BootmanLA

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.

I'll note - strictly for clarification to others - that broadly speaking, "Maximum impact" is not classified in the same category as poppers. Poppers are generally a liquid solvent in a bottle and you snort a bit of the fumes coming from the solvent. Maximum Impact is an aerosol solvent, chemically unrelated to the solutions in poppers, and is much, much stronger than your typical little brown bottle; it's actually something of an anesthetic, which is why guys into rape play like to spray it on a cloth and use it to "knock their victim out" - it doesn't usually render them unconscious but it does make them unable to really react or control what's going on with their bodies. To the extent poppers and Viagra/Cialis are a dangerous combo, either of the latter with Maximum Impact is seriously, seriously dangerous.

I largely agree, except that as someone whose ox is likely to get gored if the GOP takes power again - and god forbid they get the chance to replace Kagan or Sotomayor on the Supreme Court - I don't have the luxury of worrying only about the economy and such. I think it's an indictment of the selfish, self-centered, egotistical ethos of the "Libertarians", who want all the benefits of living in a society without any of the responsibility of caring for the members of that society. I have even less respect for self-proclaimed Libertarians than I do for Republicans. Except you're lumping together a whole bunch of unrelated stuff. "Cancel culture" is nothing more than decent people deciding they won't put up with non-decent people's public bullshit any more. Social media companies "censoring" is no different from any newspaper or magazine refusing to run someone's letter to the editor, or a cable channel refusing to give someone a prime-time slot to express their opinions. They're entitled to decide what they will and won't permit on their sites - just like TruthSocial is frantically scrubbing any posts that reference the January 6 hearings in Congress and suspending the accounts of people who post about it. The #1 "news" channel in the country is a conservative-warped one (FOXNews) and one of the largest newspapers in the country (the Wall Street Journal) is practically a mouthpiece for the GOP. So let's not talk about media coverage as though it's all slanted one way. It's not, by a long shot. (And I'll note that the NYT and the WaPo *incessantly* covered "Hillary's emails" throughout her campaign and made an enormous splash about the investigation re-opening in October 2016, while FOXNews has yet to run one word of story about the Jan. 6 hearings.) I'd say that's true for most Democrats and most Independents. I can't speak for Libertarians because they tend to be wackos who want to shrink government to the size it was in 1840, but the GOP? centrist and moderate? The party where 80% of the members believe that Trump won the election fair and square and it was stolen from him? Please. There are *some* centrist, moderate Republicans - mostly because the Overton window has shifted so far to the right over the last 30 years that what used to be wacko right wing nutcase territory is now mainstream GOP thought - but those centrist, moderate Republicans no longer have any semblance of control over their party. It's been hijacked by the MagaTrump train. And I speak as a former Republican (from many decades ago) who saw the writing on the wall and jumped ship, first as an Independent, and then firmly in the Democratic camp, because it's a party that's grounded in reality. I may not agree with the left-most or right-most elements of my party, but even they are largely within the realm of acceptable beliefs. Once a party endorses the violent overthrow of government because it didn't like the results of a free and fair election, that party gets no respect from me.

I think you may misapprehend how Viagra (and Cialis) work. They increase blood flow to the penis, enabling it to get and stay harder than it would otherwise. They work by relaxing certain cells in the penis, which allows more blood flow through the vascular system, which then makes for a harder erection. Poppers work by directly dilating blood vessels AND by relaxing certain muscles - for a bottom, it lets a top enter more easily. But if you already have increased blood flow to the penis from Viagra/Cialis, and then you use a vasodilator, which dilates blood vessels all over, the combination can produce a serious drop in overall blood pressure. If used WITHOUT vVagra or Cialis, at least in some cases, the increased dilation of the blood vessels in the penis can make it harder (very short term) even though over the course of the session, especially with repeated hits, the effect is likely to be negated by blood flow dropping elsewhere in the body. So a single hit or two of poppers (for a top) MAY (and I stress may) have a net plus effect for fucking. Repeated use is likely to result in a limp dick.

To be fair I think he's too coked up to be a good fuck either as a top or a bottom.

But then you used "MAGA" in the description - and that term is political, as many people pointed out, and to cry innocence that you didn't really mean it in a political sense is really, really disingenuous. There is no universe where the term "MAGA" in the English language isn't political. None. And here's the other thing: yes, it's permitted to talk about some (not all) "dark" fetishes on here. But that's mostly in a fictional context; fiction isn't "encouragement". It's an exploration of fictional happenings that (in this site's context) are erotic and turn someone on, NOT an "encouragement" to go out and do these same things. There are forum topics about bug chasing and gift giving (which are consensual) but there's no folder of topics on non-consensual stealthing. So to claim this is "encouraged" is a pretty far reach. Now, if you want to discuss "these type of men" without bringing politics into it: then don't bring political terms into it. It's really that simple. It's at least as valid a topic as most others here. But if you're concerned about it taking on a political tone, I don't think you have to look past the initial post in the topic to see where the politics entered.

Here's the thing though. You, personally, in particular, may not want Trump back (good for you). But the GOP, writ large, does. The overwhelming majority of Republicans (in the range of 80%) believe that Biden stole the election, that Trump legitimately won, and that he was justified in everything he tried to hold onto power. When 80% of a self-identifying group (they CHOSE to be Republicans) believe in something, you can pretty much decide it's de facto official policy of that group. Whether you identify as a Republican (or not), there's certainly AMPLE cause for any non-Republicans to look askance at anyone who self-identifies as one. Because even if they don't personally believe the Big Lie, even if they don't personally like Trump, they're perfectly happy belonging to an organization that does believe it and does like him, as a matter of policy in fact. And as the saying goes - you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. And of course, belonging to a political party is a matter of right (under what the Supreme Court recognizes as the right to association, stemming from the other protections of the First Amendment). But I (and others) also have the right to call people out for that association. There's an old saying that there were no "good Nazis", because you can't be a good person and profess belief in the stated (and unstated) principles of the Nazi organization. It's fast becoming that way with the GOP.

That's simply not true. Cialis, like Viagra, is absolutely contraindicated when a patient is using nitrates, for the same reasons: the potential for severely low blood pressure.

I'd strongly suggest you drop the doctor sooner rather than later. You never know when you might need the actual doctor's intervention instead of the PA's (things happen when we least expect them) and they may not be eager for you to change doctors right as a health issue is flaring up. Switching now, even if it means giving up the joy of firing the old doctor, gives your new doctor a chance to review your history and get to learn more about you and your issues, so he's not coming in blind when you first need him.

Of course political views can differ - within a certain set of generally acceptable limits. If someone suggests "I think the federal government spends too much on X, which really ought to be a state/local responsibility, I might disagree, and even politely debate the proposition, but in the end, for the most part, people can agree to disagree. There are organizations of significant size within the overall "MAGA" movement who seriously believe in violently overthrowing the government if they do not win elections. That is not a position that falls within those generally acceptable limits for polite disagreement. There are places of worship - primarily black and Jewish ones - where congregations have been slaughtered by adherents of these wacko ideologies. You don't see liberals - even the most radical ones - threatening to round up Wyoming ranchers and having them shot, but you sure do hear from some of these "Patriot" groups a desire to eradicate Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, Jews, LGBTQ people and anyone else who doesn't fit into their view of what "God's Chosen Land" should be. And they're armed - heavily - and losing patience. So no, I don't think people have to be liberal, or socialist, or leftist (if you could even explain the differences, since you lump them all together) to be a member of the LGBTQ community. At a minimum, however, I think it's reasonable to expect our community members to not ally themselves with those who sincerely wish us harm. Tolerance for intolerance gets you killed.

Who says it's "H8"? I can perfectly well decide that I have no interest in someone whose personal ethics, morals, etc. lead him to join the MAGA movement without "hating" him. I feel sorry for him. I feel sad that he's been duped into aligning himself with a rabidly anti-gay, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-anythingbutstraightwhitemaleChristian movement; I feel bad that he's apparently perfectly okay aligning himself with despicable people. But hate? Never said I "H8" them.

Bots can be programmed to use impersonated credentials, so all it would take is for a malicious actor to create a BZ account (which allows viewing essentially everything that individual users haven't locked down), and then set it free to copy what it will. There is a difference between unregistered users and users who are new to the site. The former cannot post anything - no comments, no likes/dislikes, no anything, and no amount of reading the boards (which is all they can do) will ever promote them out of that status. New members, whatever level(s) one includes in that, can at least post a few comments a day, and will continue to advance in capabilities on the system over time if they continue to do that. So they're not "treated the same." Also note that there is another category of "former members" (whose posts show from "Guest XXXX", where XXXX is the former member's account name). Like any non-member, they can't post or contribute anything, but their prior contributions are preserved. I am expressing no opinion on whether the site should require an account to view it - the site owner has chosen not to, possibly to encourage 'lurkers' to explore the site a bit and decide whether it's worth joining. My guess would be that he's made the calculus that this will result in more members - and more participation - than if the entire site were behind a wall you had to join to get through. Given the sensitive nature of the overall topic of the forum, I think that may well be true - that fewer people would sign up for a site called "Breeding.Zone" if they couldn't see what it was like before joining.

It's not that you "can't". Obviously, it's possible to use both at the same time. But "can" is not the same as "advisable". While it's not a guaranteed issue (like many drug interactions), there's a known risk of cardiovascular issues that can be fatal. The same is true of mixing poppers and alcohol. Again, some people mix these every day with no issues. But that's not saying there is no risk.

I'm not sure whether you're asking about other STI's from the standpoint of "How do I prevent them?" or "How do you deal with them?" or "How can I get more of them?" Be forewarned, if you weren't aware, that the last of those three is not an acceptable topic on this site. You may with to clarify your question as to what it is you're looking to learn.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're suggesting the current "Backroom" be split - one section for Bugchasing (discussion forum, fiction/story forum) and one section for Druggies (discussion forum, fiction/story forum) - so that members can opt to block one or the other without blocking both. If so: I heartily endorse this. It's not my reasoning, but: I could easily see where someone in recovery would want to completely avoid the ChemSex sections but be open to the Bugchasing portion. While I recognize that a certain percentage of people interested in poz play are drug (ab)users, I think there's enough of a separation between the two to support dividing the section into two.

5 to 1 is rather generous. I'd estimate it's more like, in 100 gay men, 80 are bottoms or "versatile bottoms" that never actually top, 10% are versatile, 5% are versatile tops who actually prefer topping, and maybe 5% are tops who don't bottom. If that many.

New users can participate, extensively. They just can't private message other members until they've proven by *public* participation that they can be trusted. From the beginning a new member can make several posts a day (I'm not sure if it's 5, or what, but it's not limited to a single posting). That post can be a new topic entirely or a reply to an existing topic. A new member who makes two or three posts a day for a couple of weeks very quickly advances to a higher level. Your profile (look to the left of your post, above) says this is your 29th post. Since February, 2016, or more than 7 years. That's an average of fewer than four posts per year. If you only just now "have few enough restrictions" that you can engage enough to satisfy yourself, blame your lack of effort to engage for seven years, not "extremely aggressive limitations".

The CDC considers 100,000 or above a "high viral load". Presumably, then, anything below that (or at least, significantly below that; not counting the 99,950 copy loads) is a "non-HVL" partner.

Isn't a "married bachelor" a contradiction in terms?

I hate to be a wet blanket, but it's probably worth a reminder: while same-sex sex has been legalized in a big chunk of the world, that's not the case everywhere, and even where it's perfectly legal, it's not always (in fact, rarely is) legal in a public setting. Not to suggest that watching for signals from potential sex partners inevitably means public sex, but it sometimes does; and in places where it does, that also puts you at risk for undercover vice cops baiting gay men into propositioning them, steering the conversation towards playing somewhere like in the bushes of a park, and then arresting them for attempted public nudity. Or claiming that the person offered them money for sex. Or asked for money for sex. (The police are notoriously non-eager to charge actual customers of actual prostitutes, but they're frequently happy to make an exception to lock up a gay man by pretending he was offering to pay. Even if the charges won't stick, the point for the cops is the humiliation of the person arrested.) So be forewarned: public cruising, to be safe, really needs to be explicitly directed towards taking it somewhere private. I get the appeal of public play as much as anyone, and I'm not saying never ever do it; I'm saying be careful about what you agree to do, with whom.