BootmanLA

Short answer: some do, some don't. No amount of responses you receive here will change that fact.

That's fine - I just like it clear when someone's responding to my words vs. someone else's. Someone skimming posts and reading yours may get the wrong idea. The apology's appreciated. Here's a suggestion, though (for what it's worth): when you are responding to a quoted section of a post, before you click "quote" to reply, click in the quoted section - which will take you to the original poster and his words. Then, if you click "quote" on HIS post, your reply will be directed at the person you're addressing, not an intermediate commenter. If you click "quote" on the intermediate person - like me, who'd commented on the original - you end up only quoting that intermediate person, and none of the original person's quote appears. It's like the "quote" feature can only go back to the specific post quoted, and can't include any prior-quoted material from that same post.

I may not have explained my point clearly. Your own response, though, touches on what I mean: it's not that PrEP enters any cells, but it does build up a barrier TO infecting certain cells, and that can take place either within the bloodstream or within certain types of tissue, specifically mucosal tissue, found in the vagina and rectum. PrEP, in other words, definitely enters certain tissues, even if it doesn't exactly enter the cells within the tissue. As I'm sure you know, HIV replicates by invading a cell, coopting the cell's reproductive capabilities, and using them to produce more virus particles. So in that context, PrEP exists to disrupt that interaction between the cell and the virus, and that's what I was referring to: as long as there's sufficient PrEP in your system, the virus particles can't enter your system, and eventually they're filtered out or break down. The thing about mucosal tissues is probably what explains why taking PrEP longer (after sex) may be more important for a bottom than a top. There aren't nearly as many points of entry (via the bloodstream or mucosal tissues) on a cock as there are in a rectum. If a top's on PrEP and has sex with an HIV+ bottom, infection by the virus is not only prevented by the PrEP, but he's likely to be at risk only until his next urination or so. A bottom, on the other hand, may have active virus trying to invade through his rectal mucosal tissues for a good while, hence the need to keep the level of PrEP high in his system for a longer period.

Yes and no. There's a difference between the virus being inserted into your system, and the virus being able to actively reproduce within your system, and the virus can continue to exist (it's not "living") within your system for a period before it breaks down and can no longer infect. The point of PrEP is to prime your body's cells with the ability to prevent HIV from replicating in your system until it naturally breaks down and is no longer a threat. So both the amount of time the drug has to build up in your system before infection AND how long it remains in your system after infection are both relevant. If the penile/vaginal tissues have sufficient drug levels at the time of sex, they may be able to prevent the virus from ever entering your bloodstream to find other cells through which to replicate. But if it does reach the bloodstream, it's also important to keep priming the pump, so to speak, with additional drug levels (the day after and day after that doses, at a minimum) that continue to block replication by the virus.

Yes. Kind of like "As someone who is also a crappy human being, finding out he's also a crappy human being makes him much more acceptable to me."

There is no guarantee that's what they mean. He could just like those images, or the scorpion could be a horoscope thing.

Race play can take diametrically opposing forms, actually. Sometimes the dominant player is of what is normally (within the particular society) the advantaged/majority race, and the submissive partner is of a less-advantaged/minority one; think a white top and a black bottom in the US, for instance, particularly in the southern US. Such play might well involve slavery themes or Jim Crow themes ("you talking back to me, BOY? Gotta learn you some manners!"). Sometimes the roles are reversed, with the less-advantaged/minority player as the dominant one, sometimes with themes of retribution and reversing control ("You been looking at that big black MAN's cock, white boy? You gotta earn that!"). And so on. It's variable, but those are a couple of examples of how it can play out.

You quoted me, but I'm simply quoting the poster before me who insisted that everyone sorts by race. I'm not claiming that everyone does - he did. Please be more careful - rather than quote me quoting someone, why not quote the original comment you're objecting to, so it doesn't appear to the casual reader that you think I said the offensive comment?

That depends on the ring. If it's not too snug when you're soft (but snug enough to not "fall down your pants leg"), then yes, you can. That's a matter of personal taste. I know some guys who prefer silicone rubber because it's durable and yet stretchy. Some prefer leather with snaps (though I see fewer of those in recent years, for some reason), because they can be unsnapped and removed if they get painful without having to have the erection subside in order to remove it. There are also leather rings with velcro, which makes them even more adjustable. Some guys like metal; those that do tend to prefer wider (ie 1/2" to 3/4" ) rather than narrow rings. And that's before getting into alternative designs like the teardrop-shaped ones that prod your taint. Unfortunately, because the ring goes around your balls as well as at the base of your cock, it's really hard to say what the right size ring is for a given guy, because some balls are close up to the cock and some are farther back, and the size of the sack can affect the fit. If you can get to a leather event where there are vendors, you can sometimes try on some ring types (they can wipe them down with alcohol to sterilize them between customers), but not all vendors will permit that. Otherwise, your best bet may be to find some inexpensive rubber rings in a few different sizes - start with, say, a 2" diameter and go up and down from there) to find the size that fits you best. Then you can find other rings in other materials in a similar size. Bear in mind that some materials may fit you better than others, and you may need, say, a 2" ring in metal but a rubber one, being stretchy, can fit at 1 1/2 or 1 3/4 inches. Lastly: if you go with metal, go with stainless steel, not chrome plated (which WILL wear off, with body fluids and lube and other things on the finish).

In other words, sociopathic liars.

That presumes, on that day, that there's enough of his mind left to know he once ranted on here about how much he was looking forward to turning his life to shit. I suspect there won't be.

The part that's "navel gazing" is assuming that because YOU sort by race, EVERYONE sorts by race. Ditto for your self-selected sample of "several partners" who told you what they like.

Not the same situation at all. Presumably, the guy consented to getting in the sling. Consent means not rape. And even men who consent in such cases might well object to video of the event being circulated out of his control. I get it - you want to fap fap fap to the idea of frat guy orgy sex. Knock yourself out. But please don't dismiss rape as "different perspective". That's a completely shitty take on it. Completely, totally, shitty.

A suppository is any semi solid medication delivered by insertion in the rectum. So simply referring to suppositories is like referring to "tablets" - meaningless unless you specify the kind. The only sort I can imagine that might be remotely useful would be a laxative - but that's not guaranteed to clean you out. And because they can continue to have effects for hours, you might be in the middle of sex and end up shitting on your top's dick. You're looking for something that helps remove what's already "ready to go", not to loosen up what could be hours away from expulsion.

While I agree that the original medical advice was overkill, there's some common sense behind the notion of longer PrEP duration for bottoms. It's well documented that bottoms face higher risk from an HIV+ top than tops face from an HIV+ bottom.

Assuming the rest of the world shares your viewpoint is pretty much the epitome of navel gazing.

For what it's worth: (a) what you describe is not "stealthing a top" (per your title). (b) if a person's sexual practices don't line up with yours, the correct answer is to move on to another partner, not to try to convince him to abandon what he feels is necessary for his safety.

That's an understandable perspective, but it's an expensive drug; and when the cost is high, that's a constraint on supply, because the government can't buy an infinite amount of it. So whenever supplies are constrained, it makes sense, from a public health perspective, to prioritize giving it to the people who are most at risk - which is men having sex with men, at least in western countries. It's kind of like how the Covid vaccines were rolled out first to the oldest and most vulnerable populations (because supply was limited), and it was opened up to more and eventually to all once the supply was sufficient. It may be that once enough people are on PrEP and costs of HIV treatment level off (because fewer people are getting infected) PrEP can be expanded to more populations. That, or the funding could be increased.

Not per the most recent studies I've been able to find. This one, from last year, says the effect is about 3.3 years: [think before following links] https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/44/8/zsab058/6204183 I suspect that as meds have improved, the longer-term impacts have declined. And in any event, results are going to vary from person to person; it's not like HIV *always* turned every 50 year old's brain into the equivalent of a 65 year old.

*banned. And I'm certain it wasn't because you joined the discussion; it's presumably because what you posted when you chimed in was an infraction of the rules.

Then you need to participate publicly, and repeatedly, in the forums here, demonstrating you can follow the site's rules and have something to contribute.

This, and the entire remainder of your self-serving, OH-LOOK-AT-ME-WHAT-A-WHORE-I-AM-AREN'T-YOU-IMPRESSED-AM-I-TURNING-YOU-ON-DO-YOU-WANT-TO-FAPFAPFAP-WITH-ME post, are all bullshit. You can do otherwise. You choose not to. And that's your right, and as long as you don't harm someone else, I don't care if you do. But please spare us the histrionics about how it's your destiny and all that crapola.

I don't disagree with you, but: the OP said this guy's profile doesn't lie about his status. It hints he's poz but doesn't confirm it. I agree that it's better for people to volunteer their status and discuss it if requested. But ultimately, it's these guys' responsibility to ask, to verify if they have doubts, and to protect themselves in any case. If they do the last of these, whether this guy is poz or just helping some guys indulge a fantasy becomes irrelevant.

For what it's worth, the site is about bareback sex. It's not about monogamy vs. open, cheating vs. loyal, or what have you. It's possible to have a monogamous relationship where bareback sex is a constant or at least frequent occurrence. In fact, some people might suggest it's the safest way to bareback (ie only with one person, whom you trust, and with whom you have a solid relationship). I certainly wouldn't judge your question's legitimacy. I would suggest, however, you think about the terms you used. There's nothing "traditional", for instance, about relationships involving gay sex - certainly not in the broadly held sense of "traditional". In fact, the traditional thing for gay men to do was to either get married, try to suppress urges, and not infrequently cheat to satisfy that need, or to not get married and move to some place where gay sex was readily available with no expectations. I think what you mean is a traditional relationship adapted to same-sex partners. And that's fine, if that's what you actually want, as opposed to feeling it's what you should want because of some societal pressure. Of course you have control over it. You're choosing to do it, every time you seek it out. People toss around the term "addiction" rather casually because it serves as an all-purpose get-out-of-jail-free card - "oh I just can't help it, it's my wiring, it's not my fault". But clearly you recognize that in fact, you DO have control over it - you're just upset you don't have the strength to use that power. And for that, unfortunately, I have no suggestions. It's one of those things that if you wanted to give up bareback cheating bad enough, you'd do it. You'd cancel all the apps, stop going out to any bars, cruising spots, bathhouses, bookstores, or wherever you're doing your cheating; you'd delete the contacts for anyone you've got info on as a "sometimes" partner; you'd tell all of them you're off the market and block their numbers and email. But you haven't, I assume. And to me, that's a sign that you want it, but not yet. Shades of Augustine. This is not something dependent on external factors. It's not like, say, wanting a raise at work, because while you can try hard to get one, it's not under your control. But this? This is totally under your control.

Theoretically possible. But honestly: any person who will happily fuck another person who's married and in an open relationship is unlikely to want a closed relationship with that person for himself.