BootmanLA

Let me add this: Many of you have commented that there are some members who appear to be "favorites" and who escape punishment for what you think are serious infractions while others get penalized for minor offenses. I can't speak to how the decision to penalize / not penalize a member goes, nor how severe a penalty is levied and what factors go into that decision. What I *can* tell you with absolute certainty is that unless a member tells you he's been penalized, there's pretty much no way to know whether he has. I know this because I've been penalized before (and in each case, I'll say the penalty was defensible even if I might have decided otherwise if it were my call and regarding another member). No one but me was notified (I assume other moderators can somehow tell), and because the penalty only meant I couldn't post or message other members for the duration, all that would appear to others is that I was temporarily not active. A 3-day suspension, even for a prolific poster, can go unnoticed because we ALL have times in our lives when we can't get online to interact with others as we might want. So don't assume that a member "escapes punishment" for infractions. It's very possible they do not.

So moderators are "tools" despite the fact they're enforcing the rules that YOU agreed to when you signed up for this site (and which you continue to agree to, each time you sign on). One reason new posts are getting "fewer and far between" (if in fact they are) is that some people think they're entitled to post anything they want, anywhere on the site. And that's simply not the case. And if the problem is that this is "one of the only options", might I suggest you invest your time and money into creating a site more to your liking? Deal with the legal ramifications of laws around the world governing data privacy, permissible and unpermissible postings, and liability for user conduct, and then maybe you'll grasp just how much work goes into walking the line between offering a resource like this and getting shut down by a massively expensive lawsuit.

Bear in mind that anyone bragging about how he started having sex as a willing 9 year old is probably living in a fantasy world. But also bear in mind, for the situations where it's true that someone started very young: it's highly unlikely they have any notion about STI's, so while they might experience symptoms for a bit, those symptoms often fade even if the infection is untreated. Such a person might well be in his late teens before he learns enough about STI's to protect himself, and even then, he might not associate "that thing" he had years earlier with the infections he's learning about now. Your post raises a big question, though, for the interaction between health care autonomy, parental rights, age of consent laws, and the like. The existence of judicial bypass laws for abortion permission (while it's still legal) presumes that there are health care providers who will see an unaccompanied minor teenager who suspects she's pregnant. Abortion as a very public issue does have the side effect of making those resources more visible. The same, alas, cannot be said for (for example) urologists treating underaged boys for STI's. And the problem for health care providers is that they're mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse. If a nine or ten year old boy presents with a case of syphilis or gonorrhea, it's a statistical certainty that he contracted it through what is legally sexual abuse; the person who infected him is almost certainly much older and that age is far below any age of consent (another concept that would be foreign to that child). I suppose within pedophile circles, there are health care workers who are known to look the other way when quietly treating an underaged victim of sexual abuse. But that's not of much use to a hypothetical, perhaps even imaginary, boy who is so sexually active that he contracts an STI at a very young age.

I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that at the time your profiles on such sites mentioned that you traveled, perhaps even worldwide). I think contacting such a person from a distance is reasonable, even if it turns out the traveler has no plans to head in that direction for the foreseeable future. But that's a case rendered valid because of particular circumstances. A random message from some [allegedly] 18-year old in Singapore or Bangkok or Amman or Buenos Aires, whose profile says he's looking for "love", messaging someone in the U.S. (or Europe)? Almost certainly a wanker at best, a lead-in to a scam at worst.

For you, that may be true (I'm not you, so I can't say). You don't have the standing to make that declaration for anyone else in the world. THAT is the correct answer - turn down condoms all you want. Just don't presume to speak for others when you do.

In most (maybe all) technologies involving transmission of information (of whatever kind) there's a number called the Signal to Noise Ratio, or SNR. Depending on the technology, a high SNR can result in anything from excessive static for broadcast radios to fuzzy broadcast television pictures to pixellated digital TV pictures to dropped packets in an computer network scenario. The same is true in written (and even spoken) language. Unfortunately, despite the hard work of the system moderators, the "noise" ratio on what I would call the actual "discussion" forums here keeps creeping upward, threatening to outweigh the signal. The valid points made - as you note - get subsumed in the noise generated by the "fap fap fap" part of the post. And when one part of a posting - not just this one, but a post in general, made with the ostensible purpose of discussing a topic - is essentially impossible to credit on its face, any signal in the post can get lost among that noise.

Also meant to mention: for essentially the entirety of that time, the females in question weren't consenting to anything. They were essentially property that transferred in possession from her father to her husband, and "wifely duties" were part of the bargain. As recently as the late 20th century, in many states in the U.S. it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife as consent to sex was impliedly recognized as part of the marriage, period. Our modern concept of consent is really less than about 50-60 years old.

The first sentence is only "half plus" true. Once humans settled down into urban settings (no longer hunter-gathering, but practicing agriculture and animal husbandry), an age gap quickly developed between typical couples. For females, 14-15 was considered a marriagable age because wives were expected to keep house (a much more labor-intensive, but not mentally tasking, experience in those days) and to bear and rear children. It was very UNcommon for a male that age as he would not have had time to develop a means of supporting his family. Men were usually well into their twenties - or later - before marrying a (frequently much) younger woman. In an era with essentially no functioning birth control, the ability to provide - pretty much immediately - for a family was essential. This system also accommodated a fact with which egalitarians are sometimes uncomfortable: adolescent boys and girls mature, both physically and mentally, at different times and different rates. Whatever the reason, we know that a 15-year old girl is frequently more mentally and psychologically mature than a boy two or three years older. We can't realistically make different rules for boys and girls at this point in history, but that's the context of how things "used to be."

Most of what you say I don't find fault with, except the "business mentality" he brought to the White House was strictly "How can my business make money off this gig?". From the bribes-disguised-as-hotel-stays to selling overpriced tschotskes bearing presidential insignia (in violation of federal law) at his golf courses and clubs, Trump's presidency was one long grift streak. And it's still paying off. Witness the billions his son-in-law, a failed real estate developer with no experience in venture capital, managed to raise from the Saudi royal family after finessing covering up their responsibility for the murder of a U.S. resident journalist in Turkey. But Trump's grift wasn't the biggest problem. It's that when it was all coming to an end, he cheerfully fomented a riot whose purpose was to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to his successor. It only failed because enough "adults in the room" finally had enough and made it clear they weren't going to stand idly by, including the entire leadership team at the Department of Justice. Trump seems pretty clear about wanting another shot at it. If he gets it, we may never have another transfer of power by election again. That's enough to keep any sane person from sleeping well.

THIS. I know a hefty number of gay guys in Atlanta, and a not insignificant number in several of the other cities he mentioned. Not all of them, certainly, but some of the largest. My acquaintances and friends run the gamut from top to bottom and all the in-betweens. Not one of them could think of anyone in the region - anywhere - who was "known" for regularly being gang-banged. And again, sure, my friends don't represent a complete and representative cross-section of the gay community, but I find it especially odd when I can say "that 40ish bottom boy who lives about 20 miles south of Atlanta, the one who likes to take pictures on his John Deere tractor all summer" and ten people know who I mean immediately, that no one knows of a bottom "known" for being regularly gang-banged. Like Eros, I'm solidly in the "skeptical" category.

That's certainly one way to approach porn actors. I personally can't enjoy watching sex, no matter how hot it might otherwise appear, if I know the actor to be a shit human being. But it's certainly not the way everyone approaches it.

I can't tell how old you are from your profile or picture, but I don't think you're anywhere nearly old enough to remember the Cold War or what it was like, nor able to understand what it was like to be in the Soviet Union (not "Communist Russia", which isn't even a thing). A little grumbling between people on a privately owned internet forum about what should or shouldn't be permitted is about as far removed from the "free speech" issues suffered in the USSR as the USSR physically is from, say, Antarctica.

If you believe Justice Alito's commentary that this abortion opinion (draft) has no bearing on same sex marriage or sodomy laws, I have 50 acres of beautiful oceanfront property in Iowa to sell you. I promise you, the price is a steal. Supreme Court opinions almost always contain language that say, in effect, "we aren't deciding THAT case today because it's not before us" but they do not mean "we'll rule differently in that other case." What they mean is, we couldn't get the votes in THIS case to make a sweeping, more inclusive proclamation like "There are no rights that are not spelled out explicitly in the Constiuttion" but don't worry, we'll be back to take care of those things as soon as things quiet down just a little bit and another case comes along. Look at the Voting Rights Act as an example. They struck down the preclearance formulas contained in Section Four, on the grounds that those formulas were adopted in 1970 and no longer reflected the actual practices of the jurisdictions that the formula subjected to Section Five preclearance. Then they sat back, and a few years later ruled that a law that had discriminatory effects on a protected racial minority wasn't inherently suspect; you very nearly have to prove *intent to discriminate on the basis of race* in order to succeed with a Voting Rights Act challenge. So as long as the racists trying to violate the law are good enough at hiding their motivation, no matter how blatant the effects are, it's very hard to win the case. That's despite Congress making it clear that disparate racial IMPACT was just as much a violation as express racial INTENT. That's how the Court works - it whittles away a principle, little by little, and then eventually it says, well, with all these things we've ruled since the original principle was set, obviously that principle doesn't hold any more, we made a mistake, and we overturn the principle. That's been the history of abortion laws for the last 20 years, almost always upholding increasingly severe restrictions. Don't think it won't happen to sodomy or same-sex marriage. It will.

I think I got exactly what you were saying. I still think if it's realistic medical play, I'm going to be bonerless and completely uninterested. All that would run through my mind is "Does he get off on doing this to actual patients? That's disgusting." And it's an image I wouldn't be able to get out of my head.

I must confess I'm having a hard time getting my mind wrapped around this. Either it's an actual, real medical exam - in which case yes, you do what the doctor tells you to, but it stays professional, or else it's a scene, whether or not your partner is a real doctor not, and you go with the scene flow. But in the latter case, if my "doctor" (or actual doctor) started examining me as he would an actual patient, that would be a pretty fast boner-killer.

I think there are two sorts of married men out there with respect to condom use/bare fucking. The first is the guy that is super-careful in planning his activities, making sure that nothing happens to tip off the wife. He's got condoms concealed carefully somewhere and he uses them regularly to avoid contracting any STI that he might pass on to his wife. He fully acknowledges (to himself, at least) that he likes this kind of sex but wants to keep it compartmentalized. The second is the guy that hasn't really faced up to who he is, but who gives in (regularly or not) to "urges". He can justify this as meeting a physical need that just happens sometimes, that he's helpless to control, which is why he finds himself at cruise spots and the like on a work afternoon. Carrying condoms would mean it was premeditated, and he'd planned it, which he can't do, and worse, it suggests he's going after guys he knows might have an STI. If he goes bare, he can convince himself it's another straight guy like himself who just needs a little release with another man, so it's got to be safe, right? Obviously, an oversimplification, but I think there's a big divide between the two.

I agree that the "cult of personality" around Ginsburg was, on balance, a bad thing. It may have contributed to her sense that she was irreplaceable and that a strategic retirement at a point she could be succeeded by a like-minded colleague was of no matter. And yes, in her later years, after decades of practicing law, and her husband practicing law (and both of them teaching law in some pretty high-end institutions), they were financially very comfortable. But she wasn't born into that, nor was her husband. They were just in that generation that became adults after WWII, when higher ed money flowed like a river and where, with hard work AND a great deal of luck, you could pull yourself up from solidly working class to upper middle class or higher in one generation (which really isn't possible any more).

An internal bruise is possible, though it's not necessarily in your rectum. If the guy was pounding really hard, he'd have been beating your rectum against your small intestines, and THAT may be what's actually sore (and pushing out activates the muscles in the rectum pushing against the intestines, so it's like rubbing the sore spot). So the suppositories might help IF the rectum is what's actually sore, but not otherwise. I'd be inclined to just push through it, but monitor to make sure the pain doesn't get worse. If it does, see a doctor.

I have to disagree with part of this. Yes to the idea that we shouldn't have deified Ginsburg, but she DID have firsthand knowledge of ordinary peoples' struggles. Her father was a merchant (in the Depression, no less), her mother a worker in a garment factory (like many poor Jewish women of her day). Ginsburg was pushed hard to excel from an early age, precisely so that she COULD end up in better circumstances than her parents. Her mother died of cancer while Ginsburg was in high school, and her family was thus reduced to a single parent income. She married her husband the same year she finished college, She gave birth to (and took care of) her first child while her husband was undergoing compulsory military service; she nursed him through testicular cancer while they were both in law school (AND raising children). So yes, she very much had firsthand knowledge of the struggles of ordinary people. Did she forget some of those struggles? Perhaps. I can't point to anything in her writings that even hints at that, nor in any of her votes on the Court. What I WILL say (and what others have said) is that eventually, her ego - which had helped drive her to success after success amidst considerable adversity, including the contempt the legal profession had for female lawyers in the 1950's and 1960's - convinced her that she was essentially irreplaceable, or at least that there was no need to consider being replaced, despite her health problems and the certainty that, sooner or later, the Republicans were likely to win the White House again.

It's not that I want to save racists from their own foolishness. But I do think it behooves all of us to do what we can to help ensure there's a little less racism in the world - not just by refusing to judge on the basis of race ourselves, but calling out others who do, as well.

You have only made 13 posts. You have never been able to message (at least not initiating a message). That ability comes with considerably more interaction online.

Indeed. The alternative is to assume - without regularly re-examining the evidence - that Big Pharma is "out to get us" by forcing us to stay on expensive medications forever, and to become a bitter nasty old queen who doesn't believe in hope. We have an actual cure for Hepatitis C now - a very expensive one, yes, but compared with long-term treatment, it's still a relative bargain. It's one example, but it's clearly one that some group, somewhere, came up with. Despite all the nattering nabobs of negativism claiming Pharma doesn't want to cure anything.

Try searching on here for any of the approximately 879 times people have asked the question before - search for "first time bare" or something like that. More than a decade of advice, all of which boils down to "You just have to try it to find out."

Indeed. I think that's part of the problem - white guys who think "white guys" are the default, and everyone ELSE is "inter-racial". "Sex with someone of another race" would have been a much better tagline.

Here's the thing. You consent to surgery under anesthesia, AFTER the procedure and all of what they're going to do has been explained to you, AND almost always, there are provisions in the consent form for what to do if something goes awry.. There's often (though not always) a designated someone else (relative, spouse, partner, child, whatever) waiting in attendance in case a health care decision has to be made and there's time for someone to make it on your behalf. So yes, it's possible to consent to sex under those circumstances - that you know you'll be unconscious when it happens. But for there to be any parallel, there needs to be explicit disclosure of everything that's going to be done to you while you're out. Otherwise, those particular acts are non-consensual. And before someone suggests that you can give a sweeping "anything goes" consent... really? You mean it's okay if the guy decides to remove your nuts and cock with a box cutter while you're out, that's "consented to"?