BootmanLA

Bear in mind this is my perception based on over a decade of being on here, reading the rules (and studying changes when they're made), and so forth. I'm not a moderator or otherwise affiliated with the site. There is a banned word, for instance, that means "forbidden", and that word is derived from one or more of the Polynesian languages. As a synonym for "forbidden", there really shouldn't be any problem with it. But in a sexual context, it's almost always associated with certain illegal activities, ones that this site (for good reasons) doesn't allow to be discussed. Even using this word for "forbidden" not only stirs up mentions of those topics - because so many people don't read the rules - but also encourages members to start using messages to one another to talk about those topics - which is also a problem for the site, because they're hosting the software by which these messages are exchanged. So this word, because of its associations with those banned topics, is also banned, because it's so frequently used to work around the ban on those topics. As the moderators and the site owner have pointed out: inadvertent use of a banned word simply generates either swapping it for "[banned word]" - which, as the author of the post, the member should recognize, know what word he used, and resolve to not use it in the future - or it does a substitution like "Sarah Palin" for the name of that purportedly demonic entity. Neither one generates an infraction, ordinarily; it's when the member starts trying to game the system and show a variation on the word that they get slapped down. For instance, if the word "bullshit" were banned, using "bohlsheet" to get around that ban is a sanctionable offense, because it indicates you know better and are trying to game the system. That's not to say this system is ideal - I don't know what would be, frankly, in a world where site owners can be held legally liable for certain types of content. But these are the tools that are available, and I'm certainly willing to follow them.

FWIW: I don't think guys who will accept open relationships are all that rare. Maybe there aren't as many who are, in your words, "pretty slutty too", but in my experience - which, obviously, isn't necessarily indicative of the world - relationships between gay men are more often some degree of open rather than closed and monogamous.

What you are describing may or may not be true "on average". In the U.S., going back 70 or 80 years (and more), "nice" girls and women didn't do things like perform oral sex on a man. (They also were generally expected to wait for sex until marriage, or at least engagement, and entire industries, like women's boarding houses in larger cities (where the women had curfews and had to sign in every evening unless they were away visiting family), sprang up to help enforce those rules.) Obviously, that didn't apply to everyone; women with money could always find ways to have fun. Those rules really only applied to middle-class women and working-class women, even as men in those categories were given a lot more freedom to sow wild oats before marriage and to indulge other interests afterward. Men who could afford it could always find sex workers to indulge in anything wilder than missionary-position sex: anal sex, oral sex, or pretty much any kind of fetish he might have; men with lesser resources could still have discreet dalliances with disreputable women (with the woman, not the man, paying the price of reputation). Certainly that changed with the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's, especially with the advent of the birth control pill, striking down laws barring contraceptives sale, and so forth. But not for all women, and not in all aspects, and certainly not all at once. Some women, for instance, were perfectly OK with becoming sexually active before marriage or engagement, but draw the line at anything other than masturbating a man or missionary-position sex, because all the rest was "kinky" and "degenerate" (which, well, it may be, but that's what appeals to some people). By contrast: gay men, when they first start experimenting, found *everything* they might enjoy was on the "kinky, degenerate" list - so perhaps it was easier to go from one form of kink to another. If you're already sucking a man's dick or getting fucked by one, how far a leap is it, really, to start fingering a man's hole to orgasm and then, eventually, using an entire hand? So yeah, gay men may well be more likely to try out "exploring new things". Along those lines: according to sex researchers, anal sex between gay men wasn't particularly common before the sexual revolution; same-sex sexual acts were much more oriented toward oral, or mutual/cooperative masturbation, or even just frottage; this is borne out with interviews conducted of older-generation gay men over the past several decades. Just as the sexual revolution shifted straight women's range of "acceptable" behaviors to include premarital sex, it shifted gay men's range of "acceptable" (ie somewhat mainstream) behavior to include fucking, fisting, water sports, and a lot more, as well as dramatically increased rates of partner change (aka, in some manifestations, promiscuity). And incidentally, that's one reason (among many) that HIV was able to spread so rapidly when it hit our community. Given that the first cases (among gay men) were reported in 1981, that would put the earliest infections in the mid-1970's, when anal sex had become substantially more popular (and even expected) among gay men over the preceding 10-15 years. It might not have had such impact were the sexual practices of gay men in 1975-1980 the same, statistically speaking, as those of 1945-1950. (That's not a blame-laying point; that's just an epidemiological prediction based on what we know of the virus and how it spreads.)

My thoughts: it's a thing, but it's certainly far from universal. I've known guys who were very much a certain sort of cocky, who also had a large cock, and I think it's reasonable to believe the two are related. But on the other hand, I've known a number of guys who were hung very, very well and yet who were very much more shy and reserved. My guess is that the ones with BDE tend to think of their appendage as a key point of their appeal, and they're happy to rely on/lead with that. And perhaps for good reason; certainly hung guys get more attention and probably (in my perception, at least) find sexual partners more readily. By contrast, the hung guys I know without BDE seem to prefer being liked for other attributes - their minds, their hearts, their general behavior, and want to avoid the kind of swagger that (sometimes) comes with knowing you're better equipped than most people you run into.

I think an argument can be made in fiction for a protagonist to say "take my dirty load" or "give me that dirty load" to convey a piggy sense. Hell, I don't see a problem with that in real life, either - the first case is someone owning that his load is "dirty", the second is someone saying he doesn't mind (or even is eager) that it's "dirty". It's when someone says "I'm clean" as a way of conveying "HIV-negative" (which, by definition, says "HIV-positive" is "dirty", regardless of how the positive person feels about being positive) that there is an issue.

FWIW: if you DO have a gator show interest in you, forget the old wives' tale about running in a zig-zag pattern. The thing about gators on land is that while they can move fast in short bursts, they haven't got the stamina to do it for long, and you can almost certainly outrun them if you have a bit of a distance start. (I say "almost certainly" because there's bound to be one, out there, somewhere, that is speedier than all others, but in general, they want easy prey, which is why they float mostly submerged and jump up to grab unsuspecting food, rather than stalking all the ground around their water habitats.

This probably belongs in a separate thread - and maybe you'll wish to start one, maybe not - but "trapped" is often, if not quite always, a self-imposed issue. Your profile doesn't give any hints as to where you live, but in most of the free world, divorces happen every day, even when a couple has children or other obligations together. And people come out of the closet, even later in life, every day. This afternoon I was listening to one of the creators of the new TV series "A League of Their Own", based on the movie from a number of years ago. One part that the movie couldn't really emphasize - and now, the TV version can - is that many of the women in the real-life women's baseball league were, unsurprisingly in retrospect, queer women and many were making the first same-sex connections of their lives, something possible because so many men were off in the war effort. One of these players recently came out, just in time for the premiere of the pilot episode, at the ripe old age of 90-something. If you want out of the cage, it can be done. It may not be comfortable, and it may cost you - no guarantees that it will be easy. But it's doable.

Well... yes and no. Obviously you like darkroom sex. But I could interpret "Taker" as "I take men's asses there" or "I take men's cocks there" or "I do both". So while it says *most*, it might could be clarified a tad. 🙂

Keep posting and participating, and that number will grow. But in the interim, your best strategy is to figure what is most important for your reactions. Is it fiction you find hot? Most-recent-load retellings? A social or political view you strongly agree with? Once you know what's most important, you can focus on reacting to those topics.

A couple of thoughts: First, I hope (and assume) you realize that just because you may reach a point of feeling "sexual purposelessness" you won't be purposeless overall, as a person. I don't know you at all but I feel pretty confident in saying you have other purposes in your life - if nothing else, being father to your children and (perhaps) grandfather to your grandchildren. And that's aside from any purposes in life like your profession, your other contributions to community, and so forth. And second, just because you may become, at some point, not the kind of man lots of men want to fuck, that doesn't mean *some* men won't want to, and as long as you continue to do that, you're fulfilling the purpose as you stated. There's a difference between "provide his body for any man to fuck" and "provide his body for lots of men to fuck". As long as you do so for the "any" who want it - your purpose is met. Now, if in your head, you're hearing the latter of those two constructions - then yes, there could be a problem. But if so, it's a universal problem faced by everyone who reaches some unspecified age - tops and bottoms alike. At some point we just stop being appealing to the vast majority of people out there. That's the natural order of things.

I have no idea what "safeseistheonlysex" [sic] is supposed to imply, but assuming it has something to do with safe[r] sex, that's completely unrelated to the point I made, which is that tops who think a "top" who's bottoming for them has "fallen so low" has a really fucked-up sense of entitlement. But you do you.

I'd say it's possibly both "maturing" and "natural changing flow of life". The most important thing to realize is: there is nothing wrong with this change. (Just as there would be nothing wrong with a guy who for years had only sought "sex with connections" suddenly becoming interested in being a cumdump for randos. We change. As long as we're responsible, and don't deliberately hurt others, I don't see any issue.

So bottoms (and tops who are performing "bottom" acts) are "low" and "fallen"? It might behoove tops to remember that without bottoms (or men willing to bottom), they wouldn't be getting any.

How awful it must be to smile at someone and not get the intended, bargained-for result back. Can you sue them for, say, a hundred million dollars? On a more serious note: referring to other people, even people you don't like, as an "infestation" is exceptionally nasty.

In other words, political realities don't matter to you. Not surprising in the least.

When I use it, yes. Can't speak for everyone 🙂

Cheating or the lack thereof isn't defined by "I want something and I'm not getting it here so it's okay to get it there". Cheating is the violation of a rule, implicit or explicit. What matters isn't whether the OP is not getting the sex he wants; what matters is whether his "boyfriend" (scare quotes deliberately used) expects him to not have sex with others. --if the OP's "boyfriend" doesn't think of himself as an actual boyfriend, then OP having sex with others isn't cheating. --if the OP's "boyfriend" is an actual boyfriend but doesn't object to OP having sex with others, then OP having sex with others isn't cheating. OP can't know if that's the case without asking. --if the OP's "boyfriend" *IS* a boyfriend and is expecting monogamy, then OP having sex with others IS cheating. But again, OP can't know if that's the case without asking. I stand by my original statement: I don't think OP's "boyfriend" thinks of himself as such, but the only way to answer that - and to answer the question about expectations of monogamy, if he *IS* a boyfriend - is to have a frank discussion with the guy.

@Euromusk76's post on the previous page regarding the issues involved with the older ACAM2000 vaccine is worth a close read. Pediatric nurses used to be trained specifically in administering this vaccine, because essentially every US child was getting it. But that was 50 years ago. The youngest nurses practicing then are near or over 70, and there aren't even enough people experienced in the technique to teach the army of others that would be needed if this vaccine were to be used. Which does, of course, call into question why we're hanging onto it, or why we're not continuing to train at least some fraction of our health care providers how to safely administer this vaccine.

Mike Crapo of Idaho is also a Mormon. And there are six Mormons in the House. Don't know if those 7, though, support piggybacking polygamy onto same-sex marriage or not. Complete agreement with your post, however.

DOMA was a trap laid by the GOP majorities elected in 1994. They were trying to force Clinton to either veto the bill - giving the GOP a huge issue to run on in 1996 - or to cause a rift with his base by signing it, thus depressing Democratic turnout that fall. There was no good choice politically speaking, and let's face it, it was a political choice. Part of me is unhappy he didn't do the morally right thing and veto it, but it's also quite possible that if he had vetoed it, we'd have had a Republican president again from 1997-2000. By saving his presidency from an unforced error, we avoided that. (And no, I'm not saying he was noble in doing so - he wanted to get re-elected - but that goal coincided with what we wanted in a president.) That is an absolute falsehood. Clinton *never* made a promise to support gay marriage prior to DOMA. In fact, he had specifically said that while he supported gay rights in general, and broadly, he was *not* in support of same-sex marriage. The direct quote is from Reader's Digest, which interviewed him as a candidate: "I’ve taken a very strong stand against any discrimination against gays and lesbians, but I don’t favor a law to legalize marriages.” You could be mistaken (which is possible, because based on your A4A profile, you're a bit young to have been politically active when he first ran for president, and you may be misremembering things). But you're categorically wrong on that point. Again, (at least partially) incorrect. Section 3 of DOMA (the part that said federal law could not recognize otherwise legal same sex marriages) was struck down in 2013. See Windsor v. United States. From that point forward the federal government was required to recognize same-sex marriages. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015, which you're probably thinking about), did end the remainder (Section 2) of DOMA. In fact, though, as the parties agreed while the case was being argued, simply recognizing the right to get married in all 50 states essentially negates Section 2, and the Court so held - but the Court struck it down anyway, devoting only two sentences to that effect. ("The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character." In other words, more than a footnote, but just barely. Technically true. As noted in my previous post, however, most of the two months' time they had to pass a DOMA repeal (or any other major legislation) was taken up getting the ACA through the Senate. Outside of those two months, passing a DOMA repeal was impossible because they did not have 60 votes. Only if you consider your ignorance of the Congressional legislative process "true colors".

Dude - do you even think about what you post? Do you not realize that's what the right wing has been doing for far, far longer than the Democrats have - in fact, since the 1960's, when the Democrats coalesced into the party of liberals while conservative Democrats began fleeing from their party to the welcoming arms of the GOP. The Republican party has been portraying Democrats as the ruination of America because of feminism, abortion, civil rights, gay rights, and more for my entire life, and CERTAINLY for yours. How did you reach whatever age you are and think this is strictly a Democratic phenomenon? See, there's that "belief" thing again, which is nice and all, but it's not "factual". Here's the facts: Acts of Congress have to pass both chambers there, and to pass the Senate it requires 60 votes (even for the most innocuous bills) because if any member objects, they have to take what's called a cloture vote - to limit filibustering and bring bills to a vote. It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. So unless your party has 60 senators, or you can get the balance needed to defect from the other side, you can't advance most legislation. From 1969, the point at which the Democrats became the "liberal" party (as their conservative members began switching parties), the Democrats have had a 60-vote margin in the Senate from 1975 to 1979 (at which time abortion rights, civil rights, and voting rights were considered "solid" and gay rights were scarcely imagined), and then again for roughly two months of actual Senate meeting time during the 2009-2010 period, during which time the ACA was the only thing they could get through before they lost that supermajority. THAT is why the Democrats haven't passed things "by Act of Congress". For most things, they don't have the needed votes. By contrast, most of what the GOP has wanted to do for the past 40 years is cut taxes, which is one of the few things you can do with a bare majority. And they've done it every time they take power - under Reagan, under Bush I, under Bush II, under Trump. Funny how decades of locking up hundreds of thousands of black men to get them off the streets, summarily executing them during traffic stops and no-knock raids, and the like can make people feel like victims. In the 1960's and early 70's, black people had a sense that white people were starting to come around and that their civil rights were being protected finally. Then along came the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts that threw out many of the gains they'd made in the late 50's and 60's. You know, it's kind of rational to change your outlook when circumstances change. I'll take "Things that never happened" for $2,000 and hope it's the Daily Double. Tell me you don't understand Critical Race Theory without saying you don't understand it and make it obvious you only get your warped view of it from right-wing media. Critical Race Theory (which the vast, vast majority of Americans will ever encounter, because it's a specialized academic discipline at the graduate school level) doesn't "induce" people to believe anything. It presents facts - oh, those pesky facts again! - that aren't necessarily obvious regarding the effects of race on various institutions. What people draw from those facts is a different matter. But since you don't even know what CRT is, I can't expect you to understand what we can learn from it. Oh, facts time again. All three cable news networks - Fox, CNN, MSNBC - are declining in viewership. All three. Fox is not "soaring". And in fact, only a tiny percentage of Americans watch ANY of the three on any given day - about 4 million people across all three networks. But given how you're trumpeting FoxNews, it's pretty clear where your brain rot is coming from.

Actually, that is perhaps more accurate, but not *entirely* accurate. The Supreme Court's opinion went further than that. Pre-Dobbs, no state *nor the federal government* could prohibit abortion entirely. Now, under Dobbs, not only can STATES ban abortion, but if we end up with another period like 2017-2018, when the GOP has the presidency, the House and the Senate, they can pass a *federal* ban on abortion, nationwide, and SCOTUS has said there's no constitutional impediment to doing so. You can also bet the farm that if those 3 entities are controlled by the GOP, the Senate GOP majority will kill the filibuster for abortion legislation in a heartbeat. Their right-wing base will demand it. And if such a ban were to pass, it would require the Democrats to again control all three - not an easy task given the bias of the Senate towards Republicans, because of the number of sparsely populated red states that get the same number of senators as giant blue states - in order to repeal that ban. You are correct on the last number (though several states are in fact likely to join that number). But in fact, only 15 states actually protect the right to an abortion, meaning that in 35, there's no protection against a sweeping change if the legislature ends up in the hands of the GOP (and they're very good at gerrymandering, which SCOTUS has also blessed).

I suspect that there have been 110 pages total here for some time because it takes so long to "fill" a page with new topics (ie story threads). The oldest posts in this topic go back to mid-2010, which is shortly after the domain "breedingzone.com" was first registered. Those earliest posts are by RawTop, and I know he "seeded" (pun intended) that forum to get things going. Shortly afterward, a member named "HotLoad84" posted a large number of stories salvaged from other poz-related fiction sites that had gone or were going defunct. So my perception, at least, is that there are no stories "missing" due to aging off the system. There are 20 topics per page. On the opening page right now, there are two pinned folders/topics, so 18 "rotating" topics on the first page with the most recent posts within them. But even among those 18, the least-recently-added-to topic was updated last on July 25. Since that date, only two new stories/topics have been added, so (shifting everything down) there are still only two more topics on the final page (110) than there were on July 25. In other words, most of the activity here is shuffling the order of topics, moving different ones to the top of the "most recently updated" stack, without actually increasing the number of topics very much. Currently, page 110 has four topics (the least-recently-updated), so it will take 17 more new stories/topics added to the system in this forum before it advances to page 111. Given that we get maybe one actual new story every five to ten days, it's going to be quite a while before that happens (unless there's a spate of creative writing in the near future). At one new story per week, it would be near Christmas before the system had expanded enough to require a page 111.

And again with respect to the abortion issue: Of course one is free to have the opinion that abortion is morally wrong or that it ought to be illegal. That's an opinion. My opinion may be otherwise, and it's also just an opinion. It's also my opinion that the current Supreme Court got things right in Roe v Wade and Casey v Planned Parenthood*, but again, that's an opinion. I'm not stating that as a fact. But you can't defend that opinion with a falsehood (like lying about the relative safety of abortion vs. pregnancy to term for women) and not expect to be called on it. *For the non-legal minds here: Roe held there was a right to privacy that extended over the decision to have an abortion and established the trimester system for regulating it: for the first three months, when science at the time made it statistically safer to abort than to continue pregnancy, the state could not interfere with abortion other than basic sanitary-type regulations applicable to all health care providers. For the second three months, which was the remainder of the pre-viability period, states could regulate abortion narrowly, only insofar as to ensure that it was safely done to protect the health and safety of the pregnant woman. In the third trimester, which coincided with the then viability period (the time after which a prematurely delivered fetus could survive, with medical care, outside the uterus), states could prohibit abortion unless it was necessary to protect the pregnant woman's life or health. Casey, coming 19 years later, affirmed the central holding of Roe (that there was a constitutional right to abortion) but changed the calculus, in part because science had advanced in making later abortions safer and also in being able to save increasingly less developed fetuses. The Court's new framework was that prior to viability (by then, back to about 23 weeks at the absolute outside), states could regulate abortion so long as it did not impose an "undue burden" on the woman seeking an abortion. After viability states could prohibit abortion, as before, with the exceptions for life or health of the pregnant woman. While Casey was intended to clarify the abortion right, the question of "What is an undue burden and how do we determine that?" caused an even greater increase in abortion litigation, as states increasingly tried to impose draconian regulations on abortion while claiming they were not an undue burden. All the issues that have been fought over in the last 30 years - waiting periods, forced listening to fetal "heartbeats", provision of (often disingenuous or downright mendacious) literature about "options", increasingly shorter time periods in which to seek an abortion, requiring abortion providers to be fully licensed outpatient surgical centers - all of those stem from the "undue burden" language, which became a constantly shifting goalpost.

Sure, there's plenty of opinion on here. Most of it isn't mislabeled as facts - it's clearly what one person (the poster) thinks. I might post, for instance, that I think the Supreme Court has a good shot at overturning its previous decisions on same-sex marriage. That's an opinion. But I present that opinion with supporting facts: for instance, the legal theories that Clarence Thomas has expressed clearly in writing, including that there is no basis for protecting a right to same-sex marriage in the Constitution and that it should be overturned. Or, for instance, the fact that Justices Alito and Roberts have also expressed a hostility to same-sex marriage in their dissenting opinion in Obergefell. Or that Kavanaugh, more recently, has written that he does not believe the Civil Rights Act protects people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (while even Gorsuch and Roberts conceded it does). It's a FACT that Thomas has written this - in Supreme Court concurring opinions, no less. That's not my opinion. It's a FACT that Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion in Bostock (Civil Rights Act protects gays/transgender persons) specifically rejecting the idea that the law covers us. That's not my opinion. Likewise with the case that is under discussion. The facts (yes, facts) are clear: the death rate of pregnant women from having an abortion in the U.S. is a fraction of the death rate of pregnant women who carry to term (or until they die of pregnancy complications along the way). I'd argue - and this is an OPINION - that this discrepancy reflects the absolutely awful state of health care in this country, where so many poorer pregnant women have little to no access to prenatal care. I can't prove that - there might well be other factors involved - but that's my OPINION, backed up by FACTS such as the much higher death rate of pregnant women who are poor compared with those who are middle and upper class. In other words, maybe you need to read more carefully to determine what's presented as fact (and whether it's backed up by evidence) and what's presented as opinion (which can be backed by evidence or not, but which is personal to the poster). One final note: There's a famous quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late senator from New York: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts." But just because someone is free to have an opinion does not mean he's free from having that opinion mocked, especially if there's no factual basis for that opinion. I could, for instance, have the opinion that the moon is, in fact, made of green cheese, and that all known evidence to the contrary is, in fact, "fake news". My right to that opinion does not somehow render it worthy of respect.