BootmanLA

The short answer is "probably not". The code for this forum is supplied by a third-party vendor, and is increasingly creaky. When & if the long-awaited custom-coded version of the site becomes available, it may be possible to make changes suggested by the members. That said, the point of the "think before following links" bit is because of past problems with people posting links to prohibited material.

And he's still posting actively while he waits to be canceled - and actually signed up to beta test features of the software. I'm starting to wonder if something in this site attracts people with multiple personalities.

Abbott and DeSantis grab up a bunch of newly arrived immigrants, lie to them about what their options are, herd them onto buses and planes, and forcibly take them to other states. That's such a far cry from what the Biden administration is doing (and remember, it's the FEDERAL government's job to make and enforce immigration policy, not some whackadoodle fuckwad governors who want to seal up the bigot anti-immigrant vote) that it's not even in the same universe. I do agree that some sort of amnesty program ought to be part of the solution, but you'll NEVER get the red state officials to sign on to that; all they understand is PUNISH, probably because they were beaten as children by toxic abusive parents and think punishment is the only way you can teach anyone anything. As for the minefield thing: there's a reason civilized countries ban their use. And as for the military: we use our military to enforce borders *sparingly*, between two adversarial parties. We aren't adversaries with Mexico or Canada, although if some moron president as stupid as Hair Furor was ever gets elected again, we might end up at war with either or both, probably for a policy like that.

I would add: the real problem, like with the drug problem, is the demand side, not the supply side. As long as people want drugs (for whatever reason), there will be entities and individuals seeking to meet that demand to make a profit. And as long as there are jobs that need to be filled in the US that US workers generally won't take (like almost anything outdoors in the southern US, for starters, and anything agricultural that can't be done from the relative comfort of a seat on a combine or harvester or whatever, then people will seek to come here to fill those jobs. We could essentially kill the "illegal" immigration problem by having a guest worker program that allowed in as many temporary workers as were needed for, say, the harvesting season in California or the construction season in Alabama (and repeat across the country). We had a de facto system like that for decades, and such workers, generally young men, came to this country for three or four or seven months, worked, sent home whatever they could, and then returned at the end of harvest or construction or whatever. We largely ignored the traffic both ways across the border because we intuitively understood we needed the labor here. The American wages were low by US standards, but high by their home standards; only the income-generating men were in this country, which meant most of their families stayed back where the cost of living was lower, and the families were reunited at the end of a work season. Once this country got the stupid idea that these people were the source of imported drugs - ignoring the truckloads coming through ports of entry all along the border - and we began cracking down on "illegal immigrants", these men started staying put after work seasons ended, because it was too dangerous to keep trying to go back and forth across the border; you might get in THIS time, but there might not BE a next time, so better to stay here. And that led people to want to bring their entire family here, rather than be separated. True, they get the benefit of living in the US - but it's a lot more expensive, which means that both parents need to work, sometimes multiple jobs, in order to pay the costs of living here. Before, a group of 4-5 guys could rent a small house, stay together for the working season, and because they were sharing living expenses, they could send home a big chunk of earnings which went a lot farther in Mexico or Honduras or El Salvador. Now, those same wages have to support a wife and kids at US prices, which doesn't work - so again, multiple jobs by both parents.

You'd be surprised. Quite a few rich people have zero earned income, because 100% of their money comes from investments and other "non-earned" sources. Sure, some of them also have a "job" for which they receive a "salary", but even then, as you note, it's capped for social security tax purposes. Medicare tax isn't capped, but then that's why the really rich get stock options and not so much cash when they do "work". Even worse, people with ginormous assets (think the Musk Rat) don't have to even pay capital gains tax to access use of their assets. If you or I had, say, $500,000 in stock, and we wanted to start taking out $50,000 a year as living funds, we'd actually have to sell $50K worth of stock, and pay taxes on whatever gains we have. The really, really rich can go to the bank and instead borrow, say, $2 million against their billion dollars in assets, assigning a tiny fraction of those assets essentially as collateral for the loan, which never actually gets paid back, and for which they get a very favorable interest rate. They can then spend that $2 million on food and hotels and whatever, none of it counting as income because it's money they borrowed from their own wealth (which they also accumulate without paying taxes on the gains because they never sell). When the really really rich person dies, there's this multi-million dollar debt that gets paid out of the estate before it's distributed to the heirs, so there's no tax on the gain on whatever had to be sold to pay the debt. Then the heirs inherit the remainder with a basis in the investments at whatever it was worth the day the really really rich guy died. And then lather, rinse, repeat.

As long as the nozzle is less than about 6" (which I'm assuming it is), it shouldn't matter; you'll be squirting water into your rectum, the final section of your digestive/excretory tract before it opens to the outside world at your anus (aka butthole). Some may/likely will backflow up into your colon, which will help clean out "farther up", and of course the more water you use before expelling it, the farther into the colon it will likely flow. You'll likely get the same results no matter how deeply you insert the bulb nozzle. Taking it out, refilling it, and inserting it again is going to allow the water to shift all around your rectum, no matter where you "sprayed" the water inside originally. That's NOT the case with, say, a shower shot hose that's hooked up to a continuous flow of water - pushed far enough in, it may spray directly at the opening into your colon enough to fill it directly, the force of the water opening it up. But that's another topic.

This has been answered before, but to recap: 1. There is no sure-fire way of becoming HIV+, although the odds can be increased or decreased in various ways. Getting fucked by someone with a very high viral load is more likely to infect than by someone with a really low viral load, for example, but the lower viral load might convert someone while the higher viral load might not. 2. The viral load of the person who infects someone else does not, generally speaking, change how fast the infected person (if untreated) progresses to AIDS. 3. The only somewhat relevant thing here is that IF the infecting person has a strain of HIV that is largely med-resistant (and those are, for the most part, rare in the west), then it's possible that someone infected by him may progress faster simply because there's not an effective treatment. But that's a different thing than a "high viral load".

I will further note: there are multiple threads in this particular forum about the drawbacks of the chat system here - which, as has been noted, is a third-party piece of software that only barely integrates into this site. My impression is that it's not a priority of the software maker to update it or improve it, if it's even being supported any longer. That said: RawTop has for some time been working on a new version of this site, which is expected to be fresh from the ground up and which is planned to include a much-improved chat function. But it's a work in progress and not "due" out any time soon.

Strictly speaking, if we were to go by the most common form as the "regular" one, both "slid" and "hid" would be chunked in favor of "slided" and "hided", and "rode" chunked in favor of "rided". Because of the verbs that end in -ide, only those three have irregular forms. These are the verbs ending in -ide in their present tense form (and the corresponding past tense version): abide - abided chide - chided elide - elided hide -hid ride - rode slide - slid

Imagine if we regularized English. The past tense of "slide" is "slid" and the past tense of "hide" is "hid" so the past tense of "glide" should be "glid", the past tense of "ride" should be "rid", and the past tense of "abide" should be "abid". Not to mention chide/chid and elide/elid,

If you hover your mouse over each of the badges you've earned, you'll see what it's earned for. For instance, you get a badge for making your first post. You get a badge as a "conversation starter" when (as I understand it) you create a topic and others begin to reply to that topic's first post. There's a "Dedicated" badge you get for visiting every day for a week or more. And so forth. Some of the badges are less commonly awarded than others - and those badges carry the label "Rare" on the icon. In your case, the badge is for "Reacting well" - how that's measured I can't say, but if you routinely use up your allocation of reactions, that probably plays into it. You've got eight badges thus far, which I think speaks well of your activity on the site. Among the others that seem to (at least sometimes) be labeled "Rare" are badges for "Posting Machine" (making one's 500th post) and "Very popular" (when one's posts have generated 100 or more reactions).

MRSA isn't widely known - certainly not widely ENOUGH known. So don't beat yourself up about that. The thing about the precautions - like the handwashing we were encouraged to do when the pandemic first came out - are common-sense things that we should be doing ALL.THE.FUCKING.TIME - and that nonetheless too many people omit even now, going into the 4th year of Covid. The friend I mentioned who's manic about wiping down things in the gym? He's that way because he got a MRSA infection several years ago, one that his doctor insisted couldn't be that because it was "rare", and only when it wouldn't heal after TWO FUCKING MONTHS did the doctor finally have it cultured. In the intervening years, MRSA has become much more widespread, especially in places like gyms and hospitals, where different bare skin comes in contact with the same solid surfaces (weight benches, chairs, guerneys, wheelchairs, whatever) on a constant basis and very little effort is made to sanitize them in between. So other than wiping down surfaces yourself before touching them, it's true there's not a lot you can do to avoid it, especially if a facility doesn't do that kind of steady cleaning themselves. On the bright side: my forehead is back to normal except for a little divot where the dermis has not yet expanded back over the spot where the largest infection colony was (though the epidermis has grown to cover it).

FWIW: I suspect that there's a bigger market for porn with more clearly defined roles for the performers, because I suspect that a solid majority of people identify as leaning more one way or the other - lots of people claim to be versatile, but when queried on it, they almost always have a solid preference for one or the other role. So when performers have defined roles in the video, it's easier for the typical porn consumer to identify with the characters. If the bottom is the "star", bottoms can imagine they're in his place, and tops can imagine fucking him. If the top is the star, bottoms can imagine being the bottom getting fucked by this hot top, and tops can imagine they're the ones plowing this bottom's ass. My guess is, they've looked at videos to see which ones sold (back when you bought born), which ones rented the most, and (in the internet age) which ones got downloaded the most, which ones got pirated the most, and so forth. Porn's a business, and you can bet there are people out there measuring trends and advising their porn production clients about those trends.

It's amazing how leftists, who you claim hate gays and bisexuals, ever have sex. And yet it's always the conservatives who turn out to be incels. Such a sad, warped view of the world some people have.

You're not transphobic just for refusing to date or fuck a trans individual. You might be transphobic if you don't believe trans people deserve the same rights as you do. You might be transphobic if you decry trans identities as "made up" or "mental illness". As for the part about Democrats - all I can say is that whenever a Republican or conservative accuses Democrats of something they cast as a moral issue, that's a huge red flag that said Republican/conservative is guilty of exactly that or worse, because projection is now an almost-required characteristic for the Republican/conservative mindset. Is a Republican denouncing drag queens molesting children? Chances are excellent that he's cheating on his wife with a married woman (or a man), or molesting the campaign volunteers, or something like that. Democrats aren't into "weird things" involving children. We're looking out for them, especially the "different" ones who need protection from right-wing phobes. Entire generations of gay men and lesbians were forced to hide their identities because of people like them, and god knows how many gay and lesbian kids committed suicide because of the way society, their schools, churches, and parents railed about homosexuality. That's the boat trans kids find themselves in today. I can't really expect gay people who, in 2023, describe themselves as "discreet" and "conservative" and "non-gay scene" (ie closeted and judgmental and praying to God they keep "passing" as straight) to understand, but not everyone wants to live shut up in a little box like that.

For someone who's demanding elsewhere that his account be deleted, immediately, you sure seem to have the need to post lots of opinions. Maybe the reason it's taking a while to delete your account is that it's hard to take your request seriously when you keep participating on the site.

You don't get to dictate when, or if, your account is deleted. Nobody is making you log in here, and the site owner would be well within his rights to keep every posting of your public, in perpetuity. That said, there's a process for getting your account removed, and yes, it can take up to 90 days (which is the time allowed for citizens of EU member states under EU law). As a US resident, it could take longer and it's still perfectly legal, so if you want it to drag on, just keep complaining about it - they probably won't slow-walk your request, but there's no reason they couldn't. What "other sites" do isn't relevant. When you buy a Toyota, you can't demand it have every feature that a Nissan (or a Honda, or a Ford, or a Kia) has. When you go to dinner in an Italian restaurant, you can't demand they serve you Thai just because some other restaurants do.

I think this is where we disagree, as I firmly believe consent can be withdrawn at any time. It may make personal interactions difficult - no top, I'm sure, enjoys being encouraged to 'let his motor run' and then being forced to kill the engine - but at no point, in my view, does the top earn the right to 'cross the finish line' inside regardless of any change in the bottom's consent. I don't think your position is silly at all. As I see it, you've made a choice - whether conditioned or not - to allow any top who wants to breed you. And I say "made a choice" because the option always exists, should you wish, to de-condition yourself (with therapy or otherwise) from that stance; and that's not suggesting you SHOULD, just that it's possible to do. That choice you've made, under whatever conditioning, is yours to make, and it's not for me to call it silly or anything else.

I don't believe this has ever been studied. That said, as a topic analgesic for mouth sores, it probably would have some pain-lessening effect on such lesions. THAT SAID, this isn't going to promote the lesion healing faster; it's just going to mask the pain, which means you could end up making things much, much worse. If you're sexually active enough to get a lesion on your asshole, let it heal before you dive back in.

I think what the OP meant was, he wants to stock up on useful antibiotics while he's in Mexico (and they're much more often available without a prescription) to bring back to the US for use as emergency PEP, etc., not that he needs antibiotics for what he's doing in Mexico.

Speaking as someone on the outside: the moderators (as you note, all unpaid volunteers) don't have time to read every post on this site. They rely, therefore, on the reports of other users as to problematic content. So if an alert user notices post A that violates the rules, but doesn't happen across post B, A is going to get removed (and possibly a penalty levied), and B is not. That's not because the mods are playing favorites for B. Another point is that the rules have changed, over time - discussion of deliberate pozzing and bug chasing, for instance, is now restricted to the Backroom areas, whereas at one point, some years ago, it was not. It wasn't practical, when the rules changed, to go through tens or hundreds of thousands of posts on this site looking for anything that might break the new rules, and it would have necessitated moving a huge percentage of existing threads into the backroom even if the thread topic itself was fine for the main areas. A related issue is that when the site was laid out, the Health Forum included a huge number of topics about why people bareback, why people take the risk, etc. - but that was long before PrEP and when serosorting was the only option for lowering (but by no means eliminating) risk while barebacking. Barebacking, itself, is no longer highly dangerous *if* one is on PrEP, and so all the people boasting about how much better raw feels, how they're raw sluts who won't take condoms, etc. have zero to do with health at all. Ideally, they'd all be moved to another section of the forum so that "Health" would be about "Health" and people wouldn't be inspired to create off-topic threads there. That's the nature of change, both in real-world circumstances and in online rules. Roll with the punches as best you can.

I agree with the rest of your post, 100%: consent is consent, and violating consent is morally, if not always legally, rape. But the key point is: you negate that by imposing an "obligation" (your word) to let the Top "let the motor run", which I take as meaning "cum inside you". What you're saying is that regardless of what the bottom consented to, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else might find it silly, from a sexual risk standpoint, the bottom has the obligation to let the top cum inside. That's bullshit.

Treating this as a serious question, which it may not be: Bacteria are tiny, microscopic little buggers, and whatever a person might have in his excretory system undoubtedly exists somewhere around the edges of the hole as well, at least at times. It's not like feces miraculously disappear from the rectum and end up in the toilet without having contact with the anus. Also worth noting: a bottom who is harboring one or more of these bacteria need not have the first drop of cum or "ass slop" in his system for that infection to be spread via rimming.

I understand the desire to explore the stigmatized fantasy. However: on this site, there are forums for fiction, and discussing bug-chasing; there are also forums for discussing health-related issues (this being one of the latter). Those who don't want to "kill the buzz" can spend their time online in the areas where pesky things like real-life consequences of our choices aren't the focus of discussion.

My understanding about Nord (whether it's completely true or not) is that they have their VPNs configured in such a way that there is no logging information kept, so there's nothing they can use to comply with government demands for information.