BootmanLA

*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.

I think this experience, though, shows the downside of lying. The advantage of telling the truth (besides not having to remember details of a lie you tell) is that you can talk honestly about your answer. I'll also say this: I think chasers sometimes have a false sense of how risky unprotected sex is, on average, because of all the BS'ing that goes on about pozzing. I think people, in general, deserve honesty. But only you can decide whether pleasing people under false pretenses is worth it.

If there was a significant drug element it was probably moved to the "Chem Sex Fiction" area.

FWIW: the first guy to fuck me had a "smaller than average" cock and it hurt like hell. The second guy was almost twice as long as the first guy and in terms of total volume, it was more like 4 times bigger (way more than twice as thick). And it hurt less - in fact, it felt pretty good fairly quickly - because he knew how to take his time opening me up and getting me used to it. Don't turn down a shot at bottoming just because the most likely option in your circle is hung - unless you know he's the sort to just try and force it in.

What are you doing? Only you can answer that. She's given her consent to you having sex with men (Kudos to her). She asked you to get tested, which suggests she's aware of health concerns. So: why not go on PrEP, and suggest to her that she go on it as well, to protect herself in the (hopefully unlikely) event you contracted HIV while with another man? Only you can guess whether she'd consider that as being supportive of her health and keeping her safe, or as a warning sign you planned to "get wild" as you noted. While that wouldn't address concerns about other STIs - and you should get screened for them regularly if you're on PrEP, and even if you don't - it would take care of "the big one", as they say. And while it's true that HIV meds are now widely available, covered by most insurance, and pretty effective, they're a lifetime commitment. With PrEP, if you ever decided to give up on outside sex, or if you two split up down the road (that's a valid concern), she can go off PrEP if it's no longer relevant in her life. If she were to contract HIV through you and your "getting wild", there's no off-ramp for the treatment. Other than that, as long as you stay within the guardrails of whatever limits she puts on your outside sex, the rest is details. If you like the shirt, wear it when you're having sex with men. Ditto for the jocks. I suspect she doesn't want to know the details of your experiences, and that's what those are - details. Just keep them from spilling over to the rest of your life (ie PrEP, STI testing, etc.).

Some guys may be chasers hoping you're poz. Some guys may be having second thoughts and want reassurance that you're negative & on PrEP, or Poz undetectable. I'd imagine the response to "I'm poz" would be very different from those two guys. Perhaps you could respond "Before I answer that, I'm curious why you're asking now, and not before we had sex?". If it's a chaser, you could then reply "Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm negative and on PrEP" and know that this is someone who, as you've noted, is NOT looking after his health. If it's a person who's having second thoughts, you can then reassure him of your status, but urge him to consider PrEP if he's not on it, so he won't have to worry or feel bad about asking.

There are tests that can confirm whether it's a symptom of most of the commonly found STI's; and a urine test/culture can determine if you have a urinary infection. If I understand your post correctly, you have cancer and your doctors are assuming - rather than investigating - that your symptoms are being caused by your cancer. I am not a medical doctor but even if this happens to be a known side effect of the type of cancer you've got, or a side effect of treatment of it, you should insist that they at least do a basic screening for STIs and/or a urinary infection, especially if you're sexually active. (Obviously, if you're not sexually active, an STI is unlikely, unless it's one you acquired a good while back that is becoming active or spreading. But that's still something a test should show.)

FWIW: the number of posts someone has made appears below their name and ranking on each post (and it's dynamic, so if you have made 50 posts, and then make another, the next time someone pulls up a page with one of your posts on it, it will show 51). So the number of posts you've made is not secret information. It doesn't, however, show how many topics you've created, how many of your posts were replies, how many different forums you've posted in, or anything else that might or might not go into calculating your privilege level.

I certainly can't speak for tops in general or any in particular, but I will only note this in passing: It might be more productive to say "I love the way you fuck me" or "I love how you make me feel when you're fucking me" rather than "I love the way your cock fucks me" or "I love how your cock makes me feel". I've known some tops over the years who, even if only in it for the sex, don't like being reduced to a living, walking dildo. If you know he's especially fond of his endowment, of course, you can add that, ie "and your cock fills me up so fucking nice" or whatever. Complimenting the man, not just his equipment, is probably going to do more for his ego AND perhaps ensure a repeat (or a sooner repeat).

In the United States, age of consent laws vary considerably from state to state. It's simply not possible to state what "the age of consent" is without knowing the state in question. Period. Any statement that "X is the age" is at best a guess. The "X years difference" rules are the law in some states, not in others, and the X number varies among the states that do have such a law. In some it's a flat cutoff that anyone over a certain age can consent with anyone else who can consent, regardless of what the difference in age may be. The one thing that CAN be said, nationwide, is that if both parties are over 18, there is no "age of consent" situation to worry about. If either is under that age, the situation changes from state to state.

You're conflating a couple of completely separate, widely spaced in time Supreme Court decisions. The first was Lawrence v. Texas, from 2003, when the Court ruled that adult, consensual, non-commercial, private (in terms of location) sodomy - which included oral and anal sex - could not be criminalized as they fell within the sphere of privacy rights enjoyed by adults under the Constitution. That ruling was somewhat of a surprise because only seventeen years earlier, the Court had upheld such a law (in a Georgia case titled Bowers v. Hardwick). In the 2003 ruling the Court made it expressly clear it was overturning the Bowers ruling as wrongly decided. It's rare for the Court to expressly overturn a precedent in its entirety, and even rarer after only a short period. More often, the Court nibbles around the edges, carving out exceptions to the original decision until little is left, before disposing of the remains. The second case was Obergefell v. Hodges, from 2015 (a dozen years AFTER Lawrence), in which the Court ruled that states could not prohibit same-sex marriage, as marriage was a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment; such a restriction would fail under the level of scrutiny it was required to meet to justify a discriminatory law. This one was far less of a surprise because the liberal four (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan) were a shoe-in, and Kennedy had pretty consistently voted to strike down anti-gay laws for a number of years, even though he was overall a conservative. In any event, neither decision addressed age of consent laws at all. In theory, a future case might call into question whether a state's age of consent laws could discriminate on the basis of the activity being same-sex or opposite-sex, but I don't think any states have such differences at this point. If they do, and such were challenged, I don't think even this conservative court would rule that such a distinction was permissible - I'm pretty sure Gorsuch and Roberts would side with the liberals on that one.

A little historical perspective: Back in the pre-online days, when personal ads were in print in the back of gay magazines and gay weekly newspapers, a significant number of ads used the phrase "No fats/femmes/blacks". So racial exclusion for one-on-one encounters has always been there - not shared by everyone, of course, but enough so that people felt comfortable making such a statement in a public ad. That practice continued in early online ads but I've seen a lot less of it in recent years, probably because more open-minded people who would in fact meet all the qualifications imposed by the ad poster (or app profile) respond with blunt indignation to those people, if the "no F/F/B" person tries to hit on them. Advertising you're a racist is becoming socially unacceptable. For group parties, I think initially people just assumed you'd have no control over the other participants and you would just casually reject anyone at the party you didn't want to play with, even if the sole reason was race. But just as in online ads, it's becoming socially (if a sex party can be called social) unacceptable to express a racist opinion. No one wants to be called out at such an event for rejecting all the minority players, so some are just asking up front, to save themselves some well-deserved potential embarrassment. Additionally: we're becoming culturally attuned to getting things exactly our way, on our schedule: food and grocery delivery apps covering almost every place under the sun, online ordering that allows detailed customization of an order, rapid delivery through services like Amazon Prime, and more. It's not really surprising to me that people who would prefer only partners of a certain race at a sex party would think little of just asking for that up front, on the grounds that they can ask for, and get, almost anything else these days.

It's certainly true that in most cases, once eyesight is damaged, it may never return fully (although the amount of loss can be anything from "almost imperceptible" to "total". Of course your poz friend with CMV was not on meds - that was my point. "Fuck flu" happens within a week or two of infection, as a symptom of converting to being HIV positive. NOBODY in that circumstance is on meds because they haven't been diagnosed yet. If he was infected and was not on meds and developed CMV, that wasn't fuck flu. That was the collapsing of his immune system due to advanced HIV infection. "Fuck flu" is not a general term for flu-like symptoms experienced by poz men. It specifically means symptoms occurring shortly after infection.

CMV is itself a fairly mild virus that's ordinarily easily treatable if it's caught reasonably early. If left untreated for years it can wreak havoc in a person's system, particularly as their immune system collapses, but absolute blindness from a CMV infection is a sign of advanced AIDS, not seroconversion fuck-flu.

This, absolutely. One thing at a time. Either you want to be with the girlfriend into the future, or you don't. You may not know the answer to that question at this time - and there's nothing wrong with that. But you do need to answer THAT, before you start looking elsewhere. The time to settle out where you stand with one partner is BEFORE you reach the point of trying to land another one. Or, alternatively, find out whether your asexual girlfriend is OK with you finding sex through other people, given that she's not particularly interested in it herself. If she gives her OK (which I don't think is likely, but that's just a guess), THEN move on to the next question, which is: Is this guy interested in me romantically (given that he has a boyfriend already), or is he looking for fun on the side? Whichever it is, are you comfortable with that choice, rather than hoping he'll switch from one to the other?

I think you've accurately diagnosed the problem with many such people. I'm just suggesting that the range of options available to discourage them (once they make contact) is perhaps wider for some than others. It has been expressed to me that autistic people sometimes (often?) have difficulty reading the moods and emotions of others, and for someone who's more in tune with those, It may be easier to choose among the options for how to respond - to both end the conversation quickly without causing undue offense.

It might be so interpreted, but that's a problem for the (mis-) interpreter. If a compliment comes through and appears sincere, even if I am not interested in the person, I always say "Thank you." Sometimes I say "Thank you, that's very kind", which I hope comes across as polite but not encouraging. I do not reply with a like compliment unless one is truly merited - if nothing about the person is appealing, I'm not going to "fake it", but I will show gratitude for the kind thoughts. Beyond that, I'm quite good at discouraging further converation by polite yet not encouraging responses. You've mentioned before that you are autistic, which I imagine probably presents some issues in terms of "reading" what other people are saying - but which may also make it hard for you to craft a response that is polite yet clear that you're not encouraging the other person. Not that you asked for advice, but I'm also not sure I can give you useful advice for that situation, other than asking any friends you trust to give you feedback on stock replies - which ones would be least likely to drag you into such a situation.

On the other hand: sex with Batman would be incredible for a gear fetish guy.

I think this question would have been better phrased as addressed to non-smokers. I think the chances of a smoker finding another smoker a "deal breaker" are about zero, which renders all the responses from smokers essentially irrelevant. I mean, let's be realistic: of course a smoke fetishist is not going to find a smoker a deal-breaker. Accordingly, a separate, equally valid topic might be: "For smokers, is it a deal breaker if your partner does not also smoke?" Or, perhaps, "For smokers, is it a deal breaker if your partner requests that you not smoke?"

My response in all such cases is "I'm guessing reading wasn't your strongest subject in school, before you left there?" THEN I block. 🙂