BootmanLA

As noted, there's effectively no difference between the two. Some of us have our own reasons for using one over the other, either always or in particular situations, but you can use either one and have the same impact, generally speaking. The site owner, RawTop, posted something on this in another thread back in 2021:

I respectfully disagree at least for some (though not all) such people. Some white guys doesn't want to have sex with a black guy because they're fixated on, say, thin, small-framed Asian guys, or beefy muscular Arab men, or whatever, They're not targeting black men because they have something against black men; they're targeting all non-[whatever] guys, including white, black, or whatever men who don't fit the profile of the kind of guy they find appealing. There's an element of racism involved - but for lack of a better way to phrase it, one race is being elevated above the rest to the exclusion of everyone else, including the person's OWN race. That's not quite the same kind of racism as excluding everyone who doesn't match oneself. In many ways, that kind of "I only like" racism is not really any different from guys who will only have sex with redheads, or guys over 6'2", or guys who are at least 250 lbs. But yes, there are also some white guys who don't want to have sex with a black guy, even if they'll have sex with another white guy (and maybe a Latino guy, an Asian man, an Arab man, an Inuit man, or a First Nations man). And yeah, that's racism of a much worse kind, because it's targeting one race or ethnicity (or sometimes, a few races or ethnicities) for exclusion.

I'd only add that what also can offend people is how one express to others what does and does not get one's dick hard. If one follows a handful of basic guidelines: --focus on what you do like, not on what you don't like; --avoid reducing the kind of people you DO like to stereotypes; --if you must rule out certain characteristics, do so with polite, non-offensive terms; then one's not likely to offend. Let's say that what you like is Latin men who are muscular and hairy. Instead of saying "No blacks, no Asians, no pasty white dudes", you could say "attracted primarily to fit and hairy men of northern Mediterranean heritage, especially Italians and Spaniards". Instead of saying "no smooth chests", say "body hair, especially chest hair, really is important for me." And if it's absolutely critical to be muscled and masculine, for god's sake don't say "no fats, no femmes"; you can say the same thing nicely by saying "fitness is important to me, and traditional masculinity is key". You can soften the blow of implicitly rejecting those who don't meet such limits by stressing - if it's true - that "this applies only to sexual interest; my friendships transcend any such boundaries." Just don't say that if 39 of 40 of your closest friends are all furry Latin gym rats.

I think, to be fair: a lot depends on who the people involved were. There's an enormous difference between, say, a 19 year old young man and a 17 year old young man having sex, and a 35-year old man having sex with a 13-year old, even if the 13-year old is horny, even if he's sexually capable, even if he's attracted to older men, even if he's the top, even if he doesn't think he's being traumatized. Just because someone says "I wasn't manipulated and I don't feel traumatized" doesn't mean that they were not, in fact, manipulated, and had they known that earlier, they might well have a different perspective on trauma. As long as humans develop and mature at varying rates, any limits placed in terms of age of consent laws are going to be somewhat arbitrary: some young people are mature enough and ready for sexual experimentation long before others are. And there's also always going to be some discretion involved as to which cases to pursue and which to let slide. For far too long, those decisions were based more on influence and misperceptions of power; the 19 year old junior-college boy who had consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend got felony jail time because mommy and daddy wanted to punish him for defiling their baby girl while the minister or coach or doctor who groomed dozens of kids and had sex with all of them never got charged because no one wanted to ruin the reputation of a good man who had done so much for the community. And for gay kids, historically, the situation was worse because they were all, almost to a person, closeted and frequently ashamed of feelings they didn't understand that society (and often their families) were vocally condemning. Those kids were ripe for grooming by adults to get them into sex with the only other gay people the kids knew: themselves. Thankfully, there's an ongoing shift in accountability for those who groom kids.

This is a bit more of a thinking out loud posting than answering the poll question type, but... I'd say that most people who claim on here "never condoms!" are honestly answering the question - they won't have sex unless it's bare. I also think a significant portion of those people have very little sex, or at least with very few people. I also note that a goodly number of those responding this way seem to be newer members - and my experience has been that new members tend to boast more "look at MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE what a cheap whore I am!" posts, thinking this site is a competition for bragging rights or something. I think there are some portion of the "never condoms!" crowd that nonetheless will occasionally use one depending on the circumstances. They may not admit it, they may be internally grumbling the entire fuck, but they'll do it in order to get fucked. As I've seen in the responses here, there are a significant number of people who certainly prefer bareback, but who will use a condom if requested. As I posted in another thread elsewhere: you'd think that condoms were made of 40-grit sandpaper the way some people complain that they hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt - as though they weren't even more smooth-surfaced than the average cock. It's also hysterical to me how many people I've seen insist that they will never, ever, ever have a condom-covered cock inside them and yet they play with big dildos and butt plugs all the time. Me? I prefer bareback, absolutely. But I'm not going to turn down a good fuck from someone if he wants it covered.

To answer your last question first: you have multiple options for an in-person PrEP prescription. In the United States (which your profile says you're in), any doctor of medicine (M.D.) or doctor of osteopathic medication (D.O.) can prescribe any medication for which a prescription is required. Additionally, in many states, there are other medical professions which have prescriptive authority, including (in some states) nurse practitioners or Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, Physician Assistants, and sometimes others. In some cases they can prescribe with no oversight by a physician; in others they must get approval from a supervising physician before the prescription can be released to the patient. The requirement for STI testing beforehand is not, technically, a legal requirement but a guideline that the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, and the doctors' organizations adhere to because it's very unwise for someone who is HIV+ (and may not know it) to begin taking PrEP. So you'll probably need to get bloodwork done; but the health care provider may be able to send the prescription in to a pharmacy to be filled without a second doctor's visit if your blood tests are clear. Unfortunately, in the United States, cumbersome insurance requirements sometimes make it difficult to see a doctor other than your PCP without a referral from that PCP. A urologist would be a good candidate for someone to consult regarding PrEP but other types of doctors could do so. My question for you is: Do you want to continue using a PCP who ignores your sexual health concerns? If you like the doctor otherwise, I would ask him to reconsider, telling him that your sexual practices put you at risk, and you want the peace of mind of being protected; if he refuses, ask him for a referral to a doctor who would be willing. If he won't give you a referral, I'd strongly consider changing doctors, period, because while you want him to use his expertise, you don't want his personal moral choices and opinions shaping your care (or lack thereof, in this case). There may also be government-funded or sponsored clinics in your area that focus on STIs. That includes prevention, not just treatment, and they'd probably be happy to keep you from needing treatment services by helping you locate preventative care. They may even be able to arrange eveything themselves.

The first two sentences are correct. The last - I am unaware of any studies that say closer to 24 hours before sex is better. In fact, given that a body starts filtering the drug as it circulates in your system, it's probably getting close to the non-therapeutic level as it approaches 24 hours. 2 hours is a minimum; based on available evidence, the level of protection in your system after two hours is generally sufficient, but it's also true that for some time after that, the level of medication in your system may continue to rise. But NOT, it should be noted, for the entire 24 hours. Well before the 24-hour mark, the drug level in your system will start to decline. In other words, it releases into your system faster than your system is able to clear it; and for that reason, I'd say split the difference with the focus on closer rather than farther away from the first planned sexual experience: say, ten to twelve hours before. That has the simplicity of allowing you to take the pills in the mid- to late-morning for a late evening play session. Additionally, you're likely to be up and awake by mid-day each day thereafter, even if you're up late having sex, and that means you can more readily stick to your schedule.

That was probably very much the case 5 or 8 years ago. But nowadays, with the widespread adoption of PrEP, a lot of guys who are negative and on PrEP no longer feel the need to ask about status.

Not saying it's in any way smart or wise, but I can easily understand why people avoid finding out. It's the same reasons some people don't like to go to the doctor, period; the reasons so many don't want to go to the dentist. First is fear: as long as you don't KNOW something is wrong, you can pretend, in your head, that nothing IS wrong. Finding out may alleviate your fears, but only temporarily. Second is cost: for a long time, PrEP wasn't covered by most insurance and lots more people were uninsured anyway. For some people weighing "You might have a disease, but you don't know for sure" vs. "You have a disease and you're going to be spending $2,500 a month for the rest of your life to stay alive", the former is a more comfortable position to be in.

oh, it happened, certainly; it's just that it wasn't a common practice, even among super-discreet partnered men living together, at least as evidenced by the interviews of various gay history projects.

That may well be part of it. But another part is the sociology of many (certainly not all) African people, especially in rural areas. It's not uncommon for a rural man to leave his wife (and kids, if any) in the rural village and travel to a bigger city to find work, sending home some of his pay to care for them. It's also not uncommon in such situations for the men to visit prostitutes - even if it's "casual" prostitution where he provides some support and she provides sex. On visits home, whatever he's picked up comes home with him. Additionally, it's also not uncommon (if less talked about) for the women left behind to become dependent on a local man for "protection" and additional support. Such a man might have multiple women as "mistresses" (of a sort) from whom he extracts sex in exchange for them not being bothered by others. In such situations, bugs like HIV (and other STIs, of course) can spread widely and easily. Remember that of the three factors that influence how fast/far an STI outbreak spreads (infectivity, prevalence, rate of partner change), with HIV the last is the most critical. Without partner change - going from one sexual partner to another - STIs have very limited ability to spread. If you have twenty people who all have sex with each other, but with no one outside the group, it's almost impossible for an STI to even penetrate the group dynamic. But all it takes is for one person to bring in an STI from outside, and that partner change among the group almost guarantees that everyone will get it.

This is true. However, it's also worth noting that prior to the 1970's, as has been well documented by historians interviewing gay men (both open and closeted) from the pre-"gay lib" period, anal sex itself was very much a rarity. In part that's because so much gay sex took place as furtive encounters in risky situations - a quick blowjob in a bathroom, frottage in an alley, mutual JO in a car. Anal sex in those pre-lib days often DID involve a condom just like having sex with a hooker involved a condom: you didn't want to risk getting an STI and passing it on to the wife (and there was often a wife involved, for at least one party). It's only after substantial numbers of men started living openly - and the early rudiments of contemporary gay party culture were laid - that fucking, and bareback sex in particular, became somewhat standard. Wider adoption of antibiotic treatments, too, made condoms seem less necessary.

Nobody is both on PrEP and undetectable. If you're undetectable, then you're on meds with more components than just PrEP; and if you're negative and on PrEP, you aren't "undetectable" - you don't have HIV, period.

I agree with the concept you're promoting, 100% - but once again, I think the terminology is a bit off. Polyamorous is already pretty well understood (or at least, becoming understood) as a loving relationship involving more than two people, not two people in a relationship who have outside partners where there's no "love" involved. At least as I understand the terms, these are what the terms mean: -Celibate - not having sexual interactions with anyone. Comes in voluntary (choosing to abstain from sex) and involuntary (can't get laid) variants. -Not committed - Sexually active at times, even often, but not with anyone considered a partner. Can range from one-night-stands to friends with benefits to fuckbuddies. -Monogamous - Sexually active in a relationship with one partner. Usually includes a love component, but one can be technically monogamous even if the love isn't present or has disappeared. -Polyamorous - Sexually active with a relationship with more than one regular partner. This comes in many varieties. There are poly relationships where all partners are equals and interact sexually and socially together. There are ones where there's a primary couple, and they may together or separately have other partners. There are further variants where, say, a man can have a husband (primary partner), a boyfriend (someone with whom he goes on dates but who isn't his primary), a daddy (someone who provides a mature or dominant influence outside of his primary partner), a slave, a pup, or any number of other types of interaction. But all of these are characterized by recognized relationship roles - even if they're not the standard "spouse+spouse" type of role. -Open relationship - Has a primary partner, but either or both of them can have sex with other people outside of the relationship, either separately or together. Unlike role names, this type of relationship is more characterized by rules agreed upon by both partners, even if it's "anything goes". Aside from "anything goes", the rules are more often restrictive (no sex with our mutual friends, no sex in our bedroom, etc.) but can sometimes be inclusive (only play with a third together, only play with guys we've approved). I think that covers all the kinds of relationships I can think of, in terms as broad and non-gender-specific as I can come up with. I'm open, of course, to adding other categories, but I think most things will end up fitting into one of these choices.

The problem there comes with defining "what is a business" and who is responsible? For instance, your local Holiday Inn Express: the building is probably owned by one local entity (LocalPropertiesLLC), leasing it to a hotel operator (SummerviewHospitalityLLC). The operator, in turn, aligns itself via a license with the national "flag" company (Holiday Inn Express Brands), which does not itself own or operate any hotels, but merely provides a brand name ("Holiday Inn Express") and access to the reservations and payment processing systems of its corporate parent (IHG Hotels and Resorts) that are shared among all licensees of all IHG brands (Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, Crowne Plaza, Staybridge Suites, Intercontinental, etc.). Even back at the local hotel operator level (Summerview), that company may contract with one company for its food and beverage service, another for its housekeeping, and a third for its maintenance. On paper, in fact, Summerview, which itself only operates the one hotel, even if Summerview's owners have 25 LLC's each operating a hotel, to keep them separate for liability purposes, might only have 6 or 7 employees. We would consider that a "one shop business" - which it legally is - despite the tangle of contracts, leases, licenses, and other agreements that make the total workforce actually needed to operate all aspects of the hotel in the tens of thousands. And if Summerview's owners discriminate in hiring of its 6 or 7 employees, under the "one shop business" model it wouldn't be held to the same standards.

Until recently, we had you beat. For decades, in Louisiana, polls opened at 6 AM, with election workers due by 5 AM, but polls stayed open until 8 PM or until the last voter in line at 8 PM voted, AFTER which comes all the locking of the machines, securing the sign-in sheets, etc. It wasn't uncommon for an election workday to be 17 hours. Years ago a concerted push was made to allow the elections supervisors in each parish (ie county) to optionally divide the workday in half, so that interested poll workers could work either the first or second shift of 8 hours, with the latter getting any extra time as needed to cover if voting time had to be extended. The state shot that down ostensibly on the grounds that it would prove too hard which group of workers was responsible for an error in the logs, etc. if something happened. The idea of dividing the log at shift change seems not to have occurred to them. The other issue is that pay for election workers here is a flat rate per day, and the first shift (5A-1P) would be a fixed 8 hours. But the 1P-9P shift - when ending might be extended if the lines are long - might involve more hours, but for the same pay. That was the final nail in the coffin. Instead, they knocked one hour off voting times here, now starting at 7 AM (which means workers show up at 6 AM).

FWIW, that's not a position you should feel the need to apologize for. It's a perfectly valid viewpoint, and if you've reached that outlook after consideration of what you want and need, more power to you.

There are probably half a dozen or more threads on how bareback sex differs from condom sex, but for quickie answers to your questions: How it feels - to read some people's posts on here, you'd assume condoms were made of 40 grit sandpaper and everyone's hole was like the princess sleeping on 40 mattresses atop a pea. More realistically, with sufficient lube, there's not a huge difference. The key different *I* notice is that with a bare cock, you feel certain things more - for instance, the head of the cock, which inside a condom may not seem to be as pronounced as a bare one, given that the condom, if sufficiently tight, "compresses" things. Lube sometimes has to be added in the middle of the act if the fuck lasts a long time, but that can be true with a bare top who doesn't precum a lot, too. Starting to ejaculate - again, unless you're the princess on the pea, you may not feel anything, or you may feel the slightly warmer temp semen, or (if the top shoots rather forcefully) you may feel the spurts. You may also feel him "spasming" overall, but again, that's dependent on the top. The fact that some stealthers can cum un-noticed by the bottom should be evidence that it's not always obvious when someone has cum. Afterward - if it's a particularly voluminous load, it could get messy. When he first pulls out, your anal sphincter will be somewhat stretched and looser than it normally is, and it will take a while to tighten back up (that's why it's easier for someone on round two). So yes, if there's a lot of cum, it may begin to leak out, especially if you stand up right away. You can either go sit on a toilet and let it pass back out; you can take a shower and hope most of it seeps out there so you can wash it away; some tops will actually want to eat it back out of your ass, though I wouldn't count on that as a disposal mechanism. If you stay prone long enough, most of it will just absorb into your system and/or be expelled with your next bowel movement. If you need to be "up and about" shortly afterward, there are options. You can, for instance, fold a wad of toilet tissue and press it between your cheeks at your hole, so that it doesn't all leak into your underwear (or pants). Those with a kinkier streak can have a small butt plug ready to go, pushing it in after sex is over, until you can get to a shower/tub and clean up.

If these members are accurate, this story is doubly an issue. First, that means it's plagiarized; and second, the story insists that's true events, and this is supposed to be fiction. True-life tales of sexual exploits belong in other places.

Not to be seen as endorsing cheating in any way (more on that in a moment), but I would strongly disagree with the notion that cheating = complete invalidation of the relationship. Monogamy is hard. Some people will no doubt argue with that notion, and hey, if they find it easy, more power to them. The fact that they're such masters of their libidos that they can always resist any temptation, no matter how it's presented, is something that perhaps merits a scientific study. For the rest of us, monogamy is a choice that we may or may not make, and even if we do, it can be a struggle at times depending on circumstances. Interpersonal issues in a relationship, schedule conflicts, proximity to other opportunities, mismatched libidos - any number of things can lead to cheating. And again, not to defend it, but it's odd how many men consider that a relationship-breaker, an unforgiveable sin, when so many other offenses are (in my view) so much worse, and yet they're forgiveable. To me, saying that cheating must end a relationship is no different, really, than saying that open relationships aren't real relationships. If the parties involved can get past an episode or spate of cheating, however they do it, that's fine with me. As for endorsing cheating: sometimes it's the least bad option available. That's more true of straight married couples, but it can be true of unmarried couples, gay couples, and others. Sometimes one partner unilaterally withdraws sex, for instance, but splitting up is way more trouble and expensive than it's worth. Sometimes one partner is no longer physically capable of having sex; should the other partner be required to either give up sex entirely or else break up the relationship, possibly leaving his partner in an even worse position? Some couples who are parents stay together for the sake of their children, and can co-parent effectively while no longer having any interest in sex with each other (or one loses interest or can't physically participate) - should they be forced to split up and shuttle the kids back and forth? In some cases, discreet cheating - and I do mean discreet, such that the partner and/or kids never know about it - can be the only thing that keeps the cheater's life together for him to be a caregiving partner or parent. There's a world of difference, of course, between that and people who cheat because they think it's exciting to transgress. I feel sorry for the partners they're choosing to deliberately hurt in pursuit of their cheap thrills.

This is generally true, with a few caveats. Like many "daily" medications, the amount of the drug in your system spikes shortly after you take the pill, and then, a few hours later, it begins to fall as it's slowly filtered out of your system by your kidneys (and perhaps your liver and/or other organs). It's not that 24 hours later, the level in your system is zero. But the level available in your system, some number of hours after a single pill dose, isn't high enough to be highly effective at preventing infection. Taking another dose 24 hours after the previous one bumps the level in your system back up over that threshold. (You may recognize the term "half-life", which is the amount of time it takes for a given quantity of something that is decaying or being filtered out of a system to be reduced by 50%. It's the same principle, we're just not looking specifically for the 50% mark.) So with on demand, the two pills taken 2-24 hours before sexual activity boost the amount of the medication in your system very high - double what it would be if you'd only taken one pill, obviously. But it still takes nearly the same amount of time for your kidneys to clear your system per milligram of medication, so your level remains higher over that first day. Taking a second pill 24 hours after the first one re-boosts your level back to a very high level, and a third pill 24 hours after that does the same, such that it's another day or two, at least, before the "on demand" PrEP is filtered out of your system, so that multi-day window when you have a high volume of PrEP in your system is typically enough to prevent an infection from a single sexual act. Now, on the daily routine: the same thing occurs, but without the 2-dose "big hit" up front. These are made-up numbers but they illustrate how the pills "stack" on each other with daily use to provide ongoing protection. Let's assume that 50% of a pill's dose is cleared from your system in the first 24 hours, that 30% of the total dose is gone after 48 hours, and it's completely gone by 72 hours. On day 1, you have a level of 0 and you take the pill, which shortly after raises your level to, for instance, 100. At the start of day 2, your level is down to, say, 50, but taking the second day pushes your level up to 150. At the start of day 3, your level is down to 70 - 20 from the first day's dose, 50 from the second day's dose - and the third day's dose pushes your level up to 170. At the start of day 4, the first day's dose has been completely cleared from your system, but you're back at 70 (50 from day 3, 20 from day 2). And the fourth day's dose puts you back at 170, which is where, roughly, you'll stay if you keep taking the dose at the same time every day. If, say, a level of 125 is the minimum level needed in your system to remain protected, then staying on this system will work, even if you're several hours late taking your pill one day, because the remaining level from previous doses is still there (at a diminished level) to add to the new dose taken. Staying on a "close to the same time schedule for each dose" strategy is best, but there's leeway. But this is also why you aren't protected "from day one" - it takes a while for the amount of medication in your system to rise to a protective level, and it requires replenishment to stay there. And in addition, most guys who are on daily PrEP won't necessarily be taking loads every day - so taking one day's dose 6 hours late doesn't matter much if there's no sex anyway within the next several hours. Getting back on schedule will almost certainly boost one's level well into protective territory - even if it fell slightly below that briefly. But on-demand PrEP is less forgiving, because it's tied to a specific sex act. Of course, if the load(s) taken during an on-demand PrEP "dosing" (meaning all 4 tablets) are HIV-negative, the amount of PrEP in your system doesn't matter, and even if they're poz but undetectable, it's unlikely the volume of PrEP in your system will make any difference. But if the load is detectable - as it might well be with a new or unknown partner - taking the doses on the schedule provided can be critical to keeping the PrEP level "up" high enough in your system to prevent infection.

That happens to me every summer, without fail. In the words of the immortal Cole Porter: According to the Kinsey Report, ev'ry average man you know Much prefers his lovey-dovey to court When the temperature is low But when the thermometer goes 'way up And the weather is sizzling hot Mister, pants for romance is not 'Cause it's too, too, too darn hot Granted, that may be because summer here in south Louisiana is not just hot, but oppressively so, with high humidity; when we have that first "cool dry snap" (which isn't THAT cool - but it's the first day in early fall where the temperature isn't over 85), my libido returns, right on schedule. It sometimes subsides a bit if the winter is excessively cold, but then as soon as spring perks up - which here starts in February - it re-engages until the first heat wave of summer hits, typically in May.

This recommended experiment proves nothing, because the conditions of the condom when in the use of (very active, rigorous) sex and the conditions when it's just lying there filled with water are completely different. Petroleum-based lubricants, including vaseline, do break down latex condoms - not immediately when they're just laying there, but eventually, and when they're stretched over a cock or dildo and being used aggressively, they may well fail. They're also more likely to fail if there is no space left near the tip (the pressure from the tip of the cock inside the tip of the condom is at its strongest there, if there's no space left). And note that this only applies to latex condoms. There are other kinds of condoms out there, and you may or may not have been testing the right kind.

"Cheating" by its very definition means breaking the rules. If you have an open relationship, you are not "cheating" unless you break the rules you and your partner have set governing open-ness. For instance, if you have a rule that says you can't have sex with someone else in our own bed, and you do that anyway, that's a form of cheating. Some people have rules that outside sex has to be "safe", or you can't have sex with the same guy more than once, or with anyone you both consider a friend. Again, unless the sex violates such a rule, whatever it might be, it's not cheating. So if there are no rules, there can be no cheating, by definition. And if you have no objection to your partner having sex with others, period, he is not cheating on you. By definition.

Diesel - thank you for catching that point! There is a very large gap between "stupid" and "uneducated", especially if the latter refers to a specific topic. Stupid is hard to overcome - it implies a lack of ability to learn, whereas "uneducated" is the condition we're ALL in, to start with. Some people are farther along the educational path, for a particular topic than others, but that doesn't mean those farther back are stupid in the least. I would never consider myself "stupid" in almost any area - that is, I think with work I could learn almost anything - but there are huge swaths of knowledge about which I'm very poorly educated. As it becomes important for me to make a decision in that area, I either try to learn enough to make that decision, or (increasingly, as I get older) I ask questions of others, and seek their advice - as the OP did here.