BootmanLA

Not quite the case. Poppers are vasodilators, but ED drugs (Viagra, Cialis, etc,) are actually a different class of drugs entirely called PDE5 Inhibitors. Rather than dilate the veins (which poppers do), they work by enhancing the effect of nitric oxide on the muscles of the penis. When a penis gets that influx of nitric oxide, the muscles in it relax, which allows blood to flow into it, causing the erection. Rather than the medication dilating the veins (again, what happens with poppers), the relaxed muscle allows increased blood flow to expand inside the veins. So rather than a loosened vein with improved flow, the ED drug helps the vein fill itself and harden the penis. That's why poppers so often cause a top to lose his erection, while ED drugs (typically) improve it. And it's why they're dangerous together: the vasodilator in the poppers keeps trying to expand the veins (not just in the cock but everywhere), which causes a drop in blood pressure. If you further relieve the pressure on the veins in the penis by relaxing the muscles around them (giving them more room to expand, the veins can lower pressure over the body so low that you can have a BP "event".

I'm sure this will get some interesting discussion. It turns out that there are apps out there (at least one, maybe more) that can be installed on a smart phone that monitor whether you view porn (presumably via a long list of porn domains). You configure the app so that someone else is set to be notified, on THEIR phone, when you look at porn on your device (I assume it works with tablets as well as phones). The idea, presumably, is to keep you from looking up stuff you (as a good god-fearing Christian) shouldn't be looking at. It turns out that our new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has installed this software on his phone and that of his 17 year old son, with each other set up as the one who's notified if the other looks at porn. So many questions. 1. What the actual fuck? What kind of father installs an app that tells his teenaged son if Dad is looking at porn? 2. Johnson said his son "has a clean slate" - while notably NOT having commented on whether he, himself, has a "clean slate". I'd have to argue that's an admission by omission. Which means that Johnson's app is very likely sending the names (and who knows what else - links?) to porn sites to his minor SON. (This, by the way, is his ACTUAL son, not the black youth Johnson pseudo-adopted with no legal authority whatsoever back before he married his wife.) 3. Does anyone believe that the son doesn't have another device - a burner phone, a tablet, a chromebook from school, or whatever - that he's not looking up his porn with? Mary, please. 4. Again, what the actual fuck? This is almost Duggar-level creepy.

When you say "club" - for those in particular who may not know about Slammers - it would be nice if you explained what "club" entails: dance club, sex club, bathhouse/sauna, whatever. Inquiring minds would like to know.

OK, a lot of things to unpack here. First: you say that they "overexpose" you to LGBTQ content. How much exposure is "overexposure"? Have you considered that the 90% of the time you're NOT with them is spent in heterosexually-dominated realms, and they're just happy that, for a few hours a week or whatever, they can escape to a place where LGBTQ people are the norm, not the exception? You hint, without saying it, that you're still closeted. I'm not saying this is the case for you, but there's a lot of correlation, in a lot of people, between "being closeted" and "being annoyed by openly gay people". Assuming you are, in fact, closeted, why? Is being gay something you're ashamed of? Is it something looked down on in your (native) culture, and you've internalized those feelings about yourself? Because it bears remembering that straight people are very out - straight couples hold hands, talk about their weddings, hold engagement events in public, show off the kids they're having (which pretty much, generally, confirms they're sexually active heterosexually). Spouses are routinely invited to attend work events. Straight people rub their straightness in the face of their gay friends and coworkers, even the ones they don't know are gay, every single day. But you seem to be treading carefully about even slightly doing what the straights all do. That said, you don't have to like anyone. But it helps if you understand WHY you don't like someone. If you don't like them because they're loud and obnoxious when they're drunk, that's one thing. If you don't like them because they're out and proud, that says a lot more about YOU than it does about them. And I'm not going to say you're homophobic, but we recognize a thing called "internalized homophobia", which is where gay people who've heard negative messages about gays all their lives see it as something to be hidden, and shameful, and look down on those who aren't burdened with that upbringing. I'll also note that you're confused about what "toxic masculinity" is. It has ZERO to do with a lesbian who appears butch. Toxic masculinity is when a man feels his identity as a man is so central to his being that he's offended by anything that might call that masculinity into question. The toxically masculine man sneers at any but the most basic fashions because it's "gay" to wear nicer or more stylish clothes. The toxically masculine man hates when anyone suggests he might be gay because he thinks if they can tell, he's failing as a man. The toxically masculine man derides things like drag shows and gay poetry readings because "real men" don't do that sort of thing. And so on. I can't say whether that's true for you or not, but it sounds like there's a possibility it might be. Worth exploring. As for the gay bear friend: based only on your description, I'd say he might be something of a snob. But I haven't met him, so I can't say that for certain. I question, though, whether he might be reacting to something you've said - denigrating gay life in a big city, for instance. Or maybe he IS just a snob. That's something you might be able to figure out once you have a better grasp of what it means to be gay yourself. Finally, your written English here is pretty good. It's a little formal, in a way that tells me that it may not be your native tongue, but it's certainly not horrible. But written and spoken languages can have different levels of competence. I can read and write three languages besides English, at least for the rudimentary figuring things out, and I've got the skills to figure out the rest when it's more complex. But speaking? I can stumble along moderately in one, very (VERY!) poorly in the second, and essentially not at all in the third. So it may be - I can't know for sure - that you need more practice with your spoken language skills. It's rude of him to say it, regardless. But if you're as dismissive of gay issues with him as you were in this post, I can see why he might have no real interest in helping you improve your skills. One last thought: it sounds like you're in a foreign country. There's a saying in English: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Being proud of where you're from is fine - seriously - but if you're dismissive of your current location the way you're dismissive of the gay world in it, I can understand why you're rubbing people the wrong way.

Obviously, a "side" shouldn't get insulted when someone tells him "Sorry, but I'm looking for something else". But without suggesting you approached it wrong, I will say that how you convey to anyone that you're rejecting him matters. "I appreciate what you're looking for, but that's not me, and I don't want to hold up your search for that, so best of luck!" is definitive and polite and even supportive and encouraging. It also solidly puts the onus on you - you've made a decision that you're not what HE wants. When you say "I need X, not just Y that you're offering", it may convey a dismissive attitude toward Y and a superior attitude about X, and that's kind of insulting to the other person. It's saying "you're not what *I* want" - which is true in both cases, but it can be taken as hurtful. Now, I don't think that there's any "moral" reason you can't say "I want X, and you're not it"; but as you note, this is about the pushback you're getting. It's a lot easier to avoid if you just make it clear that *you* aren't what *they* need, as opposed to telling them *they* aren't what *you* need.

I 100% agree - but my point is that pundits on the right, especially, have equated "Jews" and "Israel the nation-state and its government" for decades - if you don't support the latter, you oppose the former. That's bullshit, but it's the environment that the right has created. I reject that, but it doesn't stop the right from insisting on saying it, and accusing everyone who opposes how far the Israeli government has gone (both historically and since 10/7) of being anti-Semitic.

Well, luckily, neither you nor I would have to make that decision, because it's up to the discretion of the local ecclesiastical authorities (and I presume that you, like me, are not one of those). It depends on circumstances, and that's not a difficult concept to grasp. From another realm entirely, for example: A man is standing on my front porch. Can I just pull out a gun and shoot him, legally? No, I can't. But if he pulls a knife and makes moves to stab me, yes, I can. Circumstances. The example I keep coming back to, for ecclesiastical blessings of a same-sex union, would be where one partner is ill or disabled, and the other is taking care of him, and they seek the Church's support. It's a case where, theoretically, the priest can ignore the fact that this is a pair of men having sex and focus on blessing the bond between them that allows one to care for the other (which is a Christ-like thing to do on the part of the non-ill/disabled partner). Not all cases will be that easy, of course, but that's why the Pope is directing people away from formulaic rules and focusing on the specifics of a particular situation. Circumstances.

I'm not sure when this magical time that you think Obama got "everything" he wanted from voters was. Please clarify. When Obama took office in 2009, it was with a Senate that had 59 Democrats - one short of the number needed to overcome any filibuster. Mitch McConnell made it clear, even before inauguration, that the Republican minority would block anything and everything that Obama proposed - with the exception of a handful of bills related to recovering from the ongoing GOP-initiated Great Recession. It took until July 7, 2009 for the legal challenges to the Minnesota election to be resolved, putting Al Franken in the Senate (giving the Democrats the ability to move legislation without Republican support). That lasted about three weeks, until Congress went on its customary August break, during which time Ted Kennedy died, leaving the Democrats with 59 votes again. Kennedy's replacement, Scott Brown, was appointed and took office on September 24, 2009. The Democrats again had between then and February 4, 2010 - when Republican Scott Brown, elected in the special election to replace Kennedy, took over the seat. Given the regular flow of holiday breaks, etc., this second period of 60 Senators on the Democratic side actually involved only about 5 weeks of actual legislative activity, Combine that with the 3 weeks in July, and you're at roughly 2 months - TOTAL - when Obama and the Democrats held enough of a majority to pass anything. That's the facts. Despite those headwinds, we got the stimulus bill out (which itself was crippled because some Democrats didn't want it to be as big as the president wanted) and the ACA - which also was limited because some Democrats insisted on gutting some major provisions. The problem is not and was not the party. The problem is that certain members of the party don't support the party's aims because it's not advantageous for them, politically.

You'll need at least a few weeks before any sort of test has a positive reaction. You'll need longer for a quality test that can confirm definitively whether you've been infected. In the interim: assuming you are NOT seeking to get pozzed, the solution is to avoid unprotected sex until you can get those confirming tests and they come back negative at least 45-60 days out (to allow time for any infection to manifest itself). Sucks, but if you keep having unprotected sex in the meantime, you won't know if that was the sex that pozzed you, or maybe some later sex act. And once you've confirmed you're negative, then get on PrEP so you don't go through this. You say "just had" an encounter: if it was within the last 48 hours, you could seek PEP (Post-Exposure Prophylaxis), which prevents any infection from taking hold by hitting it with medication before you're stuck with it. But 48 hours is really the outside time limit; it's most effective within a few hours of sex, and the effectiveness diminishes over time. At 48 hours it's still more likely to work than not, but.... If you ARE trying to get pozzed, then your discussion belongs in the Bug-Chasing area, not the health area.

This is true, but again, in US politics at least, conservatives try mightily to equate lack of support for (the current government of) Israel with anti-Semitism - if you're not in favor of whatever Israel does/wants, you must hate the Jews. They've oversimpified the issue such that anyone opposed to anything Netanyahu does is one step from Nazism. I wouldn't count on that. I doubt seriously that Netanyahu gives a fig about rebuilding Gaza. Remember that the extremists on his side (not in his party but in the parties with whom he consistently aligns) believe Gaza and the West Bank and the Golan Heights should be part of a vastly-majority-Israeli state. There is no room, in their conception, for several million Palestinians on that land. (To be fair, there are extremists in the Palestinian camp who see no room for a Jewish state in the region, either; but the difference at this point is, one side has most of the guns and missiles and bombs, all of the planes, and the US military's credit card at its disposal. And I don't think the Biden administration really has any plan for how to rebuild Gaza. We haven't been able to convince Netanyahu to stop building new settlements in the West Bank. further carving up territory that was (for decades) envisioned as a Palestinian state. How we're going to convince him to spend money to actually repair the damage in Gaza is beyond me.

Cheating, by definition, always is, because it concerns breaking the rules the two people have set up for themselves. It's not a legal case, where you can go to the statutes and look up what constitutes cheating and what doesn't. Which is why I'm asking if he's discussed what his husband thinks. It may be that his fears of cheating are unfounded because his husband would give his blessing to outside play. It may be that they're well founded because his partner expects strict monogamy. But he won't know where, if anywhere, they fall along the spectrum between those two positions without communication.

It's definitely *possible*. It's not highly likely, but there are a lot of factors that would be at play to determine the risk. If a top fucks you while he has any sort of cut, abrasion, or whatever on his cock, his risk is higher because of a more direct means for HIV to enter his system. If a top fucks you right after the unmedicated poz guys fucks you, he's at a higher risk than someone who fucks you hours later. It's certainly better for the non-poz tops if they don't fuck you at the same time as an unmedicated poz guy, but the odds of infection are still somewhat low - just not zero, and certainly not "negligible". One alternative might be to only let the poz guy(s) go last. Another thing to remember: you don't know what the status of any other top is. He can say he's on PrEP, he's UD, whatever, but you can't KNOW that for certain. That said, I think any top who barebacks in a bathhouse or sauna or whatever probably has to know the risks.

A few points: 1. You say "he is getting older" but as far as I know, given linear time, that means you're getting older too, right? I get that you're a lot younger, but still. 2. Regardless, it's certainly a thing that some people lose libido earlier and faster than others, and it's unsurprising (if not guaranteed) that your husband would be farther along that path than you are, given the age gap. 3. Have you thought about asking him what he thinks y'all should do about it?

Considering the last part was posted over a year ago, I would not hold your breath waiting, unless blue is your favorite color.

It's possibly real (I imagine a cock would show up on a sonogram in someone's ass, depending on the angle) but honestly, it seems kind of... overly clinical? ... to me.

Based on him calling himself "Tradie" and referring to "mates", I'd say he's either in the UK or Australia.

"script" is also used here, but it's short (both here and in the UK) for "prescription", ie a doctor prescribes a medication via a prescription.

Good reminder to folks! "Rx" is derived from the Latin "recipere" - the verb meaning "to take". If you still get any paper prescriptions, you may see "Rx" pre-printed on the prescription pad, and the doctor adds the name of the drug, the dosage, and how often it should be taken, sometimes along with the designation "PRN", which is short for the Latin "pro re nata", or "as the thing is needed". Things like antibiotics don't get prescribed "PRN", but drugs that relieve symptoms (like pain meds, gastro meds, etc.) often are - they'll have a limit suggested like "every 4-6 hours" but then add "as needed" - so you don't have to take the pain med if you don't need it.

I will clarify this: It's not that Johnson doesn't necessarily have a bank account. Rather, the disclosure rules require disclosure of any bank accounts which have had a certain balance over the reporting period. I believe that amount is $1,000, but I'm not sure whether that's "Balance at least $1,000 at any point in the quarter/year/whatever" or "An average balance over the period of at least $1,000" or "A balance of $1,000 for the entire period covered in the report." Depending on what the rules actually require, he could keep, say, $800-900 in his checking account but routinely spend his entire paycheck on whatever - mortgage, loan/credit card payments, food, etc. And further clarifying this: if, in fact, Johnson lives paycheck to paycheck, that means he could be under some financial pressures, possibly overextended (ie lives high on the hog with a fancy house and cars he can't afford). Those are prime worry spots for, say, national security, because financial vulnerability is not infrequently the reason some people become ensnared with foreign agents. If you're desperate for cash (not even necessarily to survive, but to live the way you want to live), foreign money from dubious sources can look very attractive. See, for instance, Donald Trump and Russia; Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia; Jared Kushner and Qatar; Jared Kusher and Saudi Arabia; Ivanka Trump and China.

Considering you have virtually nothing filled out in your profile, I'm not sure why you're surprised that people aren't falling all over themselves trying to contact you. But again, as @viking8x6 noted, this isn't a hook-up site, and if that's what you're looking for, I'd use the DISCUSSION sections of this site - its primary purpose - to find discussions about which sites might be better suited for your needs. I realize you may not have understood this, but basically this is like going into a Chinese restaurant and complaining that they don't serve lasagna.

You know that even in Texas, you can use a VPN connection located in a state that isn't blocked, right? There are free VPN services, but as with anything "free" online, if you're not paying for it, you're not the customer, you're the product (meaning they're collecting data of some sort about you to sell). I use NordVPN, which is a little more expensive than some services, but it's highly rated for privacy concerns.

At this point the general assumption among politicos is that Johnson basically lives paycheck to paycheck. He apparently has a very nice house in Benton, Louisiana - which is a pissant little place so for the dollar range of the value of the house he reported, it is either a huge house or on a great deal of property. But he has a high mortgage debt on the property as well, so it's very possible he never has more than a few thousand dollars in his account at any given point. He has significant liabilities (read: debt) in addition to his mortgage, and while his salary as a congressman has been substantial, he's only been doing that since 2017; prior to that, he was an attorney in private practice mostly representing the ADF, plus a state legislator here (which pays less than $25,000). And of course, he's got to keep a place in DC to live as well as the house back in his district. The high cost of housing in DC is one reason several members sleep in their offices and shower in the House gym. The government provides limited funding for travel to/from one's home district, but anything above that is the responsibility of the member and/or his campaign, and until recently, Johnson had never raised significant campaign money either, so most of what he did raise probably went for expenses like that. It's of course possible that he's got secret slush funds of money out there somewhere. But I think the more logical answer is, he's just a spendthrift who doesn't practice any discipline regarding savings.

Not necessarily. In most states, there are programs that pay the health insurance premiums for uninsured persons who become HIV+ (part of the Ryan White Act funding). For instance, in Louisiana, if you have an income low enough to qualify for our expanded Medicaid program (basically, less than $17,000/year), you'll get enrolled on expanded Medicaid with copays, etc. covered by the program. If you make between that amount and (roughly) $48,000, they will pay for a silver-level individual plan on the federal marketplace - here, it's almost certainly going to be Blue Cross - as well as coverage for dental. They also cover the copays, deductible, and out-of-pocket max under the individual policy. The program covers the individual policy even in some cases where the person could get coverage through his work, depending on what percentage of the person's income would have to go to pay for the employer-sponsored plan. I'm sure the details vary from state to state but I am pretty sure every state has something similar for HIV+ people. Providing that coverage, which encourages people to become undetectable, is a key part of the federal government's efforts to control the spread of HIV, which (along with PrEP) is one reason new infections have fallen so dramatically over the last 15-20 years. Again, of course that's talking about cost to the individual, not the cost to the government or the system. As they say, there isn't any such thing as a free lunch. But in terms of costs, an HIV- uninsured person may not be able to access PrEP cheaply or free; an HIV+ uninsured person can almost certainly get insured at no cost, at least in the United States.

Correct - again, UNLESS there was some provable connection between the two.

This is true, but again, there are a significant number of people in this country who do not have health insurance, and for them, PrEP is not free (unless they qualify for some program sponsored by their state or by the drug manufacturer).