BootmanLA

I would suggest you pay closer attention to what I actually write and less to things you seem to imagine I'm saying. Nowhere did I use the words "doesn't call for an uprising." I have repeatedly stated that I'm not saying this action is a bad idea (or a good one). I'm merely reminding people that we have the phrase "Law of Unintended Consequences" for a reason.

And I'm simply saying "rising up" may not be a solution at all. ( Or it may. The point is, actions have consequences, sometimes just for the actor, and sometimes for a lot of other people. )

It's a gamble, and while the odds "favor" you not being infected, there are certainly no guarantees, you could well be infected. It's a little late for this response (I was away for a day or two, so couldn't answer), but if you'd gone the following day (Wednesday in the morning and gotten PEP - and taken it religiously for the next 30 days - you'd almost certainly be okay. And I hope that's what you did. (Alternatively: if you'd taken two PrEP tablets at least 2 hours before he fucked you, and then one more each day for the next two days 24 hours after the sex, you would have also been OK. But you didn't have that double dose in your system BEFORE the sex, which is critical - it's got to be there at the point when HIV tries to enter your system to start with.) But PrEP only contains two active ingredients. In sufficient levels in your system - which takes several days to reach from when you start, unless you do the "on demand" dosing properly - it can prevent an HIV infection (and almost always will). That said, you weren't taking the on-demand dosing approach, and you hadn't been taking it long enough on the "daily" dosing regimen to have reached complete protection, either. So you weren't fully protected. And if HIV enters your system while you're not fully protected, it doesn't always result in an infection, but it CAN. And if it does, PrEP alone isn't enough to eradicate HIV when used "after the fact"; PEP includes additional active ingredients that can help keep that HIV from establishing a beachhead, so to speak. PEP is generally effective if taken within 24 hours of sex. It can be effective if taken up to 48 hours after sex, but the efficacy of the treatment declines the longer you go without. I hope you did, in fact, get PEP at the clinic on day 6, and are sticking with it. If not, then (a) it's too late, really, and (b) I am going to give you a controversial recommendation that may be painful short-term, but is your best bet for long-term health. 1. Stop having sex, period, for at least a month, preferably for more like 45 days. (This step is critical for the rest of this advice, If you can't do that, then the rest is pointless). 2. Don't restart PrEP. At this point, if you're not actually having sex (see #1), it's not needed, And if you are infected already, PrEP won't cure it, and in fact can lead to the HIV you have becoming resistant to the two ingredients in PrEP (which are commonly part of other HIV treatments, which might make those treatments useless for you too). 3. Get a rapid HIV test in about a week, and then again every few weeks, until the 45 days are up. If any show up positive, get to a clinic where a more definitive test can be done. Rapid tests are not necessarily 100% accurate, so you might have a false positive, or you might have been infected but continue to test negative on the rapid test. 4. If you do test positive and it's confirmed, get on treatment ASAP. 5. If you test negative at the end of the 45 days, you are almost certainly in the clear. At that point, go get a definitive test from a clinic or lab, and assuming it confirms you're negative, then re-start PrEP, and this time, remember how much of a pain in the ass all this was, and stick to the regimen. That means waiting at least one more week after you start taking it again before your next sex, with no missed doses.

I'm not suggesting you be silent. In fact, I'm not suggesting you do (or not do) anything at all. I'm just saying that the results of rising up may not be to your liking. There is a perception (not necessarily shared by you) that if enough of a group "speak up", then "they" will have to listen. The history of things like Native Americans being massacred in this country suggests otherwise.

Perhaps. But I'm not so sure a Stonewall 2.0 would go over well today. After all, despite the horrendous events that provoked the BLM protests in certain cities, very few people are defending the riots involved, even if the cause were just, and there still hasn't been a great "awakening" moment where the country decided to finally tackle the issue of racial justice in policing (much less the multitude of race-related issues we face). I'm not saying we've hit our high-water mark of advancing as LGBT/Queer people, nor am I saying we need to be polite about anything, but I am saying that the results might not be what we want.

I think there is so, so much wrong with this entire post that I could write a book detailing it, but I'll spare everyone that horror. Underlying the entire post is an outlook akin to misogyny - that the receptive partner (ie the bottom, which for heteros is the female role) is inferior to the insertive partner (aka the top, or the "real man"), and as such must defer to the insertive partner's desires/wants. Because of course the top is a "real" man. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Insertive partners need to remember that if there weren't any receptive ones, they'd be fucking their hands to get off. Normally I'd go into great detail about consent and how it must be obtained - and can be withdrawn at any time - but that's already been at least briefly addressed. What the OP is describing is someone who wants the right to rape without consequence. Now - as the script for a "pretend" scene, willingly entered into by a bottom, sure - overall, I'm sure many (if not all) bottoms would be turned on by the idea of submitting this completely for sex to someone else's control. But it's a scene, not a way of life. Anyone who confuses those two probably isn't mature enough for actual sex.

Which is... about July 1, right? 🙂 (Couldn't resist. Coming from/living in a place where April weather is positively delightful and June is abysmally hot and full of summer rainstorms, I always found it amusing the late Queen had her official birthday in June instead of April in hopes the weather would be better.)

I think you're asking a very complex question in a way that may be a bit oversimplified, especially when phrased as an "A or B" choice. Gay rights are human rights, as the phrase goes. And as such, they're universal. By "universal" I mean that we believe that every human being should be free from persecution or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; it's not merely a political choice that the U.S. seems (largely) to be making, but instead a recognition of a fundamental truth. They aren't *recognized* universally, of course; plenty of nations criminalize, some even with the death penalty, gay sexual activity. But the key, I think, is that in countries where we're free to express our opinion on the topic, we tend to think this a human right that ought to be recognized by every governmental body. It's true that the U.S. (or parts of it), for all its other faults, has actually been fairly close to the forefront of the gay rights recognition movement. But it's also true that it gets a lot of attention here partly because we have a free press and freedom of assembly, which can report on gay rights demonstrations and quote participants without fear that the news outlet will be seized and shut down, or that the interviewees will be arrested and charged with a crime. It may well be, for instance, that an equal percentage of people in the United States and North Korea are gay. But in only one of those nations are people free to publicly acknowledge it. And in only one of those nations are people free to express how they actually feel about the rights of those people. That doesn't mean that the sentiments aren't universal, only that we can't see what the average person in many places thinks. And it's true that culturally (as opposed to legally), the U.S. is more accepting in general of gay people than, say, Indonesia or Pakistan or even some "western" countries like Hungary. But that, too, may be a product of the freedom issue. Sixty years ago, because it wasn't discussed, most people had a very negative view of gays and gay rights; but as more and more people came out, as more and more media coverage showed us to be not that different, attitudes began to change. And that encouraged more people to come out, which begat more families of those people changing their opinions, and so forth. That shift has been dramatic in the United States. For instance, 1996 was the first year in which Gallup asked Americans if they approved of same-sex marriage. Just 27% did, that year. By 2021 - 25 years later - that percentage was at 70%. Mind you, that was only six years after the Supreme Court struck down the nation's remaining laws against same-sex marriage. As a contrast, in 1958 Gallup first asked about approval of interracial marriage. Only 4% approved then. Just 20% approved a year after the Supreme Court struck down such bans. We didn't reach a point where a majority approved of interracial marriages until 1996, and we didn't hit 70% until 2002 - 35 years after the Court's action (again, compared with hitting the same point 6 years after the gay marriage decision). And a big reason that public opinion shifted so quickly is that press freedom and freedom of assembly made it possible for people to see gays as we are, not as some demonized tiny minority to be feared. You just aren't as likely to see that kind of shift, certainly not that fast, in places that lack those basic freedoms.

Looking at the recent discussion here, it might behoove all of us to think of the topic not as "Why do Republicans hate gay people?" but "Why does the Republican Party hate gay people?" Because while it's debatable what percentage of the party membership actually hates us, vs. how many tolerate us or maybe even like us somewhat, but are willing to accept our demonization as the cost for getting the other things they want, what is NOT debatable is whether Republican policy, as articulated in platform statements, is anti-gay. It absolutely is, and has been for a very long time. Not forever, of course; there was a time when the parties saw no reason to have a position on homosexuality because everyone in power agreed it was a bad thing to be suppressed, by prosecution and incarceration if need be. It wasn't until gay liberation became a significant public issue - that is, outside of a few large urban areas, where it was an issue earlier - that the parties started taking a position. And this occurred at the same time as the first "lurch to the right" of the Republican party, in the very late 1960's and early 1970's. We weren't the driving force - race was - but that's when "cultural issues" became partisan political issues. Southern Democrats who were segregationists started becoming Republicans, Later, Republicans who were more socially conscious started becoming Democrats. Another factor: At one time, the parties were much more separated by economic and foreign policy issues - that is, people were pro-Labor or pro-Management, pro-Interventionist or pro-Isolationist, and so forth. In a nation where wealth had long been concentrated among the few, the backlash caused by the Great Depression (seen as the fault of greedy industrialists and other rich people, but the impact hitting mostly the working class) had the effect of propelling FDR to power. And FDR (and Truman after him) solidified government policy as firmly pro-labor, with huge support among the working people. The only Republican president between 1933 and 1968 - Eisenhower - wisely did little to disrupt the gains labor had made. Nixon knew he could only win by cleaving the working-class vote along some other line, and his "Southern Strategy" cynically chose race as the issue. They used race-baiting dog whistles, but everyone got the message, as Lee Atwater's famous 1981 interview revealed. And they've never stopped. And since it's a technique they know works, the Republicans happily drag it out on any other social issue where they think they can divide Democratic voters - feminism, immigration, LGBT rights. The only problem for them is that society as a whole keeps gradually moving left; most voters now approve of interracial marriage, most voters approve of women working, most voters approve of expanding immigration opportunities, most voters support LGBT rights. So the GOP has to keep manufacturing new social issues - the way they're railing on now about drag queen story time - in order to keep the attention focused on something divisive. Because when they stop, people go back to looking at the economic issues, and they start to remember that the Republicans are solidly in favor of taxing the working poor more and cutting programs that benefit them, and more than offsetting any such savings with massive tax cuts for business and the rich. And if there's one thing that unifies the left, it's opposition to those kinds of economic policies. If they ever again become the driving force in politics, the GOP can't win elections.

I'll note, though, that Pete was by far the youngest candidate there and with a correspondingly thinner resume. (And that's not a dig at him.) It's more helpful, I think, to look at "a good age for a president" as a percentage of lifespan rather than an absolute number of years. In Washington's day, he became president at 57 - fairly young by our standards, but very definitely senior citizen material at the time. Teddy Roosevelt was 42 when he became president in 1901, but at that point the average lifespan in the US still only 47-ish. Most presidents, in fact, were older than the average lifespan when elected until into the 20th century. Nowadays, with the average male lifespan 74 years, and the average female lifespan 79 years, a presidential candidate over 70 is actually pretty much in keeping with the norm. The drawback, of course, is that while we live much longer, our bodies at that point are a lot more worn down, on average, than when men routinely died at 62 or so, and mental faculties often decline in tandem.

Although I downvoted this comment - because I've noticed it's from someone who's making a habit of trolling for attention - I will note that I've been a little disappointed in "Mayor Pete" myself of late - though I'm open to re-evaluating that opinion over time. From a wider perspective, I realize that the president has had to focus on a number of "really big picture" things in his term thus far (COVID, Ukraine/Russia, inflation, etc.), and bandwidth is limited. But in my mind, given the enormous amount of damage Hair Furor wrought in the administration of the federal government, I would have had my cabinet heads make a top priority of identifying every major change Trump's team made in the agencies, make a quick decision as to whether it should be kept or reversed, and for the latter, immediately started the process of publishing regs for comment and getting the ball rolling. For instance, in the DOT arena (Pete's bailiwick), Trump gutted some substantial safety reforms in the railroad industry that Obama had put in place. That should have been top priority for changing back. Instead, no change has yet been made, and there's some early evidence that had the braking regulation in particular been still in effect, the derailment disaster ongoing in Ohio wouldn't have happened. And again, in his defense, he's had to carry a big chunk of the infrastructure workload, but that can't come at the expense of regulations, both safety and operational. DOT has nearly 60,000 employees; surely a dozen could be spared for a team to identify problem areas and draft solutions.

I assure you I understand far more than you give me credit for, and as someone whose history studies through graduate school specifically covered the period in which of that "removal of the natives" occurred, I am much more aware than the average American voter. It is not that I feel immigrants don't have the right to call out the United States for its sins - and lo, those sins are legion. In fact, I don't get where you think I said anything of the sort. I called out a *specific* individual ('NatureBoy', who seems to have left the site after making a series of shitposts) who made some contradictory, if not misleading, statements about his voting participation here. And I called out his *specific* suggestion, as a non-citizen, as to who those of us who ARE citizens should elect. It's one thing for a Briton or Frenchman (or whomever) to criticize any policy of the United States, particularly on moral grounds. It's another thing to tell citizens of that country for whom they should vote. And I called him out for saying, in a prior post, something about the United States where he referred to it as "our country", and yet he specifically identified himself as not a citizen here.

He means me. Because I questioned how suddenly this site isn't for him, after belonging for nearly two years and making 500 posts - while not actually going through the steps outlined here to request your account deletion. It's like someone announcing at a party, "This place is tired! I'm over it. And I'm leaving - as soon as everyone has his eyes on me so they can watch me flounce out of here".

I know I'm repeating myself, but.... any topic that asks "Do X people like/dislike Y thing?" is asking the wrong question, or asking the right question the wrong way. Some X people like Y and dislike Z. Some X people dislike Y and like Z. Some non-X people like Y and dislike Z. Some non-X people dislike Y and like Z. The question to ask is: "Do you, the respondents, prefer Y or Z?" If you want to limit the respondents to only X type people, ask "X people: do you prefer Y or Z?" Because "Do tops prefer shaved or hairy fuckholes" will never get a valid answer. Some tops like one, some tops like the other, and some tops don't give a damn. And even polling the members here will hardly generate a statistically valid sampling of what some imaginary consensus might be.

I still can't wrap my head around the concept of a man being "disappointed" that his partner was taking charge of his own health. Or rather, I can't wrap my head around the idea of a *sane intelligent non-controlling* man being disappointed etc. It's your life, your health - take charge of it, or not, at your peril.

Just curious - it's been nearly 2 years since you signed up here, and you've made 500 posts, and just now figuring out "this website is not for me"?

Why not load a revolver with a couple of bullets, spin the barrel, and fire it at your torso? Don't worry about it. If you hit your heart or a major artery so be it. Why have a conversation about guns anwyay? You see how stupid this sounds. At least I hope you do.

For the OP: I am strongly pro-PrEP, but I can understand the concern you have. If your relationship is currently closed, saying that you want to be on PrEP is almost like saying "I plan to open this relationship back up, whether or not we actually discuss it". Or, if his insecurities run another direction, it might be like saying "He thinks I'm going to cheat on him and end up infecting him." If your relationship is currently open, and you haven't discussed PrEP, it sounds like he expects you to use condoms outside the relationship. Either way: People in a relationship need to be able to talk about things like this. If you can't, that's a sign of a bigger problem than whether you should be on PrEP or not.

Just be aware you are placing 100% of your health risk in his hands. He could choose not to stay on meds without telling you. His meds could become ineffective at some point without him knowing, or without telling you if he does know. You might get raped at some point by someone who is both positive and detectable. This is all in addition to the fact that (in my view) someone who is that controlling over your being in charge of your own health is a huge red flag. Yes, lots of bottoms, especially sub ones, fantasize about being controlled by someone, even 24/7. But a thoughtful, considerate dom/top should, in my view, be so protective of his bottom/sub's health that he PREFERS him to be on PrEP.

Some do, some don't. I realize that doesn't give a lot of information, but these are the things to remember: 1. STIs are an inherent risk with bareback sex. That's not to say that condoms prevent all STIs - they don't, because some spread by skin-to-skin contact even if the genitals don't make direct contact - but there is a higher risk with bareback sex. 2. *On average* - and that's a key qualifier - people who have a lot of bareback sex with multiple partners tend to have more STIs than those who only have occasional sex with one or a limited number of partner(s). It's "on average" because you could have sex with forty guys, none of whom have an STI (and thus you won't contract one), or sex with one guy, who has an STI that you catch. It's like gambling: you might win the (reverse) jackpot on a single pull of a slot machine arm, or you might pull it all night and never get ahead. 3. Sex with guys in an area with a high prevalence of STIs is more likely *on average* to produce an STI than sex with guys in an area with a low prevalence of STIs. That said: Fifty guys may all be having sex with the same two (more promiscuous) guys, but if one of those guys gets an STI, it can easily spread to everyone once the omes who have lots of partners are infected. 4. This is one of the reasons doctors who prescribe PrEP ordinarily order routine STI screening every few months. STIs caught early are easier treated than those that escape detection for months or years, and are less likely to spread.

Sigh. Clinton didn't propose it, and only acquiesced in it because he knew there weren't enough votes to sustain his veto in Congress, particularly in an election year when the Republicans were making "ehrmahgawd the porn" an election issue. Had Clinton vetoed the bill and somehow the minority of Democrats in Congress managed to keep Congress from overriding it, the result would have been more Democratic losses in the House (instead, we gained a few seats), and it's possible (although unlikely) that Clinton himself might have lost key states. If some of the states that have since gone red - Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, Iowa, Florida, etc. - had flipped earlier instead of under Bush the Inferior, Clinton might well have lost the election. If you're going to blame someone, maybe don't just point at a president from a party you clearly don't like and assume he must have supported the legislation. That's the sign of a really simplistic, uneducated approach to politics.

For the sake of discussion: why? Why should it be the government's responsibility to provide a place for recreational sex? And if it is, what other personal habits/hobbies/activities should the government provide public facilities for?

There are bear- and bear-adjacent websites and apps out there. Bear411.com comes to mind for websites, and both Scruff and Growlr, among the apps, are out there. All of them have the ability for users to indicate they're attending particular events, although Growlr seems the least active in that respect.

Playing Devil's Advocate: the problem I see there is that (for the most part) this isn't a hookup site, and while personal ads are sort-of tolerated in the regional forums, the truth is that a site like this is always going to be less useful than "the apps" (whichever one might choose to use). At a minimum, sites designed for connecting people need to be able to show who's online, and when, and this one just doesn't. It's a discussion forum.

Not to sound discouraging, but it's hard to get even a twink or a muscleboy gang-banged, because there's such a shortage of tops. That said, I wouldn't go for a particular city as much as I'd try to find places hosting bear events. Those attract both the bears themselves and non-bears who like them, so you might have a shot even if you don't attend the event itself.