BootmanLA

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.

In terms of the original question, one still does not become "full blown" immediately upon infection by a dominant/aggressive strain of HIV. One still would pass through the normal stages of infection, initially high viral load, that coming down after a month or so, then settling into a steady level where one is infectious but still fighting to keep the viral level under control. (This is assuming no medication; going on meds should reduce the level of almost all HIV+ persons to undetectable, even if it takes a bit of trial and error to make sure that the specific strain one has isn't resistant to a particular medication.)

But as I noted above: some tablets absolutely should not be crushed, while others it's safe to do so. It's very much medication-specific, so I don't think any pharmacist is going to be able to give a thorough answer without knowing the "particular medication." (And that's information I got directly from my pharmacist, and it confirms what I learned decades ago when I was a pharmacy tech, in what seems almost like another lifetime). There's no shame in admitting one is on PrEP.

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.

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.

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.

@gangbangsuperstar seems to make a lot of posts talking about what a worthless, horrible, depraved, contemptible slut he is that nobody can possibly respect, etc etc etc on and on. It would seem to me that "downvoting" him should be just the kind of abuse such a person would want, no?

Indeed. This is why in many states you have to be over 18 and present ID to purchase compressed air cans. Kids these days....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.