BootmanLA

A number of people have commented that, ethically and legally, you're in the clear - he's no longer a student, you didn't hit on him when he was one, you didn't use the school connection to make contact. So what remains is: do YOU want to continue having sex with him, or not? For this purpose, everything else is extraneous, because if you don't want to sleep with him again - for ANY reason - you don't have to, and you don't owe him an explanation of why, other than "I don't want to." There's no need to justify it to yourself with a rule about not shitting where you eat; if you don't want to have sex with him again, don't. There can be any reason, or no reason at all, and you don't have to supply him with one regardless. If you do want to sleep with him again, then (as discussed) you're ethically and legally in the clear. At that point, it's just a matter of deciding whether your general rule about sex with former students is ironclad enough to rule this one out (in which case, see the previous paragraph), or whether this situation seems different enough from what you envisioned when you crafted that rule that you think it could be okay. Which may simply mean revising the rule a bit, ie not sleeping with any former student until he's been out of school long enough to have finished college (whether he went or not). That would mean a guy in his mid-20's is fine, but not someone who was, say, 19 going on 20.

Strictly speaking, of course, getting tested is your choice. But here's the thing. If you get tested, you'll find one of two things out. Either you're negative, which means you've dodged a bullet so far, and it's up to you to decide what to do with that. My recommendation is always "Get on PrEP", because it lets you engage in raw sex the way you like without having to worry about possibly very serious consequences for your health. (You can still pick up STIs other than HIV, of course, but on PrEP, you'll be tested for those regularly (and you should be, anyway! You don't want something like syphilis to go untreated). Or else you find out you're positive, at which point you can start doing what you need to do to ensure you stick around long enough to keep enjoying the kind of sex you like. Now, it sounds to me like you get off on the idea of running a risk and also potentially putting your partners at risk. And I understand that appeal, but the reality - as you'll find out when and if you pick up something incurable - is a lot different.

I suspect like other posters that he was on some sort of ED therapy, even if he didn't "need" it. I know of at least one guy who, when he takes one, can fuck, cum, stay hard, keep fucking, cum again, and so forth for a few hours at least. My guess would be that for someone who doesn't "need" the ED assistance, it can be like those "erections lasting more than 4 hours" situations that the drug companies warn about, except it does eventually go down on its own (or after some final stimulation as its effects are winding down).

My perception about Florida, and it's just my perspective from a distance: I think there are several factors at play in Florida's tilt to the right. 1. For a long time, Florida's retirement population was (stereotypically, but somewhat accurately) New Yorkers, with a substantial Jewish contingent among them. They came from predominantly liberal areas and settled down in the Gold Coast area - Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade (now Miami-Dade) counties. Those people required support - health care workers, live-in care in some cases, lots of hospitality workers for those who wanted to avoid cooking, and so forth. Lots of gays and lesbians among them. So the residents, at one time (and this was the most populous part of the state) were weighted heavily towards progressive/liberal sorts. 2. There were a lot of snowbirds who would come down for the winter, and many of them were conservative, but they primarily lived, and usually voted, back home in their spring/summer/fall residences. Palm Beach even had a recognized "season" among the well-to-do, where it was kind of outre to show up at one's winter place before late November, often after Thanksgiving (because a proper Thanksgiving required the rest of the family, and chilly weather, and all that). The "season" was over by shortly after Easter, with some stragglers who otherwise lived in the northernmost parts of the country remaining into May. The less affluent snowbirds - especially those living in RV's and mobile homes - weren't tied to the social schedule but they also had no reason to stick around for the heat of spring and summer, which arrives early in south Florida. So they, too, tended to vote back home, where they considered they still "lived". They might have been more conservative voters, but they voted back home in Illinois or Iowa or wherever they spent the summer. So what's changed? 3. The Villages, most famously, but other retirement developments as well, changed a lot of that. Florida retirement became more widely open to red-state conservatives, who appreciated the lack of an income tax, and by establishing these developments in formerly rural counties that were already more conservative than the Gold Coast, they created new population centers away from the liberal cities. The expansion of the Villages came at a time when vast areas of formerly agricultural land were being bought up cheaply and converted for residential use, in part (though not entirely) because much of our country's food production was being shifted out of the country. (In 2004, friends of mine bought a portion of a former citrus farm that had gone out of business for that very reason.) 4. Back in the late 1980's and into the 1990's, after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. notably phased out quite a few military bases in the country (remember the Base Closing Commission, anyone?). While the number of bases and installations shrunk, their duties and (and many of their personnel) were shifted to other bases. Florida was one of the "winner" states; it still has a substantial military presence (56 bases, third behind California and Texas), primarily on the Gulf Coast, and those tend to be at least somewhat conservative voters. 5. The growth in the Cuban-American population. Not all Cubans are Republicans, of course, but among the various Hispanic groups with substantial numbers in the US, they are among the more conservative across the board. Their trend toward conservatism grew with Ronald Reagan's staunch anti-communism and was accelerated by Bill Clinton's return of Elian Gonzales to his father in Cuba. Barack Obama's loosening of restrictions on travel to Cuba and some of the embargo in place tilted even more Cuban Americans (especially older ones) against the Democratic party. Donald Trump made reversing almost every policy of Obama's a campaign promise and freezing relations, then rolling back some of his predecessor's actions made him popular with a lot of Cuban-Americans (again, especially older ones). In 2000, there were 853,000 Cuban-born people in this country (heavily concentrated in Florida, but of course in other places as well). By 2017, there were 1.28 million Cuban-born people here, or more than 400,000 Cuban-born residents in the U.S. That's not counting descendants of Cuban-born people (e.g. Marco Rubio), who number an additional 1 million - meaning that more people of Cuban descent in this country were born in Cuba than were born here. Those Cuban-born people tend to despise Castro, and because of the GOP's push to keep sanctions in place and hamper relations, the Republican party enjoys a lot more support among Cuban-Americans than among most other Hispanics. 6. The dying-off of the earlier retirees. A population of retirees is constantly dying off, human nature being what it is, and it's constantly getting an influx of new retirees that offsets some of those deaths (or exceeds them, if retirement developments are growing). As noted in the Villages discussion, newer retirees to Florida are trending much redder, while the older populations were much more true-blue. As they die off, they're not being replaced by an equal number of liberal retirees from the northeast, in part because the populations of many such places is also declining, or at least not growing very fast. New York has gone from having 45 members of Congress in the mid-1950's to just 26 members today. As recently as 1983 New Jersey had 15 representatives, now down to 12. And so on. As the population shrinks (or fails to grow), that population will send fewer retirees wherever they're going (if they leave). Put all of this together, and it's not a complete surprise that Florida is tilting red (and getting redder).

Given how Metamucil and other fiber supplements are marketed to "people of a certain age", I am certain you're not alone. In fact, if you're not already on some sort of fiber supplement, you might consider that, as it tends to aid in cleaning the system out. You might also look at whether your diet has changed over the years - I know that as I approach 60, I'm not eating as well as I did when I was 30 or 40, and that's on my list of things to work on this year.

Perhaps if you were paying more attention to politics, you might realize that the governor of Florida is sounding and acting much like Hitler did in his early days, but directed more against LGBT people and immigrants - who, it might be noted, were also targets of Hitler and the Nazis. Hitler didn't become evil only once he started actually sending people to the camps; he started with harassment and book banning and other forms of targeting the affected populations, exactly as DeSantis is doing now. Because the way you get the people in general to accept things like hauling groups off to camps is by spending years demonizing them as less-than-fully-human such that enough people are willing to look the other way.

A few things to unpack here. First, yes, a lot of guys are OK with someone who has had no sexual experience at all. Not all of those are good guys, however; there are some predatory sorts who go after inexperienced guys hoping to mold them into their specific kind of guy, rather than helping them learn and grow into whatever kind of guy THEY want to be. But here's the thing: you can't expect, realistically, to find "the right guy" when you've had no experience whatsoever - because you haven't had the opportunity to figure out what you like and what you don't (sexually speaking). Until about a hundred years ago, most young women in western societies were in the same situation you're in, only younger; they were expected to show up to their future husbands (whom they may or may not have known) as virgins and there wasn't a question about compatibility or anything like that because they weren't supposed to question their marital roles. This was not an era noted for extraordinary sexual satisfaction among the affected women. I would suggest you strongly consider not looking so much for "the right guy" as for someone to introduce you to sex, and be prepared to explore it with other guys as well. You may then have some idea of what you want in "the right guy", at least in the sexual realm.

I agree that honesty is essential, but you don't really give a lot of information to go on here. You ask if there's a way to "help [him] learn to love..." but you don't say how he currently feels about it. Is he repulsed by the idea? Is he reluctantly open to it but hoping it doesn't happen? Is he open to it but doesn't really want to help facilitate it happening? How to go about things will vary depending on where he is NOW. If he's repulsed by it, chances are he'll never make that change. If he's reluctantly open to it, he's still unlikely to grow to love it. The bottom line is, you're trying to change someone else, and that seldom works out for the best. Instead of seeking a way to "help him learn to love" this, I think the first thing you should be doing is deciding whether *you* can be happy and learn to love doing without this activity. If not - then it's on you to explain to him that this is something you don't think you can go without forever, and if he's set against it, then it's better to break up now rather than later. And who knows - maybe when confronted with "If I want to keep him as a husband I will have to accept this", he'll find a way to at least accept it, if not love it. Or maybe not. But the thing is - you can't "make" someone else change. All you can do is specify what you need in order to stay, and he can decide if that's a price he's willing to pay. Because you'll have already decided whether doing without this is a price YOU are willing to pay.

Sadly, some health care workers are still, 40+ years into the HIV/AIDS epidemic, uncomfortable talking about HIV or asking questions about it. That might have been understandable (if still unacceptable) in 1993, but not in 2023. About all you can do is point out to her that she made an assumption she shouldn't have, even if she was correct, and that she needs to ASK the questions. Might have been a learning experience for her.

The same thing - a poz conversion. AIDS is a condition, a stage in the status of being HIV-positive. It's defined as: --being HIV-positive with a CD4+ T-cell count below a certain threshold (200 cells per cubic milliliter of blood) OR CD4+ T-cells accounting for less than 14% of all lymphocytes, AND --one or more of several infections, known as opportunistic infections, which are generally not found in individuals unless their immune system is seriously compromised. When a person is first infected with HIV, the level of virus particles in his system ordinarily spikes very high, but the body's own immune system, normally, brings it down considerably after the immune system learns to fight the virus. But since HIV is constantly mutating as it replicates, the human immune system is constantly under attack; in effect, the body eventually can't keep up with the changes, and the immune system gets overcome (the lowered number of T-cells). Once one of the opportunistic infections happens, the person officially has AIDS. Being on HIV treatment interferes with the HIV particles being able to replicate, so their count remains low and the immune system isn't overwhelmed. We don't know for sure that HIV treatments will work forever - we don't have any test patients who, say, were infected at age 18 and who are now 78 and have had 70 years of treatment. But at this point, especially as new drugs that work well and have fewer side effects are developed, an optimistic outlook would be that we can, for the foreseeable future, continue to treat HIV in patients and keep them otherwise healthy for decades. But even untreated, it takes some time (multiple years, typically) for an HIV-infected person to progress to AIDS, assuming he doesn't have other underlying health conditions that would take a toll on his immune system faster. For instance, if a person were to get infected unknowingly while undergoing cancer treatments that already suppressed his immune system, HIV might progress to AIDS very rapidly if not treated promptly.

That's the thing for me. I'm pro-legalization of just about everything, but that doesn't mean I want to be around it. I hate interacting with drunks, and I hate interacting with people tweaking, and I hate interacting with people who are high (on anything). I want the real person present, not some adulterated version.

For a variety of reasons, I don't think bell curves apply to sexuality very readily, If they did, for instance, we would see very few "gold star" gay people, very few totally straight people, and a big hump in the middle of bisexuals. But that's not how it works, is it? I think one reason bottoms outnumber tops by a large margin is that most of us, at least, have experienced what it's like to get pleasure from the prostate - which most of us learn from getting fucked. Yes, some guys never try that, and thus remain 100% tops. Some guys try it a few times and have a bad experience and decide they are (or will be) 100% tops. Some guys have a deeper core of internalized homophobia and rationalize that if they are going to have sex with men, they're going to top only, because that means they aren't like "those" gays. There are any number of reasons why some guys are all-top; but the thing is, most gay men DO try it, and with any decent sort of experience, most are going to like it (to varying degrees). And as you note, there are also several reasons why a man might be all-bottom. Some have performance issues and just can't stay hard to penetrate. Some have smaller (or very much smaller) cocks and they've been rejected for topping so many times they give up trying. Some just aren't physically satisfied with sex unless they have a lot of prostate stimulation via fucking and they've decided it's just not worth the effort to top for an unfulfilling experience. It's all those quirks and reasons that mean a bell curve isn't going to apply. It's not a universal distribution, after all; we only expect bell curve distributions when a variable characteristic is widely distributed through a population at random.

Yes, it is. Undocumented people who are getting social services in a place like NYC are getting that assistance from LOCAL money - money raised from state and local taxes. States aren't allowed to spend federal money that way, generally speaking, and federally funded programs are (by and large) not available to undocumented persons. Moreover, @drscorpiospecifically referenced "payroll taxes", which are the FICA portion of withholding from a paycheck - which fund Social Security and Medicare, neither of which is available to an undocumented person. (Income taxes are not "payroll taxes", by definition.) It's true that, for instance, undocumented children still get to go to public schools. But again, those are funded almost entirely with state and local funds (>92%), and certainly not with payroll taxes.

FWIW - and I'm not saying you misunderstood what I wrote - I believe it's possible to have a preference for one thing over another without it being "discrimination". But the soda analogy came up in response to someone who insisted race was unimportant and then went on three times to say how much he preferred one race over another - those are not compatible statements, And I don't think anyone has any obligation to have sex with anyone else - no matter on what basis the decision is made. That said: in my opinion, people are not "things", and we have (or ought to have) an obligation to treat them better than things, because they have feelings. In an ideal world, in my opinion, people would rarely, if ever, have any idea why someone declined to sleep with them. I also think, in an ideal world, anyone who categorically rejects groups of people on the basis of a physical characteristic should have the balls to actually directly decline any overtures from such a person rather than hide behind a profile statement of "No blacks" or "No fatties" or "Darker skins only". I've said this before, I think, but: Expressing a statement like that in a profile simply means "I know I'm rejecting people for a superficial reason but if I put it in writing and don't have to reject someone to his face I can pretend I'm better than that and I don't have to feel uncomfortable." All he's really doing is offloading the discomfort onto the people who read his profile.

Which makes you an excellent candidate for PrEP. Anyone who is sexually active (but especially men who have sex with men) and who engages in bareback sex is a good candidate. I won't say "should" be on PrEP because I don't think "should" is particularly useful in most contexts like these, but if you're serious about wanting to remain negative under those circumstances, that's the best way to ensure it.

And there's nothing wrong with having a soda preference. But that's not compatible with saying that soda flavor doesn't matter. I'll drink most sodas if I'm thirsty, but I absolutely have a preference and thus I'll never say it doesn't matter to me.

This is indeed a problem. But that doesn't change the fact that these people pay taxes into the system, but because they (usually) only use the stolen SS number to get employed, the impact is a lot less than it might otherwise be.

Given that it's a public place that others are using too, I would say #3 is a non-starter. Anyone with an ounce of consideration isn't going to piss on the floor, much less the furniture, that other people will be using (unless it's a watersports party, and even then, there are sometimes rules about where). I'd say #2 is a better option assuming the top stops the action and lets you deal with nature's call. If he doesn't, I'd invoke #1 and tell him, point blank, I'd love to continue but if I don't go piss now I'm going to piss all over the floor and you. If he can't understand that he's not worth going back for more fucking.

That's the other point I made: there are plenty of guys who don't consider oral sex with another man "gay" the way fucking an ass is. They can convince themselves they aren't gay as long as all they do is suck or get sucked. They won't even realize they're rationalizing it that way; in those kind of minds, "gay" means "butt fuckers".

Not only that, but I would suggest, if you can, getting a dildo close to his size and getting used to taking it - and LEAVE IT IN PLACE until he's about to enter you. If his goal is actually to go balls deep in one thrust, that shouldn't be an issue for him; it's just protecting yourself from injury. If he balks, it's likely because he wants it to hurt, and that's not a good sign. Even bottoms who have full-time partners with a cock that size often need to be opened up. Don't let him press you into doing something you're not equipped to handle.

I question your sincerity. You say "race has always been unimportant" and then go on to say, three different ways, that race is important enough to have a preference: a) "I did prefer interracial" b) "black men are my favorites" c) "a well hung dark black man is my fav" Hard to square three iterations of declaring a preference for men of one race with the notion that it's "unimportant"; you may mean it's not "required", but that's not the same thing.

I think it depends on the mix of people involved. There are a lot of men - mostly, ones who identify as straight - who can convince themselves that "it's not gay" for a guy to suck them off, because a mouth is a mouth and they can close their eyes and all that jazz. Fucking an ass - a hairy ass, especially - drives the point home much more dramatically, no pun intended. Remember that people who participate in public or semi-public sex - at bathhouses, glory holes, ABs, parks, and the like - are a self-selected subset of the MSM (Men having Sex with Men) category. What they'll do in public may be quite different from what those who are comfortable identifying as gay or bi would do in a less public situation. Moreover, while I suspect most of the "straight identifying" MSM most often indulge in those sorts of public/semi-public areas, I'd wager that a solid majority - if not the vast majority - of openly gay and bi men seldom if ever indulge there. And even among those, there are a lot of guys who look at anal sex as something you only do with someone you're seeing repeatedly (or want to see repeatedly), not everyone who catches your eye or whose eye you caught. Of course that's a generalization, and there's a subset of guys - many of whom are on this site, which may slant perceptions - who are happy to fuck or get fucked on first meeting, sometimes without exchanging names, and there's nothing wrong with that. But anyone who thinks that's typical behavior may be misperceiving the marketplace out there because of sites like this.

FWIW, the state's coffers are not being "flooded" - at least not yet. For FY 2020-21, for instance, the total revenue from the tax on medical marijuana was $270,000 - a little more than a quarter million dollars, or a rounding error in a budget that's north of $30 billion. It's true that the number has grown, and is expected to continue to grow - because the legislature expanded the types of product that can be sold, as well as increasing the number of conditions for which it can be recommended (not "prescribed", as it remains a Schedule I drug for federal purposes). But even so, it's not expected to be a major revenue producer. I think current estimates are that the medical program will still produce only a few million per year, tops. That might change if legalization happens, but the legislature has known about this as a potential revenue source for years, ever since Washington and Colorado legalized it in 2012. If anything, the legislature has shown a serious reluctance to loosen recreational drug laws, a trend that is only increasing as the Republicans take more and more seats in the legislature

I know more than one top who refuses to fuck a bottom with a small cock. I know plenty of tops who want to fuck, do not want to GET fucked, but want a big cock on the bottom to jack off, to play with, or whatever. Moreover, this strikes me as one of those pointless rants. If the OP is a bottom, he can ignore any profile that lists the owner as a bottom, whether or not he's got a cock pic. The real question is why this bothers someone when it doesn't affect him.

Maybe, maybe not. If groups of people were routinely addressed as "Ladies (plus others)" I suspect a lot of men would complain about being relegated to being lumped in as a " plus other." Of course, business letters well into the middle of the 20th century were addressed to "Gentlemen:" if the recipient's name wasn't known, and only after a lot of women in business started making noise about that did "To whom it may concern" become widespread - it had existed, but wasn't considered formal or proper. People who are covered by that "+" symbol can reasonably object to being shuffled into a category that's not well-defined at all. From the perspective of someone who *IS* covered by one of the primary initials, it may seem like much ado about nothing, but I suspect those would be the first people to complain if the phrase were shortened to, say, "LBT+" and gay men were just assumed to be in the "catchall". I'm old enough to remember when it was simply "G&L" when you were referring to both gay men and lesbians, or just "gay". I remember LGB becoming more widely used as bisexuals began asserting their own, different identity (not just gays in denial), and I remember loud, vociferous fights over the move to LGBT because an awful lot of LGB people insisted that transgender/transsexual/transvestite issues were separate from gay (or gay and lesbian, or gay, lesbian, and bisexual) issues. Which is why I have come around, over the years, on "queer". Yes, it's a slur in origin. But it's also one of the few words I can imagine that covers all the people involved, without having to keep adding on letters (LGBTQIAMNOP). "Gay" was a slur once, too. We adapted. We (or most of us, at least) can adapt to "queer", eventually.