BootmanLA

Generally, I'm of the "If what's done violates the terms of consent that were given, then it's non-consensual sex, which is rape" opinion. But this one (like it has for others) gives me some pause, and it took a while to figure out why. Also generally speaking, we impose terms of consent to protect ourselves from something we don't want. Receptive partners (whether men bottoming, or women getting fucked) might insist on a condom to prevent (some) diseases or pregnancy (in the case of the woman). The receptive partner might insist on the insertive partner pulling out before orgasm for the same reason(s). A woman might say "no anal" (or conversely, "no vaginal") sex to avoid a type of sex she doesn't want to risk. But while I'm not sure risk is necessary for the terms of consent to be valid - they may not be terms explicitly to protect us from something - that's their general purpose in most cases. What came to mind as an example was this: suppose the receptive partner only wants bareback sex, including the insertive person orgasming while inside. If the insertive partner pulls out before orgasm, does that violate the consent terms? Or if, for whatever reason, he just can't get to orgasm? I don't think even the strictest concept of terms of consent cover "does not complete the job to my satisfaction" as a violation amounting to rape. So one way to view it might be: if the action taken introduces an element that wasn't agreed to (as opposed to failing to deliver one that was), then maybe that's rape. But even still, it's hard to see condom-covered penetration (when the bottom is willing to get penetrated) as rape. Maybe it is - possibly a philosophical definition that's above my pay grade - but it just doesn't "feel", instinctively, like the same sort of violation as the reverse. And I think, as others may have suggested, that the solution may simply require that a person only have sex in conditions that allow him to ensure that no one enters him with a condom. That, unfortunately, might eliminate dark rooms for the most part.

Technically, that's not quite right. Loving v Virginia, which is the case that struck down interracial marriage bans, was decided on the basis of Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that distinctions drawn on the basis of race must be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny" - that is, strict scrutiny, or as the Court has formulated it, a distinction drawn to effect a compelling state interest, where no less restrictive means could effect that compelling state interest. The "right to privacy" didn't factor into the Loving decision. The Court also held that the right to marry was a fundamental right (one of those unenumerated rights mentioned by the Ninth Amendment) that implicated due process concerns. Lawyers refer to this as "substantive due process," and that's important for this analysis. There are two kinds of due process: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process refers to processes established by the government with respect to criminal law: under procedural due process, you have a right to an attorney, you have a right to a trial by jury, you have the right not to testify against yourself, and so forth. Procedural due process protects you from unfair procedures like a biased judge. Generally, procedural due process protects an explicit, enumerated right, even if the required due process is not itself mentioned in the Constitution. For instance, you have a right to an attorney when you are being questioned in a criminal matter. Procedural due process, per the Miranda v. Arizona decision, requires that arrestees be informed of that right. In other words, the Constitution guarantees you the right; procedural due process is how that right is enforced. Substantive due process is less clearly defined - it's (broadly speaking) a right to be free from governmental policies that go beyond the power of government to create - for instance, a law that compelled everyone to wear a red hat on Mondays would be a violation of substantive due process, because the government doesn't have the power to compel that behavior. Why is that distinction important? Because some radical conservatives, including Justice Thomas, do not believe in substantive due process AT ALL. His belief, as he has clearly articulated in the past, is that the "unenumerated" rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are not federal rights that can be vindicated by federal courts, but instead rights that people can vindicate via state legislative processes - ie, if the people of Virginia want to protect same-sex marriage, they're free to do so by passing a state law that does just that, or to write that into their constitution, or to choose (by whatever means) a state Supreme Court that will recognize that right under state law. But in his view, federal courts have no power to provide substantive due process. He said as much again in his concurrence in Dobbs. In other words: Thomas' marriage would be safe, in any event, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But rights that are (under Court decisions) protected by substantive due process would be, under Thomas's view, swept aside. Add to that Thomas's view that erroneous (in his view) precedent should ALWAYS be struck down, and even a sceptic should be able to see the danger. Because Thomas isn't alone in this viewpoint, and it's one shared by most "originalists". Alito would sign onto this in a heartbeat. I'd think Barrett would sign onto this sort of opinion, as would Kavanaugh. I'm not so sure about Gorsuch and kind of skeptical about Roberts, but I wouldn't count them out.

As I noted: the point is that when a fringe member of the Court (and yes, Thomas is on the far-right fringe of the Court) writes a concurrence to a decision, and said concurrence goes way beyond the actual decision in the particular case, and the party that appointed him lauds him for his cogent views, then yes, it's a concern. It's a sign that this is the direction the party wants to move the Court, and they'll do what they have to (including refusing to consider a liberal president's nominee for the Court as well as ramming through a nominee from a conservative president who's about to lose an election) in order to carry that out. Consider this: Roe had already been supplanted, in large measure, by Casey v. Planned Parenthood in 1992, when the "trimester" system was abandoned. Casey held that states couldn't prohibit abortion pre-viability, but regulations relative to health and safety were subject to a balancing test considering whether the regulation imposed an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions. The five justices who voted for Casey were ALL Republicans - because the entire Court, except for Byron White, were appointed by Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or Bush I. The GOP, having realized what a great wedge issue abortion was for ginning up outrage among their base, knew they'd have to appoint different kinds of Republican justices in order to get the result they wanted. And they did. If you don't think people will bring those cases - look at abortion. Casey was settled law, and yet state after state after state passed a law to chip away at abortion rights until they had the majority they needed to just do away with it. Do you seriously think that these people won't also go after low-hanging fruit to chip away at the right to same-sex marriage, until it's eviscerated too? Picture this: a company wants to offer spousal benefits but only to heterosexual spouses, and claims a religious right to refuse to endorse same-sex marriage as the basis. This Court has already indicated that the religious rights of employers and businesses are sacrosanct. I can easily see this Court saying that while states can't ban gay marriage outright (yet) they can't force businesses to treat spouses alike. And then the next Kim Davis type will come along, saying that while maybe the state can't ban gay marriage, court officials can refuse to marry people, and the Court will take up that case. And then, giving a green light to local court officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, they'll become unavailable in vast swaths of Red America. And so on, and so on. And eventually, there will be five votes on the Court to say "Well, at the founding, there certainly was no consensus that same-sex relations were protected in any way" and BAM - Obergefell is overturned, and all the states whose restrictions on same-sex marriage were ended by federal courts (which is about 2/3 of them) will suddenly be free to ban gay marriage - or, since they never repealed their bans, it'll be banned immediately. That's EXACTLY why red states that banned gay marriage by constitutional amendment in the early 2000's have never repealed those bans - they hope (with good reason) that the Court will reverse itself. This is the long game the GOP is playing, and if anyone is convinced it can't succeed, just look at what they did to Roe/Casey just last week in Dobbs. This is not fear-mongering. It's an accurate depiction of where the GOP wants to take America, and if they have to do it by stealing Supreme Court seats, gerrymandering the fuck out of states in order to keep the legislature and their congressional delegations Republican, and imposing so many restrictions on voting that Democrats can't win in large districts or statewide, then that's what they'll do. They are ALREADY doing it. They have been doing it for the last fifteen years. They ADMIT it. Why people won't take them at their word is beyond me.

Really? One of the first things legal analysts look at, in close decisions of the Court, are the concurrences and dissents. Lots of people will be focused on the actual decision, but concurrences and dissents, especially when several justices join in them, can be extremely helpful in predicting the direction the Court will be moving. Back when the liberals plus Anthony Kennedy could make up a majority (especially on LGBT issues), the foaming at the mouth dissents from Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia were predictable rants about how the founders (or the people who wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for that matter) could not possibly have meant to protect anything related to LGBT people, and thus any "right" to same-sex anything was constitutionally invalid. Thomas is still very up front about that position. He noted in his concurrence in Dobbs that the Court should re-examine not only Roe, but Obergefell (same-sex marriage), Lawrence (consensual private sodomy), and even Griswold (contraception). How is it "fearmongering" or "paranoia" when the senior-most Justice on the Court has written in plain English that he would vote to overrule those cases if given the opportunity? After all, for right-wing Christianists, "marriage" is a sacrament instituted by God, not a legal arrangement between two adults. Thomas would vote to overturn Obergefell in a heartbeat - he's made clear his judicial philosophy is that if a prior decision of the Court is wrong, the Court has the duty to overturn it, no matter how much it may upend life for ordinary Americans. Alito has a similar view. Kavanaugh and Barrett haven't gone THAT far, yet, but they've also made it clear they're not opposed to overturning precedent even when it's well established, and Gorsuch may or may not be willing to join them. At this point, Chief Justice Roberts is almost an afterthought; he's in favor of precedent but there are (as we saw this month in Dobbs) five votes to ignore precedent entirely if they care enough about the issue. When Hillary Clinton said, point blank, in 2016 that voting for her was the only thing that could save Roe, she was right. Some of your misogynistic twits are apparently perfectly okay with the result; all I can say is, wait till it's your turn.

You won't get a response from a Republican on this site (or many others) because they know there IS NO response that won't come across as patently false. Gay Republicans always try making the point that the problem isn't that the right doesn't like gay people; they just don't like overtly gay, over-sexualized gay, openly gay, in-your-face gay people. In their view, we should all be contented with living mostly in the closet, escorting a lovely woman periodically to public events to quash rumors about being "that way", and confine our gayness to the (tastefully decorated and very bland) bedroom. And if we only did that, they say, all these problems would go away. After all, it works for the rich white Christian gays, so why wouldn't it work for everyone? Failing that, they think we should let the states handle it - rather than give the federal government a fraction of an ounce of power, which Republicans hate. That's also why the gay GOP people tend to live in progressive areas, where they think that everyone has a responsive local or state government that will surely act to protect the rights of the individual. It's complete bullshit, of course.

You're free to find anything "stupid" if you wish. I'd point out two things: a lot of what you read on here, and on other sites on the internet, is purely fantasy/masturbatory fodder and has no basis in reality; and two, most people don't take kindly to their likes/dislikes being called "stupid". These two statements directly contradict each other. Either sex is "simple" and the result of two horny people, OR it requires "chemistry and even love" but they can't both be true. And in any case, what YOU require is not necessarily what OTHERS require. Categorical statements like "sex requires chemistry" as though you were handing down Revealed Truth from on high are just bullshit. If YOU require chemistry for sex, that's your business. Saying it's a requirement in general isn't your place to decree for the rest of the world.

Actually, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. is the Southern Baptist Convention, which split from "mainline" Baptists in 1845 over the issue of White Supremacy (the Southern Baptists being entirely in favor of it). They did not acknowledge their role in maintaining slavery and White Supremacy until 2017. So this is not a problem limited to fringe religious groups. In fact, it's important to remember the history of segregation in US public schools and the response to the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of private "segregation academies" sprung up across the southern U.S., mostly affiliated with conservative Protestant churches, in order to perpetuate whites-only education. The death knell for most of these schools came when the federal government ruled that a segregated or whites-only educational institution was not entitled to tax-exempt status, and thus all those private schools became taxable entities (and contributions to them could not be deducted by the parents). It was against that backdrop that right-wingers decided to make abortion a central issue for evangelicals. When Roe came out, in fact, most major Protestant churches endorsed it or were at worst neutral on the subject; abortion was seen as an issue that essentially only Catholics cared about. But several politically astute right-wing (and White Supremacist) operatives realized that since evangelicals could no longer use segregation as a rallying cry, abortion would work well as an "issue" to gin up support for conservative Republican candidates. That's how we got Ronald Reagan.

Correct. Thomas is 74, Alito is 72, Roberts is 67, Kavanaugh is 57, Gorsuch is 54, Barrett is 50. Thomas could easily serve another 8 years, putting his retirement in the term of the president elected in 2028. The others could go longer, much longer, or much, much longer.

I'm as horrified (though not surprised) as anyone by today's opinion. But a couple of points: Yes, Thomas is the senior-most judge, and as such, IF he is in the majority AND the Chief Justice is not, THEN he gets to choose who writes an opinion. Don't assume that the Chief Justice will be on opposite sides from Thomas in any particular future case (if they're on the same side, the chief gets to assign). Second, even if Thomas assigns the opinion and writes it himself, he's got to get four other justices to concur in the actual opinion, or else it's not by itself the opinion of the Court. It's complex, but here's an example. Let's say that five justices did vote to overturn Obergefell v Hodges (same sex marriage). Thomas might write an opinion that struck down that right (on which the five justices agreed). But then Thomas writes a lengthy screed with a section saying states have no right to even permit same-sex marriage. If any one of the five objects to that viewpoint, he or she can withhold approval of that section - meaning that section is not binding. In that case, while states could ban same-sex marriage, the part of Thomas's opinion that said "States cannot approve of this" would be, essentially, just his own mini-rant, no more binding than a dissent would be. In some cases, the rulings are so complex that in the end, no five justices agree on anything except the result in the particular case in question - which may mean any other case where the facts are not identical might not turn out the same way. I know that seems like small comfort, and it is only that - but the particular fact of Thomas's seniority isn't meaningful unless and until he and Roberts are on opposite sides and Roberts' side loses.

I think, though, this misses the point. It's true that not all victims go on to abuse others. However, I suspect it's true that most abusers were abused themselves. That doesn't absolve them of their abusive behavior, but it does indicate the need to break the cycle. Some people break it easily, not going on to abuse anyone else. But others need help.

There are undoubtedly "plans" for one, but since the patent doesn't expire until 2026, it may be a while before a generic is approved for use in the U.S. That said, Gilead (the maker of both medications, and the maker of many of the HIV treatment medications on the market today) gave its okay for a generic version of Truvada before its patent has expired. That may have been in part because of pressure from the public to approve a cheaper alternative, and also because they had Descovy in the final approval stages (giving them a new medication they could tout as superior to the old one (and its generic equivalents).

I think this is the best option for just about everyone other than (a) those who use condoms 100% of the time, bottoming or topping, or (b) those who do not take any precautions (PrEP, condoms, or whatever), or (c) those who have sex in situations where there's really no opportunity for discussion. I think discussing these things helps remove the stigma attached to HIV, as well as encouraging people to learn what options there are. There are undoubtedly men having sex with men who don't even know PrEP is an option, or that it's covered (by law) by virtually all insurance, or that U=U; discussion can help educate those people.

I have spoken with friends about this general question before. The most common answer, by far, was along the lines of "I went to bed feeling kind of run down and woke up sick as a dog." Even those who initially said it took a while to really feel bad generally clarified that they meant "within a day of symptom onset" and not "days of slowly getting worse". Based on these reports, and based on what I know of immunology, I'd say that it's a fairly quick progression - HIV starts to replicate in your body, your immune system goes into massive overdrive trying to eradicate it, and the result is the set of symptoms colloquially called "fuck flu" pretty quickly. Thinking about how the body responds to an infection in general - fever spiking quickly, white blood cell production ramping up, inflammation (which causes the aches), and so forth - it would make sense that when the replication ramps up and your body's defenses kick in in earnest to fight it, the onset of symptoms would be rapid.

I'm not sure about the second of those issues - that is, that "reinfection with the same original strain" can cause medication failure. I could be wrong - I might have somehow missed a study on that specific topic - but generally speaking, if a particular medication is good at blocking replication of HIV to the point of keeping a person undetectable, there's really not much chance for a new breeding to somehow overwhelm those meds. When a person is newly diagnosed with HIV - even those who are freshly infected with very high viral loads, or those who have gone untreated for quite some time and are now experiencing runaway HIV replication - can usually be treated with a single pill per day treatment that brings VERY high levels of HIV down to almost manageable within a month or so and then to undetectable within a few months of that. There's pretty much no way I can see how a fresh load of HIV - certainly much less total virus than the originally very high levels spread through the patient's system - of the same strain already being controlled would somehow suddenly overwhelm the drug that had brought it down so dramatically in the first place. Now, a different strain - or a patient who was already sloppy about taking his HIV treatment - might be a different story. But many contemporary HIV medications can treat a range of HIV strains quite well. The issue of medication failure comes from *resistant* strains - which means you have to either get reinfected by a resistant strain (fairly hard to do) or you have to be sloppy with your meds long enough that your own strain becomes resistant to the medication you're on. It's a serious problem, yes, but it's not caused by an undetectable man simply getting barebacked by a poz top.

The difference is in one of the two medications in the compound. For Descovy, that compound consists of emtricitabine & tenofovir alafenamide. For Truvada, it consists of emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. In other words, they have different "varieties" of tenofovir as the second component. Think of that as sort of like Diet Coke vs. Diet Coke with Splenda; both are sodas, both artificially sweetened, but there's a slight chemical difference in how the sweetness is delivered. Both are considered highly effective medications.

I'm going to throw out another possibility to consider, which is that your own experience may be tainting your perspective. Your (linked) BBRT profile says you're 40. You may be an amazing-looking 40; but you're still 40. While you may derive pleasure from keeping the handle "TwinkChaserSlut" as your own - and I'm not here to criticize the concept; I have a cherished handle used on non-fetish sites that I've kept for years even as it's really no longer quite as fitting, in homage to my past life - the fact is that at 40, you're not the 20-something twink that a lot of even versatile guys would jump to fuck because, hey, hot young new meat. As we age - and I'm way beyond you on that score - what we perceive as a lack of tops may, in part, simply be "a lack of tops who are interested in us". There are always going to be tops who aren't interested in anyone over about 27 or 28, and they can be that picky because there are, in fact, considerably fewer tops than bottoms. I can't speak to your numbers, but I would suspect that a number of guys in their 20's, as they're coming out, try both positions. The difference is that most of those who find they enjoy bottoming are likely to re-identify as "versatile bottoms" and then just "bottoms" (and for some, "cumdumps"). By contrast, those who find they enjoy topping can remain "versatile" or "versatile tops" (unless they find they HATE bottoming). So in our own general age cohort, we see an increase in "bottoms" simply as versatile guys give up topping.

So... did you not review the content before you reposted it? Or was the fact that a minor (or minors) were involved just not evident from the beginning? I'm curious. Also curious: if the video was already available on the site, what's the plus for reposting it? I'm surely not the only person who gets annoyed at sites that claim to have tens of thousands of videos but some of them are duplicated dozens and dozens of times.

As I said, I understand that you might not want to post the town where you actually live in your profile, as in such a small place you might be more readily identified from your profile. I was merely noting that your profile claims that you live in a city of over 30,000 people. Otherwise, I stand by my assessment that it's simply untrue that *every* man is looking for hole to fuck.

Without commenting on the specific question you ask, I would note that in the context of this sort of rule, there is no difference between posting and reposting. Both place a copy of (or a link to, or however the particular site works) something not permitted on the website. It may be that yours was the first "copy" reported; it may be that sweeping the system, they found your repost and also other copies and have now removed and/or banned the rest. I can't answer that. However frustrating it can feel to get "dinged" for an infraction you know others have committed, the fact that not every speeder gets ticketed doesn't invalidate the concept of a speeding ticket. The only issue is when such tickets are applied in a discriminatory fashion - but unless you have evidence of that I'd say your chances of relief on that basis are slim (I'd say they're slim even if you did have such evidence).

The responses, as I pointed out, were not off-topic. When a person says "Anyone else into [this political type]?" it's impossible for the resulting discussion to ignore that, in fact, he asked about the appeal of a political type. To claim otherwise would be like someone asking "Anyone else into [choose one: Black/Asian/Hispanic/Middle Eastern] bros" and then insisting that he didn't mean anything ethnic, he just meant how that ethnicity stereotypically behaves.

I can't speak to what's happened in Great Britain, the Netherlands, and so forth, but I can explain what happened here in the U.S. It's been a multi-step process. First, Newt Gingrich. It's not for nothing that his nickname was "the Bomb Thrower" when he was a back bencher in the minority party in Congress here; he relished an all-out fight using every weapon at his disposal, and didn't give a fuck about who he hurt. He also was one of the first in a long line of colossal hypocrites - raging on and on about the decline of American morals and the disastrous effects of things like gay rights, and how Bill Clinton had an affair with an intern in the White House, even ginning up an impeachment against him for essentially lying about that affair, while at the same time he was fucking a House staff member behind his wife's back and ended up dumping her (his second wife) to marry the staffer as his third wife (having already previously divorced his first wife while she was in recovery from cancer surgery). Gingrich, to this day, is considered an elder statesman in the Republican party and his adulteress of a wife even served as Hair Furor's Ambassador to the Vatican. Second, George W. Shrub and his team, who managed to become president in the disastrous clusterfuck of the 2000 election in Florida by getting the Supreme Court to intervene and cut off vote counting. It showed, once and for all, that the GOP was perfectly prepared to use the courts to stop a Democrat from becoming president. They would have done it in 2008, too, except the disaster that Shrub left behind in his final year as president was so godawful that there was no doubt whatsoever about the electoral results, and the GOP couldn't steal that election. Third, Barack Obama, who by becoming our first Black president so enraged the racist core of the Republican party (by which I mean that the party's most hard-core, devout believers are racists) that they became determined to ensure the next president was more to their approval. Since primary elections and caucuses rely heavily on maybe the 10-20% of the party who are its most fervent believers, it's no surprise that moderates like Shrubette would get the boot; only one candidate made serious appeals to that racist base and - guess what - he won the nomination and the presidency. So fourth, Trump - who had no idea what being president meant or entailed, just that it was the highest office in the land and furthermore, the previous president had mocked him at a public dinner, so he was going to show that uppity Black man who was who. But, of course, because Trump didn't actually believe in anything except himself, and that he deserved anything he wanted, his attempts to actually formulate policy were - to put it mildly - a fucking dumpster fire. But plenty of people in the GOP recognized something in him; Republicans knew that while they would otherwise always be a permanent minority - the GOP has only won a majority of the people's votes in one presidential election since 1988, and it's not won a majority of total votes cast in congressional elections since the mid-1990's - by active voter suppression in enough swing states, they could keep Democrats from being able to achieve an electoral college win, given that the EC is already biased in favor of Republicans. Trump's model for winning in 2016 looked to be repeatable into the future as long as the GOP could offset demographic trends (of their racist base getting old and dying) by making it increasingly difficult to register and vote for those who were more likely to vote Democratic. In other words, they've had a taste of power, and they simply do not want to give it up. Instead of facing reality and actually adopting positions supported by a majority of the country - or convincing a majority of the country to like their policies - they've chosen the simple expedient of limiting the ability of other parties to turn out their vote. Because they know they can't win any other way.

Sorry, I was going by your profile, which says you live in Wausau, which (last I checked) had nearly 40,000 people in it, so a city of some significant size (not a "small rural Town"). I can understand, however, that you might not wish to name the small town as that might somehow hint at your identity to the locals, were they to pore the dark corners of the internet, stumble on this forum, and find your profile. So - safety through obfuscation, check. That said I sincerely doubt that in such a red county all of the men, to use your formulation, "want to fuck any thing that moves as well as anything stationary as long as hole can be found to bury their bone in and dump a load". Given the relative rarity of gay men in such regions, and the fact that women in such communities are much less likely to be sexually promiscuous themselves, I'd wonder how you'd have any time whatsoever to get online if there were that many men in your dyed-in-the-red-wool county needing to fuck anything that moves.

If someone had asked "Anyone into BernieBros?" or "Anyone else here a Clinton stan?" that would have been just as political as the original post. To refresh people's memories, which may be faulty, he asked "is anyone else infatuated with MAGA bros?" LITERALLY, the only thing he used to define the group was their political affiliation with Donald Trump. Seriously? You think that's an apolitical question? Now, I get that he may have poorly phrased his initial post. I kind of doubt it, He didn't go on to say "I mean the kind of guy that...." or "You know, men with X or Y or Z characteristic" - Just that he was a "fuckin slave" to MAGA bros. I honestly don't see how anyone with the ability to read can see this as anything BUT a political discussion - and more importantly, there's nothing WRONG with a political discussion. But to whine and bitch and moan that a topic created specifically with the NAME OF A POLITICAL MOVEMENT as the defining characteristic of a fetish - and to be shocked that ermahgahd some people actually think he means MAGA when clearly he just said MAGA, can't you read the difference - wasn't "political" until the non-MAGAS weighed in, is just too fucking twee for my senses. There is not an eyeroll emoji on the internet large enough for me to express my contempt of that notion.

The other option, some of the time (where one can talk in private) is to use text-to-speech and to speak clearly into the phone. It may require some fixes, but they should be more readily visible before you hit "send" because the mistakes made in text-to-speech tend not to involve the same kind of misspellings.

That isn't what you wrote, however. You wrote that "men are men and want to fuck anything that moves". "Fuck" is an active verb. The top fucks, the bottom GETS fucked. The bottom does not "fuck". So by the very words chosen your statement is bullshit because there are a lot of gay men who don't fuck. There are a lot of gay men who don't fuck OR get fucked - they limit themselves to oral and/or masturbation. There are men who don't have sexual relations of any sort, either by choice or lack of desire. There are straight men who will fuck women (in general) but not men, at all. In fact, that's MOST straight men. There are straight men who will fuck SOME women, but not all, and not any men at all. There are straight men who will fuck SOME women and SOME men but nowhere near "all" of either. In other words, your original statement was just... wrong. Flat wrong, on its face. Now if what you REALLY meant is that there are horny men in both red and blue states who want to fuck, then sure, that's a legit statement. A completely unremarkable, immediately obvious statement, but a true statement nonetheless. The point about red vs blue as originally brought up, however, was about relative numbers of willing, able and available partners, and if you don't think that red state vs blue state makes a difference there, I'd suggest you go live for a few years in a deep red state like Alabama, in a typical small city there, and compare.