BootmanLA

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.

Except that a lot of what "this site stands for" is safe barebacking, which is why we have an entire forum about PrEP. You're free to leave - and you've taken the first step, by requesting account deletion. That said, as has been made clear in the Tips/Tricks/Help section, that process takes a while, and that choice is deliberate, because a lot of people request deletion and then change their minds. The administrator of this site has more important things to do with his time than delete and reinstate accounts for people who join on a whim, freak out, resign, want to rejoin, etc. Even if it does take a while - and it can take up to 90 days, and that's spelled out in the process - nothing is requiring you to sign on here ever again. I'm curious why someone who says he wants nothing to do with the site keeps returning. And as has been noted, also in the help section, being rude to the volunteer staff or racking up more infractions is not going to speed up the deletion process.

There are, at present, only two widely used oral forms of PrEP. Option one (Truvada and its generic equivalents) contains drugs A and B; Option two (Descovy) contains A and a slightly different (chemically speaking) version of B. The slight difference in the second drug does make a difference in some conditions. Truvada/generics should be avoided by people with osteoporosis, for instance, while Descovy appears to be safe for that condition. With respect to liver issues: Truvada is known to sometimes exacerbate preexisting conditions with kidneys, and patients using it are generally monitored for both kidney and liver functions. I do not know that there is any evidence one way or the other as to whether Descovy presents the same issue, but it's an alternative your physician may want to consider. There is also an injectable form of PrEP (brand name Apretude) that has been approved by the FDA. It's administered every other month instead of being a daily medication. I haven't yet found any data as to whether that medication is any more or less safe for liver issues.

And to be clear: there's a big difference between keeping urging the "safe only" bottom to try bareback, and giving it to him bareback without his OK. Of course, if you keep urging and he gets pissed off, he may call it off entirely. But that's still better than "convincing" him to try something he's expressly opposed to by just doing it anyway.

This is the Porn forum, not a general discussion, so you'd probably have better luck getting an answer elsewhere on the site in a more general discussion area. That said, the answer is going to vary widely depending on where you live. Most people don't go around inviting strangers who have literally no personal information in their profiles to a private sexual event, for good reason. I note you posted a similar request for info in the cocksucking forum, which is not only off topic there, but you say you're "new in the city" and yet don't even drop a vague hint as to what continent and country that city might be in. There is no master list of orgies around the world that you can consult, if that's what you're looking for.

Because for most of them, they're not in this for anything but the money. Social media drives their fans to their porn sites, whether commercial or JFF or OF or whatever. They follow and promote other performers, in a loosely symbiotic way of cross-promoting each other. They gain literally nothing by following a bunch of ordinary joes - so they don't. It's not a question of what would it hurt (although it means their own feeds would be clogged with puppy pictures and whatever else their fans post). It's a question of "this doesn't nothing to help my bottom line so I'm not going to do it."

It's true that there are a lot of gay men in Greece - or at least, quite a few visit some of the major tourist areas. But this guy is describing small rural village life. Those kind of places are far less likely to be accepting of gay men; there's no guarantee it's dangerous, but there's also no guarantee it's safe, either. I think he has a much better feel for what his village will tolerate than those of us who live in more liberal countries. A country doesn't have to be a "dictator state" to be a dangerous place for gays - especially outside of big cities and tourist draws.

I hope everyone realizes that most of what's being urged here - fucking someone under terms that were not consented to (in fact, explicitly NOT consented to) amounts to sexual assault at a minimum and very possibly (in a number of jurisdictions) rape. It's shit like this that straight men for years used to justify forcing themselves onto women: she wanted it, she said no but then she didn't (couldn't) stop me, blah blah blah. What many of you are advocating is that people prove themselves liars and untrustworthy pieces of shit. As a few sane-r people have pointed out, there are plenty of bottoms out there who are happy to bareback; find one of them, instead of forcing what YOU want onto someone who's made it clear it's not what HE wants. JFC.

Here's another way to think about it. When you get a moving violation ticket, you may pay a fine (or a few days in jail, which may be suspended) and lose your license for, say, 60 days. After that, you're free to drive again. But the ticket stays on your record - and your insurer will see it for (typically) three years or so; if you get another ticket within that period, the insurer is much more likely to jack up your rate or cancel you, because you have a history. They wouldn't know about your history if the ticket were taken off your account as soon as you paid the fine and your sentence/suspension was over.

"Large majority" doesn't even begin to cover it. There are seventeen judgeships on the 5th Circuit (not counting senior judges). One is vacant, and of the remainder, 12 of the 16 were appointed by Republican presidents. Two go all the way back to Reagan, four to "W", and a shocking six appointed by Trump in just his one term. Of those appointed by Democratic presidents, one was appointed by Clinton, two by Obama, and one (so far) by Biden. And even when we do get to appoint judges, we fuck it up. Most of Trump's six judges were born in the 1970's, so they're relatively young and could be on that court for decades. Obama's two picks were born in 1953 and 1961, making one of them now 70 and the other 62. Trump's youngest judge on that court is only 45, and if he serves until he's, say, 80, that's another 35 years of right-wing rulings any time he's in the majority on a panel. That's a relic of the days when federal appellate judgeships were seen as the capstone to a long and dignified career, not something you get at the age of 40 (Andrew Oldham's age when he was appointed by Trump). On some of the federal district courts, Trump appointed judges in their 30's, including one who was just 33 (and THAT one had literally never tried a case, civil or criminal, in court as a lawyer). Biden, at least, seems to get the necessity of appointing younger judges, and Chuck Schumer grasps the necessity of confirming them rapidly.

It's not that the mandate to cover preventative care, per se, has been struck down. What's been struck down is allowing a board that was not appointed by the President nor confirmed by the Senate to determine what is a "preventative care" service that must be covered. Right now, those decisions are made by a non-political board of career health scientists in the Department of Health and Human Services. What the court is saying - and to be fair, this is in line with a growing string of cases from many other departments - is that decisions with that much discretion, which amount to major policy choices, have to be made by officials appointed under the Appointments Clause of the constitution. That clause is found in Article II, Section 2, which gives the president the power to appoint (along with judges, ambassadors, etc.) "all other Officers of the United States" as long as it is "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." The clause also provides that Congress has to create all such positions (meaning there has to be some statutory authority for the existence of an agency or department), and that Congress can, by passing a law to that effect, give the president power to create such positions on his own authority or give the heads of departments that same power. Thus, there are three types of government people, under the constitution: Officers (who must be confirmed by the Senate - such as department secretaries and deputy secretaries, for instance), "Inferior" officers (who may be appointed by a principal officer), and regular governmental employees - essentially, the last group are the "civil servants". The key distinction making an official a "principal" rather than "inferior" official is when the position exercises "significant authority" under federal law, and this is analyzed typically looking at three main factors: -whether a Senate-confirmed official (ie "Officer") can review and reverse the decisions of the purportedly "inferior" official; -how much direct supervision the Senate-confirmed official has over the "inferior"; and -does the Senate-confirmed official have the power to remove the inferior official. The more power another Senate-confirmed official has over the "inferior" official, the more likely he is actually an inferior official who does not have to be confirmed by the Senate. But the board that decides what preventative services must be covered for free under the ACA presents the typical problem: the board isn't appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, yet it exercises considerable authority to act on its own, it's not subject to review by a Senate-confirmed official, nor is it supervised by one. That means the board should be required to be confirmed by the Senate after being appointed by the President. And since it's not, their decisions are likely null and void because they're exercising a power they can't possess. That isn't to say I think PrEP shouldn't be covered - of course it should. It makes financial sense. But that doesn't mean the way the mandate was implemented was entirely legal.

In the Health forum, I started a topic about today's news that a federal judge struck down the ACA/Obamacare's requirement that PrEP be covered at no cost to insured persons. That's the place to talk about the health aspects of that decision - what it will mean in terms of people's health, both on an individual level and on a macro-level, for society as a whole. But there's a political dimension to this, too. It's too long and complex to explain in detail here, but basically, in Texas federal courts, you can pretty much choose which federal judge you want to hear your case if you're a right-winger, because there are a lot of federal courts where there is a single judge, almost all appointed by Republican presidents (mostly Bush II and Trump). Conversely, most moderate to liberal federal judges in the state are in larger courthouses with multiple judges (along with some conservatives), so even if a plaintiff wants to forum-shop for a court that leans liberal, he has no guarantee of getting one of the liberals among (for instance) the 8 judges on the Houston division of the Southern District of Texas. And it's patently obvious what's going on: plaintiffs with no connection to Amarillo, including the state of Texas, flock to the federal courthouse there to file suit because they'll get Judge Kacsmaryk, who's as far-right as they come. (Texas's seat of government is Austin, so you'd think they'd file suit in Austin in order to make it easier for state AG's to push their cases, but in fact they've filed at least seven major cases against the Biden administration in Amarillo. Guess why?) Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a lot that can be done, for now. Certainly any district where a majority of the judges are appointed by Republicans (like the Northern District of Texas, where 10 of the 12 sitting judges were appointed by either W or Trump) is not about to change its procedures to require all cases to be randomly assigned. It's bad enough when plaintiffs "forum shop" - by choosing a federal judicial district where a majority of the judges are reliably of one disposition or the other. It's an order of magnitude worse when the rules are structured to let you just pick the judge you want to hear your case. We're constantly being told by Republicans that the role of a federal judge is to call balls and strikes, but when you get to pick the umpire who reliably is going to call strikes against the other team, no matter what, the comparison breaks down entirely.