BootmanLA

Here's the thing, though: most representatives in government assume that they'll never get caught up in the laws they pass. They're generally happy to pass restrictions on behavior (by wide margins) and then proceed to break those restrictions themselves because they don't think they'll ever get caught.

I know plenty of high schoolers who could easily save up $100 from a single paycheck. $1,000 would take a few weeks, perhaps a few months, but it's still not out of range. Secondly, a LOT of porn consumers are not about to go down to their post office with ID and demonstrate to the government that they're purchasing porn. Aside from the general privacy issues involved, who's to say the government wouldn't keep a record of all such transactions, and if later these flash sticks are de-legalized, going after those who have them? Add in that many modern internet devices, including most tablets and phones, can't use flash drives. Most importantly, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

I get the sentiment, but things move from the "free" to "paid" categories all the time. Air for your tires at gas stations used to be free, until they realized people would pay 50 cents or more for the ability to top up a tire's pressure. Pay toilets used to be a big thing but have largely moved to a free (if restricted access) model for most businesses. There's a cost to delivering porn on the internet, in terms of servers, bandwidth, and the like, even before we calculate whether performers get paid or not. Those costs get covered somehow - frequently by advertising, although the "fans" model is gaining traction. Still, one way or the other, "free" comes at a cost, to someone, somewhere.

No more condescending than your declaration that this is "unnecessary". It's not your, or my, place to determine what the site owner thinks is necessary, especially on an issue that has been extensively discussed with him in multiple threads in this forum. New members have limited privileges, for a reason, and while the details of those privileges may change periodically, the overall concept isn't going away. As for the second statement I made: I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. The site's owner has determined that it's a good thing - and very much intended - that relatively new members have limited ability to interact with the site except by posting, which is a substantive way of proving one's bona fides for membership. I can't imagine why you think that this is "unintended" or that deterring potentially malicious behavior is a bad thing.

I think it's the prerogative of the site's owner, not random relatively new members, to decide what is "necessary" and what is "unnecessary". And I suspect the site's owner has also determined what sorts of deterrents are intended or not.

The problem isn't where the data is housed. Most attempts to ban porn (of whatever type) online aim to restrict the residents of X from accessing such content regardless of where it's housed, and because the website is "sending" the material into that jurisdiction, it's theoretically subject to local laws (to the extent such laws are constitutional, that is).

Honestly, these are medical training questions that should be addressed with your professors. Nobody here is likely to have a relevant, informed opinion about whether patient #1 might or might not hurt his mother, and nobody here is likely to have a relevant, informed opinion about the experiences of patient #2.

Here's the thing. There are apps like Grindr and BBRTS (and Scruff and Growlr and Adam4Adam and Recon and half a dozen or more others) that are heavily oriented towards personal connections between members (aka "hookup" apps). There's no way to say X is better than Y in this group of apps, because each has its own group of members, and for person A, the choices on X are better but for person B, the choices on Y are better. These things vary by region within a country as well as from country to country or continent to continent. But you almost always have to start with something like this - even if it's something popular only in the area/region you're headed - because this kind of app does the sorting and finding for you - typically by having profiles that are searchable. Something like Twitter, which is a general purpose communications app that is being used (by some) for sex-related stuff, is likely to have a much lower "success rate" because it's simply not designed for, say, finding profiles of versatile gay guys between 30 and 45 in X city. It's just not built for that. In addition, a huge portion of the sex-related content on Twitter is just promotions for OnlyFans and JustForFans sites and the like; but even the people who are simply somewhat exhibitionistic with no fan site to push are (in my experience) seldom looking just for a hookup - they want the attention that comes from a popular account, but they don't actually (for the most part) do much of anything with their fans, unless it's someone willing to do "content creation" with them. As you note, a lot of these apps are general purpose communications apps - Telegram, WhatsApp, Line - that may be useful for communicating once a connection has been made elsewhere. But they're essentially useless for finding potential partners for play or otherwise. They just are not designed - and have no useful features - for finding people to connect with unless you already have established the connection elsewhere. Think of them as like a private cell phone number you can share with anyone you meet elsewhere.

I think, for what it's worth, that most online users consider "oinks" (and, depending on the site, growls, woofs, taps, etc.) as not conversation, but more akin to catching someone's eye across the bar and smiling/nodding/otherwise acknowledging them. Sometimes, that can be the start of an actual conversation (whether online or in real life). Sometimes, it's nothing more than a casual flirting acknowledgment. Like so many things, context is usually lacking online that one might otherwise get in the real world. If the guy kept stealing glances at you, for instance, or otherwise catching your attention and signaling an intent to engage (in whatever), that's different from someone who smiles at you across the room but then focuses on other people and things. It's not the only, or first, way in which online contacts lack something compared with their offline counterparts. I'll also note that I sometimes woof/oink/growl at guys who are in a city or region I'm planning to visit, even if I'm not there at the moment. I may do the same for someone local even if there's no way I can meet up with him soon. (I do try to avoid doing that with anyone whose profile suggests that when they're online, they're looking for "NOW" - so as not to be accused of leading someone on.) So - accept it for what it is (presumably, a compliment). And recognize that having complimented you isn't an obligation on his part to do more.

Sadly, in this country, the only "right" that the right-wing considers absolute, unequivocal, and not subject to any limitations is the right to own and carry guns. Anything else is a right that is subject to restrictions, like free speech, free press, free association, and so forth (in the view of so-called "conservatives").

The fundamental problem is that (some of) those who want to protect children see no problem with erring on the side of blocking legal content for adults - in other words, if it comes down to a system that blocks everything potentially harmful to children from them, even if that system also blocks legitimate, legal content for adults, they're perfectly okay with that system. The problem, of course, is that such a system raises huge first amendment problems. When such systems are proposed, it's hard to rally opposition because the right wing has no problem labeling all such opposition as "pedophiles" and "groomers". It becomes a battle very few people are willing to fight. And even politicians who know better, who know it can't work the way they're proposing, will vote for it because there's literally no value in voting against it. If you oppose it, even for good reasons, you're targeted as anti-children, anti-family, and so forth. Especially this is a problem for prosecutor-types, many of whom know that these laws won't do much to solve the problem at hand but which cannot, politically, be opposed.

I don't think anyone but you could give an authoritative answer as to what the best "anything" is for you. Certainly, there are specific features which may be desirable to most people, but even then, if a particular feature means little or nothing to you, then it's irrelevant. My car has a sunroof. It's not something I ever use, so for me, it's meaningless. But for someone else, it might be essential. It could be, if you plan to use this in conjunction with a partner. Do you? If not, it's not a relevant feature. If you do, it might well be worth the dollars. The whole point of interchangeable dildos is so that you can use one that suits you. If you have an idea of what size cock you enjoy getting fucked by, start with that. It may be that if you use the machine regularly, you find that a steady fucking by that size is too much to handle - or conversely, you may get so accustomed to it that you want something larger eventually. You can always up or down size. Mine was custom-built by a friend, so I can't speak to particular brands. I would approach this the way I would approach buying an appliance with which I had little experience: compare a number of options, avoid both the low and high ends of the spectrum, and then hope for the best. Both are legitimate concerns. Sometimes machines will have noise ratings (in dB). But bear in mind that as long as you don't have it running for, say, hours on end, there's nothing stopping you from throwing a thick quilt over the motor section to help muffle the sound. As for "walking", get a silicone rubber mat to set it on. That should stick to a hard surface floor (wood, tile) or at least slow down any movement on carpet. And it may dampen any vibration sounds from the motor as well.

As an observer of the process, I would at least note the following: 1. "Reacting" to a post does not simply affect you (as the person reacting). It also affects the person who posted the information to which you are reacting. So, for instance, if you make a post, and I react with an "upvote" or a "like" to your post, that (internally to BZ) affects your status in certain respects, boosting your reputational score. 2. If the ability to react were unlimited, once a member gains that ability, he could go on to dramatically change the reputational score of anyone else, for better or worse. 3. And that, in turn, could open the floodgates for spammer-type activity across the site. Imagine these scenarios: 1. A determined malcontent reaches the ability to react to members. If his ability to react is unlimited, he could target a member (or members) with whom he has a beef, and use that person's profile to pull up every post he's ever made - and then downvote each post. If he creates two or three separate accounts with different handles, and repeats this process, the targeted user could go from a solid (and well-earned) reputational score to a much lower one in a heartbeat. That could, in turn, limit his own ability to interact on the system, and unless he knows to look, he may not even notice; if he does notice, he may have no idea why he suddenly can't do as much as he once did. 2. A determined disrupter creates an account (or two or three or more) and nurses each to the point that they can "react" in unlimited fashion. In turn, each one "likes" or "upvotes" every post by the other accounts involved, and very quickly the disrupter's accounts rise in ability to the point where the limits, if any, are meaningless. And then, when he's ready to cause whatever disruption he's got planned, he has multiple accounts with extensive posting privileges at his disposal. The essence of the current system is: prove yourself, before you're given much power. That's not an unreasonable approach given the sensitive nature of this site.

You've done your part - you conveyed the news to him. His response - ghosting, seeking treatment, whatever - is on him, you can't control it, and it's not worth expending any effort on, even the mild effort of being annoyed.

Don't assume I'm going to be disappearing. As RawTop suggests, there are options out there.

Please itemize those provisions, instead of merely making unsubstantiated allegations that they exist. In fact, in relevant part, the act says "Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law." It further states "Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action." That's about as iron-clad a protection for the "free exercise" clause I can imagine, unless you think that "free exercise" means that public officials can refuse to perform their job duties (for example, county clerks refusing to record same-sex marriages) on the grounds that it's against their religion to do so. So please - do detail for us the "provisions of this law" that "usurp the 'free exercise' clause." I am not sure why I should feel the need to be "intellectually honest" when several members of the current Supreme Court are anything but that, themselves, but even so: let's look at the central holding of the Dobbs decision you seem to think was correctly decided. The majority believes that for an unenumerated right to be recognized under the Constitution, it must have been "deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition;" intellectual honesty would require that interpretation of enumerated rights be viewed with the same lens. Indeed, the right wing of the Court specifically looks at the Eighth Amendment through that lens: if the founders' generation would not have considered a punishment cruel or unusual, in their view, we can't either. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, despite its clear implication that it's meant to be viewed in the light of an official militia, and despite the fact that high-powered weapons (of the day) were most definitely NOT allowed to be in private hands, the so-called "conservative" majority on this Court ignores history, ignores the text, and carries out its goal of allowing people to possess almost any sort of weapon they want, under almost any circumstances. Marriage has been recognized as a right since at least 1923, when the Supreme Court held (in Meyer v. Nebraska) that the Due Process Clause protected an array of rights - among them, the right to marry, establish a home, raise children, and so forth that had long been recognized under the common law. Meyer wasn't even about marriage, itself; the Court merely noted that it was long-established that such rights were protected under common law, and as such protected by the Due Process Clause. And even at the time, not all marriages were religious in nature; non-religious, civil marriages (not some bullshit second-class "civil unions") were recognized under federal law since the early 20th century at a minimum, and in many states long before that. So for at least a century, your statement that marriage is only a religious ceremony has been false. If there is no substantive difference under the law between how these "civil unions" would be treated compared with "married heterosexual couples", then there is also no reason to use different terms for the two. Calling one item a square and the other an equilateral rectangle - when they are, for definitive purposes, the exact same thing - serves no purpose whatsoever. And if they need different names because they are not, in fact, under the law, identical, then you have an equal protection problem.

Individual members cannot create "things" at this level. At the top level, there are what I call "Categories" - the broadest category level on this site. Those are things like "Reading Material" or "Bareback Porn" or "General". "Regional Hookup Forums" is the relevant category there. Members cannot create new categories like this. Within a "Category", there are "Forums." So within "Regional Hookup Forums" there are forums for several cities with large gay populations (and presumably, more BZ members), then forums for various regions of the United States, then Canada, and then moving on, to other continents. Members cannot create new forums like this, either. WITHIN a forum, members can generally create a new *topic* (see below). Within any particular forum, there may be "Subforums" - so, for instance, within the "United States: Texas" forum, there are subforums for "Dallas Metro Area" and "Austin Metro Area" and "Houston Metro Area". If a subforum exists that is relevant, BZ members can post within that subforum, rather than just within the larger forum. So a post about hooking up in Fort Worth, which is in the Dallas metro area, would go in that subforum, but one about hooking up in El Paso would go directly within the "United States: Texas" forum. That said: members cannot create new "subforums" either. At the bottom level, there are "topics" - also known as threads - where someone makes an initial post about something, and others can reply to that post. A "topic" or "thread" is the ONLY level of classification that ordinary members can create. For anything higher than that, the question is not "How do I...." but "I think a Forum/Subforum covering ABC region" would be useful for the members; would you be wiling to create it?"

The fact that they don't show their faces suggests that either (a) they have sensitive jobs and don't want to be associated with porn, or more likely, (b) their cock is the only physically redeeming aspect of their entire corpus. There are just not that many high-level lawyers, doctors, and so forth with 9-10 inch dicks who'd be professionally ruined if people knew what they had in their pants. (B) is the more likely answer in most cases.

Because topping for fucking is work. If a guy is fucking and he starts to lose stiffness, he may well lose the ability to keep penetrating, and then he's got to mentally go through the work to get himself hard again. Even soft cocks can be sucked, and even soft cocks are sensitive enough to enjoy getting sucked. The top has nothing to worry about except sitting back and enjoying himself. Moreover, unless the bottom has no gag reflex, it's quite possible for even an average cock to present a challenge to suck well. Such a top can hear the gagging sounds and imagine he's hung a lot better than he is. Unless the bottom's exceptionally tight, an average thickness 5"er is not going to find any obstacles in an average man's ass - especially not an American's ass, home of the 32-oz "medium" soda.

I have no idea why you think you're "doomed" for doing something that every man on this site practices - bareback sex. JFC it's right in the name of the site. As @ErosWired noted, you don't need other people's approval to have bareback sex. What you should do - and unfortunately, this is a step far too many people omit - is to take control of your sexual health. Get on PrEP. Take it consistently (sounds like you have random sex at times, which doesn't lend itself to the "on demand" method). And at the same time, take responsibility for your choices of places to have sex. Sure, it's hot to do it regularly in public locations, but oddly, plenty of people take a dim view of public sex (gay or straight, protected or not), and I suspect you don't want to end up spending time in prison for public lewdness. Your profile doesn't say how old you are, but if you're old enough to have a place of your own to live, that's what it's for. If anyone disapproves, they can go fuck themselves. You certainly don't have to.

I don't think so. They look like ordinary pus-filled pimples, especially the one at your lips. I suspect given that you (apparently) shave your private parts, you most likely have ingrown hairs.

Not sure what you mean by "solution". There is no cure for herpes, period. There are treatments which can help manage or control breakouts, some of which need to be taken daily (like PrEP or HIV treatment) in order to be largely effective. But there are no guarantees - it's possible for someone with herpes to have a breakout almost any time. The medications that treat it, though, can make it harder to pass on to others. So it's worth talking with your physician about that.

OK - so if there's nothing romantic going on, that you can tell, and you're not sure you'd want to sleep with him (either while dating or casually), then I don't see much reason to pursue anything along those lines. It sounds like he's a very good friend - big brother/little brother type - and he's happy with that and I don't hear anything in what you're writing to suggest you definitely want more. If you don't, then just continue doing what you're doing. If he wants more - and my guess is he doesn't, but he might - then it's on him to ask you. Basically, as long as you're content with a non-romantic close buddy friendship, that's fine. Most men really need more of that in their lives.

There's a lot to unpack in this post. You kind of pussyfoot around what your actual question(s) is/are, so I'm going to make some assumptions and respond accordingly. If I misunderstand feel free to correct me. It sounds like you find this guy attractive and want to either (a) possibly date or (b) have sex with. For either one you'd have to know what his proclivities are. You don't say where you live - which is highly relevant. I get from your description that it's not the most gay-friendly place in the world, but that could be anything from a somewhat less-enlightened part of the United States to man places in western Europe to a lot of places in other parts of the world. Different places have different protections for gay people, so hiding behind an anonymous account where you don't even disclose your country, much less your city, leaves a huge hole in whatever help can be offered. It sounds like this guy may be in a supervisory capacity over you, in some fashion, even if he's not a professor. Regardless of where you live, that presents ethical issues you'll need to check into. Someone in an administrative capacity at the hospital and at the medical school should be able to explain what policies exist, if any, regarding socializing/dating between a hospital employee and a medical student. You can ask for general policies without naming names or revealing your sexual orientation. If I were you, I'd be trying to find out more about him without committing to anything. He's invited you to his house; ask him about coming over for some specific, time-limited event (watching a TV show or movie, watching a sports event, dinner, whatever). Make sure it's time-limited so you have a good reason to leave after a reasonable amount of time, and pay attention while you're there. If he's got pictures of himself with other people, ask if they're family or friends. He may have some decor (like something with a rainbow) that conveys that he's LGBT-aligned, or maybe not. You can ask how long he's lived there. You can ask whether dating was difficult for him during medical school and has he found it easier since he's out of school and working as a doctor. In other words, ask questions that give him the opportunity to volunteer more info to you - he's in the position of power (so to speak) so you want to let him set the pace. If he's gay or bi and has an interest in you, it'll come up at some point. If he is just interested in mentoring you, that should become clearer over time, too. The point is, you don't HAVE to come out to him to get a lot further along in understanding what's going on. But you do have to do the homework.

@JimInWisc Do you mean the impact of having HIV has had on my life? If so: like some others here, I was diagnosed after a longish period of not having regular sex, which suggests I had been poz for quite some time (though given my sexual practices, it's unlikely I ever infected anyone else). It was discovered when I woke up one morning after a long period of not feeling "great", having lost a noticeable amount of weight (which I thought was a good thing), and couldn't really get out of bed. My partner and our tenant (in a separate apartment from us) got me first to Urgent Care, then to the ER when UC said that's where I needed to be. I was severely dehydrated, among other things, and the ER staff "backed into" the HIV diagnosis when someone put a lot of pieces together and asked about my status. Although the IV fluids they gave me stabilized me, in the ensuing few weeks before I could get the lab work done to start my HIV treatment, I deteriorated further (needing to use a wheelchair to get around our house and needing help to get in and out of the shower. I will say once I got on treatment, my system recovered rapidly. I'd gone from about 175 lbs before "getting sick" down to just below 130, but with the return of my appetite on treatment I was back up to about 180 within six months (and I've since stabilized right about 200 lbs). In the process of getting regular lab work for my treatment, the doctors discovered my blood sugar was running high and added a mild medication to keep it under control. My cholesterol was also off (bad cholesterol high, good cholesterol low), so a statin was added for that (which only really helps with the bad cholesterol). My blood pressure was running a little high, not enough to be worried about on its own, but in combo with HIV and the blood sugar medication, the BP was starting to impact my kidneys, so I'm also on a low-dose BP med. Before I was diagnosed with HIV, I had two bouts with shingles, which (in retrospect) were likely enabled by the immune suppression I was undergoing. I'd assumed that I was just more susceptible to them because my younger sister had shingles in college and my older sister had them as an adult shortly before I did. I will note that I was uninsured at the time of my diagnosis, because the ACA had not really kicked in fully providing the deeply discounted premiums for lower and middle income people yet. But my diagnosis made me eligible for coverage under a Ryan White program - and that's how all the additional health complications I've had were able to get fixed. I also had long known I had sleep apnea, but being uninsured, the self-pay cost of $2,500 just to have it diagnosed coupled with the costs of the CPAP machine made treating that out of reach. All of that got addressed while I was covered under the insurance our state's Ryan White funding provided. Since then I've been able to boost my income considerably such that I could afford even the steep insurance costs for an individual policy without a subsidy. As I pointed out to others, even at $1,350 a month in premiums for a fairly high-deductible policy, the cost of medications alone would have vastly exceeded that outlay, and between the insurance and copay assistance the net cost of my HIV medications for me was $0. And to be honest: I'm one of the lucky ones, because I know how to navigate systems, find the assistance I needed, and so forth. A lot of people don't, and caseworkers who are supposed to help them are typically overworked and underpaid. It's very easy, if you are HIV+ and don't know the systems, to fall through the cracks without someone experienced to advocate for you - you have to push back at times when insurance wants to deny claims or coverage, and those who aren't accustomed to challenging authority can get screwed.