BootmanLA

Perhaps you shouldn't use legal terms like "manslaughter" when you clearly have no idea what they actually mean. "Manslaughter" is not the same thing as "completely accidental". Manslaughter is a crime; something that is "completely accidental" is not. JFC. Manslaughter involves intent, but (though the terminology differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) it means that there was not "malice aforethought", which is ordinarily a requirement for murder. And in any event, there's seldom any case involving a killing where all of the relevant elements are so clear that "there is no doubt that they did this." Even things like declaring someone a psychopath or a sociopath is a judgment call, made by some people where no doubt others would disagree.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that! Seriously. I just hate (okay, well, get mildly annoyed) when people who want to use a resource in one particular way get annoyed when others use it a different way. Just make it clear enough in your profile that you're not interested in chat, only action (and if appropriate, specify "I mean NOW, not you'll be here next month sometime maybe"). And then feel free to blast anyone who can't read that clear statement and comprehend it.

My thoughts: 1. Yes, some guys are on "the apps" just as a means of chatting with a guy and jacking off to hot talk about what he'd like to do to/with the guy. For those people, obviously, distance isn't really a factor. 2. Some people just like giving compliments to men who appeal to them, regardless of distance. 3. Most of "the apps" have a field where you can check off all the things you're looking for (in terms of your interaction with others). For instance: Growlr allows you to check boxes for "Love, Dates, Conversation, Friends, No Strings Attached, Husband, Significant Other, Networking" within that category of "interactions sought". Scruff has a field called "Open to" and allows the choices of "Friendships, Relationships, Random Play/NSA, Dates, Chat Only, Networking". I'm sure most sites (not necessarily all) have such options, which means: people who are using the app for any of those purposes does not mean the app is "failing to serve their intended purpose." An app may not meet YOUR particular needs or wants, but complaining that there are people looking for things other than what you want is like going to a general restaurant that serves a wide variety of food and being upset that not every dish on the menu is Italian. As I see it: many of the apps view themselves as a virtual combination of the old fashioned gay bar and LGBT community center, minus the alcohol and smoke stench. Just as some people used to go out hoping to get laid and some used to go out hoping to meet a new boyfriend, different people can want different things "on the apps." All that said: one can, of course, make it clear in one's profile that one is not interested in idle chit-chat, even compliments; that you're only interested in sex, and you want it fairly soon, so don't bother chatting unless you're ready to deliver. Of course, that runs the risk of offending those who might well "deliver" but who like a little more lead-in effort. Them's the breaks.

Undoubtedly that's true in some cases. The thing to remember, possibly more than anything else, is that gay men are not evenly distributed around the country, nor are the various degrees of being "out", of being "non-flaky", of being mature enough to make plans and stick with them, evenly distributed either. And beyond that, experiences in Area 1 on App A may be different than experiences in Area 2 on the same app, or on App B in Area 1. In other words, the number of variables is just too complex for any sort of broad generalizations as to which app is the best - there's no one best choice in every area, for every population.

Blah blah blah. Yet another gay man deciding that his determination of what term is appropriate for others is the only valid viewpoint, all for the sake of seeing something in "print" on here that he can then jack off to. Pitiful.

One other thing I'd like to quibble over. Putin didn't just "seize upon... a happy event"; he helped create that event, and has been doing so for at least a decade, per our intelligence services. He's been gaming social media with sock puppets and botnets, not just promoting Donald Trump, but also advocating people to strongly oppose him - thus deepening the gulf between the two sides here. I'm not saying that without Putin Americans would all come together in peace and harmony; but I think it's undeniable his social media campaign to divide the country has made that infinitely harder. And yes, Hair Furor played right into his hands; Putin is a master manipulator and knew exactly what buttons to push for the last 20 years to get Trump on his side.

I agree in general, certainly. But there's kind of a difference, too: Britain has long been shorn of virtually all of her colonies, with only a handful of realms that are not functionally independent from the "mother country". Spain, the Netherlands - all the great worldwide empires have long since spun off (or had taken from them) virtually all of those possessions. But not the United States. The lands we stole (or forced a "cession" of) got incorporated pretty quickly into the nation as a whole, rather than maintained as colonies, making it that much harder to pry them out of our hands. Some took a while (Alaska, Hawaii, Oklahoma) to be converted to states. But it happened. There are some exceptions - Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the string of islands in the Pacific. But compared with what we kept an incorporated into the US, they're a rounding error.

Interesting topic. I think of myself as having very few actual friends - because I put a lot of weight on that word, and I'm not sure most of the people I know would welcome carrying that weight as part of our relationship/interaction. For those that I do place in that category, my favorite thing is something one of them pointed out years ago: I can go months, even years without talking directly with one of my friends, and yet, the moment we reconnect, there's no hesitancy, no awkwardness, and no feeling like I need to itemize all the major things that have happened to me in the interim (or for him to do the same to me). The friendships just endure.

It not only has a substantial European membership, but the company itself is based in Europe. Or at least, across the Atlantic from the U.S. - I am not sure where "headquarters" is for them, but I believe it's in the UK, and that's only "quasi-Europe" these days. Not long after worldleathermen.com was created, the same company began branching out with other sites (worldrubbermen.com, worldskinheads.com, etc.), with everyone in one big database, but you'd only appear on the site where you created your profile. Then I believe they expanded to allowing your profile to cross-post to other sites within the tree, and eventually merged them all under "recon.com" with the option to specify which type(s) of man you identify as - leather, rubber, skinhead, fister, etc.

I think you've explained what he's willing to hear. (Any man who thinks "guys aren't like that" is delusional.) If he becomes poz, well, you warned him.

Not any more, at least. But historically speaking, we've taken as much as we've legitimately acquired. The latter group would include the Louisiana Purchase and the Gadsen Purchase, as well as the purchase of Alaska. We accepted Texas after encouraging that territory to rebel against Mexico and declare independence; we "allowed" cessions from Spain (East and West Florida, southwest Louisiana), Great Britain (parts of Minnesota and North Dakota) and Mexico (most of the southwest, including California, Nevada, Utah, and most of Arizona and New Mexico); we essentially stole Hawaii; and we laid claim to much of the eastern "midwest" after the Revolutionary War because Great Britain just was largely fed up with North America. And those are just the parts that make up the actual 50 United States. We took innumerable islands in the Pacific (and fewer in the Caribbean), some in trumped-up wars with failing states like Spain at the end of the 19th century. And of course, that excludes the fact that we essentially seized most of the territory of the original United States from the native people who were there when we arrived, and when they objected, we either slaughtered them or relocated them by force.

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.