BootmanLA

That is true. However, the Supreme Court's decision leaves it up to states, and there are some states where abortion is now absolutely illegal under state law; and quite a few more where rape and incest exceptions do not exist. NOT, I would note, because a majority of people in those states have indicated such a preference, but because antiquated laws from the days when women had zero agency over their own bodies and it was considered legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife, from days when married women could not transact commercial business without the consent and approval of their husbands, and so forth. Or because a male-dominated GOP-led legislature rammed those laws through and there's no provision for undoing them unless the legislature repeals them. The first is only true in part. A surgical abortion is certainly more expensive than, say, a box of condoms. But condoms plus another form of birth control can STILL fail. Also - again, thanks to the GOP - companies (which are on paper simply legal fictions, but thanks to the Supreme Court can have "religious convictions" somehow) can opt out of providing birth control coverage for their employees on company health plans - even if there's no workaround like requiring the plan to provide it at no cost. Here in Louisiana, I remember that for more than a decade, the legislature refused to authorize the state employee health plans to cover prescription birth control - even though the plans' own actuaries testified that the costs of unwanted pregnancy care far, far outweighed the nominal cost of the prescriptions. As for the second part, that's just bullshit. Absolute bullshit. A study done covering 1998-2010 showed that for the 16.1 million abortions during that period, there were 108 women who died, for a rate of 0.7 per 100,000 abortions. By contrast, the mortality rate for live births was over 20 per 100,000. Carrying a pregnancy to term is FAR more hazardous to a woman's life than an early term abortion - by a factor of 30.

I'd hesitate to call this "paranoid" but honestly, the chances of an HIV infection from something like this are exceedingly slim.

I absolutely agree that focusing on Thomas's race is reprehensible. His legal thoughts are garbage whether they are the product of a black man's mind or a white man's mind, so his race has nothing to do with it. That said, I do think noting the difference in race between him and his wife IS relevant, because the Supreme Court's Loving decision was just as much judicial activism as anything else the right routinely decries. The supporters of laws against mixed marriages pointed out, at the time, that blacks and whites WERE treated equally under the law - neither could marry someone of the opposite race, so there was no unequal treatment, which is all the 14th Amendment requires. To that, the justices who struck down those laws in 1967 said, in essence, "Bullshit". The right to marry the person of one's choice was fundamental, they said, despite that right not being spelled out in the Constitution. And given the fundamental nature of that right, any infringement (like telling a black man he can't marry a white woman) is subject to the strictest of scrutiny: such laws are only permissible if the state has a compelling interest in achieving some goal, and this restriction is the narrowest way to achieve that goal. If the goal can be achieved by a less intrusive means, then the law must fall. If only the Obergefell court made the same pronouncement regarding same-sex marriages, our rights would be in less danger. But as I've pointed out earlier, Obergefell (and Griswold, and Lawrence) are all predicated on a different legal theory (substantive due process) and Thomas openly rejects that legal theory in its entirety. There's some evidence that Alito would likewise be happy to ditch it. Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh haven't addressed that, but they were happy to kill Roe, which was also based on substantive due process. So even despite the protests in the Dobbs opinion that those cases aren't implicated, you can read that as "not implicated yet, because a challenge to those cases is not before us." Those cases will come. And you can't say that "it's settled law" because Roe and Casey were settled law, too. Casey specifically said that states could not ban abortion pre-viability (among other things). Then state after state started passing laws that clearly violated that standard - so-called "heartbeat" bills, for instance - and the Court, generally, just kept refusing to take up challenges to those laws, holding out for the day when they had 5 solid votes to end a federal right to an abortion, period. And when they had them, they did. Anyone who thinks that this will stop with abortion is either willfully obtuse or just not very bright.

You quoted this from me, but it wasn't me who wrote it - it was AlwaysOpen. Nonetheless, what I imagine is that someone would take the still-rolled condom, puncture a hole through the tip (thus creating a donut-shaped piece of latex, essentially), and then threading the not-yet-closed glowstick bracelet through the donut hole before joining the ends around the wrist. His notion seems to be that a punctured condom suggests that one does not want a condom. My notion is that wearing the condom, even damaged, suggests that one does.

I never used the word "automatically" and I'm not saying the latter is invariably the result of the former. Since you're a legal purist, I would point out that this is not, in fact, "theft" - which has a legal definition. (That definition may technically vary, from state to state, but I guarantee that none of those state definitions includes "writing a piece of fiction for a website that includes a copyright violation". If you're going to be a stickler for the absolutes of copyright law, you should be a stickler for absolutes in legal meanings, period. Which is one reason I suggested that anyone "continuing" someone else's story do so in a separate thread. That way, if the original author resurfaces after eight or nine years and suddenly has a burning desire to resurrect characters he abandoned nearly a decade prior, there's nothing in his thread polluting his artistic vision. I write snarkily, but the point is the same: If Member 1 writes a story about Joe and Bob and their antics, even if someone else writes a new thread about Joe and Bob and those characters so strongly resemble his own that a DNA test wouldn't distinguish them, the ethics of the situation aren't as clear-cut as you seem to think. Please notify me when you find a "credible writer" publishing pozzing fiction on BZ. I'll order takeout for the (very) long wait we'll have until then. I agree. But yet, the world continues to spin on its axis, and night follows day every every 23 hours and 56 minutes, despite this outrage. Look: I get it, you're a published author, and this idea - that someone, somewhere, might be misappropriating fictional characters they didn't create - how dare they! And from a purist perspective, sure, you're right. But of all the things a person can get riled up about, I personally wouldn't put this in the top, say, 50 thousand. Your mileage may vary.

Everything you write is certainly accurate insofar as legal issues are concerned. I was writing more about what's ethically dubious vs. what's more ethically defensible. If we focused on legality, virtually every piece of "fan fic" would be (is) a violation of copyright law, except for characters in the public domain (for example, Sherlock Holmes, or the pre-Disney Winnie the Pooh). Practically speaking, however, even the legal copyright would probably go unenforced in practical terms, even if the case against an infringement were iron-clad, if the infringer didn't respond to legal threats. Because those legal threats, in the context of a BZ story, are probably hollow; I can't envision anyone posting in BZ fiction forums willing to go to federal court to vindicate copyright over a sex story involving gay bareback sex, much less a story from the Gifting/Breeding/Stealthing or similar sections. As I said, that's not to "OK" the practice of jumping off from someone else's story. My point is that it's probably impractical to plan on enforcing a copyright. except insofar as the moderating staff here removing the infringing files.

I'm sorry, but I just noticed this post. So you're not okay with a condom-covered real cock in your ass, but you're perfectly OK with a rubber (or silicone, or whatever) fake one? Like everyone else chiming in, I prefer a bare cock myself. And if someone has an actual allergy to latex - which occurs, though it's rare - I can understand the need to forego latex. Even for those who are not actually allergic to latex, a sensitivity to latex can develop - it used to be a problem for health care workers using latex gloves - and thus make things decided less pleasant. But there are also latex-free condoms, including polyisoprene ones, which can be stretchier than latex and still offer HIV/STI protection, and those neither trigger an allergic reaction nor cause the sensitivity issue of actual latex. This is not to suggest that everyone (or anyone in particular) should use them. But honestly, if you're willing to shove a silicone dildo into your butt, it seems a little bit "twee" to me to then say a condom-covered cock is "unnatural".

It's probably accurate to describe gay men in that fashion, but that doesn't convey anything about how Monkeypox is being spread (or how other STI's are spread). Without putting too fine a point on it, you can be gay (ie a man who loves other men) and still be a virgin and not at risk for receiving or transmitting any STI at all. It's only when we become sexually active people that STI's are a relevant concern.

Agreed - but I would add this: I'd start the new story line in a separate topic/folder, with perhaps a link back to the inspiration. Something like: "Some years ago X member wrote a fiction piece called [insert link to the story here]." Then as appropriate, continue with one of the following: 1. "The author is no longer a member of BZ and has not posted any updates to this story in X years." 2. "The author is not interested in continuing this story, but has consented to let me develop the plotline further." 3. "Efforts to reach the author have been unsuccessful; I'm going to develop this storyline myself, so please understand this is not the original author's plot." And in any event, I'd be prepared to request deletion of the topic IF the original author resurfaces and objects to what you're doing with his characters. Alternatively, you could simply redevelop the story as you would have written it - not simply changing the names and some of the dialogue, but actually rewriting the story from scratch - and then continuing it. You could note "Inspired by the story [Name of story] written by member X" at the beginning of your own thread.

Actually, I think a lot of people would miss the symbolism of the "puncture" in the condom and just assume displaying a condom meant you wanted protected sex.

My two cents: This is exactly why for so many people, sex and friendship/other relationships can be totally separate things. There are guys I don't particularly like, but with whom the sex was actually pretty damned good, and so (sensibly, IMO) I look at those cases as pure sex and nothing else. I'm not looking to even eat a fast food meal with them - even that much socializing would annoy the fuck out of me - but yeah, within the very circumscribed sphere of having sex, I have (and would). That doesn't mean someone who's great in bed automatically gets a pass on anything else. If he's a Republican, for instance, it's not happening. But simply disliking someone's personality? I can work around that for sex. Earplugs, if necessary.

Site policy (articulated in the :Tips, Tricks, Rules & Help" forum) is that you should report your post - use the three dots in the upper right corner of your post) and explain you're reporting it asking that the entire topic (ie your story and its replies if any) be deleted. You can add (if you want) other info like the guy whose story you built on didn't like you extending his story in this fashion, but that's not required.

I'm old enough that "arcade" still conjures images of pre-video game spaces, as in skee ball and air rifles shooting down ducks on a conveyer belt, so keeping that in mind: I suspect today people use "arcade" as a generic term meaning "a line or row of amusement devices" (be they porno booths with/without glory holes, PacMan and Galaga machines, or whatever.

So much to unpack here. I'm going to assume that language translation difficulties are responsible for a lot of this. 1. You say you've been "together" for eight years, but that his company "just sent him here" - suggesting you were living apart most of your relationship. 2. Things are different in every country - sometimes better, sometimes worse, and sometimes a mix of both. The only way to know what it would be like is to visit there more often and see what it's like. That may mean taking a break from school, or seeing if you can study a semester over there. 3. I do not want to stereotype cultures, but I would have a hard time believing that the social pressure to remain closeted is as strong in Ireland as it is in Greece. 4. Greece and Ireland are not the only options for your future. Greece and Ireland are both in the EU, meaning you have options across the EU. Yes, relocation has costs, and going somewhere you do not speak the local language is hard to do. But it's possible to go somewhere that is much more gay-welcoming. 5. As for telling people in Greece and dumping the friends who are not supportive? That's certainly doable, as well, but only you can tell whether this would put your personal safety at risk. Bottom Line: this is a decision no one else can make for you and very few people can give you specific "Do this" or "Do that" advice because they don't know the entirety of your situation. In America, we have a saying: "Time to put on your big-boy pants" - meaning that sometimes, you have to make an adult decision, do what's right for you, and resolve to live with the consequences. But only you can decide what's right for you.

I can't speak to your friend's experience. But I do know that for life insurance applications (particularly for whole life, and for large coverage amounts), many companies require a physical exam, which may include an HIV test. As part of getting that test, invariably you sign a waiver agreeing to release the results to the potential insurer. Your friend may (or may not) have had such an exam. He may have, and not realized that (a) the exam included an HIV test and (b) he had given permission for those results to be shared with the insurance company. Maybe he figured he could bluff his way through, thinking his health info was secure under HIPAA, not realizing he'd waived that protection for this specific exam. It's hard to say without additional information.

Except - drum roll - that would mean the person is NOT undetectable. No one who stops taking his meds for any measurable length of time (say, a week or two, more) and who has not already begun taking them again cannot honestly say he's undetectable, because there's a good chance his viral load is already rising into detectable territory. Now, detectable does not necessarily mean "likely to infect" - HIV doesn't always infect after sex, as we know - but words have meaning. Someone claiming to be undetectable but who is off meds is either grossly misinformed or lying.

Leaving aside "irregardless", which is a double negative and thus essentially meaningless, I would point out that "intensive" is just flat wrong in this context. It renders the sentence jumbled garbage. The correct phrase is "For all intents and purposes..." or, in other words, "Essentially...".

Generally speaking, alcohol doesn't interfere with the *effectiveness* of most antibiotics. That said: 1. Alcohol can exacerbate the side effects of some antibiotics, sometimes dramatically so. Perhaps most commonly alcohol with an antibiotic will ramp up feelings of nausea, diarrhea, and other gastrointestinal issues. 2. Alcohol raises your blood sugar level, and a heightened blood sugar level makes healing (in general) more difficult. That's why diabetics often have trouble with sores that won't heal. Depending on how deeply entrenched your "latent" syphilis is, whatever healing (beyond actually getting rid of the syphilis bacteria) is needed could be delayed. As in: if the infection has quietly been doing damage in your system - brain, heart, liver, wherever - even if the penicillin eradicates the syphilis fairly quickly (not a guarantee), your overall recovery could still be delayed by alcohol. Doctors give this advice for a good reason. Are you guaranteed problems if you violate this guidance? No. Are there chances of complications, some of them serious? Absolutely.

One thing I'll note: I suspect none, or at the most very few, such places rent tents to people. Most campgrounds have some mix of RV spots, cabins, and "primitive" (ie tent) spaces. The problem with renting tents is that inexpensive ones are unlikely to last more than a few rentals (because people don't/won't take care with setting them up and in using them) and expensive, quality ones won't earn back their cost before they wear out from general use. Since you'll almost certainly either be renting a vehicle when you fly over, or joining up with friends who've agreed to transport you, if you want "cheap" make plans to stop by a discount store with a sporting goods department after arrival, and grab the cheapest tent you can find. Gift it to someone or throw it away on your return. The same with any gear (sleeping bag, bedroll, etc.) that you may need that isn't easily transportable on a trans-Atlantic flight. Renting a cabin at such places is usually a good bit more, but you end up with at least a basic bed (you may have to bring your own pillow, but an inflatable in your suitcase (or again, a cheap one bought on arrival) will suffice, I'm sure. Check their policies on bedlinens, etc. - sometimes they're included, sometimes not. The more expensive units almost always include them. Cabins have the additional advantage of more room to play. Many campgrounds have a clothing-optional area (typically around the pool) but officially, clothes must be worn elsewhere - at the snack bar/restaurant, to/from the shower houses, and so forth. There's frequently a "wilderness" area with trails, etc. (some with equipment set up along the way) where play goes on (technically in public, but you kind of have to go looking for it, which is the point). When you have a tent, they're not generally super-keen on sexual activity outside where other people are also tent camping, which limits you to inside your tent or off on the trails. When you have a cabin, you and a friend (or friends) can go at it all you want. Mind you, on some weekends campgrounds are also booked for events and you have to buy into the event to camp there. The tradeoff is that in many such cases, rules about public play are considerably more relaxed because everyone who enters has signed a waiver regarding the event in question. That's not universal, so asking question is always a good idea.

In a practical sense i don't think there is a difference. As I understand it, both add on reputation point to the reputation score of the person who made the post that you are liking or updating. In other words, I think it's a matter of personal preference as to which better describes how you feel about the post.

As did I. I suspect that the topic was indeed removed, and the software for the forum does not distinguish between "this topic does. Not exist any longer" and "you are blocked from this topic". Actually, I'm not sure that individual topics can be blocked from selected members at all.

For some people on this site - me not included, no judgment involved - every day is a potential exposure for an STI. Since the point of PEP is treatment for a potential infection, rather than a diagnosed one, a person with an active sex life with strangers might well be on Doxy as PEP more often than not. Granted, such men aren't abundant, this site's appearances notwithstanding. But it's still a potential source of antibiotic resistance.

It's unlikely that eight naked men on a video call (weekend or otherwise) would pass the legal test for obscenity, given that porn containing similar groups of men exists freely. However, it *could* be considered indecent, vulgar, repulsive, or offensive, which are terms that have no general legal definition and thus rely on generally accepted definitions. That said, the company undoubtedly has the right to refuse to carry traffic on its network of which it disapproves. It could, in theory, decide eight (or six, or one) naked men/man was offensive and consider that a violation of its terms of service. Whether it would, in fact, do so - absent a complaint from someone on such a transmission - is unclear, but I rather doubt they're going to be monitoring random calls looking for naked men.

This is a seriously dangerous oversimplification of how HIV infection works. HIV infects cells of many, many different types, and it's not necessary for the "load" (ie semen) to enter your bloodstream. Rather, what's needed for an infection to take place is for the VIRUS to enter a susceptible cell and begin replicating. It's perhaps *easier* for HIV to do this through the bloodstream because the circulatory system circulates cells throughout the body, thus spreading the virus particles and giving them multiple opportunities to replicate via the types of cells that can be utilized for spreading the virus. But that's not anything near the same as "the toxic load has to get into your blood" and given that the transmission almost certainly takes place inside a person's body - typically the rectum or vagina - there's no "skin" (thick or otherwise) to prevent infection.

I'm not sure where you keep getting these bizarro, alternate-universe ideas, but there was no such case in 2000 when Texas's Supreme Court "overthrew" (courts don't overthrow, they overturn, but I digress) the last laws criminalizing homsexuality. For one thing, in Texas, the Texas Supreme Court does not rule on criminal cases, period. The Texas Supreme Court hears ONLY appeals in civil cases - where one person is suing another. The final place for criminal cases to be considered, under Texas law, is the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. That court, in 2000, DECLINED to hear a challenge to the state's law prohibiting homosexual sex acts. That refusal to hear the case left intact a lower, appellate court decision UPHOLDING the state's criminalization of gay sex. That case - Lawrence v. Texas - was the basis, IN 2003, for the US Supreme Court's decision (hint: when "Texas" is the defendant in a case involving gay sex laws, you can pretty much assume it still had laws on the books about that) - which decision ACTUALLY overturned all state laws, including Texas's, regarding private, consensual gay sex. I get your passion and your zeal for improving our world - and yay for that! - but you do no favors to yourself, the community at large, or the progressive movement when you invent court cases that don't exist and mis-cite what existing cases actually said and do.