BootmanLA

I would add this, at the risk of possibly pissing off a few people: I don't think there's a whole lot of reason for posting a picture with a post in the forums 99% of the time. I mean, if the post is in a topic called "how big a gape can you make your hole?" it might be relevant to post a pic of said hole as evidence for whatever you're claiming, but in general, an "I like getting raw fucked by big dicks" doesn't need a visual explanation of what you mean. It's not that I object to explicit pics - far from it. But the forums are for discussion and sharing information, and random pics that boil down to some form of bragging don't really add to the discussion or the shared information. So unless someone is a prolific poster and has a lot of illustrations of points he's trying to make (where the illustration actually adds to the discussion), I can't see why this total posting image size is such an issue.

All true, though I'd note that Palm Springs may also develop water troubles eventually, as some of their groundwater comes from the Colorado River, which also supplies much of Arizona's water (and California's, and other states'). Moreover, while Phoenix is indeed experiencing abnormal warming because it's so overbuilt, that's not necessarily the case for much of the rest of the state. Even areas around Tucson, which is the second-largest city, don't have quite the heat problems that Phoenix has - partly because Phoenix is at such a low elevation (Tucson is 1200 feet higher than Phoenix). Again, this isn't to dispute what you're saying, just noting that what's the case in one part of a state may be very different from another part - like the difference between right-wing redneck panhandle Florida and Fort Lauderdale.

I strongly second this. I had friends who had lived for years in Florida, but as they approached retirement age, they started looking at other options. For now they've ended up in Seattle, but they're considering relocating again eventually to a somewhat warmer climate. As for why they left Florida they went through several hurricanes hitting close enough that they had damage to their property (they lived on a 26 acre ranch in central Florida). It's not just direct hit areas that have to worry about it; hurricanes can have gale-force winds spreading over hundreds of miles. Lose power to storms like that (which in their case also meant losing water, as they had a well) enough times and you start rethinking a region. Add in the incessant political lurches to the right, and it's fast becoming (outside of a handful of expensive cities) an intolerable place to live. It's true that Florida doesn't have an income tax. But property taxes are steep, and in many places, the combined state and local sales tax rate can be 8%. Note that of that sales tax, 6% is levied by the state, which means the vast majority of the sales tax revenue goes into state, not local, hands. (By contrast, in Fulton County (Atlanta), the sales tax rate is 8.9%, but only 4% of that goes to the state, while the other 4.9% is in local hands to be spent on local priorities.)

True, but there's nothing in this person's profile to indicate he's any such thing as an "international political scholar." And given that he referred to "trannies" in another posting here, I have serious doubts that he's anything of the sort. If he'd shown any sort of awareness of how our political system works - he mischaracterized how the impeachment process works, he mistakenly stated that we'd removed Supreme Court justices by that means before (we haven't), and he seems to not understand that with party-line votes in Congress and no party controlling 2/3 of the Senate since 1966, no impeachment for anything is likely to succeed because of tribal politics. Those are not, may I charitably say, the signs of an "international political scholar". They are the signs of a misinformed twitwit. That is true "on average" but the distribution of such people is not equal between the parties. Kudos for giving the party its proper name (although uncapitalized). But you're simply mistaken about which party lives for the uninformed voter - even the Republicans freely admit this when there are no microphones present (and sometimes even when they are). Moreover, college-educated voters by a significant margin vote Democratic, and although educational achievement is not an exact proxy for being informed, it's certainly related. It's also widely documented that GOP voters, not Democratic ones, get the majority of their "information" from dubious or slanted news sources. There is no equivalent to NewsMax or OAN on the left, for instance, and while it's arguable that MSNBC is as leftist as FoxNews is right-wing, only one of the two is noted for promoting paranoid conspiracies about things like election security and Covid-19, and it's not the liberal one. Find me the liberal equivalent to the hordes of GOP voters who think the 2020 election was stolen, or that Covid-19 is a hoax, or that there's a secret pedophile ring among "globalist" liberals.

Anyone who uses the slur "trannies" to refer to transgender persons, in 2023, can safely be discounted as a bigoted nut. I'd almost expect you to be talking about "what the coloreds want".

There are places you can get cheap or free PrEP via online without necessarily triggering your insurance. With one of those, it's unlikely your wife would find out, as long as you had a place to hide the pills that she's unlikely to discover. (Side note: in every relationship I think each partner should have some measure of privacy and a place to keep things that the other will not explore. But it's hard to establish that once the relationship is started, because it practically screams "I have things I want to hide from you." If that zone of privacy is established before the relationship gets serious, and each side understands that there are things - like a journal or diary - that need to be off-limits, it's a lot easier. And needless to say, that's not an excuse for putting the other person's health at risk.)

A few thoughts, and a correction: That's an understandable concern, and it's a tough call to make. On the one hand, you might go 20 or 30 years without getting pozzed, and that's 20 or 30 years of no damage to your system from the medication. On the other hand, once you're pozzed, you not only will be on medication for the rest of your life, but your body will be constantly under siege from the virus, essentially always on high alert (which might cause eventual damage of its own). One plus: if you exclusively top, you're already at lower risk than if you were an exclusive or regular bottom. One way to avoid increasing that risk is to use a condom in the riskiest situations - for instance, if you fuck guys in bathhouses or other places where they may already have one or more loads in them, or if you are fucking someone a complete stranger whose habits you don't know. You're not at risk in situations where the bottom has no other loads in his system and he's either negative or undetectable, so that compromise might push your already lower risk into the "almost but not quite completely" safe area. The correction: Truvada is ordinarily not prescribed for HIV treatment. By itself, it's effective for prevention, but not for treatment; essentially all modern HIV treatment options contain at least three different antiviral medications, and Truvada (and Descovy) only contain two of those. So it's possible that HIV treatment, which will contain MORE types of medication, may be even more toxic to your system than Truvada or Descovy would be.

In general, I would agree, but I think the OP's situation is a little different. For starters, I find very few people who identify as "versatile" who later go on to be exclusive tops, although I do know of a number who've gone on to become exclusive bottoms. It may happen, but in my experience there are plenty of versatile men who only top because they have to, sometimes, in order to get laid. With the plethora of bottoms there aren't that many versatile men who "have" to bottom because they can't find anyone who will bottom for them. But the OP specifically is already effectively (by his own making) an exclusive bottom - because he wants to be monogamous and his partner is exclusively top. Given that he clearly also wants to top on occasion, I think it's a safe bet he's going to continue to identify as "versatile" - he doesn't seem likely to be happy becoming a bottom. Also, while identities can and do change over a sexual lifetime, the partner is 38 and still identifies as an exclusive top. The chances of him, at this age, suddenly discovering he really likes to bottom don't seem that high to me, especially when he's got an eager partner wanting to show him what he's missing. If he's passing up that already now, imagine how set he'll be in his ways when he's 50.

My two cents, which may not be relevant for all or most: In my experience, condoms are irritating for fucking if they're insufficiently lubed. Remember that a top wearing one isn't going to be adding any pre-cum to the fuck, so lube (and in many cases, copious amounts of it) are necessary. I've never had any issues with a well-lubed condom (and no, that doesn't mean using a pre-lubed condom right out of the pack with nothing else added). While I don't generally top, I can envision that if a condom is placed over a dry cock, there's going to be irritation on the shaft as well. While there's something of a risk of the condom slipping off (if it's too large or the cock is too thin), I would suggest thoroughly lubing the cock as well before putting on the condom - that gives some "slide" assistance inside it so there isn't latex rubbing against the sensitive surface. That said, some people do have a sensitivity to latex, and that may be part of it for some. This isn't meant as a pro-condom post (nor should this statement be taken as anti-condom, either). But if you're going to use them, there are ways to make them less irritating. Or, since the site is about bareback sex, make a decision not to use them or to accept partners using them in you. Life's full of trade offs.

Oh lord, where to start. First: As for "waiting as long as it takes" - (a) you are essentially saying you want to go into a relationship with someone expecting him to eventually change his mind about something very specific and personal to him, on which he's already made a choice. This is sort of like the gay equivalent of those straight couples who get married despite one saying he/she is adamantly against having children and the other saying he/she is determined to have a family. Each one hopes - indeed, expects - the other one to come around to his/her point of view. And sometimes that happens, but a lot of the time - probably most of the time - it doesn't, and the relationship ends because in the end the two people, no matter how they feel about each other, want incompatible things. That's the boat you're in. You want a versatile partner. He is not a versatile man. He's made it clear he's a top, and he's even offered you a way that you can satisfy the physical need you have for topping, but in a manner you don't find acceptable. Well, tough love time: we can't always get what we want, life is about compromise, expecting the other guy to be the one to bend and make the major compromise is a fool's errand. Second: you've been "dating" all of two months. I put that in quotes because it didn't even begin as dating, but as a hookup, and yet you already are calling it a "serious relationship" and professing your love. Girl, dial it back a notch or ten; whatever you're feeling, pleasant ass it may be, isn't developed to the point you could call it a "serious relationship" involving "love". It might develop into that, at some point; it might even be semi-serious dating. But not to the level you seem to think you're at. Third: You said yourself you're monogamously wired, and he says he's fine with an open relationship. Has he expressly, clearly, and plainly said he will be happy in a monogamous relationship with you? Does he profess to love you the way you think you love him? Given the 14 year age gap between you, I'd certainly be treading carefully - not because relationships with an age gap that large can't work, but because you're at very different points in your life and he's had 14 years for his outlook to solidify. While the adage "can't teach an old dog new tricks" isn't quite the right one, he's had a lot longer to figure out what works for him in life, and what doesn't, and going into a "relationship" with the express notion that you're going to bottom for him until some magical moment when he, I don't know, comes to his senses and discovers he wants to bottom sometimes too seems like a really, really bad idea. Because my guess is, you'll stay and stay and stay in that mis-aligned relationship until you realize you're in your 30's and you haven't topped in a decade and you've missed out on a lot of things you really, really wanted to experience. And that will be happening as he hits solidly into middle age and is (likely) slowing down himself some, and you'll end up resenting having waited through your prime for something that was never on the table to begin with. There's nothing wrong with continuing to see this guy, but you might seriously reconsider this idea that you're already in love in a serious relationship. Because it seems to me you've identified a fundamental incompatibility in what you two want from a relationship, and the question isn't "How can I make him change?" or even "How do I make myself happy while I wait for him to change?" but instead "Can I be happy with this man, as he is, under the terms he's willing to live?" And if not, best to end it now.

Daily Cialis (and daily Viagra) are lower-dosage versions of these drugs designed to be taken daily. They are officially prescribed mostly for BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia), a condition where the prostate gland gets enlarged (but not from a tumor or cancer). However, since the active ingredient is the same as in the non-daily versions, the lower dose often works just as well for some guys, and doctors will sometimes prescribe these for guys who want a very active sex life but who don't want to spend more money for fewer of the large dose versions. If you don't need or want the boost that an ED drug provides, by all means, don't seek it out. But there are quite a few guys who do need the boost, and still more who appreciate that it helps them with stamina. Depending on when this happened, it was probably either Caverject (prostaglandin) or Trimix (prostaglandin, papavorin, and phentolamine). Caverject was developed decades ago (I can remember it coming on the market in the 80's, back when I worked in pharmacy), but TriMix is a more recent compound. There is an even newer compound called (surprise!) Quadmix, which contains the same things as Trimix but adds a fourth drug; this one is prescribed for cases where Trimix doesn't work well enough.

It was taken down because the company recognized it had massive potential liability for some of the content it allowed, including claims for invasion of privacy and potential criminal charges for abetting sex trafficking. Unfortunately, sexually explicit businesses are frequently at risk of being exploited by those who would happily endanger their existence in order to facilitate their illegal activities. Your complaint should be directed at those who abuse those businesses, not a misogynistic rant about "social activists".

I hope I don't sound too callous in the following. I've been out for over 40 years now, and have watched a variety of porn over the years going back to some filmed (yes, on film) back in the 1970's. A huge portion of the performers in the porn of the 70's, 80's, and even 90's are now dead, some because of old age (hot guys who were, say, 35 in 1975 would be in their eighties now), a good many from HIV-related health issues, and a not insignificant number from drug-related causes, not counting at least half a dozen I could probably name who met an untimely death through violence. Maybe having been through (not closely, mind you, just as an observer) so many, many deaths over the decades, it just doesn't occur to me to be squicked out watching someone I know has passed on. I certainly don't feel that way about mainstream actors and actresses in movies - you'll pry my copy of All About Eve out of my cold, dead hands - and I don't see much reason to change my view simply because the pleasure I derive from watching the performance is erotic and/or sexual instead of intellectual and/or emotional. That's not to say my way of looking at this is, or ought to be, standard - just stating the facts for me and me alone.

I will add something that people have kind of skirted around: there's a delicate balancing act between a motel/hotel in a really secure, safe area (which is a plus) and motels/hotels that have outside access directly to the rooms (ie not having to go through a lobby, which is also a plus). Unfortunately, these two things to operate to the exclusion of each other; the safer the area, the more likely it is that the hotel will require all guests to go through the lobby, and the more convenient the hotel layout is (with outside access to the rooms) the more likely it's in a less desirable area. Plus there are guys who won't go to a hotel in a "nice" area because they think they might get seen and recognized by someone working there (unlikely, but it can happen), as well as guys who won't go to a hotel in a sketchier area because it's, well, sketchy. I wouldn't recommend a really seedy area (it might seem appealing, but it's likely to cut into your numbers). What you're looking for, generally, is an older motel-style place with outside room doors in a not terrible area - like near a major interstate exit. Scope out the building and find where there's more parking than average (typically, at the far end of the building away from the desk) and request a room in that part of the building. That puts your transient visitors as far from the eyes at the front desk as possible.

A little more background on the DMCA. The law was enacted in 1998, very early in the digital age (back when it was all MSN and AOL and Compuserve, and virtually all dial-up). This was when MP3s were catching on, and people were emailing songs to each other in that format - before there was anything like Napster or Limewire, much less the Apple Music Store or anything like that. Copyright holders could see how improved compression formats like MP3 and increasing speeds for modems (and with things like ISDN, DSL, and cable on the foreseeable horizon) would inevitably lead to rampant piracy of copyrighted materials. It was one thing if people burned a copy of a CD for a friend - it was illegal, technically, but people were limited in terms of time and cost as to how many CDs they would be willing to copy for people. But the internet changed the economics of that dramatically; you could make one MP3 file of a song, and send it to twenty or thirty people at once, and then do the same thing again and again - assuming you knew that many people online with whom to share the music. And then Napster came along, popularizing the notion of peer to peer network sharing, coupled with software that was constantly looking at what was being shared and updating a list of who had what available. The DMCA was the primary tool used by the music industry to take down Napster. (It was also used against Limewire. If I recall correctly, and I'm not sure I do, the difference was that Limewire, unlike Napster, didn't use a central server to track user files; rather, each user would know what, say, 15 or 20 other users had, and those would know 15 or 20 others, and so forth - so a search for a particular song would just bounce between PCs until there was a hit. Limewire argued that because they weren't cataloging the machines that held these infringing files, they weren't liable - they'd just released a piece of software that let users do for themselves what Napster had done for them. The courts disagreed, finding Limewire liable, and ending with it shut down.) All of which is to say that the DMCA wasn't designed specifically for porn or for adult sites - it's a copyright law designed specifically for how infringements work in the digital era. It's just that the tools available under it - like the takedown request - can have dramatic impacts in lots of ways not necessarily foreseen by anyone. Hosting companies, like the one that owns the servers that BZ is hosted on, are understandably cautious about what they host because if they don't handle things correctly under the law, they can incur liability. And while the company or person who owns a popular website might have few tangible assets (as opposed to the sweat equity and intellectual property involved) to attack if a lawsuit happens and there are violations found, the hosting company has significant tangible skin in the game (servers, racks, other equipment, leases on buildings, whatever). It's why hosting companies have lengthy contracts about what's permitted, what's required, and so forth, to help indemnify themselves.

DMCA stands for "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" and is intended to modernize some aspects of copyright law in the United States for the digital age. One key aspect is called the "DMCA takedown request", whereby a copyright holder can make a demand to an online site that it remove material covered by the copyright but posted by others on the online site. If the site owner promptly honors such requests immediately, it's protected by a "safe harbor" provision from being held liable for that copyright infringement. The idea is that, say, YouTube is protected from liability if John uploads a bootleg copy of Dave's recording of a song of his, as long as YouTube immediately removes that upload when notified by the copyright holder (Dave, in this case). But it also applies if, say, Dave records a song where Robbie owns the copyright to the music and/or lyrics, and Dave doesn't have permission to record it for release to the public; in such a case, Robbie could demand that YouTube take down John's upload of Dave's performance/recording. That's not the end of it, of course; anyone can "claim" to have a copyright on almost anything. But YouTube is protected from liability while it investigates whether Dave or Robbie actually do have a valid copyright claim - as long as the material isn't accessible during their investigation. There are other parts of the DMCA that aren't relevant here, but this is the one most relevant for sites like this. In this case it appears a user (let's call him John) uploaded some pictures of himself, and then thought about it and wanted them removed - and instead of working with the site owners to get them removed, he filed a DMCA takedown request with the company that hosts BZ. That puts BZ on the spot - and since the hosting company is the one protected by acting promptly, it leaves BZ and RawTop in the unenviable position of having to deal with a hosting company pissed off that they've got to now deal with this - which can mean lawyers, or at the least time in investigating the alleged violation. For that reason, RawTop's position is: If you post something, and then you try to get it removed by a DMCA takedown instead of working with the moderators, you're done here, forever. And I don't blame him.

I'm not sure there's been much research on that topic and any answer would be guesswork at best. It's documented that tops have been infected via that method, but I don't think there's any quantification as to the timelines involved. I would guess - and it's an educated guess but still a guess - that as long as anyone can detect the semen, it could be infectious. Of course, it's going to dribble out and/or be absorbed by the rectum eventually. Obviously, odds are much higher of infection if a second top enters immediately after the first ejaculates. Conversely, four days later it's highly unlikely.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Then it appears you have to make a choice, and it appears to me you have three from which to choose. 1. Do nothing, continue to not have sex, and remain perfectly safe. 2. Resume having sex, forego getting PrEP, and continue to roll the dice as to contracting an incurable sexually transmitted infection. (This is what you seem to be seeking other guys' permission for, for some bizarre reason; what other people say you "should" do is a big fat nothingburger and if you follow the suggestions of strangers that readily, I don't think you're ready for sex with anyone.) 3. Get PrEP, and engage in the kind of sex you want, with dramatically reduced risk (almost 0% for HIV, but of course that doesn't protect for other STIs). You don't HAVE to get PrEP from your primary care doctor, though in most cases your insurer, if you have one, will know (but they're not allowed to share that information with anyone). There are multiple other options besides your doctor. Public health clinics are one option. Another is one of the various telemedicine/online medical services like MISTR ([think before following links] https://www.heymistr.com). So you have choices. You may not like that these are, essentially, the only options, but there they are. And the choice is yours - not anyone else's.

One could, of course, say that "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are divisive, when "sexual" simply covers both. The point is that language is rich, and different words have (sometimes subtly) different meanings, and of course the point is to distinguish things. Linguists have learned, for instance, that in some languages, there aren't separate words for blue and green because they're seen as variants of the same color (just as we consider sky blue and navy blue variants of blue, they consider the various greens and blues as variants of "blue-green"). Eventually, language develops words to give us a means to convey subtle distinctions where cruder, less specific terms fail. I would also argue with your suggestion that the "vast majority" of bisexuals are in fact attracted in some way to transgender individuals in addition to cisgender individuals. That's not my experience, and it's not the experience of the (admittedly limited) sample of each in my circles. Most trans people I know tell me that they see just as much disinterest from bisexuals as from gay or straight people, and one (a trans man) specifically noted that he'd been told more than once by a bisexual that "when I want a man, I want a real man, and when I want a woman, I want a real woman". That's not to say some self-identified bisexuals aren't open to trans people; but then again, they may simply not be familiar with the term "pansexual" and not realize it may apply better to them. As for "obnoxious and narcissistic follow-up conversations", I don't think it's either one to simply explain "pansexual means I'm interested in the person, regardless of the gender, whatever it might be and however the person might identify."

I never said, one way or the other, whether Thomas has been "fair" to us or not. I believe that his legal views are warped - that they are out of the mainstream legal profession - but I don't really perceive animus on his part, or an effort to be unfair. As he noted in his dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case (which struck down state sodomy laws), he found such laws "uncommonly silly" and he would not hesitate to vote to repeal them if he were a legislator. He simply didn't believe that they were unconstitutional (because, again, he doesn't believe in substantive due process, which underpins that rationale). His legal thoughts may well be skewed (as I note, they're far outside the mainstream). But he's consistent in his approach, and I honestly don't perceive any specific animus towards gay people in his opinions. I think he's just wrong on the law.

It's true that some undocumented immigrants work "under the table" and thus don't pay taxes (which is a separate issue). But official estimates are that 75% of undocumented workers use falsified social security numbers - either one that wasn't ever issued, or more often one issued to someone else. As a result, the wages of that 75% get hit for social security taxes (7.65%, including Medicare) and they'll never be able to claim those benefits. In fact, that's part of what's keeping social security afloat for citizens. Meanwhile, plenty of rich people pay little or no social security taxes because they structure their income such that it's not "earned" income. Remember that interest earnings, dividends, capital gains, and so forth aren't taxed for social security purposes at all, because they're not "earned". If we simply applied the social security tax rate to all income, regardless of source, the system would be solvent for decades longer, perhaps in perpetuity.

Bottoms tend to outnumber tops and versatile people everywhere. All I can say is, if you go, and nobody fucks you, that's not really a whole lot different than staying home with nobody fucking you, except you might get to watch some hot sex going on around you if nothing else. I get that it's depressing to be overlooked at events like this - lord do I ever - but it's like that saying: you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

If I read this correctly, you're saying that between 20 and 30 percent of all people have been infected with MRSA. What's your source for that? From what I can find, the 30% figure refers to ALL staph infections, not MRSA - which itself is only about 1% of staph infections. If only 1 of the 30 people with staph have MRSA, and they are less than 1/3 of the population, then the actual rate of MRSA among people is (1/30 * 30/100 = 30/3000, or about 1%. Not zero, certainly, but 1% of people is a lot smaller than 20-30%. Source: [think before following links] https://ufhealth.org/news/2021/uf-study-silent-mrsa-carriers-have-twice-mortality-rate-adults-without-bacteria

The first problem I see is that if any viewer can change the lighting and music, there would be a constant stream of choices and counter-choices, with customers getting pissed off as "their" setup keeps changing. If it's first-come, first-served (once someone takes control of the lights/music, they've got it until the scene is over), then it might work. But even so, I could see people making lighting/music choices that kill the mood for the performers, leading to poor performance, and then the customer is going to feel cheated. The second problem I see is the potential for entrapment by overzealous law enforcement. It's not out of the question for some prosecutors to consider paying performers for live sex acts (even if the payer is remote) to be a form of prostitution, and if Bob and John advertise they're willing to fuck on camera live for money, it's not a stretch for a prosecutor to get the police to pay for one episode, trace the signal's IP (with a subpoena if necessary, based on the evidence of the video stream recording, then order a second performance and have the police at that location ready to swoop in the moment they accept the payment.