BootmanLA

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.

That's the problem. People look at odds and cannot correctly figure what they mean. Of course, this is also in a country where millions of people play the lottery daily or weekly despite odds of winning that are astronomically against them. Why people can think "the odds are 500 million to one against me winning, but that means I've got a chance!" and at the same time read "the odds of infection from a single act of bareback sex with a poz person are 800 to one" and think "nah, nothing to worry about, that'll never happen to me!"

It's only "russian roulette" if you refuse to take reasonable precautions like PrEP. Rather than "enjoy the risk" (what a stupid thought), reasonable people mitigate the risk of bareback sex with preventative care.

I think there are about 750,000 dead people in the US alone who would show you the risk is real, but they can't, because they're dead. I'm sure most of them would happily let you take their place if it meant they had a choice not to contract HIV in the first place.

There's not a huge amount of data about this because it's not the kind of thing scientists are likely to want to study; the assumption is that any normal, sane, HIV+ person is going to want to get his viral load undetectable and keep it there while at the same time imposing the least "toll" on the rest of his body's systems (because HIV medications can and do take a toll on things like your kidneys, your liver, and more). Science isn't particularly interested (for good reason) in investigating "Hey, what happens when a bunch of undetectable poz guys deliberately expose themselves repeatedly to high viral loads?" What we DO know, however, is that there are variants (or subtypes) of HIV. We also know that it's possible for HIV to become med-resistant in a person who (deliberately or not) stays "on meds" but only sporadically. We know that modern HIV treatment works very well at keeping a controlled HIV infection under control. We know that within reason, that same treatment can help ward off reinfection by other strains of HIV as long as those are not med-resistant. It sounds to me like the "event" your friend is talking about is either guys hoping to get a superinfection (ie additional strains of HIV for their body/meds to fight off) or even to get a med-resistant strain. Regardless of the actual risk involved, to me this sounds very much like insanity; you've already got to live the rest of your life with a virus that requires daily attention to keep from killing you, and they want you to risk making that even more complex (or worse, impossible to manage)? For what? The temporary "thrill" of some risky sex? Honestly, I don't see why such people don't just take up Russian Roulette and keep adding bullets until the chamber of the pistol is full. If someone's life is so empty that they need a thrill from the risk of making complex disease management even more so, or possibly putting management out of reach, there are a lot more efficient ways to honor that suicidal impulse.

You may wish to re-word this, although I'm not sure you can do so within the rules without changing your meaning. Since you're poz, "bug chasing" for you presumably means chasing other STI's, and promoting that is expressly forbidden on this site. You may want to reacquaint yourself with the rules of the site.

FWIW, as I understand it, past infractions remain visible to you (and to the moderators) but unless they're particularly severe, their "effect" wears off (ie the impact on your reputation score, your level of advancement, and so forth). I suspect that the original designers of the software (which, remember, isn't RawTop or anyone associated with this site; this is software available for people to create a site like this one) planned it that way, so that site operators could always look at a user's history and see if he's other problems in the past - and importantly, what kind of problem, which can indicate a specific issue to address.