BootmanLA

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.

Perhaps if the original sex question hadn't included partisan blather in its formulation, the thread might have remained all about sex and it might have stayed in the general forum. Again, if you want to complain about politics in a thread, look to where the politics were first introduced.

Yes, and that's why I seldom (thought I can't say never) just get right to fucking when someone wants to. I'm not saying anyone else needs to proceed with that caution, but I prefer to. Again, this isn't meant to suggest any disapproval of your life and/or the choices you make, but I'm not going to ordinarily find myself in the situation where some guy is about to fuck me and I don't know at least a reasonable basic amount about him. That's just how I operate, not that I think everyone should, or that those who don't are somehow suspect. I don't, however, have a checklist of questions that someone must answer before sex. There's a broad sense that I want him to be (at minimum) a decent person, and so I like to get at least a feeling for his ethics before sex. And in some of those general discussions it's usually possible to determine whether his views place him outside the realm of decency, as I define it - without coming at him with a numbered list that starts "Are you now, or have you ever been, a....". It's not perfect, and of course some guys are deceptive and others will simply slip through the cracks. But like sex itself, it's about acceptable levels of risk.

It's not likely to be implemented. I get the concept that it might be useful, but if you think about it, only a handful of web sites (as opposed to apps) have anything like auto-complete or auto-correct. You'll find it in standalone applications like Word, or Outlook, or whatever - but that's because the application code itself (which resides on your local computer) includes a code library with usage rules and the like that can do this sort of prediction. You see it in phone/tablet apps because the operating system (Android or IOS) includes that kind of library as well. But the only websites you find with it are places like Google, which have giant server farms that store and analyze millions of search phrases per minute, so they know that if you type "HIV infection rates in", it can match that with your location, and pre-fill in "the United States" or "Great Britain" or "Australia" or wherever it is that it detects you're typing from. Those things are also smart enough to predict the top four or five options to finish your query, almost certainly one of which is likely correct. So starting with "oldest man" might offer choices for "in history", "alive 2022", "to father child", and so forth - seemingly very smart, but in reality just playing the odds that what you're searching for is something other people have already searched for. Otherwise, websites simply don't have the processing power on the servers that "serve them up" to do that kind of prediction. It would be ghastly expensive, for one thing. But more significantly, since there are so many different web browsers for people to access the web with, the only way to incorporate that kind of functionality is to write it yourself specifically in the code for your site itself (because that's the only common denominator between, say, you using your iPhone's Safari browser and me using my desktop's Chrome browser. Not only is that the kind of task that would take an army of coders, but then loading every page would require downloading that entire dictionary of what word(s) might be logically meant if you start typing every possible combination of letters. It's as though in order to view any page on a website, it would have to download a copy of the Bible for *every* page, before you could begin typing in a form. Imagine how slow it would be to go just from page to page on this site when you have that kind of constant traffic in the background of every single page load.

As many of you know - this is one of my personal peeves (the person who thinks he's being erotic when he says he was "fucked by a BBC"). All I can envision in such instances is a disembodied penis somehow remaining erect and fucking the guy like a dildo come to life. Anyone who can't endow his sex partners with the basic humanity of "I was fucked by a man with...." is, well, I probably shouldn't say, as someone no doubt would think that was aimed at him as a slur and report it.

That's fine for you, who makes it clear you never refuse any man's cock. I have tried to reformulate this next sentence so as not to be offensive, because I honestly am not judging you and your life and how you live it in any way - more power to you! - but: Those of us who have standards may well not want to do anything to shift thinking to his Little Head. I'd be more inclined to punch him in the nuts, on the assumption that anyone into the self-abuse that being a gay right-winger entails would surely appreciate the contribution to his pleasure.

Anyone who thinks "both of the two major parties in the USA have been the same for many decades" has paid zero attention to politics and has no grasp of what the political parties stand for or do. The only way in which that might remotely be true is in the sense of "Neither party backs 100% of what I believe in" (whatever that may be).

Bullshit. The majority of men won't fuck another man - and there's no evidence whatsoever that they would.

Don't take this as criticism of you in any way, shape or form - because it's not! - but the problem isn't really Doublist is charging; it's that you (and I, both) live in shitty places. Or rather, we live in sort of blueish outposts otherwise in a sea of red, replete with all the ignorance, inbreeding, and bigotry correctly associated with the hellhole that is the South (outside of a couple of major metro areas like Atlanta and New Orleans). I suspect you could PAY people to have ads on something like Doublist and the pickings would still be slim both there and here.