BootmanLA

You're responding to one of those "read between the lines" posts. So again, read the post, especially the parts about "extra thin", being expired, and using them with baby oil, and see if it makes more sense.

You would be surprised. There are plenty of places in the United States where there is little to no sex education at all. And in a shocking (but not surprising, to those of us here) number of places, the only thing that can be taught about preventing pregnancy is abstinence. You're correct that a lot of the objections about "appropriate" material is the feeling on the far right that NOTHING about gays can be "appropriate" for children to learn.

Or go to the "on demand" dosing for PrEP: two tablets taken between 2 and 12 hours prior to sex, one tablet 24 hours after sex, and another 24 hours after that. Using it that infrequently should cause fewer side effects or at least lower-level ones.

And the problem remains: the law doesn't define what's appropriate, so teachers and librarians are left to wonder what they might have that violates the law. If they don't want to go to prison, they're likely to pull all sorts of things that could be defended but which would cost time and money that the schools don't have to fight (and which the craven school boards wouldn't want to fight even when it's right to do so). And the net result is what the right-wing asswipes want: removal of anything LGBT-oriented from public schools so that their bigoted message at home and in church goes unchallenged in the only other major area in the children's lives.

So what we have is the opinion of one school board member and one person/parent trying to read parts of the book at the meeting. With no actual evidence of what the book actually contains. As I understand it from reading about Gender Queer online, the primary objections are to images (not surprising, because it's a graphic novel) and only to a handful of those. The images being objected to include a reproduction of some figures on ancient Greek pottery, something that could easily and legitimately be shown in an Art History class. And most of the remaining objections are coming in the forms of challenges to ANY book that mentions gender identity or sexual orientation. I doubt seriously this book was in an elementary school library (if so, it SHOULD be removed from there) but I see nothing wrong with it for middle and especially high school students.

There's a lot less of that for many reasons, the most obvious of which is most gay porn aficionados want to see big dicks, even on bottoms. That's actually the case in the offline/off-video world as well; you might (or might not) be surprised at how many men will turn down a bottom whose dick isn't big enough, even if it's not going anywhere in the top.

I can't say how common it is. I can say, however, that usage at that level can be dangerous, sometimes extremely so.

That's not the question. The question is, WHERE and WHEN is it appropriate? I would argue, for instance, that it's not appropriate to do so in the middle of a wedding. Or at a White House dinner. Or at a thousand other places and times where it's just not appropriate. Public spaces are, in general, not appropriate places. There are some where it's appropriate at certain times but not at others.

Based on what RawTop is reporting (see above in this thread of posts), the problem is not with any of the following: a) the forum software b) the host's software configuration c) the email program that actually sends the mail as directed by the forum software. Rather, it appears to be that either breeding.zone (or its IP address) have been entered into one or more of the big national "list of problem/spam blacklist sites" that ISPs use to filter and discard spam mail before it reaches your inbox. While the sender (here, RawTop and/or his Breeding.Zone site) can request that the domain and/or IP address be removed from the database, and give reasons why, the truth is it's up to the blacklist site list provider to do so. And things generally end up on there only when people have complained about spam from a site. So I wouldn't put it past some assholes to have creates a bunch of accounts, reported all the "please confirm" emails as spam, and gotten the site blocked. Given that he's had this problem before, I wouldn't be surprised if this is why.

No - the one I'm referring to is a single-story building, so no balcony. I can't place the one you're talking about, but there have been a lot of bars that have come and gone over the years there.

This is important. The legislature (at the behest of the governor) changed the law. Why? Was it in response to an actual problem, or was it (as I contend) simply doing the bidding of far-right activists in exchange for their electoral support?

@NWUSHorny I have no doubts about the cultural issue you've described up there (at least insofar as you've experienced it - I've seen you mention it more than once here. It may be that more people than "usual" up there think fucking is something reserved for more meaningful relationships, as opposed to bathhouse connections and otherwise cruising - I can't say. I'd say that given the status of nudity as acceptable in (at least some) public places, it's not out of the question for the real problem in those public places to be what I mentioned: that things are tolerated as long as they're not too explicit. Don't know if you've ever been to New Orleans, but many of the bars in the French Quarter (especially those on corners) have several sets of doors that open onto the sidewalk. In warmer weather (from about March to November) they're almost never closed, given that there's no closing time for bars. One of them had a rather notorious backroom that could be packed on weekend nights, and much of the day on holiday weekends. The backroom itself had two solid walls and one that was open to the main bar, but the fourth wall was against the sidewalk. Inevitably, despite repeated warnings from the staff, the "activity" in the backroom would spill over into the front part of the bar, with guys sometimes fucking in full view of, and just inside, these doors open to the outside. And this bar was set into what was otherwise an almost entirely residential section of the Quarter, so you had all sorts of people walking by. Eventually, that bar lost its liquor license because they'd had too many citations for public sex, and there's a completely different bar in its place with no tolerance for a backroom at all. So my theory may be colored by my experience, but I do know that "officialdom" often tolerates things to a certain point and no more.

As a possible alternate view: Maybe the only reason that blowjobs are tolerated there (by the authorities) is that locals DON'T try to turn it into an outdoor bathhouse? Here's the thing: Sex in public, in most places in the United States, is illegal, and Oregon is one of the places where it is against the law. Whether or not that SHOULD be the case isn't really the point; the fact is, it is, and thus any outdoor sexual activity that does occur is at the sufferance of law enforcement. Hell, in some states, even nude sunbathing in public is illegal, and there are no public places AT ALL where your genitals can be exposed. Even in those states, there are sometimes discreet areas where everyone knows the cops don't look too hard as long as things remain at or below a certain level. Outright fucking is generally "over the line" in most such settings, and is the quickest way to get law enforcement to crack down and eliminate EVERYTHING, including nude tanning. In such a situation, locals are often protective of their space - sometimes because non-enforcement of the no-sex or no-nudity laws has been directly, if discreetly, negotiated with law enforcement. And while the guy may have been an ass for phrasing it that way, if his view is, in fact, the one shared by locals and law enforcement, then the sentiment is valid if not the attitude or phrasing. All of this is conjecture, of course (except the statement about Oregon law: that much is factual and clear). But vice laws (not just about sex in public, but prostitution, drugs, etc.) frequently go hand in hand with unofficial tolerance as long as "the problem" doesn't get too big or out of certain defined areas. It may well be that outright fucking is understood by others to be "over the line."

There's plenty of room to type whatever you want in your profile, so yes, of course. But the problem is people simply don't read.

Here's the thing, though: if you gave a fuck about the gay kids stuck in those schools, you might not want to leave everything up to parents, the loudest and most demanding of whom (and who will end up controlling the narrative and the response) will be the anti-gay bigots. The problem is that for these people - and I've been watching them closely for decades - ANY mention of same-sex relationships is "pushing a gay agenda" that needs to be excised from public schools, even when conveying the exact same information about straight relationships gathers no objection. We know this because they've tipped their hands repeatedly, and we know that because they wrote the laws, that's how they intend to use them. Again, 35+ years of watching people interested in legislation pushing said legislation tells me what I need to know about this effort. My perspective - if I may be so bold - is akin to an expert witness in a trial testifying about a subject he is intimately familiar with from long experience. Dismissing that as just, well, "my perspective" is your prerogative, but it doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you. Except that teachers are ALREADY being forced to stay silent about same-sex partners and same-sex relationships, in a way that teachers in opposite-sex relationships are not. The fact that you seem to think the religious anti-gay zealots are acting in good faith to just keep the porn out of the libraries would be cute if it weren't shockingly naive. For fuck's sake, look at the books that are being pulled out of libraries - they're not porn, they're not masturbation manuals, they're not how-to guides for anal sex. They're bland things like Heather Has Two Mommies. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof in criminal cases and criminal offenses, like the "offense of your choice" wording. For civil cases - and the consequences of this law are civil, so that's the right standard - the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence", also sometimes called "more likely than not". It's certainly more likely than not that the religious bigots who pushed these laws through intended to remove as many references to gay people from public schools as possible on the grounds that it's "inappropriate". Because that's what they are DOING wherever that kind of law is going into effect. And I've never - EVER - had one of those activists pushing those laws point to ANY reference to LGBT people that they thought was appropriate for kids in public schools. I've pressed them to give me just one example, and they never have been able to. So frankly, I don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt" kind of proof, which we almost never have in resolving any dispute.

As someone who has worked with legislation and legislative text for over 35 years now, I can assure you that the bill doesn't have to CONTAIN the words "don't say gay" to have that effect. You're highlighting the inconsistencies that are the fundamental problem with the bill. A drag queen reading a child a book is no different from Barney the Dinosaur or Elmo reading a child a book; it's an adult in a costume, or a puppet, and there's nothing sexual, inherently, in wearing clothes of the opposite sex. It CAN be - but then so can a woman's outfit including a lower cut neckline, a bare midriff, or much of her legs showing. So can a man with a shirt unbuttoned halfway to the navel, or wearing pants that are tight across the butt. Or... well, almost any clothing could be "sexual" to someone else, depending on his or her interests. But the only one they're getting riled up about is the drag queens. And of course no one wants stories with strong sexual overtones being read to children. But again: no one is going to object to a reading that includes Prince Charming kissing Snow White to awaken her from her curse. They lose their shit if Prince Charming kisses a young man, though. Why is one appropriate, and the other forbidden? Or alternatively, no one is going to object if the teacher Miss Jones gets married over the fall break and comes back as Mrs. Smith, and they won't object if she tells them her husband's name is John Smith. But watch what happens when Mr. Jones gets married and comes back as Mr. Smith-Jones and tells the kids his husband's name is Trevor Smith-Jones. Suddenly we're "sexualizing" the kids and it's inappropriate to "discuss same sex relationships" even when it's patently obvious there's no issue with discussing opposite sex relationships. And no, parents shouldn't get a veto over saying some people's marriages can be mentioned and others' cannot. I have an answer. We all have an answer. It's just that the state is being dishonest (through refusing to comment) about that answer. The point is not that there aren't queer-friendly places and institutions in Florida; it's that the state used to allow them to be highlighted in one spot on the web because INTERESTED PEOPLE WANTED THAT INFORMATION. Note that you can still go on the site and pull up lists of outdoor and adventure places to go; you can still go on the site and pull up major shopping destinations; you can still go on the site and pull up listings of arts and cultural destinations. There's even still (for the moment) a link where you can go research African-American heritage travel locations. But not a list of LGBT places. Gee, I wonder why that could be, especially given that the places who were listed there said it helped bring in tourist business for their locations? Pretending that "we just can't know" what this means or "the bill doesn't actually SAY 'don't say gay' in the text" is just wildly irresponsible. We absolutely know. And it's absolutely going to have that effect.

That's a call only you can make. I, personally, wouldn't want to have sex with someone who doesn't monitor his own sexual health. But again, that's me, not you.

Compound W (and similar OTC treatments) are NOT recommended for HPV warts. Not only can that treatment be painful, but the way it breaks down the wart can leave a path for further infiltration of bacteria and viruses through the skin.

Actually, I'll agree with you on the fact that one situation is a question of legality and the other is not. But the discussion wasn't "is it legal to fuck someone else's husband?" but "is it BAD (ie morally wrong) to do that?"

I'll also note: the 12-year term limit here applies to all the members. So what we end up with is a Speaker of the House or President of the Senate who has, at MOST, eight years of legislative experience, sometimes none as a chairman. Because the office goes to the member in each chamber who can garner 50% + 1 vote, there's a certain degree of popularity involved. But the leading candidates for presiding officer also have often had their eye on the spot for years, and if they're in a relatively safe seat for re-election, they can encourage their supporters to give to a PAC affiliated with the member - and then the member can donate from that PAC to legislators who are facing tougher re-election battles (and who will be, ahem, "grateful" for the financial support. State legislator races are often low-dollar, relatively speaking (as in under $100,000 spent), so getting $2,500 from a Speaker/President candidate can be very helpful to both. Prior to term limits, a candidate for Speaker or President usually had at least 3, sometimes 4 terms completed before running. That's experience that can't be gotten in two terms.

Term limits have positive AND negative effects, and I can see these at the state level very clearly. Louisiana was one of the last (if not the last) states to enact term limits for its state legislature, which we did in the mid-1990's. Here's what we've found. Before term limits, in any given 4-year term, roughly 5-8% of legislators resigned during the term, most often because they were elected to a higher office or appointed to a state position, like a departmental secretary. At the end of a 4-year term, somewhere in the vicinity of 20-25% of people either retired (chose not to run again) or were defeated for re-election. Term limits has NOT substantially raised that number over the 12-year maximum under term limits; what it's done is compress the resignations to the end of that 12 year period (with correspondingly fewer during the course of the term). Moreover, before term limits, one would typically have to serve two or three terms, at a minimum, before being appointed as chairman or vice chairman of a standing committee (where legislation begins its process). That experience made it possible for committees to weed out dumb ideas, and chairmen had learned, by then, how to work with the opposite side to get important bills passed. And individual legislators could begin to study particular areas of interest, often under the mentorship of older, more experienced members who had become subject matter experts in particular fields. Now, we routinely have legislators starting their second term being named committee chairmen, without the necessary experience to even manage the members' interests, much less help broker compromises between the governor's office and opposition legislators, or between advocates for both sides of a contentious issue. There is, in other words, a power vacuum. And into that vacuum step staff and lobbyists. Unlike many people, I don't consider "lobbyist" a dirty word; there are lobbyists for conservation groups and for petrochemical plants, for senior citizens and for nursing home operators, for doctors and for hospitals and for nurses, all of whom may be at odds with each other over a measure that affects them both. What ends up happening now, especially when a large new "freshman" class of legislators enters, is that the lobbyists basically bypass most of the legislators, cut deals they can both live with, and present the compromise to the inexperienced committee members who vote for it because they don't understand the issue themselves. And if the bills come out of committee, unless there's some major opposition from a different quarter (and that opposition has deep pockets that it's used in the past for donations to elect some of those members), the compromises just sail through, with no one in the legislature itself having actually read much of the bill. In our legislature, the staff are non-partisan (there's not a separate Republican staff and Democratic staff). But the important staff are assigned by committee, they're responsible for drafting the bills and amendments, whether the idea comes from the legislator herself or from a lobbyist who brought the idea to the legislator. They become the experts (they always have, but they don't have legislators who are also experts to look at the product). And after four or five years as the staff attorney for the Health and Welfare committee, they get hired to work for the Hospital Association or the Medical Society or whomever, having "earned" that position by getting that group's bills through the process. And of course neither the lobbyists nor the staff are elected by anyone. As for money: for better or worse, money amounts to the ability to get your message out, especially as legislative district sizes keep growing and growing in terms of number of people. In 1963, when I was born, the average US House district had 410,481 people. Today, it's over 760,000 people, and we no longer have just three broadcast networks and a handful of newspapers in each district. We have fewer newspapers, thousands of "news" websites, multiple cable and online news channels, and more. It takes money to reach the people in the district, like it or not. To arbitrarily cap the amount you can spend really is tantamount to capping how much you can say or how many people you can reach, and that's a major infringement on political speech, the most protected category of speech there is. In short, as appealing as term limits, clean slates, and limited campaigns sounds, it's wholly impractical and can have horrendous consequences in the execution.

I guarantee that if you look at the options on the various apps in question, there's almost always some sort of multiple choice "Looking for..." question, and the options usually include (among others) no strings attached sex, love, dates, friends, and more. Many in our community approach the apps as though they're the equivalent of sticking your dick through a glory hole, not going into a gay bar or whatever and talking with the people involved, but that doesn't mean they're strictly "cruise apps" or "lets fuck" apps. The app owners themselves intend (for better or worse) for them to be used for a variety of purposes. Of course, people being idiots, you get guys who list "love, dates, relationship, husband" as the choices they're looking for, and then they message people whose profiles clearly indicate they're in a relationship. You get other guys who won't fill out any of the choices at all, and leave anyone they contact grasping in the dark trying to figure out why this guy with no information (and often no photo) is approaching me. You get the ones who say "No strings attached" who are just looking for regular cuddle buddies to go to dinner with. And so on. Personally, if I were an app developer, I'd make substantial sections of the profile mandatory to complete before the program will let you see any other users.

@hntnhole You make a good point about cruising spots and glory holes and baths and bookstores being available over a greater range of time than traditional gay bars. But I think the type of cruising in the bars was different as well. When you go to a glory hole and occupy one side or the other, so to speak, that's all you want, to suck or get sucked (or in cases where it's physically possible, fuck or get fucked). Ditto for cruisy parks, and of course, in bathhouses. That kind of single-purpose spilled over to bar backrooms, but (in my experience) those didn't exist in the vast majority of gay bars. Plenty of them had small dance floors, or stages for performances (drag or stripper or whatever), but the socializing was a lot more direct, and clothed, and people *talked* to each other in the bars. Most often they exchanged names, at a minimum - something you don't get at a glory hole or public park or bathhouse (usually). You spent at least some minimal amount of time on small talk, to gauge interest, and more often than not, you found a way to convey specific sexual interests (I want to fuck, I like giving head, whatever). You decide on a place to go. And so on. That kind of place was seldom open before mid-to-late afternoon, to catch the "leaving work and wanting a drink" crowd, at least in the mid-sized cities and smaller places. It's certainly true that the Chicago metro area is bigger than the Fort Lauderdale metro area, but both dwarf places like, say, Des Moines, IA, or Raleigh, NC, or Boise, ID. Or Baton Rouge, where I live. So yeah, Chicago and Ft. Lauderdale are going to have bars with patrons coming in numbers by mid-afternoon. It's true that all of these "in-person" meeting locations have declined in the age of the apps and the internet generally (which is helping kill the bookstores). But the bars (especially in smaller places that had no bathhouse/bookstore/public cruising area) were different in the way people had to interact in them - interaction that the apps try, and woefully fail, to replace. They were, in many instances, the only "community center" such locations had. And the culture of going there, seeing one's friends, and interacting with them as well as new faces, is what's disappearing. (And as I note, it's not that the bars weren't problematic in their own ways. )

The "thing" referred to as "sex addiction" exists. The open question is whether it fits the definition of "addiction". There's debate among mental health professionals, for example, whether there is a solid distinction to be drawn between a compulsive behavior and a physical addiction. And there's also debate as to the proper kind(s) of treatment for each.

If you read the update from Thursday, Indiana has been added to the list of states in the block because that state's law about sites like this was allowed (by the courts) to go into effect. Indianapolis is in Indiana, ergo, blocked.