up anyway and then bounce and twist. And although I'll assume it's rare, it's fairly easy for someone biking by to grab the pack, slice the belt with a knife, and speed off. Not something you generally worry about in a lot of areas, but it's like purse snatching: it's a crime of opportunity and I didn't want to present an opportunity.