BootmanLA

That could be the case. It also could be that he's simply protective - not that he wants to "dominate" you, but you're his younger brother, and he may see you as vulnerable. And while there's nothing inherently wrong with an age gap between consenting adults, "adult" is a loosely defined term in that context. Legally, one might be an adult at 18; but one might not "mentally" be fully adult and capable of protecting one's own interests until one is a good bit older. Some men never become adults in that sense. I've known a number of same-sex relationships where there was a 20-year or more age gap between the partners. I'm in one myself (well, 19 years' difference). But there's a big difference between partners who are 38 and 18, and partners who are 50 and 30. The younger one, in the second case, is much more likely to, as we say, "have his shit together" and not be as vulnerable to exploitation. So it may be that your brother is simply wanting to protect you from exploitation rather than trying to dominate you. Or it could be some of both.

I hate to be a spoilsport, but a vaccine taken today will only be very partially effective by the weekend - something on the order of 50% for HIV-negative guys (if I remember correctly) and even less for guys who are HIV+, even those who are undetectable. Not sure of your HIV status, but I wouldn't count on a Tuesday shot offering significant protection by Friday night.

Indeed. I know a couple of guys who did essentially that. Neither one lasted two years. Colossal waste of two formerly great individuals.

It's interesting that the original poster of this thread/screed did so in late March, 2014, bragging about how liberating and freeing it was. His last post was made in August of that year, or roughly five months later. He visited the forum a few times after that but hasn't been back on this site since November of 2014. You'd think, wouldn't you, that if this were all so liberating, we'd be hearing about a whole slew of adventures of the wonderful new life being lived "free". Odd. The reality is one of three things: 1. It was all a fantasy, several people got their rocks off on this idea, and moved on. 2. It was true (more or less), but he discovered that 7,000 pounds won't go all that far, certainly not for eight years of living expenses, and ended up quietly crawling back to a much more conventional life in order to survive. 3. It was true and he so thoroughly wrecked his life that he's living on the margins (ie homeless, addicted, thieving, streetwalking, or some combo thereof). Not that I'm discouraging having a lot of fun - by all means. But when you yourself describe it as "ruining your life" (even sarcastically), that tends to come true in perhaps a much more literal sense than intended. He says he plans (planned) to keep doing this until the end, whatever that means. Given that just over half a year later, he disappeared, I'm guessing that if it was true, and he didn't return quietly to his old lifestyle, that "end" came a lot quicker than he probably planned. So think carefully before you indulge in this kind of journey. It may well be a very short trip.

You have two issues here (with possible sub-issues for each), and dealing with them separately will, I think, make more sense. First, there's the issue of your crush being straight. That's actually not uncommon - gay men have been getting attracted to straight men forever - but it's uncommon (at best) for straight men to respond positively to any overtures in that direction. Sure, a handful of straight men are secure enough that they'd consider it a compliment; and sure, an even larger number of "straight" men may be heteroflexible enough that they consider a mouth is a mouth and a hole is a hole. The majority, though, are going to be squicky about it, if they find out. So as a general rule, unless you know a straight man is very, very secure in his straightness, or unless you have very good reason to believe, if not actual proof, that he's not 100% straight, then keeping your mouth shut is probably best. Good friends are hard to find. Second, there's the issue of your crush being your brother. You don't say whether your brother knows you're gay or not. If he does, and he's cool enough with that to keep living with you, and hasn't expressed any homophobia, then that's great. That doesn't mean you should confess your crush to him simply because he's comfortable with gay men; he might even be okay with gay men hitting on him, but not his own brother. All in all, I'm afraid there's virtually no way this turns out well if you confide this to ANYONE who might let it get back to him. That means: no personal identifying information here, or anywhere else you've asked for guidance about this; and if you need someone to help you professionally with this, make sure that your therapist or counselor is bound by confidentiality, as he almost certainly will be. I feel for you -I really do - but I don't think there's any resolution to this that changes your status quo.

I'd caution from drawing too many conclusions from this study. For one thing, as the authors admit, they can only compare behavior from earlier in an infected state with that from later in an infected state. There's no ethical way to study how infection itself changes a person's sex drive from before infection to after infection, which is what most people seem to be reporting anecdotally. Moreover, this presents a question of causality: is the advancing HIV infection/viral load physically causing people to have more frequent and riskier sex (the way rabies causes foaming at the mouth, for instance), or could it simply be that as guys become more accustomed to their HIV status, they relax about having sex and enjoying it more (and seeking more partners and riskier options) because the perceived danger of doing so has gone away?

Thanks!

I don't block them "just because they blew me off". I block non-responders because they're rude sons-of-bitches and I don't want to ever make the mistake of complimenting them again, ever, because their rudeness trumps any physical appeal they may have had. What this really boils down to is some people are either so goddamned lazy they can't be bothered to thank someone for a compliment - and I suspect they're also the shitheads who never wrote a thank-you note or even so much as a thank-you email to people who have given them gifts over the years - or else they're so terrified they might have to actually SAY WORDS to let someone down that they'll ignore a warm message just so their precious little fee-fees aren't distressed. Someone hits you with a rude come-on? By all means, ignore them. Someone has the boldness to pay you a compliment, even if he's not your type? Decent people acknowledge that. Assholes do not.

In virtually every state election, a considerable portion of money raised is from out of state entities and people. That's true across the board, for pretty much all states and all parties. As for the "Napa" crack: yes, it was poor optics for Newsom to have dinner at the French Laundry, unmasked, during a period when most people were being urged, if not coerced, into social distancing in public. Give it a rest. There are a lot of things in the world that show far worse judgment than a politician attending a party honoring a political aide.

My guess is that it's a fashion statement, not signifying anything. That said, it wouldn't be the first time that a whole trend has swept the country without me noticing.

Sitting governors run for president all the time, and remain governor if they fail to get the nomination (or to win the election, if nominated by their party). The same is true for sitting senators and representatives (or, indeed, any office-holder). In part this is because the qualifications to hold federal elected office (President, Vice-President, Senator, Representative) are specified in the US Constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled that neither Congress nor individual states can impose additional qualifications, either positive (ie you must have a high school diploma) or negative (ie you cannot be a sitting governor). That's why term limits for Congress are unconstitutional (it boils down to an additional "negative" qualification - that you have not already served X number of terms). That's also why, when the decision was made to limit US presidents to two terms (after FDR was elected four times), it had to be done by constitutional amendment. The same would be true for barring sitting governors from running for president, or for any other limitation on who can be elected. For reference: a representative must be at least 25 years old and a resident of the state in which he is elected (but note: you don't have to actually live in any particular district to run for that district). A senator must be at least 30 years old and a resident of the state in which he is elected. The president and vice-president must be at least 35 years old and a "natural born citizen". That term is not defined in the Constitution and the courts have not had a great deal of casework interpreting it, but the general consensus is that it means "a citizen at birth" - that is, born within the United States (including its territories) and subject to the laws thereof (ie not a child of a foreign diplomat born here), or else the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad.

You specifically asked a question: The symbol after "agree" is literally called a "question mark" in English.

Again, due to the translation quality I'm not sure what you're asking. If you mean do we agree with the doctor that nearly all gay men who bareback will be poz one day? No. He is clearly not up to date on how PrEP prevents HIV infection, possibly because wherever you are (since it's clearly not a country where English is the majority language) PrEP is not widely available. If PrEP *IS* widely available there, then he's just ignorant. He's correct, however, that as long as people are on treatment, they can live productive lives while being HIV+. You'd have to clarify which one you're asking.

The "i" in Crist's name is what in english we call a "short" i - as in "his", not as in "idea". Put another way, like "Christian" and not like "Christ".

But the flip side, as I see it, is that a person who does NOT want romance at work is forced to endure things - like physical touching, "stealing" a kiss (which to me translates to "kissing someone when it's not invited), or - read this carefully, as it's exactly what she wrote - "send sexually-charged messages to women who did not return their interest..." - literally, she's defending men sending sexually provocative messages to CO-WORKERS when the co-worker has ALREADY said he/she isn't interested. That's textbook sexual harassment. I don't oppose office romances, even as I recognize they're fraught with potential problems. If Mary in Accounting finds John the IT support guy hot, by all means, let them date. But she can ask him if he's interested in going for coffee, or drinks, or whatever, and then they need to take it off-site. And if John isn't interested - I'm deliberately reversing the sexes here, because I'm driving home the point it works both ways - he shouldn't be subject to Mary's repeated attempts to "romance" him. And I'll add this: I suspect Deneuve wouldn't feel this way if she weren't a major star able to conduct her own liaisons as publicly as she chooses, with the freedom to reject powerful men if she wants because she knows she's in demand (or was, at least, since she hasn't done a lot of work since her stroke). I don't know that sexual assault is any less prevalent in France other than by the fact that they define things differently. I tried to do some comparison research and was repeatedly stymied by the fact that definitions shift - in the U.S., we have pretty broad definitions of what can be sexual assault, whereas in some countries, anything short of actual penetrative rape is not really tracked very well. But Deneuve's own letter suggests that France simply has a higher tolerance for what we in the US would consider inappropriate sexual behavior towards another person. But how do people become more confident and assertive? By seeing that others are confident and assertive standing up - in other words, by making the "social convention" that you stand up to bad behavior and don't let it happen. There's a difference between "victim" and "perpetual victim". If someone commits an offense against you, you ARE a victim. That's inherent in the definition of the word. What may differ is HOW the victim responds. And I'll posit that it's a lot easier for a victim of a crime to stand up for themselves - to avoid being victimized, or a "perpetual victim" (to use her phrase) when society supports and denounces the acts that lead to one being a victim. The reason bad behavior became normalized in America for so long was that society REFUSED to support victims - blaming them (what was she wearing? was she asking for it?) instead of challenging the ones behaving badly. And worse, society then used those problems as "proof" that women didn't belong in the workplace because they just "caused problems". But a community acting in a particular way *IS* the very definition of "social rules of conduct". I agree the legal system is sometimes too blunt an instrument to solve some problems, but you are arguing for the same thing (social support) you one sentence earlier said was unworkable. I think we actually agree that the answer is a group refusal to tolerate bad behavior - but when a group acts as one, as a group, then that is very much EXACTLY setting "social rules of conduct".

I don't think the concern is so much about "fresh meat" users being hit on (which can happen now), but that allowing them to respond when someone else initiates the message means people will just post a public request to "message me first so I can reply" and thus get around the point of the rule.

You use one hand on each and hope they're gentlemen enough to share the middle 🙂

Active symptoms (which covers a lot), yes. Prolonged periods, no. It's certainly *easier* to contract monkeypox from a more prolonged contact, but as long as the virus comes in contact with a hospitable body surface on which to begin to replicate, infection is definitely possible.

Since it's no longer in existence, it might be wise to edit the database table to remove (or at least hide) the "Xtube User Name" field in the member database, and remove that feature from displaying in profiles or being something you can add/edit. It's data that is no longer of any real use to the public. Deleting it might be too strong an action (you might need it someday if you're sued), but making it invisible and non-editable by the membership would be a net good thing.

Oh, and if that apparently godawful, worthy-of-scorn, horrific thing happens and the guy I'm not interested in actually wants to keep talking (the horror!) I just repeat the thank you, or eventually tune them out. I realize that's not as satisfying to the pitiful bruised egos of the hoi polloi who think it's an insult that someone they aren't interested in has the audacity to try to converse as blocking them is. But then my ego would fit inside an olive and still leave room for the pimento.

FWIW: I have no problem whatsoever with this as long as (a) both parties are willing and eager participants in this and (b) it's confined to sites specifically for that purpose, ie "LookAtAllTheseExposedFags.com" or whatever. Obviously it's wrong when the exposed person hasn't so consented. And less obviously, it's wrong to do it elsewhere because you're involving other people - bystanders - in your kink.

Bear in mind I'm not prescribing this as the "proper" responses for everyone to use. This is just what I do. But I find it effective and I also feel it's polite. If a person pays me a compliment, I always say "Thank you". If there's no compatibility (another bottom saying I'm hot - why?), then I just say that, no more. If the compliment comes from someone where there might be some compatibility, but I don't know for sure, I usually say "Thank you, that's very nice of you" and see where it might lead. (If it's from someone I think is hot, of course, I respond back more enthusiastically.) Now: if someone messages me and his profile clearly says he's looking for love or a husband, and no other option, especially if they're hundreds of miles away, I typically ask "Um, did you read my profile at all before messaging?" because all my profiles indicate I'm taken but in an open relationship, which SHOULD let such people know I'm not their future husband. It's especially irksome when the profile indicates they're "ONLY interested in monogamous relationships" because then it's pretty clear they didn't bother to read a damned thing. The only messages I outright ignore are the ones from 6,000 miles away or more (because that suggests the person is in Moscow, the Middle East or Asia, and is probably some sort of scam), or the ones that start out with opening private pictures. To me, immediately blocking someone in whom you have no interest is just rude. It's saying, in essence, you are not even worth the three seconds of my time it would take to say "thank you" back.

To be fair, I would guess most places with these "fuck boxes" only have one or two (so presenting the same problem) - although there are clearly some places where there are a lot of these just lining the walls.

Deneuve, unfortunately, both makes and misses the point. The problem she just gallops over is that the *workplace* isn't the proper venue for sexual interaction, wanted or not, and while in her culture that may not be a problem, for an awful lot of employers elsewhere, it certainly is. Touching a woman's knee in the workplace is unnecessary and unrelated to work. Trying to "steal" a kiss - fuck, woman, the word "steal" says a lot, doesn't it? It means to take without permission - is a form of assault. If you're at a work meal, you should only be talking about "intimate things" with someone who's expressed an openness to that, not someone who can't get up and leave without making a scene. Her point about "professional lives" seems to vanish from her head almost immediately after making it. And worst of all, she makes the assumption that everyone else feels (or should feel) the same as she, a clearly very sexually liberated woman, feels - with no allowance for the fact that many people just don't want to have to deal with that kind of shit at work. Or, really, anywhere that they don't specifically invite it. She clearly relishes being fawned over and thought of as a sexual object (or objectified person, at least) - which is great! - but she certainly shouldn't assume everyone else is willing to be treated that way.

As I read his statement he's saying that a vaccine gives you antibodies to whatever infection that particular vaccine is designed to address, but that since the monkeypox vaccine is relatively new, there haven't been studies that assess how well the vaccine prevents infections or how well it stops transmission (of monkeypox). I don't read what he's saying as confusing the two types of vaccines.