BootmanLA

My suggestion would be aim first for the kind of sex you're looking to have, and if you have someone interested, THEN see if they'd be interested in filming, especially if they're not showing face in the video. In other words, it's probably easier to find people willing to film, which means searching for that first doesn't narrow the pool much. But if you limit the search to people interested in the particular fetish, then you have a lot fewer folks to have to try to convince to film.

I'll say this, too, jd: Years ago, I ran up against that posting limit (which may have been slightly larger at the time - the owner of the site has been known to adjust those as necessary), but there were a lot of discussions I wanted to participate in. I made a point of signing on each day, and that helped me use every one of my limited posting opportunities every day. As Viking pointed out, quality of the posts matter too. Because the system that evaluates and moves people up levels is mostly automated (if not entirely so - that's one reason it's not disclosed, to keep people from trying to "game" it), I'd hazard a guess that post quality is probably evaluated by things the software can measure, like post length and number of "reactions" it generates. So, for instance, a post replying to a hot fiction story that just says "Hottttt", while no doubt a welcome boost of confidence to the author, isn't going to inspire anyone to "like" your response. But in a General Discussion topic about something like relationship experiences, responding to a question with a thoughtful answer may well generate half a dozen reactions. A clever response with a pun or joke embedded in it might get several "HaHa" reactions in addition to up or down votes for people who agree or disagree with your point.

@rawfuckingonly You asked about rational gun restrictions. The most recent I can think of is the ban on bump stocks, a device used exclusively for the purposes of making a semi-automatic rifle operate more like (in fact, almost indistinguishable from) a fully automatic rifle, thus enabling rapid fire without having to pull the trigger repeatedly. The Court struck that down. Courts have struck down limits on high-capacity magazines (how many bullets do you need to kill a rabbit, anyway?). Courts have struck down location-based carry restrictions, saying in essence there's almost no place that any community can declare off-limits to guns, even crowded places like theaters that present serious management issues. They've even struck down laws criminalizing filing serial numbers off guns, making them untraceable (but it's still illegal to alter a VIN number on a vehicle). Lower courts have even struck down the ban on "ghost guns" (guns assembled from parts that all lack a serial number), though the Supreme Court may - or may not - be willing to let that regulation stand. I think we can all accept that some of us will have differing views on whether *particular* restrictions are sensible or not. For instance, I can't think of a sensible reason we should allow people to have AR-15s and similar style weapons (contrary to the bullshit their proponents push, they're not designed for hunting and they're a poor choice for it). But I can see where someone might argue otherwise. I can't imagine ANY rational argument that we should allow the production of handguns without serial numbers to make them untraceable. I can't imagine ANY rational argument that a large capacity magazine - which exists solely so you don't have to stop and reload as often - is useful for ANYTHING other than killing a bunch of people (in hunting, the first round fired is going to spook every potential target within range, giving you time enough to reload manually). Ditto for bump stocks. As a people we're contorting ourselves into pretzels to find that all these otherwise rational limits are, in fact, prohibited by an amendment that until 16 years ago wasn't even acknowledged as applying to individuals.

And why do we have mass migration trying to get to Europe? Because Europe is wealthier than the places these immigrants are coming from. Why is Europe wealthier? Because Europe ransacked those places (Africa, the middle East, Asia, the Caribbean, etc.) like every other colony out there. I'm not saying white-shaming is an effective topic. I'm saying that as long as white people keep pretending that they're somehow the heroes of the narrative where they brought enlightenment and civilization to the poor benighted natives, while ignoring centuries of theft of those natives' resources, we're not going to make any progress. I'm not sure which "past ancestors seem enviable through a modern lens". You'd have to clarify what you mean there.

The French learned their lesson with Haiti.

This is not correct, at least by what I think most of us understand as "toxic" (which, in HIV terms, is not exactly a medical concept). Within 1-2 months of being off meds, a person almost certainly becomes detectable. And he almost certainly becomes infectious - that is, CAPABLE of infection. But remember that not all sex with a poz, detectable person results in HIV infection - look at the number of people who've posted on this site in the "chasing" sections who can't seem to convert. When we say "toxic", most of us (I believe) mean "high viral load", with a good chance of infecting someone he breeds. That's not a level being off meds for a month or two is likely to hit. (Is it possible? Sure. If the person's immune system was already severely compromised by the time he went on meds, and it has never rebounded - very low t-cells even with an undetectable viral load - then yeah, it's possible a short no-meds window will quickly overwhelm his system again. I don't think that's typical of HIV patients today.

Commentator 1: Matt Gaetz can now retire to Florida, where he can open up and enjoy that 16 year old Brandy he's had locked in a cabinet for years just for a day such as this. Commentator 2: I think she spells her name "Brandi".

Those of <fill in> are PARIAHS in the country that they stole from its indigenous inhabitants, who were herded into the least desirable and most resource-poor parts of the country, so that <fill in> could exploit those natural resources into the modern & prosperous entity they now control and extract all the value from, to which of course thousands of others wanted to come and share in the stolen booty. There, I fixed it for you. If you honestly don't grasp that, to the people who held ancestral lands for millennia, your "modern & prosperous entity" represents nothing more than a bunch of thieves with superior weaponry who stole their birthright , well, I'm not sure I can help you. I'm not saying Australians of British descent should feel ashamed of their parentage, but the fact that they think they did a good thing by seizing everything of value on a continent from the people already there, using it to make themselves rich, and excluding those indigenous people from any participation in society for a century or more - well, that says something. And to be fair I'm not saying Americans - also, in large measure, descendants of invading colonials who stole all the natural resources from the people who'd been here for millennia as well. We compounded our actions by using chattel slave labor for much of that theft. But we did it so thoroughly that when we realized that the barren dustbowl to which we'd banished our natives - the Oklahoma territory - was actually rich in oil deposits, we maneuvered ways to steal that land AGAIN, so we could profit from the oil. Morally, that kind of shit matters.

I think it's not that Musty Leon is a true believer in Trumpism as much as he's thought access to the levers of power would give him a lot of control over the government. This is a man who doesn't actually like to WORK so much as he likes to be in control and tell others what to do, even when it's clear he is a clueless dumbfuck who fell upward into riches long ago and thinks he's a genius. The problem is that there's only room for one person to actually be in charge in Trumpworld, in large part because the one who is in charge occupies such a large part of it - not just because he's clinically obese, but because his ego can't countenance sharing control of anything with anyone. Notice how Junior is already more than TWO DECADES past the age that Donald was when he took over running his daddy's sleazy but profitable apartments empire, but Junior isn't allowed to run anything more complex than a hypothetical third-tier motel chain for 'patriots' that they shut down before even buying a single piece of land to build any of them. Ivanka went her own way decades ago to sell "girlie stuff" in which Donnie wasn't interested. As for poor Eric and Tiffany, the less said the better. Musk is getting pushback not only from the scions of Wall St. but from everyone else who's got a hand out hoping to get a finger in the pie. The last thing they want is another "boss" to have to convince to give them any; they know the formula for getting it from the octogenarian dotard, and don't want any impediments added to that.

I do. But the thoughts implied in the quote bear addressing. If someone posted from an article that quoted Terra Cotta Hitler, and I wanted to respond to what the ice cold Cheeto was saying, I would quote Mango Mussolini and reply to it. Since my comment wasn't addressed to you - I have no reason to assume you're a bigot in the slightest - I'm pointing out to everyone the fact that Mr. Non-Bigot (who was cited in the piece you posted) is apparently clueless as to what his vote actually means. Not that he's likely to get the message. Until he's deported in some tragic "oh we didn't realize he was legally here, too bad" comedy of errors.

Also: it's not that the three letters were "only a part of the groups moniker" - it was simply BLM. But even so: the statement that "Black Lives Matter" says nothing about white lives. It doesn't say white lives don't matter. It doesn't say black lives are more important that white lives. It's saying they DO matter - implying rather heavily, I would say, that under current treatment, they do not. Insofar as an analogy: the lemon industry might promote its products by saying "Lemons matter." That doesn't say lemons are more important than apples, or grapes, or cherries; it doesn't say that only lemons matter and pomegranates do not. But some pissy fragile snowflake MAGAts decided that's what they WANTED "BLM" to mean so they could strike a "blow for equality" by denouncing the favoritism that didn't actually exist, all to assert the white privilege that actually DOES exist.

Well, with respect, it's a US acronym and its meaning here is really what mattered. If Australians had an "Indigenous Lives Matter" movement, I suspect y'all are all bright enough to realize that doesn't mean that the lives of descendants of white British colonials and the convicts they shipped over there do not matter. If y'all aren't please don't tell me. I want to think Australia is at least a tiny bit smarter than us about something beyond having universal health care.

Because when it first was created, the people who created it thought that's all you needed, the rest being just understood. I'm not saying it was cut off in some editorial committee meeting; I'm saying that's what everyone understood it to mean until some fuckwad assholes decided to weaponize the phrase with the "ALL lives matter" rejoinder. Just like we all understood "woke" meant, broadly speaking, aware of prejudice and systemic injustice, until some more (or the same) fuckwad assholes decided to turn it into an epithet.

Obviously it's really hard to do a scientific study comparing non-bleeding with bleeding and documenting PrEP effectiveness. But the reality is that PrEP, like almost ALL oral medications, is spread through the body via the bloodstream.

FWIW: "I don't do drugs, just poppers" is like saying "I don't eat carbs, only potato chips". Enjoy whatever substances you like, within reason, and by all means draw distinctions in terms of amount of harm, etc. but don't try to convince anyone that a potato chip isn't really a carb, or poppers aren't a drug. They are. Same for people who claim pot can't be a drug because it comes from a plant. Coca leaves and poppies are plant material, too, but that doesn't mean coke and opium aren't drugs.

Yeah, there's really no way for a non-Black person to say the n-word - unless you're quoting someone else saying it, and only because you can't convey the offensiveness of the original statement without a direct quote - and not be a flaming douche.

Well, now the GOP is in charge, and the Texas government has already offered Trump a huge ranch on the border they just purchased, specifically to use as a concentration camp. Oh, sorry, correction, "deportation center". They called the camps in Europe by all sorts of names, too, as I recall. But let's pretend that all they're going to do is deport people here illegally. Not a single US citizen or other legal resident will "accidentally" get swept up in this mass deportation craze, just like it's crazy that talk that the federal government could lose track of a thousand or so babies separated at the border from their parents and - ooops! - well, they were fostered out somewhere, we don't know where, we certainly didn't keep any actual records of where they went, or insist that the people given custody keep checking in. And anyway, that was then and we promised we'd mostly never do that again. Mostly. Again, let's pretend. We've gotten rid of the illegal immigrants. Housing prices have jumped another 35% almost across the board because there aren't nearly enough workers and the citizen workers are demanding $60 an hour to put roofs on in 105-degree weather. Groceries, especially produce, have shot up by 300% because of lack of harvesters and the fact we can't import affordably any longer because that involves a 25% tariff. Hello, $28 side salad upcharge at Chili's! The cost of car repairs, meanwhile, is 50% higher than it used to be because even for US cars most of the parts are made somewhere else and - oh! tariffs again. Unrest is rising. People are starting to demonstrate (peacefully, for now) but it's very bad optics for Hair Furor's agenda. Where, oh where, could they get these people "out of sight" so things don't look as bad as they seem? And maybe it'll send a message, too, that if you mouth off as a protester too much, no one knows where you are any more. It's not nearly as far fetched as it sounds. Who would have thought we'd still have prisoners sitting in Gitmo, still awaiting trial - supposedly - more than 20 years after they were "picked up" and rendered there? Never assume even a relatively benevolent government can't do ugly things like this. One headed by someone who openly admires Hitler, the NK Kims, Putin, and other authoritarians around the world? Hah.

If you only look at a very few issues, sure. If you look at, say, same-sex marriage specifically and LGBT protections more broadly - including your very right to legally have sex with another man - huge difference. If you look at labor rights vs kowtowing to corporations, huge difference. If you look at women's reproductive autonomy, huge difference. If you look at support for public education as a concept (open to all, financed by all), huge difference. If you look at environmental protection vs. corporate profits at any cost, huge difference. I'm sure there are other areas, but these are some very meaningful areas of policy difference between the two parties and they have absolutely NOT been interchangeable.

It's hard to respond to anyone who thinks the Assad chemical attack was "staged", but yes, some of his actions in the Middle East were insanely erratic (but aren't we told that he and he alone, in his magnificent wisdom, brought peace to the middle east? by establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and a few countries so far from its border that they'd never actually had any physical conflict at all?). But to suggest that's what caused "detente" with North Korea, as opposed to their calculated flattery of him, which naturally caused him to gush and blush like a schoolgirl - think the "love letters" he stole from the National Archives' custody as an example - seems.... what is the phrase I'm looking for here.... woefully naive? I think that's the phrase.

I don't like to put words in anyone else's mouth, so I'm trying very hard not to in this case. But that comes across pretty much as "we have to let Russia do what they want because otherwise things may get worse". That was, I believe, the approach of all the western governments in the 1936-1939 period. Things nonetheless continued to get worse. Markedly so.

I'm not sure if you mean offensive in a warfare sense, but since we're talking war, I assume you must. Who has a history of invading, or assisting in the overthrow of legitimate governments of, neighboring countries - NATO members, or Russia? The problem, at its core, is that Putin is at his core an old KGB/USSR stalwart, and he's never gotten over the humiliation of his country's (in essence) empire of satellite states being stripped from its control when the whole thing imploded from mismanagement and corruption. Worse, Russia, this supposedly great historical center of the universe of Eastern Europe and Asia, ended up nearly bankrupt and begging for food from their enemies of the last half century - western democracy. The icing on the cake, the part that makes it so bitter for him to swallow, is that we actually gave them that help. So he's like the disabled person in a wheelchair who got there because his best friends talked him into hotrodding on a dangerous road and caused an accident that left him partly paralyzed, in front of a building with several steps but no ramp. He grudgingly has to ask passersby for aid in getting his chair up the steps, only to be pissed at them for helping instead of being pissed at his friend who pushed him into racing on the dangerous road in the first place.

This isn't necessarily to defend Biden's action or lack thereof. But you can rest assured that no matter how badly he fumbles the ball, Trump will make it worse. Biden doesn't restrict arms sales to Israel? Trump will start cutting the price so they can afford to buy more. Especially with the likes of Miriam Adelson dangling another $50 million or so to his "defense fund" or whatever.

I don't think anyone questions whether all lives matter. But the point of "Black Lives Matter" was the unspoken part left out in simplifying the slogan. "Black Lives Matter Too Just as Much as White Lives" - which is the real message - is unwieldy. Shortening it, though, lets the bigots pretend it's a message about disparaging white people. Because for 400 years, give or take, in this country, black lives did not matter (and still do not matter) as much as white lives, certainly not to the people who have power and wealth. They just don't.

Except that since your post, the (Republican) chairman of the committee has unilaterally closed the investigation, meaning the report will not be completed or released. I say "unilaterally" because no vote was taken, just his own action, but I am confident the Republicans on the committee would have backed him if he'd made that as a public motion.

Put another way: if the report came anywhere within a nuclear missile's range of exonerating Gaetz they would have released it immediately.