BootmanLA

This site, this site's rules. If you don't like them, you don't have to stay. You are posting within the "HIV/AIDS & Sexual Health Issues" forum - on a site called "Breeding Zone". The site is not "Spreadingdisease.com" or "HowToGetHIV.com" - it's a site about, at its core, sex without condoms. If the point of the site were solely about chasing HIV - an acceptable but by no means mandatory topic - then discussions of PrEP, etc. would be off-limits as contradicting the point of the site. For the record: I'm 58 years old, soon to be 59. As such, I fall squarely into that group of men RawTop was posting about - someone who had received the earlier doses of the smallpox vaccine, but because I turned 10 *after* the vaccines were taken out of the general routine for kids in 1972, I never got the doses recommended for 10 and 15 year olds. I'm EXACTLY the kind of person who might think he was vaccinated against smallpox (and thus probably monkeypox) but who isn't completely covered, and this information was and is very useful for people like me. I realize that people under the age of, say, 35 probably think people approaching 60 are "old" and "mostly dead". Let me be among the first to disabuse you of that ageist and idiotic notion. And as for the layout of this website: it's pretty damned clear, if you bother to read the topics/posts labeled "READ THIS" pinned at the top of various folders here. Posts about bugchasing and sex with drugs go in the appropriate forums within the "Backroom" area. I'm not sure it could be much simpler.

That is a side effect primarily due NOT to repressive health officials, but to the fact that Montana has the third-lowest population density in the nation, only behind Alaska and Wyoming. And yes, it's true that we don't have control over where we're born, and to some extent, that can dramatically influence where we live as adults. If you inherit a spread of land in a state like Montana or Wyoming, it can be daunting to sell that asset and move to a more densely populated area (which presumably has a higher percentage of gay people as well). But that's still something largely within the control of the individual. In many respects I loathe the state where I was born and live to this day. Looking back from the perspective of being out of high school over 40 years now, my first mistake was not working harder to go to an out of state college or university; and the second mistake was not leaving once I finished school and made a go of it elsewhere. And I could blame it on any number of external factors - all of which impacted things - but the bottom line is, I was too insecure to trust that I could do well elsewhere without the safety net of multiple generations of a large extended family right here. And I could blame my parents for instilling in me a sense that I wasn't good enough - because nothing I ever did was good enough for them - but ultimately, I made choices and my life, as lived, is the consequential result. So be it.

I wouldn't say "ONLY EVER". It's true that such challenges tend to lean conservative, rather than liberal, but they're not exclusively Christian. There's a significant case working its way around the courts right now regarding Yeshiva University, which is a Jewish institution, and there are routinely religious practices challenges in the federal courts on behalf of Muslims. And it's simply untrue - that is, false - that the "first goddamned RIGHT is the freedom FROM religion." With respect to religion, the First Amendment reads (omitting the references to speech, press, assembly, etc.): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not say that people are free from any religious anything whatseover; it prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion, and also bars Congress from prohibiting the exercise of any religion. The Fourteenth Amendment, in turn, denies the power to any state (and by extension, its political subdivisions) to interfere with any right established by the laws of the United States, which include the Constitution - meaning that a state or county or city is just as bound as Congress is. But it doesn't say "freedom from religion" - which is why I can't demand that a church cannot be built next to my house, or on my block. I can't demand that churches not allow bells so that I don't have to listen to them, nor can I demand that an imam cannot issue a call to prayer from a nearby mosque. We are not guaranteed lack of contact with religion. In fact, until 1964 it was perfectly legal for a private business to refuse to hire non-Christians. Or non-Jews. Or non-Muslims. There's nothing in the Constitution, per se, that prohibits private businesses from discriminating on the basis of religion at all. What we DO have is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under which Congress, using its powers under the Commerce Clause, made such discrimination illegal; and with respect to federal government actions only, we have the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which does not, however, apply to the states or local governments. And this is important for two reasons. First, in theory, Congress could amend or repeal either the 1964 law or the 1993 law (in fact, both have had amendments over the years). It's unlikely they would be fully repealed, but it's possible, which would leave religion unprotected in the private sector. Secondly, the current Supreme Court has shown an increasing deference to religion, especially conservative religions, and could theoretically revisit the Civil Rights Act and determine (similar to the Hobby Lobby contraceptive decision) that closely held corporations have a First Amendment right to only hire members of their faith, striking down part of the Civil Rights Act entirely. It's considered a reach - currently - but this Court has shown an increasing interest in such reaches.

And how do you plan to monitor to know if your children ever, anywhere, anytime, use a condom? More wank-wank fapping from someone trying to sound "bad" except it's coming off like a 12-year old's concept of "bad".

I don't think anyone (well, almost anyone) in politics seriously thinks it's okay to impose a religious belief on others. The problem is when one person's religious beliefs command him to, or forbid him from, acting in a way required by law. The PrEP thing is not an ideal case, but it serves to illustrate. The challenge is this: the employer believes same-sex sexual activity is against his religious beliefs. The employer's insurance plan must cover PrEP, which (let's be frank) is mostly used by gay men to protect themselves against HIV - protection they wouldn't need if they weren't having same-sex relations. Thus, to the extent that the company foots part of the bill for insurance, he is being forced to subsidize sexual activity that goes against his religious beliefs. If it were a case of an employer banning his employees from having gay sex, that would be a slam dunk case of him wrongly trying to impose his religious beliefs on his employees. But that's not this case. This is the case of a right conferred by statute (the ACA, providing no-cost coverage for approved preventative measures) conflicting with a constitutional right (freedom of religion). As a general rule, the law is clear in such cases: the statute must bend to the constitution. This is the clearest reason yet why taking health care out of the hands of employers (such that religious concerns go away), raising taxes slightly across the board, and having a single-payer system (not a national health service where all health care is *delivered* by the government, merely one where the bills are footed by general taxes) is a wise idea. Aside from the fact that there's tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars to be saved.

I think it depends on how long the outlet mall has been (otherwise) empty. If it emptied out in, say, 2008 or 2009, and has been sitting mostly vacant since, the owners may have sold at a loss (and the attendant tax breaks) to get rid of the overhead of maintaining the empty stores - something that the ABS wouldn't care about because they're not using them. But again, just a guess.

That would be my guess - the owners of the business and the owners of the real estate were probably two different entities. It's possible, of course, that when the outlet mall emptied out, the sex store bought the property at a discount and just left it vacant except for their own business - in which case they'd have the right to impose the deed restriction before selling. But if, as you and I suspect, the property was owned by someone else, they were probably happy to get rid of a tenant that kept the property from being productive across the board, and were fine with imposing the deed restriction before its sale.

I meant "argument" in the sense of "debatable point". Without debatable points, discussion forums quickly become cesspools of "post something provocative" and everyone answers "me too but even more so". I actually like posts like yours better, because they exhibit a perspective and invite discussion of actual differences of opinion.

You could be. But assuming you trust PEP and could get it fairly soon after an exposure, I don't know of any reason why it would be significantly less effective after a cumdump experience (where you took, say, 5 to 10 loads) than it would be just after one load.

It's possible that it's different. But I also imagine quite a few guys on PrEP *already* craved cum, as you put it, and in fact that's the very reason they went on PrEP in the first place - to get the benefits of barebacking without the risk. Some of the people on PrEP were barebackers long before PrEP was a thing. You might have a better argument for the idea that those people who switched to barebacking only AFTER getting on PrEP are different.

Here's the thing, though. COVID had a significant fatality rate. A million people dead from COVID in the US in two years is substantial. Monkeypox isn't as fatal, but given what it's like to go through it, it's definitely something to avoid. HIV, for some reason, attracts a certain amount of fetishization. I'm sure it's a very complex thing, but a significant number of people have an attraction to getting or giving HIV, whereas I know nobody - at all - who has the same feelings about COVID or Monkeypox. It's true that untreated HIV is usually fatal, but we do have good treatments widely available now (in western countries at least) which kind of ameliorates the perceived craziness of "chasing" an otherwise incurable infection. As for drug use: frankly, I wouldn't care if the entire subject of drug use in sexual contexts were banned - I realize it's not going to happen, and I'm happy with the compromise of confining such discussions to the Backroom area, which can be easily avoided - just as bug chasing is confined to the same area, and likewise can be avoided.

I like that everyone here has reminded the community that getting the shot on Monday morning does not mean you can go fuck/get fucked on Monday afternoon. STIs treated by antibiotics take time to cure, just like any other bacterial infection. Sometimes you're clear faster than other times. But in any event, for STIs treated by injection, I would specifically ask how long I should abstain from sex to avoid sharing the infection. For STIs treated orally (tablets, capsules, whatever), assume you have to complete the pill regimen before you're clear.

To @Hairypiglet's comment above, I would add: it's definitely possible - not sure I would say "common", but certainly possible - that what you're experiencing is seroconversion. But that's just a "Maybe it is" opinion. As you note, only a test can tell for sure. You say you were "misinformed" about HIV, but you don't explain what the misinformation was, or what you learned that is actually correct that contradicts what you used to understand. Your handle on here is also "PozDesire" - which suggests that, at some level, you're chasing HIV, not just being matter-of-fact about it or careless about it. Assuming this test is negative, I suggest you give some serious thought to this question: Do I WANT to become HIV+? If you do, then keep going as you're going, and it may happen. It may not - new infection rates have been going down for years, thanks to better treatments and to PrEP - but the possibility will continue to exist. If you do not "WANT" to become HIV+, but you were just "resigned" to knowing it COULD happen because you like bareback sex too much to give it up, then you have the option of PrEP. If you have health insurance, even in Alabama, PrEP is covered as an essential preventative health benefit at no cost to the insured, and if you get on it, you can have all the benefits of barebacking without the risk of HIV. I get that some people talk themselves into a "reason" to become poz. Some believe in a mythical "poz" community that ties you to a multitude of other poz men who've come before you, like a fraternity initiation. That's bullshit, except in a fevered imagination, but if that's what floats your boat, more power to you. I just point out to such people that when you develop health complications from being poz - and you will - the poz "community" isn't likely to pay your medical bills, your insurance deductible, or your other bills if you can't work for a while. At best, the "poz community" is a resource for "how do I handle X?" - like this website - but mostly "X" is something "not good" that you have to deal with as a poz person. And the sole mental "benefit" anyone has ever cited to me - the freedom to no longer worry about getting infected, because it already happened - can be achieved with PrEP. The somewhat more credible reason - a poz man converting his partner deliberately as a way of "sealing" their lives together - at least has some psychological basis. I'm on the fence as to whether this is a good thing or not, but it's at least a credible reason, because it requires some forethought and it's a commitment consciously made. It's hard to tell from your post whether or not this July "event" was with someone special, but I'm guessing not, and thus the second reason I cited is off the table.

I recognize the tight spot you find yourself in. So a little background (maybe more than you want) and then recommendations. In order to go on PrEP, you have to be confirmed to be HIV-negative. They also will test you for other STI's and make sure you are being treated for them. Most doctors are not going to start you on PrEP without that confirmation, because taking PrEP when you're already HIV-positive (even if you don't know it) can lead to your strain of HIV becoming resistant to the drug(s) in your PrEP prescription. Many HIV treatments use the same ingredients as are in PrEP *in addition to* other ingredients that make it capable of treating, as opposed to just preventing, an HIV infection. That said - you say you were looking to "get back on" PrEP. If you had a previous prescription, it MIGHT be possible for the doctor to refill it before your trip, if it hasn't been too long since your last set of tests. It's worth asking about. But bear in mind that it takes several days from the time you start daily PrEP before it becomes completely effective. You could, however, try the "on demand" method for this trip - 2 tablets, taken at least 2 but no more than 24 hours before you have sex, then one tablet each day for two days, at 24 hours and 48 hours after the first "double" dose. In other words, take the medication as close as possible to the same time as the first dose, on the two days after the first. It wouldn't hurt to keep taking it a few more days after the first two, just to be sure, just as you would for daily use. For this option, I can't recommend this, obviously, but there is the option of borrowing the necessary 4-6 tablets from someone you know who's also on PrEP, replacing them with yours once you get them. Or if you know someone who's built up a surplus - from missed doses here or there, or early refills - then they might be willing to share them. That's technically illegal (hence why it can't be recommended) but there's no reason it wouldn't work if used correctly. There is the option of PEP - which stands for "POST Exposure Prophylaxis" - it's used as emergency treatment after a potential HIV exposure. But it generally needs to be started very soon after exposure - ideally within a couple of hours, and absolutely no more than 72 hours later - and it's more likely to be effective if taken VERY soon after exposure. Not sure what the success rate is at, say, 48 hours as opposed to 2 hours, but I believe it's a significantly less effective option then. If you're going to visit this club on a Friday night and will be home by Saturday evening, you could hit your ER or Urgent Care as soon as you're back and *probably* be safe. I wouldn't count on being able to find PEP while you're on your trip because you don't know what options there might be. Ultimately, you might have to choose between running the risk of infection (because you can't get PrEP and won't be back in time to get PEP afterward) and not going to this session. Tough decision but one only you can make.

I think what I find confusing is how PrEP figures into this. Other than the fact that someone on it can't contract HIV, every other aspect of this is identical whether either party is on PrEP or not. I think it's very disingenuous to claim "bareback sex" (or a devotion to it) isn't real if there is PrEP involved.

Virtually nothing, unless you're one of the 0.0001% of really hottest guys doing porn. There's too much of it out there for free, or for very cheap, for anyone to make money at it, and since it's all digital these days, there are no effective controls on distributing it.

Thank you - I make this point myself to people and some just refuse to believe me, even though it's very much documented. If the ability to close that "hole" off existed, a person could prevent his rectum from getting feces in it *at all* (well, he might get backed up in the colon, and develop other complications, but it should be *possible*. But it's simply not.

Assuming the speculation is true: let's pretend this was another type of business - say, a bar (also generally perfectly legal). Two people die because of drug overdoses in rooms that the bar owners allow individuals to close themselves off from anyone observing their behavior, where sex was going on and, if the speculation is true, drug use was also happening. I suspect such a bar would be shut down promptly as well. I'm not denying that fundies can and do target sex-oriented businesses to shut them down. But I'm not sure that every such shutdown is, in fact, targeting that wouldn't be carried out against another type of business. That may be playing into the closure as well. I have no idea how long they'd been leasing the space, but it's not uncommon for commercial leases to be long-term. For instance, one my family has on a piece of commercial property was originally leased to a company for 10 years with 3 5-year renewal options at their sole discretion (ie, if they wanted to stay, we had to extend the lease for 5 more years each time). When that 25 years was up, we signed another similar lease with the same company (though at higher rates and with rent escalation clauses), and as long as they want to keep leasing, they can (through the second 25-year period). It's very possible that the owner of the building wanted to redevelop the site for something else, but they couldn't evict the tenant directly. But if the authorities can get the ABS to agree to shut down, they're likely to want out of the lease, and then the owner is free to redevelop. The problem is that in many places - not sure if Austin (or Texas as a whole) is one of them - it's illegal to allow sexual activity on commercial property open to the public. If that's the case, allowing two or more people into video booths would be evidence that any sexual activity was being conducted with the tacit permission of the business - ergo bye bye business permit. Those rules are much more restrictive for places that sell alcohol, but there are often laws that apply in any commercial establishment. One other thing that keeps them open is that you can buy it and take it with you and it does NOT show up at the door. Imagine Mr. John Smith, who works in a shop or office where he can't receive mail or packages, and Mrs. John Smith stays at home with the children and receives (and opens) all packages when they arrive. You can imagine this presents a problem for "discreet". For a single man, a gay couple, or a gay/bi man living with a roommate or two, that's not an issue, but I suspect bookstores that sell toys cater more to closeted, D/L men. Separately, there's the "is this really what I want?" issue. When the toy is right there in your hands at the store you can get a good idea for firmness and for what "usable length: 8 inches" and "maximum circumference: 7 inches" really means (among other features that you can examine).

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're drawing. Are you saying there's a difference between person A ("I will have sex without a condom sometimes") and person B ("I refuse to wear a condom")? If you mean there's a physical difference in the sex, of course there isn't. Fucking without a condom is fucking without a condom, period. If you mean there's a difference in the mentality of person A and person B, that may be reflected in the particular style, vigor, whatever of the fucking they do? Possibly so. But I think that's not dependent on what you think it is. I know guys who always bareback but who do not, by any stretch of the imagination, "particular lust for cum, a sense of risk, a real slutty-ness". Separately, you touch on "risk" and then on "barebacking because of PrEP" - which suggests another possibility: are you distinguishing barebackers who do NOT use PrEP (ie "risk") from barebackers who do? If that's the case, there could well be a difference in that those who skip PrEP but bareback anyway may indeed be more risk-prone and that could reflect in their sex. I think they're fucking stupid for risking getting an incurable disease that's easily preventable, but yeah, I can see why some people out there would say "far out, man, that's so rad" and think it's a plus.

That is true, certainly. But only one of the many faiths in the United States has the political power and the numbers to push for this kind of change - and only one such faith is shared by a substantially large number of employers such that it will impact lots of people. Put another way: There are just over 500,000 adult Orthodox Jews in America. Orthodox Jews might well fit into this "conservative faith" grouping you describe, but they are not (as a group) mostly entrepreneurs or business owners, except, for example, for certain faith-specific businesses (kosher restaurants/delis, grocery stores, etc.). You don't generally find a large corporation with three thousand employees headed by a close-knit Orthodox family, and so they're unlikely to be in the position to take advantage of such a provision allowing them to discriminate on this basis. A typical small Orthodox bakery or deli is unlikely to even have enough employees to be mandated to offer health insurance; and while it's not guaranteed, it's at least likely that many or most employees in such a business share their owner's views. (That doesn't mean the principle shouldn't apply to them, but the point is, the practical effect, if they choose to oppose PrEP for religious reasons, is likely to be quite small). By contrast, a single store like Hobby Lobby, with more than 40,000 employees, run by conservative Christians can and does have a huge impact when it refuses to cover birth control or PrEP. That's just one company; add in Chick-Fil-A and any number of other closely held companies run by conservative Christian families, and the impact is correspondingly enormous.

READ THIS THREAD. Then read it again. And if you don't understand it, read it a third time. This is not a "problem". It's an intentional feature. Members here cannot send private messages until they have participated in the *public* forums at a certain (but undisclosed) level of posting. The reasons for this are fully explained in this thread. You've been a member for just over 31 months and made, in that time, 38 posts or replies, or just barely over 1 per month. I can't say (because I don't know) how many you need to make to advance to the level where private messaging is allowed, but at this pace it's not going to be soon.

It's not just males. There's considerable biological evidence (from many species, not necessarily all or even a representative sample, but still) that even in pair-bonded species, both sexes seek outside mating.

I wouldn't say this is accurate, for this reason: Our biology evolved first, long before we developed anything resembling "social norms". So the social norms came after the fact, when the biology was already hardwired in place, and it's unlikely to "evolve" to match something that pre-existed it. Our social norms developed, in fact, to COUNTER our biological instincts, because OTHER social norms - the notion of private property, for instance - developed first, and we needed interpersonal social rules that corresponded to those other norms. Consider hunting/gathering vs. agriculture. It took at least a small tribe of people to hunt and kill, say, a mastodon. But once they did, the amount of meat available that had to be consumed before it went bad was considerable, and so it wasn't unusual for a larger group - who knows how many - to share in the bounty. Those in the tribe who could not hunt could nonetheless make clothes, carry water, care for the young - most things could be a communal effort. Agriculture and the domestication of livestock changes that. People end up partitioning into smaller groups, to care for their own animals and crops. A smaller family group can easily eat a killed pig before it goes bad. There's less requirement for larger group action to get food. So people focus on what's "mine" and "ours", not "the community's". The notion that this particular patch of land is mine and for the use of my family develops in this period - and with that, the notion that you want to be sure who the father of your mate's offspring is - because you don't want your effort to go to feeding someone else's children and your land handed down to people who aren't your family. Women, in turn, wanted a strong provider for their family unit and therefore had an incentive to seek a dependable mate. The problem is that those motivations are *social* in nature, not biological, and the biology evolved over hundreds of millennia around the hunter/gatherer model. Unsurprisingly, the resulting mismatch between biology and sociology generally means that biology is going to win out. People assumed that exclusive pair-bonding was natural - at least for a particular breeding season. Sometimes a male might have a harem, but it was always HIS harem, not some free-for-all, but most warm-blooded animals (mammals and birds) were thought to fall into this category. But as we've been learning with genetics, even in species that APPEAR to have pair-bonding for a season, there is nonetheless extensive "extracurricular" mating activity going on. In certain warbler species, for instance, there is a pair-bond for nesting and reproduction, where the male assists with the building the next and feeding his mate as she incubates and feeding the young after hatching - BUT, surprise, surprise, as many as 50% of the offspring in such pairs are fathered by a different individual than the female's mate. In other words, there's not really any biological basis for monogamy. That doesn't make it invalid, and it may in fact offer considerable social benefits that trump biological instincts, so this isn't intended to downplay or attack monogamy. It's to point out that monogamy goes against certain biological instincts and it's not necessarily "easy" to maintain.

I think not allowing bi men would have a bigger impact than not allowing trans people, but that's just my impression. It may be different in different areas. Removing open relationships, married, and polyamorous people would do an even bigger number on the sites, because while I don't necessarily think a majority of men on these sites are in open relationships and similar situations, there are certainly a substantial number, and even a goodly number of single men are themselves willing to consider open arrangements for a relationship. Rather than denigrate polyamorous people by referring to them as "whatever the fuck that is" I might suggest you actually look up the word and try to understand it. Not that you are likely to want that for yourself, but it might just engender a little more respect on your part for other human beings. But in any event: I note that your profile here says you're looking for NSA hookups. A few questions: If it's no strings attached, what does it matter to you whether the other guy is in an open relationship or single? He's got permission to fuck you, and you don't want anything more than that, right? I find it silly and pretentious that people who claim they want "NSA" sex always seem to have a metric fuckton of strings they want to attach - just not CERTAIN strings. But if "single masculine men for single masculine men" need a site/app of their own, may I suggest calling it "InternalizedHomophobia4u"?

That's not how religious freedom, in a legal/courthouse context, works. Not all religions have scriptures; some don't even have formal creeds of what an adherent of that faith must believe. The relevant question for the courts is (in most contexts) "Does X law/rule/regulation interfere with a sincerely held religious belief?" with the caveat that courts must tread carefully in probing whether there is a religious belief at all, and if so, whether it is sincerely held. Scriptural passages *can* be illuminating as to whether there is, in fact, a religious belief in question; when the scriptural passage prescribes or condemns X behavior, that's pretty good evidence that there is such a belief. But there need not be any written rule about a religious belief for that belief to be valid; they are generally *presumptively* valid religious beliefs. The question of sincerity, on the other hand, goes beyond that. A religion may mandate that believers attend church faithfully on Sundays. But a worker who objects to being scheduled for shifts on Sundays on the grounds that she must attend church can fairly be questioned as to whether she does, in fact, regularly attend church on Sundays absent a work requirement. So, for instance, let's say I claim that my religion doesn't allow artificial chemicals (yeah, I know, everything is chemicals, bear with me) to be used for anything, so I object to my office's use of Pine-sol to clean the tile floors in my work area. Generally speaking, there can't be much, if any, questioning about whether the ban on artificial chemicals is in fact a religious belief. But there CAN be questioning as to whether my belief is sincere: do I use chemicals at home to clean with, for instance? Are there other motivations for not wanting chemicals used around me, motivations that are not religious in character? That's how (broadly speaking) courts do analyses of religious freedom claims.