BootmanLA

Without examining it, just based on a random non-scientific decision, I doubt anyone here could give you more than a wild guess. You're doing the right thing to have it examined by a professional (not sure what a "GC" is, but I assume it's some sort of medical person - if not, get your ass to one pronto).

You're presuming to dictate to people what they must believe. That's always a bad idea. If a Catholic can believe that using artificial birth control is acceptable, even though the Catholic Church teaches that it's a sin, and yet still consider himself a Catholic, why couldn't a Christian believe that there is no actual Devil, even though Christian theology teaches that he does, and yet still consider himself a Christian? Regardless: there are multiple creeds (the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed) that form the basis of Christian beliefs, and not one of them mentions the Devil. He doesn't exist in Jewish theology as an entity or person, and you'd think if he was so central to the story, from start to finish, the Old Testament would reference him, but it doesn't. (Genesis only mentions a "serpent".) And in fact the name "Lucifer" wasn't applied to the Devil until the King James version of the Bible, in the 17th century. In a nutshell: there's nothing in Christianity incompatible with the idea that "the Devil" is merely a metaphorical figurehead for evil - that is, unless you take every word of the Bible as literally true, in which case, a site that promotes bareback fucking between men is probably the wrong site for you.

If by "Every Christian" you mean "All Christian denominations", you might be correct. However, a majority of American Christians, at least, do not believe there is an actual Devil who exists. As far back as the late 1990's, polls showed that 95% of Americans believed in God but only about one-third believed the Devil exists. More than sixty percent said that the Devil is merely "a symbol of evil", not an actual entity. In other words, as is so typically the case, what particular denominations define as doctrine, and what people who belong to those denominations actually believe, are two different things: see, for instance, Catholics and birth control. Given the overall decline in religiosity since then, I'd imagine that the percentage of Christians who believe in the Devil may have risen, but that's only because the percentage of Americans who are Christian has declined.

There's no reason you should ever need to become poz - that's what PrEP is for. Ever since its creation, it's broken the "almost inevitable" causal link between "bareback" and "poz". On PrEP you don't have to fight the desire to bareback, so no mentally exhausting gyrations.

Your profile indicates absolutely zero about you, so we have literally no context in which to analyze what you're saying. This meaning of this kind of behavior is typically culturally-specific - ie in America, it might mean he's just grateful he has a good buddy, whereas in some other place it might be an indication he's deeply closeted (at least publicly) and has feelings for you. You don't mention where you live, so it could mean anything. You also don't mention your ages - presumably you're both in your mid-20's, and I'm assuming you are younger, but that's just a guess. Sometimes certain people see others who are younger and in a challenging or demanding field and want to help. Sometimes they see those same individuals and want to jump their bones. Most importantly, though, you're the only one in a position to find out. You can always ask if it bothers his wife that he's got a male buddy he's this close to. He may open up and give you some clues, or just look at you like "Why would she?" which you could take as a sign he just likes having a close buddy. You're the only one who can find out, though.

That name is on the banned list here. There's a discussion on banned words in the Tips and Tricks forum. So the board is programmed to replace that name with the name of the idiot from Wasilla.

I think this topic would benefit from a lot of clarification and perhaps division into two (or more threads). There is the "Church of Sarah Palin", which is the entity that likes to tangle with Christian fundamentalists over religious access to public spaces (it's far more than that, but that's perhaps where most people have encountered it). They do not actually believe Sarah Palin exists nor do they worship him as a deity; it's more of a secularist organization that supports rational thinking over dogmatic religious indoctrination. When a group lists "Stupidity" as its cardinal sin, and promotes statements like "Sarah Palin represents indulgence instead of abstinence" and "Sarah Palin represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams" (both from the church's Satanic Statements), it's clear that this is not devil-worship, but a clever reimagining of "religion" itself. There are also "Satanists", who do believe Sarah Palin exists (or pretend to believe, at least), and not only worship him (or pretend to worship, at least) but exalt "dark" works. Hence the association of Sarah Palin with pozzing, in some quarters. When you hear about some freakish cult that has been gathering to ritually slaughter animals over a pentagram in candlelit ceremonies with dark robes and it turns out that the youth in the congregation are both the children and grandchildren of the leader of the cult, this is the kind of Satanist being discussed. When responding that one is, in fact, a Satanist, it would probably be wise to clarify which type (or another type, if relevant) one is.

That may be true for Quest Labs (I'm not familiar with their reporting). But LabCorp, which handles my testing, did (formerly) list "reactive" under the HIV testing, accompanied by the "<20" qualifier. They may have changed that reporting style for that reason. Hard to say.

It's your call, but I believe you misinterpreted what you were told. Yes, you get some protection after the first dose - but that's in comparison to getting BOTH doses, which are given 21 to 28 days apart. It is my understanding that the first dose really doesn't offer any significant protection for at least a couple of weeks, and I know of at least one friend who got the vaccine, was exposed 6 days later, and came down with monkeypox anyway. What I think you were told is that once the first dose kicks in - not right after getting it - you have some protection even if you don't get the second dose.

Prosecutions are rare for these kinds of laws, but successful prosecution is only one possible harm that comes from them (and thus makes them something to avoid getting tangled in). For instance, if John is HIV+ and undetectable and has sex with Frank without disclosing, and they have a falling-out over something unrelated - even months or years later - just seeking charges with local law enforcement can lead to an arrest record and unwanted publicity. If John isn't public with his diagnosis - say, he works for a conservative office, or whatever - it could be revealed in the news media because in such cases, the accused is typically named while the alleged victim is not. Even if the charges are dismissed, John could have a felony arrest record in some states (and there are jobs for which you must disclose felony arrests even if nothing ever went to trial). Don't rule out malicious arrests, either. Since 2003 it's been unconstitutional to enforce state laws against non-commercial, consensual sexual conduct in private - laws that typically were used against gay people even though the proscribed activities include things like a woman blowing a man, a man fucking a woman anally, and so forth. But in some jurisdictions, cops continued to arrest people for these things for years (as recently the early 2010's here in Louisiana). The arrests were typically stings by local law enforcement which would target known cruising areas - nobody was having sex on the premises, but guys would agree to go meet at one's apartment or house to do the deed, and the deputy or cop would follow the person home, wait till he made a move, and then arrest him. The prosecutors would invariably dismiss the cases, but in the meantime, "John Smith arrested for crimes against nature" would be in the news. It didn't stop until one of the victims sued the deputy and the sheriff's office and the courts held the suits could go forward without immunity because it was obviously unconstitutional. Once that happened all the deputies got a crash course in learning what "cannot enforce this law because it's unconstitutional" means. Don't think they wouldn't jump at the chance to entrap someone they'd heard was HIV+ in a disclosure case, even if in fact the sex didn't happen before the arrest.

Pharmaceutical advertisements, even more than most ads, are directed at target markets. Ads directed at pregnant women expecting to be nursing children, if they exist, are likely to be seen accompanying different programming (if on TV) or in different magazines (if in print) than ones directed at people who might transmit it sexually. So if nothing else, the fact you're seeing ads that reference sexual transmission may be due to the companies accurately predicting how to reach people like you or me. While I realize drug addiction spans social classes and other demographic groups, needle sharing is more often a transmission channel among those who can't afford their own needles, which is usually an indicator of lack of resources. Such people may not be reachable at all via a targeted television ad, and in terms of treatment, they're more likely to get whatever HIV treatment they're on via a public assistance program (which will likely be making the medicine choice for them - those patients are unlikely to ask their health care provider for a treatment medication by name brand). Thus the pharmaceutical company wouldn't want to expend a lot of resources marketing to that demographic - they're better off direct-pitching the medical providers.

I get that not everyone likes to cuddle, and that even those who sometimes do may not want a lot of it, or with everyone. But can we dispense with calling it "freakish"? And with making blanket judgments like "strangers do not cuddle"? There are rather significant numbers of people in this country whose belief systems consider it just as freakish for strangers to fuck. What's that phrase - "Don't yuck someone else's yum"?

Time to play tourist and ask. "I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with the customs of your region. Can you explain this term "Power Cuddling?"

I was using that phrase specifically for ErosWired as it seems (from my perspective, which of course isn't his) to describe his particular situation accurately. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to *how* non-discriminatory one would have to be, in order to qualify as "exceptionally" - just that his own reference to "any and all" would seem to fit any such requirement.

I am not going to downvote this because I don't think you intended to give bad information, but... This is simply inaccurate in significant part. First: There are at least 12 states where people have an affirmative legal obligation to disclose HIV-positive status to sex partners. 35 states criminalize exposure to HIV generally and because those laws were generally written before modern treatments were available, there is no exception for being undetectable. Generally speaking, a signed document agreeing to the sex won't change the actual criminal status of the act. It would probably make it harder to get a conviction - the prosecutor would have to argue that the law criminalizes the act regardless of what the parties agreed to, and I don't think a jury is going to buy that. More likely, a prosecutor would try to plead the case down to something very minor rather than go to trial. As for a civil lawsuit, I wouldn't say that such a document would be inadmissible. Unlike with criminal HIV exposure laws, a civil lawsuit for exposing someone to HIV would fall under general tort law in most places. In such cases, a document showing they were aware of the risk would not only likely be admissible, but it would almost certainly blow a hole in the case enough to sink it.

From what little we know about monkeypox, there's no clear answer as to whether someone can get it more than once. The answer seems to be "probably not" - like most *pox diseases, your body tends to be able to fend it off after recovery - but that's not definitive, and even if you don't contract it a second time, if a top developing monkeypox fucks you, the pox virus may stay around long enough in your ass to infect a second top who comes behind him. Those may not be big concerns. I would suggest listing yourself as "MPX recovered" since that's clearer than "+ve".

Bear in mind that the vaccine takes 3-4 weeks to become fully effective. So even if you got it today, it would be late August at the earliest before you have significant protection. Keep that in mind as you search for your vaccine, and good luck. I'm curious where you're visiting Europe *FROM*, that you managed to plan a trip there and actually arrive without having heard anything in the news about monkeypox. I realize there are places in the world where coverage hasn't been as extreme as in Europe, Canada, and the United States, but I honestly thought any gay man who pays attention to the news would have heard about this by now.

It's really going to vary by the material the toy is made from. Toys made of stainless steel and those made of silicone rubber can be washed in the dishwasher and that's probably the best way to get them thoroughly clean. You can always wash them with soap and water first, and then just run them through on the top rack (by themselves, it goes without saying!). I wouldn't do that with things made of other materials, or anything with electrical/battery parts inside. In such cases, hot soapy water (with a soft scrub brush, if need be) and then wipe down with alcohol. After that - if they're small enough to fit in a plastic bag (Glad, Ziploc, etc.) that'll help keep them clean and keep different material toys from reacting with each other.

I'd want to see a clearer definition before endorsing the term for a particular meaning, and my reasoning is thus: "non-committal, no-strings sexual contacts" covers a wide range of behaviors, from people who want "friends with benefits" and thus limit partners to people they actually know and like, to people who go ass-up in a cruising park or bathhouse on a regular basis. Plenty of people who like "non-commital, no-strings sexual contacts" are anything BUT promiscuous (though I will admit there are some judgey folks out there who think any sex outside of a serious relationship is slutty). It sounds to me (from your post, and correct me if I'm wrong) that you want to redefine the term away from its human sexuality/social behavior meaning (ie "doesn't want strings") towards a "I'll do anyone who wants it" connotation. Is that because there doesn't seem to be an existing word for how you view your orientation? Something that means "exceptionally non-discriminating"?

I'm not denying that. I'm pointing out that it takes between 21 and 28 days to reach full strength, so at 24 hours (the point where the patient went out and had sex) it hadn't begun to work in any measurable amount. It's like using paint that says to let dry for 48 hours on an exterior wall of a house, and then turning the hose on it 30 minutes after you've rolled the paint on. The paint is essentially wasted.

Hate to point this out to your doctor, but 25 out of 200 is 12.5%, not 25%. I know all the mantras about non-judgmental, it's a virus not a punishment, all that stuff, and yeah, I generally agree, but: how fucking stupid does someone have to be to essentially waste a dose of a very, very short-supply vaccine by doing something like this? I'm not suggesting no one should have sex for 28 days after getting vaccinated, but come on, people: the current spread, inconvenient as it may be to acknowledge, is at sex parties, group sex events, bathhouses, and other places where there's a significant number of sexual partners in contact with each other. If a man is determined to do that and refuse to hold off for a while to let the vaccine begin to confer immunity, skip the damn vaccine and let someone else have the shot. (and I'm directing this at your doctor's patient, not you, obviously).

At least some do 🙂

I did not say that "forbidden" was a synonym for "forbidden". I said that the BANNED WORD, the one you can't use here, the one derived from a Polynesian antecedent, is a synonym for "forbidden".

The problem is that we don't really have a vaccine, or more correctly, we have nowhere near even a marginally adequate supply of a vaccine. As such, like with any scarce good, there's rationing, whether it's de jure (by regulation as to who is and isn't eligible) or de facto (because the supply can only go so far). We also have limited supplies of the treatment. Production of both is being accelerated, but as we saw during the pandemic, supply chains are an issue.

Strictly speaking, this is not true either today or historically. Most do, yes. But Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, do not believe in an afterlife (they believe when you're dead, you're dead, until the resurrection). A few millennia ago, there was a branch of Judaism (the Sadducees) that likewise did not believe in an afterlife. And those are just among the Judeo-Christian lines. As I noted, most religions (past and present) do have a belief in an afterlife. But "all" is a bit strong of a word to use in that context.