-
Posts
4,001 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by BootmanLA
-
Taxi driver giving me signs? How should I proceed?
BootmanLA replied to redarrow1322's topic in General Discussion
Last I checked Singapore had not yet decriminalized gay sex, although that's in the works. Personally I wouldn't risk it. But that's me. -
Taxi driver giving me signs? How should I proceed?
BootmanLA replied to redarrow1322's topic in General Discussion
You provide zero context for this. What country is this taking place in? Is it a country where same-sex activity is legal, illegal, frowned-upon, or what? In most western European countries or the USA, you could just ask the guy if he'd like to grab a drink or something once he's off-duty to see if he's being sociable or if you're just imagining things. On the other hand, there are countries where not only is what you're looking to do illegal, but there may well be a network of informants - including taxi drivers - who are happy to turn over "perverts" to the police. There's a lot more anyone would need to know before advising you to do anything at all. -
Gay porn and favourite introductory story
BootmanLA replied to Philip's topic in Bareback Porn Discussion
And for the record - I'm suggesting to the mods that this be moved to the porn forum, where discussions of porn-related topics really belong. -
Indeed. This is why in many states you have to be over 18 and present ID to purchase compressed air cans. Kids these days....
-
Okay, Explain: Why does “On My Way” also mean the opposite?
BootmanLA replied to ErosWired's topic in General Discussion
But they don't have to think about that part - they never have any intention of hooking up, so they have the memory of feeling desired and that's all that matters. Some of these guys are married or in relationships and can't ever "do" anything so this is just masturbation fodder for them, and there's ALWAYS someone else down the road they can con into giving them what they need. -
Gay porn and favourite introductory story
BootmanLA replied to Philip's topic in Bareback Porn Discussion
I don't watch as much porn as I did long ago, but.... If I'm just hunting online for something stimulating to get off quickly, plot's not needed, but it'll need to be something that is very specifically turning me on right that moment. Otherwise I'm on Team Plotline. I agree that the plot needs to be believable, and it needn't take up half the video, but it's nice to have some sort of set-up. -
It's not that a crushed tablet becomes inactive if not swallowed whole. It's more that the absorption rate and such may be affected. Just like some meds say that you should take them with food - it's not that you need something in your stomach to cushion the pill, but that having food in the stomach helps stimulate the breakdown and absorption of the medication. I can't honestly answer whether PrEP (or any particular variety of it) fits into that category or not. There's also the concern that if you crush the tablet before taking it, you might not get all of it - bits and pieces might fly off unnoticed, you might not scrape up all the pieces from the surface on which it's crushed, etc. That's not always a problem, but for some medications where the precise dosage is critical, especially ones where the tablet is 90% "delivery mechanism" and only 10% medication, you might miss a goodly chunk of the actual med while swallowing all the filler. So a pill crushed might - or might not - be slightly less effective overall compared to one swallowed whole, is the net answer. That said, with PrEP, if you are taking it daily (not on demand) protection should be pretty much as good if you only get 95% of the pill as opposed to 100% (with that 5% lost to bits and pieces you don't pick up). With a once-daily medication like this, particularly a preventative one, the level of medication in your system spikes shortly after taking it - within an hour or so - and then starts to slowly decline as it's filtered out of your body. It's not "all gone" by the time your next dose is due; rather, by the time the next dose is due, your body's just starting to get below protective levels. So if you keep taking it, day in and day out, your system is going to reach an equilibrium of an effective level in your system, even if a small part of the tablet is lost due to crushing.
-
While not defending child molesting in the slightest - to be absolutely clear - it's not quite true to say that "by the very definition" you cannot enjoy rape. Rape is about consent, not about whether you enjoy or don't enjoy the sensation that goes with the action. If I am force-fed an entire pecan pie, I will probably very much enjoy the taste. That doesn't change the fact that it was forcibly fed to me against my will. It's quite possible to find physical pleasure in the act of being raped. For instance, a bottom could be bound to a bed, face down, and gently fucked and masturbated until he orgasms from the combined sensations. But if he didn't consent to having that done, it's absolutely still rape. This is exactly a huge part of the problem with many men's perspective on rape: "It couldn't be rape, she had an orgasm when I did it." "It wasn't rape, she didn't fight me very hard and she was moaning by the time I finished." "I didn't rape her because she never told me no." All of those are bullshit - Rape is sex without consent, either because you chose not to give consent, or because you were incapable of consenting (not old enough, too impaired, etc.). Enjoyment or non-enjoyment is irrelevant.
-
Why is this poz thing so exciting?
BootmanLA replied to bareback-flipflop's topic in What's It Like To Be Poz?
For what it's worth: I don't think it gets tallied as an infraction because the banned word filter stops it from ever appearing. It only becomes an infraction when you do something to deliberately get around the word - by deliberately misspelling it, for instance, in a way that's easily readable but that the filter misses. THAT is something that, when they catch it, gets a slapdown - and for good reason, because it's a sign you knew the rule and deliberately broke it. -
Why is this poz thing so exciting?
BootmanLA replied to bareback-flipflop's topic in What's It Like To Be Poz?
I suspect you used the word for "forbidden" that is derived from various Polynesian terms - for instance, used for idols that shouldn't be touched (see the Brady Bunch goes to Hawaii episodes). If so: that's because use of that word almost always leads to discussion of illegal activities like child porn and pedophilia. I just recommend remembering to use "forbidden" instead. -
Turned on by having a slutty reputation
BootmanLA replied to BritishCumdump's topic in General Discussion
There is a huge gap between "varying degrees of slutty" and "sweet innocent virginal guys", for one thing, and it's not the place of other users (slutty or not) to dictate that some people are "in the wrong place." Just as we shouldn't slut shame people, we shouldn't assume that anyone who goes on an app is a slut, either. -
You shouldn't worry about whether people are put off. They don't have to read it if they don't like it. It's your story to write, and you should write it the way you want it to turn out.
-
Likewise. It's hard to put into words, exactly, but "upvote" to me is both "I agree with the content" and "This is worth your reading because I think it's significant." I rarely use the "heart/like" option, but when I do, it's more (as you say) "I like that". Likewise, when someone points out something useful, I tend to go with the "Thanks" option. I also use it when someone has, in essence, validated something I've said, or when it saves me making a post saying exactly what they've already said.
-
I suggest reading Sex at Dawn, which explores the origins of human sexuality. It's controversial, and not everyone accepts the theses involved, but it's opened up a good many discussions about whether people are naturally monogamous or not. (In a nutshell, we have been socially conditioned to be monogamous for the last 12,000 years or so, since the rise of agriculture and permanent residence, contrasted with earlier nomadic hunter/gatherer populations; but our biological evolution hasn't caught up with our social conditioning yet.)
-
In my experience - and just to be up front, that's certainly not necessarily typical in any way - I find that white men are much more likely to not only reject black men as sexual partners compared with black men rejecting white men, but to also be much more vocal about it. There's a reason 'No fats, no fems, no blacks' was a well-known phrase in same-sex personal ads going back as far as I can remember. There's also a reason why there is literally a "thing" where white gay men feel the need to post that they're not racist just because they "prefer" (ie will only sleep with) white guys in their profiles. I will say that's changing with younger generations, as things almost always do. And I recognize that as a white guy myself, I haven't experienced what black gay men have. But a larger percentage of my black friends have dated or are dating (or partnered with) white guys than with other black guys. I've never known a black friend who expressed (to me, at least) that he had no interest in white guys. Again, I recognize that I'm drawing on limited experience in my personal life, but I've also never noticed black gay rejection of white guys to be a big thing, except insofar as resenting that they're only seen as big black cocks to fuck the white guys with. In other words, in my experience, racial anti-preferences (to coin a phrase) seem to run overwhelmingly in one direction (white rejecting black). But again - just my experience.
- 306 replies
-
- 1
-
- sex with latinos
- sex with black men
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
One more thing to try (this may have been referenced in one of the links people posted, but if not...): take a big swallow of some drink - water, soda, whatever - and keep it in your mouth without swallowing. Slip the pill in, then start drinking more and swallowing the flow of both what's in your mouth AND what's joining it. The pill may well slide down in the liquid.
-
Criminal law exists primarily to define and punish transgressions against others. To the extent that the penalty provided therein acts as a disincentive to committing those crimes, that's a welcome bonus, but a bonus nonetheless. I think it betrays a certain mindset to say that laws can "also be used to help prosecute individuals that violate" as though all this criminal law stuff was just, you know, an afterthought. I'm not saying it's not important. I'm saying that at most, what such a small sample can do is provide anecdotes and possible topics for further study. In a sideline, for several years, I worked as an assistant to an ornithological researcher. At one point, she had trapped and marked an individual bird within a research tract at a national park. Later that day, the marked bird was seen at a feeder at the park headquarters, nearly a mile away from the capture point. The next day, she recaptured the bird about a half mile from the original capture point (opposite direction from the park), and when it was released, it flew to its nest in a nearby tree. What that tells us is that for that particular species of bird, in that habitat (which was fairly arid and barren), individuals can forage for up to a mile and a half from their home territory - a reasonable conclusion to draw based on the evidence. It's also demonstrated that other species in this family of birds have an aptitude for repeatedly visiting multiple feeding sites on a regular basis when they're "resident" in a given area (either breeding season or wintering season). Unfortunately, she treated this as evidence that all species in this family of birds - which are incredibly diverse - all (and I quote) "know where every source of food within a mile and a half" is from wherever they're residing. And that might be true, but it's not what the evidence shows. One species, in a habitat with limited food sources, ranged over that large distance. Other species, not even particularly closely related but in the same family, demonstrated knowledge of multiple food sources in a much more circumscribed area. But merging the two has zero evidentiary backing whatsoever. Or there is that old joke: A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are flying over Scotland when they saw a black sheep down below. The engineer thinks "So, Scottish sheep are black." The physicist mentally observes "Some Scottish sheep are black." The mathematician jots down a note, "There is, in Scotland, at least one sheep, black on top." First, we're talking about this specific law in question, not "law" in general. My point, which I keep making and you keep ignoring, is that the authors of this law specifically and clearly anticipated that the expression of consent would vary depending on context and situation and individuals, and wrote that into the law. And you go right on, jumping first to California law (which isn't cited here and thus we can't say what it does or doesn't do) and then from there, jump to how consent "is taught to students" - which isn't law at all, but university policy. And I get that you want to keep going back to university policy because that's where the most egregious mismatches seem to occur, but sorry, that's not the subject here. If you want to argue affirmative consent in general, go start a thread on that - I know you know how. But please stop hijacking a thread about a particular law in a particular country in order to sound the alarm about something markedly different. It may or may not be a well structured piece of legislation, but it does nonetheless address the specific complaint you've raised - that it doesn't account for how different populations indicate consent, which is what you keep dragging up, over and over and over and over. The law was restructured precisely because too many sexual assault crimes were going unpunished. You say "many legal scholars and advocates" agree on deficiencies in the law; every citation I've been able to find suggests that Australians are more interested in strengthening affirmative consent laws. And here's the core of my issue with your approach. I note your acknowledgment that you're an "both an advocate of consent and sexual assault survivors," but the historic problem with sexual assault has been that people were unwilling to punish someone for a sex crime unless there was clear and unequivocal evidence that the victim protested, fought, basically did everything possible to prevent the assault from happening. And even then, if she (and it was almost always a she) wasn't "the right sort" of victim, then conviction was even more unlikely. Rape was effectively not a crime if you were a sex worker. Not a crime if you had previously had sex with more than one man (not at once, just over time). The presumption was that, like wives, such women inherently consented to sex because they hadn't "proven" that they were virtuous. When the sexual revolution hit, instead of giving those women the status that "good" girls had always had, regarding the ability to consent, men used the opportunity to reduce all women down to that level. If it was no longer shameful for a girl to have sex before marriage, then clearly they were all "available" for sex and men didn't have to worry about things like consent because they weren't going to be sullying her reputation if they ignored it. THAT is the origin of affirmative consent laws: recognizing that sexual liberation does not mean sexual subjugation to the whims of those with power and strength. Have we over-corrected? I don't think so. Where we are, basically, is that men are expected to have clear consent established before they start, and to be on the lookout for signs of withdrawal of that consent as they continue. And frankly, I don't have a problem with that, and if a bunch of horny college boys find it harder to get laid because they have to be more careful, so fucking what? Part of the problem is that men - speaking in general, and yes there are lots of exceptions - tend to look at the kind of sex they want as the end goal, even if they have to practice deceit to get it. Hence stealthing: men don't like condoms, and they'll do anything to avoid having to use them for the duration of the sex, including lying about intent to use them, slipping them off mid-way, breaking them deliberately in the process, and having a second round of sex unprotected after establishing that they're "willing" to use a condom during the first round. All of that - ALL OF IT - is just crappy rationalization of the guy's desire to fuck unprotected, using any flimsy excuse for why he didn't "this time" or "the entire time" or whatever. Screw that. If the person's rules for having sex aren't acceptable, don't fuck them. And especially don't pretend to accept the rules and then try to evade them mid-way. That's what shitty fuckheads do.
-
Turned on by having a slutty reputation
BootmanLA replied to BritishCumdump's topic in General Discussion
"Shy" is not the same thing as "not willing to take a risk" at all. They're not even related concepts. Shy is the opposite of outgoing. Risk-averse is the opposite of risk-inclined. -
Assuming for the moment that your perception is correct - that your morning erections are larger and firmer than others - then there could be one (or more) of several factors at play. For instance, it might be as simple as testosterone levels - which are highest just after waking up from REM sleep. One way to test this might be to try to arrange a sleepover date with someone where you postpone sex until the morning and see if you're harder then. If not, it could be that the problem is more at your subconscious level - having sex with someone may subtly trigger some deep-seated issue (insecurity, perhaps, about your cock size?) and thus it manifests by your body not responding at full capacity. It's my understanding that ED medications work to enhance erections if and when libido is already active - which would be the case here, so perhaps a moderate dose of an ED medication would be helpful. That's something to discuss with your physician, and I'd explain it in the terms you've laid out here: you're getting an erection, but it's not as reliable and firm as you'd like and you know you're capable of.
-
Turned on by having a slutty reputation
BootmanLA replied to BritishCumdump's topic in General Discussion
What makes you assume that because they're steering clear, they must be "shy"? -
Okay, Explain: Why does “On My Way” also mean the opposite?
BootmanLA replied to ErosWired's topic in General Discussion
This is one reason why I seldom rely on hooking up via an app - I think they're a good way to meet people who are seriously interested in play, but finding someone and having him over five or six minutes after the first message not only isn't my style, but (in my experience and opinion) a recipe for disaster. Between those who are just looking for fapping material, those who are easily distracted by the next message that comes along, those who are too fucked up on drugs to remember what they just said they'd do, and those who are constantly holding out for something better, I don't often find anyone interested in connecting in a dependable way. I feel for you, though, because knowing your situation, you're limited (to some degree) to this kind of adventure - getting a room and taking on interested parties. It can be frustrating indeed. -
There are also many different kinds of pain. There's the pain of being stretched out (for those who aren't already gaping open) by a thick cock. It can hurt, but you adjust to it, usually, and the subsequent pleasure makes it worthwhile. There's the pain of a long cock poking into the back of your throat, or a thick one stretching your jaw; for some men, those are pains absolutely worth experiencing because they're intrinsically tied to oral sex. There's the pain of being spanked or whipped. There's the pain of pinching nipples and slapping faces. There's slapping and twisting balls. And a whole lot more. Those are different kinds of pain, not directly tied to the "sex" act (ie oral or anal penetration) but which some men find sexually gratifying, either to administer or to receive (or, less commonly, to alternate between the two). Some men never experience the first kind because they're too scared a cock in their ass is going to hurt. Some men seek out ever-increasing levels of pain and rough play, pushing the limits of what they can handle. What matters isn't what other men want and enjoy; it's what YOU want and enjoy. If you don't like pain, then don't have sex that's painful. If you do, then decide what aspects are OK, and negotiate that with your partner(s).
-
Some men cheat, some don't. Some men who know they aren't the "one man man" sort are honest enough to make that clear to any long term partners, so they know what they're getting into. Others are dishonest enough to lie about being faithful in order to hook a partner who expects monogamy and then cheat. Only you can figure out what kind of man you have. But if you're the sort who starts wondering about cheating when your partner spends an extra 5 minutes in the bathroom, you're probably too paranoid for a monogamous relationship.
-
You put weight back on, not because you're poz, but because you're on medication that suppresses the virus. Not being poz you wouldn't have lost the weight in the first place.
Other #BBBH Sites…
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.