BootmanLA

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.

If I hear one more person try to reduce the colossal dumpster fire that was the Trump administration to "mean tweets" I swear I'm going to break something. But... let's look at some of those mean tweets. Like the shitflow that erupted every time someone in his administration quit on principle, or he decided he couldn't control them enough: you'd think, based on his vituperative tweets, that these were all people left over from a prior administration and he was finally cleaning house, ignoring the fact that HE appointed every goddamned one of these people (usually with syrupy praise for something completely off-base). By his own admission, apparently, he has abysmal judgment. There's a reason why his former cabinet members variously described him as "a moron", "dumb as rocks", and worse. The very stable genius not only was a mean tweeter, he was a demonstrable idiot incapable of speaking off the cuff about anything except himself (and the daughter he wanted to boink, and the women he wanted to grab by the pussy, and sometimes did). I suppose you consider his administration a success because the stock market did well under most of his term - which of course ignores that the trajectory line for stock prices under Trump is exactly the line it was on for the last two years of Obama's second term as well; which ignores that his incompetence in dealing with Covid pretty much killed that anyway; which ignores that the wealthiest 10% of Americans own almost 90% of all stocks; which ignores that as stock market values soared, wages stagnated, producing income and wealth inequalities unseen since the Gilded Age of the robber barons. I don't consider that an achievement worth celebrating, but maybe you do, I don't know.

The first half of that sentence is true: Cialis is not the same drug as Viagra. The second half of that sentence is false. From drugs.com ([think before following links] https://www.drugs.com/tips/cialis-patient-tips) : "May interact with some medications including nitrates - use of Cialis and nitrates is contraindicated because of the severe hypotension that can develop. " Poppers are frequently nitrates or nitrites or related compounds (and usually there's no way to know exactly what's in the particular brand/bottle, even from one to the next). From the Mayo Clinic ([think before following links] https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/tadalafil-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20067204?p=1) : "Do not use this medicine if you are also using riociguat or a nitrate medicine, often used to treat angina (chest pain). Nitrate medicines include nitroglycerin, isosorbide, Imdur®, Nitro-Bid®, Nitrostat®, Nitro-Dur®, Transderm Nitro®, Nitrol® Ointment, and Nitrolingual® Spray. Some illegal ("street") drugs called "poppers" (such as amyl nitrate, butyl nitrate, or nitrite) also contain nitrates. If you need to use a nitrate medicine, take it at least 48 hours after your last dose of tadalafil." From Healthline.com ([think before following links] https://www.healthline.com/health/are-poppers-safe#risks) : "Poppers can interact with other drugs, particularly medications used for erectile dysfunction (ED), such as sildenafil (Viagra) or tadalafil (Cialis). Like poppers, these medications cause a drop in blood pressure. Used together, poppers and ED medications can lead to stroke, heart attack, or death." I could go on and on, but the point is clear: the medical literature is replete with warnings about this. You're free to ignore those warnings if you wish, and if you do, you may well not have any side effects. That sort of navel gazing does not miraculously become sound medical advice in general.

I can't imagine any easy way that this could be implemented here, given that this site is built using a third-party (ie "developed by an outside company") package of software designed for the creation of forums like this. The site owner has no control over the underlying code here. This is the difference between a typical web application - like this - and what we think of as "apps" (for mobile devices, running Android or IOS). In the latter, it's easy for the operating system underlying all the apps to provide this functionality; it's "once and done" with the code and all each app has to do is link into that functionality. And the app developer doesn't have to make that app work anywhere but on his one chosen device if that's all he wants to do. With websites like this, the underlying "OS" directly below the site level is, essentially, HTML itself, or the web, which doesn't have such functionality built in. And underneath that, the OS of various devices is vastly more heterogenous - assorted versions of Windows for both desktop and server, assorted versions of IOS, assorted versions of macOS, ChromeOS, Android (in multiple flavors), multiple flavors of Unix and LInux, and more - so all of those would have to include "back end code" for auto-correct/typing suggestions to be available on a website.

That laptop story is far from settled, and I'll note in passing that the chain of custody is so fucked in that case that proving anything allegedly found on the laptop came from Biden, as opposed to any of the half dozen or more political hacks for the GOP who got their hands on it at various times, is going to be a tough sell. So no, this isn't "that story WAS true", it's more like "there may be something there, although not necessarily anything like what we claimed, and it's still not verified." As for his gun application: he illustrates the point, that it's too easy for people like him, much less criminals, to buy a gun. He should have been blocked. The fact that there was a hole in the system that allowed the purchase to proceed is an indication we need to tighten the system. Or maybe you think drug abusers should be able to readily purchase firearms legally? I have no doubt that more traditional journalists (ie newspaper, TV, etc.) identify as liberal more than conservative. But two points: just because someone is a liberal or a conservative doesn't mean that will necessarily affect his writing - as we saw with the NYT in 2016. On the other hand, conservative people have largely abandoned traditional media - which was at least vetted by editorial boards and multiple layers of editors looking for bias issues - in favor of conspiracy-spewing shitholes like NewsMax and OAN, and the king of all of them, FOXNews. I note that during the initial January 6 hearing, not only did FOXNews not broadcast the hearing itself, and not only did they refuse to give it any "serious news" coverage, they actually skipped ALL commercials during the time it was running, for fear their viewers might change the channel during a commercial break from Skippy the Fish Stick Heir and accidentally discover something called News. If this is a "show trial" it's because the GOP, frantic to protect its leadership from being exposed as deeply involved in a plot to overturn an election, has refused to cooperate with the legitimate investigatory function Congress is displaying here. Interesting that literally *every* witness testifying in both hearings so far has been - drum roll - not a Democrat, but a Republican. If this is a show trial, why are so many GOP'ers coming forward to say "Yes, we told him he lost, no there wasn't fraud, but he kept insisting"? I, for one, happen to think that trying to overturn an election is a big fucking deal, and it might well have succeeded if there had been fewer people around Trump standing their ground (finally). And despite that, I'm not as concerned about the last four years (despite the outright fraud and graft that occurred) as I am about the NEXT election. When Trump has managed to get sympathetic secretaries of state elected in half a dozen swing states, and he calls himself the winner at 10 PM on Election Night, long before those states have come close to counting their ballots (or even receiving them, for those states that go by postmark date), and he demands that counting stop while he's ahead, will there be the institutional firewall of "that's not how we do things" any more? You said once before you don't want Trump back. He's going to run again - his game is the grift, and he needs the millions he can siphon off his campaign donations to keep afloat, like the $250 million he raised for his "election integrity" fund that actually didn't get spent on anything related to the election. If you don't want him back - if another four years of the kind of chaos his incompetence brought is too much for you - then I'd think you should be in favor of taking the steps necessary to make sure he doesn't come back.

You're conflating small-l "libertarians" (the political belief) with capital-L "Libertarians", the latter being the party. I stand by my assessment of the latter and only need to point to the party's various adopted platforms for evidence. The 2020 platform called for abolishing eminent domain - meaning if a government wants to build a highway, paying the landowners in its path isn't sufficient; if any of them object, you just can't take their property (even with just compensation). Period. Try building or enlarging *any* public road with that in place. It calls for abolishing *all* regulation of commerce between individuals. No more minimum wage, no OSHA requirements for safety, no bar on child labor in mines or whatever. It calls for an end to the "illegitimate" practice of marriage licenses - which sounds fine until you realize it means there's nobody to decide who a rightful spouse is, when a patient can't make health care decisions for him/herself. And kiss any spousal benefits goodbye in employment because if an employer can't rely on the law to determine who is legally entitled, as a spouse, to benefits and who is not, they'll simply drop those benefits. It supports use of deadly force to protect property - no dollar value specified, meaning under Big-L Libertarian government, you could shoot a kid for plucking a flower from a bush at the sidewalk in front of your house. It makes the "would be hysterically funny if not incredibly stupid" point that governments have a bad track record on the environment and it should be up to private industry to protect it voluntarily, as though the vast number of Superfund sites, oil spill disasters, pipeline ruptures, strip mining of coal by blasting off mountains, and such were acts of benevolent stewardship by the private sector. The notion that they have a vested self-interest in protecting the environment flies in the face of history, which suggests they simply abandon sites that are hopelessly polluted and move on to pollute something else. It demands that government not subsidize any particular form of energy, as though coal-smoke belching power plants and solar farms should be treated alike under the law. (This one in particular commits the classic Libertarian fallacy of ignoring externalities, the fact that the coal plant is foisting part of its cost to society - the loss of clean air - onto everyone whether they use the power from the plant or not.) It literally calls for the abolition of ALL taxation - EVERY DIME of it. What that means, of course, is that people pay privately for everything: if you want justice, you not only have to pay a lawyer, you have to pay fees to a court system to pay for the judge. Guess which side is going to typically always be able to pay those fees? (Hint: not the poor individual; it's the rich and the big companies). I could go on and on (I've only covered the first few paragraphs of the Libertarian Nutso - I mean, Manifesto - for the 2020 election, but this is what the party advocates for. So yeah, I think I'm pretty sound in calling Big-L Libertarians whackos.

I'd like to throw something else out there - as someone defended sex with MAGA bros by comparing it to people with a fetish for Nazi uniforms. On a personal level, even if I can admire the aesthetic of the Nazi uniforms - when Hugo Boss designs your troops' clothes, you can expect them to be snazzy - I can't get into using them in a fetish scene. I have no problems with those who do, but don't involve me. I feel the same way about skinhead clothes (and I don't give a crap whether the "original" skinheads were anti-gay, the look is indelibly stained by those who co-opted it). I'm the same way about guns in scenes and confederate flags. All are immediate boner-killers - you're free to indulge, but I'm not going to be part of it. That's different from fucking an actual MAGA bro, just like it's different from fucking an actual Nazi.