BootmanLA

I call BS on this too. Not that Democrats are paragons of honesty and virtue, but they at least live within the realm of the actual, not the mythological universe in which most Republicans seem to live, where millions of fraudulent votes somehow got past massive election security to cheat their hero, the Mango Mussolini, out of his second term. (Not one of those assholes ever manage to explain how the vote forgers only cast votes against Trump, but not against all the GOP senators and representatives who were almost to a person returned to office.) That's above and beyond the very, very real differences in policy between the two. Anyone who thinks "the parties are the same" is an idiot.

You might note that the comment you're asking about was posted almost ten years ago. It's in the Fiction section, meaning it's probably wanking/fapping/JO material, and he last visited this site in 2014, by which time he had made a grand total of seven posts.

I believe you have confused the words "can't" and "won't".

A person who had the same passion for topping as they do for bottoming would most likely list as 'versatile', not 'versatile bottom'. 'Versatile bottom', to me, suggests "I prefer to bottom, it's what I like, but I've been known to top sometimes and don't necessarily object to doing it." So I don't see much to call out here.

There is a fundamental difference between "trusting a Dom" and "not having any way to end a scene/halt an action" if a problem develops. And any "Dom" who doesn't understand that isn't worth the honorific "Dom". More like, as Viking says, "Asshole". And I say that as someone who IS rather experienced on the BDSM side of things: this guy is a loose cannon. He talks about how "it's not really slavery" if there's a safe word, while ignoring that THIS IS NOT REAL, ACTUAL SLAVERY. This is sexual role-taking (if not role-playing), and when the scene is over, the "slavery" is done with. So why is it okay to not be "really slavery" once the sex is done, but it's not okay for it to not be "really slavery" while the sex is going on? Now: I can understand most of the rest of the profile - he likes what he likes, fucking is a requirement, he likes shorter guys, he doesn't like really young guys, etc. etc. And all that's fine. But a dominant, BDSM-practicing guy who refuses to use safe words? Hope his dick falls off.

"Slut" can definitely be used as a slur. But among sex-positive people, in my experience, it usually isn't. "Promiscuous" is rather like "homosexual" - factually correct but cold and clinical, and not something people use in everyday speech.

I don't distinguish those words on that basis. When/if I distinguish them, I use "slut" for those who are merely promiscuous, and "whore" for those who are compensated for sex work - though I try to avoid that because of the negative connotations it gives sex work. In English, at least here in the US, one never talks about "hiring a slut" but we do talk about "paying a whore". By "slipping up" I mean people who do not set out to have sex outside the relationship, but end up, in a particular situation, doing that. As in: your partner's out of town, you're at an event where you meet someone who is very clearly into you, you've had a bit (too much) to drink, your inhibitions are down, and a casual kiss (which may be permissible for your relationship) accelerates into groping (which is marginal) and then outright oral (which is definitely over the line). That's just one example, but it highlights the key difference: you didn't set out to cheat, you hadn't identified this guy as someone you'd want to break your relationship rules with, but...in the moment, it happened. Or, as another example: you and your partner are in a rough spot - he's working lots of overtime because of a demanding boss, your work schedule doesn't overlap his very much, and you haven't had sex in weeks. You're out at a bar on your own because he's once again working (or asleep because he's exhausted), you're craving human touch, and you run into an old fling who gets very flirty - and you decide, on the spur of the moment, fuck it and go home with him. Yes, ultimately, you made the decision (under whatever circumstances) to do this. But it was an impulse, not a plan; it's like the difference between setting out to the grocery store intent on buying a dozen donuts despite knowing you should control your sugar intake, and being at the grocery store already for food and spotting the donut display and giving in to the impulse to buy a box. I think that intent matters, at least to some degree, and ought to be taken into consideration when deciding what to do after an episode of cheating.

I dropped Manhunt back in 2008 when it was revealed that the owner of the site was a big GOP donor, and I know they lost a huge amount of business around that time for that reason. I don't know whether the site has since been sold or is under new management, but even in its heyday it never seemed all that useful.

Well-taken, which is the point I (and others) have tried to make here. There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with being a slut. There's something wrong with promising someone you will be monogamous, and then making no real effort to keep your promise. Notice I don't say "and then not being monogamous", because people do submit to temptation, regret it, and aim to do better. Any relationship worth having should be able to survive an occasional slip-up like that, provided it was a slip-up and not a deliberate act of pursuing outside sex secretly. And it's better (again, in my opinion) that a couple acknowledge this might happen, and promise each other to deal with it openly and honestly, with understanding and forgiveness, rather than let it ruin an otherwise good relationship.

This thread should serve as a wake-up call/reminder for everyone: to the extent possible where you live, make sure you create legally binding documents that express your final wishes with respect to being kept alive by artificial means, with respect to resuscitation if your heart stops or you stop breathing, with respect to whether you want hospice care or heroic means to prolong your life, etc. Of my grandparents, my dad's father struggled with emphysema for the last three years of his life and they were largely miserable years (this was in the 1970's). My dad's mother lived on mostly healthy for another 22 years and went "quickly" after she began to decline from heart failure. My mom's mom literally dropped dead of a heart attack - she was walking down the hallway of her house when she keeled over, dead - after essentially never being "sick" as an adult in anyone's memory. My mom's dad died a few months later of a heart attack, his second (and he'd also previously had a stroke). None of them had any written plans for how their care should be managed, and for the most part, it wasn't necessary, but we just don't know what might have happened if, say, one of them had become unresponsive and could not be brought to consciousness. My parents, wisely, discussed this between themselves and with my sisters and I, made firm decisions about what they wanted, and had their attorney draft up the necessary papers to ensure (as much as was possible) that their wishes be honored. Neither wanted heroic measures, and neither wanted to be kept alive by machines if their quality of life was going to be severely impaired. My dad died of dementia 15 years later, without needing his paperwork (he died quietly at home), but my mother was able to use hers to ensure her final days were pain-free and peaceful as her organs were failing, rather than putting her on a ventilator to keep her lungs going and dialysis to keep her kidneys functional. And bear in mind that in many places, an unmarried partner will have no legal right to direct your care if you can't direct it for yourself, unless you have expressly delegated that right in writing. If you're married, you're in much better shape, but still: getting this stuff worked out, unsexy as it is, can make your life a lot less stressful when it's needed.

You asked about "chances" (meaning odds, I suppose). Broadly speaking, the odds of getting HIV from any one particular encounter with bare sex are fairly low. But it's a risk nonetheless, and the odds are much higher than, say, winning the lottery. And you're right that this has been covered before (and I suggest you explore some of the topics here), but in a nutshell: if the person you're having sex with is HIV-negative, then your chances are zero. If the person is HIV-positive, it's not zero; if he's on meds and is undetectable, the chances are very close to zero, but not 100.000%. Conversely: if you're on PrEP and taking it as directed, without fail, your chances of infection are also very, very close to zero. But here's the thing: you can control taking PrEP. You can't control whether your partner(s) are negative or positive, or undetectable vs detectable, because people can always lie. A poz guy may claim to be negative so as not to miss out; a poz guy who takes his meds but misses doses on a semi-regular basis may not be as undetectable as he thinks, or he may just lie and say he's "on meds" knowing that they're not doing the job 100% due to lack of compliance. All of that is out of your control - but taking PrEP isn't. The caveat: I understand that in the UK, there can be issues getting started on PrEP (I'm simply reporting what others have posted here). My strong suggestion, however, would be to start that process rolling NOW, so that hopefully your PrEP situation will be sorted out before you "finally go with guys".

My doctor has made essentially the same point: with my HIV levels well under control for years and my CD4 numbers remaining pretty good, I have more to worry about from things like high blood pressure, elevated blood sugar, and high cholesterol than I do about HIV itself. About the *only* good thing that came from my diagnosis is that it's put my HIV specialist on the watch for those other issues and keeping them under control - something I was very sloppy about prior to my diagnosis.

What do I think? I think this is bullshit. Most people's immune systems, once they're pozzed, are able to fight back the virus for quite some time. After an initial surge not long after conversion (because the body hasn't learned to fight HIV yet), the immune system is able to kill off most of the virus in your system, except in certain deep pockets that your immune system can't reach. While all your supplements may boost that slightly, they're not a permanent answer as you will undoubtedly find out someday. What you'll also find out is that because your immune system will have taken such a beating trying to control the virus on its own, it's tapped out - your CD4 level will plummet once your HIV becomes uncontrolled, and even if you go on ART at that point, your immune system may not come close to recovering. In other words, while ART may, at that point, keep HIV from replicating in your system, it may prove impossible for your CD4 level to return to where it is today. And that means even while your HIV itself is under control, you're susceptible to many other kinds of infection that your now-collapsed immune system could have fought off. Your experience, in other words, is not due to the supplements and is not unique or remarkable. It's just at a stage of infection where your body is still capable of fighting back. That's not going to last. I will add that yes: drugs and smoking will undoubtedly hasten that collapse, so you're wise to avoid those. But even that isn't going to save you in the long run.

It really isn't difficult. Yes, it requires some persistence. Yes, it requires checking in regularly, and posting responses. But surely among the thousands of threads here, there are several on which you could comment each day, even if (at first) you're limited to, say, 5 posts per day. I'll note this: just the other day, I had to report someone who'd spammed at least a dozen or more posts into a like number of topics, sometimes existing topics and sometimes creating new ones. That member had nearly 300 posts/comments to his record. So just because someone has 30 comments or posts is clearly no indication that he's not a spammer. It's just increasingly less likely once someone has a substantial record of participation here.

Tallslenderguy said it. You are not with a "perfect guy" because the "perfect guy" for you would accept you having sex with others. Moreover, you are treating him like shit by lying to him, and if you think it's OK to treat "perfect" guys like shit, then you don't deserve a perfect guy. Tell him and be prepared for him to walk away. If he doesn't, great. Maybe there's something to salvage. But as it stands right now, you aren't in a relationship; you're cheating on someone who thinks he's in a relationship.

It's your choice, but you're essentially trusting your sexual health strategy to someone else, and that's not something I would recommend to anyone. That's not a knock against your "Daddy", but just a fact of life.

It wouldn't be in your notifications unless (a) you chose to follow this topic, (b) you'd posted and someone replied to it, or (c) you are choosing to follow someone who posted here. Otherwise, topics don't just randomly "appear" in your notifications, and in any event, it was a choice you made that brought you here as well as a choice to post a silly comment. It's not your place to determine which topics are silly for the site - that's the prerogative of the site owner. Nobody's forcing you to come into this sub-forum within another forum within the site to see things you don't want to see.

Let's see: you dug deep within the "General" topics forum (which churns more posts than almost any other here), then into the clearly labeled "Politics" sub-forum, and you dig through more than two pages of posts, all to add this silly, useless comment. Some people clearly have too much time on their hands if they can waste so much of it to complain about something they could easily avoid with far less work.

This is the most ignorant screed I've seen all month, which is saying a lot.

I'd note that there is some overlap between "suicide" and "overdose", separately largely by intent, which is not always easy to discern. I'm not sure porn is the only industry where drugs are deliberately overlooked or encouraged - the bar/rave/music scene, for instance, is notorious for that too. Side story: back in the early 90's, my home state (Louisiana) legalized video poker machines (they're not really poker games, they're more like slot machines that use poker hands instead of spinning wheels to display whether you win). Bars and nightclubs were allowed to have up to three machines each. Like most amusement machines (pinball, whatever), a gaming device company owns the machines, installs, and maintains them, and the bar owner and the company split the revenues. They were so popular that a bar owner could readily profit $5K a month per machine - for nothing other than allowing the machine in his bar and supplying it with power - so 3 machines netted the bar $15,000 a month in new profits, or about $180,000 a year, plus or minus. After about 3 years, an anti-gambling reform movement got a referendum set where each locality had to authorize whether to continue to allow the machines. Mine voted it out. A casual friend and his partner owned one of the gay bars here (they're the ones I got the numbers from). At the end of that three years when the machines were unplugged, they had about $0 to show for it - the vast majority of the money had gone up people's noses, with some additional amount spent on things like travel.

One difference between Germany and the US, in terms of political systems, is that we have a two-party system and you have a multi-party one. Under our system, one party or the other has the majority, and thus anyone not in one's own party is "the other side", especially as issues have become more contentious and there's almost no agreement between the parties any more. That situation has been developing for a long time but it was especially exacerbated by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (who disdained compromise) and by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (who long ago decided winning for his side was the only thing making life worthwhile). Other Republican leaders have also contributed to this mindset. When you view everyone else as "the enemy" it's not hard for things to feel like war. In multi-party systems like Germany (and most other European countries), the name of the game is coalition-building. More than one party has to come together to choose an overall leader, and those alliances shift over time and on particular issues. At any given point, someone from an opposition party may be an ally where they were an opponent last week. And since the coalitions are not homogenous, there's less ideological rigidity to them. To correct something you said: the "new leader" (I assume you mean Biden) did not cut production of oil in the US. Oil production slumped during the covid pandemic, both because energy demand plummeted (tens of millions of people not driving to work, tens of millions of people's workplaces not needing to be heated or cooled for months on end). While the *opportunity* to drill for new oil in certain places was restricted, that didn't affect ongoing production - when a tract of federal land is leased for oil exploration, it's usually close to a decade before any production occurs on that tract. In actuality, aside from the reduction due to the pandemic, US oil production has been rising for years and continues to do so. Germany was not "forced" to get oil or gas from Russia, but being much closer, and connected with pipelines, it was cheaper to do so (to get oil or gas from the US to Germany requires tanker ships, which is a lot more costly than a pipeline). I don't blame Germany for wanting the nearest, cheaper source, but don't put the blame for that decision on the US.

Indeed. According to your profile, you joined January 28 of this year, meaning you've been a member for not quite two months yet, and in that time, made 56 posts. Which isn't a bad start at all! But that's still about one a day, which isn't a "lot" of participation - though granted, as a new member, you can actually only do so much in a given 24 hour period. Patience - and the other "p", perserverance - are the key. You'll suddenly discover one day you've been upped a level, and you'll have new abilities, and if you keep going that way, those abilities will keep expanding. We've all been there.

FWIW, virtually all airline tickets, until recently, were technically changeable, but with the caveat that change fees could eat up much of the value of the ticket. There are some extremely low-frills fares (and low-frills airlines) that essentially operate as nonchangeable because they cost more to change than buying a whole new ticket might. Given the change from Ft. Lauderdale to Tampa, he was very possibly flying Southwest, which has a much more generous change policy. Any Southwest ticket can be canceled and the funds applied to another trip, as long as you make the cancellation at least ten minutes before the flight's scheduled departure. (Higher-end fares can actually be refundable, meaning you get money back instead of credits towards another flight). Regardless, no matter who pays for the ticket, it's largely in the control of whoever's name is on the ticket. Refunds get credited back to the credit card used to pay for it, but a flight credit simply moves within the system; and as such, they're attached to the name on the ticket, who can rebook using them. In fact, generally speaking, the funds can ONLY be used for a ticket for that person, not for anyone else. That's one reason among many that big businesses used to book completely refundable tickets for employee work travel - they could recoup the funds from any canceled trip and apply them towards anyone else's travel (or copier paper, or whatever). When there's simply flight credit, it doesn't do much good if the employee who was on the ticket isn't going to be traveling soon. Kind of off-topic for the overall porn discussion, I realize, but since you asked...

Everything I'm finding online - from HHS, insurance advisory sites, and the like - suggests that the "hole" still exists for employed people in states without expanded Medicaid. Verbiage on more "authoritative" sites isn't expressed very clearly, but this summary from GoodRx (which I trust) sums it up clearly: "Generally, if your household income is 100% to 400% of the federal poverty level, you will qualify for a premium subsidy. This means an eligible single person can earn from $12,880 to $51,520 and qualify for the tax credit. A family of three would qualify with income from $21,960 to $87,840. The range would be $26,500 to $106,000 for a family of four. (Income limits may be higher in Alaska and Hawaii because the federal poverty level is higher in those states.) The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 also extended subsidy eligibility to some people earning more than 400% of the federal poverty level. If your income is below 138% of the federal poverty level, and you live in a state with expanded Medicaid coverage, you may qualify for Medicaid, based solely on your income. The Affordable Care Act enrollment process will help you sign up for Medicaid in your state. If your income is below 100% of the federal poverty level, you are probably not eligible for savings on an ACA plan or for Medicaid solely based on income."

While this is broadly true, the problem remains that in thirteen states, where Medicaid has not been expanded, there is a huge issue for those with incomes too high for traditional Medicaid (which in some states is restricted to children, pregnant women, and the totally disabled) but not enough to even warrant a subsidy for private insurance, when there is no employer plan (or no affordable one) in the person's workplace. In those states, part-time work (or even minimum wage full time work) at a place with fewer than 50 employees means (a) no Medicaid, (b) no Expanded Medicaid, (c) no subsidy for an ACA plan, and (d) no mandate for an employer to provide coverage. How many people that includes is a matter of contention, but there's no question it's in the millions of people among those 13 states. And because PrEP coverage mandates affect the insurer (including Medicaid), not the insured individual, there's still work to be done.