BootmanLA

Just as a note: When you quote someone's post on here, click OUTSIDE of the quoted part before you start typing your own comments. If you don't, you make it appear as though the person you quoted also said the things YOU'RE saying - which could result in that person being held liable for any infractions. In this case, of course, RawTop, as site owner, isn't subject to infractions. But it's still not kosher to add your own comments to his quoted material without distinguishing which is which.

While this is true and I do support the concept 100%, it's a shame so many people have chosen to post what are pretty obviously fictional "look at meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee i'm a whooooooooooooooooooore this is whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy" tales under the guise of exploring/confronting their past. I recognize we can't call people out on this, but it really does cheapen the efforts by actual victims of abuse as kids to address their concerns and to let others know they're not alone. The price we pay, I suppose.

I can't say for sure - it would almost certainly depend on where you're located, for one thing, and you don't include that in your profile. The general rule, though, is that a blood test (more specifically, particular kinds of blood tests) are the only way to be absolutely sure of one's status. I can't say "suck it up" and go through the blood test, but it's not that bad. My guess would be that a saliva test would not be guaranteed accurate enough to serve as an indication of suitability for PrEP.

There isn't much you can do. The flu virus is spread through close association, with an infected person spreading it to an uninfected person, and flu viruses can live on surfaces for at least a couple of days. Even a place that closes once a day four an hour for deep cleaning could easily serve as a flu transmission location during the period between cleanings. One option might be to get a flu shot each season - which won't protect you against every variety of flu, but will certainly lessen the symptoms or protect you against the ones that are expected to be circulating. That said, there are other flu-like viruses that can also spread in such circumstances. So if you're susceptible to viral infections - and it sounds like you might be, more on that in a moment - then your choices are to stay out of places where you seem to pick them up, or deal with it. And with THAT said: You say you're "don't ask, don't tell", but it's a distinct possibility that one reason you keep picking up the flu or similar infections is that your immune system is compromised, possibly by HIV. If you truly don't care whether you live or die, that's one thing, but assuming you want to continue having fun, knowing whether this is the source of your problems would SEEM to be important. "I really care about not getting the flu (which is treatable and usually passes) but I refuse to care or even know if I'm infected with something much more serious, chronic, and deadly" does not seem to be a particularly rational approach.

I think a whole lot of women would argue that no, "same-sex intimacy" (in the form of sexual encounters) between women is NOT an important part of femininity, or even a part of it at all for many women. No, and you're being silly with this example. A straight boy can think about a girl to get hard, and then compare with another boy, and neither one of them has to have the slightest inclination towards wanting any sexual encounter with another male to do that. They just have to be aroused, and how they GET aroused doesn't have to be anything same-sex-oriented. Not all boys want to compare cocks. It's not "obviously" anything of the sort. And even if they do, it does not logically follow that they should have "games that [they] play with their cocks". You're trying to turn every expression of curiosity about differences between body A and body B into sex games. Girls don't (as far as I know) go into washrooms together in order to look at each other's breasts or vaginas. In fact, women are just as likely to view that sort of interest by another woman as a sign of lesbianism. You seem to think girls can just strip down and poke and prod each other and not have it be sexualized at all - which is bullshit. Maybe some uninformed straight guys think "gay" equals "anal bottom". If they're that poorly informed, that's not my problem. As for what you once read... well, bless your heart, maybe you should try reading something a little more enlightened? In western culture - and I'm becoming more convinced than ever that it's not YOUR native culture - "gay" has long been recognized as men who are sexually interested in other men (and not women). "Love" has nothing to do with that. Again, I suspect that wherever your ancestry lies, it's in a country that ignores men fucking men and pretends that's just "situational", and it's only "gay" (and very likely, a problem) if there are emotions involved. That's not how western culture views it. I'll just leave that there for the laughs. From the Kinsey Institute website: "Instead of assigning people to three categories—heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual—the team used a seven-point scale. It ranges from 0 to 6 with an additional category of “X.”" In other words, they used the scale for *people* - exactly the opposite of what you say here. The Kinsey site goes on to say: "People at “0” report exclusively heterosexual / opposite sex behavior or attraction. Those at “6” report exclusively homosexual / same-sex behavior or attraction. Ratings 1–5 are for those who report varying levels of attraction or sexual activity with either sex. In the original Kinsey Report studies, the X category designated the group who reported no socio-sexual contacts or reactions in their interviews." That is as clear a statement that the scale refers both to what people DO AND what people ARE - that is, the gender to whom they're attracted. I get that for some weird reason you don't want to give someone who's a Kinsey 6 the label "gay" but that's what we, societally speaking, do. On this point you are categorically wrong. Only if (as apparently is the case in your culture) gay men are viewed dismissively. That's increasingly not the case in this society, and I'm sorry if you are from one that denigrates the value and status of gay men. Must suck. You can be "sure" if you want, but I'm not so sure. Of course some guys would do that. But an awful lot of men who have sex with men want a lot more than a mouth at a glory hole. And gloryhole sex is a tiny fraction of the actual sex men have with each other (again, at least in western society). Gloryholes are especially popular among two types of men - gay men who love sucking cock and know that there are some men who will only allow it to happen with the anonymity a glory hole provides (and that there are lots of others who don't need the anonymity but get off on that). And straight-ish identifying men who would never admit to being interested in sex with a man, but who will get their cock sucked in a gloryhole because they don't have to acknowledge it's a man on the other side. Those are far from a substantial portion of gay men. If they're most of the men you know, I'd suggest broadening your social circles a bit.

I'm not a gym goer myself any more, but if I were, I'd do what a buddy of mine does. He carries a small flat pack of Clorox or Lysol wipes and wipes down *every padded surface on every machine he uses in the gym - the bench, backrest, any arm/shoulder pads, etc. before using the machine. If someone else "works in", he does it before each set he does. He wears flip flops in the showers, never reuses a gym towel without washing it first, and so forth. Most of that is just common sense. As for spas, bathhouses, sex clubs, and the like: unfortunately, there's not a lot you can do there to kill the germs that exist, as MRSA can persist on surfaces for hours or even days.

To clarify a bit about this story: The app companies weren't exactly selling their data to "the Church". Rather, a group of rich conservative Catholics bought the data from these companies - which is something anyone with deep enough pockets can do. Then they set some very sophisticated programs to work analyzing the data. Because the app data is geolocated, they were able to track profiles associated with phones that, say, were detected at both gay bars or bathhouses and at Catholic parish rectories. You do enough of that kind of analysis, linked to profiles on the sites, and you can sometimes zero in on the identity of the person involved. Once they identified individuals as priests, this group - again, not the Church, but a private organization of rich Catholic people - took the evidence to the priests' bishop(s). So the Church itself didn't pay for anything. As ErosWired noted, this is perfectly legal in the United States because when you sign up for most apps and services, the Terms of Service spell out that you give the company permission to use the data generated by your usage however they see fit. In some jurisdictions like the European Union, those TOS cannot supersede established legal privacy rights; but in the United States, users have virtually no such rights, with some very limited exceptions (like payment methods - credit card numbers and the like). And even if the company initially says it won't use X or Y or Z data, or it will only use A or B or C data, the TOS almost always gives the company the right to change that policy with little or no warning, other than a message that says the TOS has changed, click here to read the new version (and no one ever does because it's tens of pages of legal jargon). Now, that doesn't make it morally right to do - but then morals are famously in the eye of the beholder.

Children have also been raised since eternity by single mothers. Or by entire villages, where children of a tribe are considered the responsibility of the entire tribe. Children have been raised by other relatives and by adoptive parents, both married and single, for enternity as well. Regardless, this is 2021, and in western societies at least, same-sex couples and openly LGBT people have been around for decades, in public. There's no excuse at this point for legislation that *in effect* treats us differently under the law. Period. Bullshit. I don't label them "different". But I do label things as accurately as possible because labels, aka "nouns", are how we identify things. Other labels, aka "adjectives", are how we describe things. We need words for things in order to communicate about those things. Of course heterosexual women care if a man in whom they are interested is gay or straight. But that doesn't mean they think he's of "lower social status". I'm starting to get the idea you may be, ethnically speaking, from a culture that demeans homosexuals. If so, then your ideas, however quaint and primitive, are meaningless to me, and certainly shouldn't be dictating how a first-world society treats its people. Here's the thing: the only "boys and men" who need things from "other boys and men" - that is, other than friendship - are the gay ones. You seem to be suggesting that if we just stop calling gay people "gay" that nobody will care if boys fuck boys and men fuck men. I assure you, that is not the case. Maybe in some nation that officially denigrates gay people but doesn't care if men are fucking men night and day, just don't talk about it - but not in a more enlightened place. That is just stupid. It's categorically stupid. In fact, the very definition of "gay" is "a man who is interested in sexual interactions with other men." That's what the fucking word MEANS. Now yeah, in some places, that's considered a horrible thing - that is, admitting that's what you like. In such places, men who want sex with men are supposed to pretend they want women - they even marry them, sometimes fuck them (or not), but then they go right on fucking men or getting fucked by men discreetly, on the side. Well, some of us have matured beyond that kind of game-playing deceit. If that's what floats your boat, fine - but don't try to impose that bullshit idea of life on western society. Jesus Fucking Christ - you really do seem to think that boys can "get it out of their system" and then marry women. News flash: men did that for centuries. IT DOES NOT WORK. Period.

To add: the converse of this is that if something like shigella (or any number of other pathogens) takes root in your gut, the antibiotics needed to treat it are not usually that discriminating - that is, they don't target shigella and only shigella. A lot of "good" bacteria in your biome can be wiped out (or at least sharply reduced) by antibiotics powerful enough to treat this kind of thing. They'll often recover, over time, but your system can be out of whack for a long period.

Your experiences and mine - and those of most people I know - are different. Even something so innocuous as a teacher having a picture of his/her family on her desk is an announcement about his or her family structure. Beyond that, the principal made a public announcement one year that a (female) teacher's husband had been killed in a car accident and asked for a moment of silence in his honor. I had (hetero) teachers who were married to each other, and everyone knew that Mr. Smith was married to Mrs. Smith. Even more telling, Mrs. Smith got pregnant one year, so it was abundantly clear to everyone that Mrs. Smith was sexually active. More than one female teacher I knew got married during the school year or between school years, and took her husband's name at marriage, so it was patently clear what their "orientation" was. As I said: heterosexuality is so pervasive that you don't even notice it, or think of it as "sexual orientation". But it's always there and right in front of you. It's only noticeable when it's something other than heterosexuality. But the bigots can't come out and say "straight good, gay bad" - so they say we can't talk about it at all. Except, as noted, we do, all the time, for straights. I think most men favor heterosexual intimacy because that's how they're wired. If you think straightness in culture is because women take care of kids, you seriously, seriously need to do some research. So basically you want to teach them the mechanics of gay sex but nothing about actually being attracted to someone, romantically, of the same sex. That's about as fucked up as I can imagine - it reduces gay people (and in your formulation, gay men especially) into purely sexual beings, ones who fuck men because it's convenient and feels good, not because that's how they're wired. That's... fucked up. Seriously.

If you have rectal chlamydia, it most definitely can be spread by sex, period. You could spread it topping, or to another top by bottoming for him while you have an active infection. The good news is that it's usually treatable and it doesn't take that long (usually a week) to clear up. Ask the medical professional who provides your treatment for the infection how long you should avoid sex to be sure, as some antibiotics take longer than others to completely clear the infection.

Here's the problem with your perspective (which may be because you're not, as you acknowledge, American. The way laws get written here, they ordinarily don't get "names" unless someone is trying to get cutsey with an acronym - and the name doesn't matter. What matters is what the law DOES. And the Florida law in question prohibits ANY reference to sexual orientation in public elementary schools. Sounds simple, right? But what is a "mention" of sexual orientation? If a straight married female teacher makes a reference to "my husband" (or an unmarried one makes a reference to "my boyfriend" or "my fiance"), nobody is going to say that's discussing sexual orientation. But if a gay male teacher says "my husband", you can bet your ass he's going to be hauled into some administrative office somewhere and berated for discussing sexual orientation - and very possibly fired for it. Because heterosexuality is so pervasive in culture that no one even NOTICES when people make references that clearly indicate a (hetero) sexual orientation. It's baked into the environment; it's the air that people breathe. It's only when the "sexual orientation" is NOT hetero that suddenly people start to notice and say children shouldn't be exposed to that. And when pressed for why, we're told that children that age are too young to learn about sex. But again, Mrs. Heterosexual can mention her husband - which is just as much teaching about sex as Mr. Gay mentioning HIS husband. Hell, pregnant women are allowed to teach - shocker! - and if that doesn't tell little kids something about the fact that sex exists, then how does a man mentioning his husband? And THAT'S why it's called "Don't say gay" - because it's only the people who make reference to an LGBTQ orientation, not those who outright flaunt their hetero orientation, who will be restricted under the law. It's a very accurate way to describe that law.

Talk about simplifying and distorting arguments: this one takes the cake. I did NOT say "nothing that transpires while a given individual holds power is directly attributable to him." I said - as you quoted, but may not have comprehended, "pretending that anything that transpires while a given official holds power is directly attributable to him, is silliness." Sometimes things are attributable to the official in power; sometimes they aren't. I certainly would hold Trump accountable for his actions on January 6. But the point you seem to be missing is that mere temporal proximity - "this" happened while "he" was in power, thus "he" caused "this" - is silly. Specifically, you're saying that because Lincoln made some political compromises that went against his moral compass in order to try to achieve what he considered a bigger goal - that is, keeping the Union intact - his moral compass is meaningless and we can't give him any credit for it. The world is a bit more complex than that. You seem to grasp this concept when it comes to FEMA responses or gas prices - that the person at the top can't control all the variables - but you seem completely blind to the variables Lincoln was facing trying to square his personal opposition to slavery (even if he was, in fact, not a believer in racial equality) with the political reality of keeping the nation whole. Oh, maybe by the collective - through our elected representatives - finally doing something to eradicate the entrenched racism that is at the heart of so many of our pathologies in this country? There are all sorts of "collective" actions the government can take that none of us, as individuals, can. We just lack the political will to force our government to do the right thing. "I've said MY piece and made MY provocative arguments and now I'm going to flounce out of here and pretend this thing I spent so much energy and effort on isn't worth my precious time any more"

And my point remains: What one personally believes, and what one is able to accomplish within the political realm given the political realities of the local, state, or federal system in which one is operating, are two different things. Conflating the two, or worse, pretending that anything that transpires while a given official holds power is directly attributable to him, is silliness. You're definitely doing the first. I can't speak for the second. You phrase this as though "taking responsibility for" (or not) is the only relevant response, in order to shoot down the idea that we are personally responsible for what happened before. Of course we're not. The problem is that today's suit-and-tie white supremacists use that argument to say we can't then actually look at the system to see how whites benefitted (and blacks were harmed), because we don't have to "take responsibility" for those actions. These people don't even want us acknowledging those systems existed, because it utterly destroys their narrative that black people have been free to better themselves for generations and we have no responsibility to fix those problems. Individually, no, we don't have to "take responsibility for" something we didn't do. But COLLECTIVELY, as a society, we sure as fuck OUGHT to, morally speaking. I know that anecdotes are not the singular form of data, but I will give a little of my own background as one example. Of my four great-grandfathers, one was a dirt poor farmer with about a third-grade education, one was a traveling sharecropper, one was a general laborer on a plantation, and the fourth - the only one to have made a little "something" of himself, managed the livestock at a different plantation. The first one's son, my paternal grandfather, managed to get at least a partial high school education and ended up working for the postal office, rising over the years to the local superintendent of carriers. His wife, my paternal grandmother (one of 11 children) somehow managed to finish high school and got a clerical state job. On the other side of the family, my paternal grandfather left school in the 6th grade and went to work for a window and door company owned by his uncle by marriage, then started his own glass business in his 1930's. His wife, my maternal grandmother, was one of 7 children who lived to adulthood, and the six girls ALL got a higher education of some sort, even though for some it was business education (like stenography, typing, or bookkeeping) - my grandmother was a teacher until she got married and had kids. None of that would have been possible if my four great-grandfathers had been black, not white. Higher ed was closed to black students at that time (the only historically black college in La. at the time was more like a high school because so few students had a secondary education worth a dime). Starting a business like my grandfather did wasn't an avenue open to blacks, either - at least not one that would serve white customers. The post office was segregated and hired very few blacks at the time - especially in the south - and most state jobs (other than basic manual labor), like my grandmother's, were white-only. And none of them started with any material advantages. My mom's dad died rich, because he made a small fortune in glass contracting as our home city boomed dramatically in the 20th century. My dad's dad retired with an extremely comfortable pension from the post office and played golf. My own parents and most of their siblings got higher educations. My generation basically lacked for nothing (and some of my cousins grew up in comparatively wealthy families). And yes, each generation along the way worked for what they got. But they at least had the opportunity to do that work, and to advance, in ways that for 100 years after slavery was impossible for almost any black person. To acknowledge that slavery and its racism/discrimination progeny is responsible for a big chunk of the gap between my economic status, and that of some of the black kids I grew up around, is the LEAST I can do. I don't have to "take responsibility" for what the people in power did in 1870 or 1890 or 1915 or 1940. But I'm certainly not going to say I didn't ultimately benefit from it. Focusing on what one "takes responsibility for" and nothing but that misses the point entirely.

Oh absolutely. Not denying that in the slightest. My point was merely to refute a poster's notion that because his own ancestors (save one) didn't own slaves, they didn't benefit from that institution and its progeny (like de jure segregation/discrimination).

Certainly not going to dispute that. But there is a distinction between "I believe in white supremacy" and "I believe slavery is a moral good" (or, if you prefer, between "I believe in racial equality" and "I think slavery is a moral abomination"). It's possible to believe that one race is "superior" to another while not believing the "inferior" one can morally be enslaved, which I think probably accurately reflect Lincoln's views (as far as I have been able to determine). It's possible to admire some characteristics or viewpoints of a person while loathing others. Very few people, if any, have no moral flaws. Unfortunately, one legacy of the traditional way of teaching history in the west is elevating people as "heroes" because of some significant accomplishment while ignoring the problematic side of the same individual.

Indeed. If Eros's daughter marries a black man and has children, most of society is going to consider those children black, Even if the parents may sometimes use the term "mixed" or "bi-racial" on forms, or whatever, people will see those kids and say "black". I think it might be useful to draw a distinction between feeling personally ashamed for something you didn't yourself do (which is admittedly silly) and being cognizant of the advantages you've enjoyed because of generations of mistreatment (both slavery and discrimination) of people not like yourself. Thus far, in my limited genealogical research, I've identified no slaveowners in my lineage, but I know absolutely that my forebears benefitted from that system. One of my great-grandfathers worked as the livestock (mostly horses and mules) manager on a post-bellum plantation. Not a single black person ever worked in a supervisory capacity on that plantation, ever. Even now, when the plantation is almost totally mechanized, I don't think there are any African-American supervisory people there. In 2023. I can't say I'm "ashamed" of any of my ancestors for benefitting from this kind of system, but at the same time, I am disgusted by the social fabric that created the system and allowed it to flourish for so long.

The problem, again, is that you are confusing the reasons that *individuals* chose to fight, or not, with the reasons that the **governing bodies with the actual ability to wage war* chose to enter into that conflict. It's like the difference between why Johnny becomes a civil engineer and why BigCo Giant Engineers, Inc. is in business. Johnny becomes an engineer because it's a skill he has, or a talent, or something he enjoys doing, or because his father was an engineer and he's following in the footsteps. It could be any number of things. BigCo Giant Engineers is in business to make money, period. It sees a market for what it does and tries to get whatever market share it can. Not just apples and oranges, but apples and an Antarctic glacier. Not even in the same general realm. Granted. But in Russia, everyone in the country doesn't benefit, in comparison with [fill in the blank] simply because they're Russian. White people, in this country, always had a status that exceeded that of blacks. If nothing else, as the Supreme Court clarified in Dred Scott, blacks couldn't even be citizens of the country. Period. What an incredibly simplistic and poorly conceived idea. By this "logic", no minority in any country could ever dominate society, or business, or economics, or anything else, because sheer numbers were the only thing that mattered. Ever looked at who had power in South Africa prior to the end of apartheid and what numbers were in each group? More than 3/4 were black, and whites never more than 20%, less than 13% by the time the system finally started breaking down. Rest assured that long after white people become a numerical minority in this country, they will still undoubtedly control the vast majority of the power, even before you account for gerrymandering. When white households own >85% of the wealth of the country, Lincoln was on record as early as 1854 saying he was personally opposed to slavery, period. I agree he wasn't "perfectly fine with the status quo" but it's a slur to suggest he had no feelings on the issue. He was simply resigned to the fact that keeping slavery where it existed was almost certainly a prerequisite to maintaining the union, despite his clearly and unequivocally stated opposition to the institution.

As has been pointed out repeatedly: ALL white people, not just those who owned slaves, benefitted from the institution because it gave them a leg up in terms of status. The poorest white had a higher social status than the wealthiest black in virtually every part of the south, and nowhere is that more solidly true than in the rural south. That held true long after slavery and repercussions of that still pervade American society and applied equally to your ancestors as well as the richest plantation owners. That may have been the reason those individuals eventually joined the fight. But the war itself - the secession, the attacks on federal facilities that kicked off the fighting, the organized efforts of the southern states - that had everything to do with slavery. Pretending it didn't and focusing on the motivations of a bunch of hayseed rednecks here and there, instead of the bigger picture, is a lot like asking a group of random US servicemembers why they were fighting in Iraq and assuming that (whatever it is) was the reason for the Iraq war. True, insofar as that goes. But Lincoln's position changed once he realized that the South would not rejoin the union even under the circumstances of preserving slavery. The impetus was the so-called "border states'" rejection of the idea of gradual emancipation, It's also important to note that while Lincoln might have been willing to tolerate slavery where it existed as the price for maintaining the union, he was clearly and emphatically on record that it was morally reprehensible and that it should not be allowed to expand into the remaining territories. He repeated his opposition to slavery and his intent to eradicate it during his re-election campaign. Tell the whole story, not just selected parts.

There's no need for a separate topic on this; way more than half of the posts on this site are by "cumdumps" who post so many stories about how depraved they are - LOOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE - that I wonder how any of them have time to eat or sleep given all the sex they're allegedly having in bookstores, alleys, bathhouses, cars, trucks, vans, churches, homeless shelters, mall restrooms, and the like. They all seem to think it's a right dandy type of life - more power to 'em, I guess - so what problems could they possibly have to handle?

More information is needed in order to answer this accurately, but in any event, only YOU can decide what you "SHOULD" do. Asking someone else what you should do, in a matter of extremely personal choices, is simply handing control of your life over to random strangers on the internet. That's a dumb thing to do. You don't say whether you and your wife still have sex, or whether such sex, if any, is unprotected. You don't say whether she's aware that you are (apparently) bisexual, or whether she's aware you want to bottom for guys, bareback or not. The more she knows, the less you have to protect her directly. But if you and she are still having sex, that sex is unprotected, and she doesn't know that you're gay/bi or she doesn't know you bottom with men, you really, seriously need to consider PrEP. It's one thing if she knows and runs conscious risks herself. It's another thing entirely if you're putting her at risk for HIV without telling her.

I have zero experience with sniffles or sniffies or whatever it's called, nor with doublelist, so I can't say. BBRTS has a moderate number of active profiles from the New Orleans area. Bear in mind that New Orleans' economy is almost totally based on tourism, meaning a lot of guys are visiting the city at any one time, looking to cut loose, and approximately 168% of those people are bottoms looking to get fucked, preferably gang-banged. It's more than the six or seven tops in the city can handle, most of the time.

Then I have no idea what you consider 'masculine'. Or maybe it's because you live in a densely populated metropolitan area with millions of people that are almost uniformly office workers or service workers. Maybe if you got out of your closed world and met, say, some blue-collar men - of whom there are millions in this country.

Broadly speaking, neither (in this context). By which I mean yes, they are certainly minorities in a general sense, and they have certainly faced their own share of discriminatory treatment over the years. But there are some key differences. While there has been immigration from black/brown countries in the last century, the vast majority of "Black" (ie African-descended) people in this country descend from slaves, and their ancestors experienced not only slavery itself but the century-plus of de jure discrimination, segregated schools, and the like of which we're all aware (and which DeSantis and his ilk want to erase from public education). While some cities with substantial Asian populations (like San Francisco) did have segregated Asian schools, the percentage of Asians in general in the U.S. was small enough that such measures weren't undertaken in most of the country. The number of Asians entering the U.S. was sharply restricted for more than half of the 20th century, becoming substantial only in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Most of those arriving kids, then, entered the public school system after integration. Thus they didn't have 200+ years of it being illegal to teach children of their race to read and write (as was the case for Black slaves), nor did they get pigeonholed into poorly funded and operated single-race schools the way Black children were from the end of Reconstruction to the 1960's. That's not to say Asian children had it easy - children who are in the minority (whether Black, Hispanic, Asian, gay, trans, or whatever) almost inevitably face discrimination and exclusion to some degree. But as someone who was in school in the 1960's and 1970's when Asian students began to arrive in large numbers (especially from SE Asia with the end of the Vietnam conflict), I can remember that white parents both respected Asian families for their dedication to education and feared that Asian kids were going to take over everything because of said dedication. As such, they weren't treated as though they were white - but they also weren't treated as poorly as Black/brown students were.

Neither lazy nor stupid - it's a reasonable question. I use a VPN to access this site, without confirming or denying that I'm doing so from within my home state of Louisiana 🙂