BootmanLA

As a starting point, given your sexual wants, you'll need to be in a good-sized city. It's possible to live in a suburban area NEAR a bigger city within your budget, but once there, you'll find there's a bias against traveling 25-30 minutes out to the "breederville burbs" for sex, so you'll be the one traveling, and that may not always be convenient. But larger cities near either coast are rapidly becoming prohibitively expensive for a starting salary like yours without roommates to help make things affordable. As CTCokPig noted, Providence, RI is one exception costwise (it's only slightly above the national average for living costs). The downside is the local gay population is not huge (it's a city of only 180,000). From late spring until Labor Day or somewhat later, it's a thriving gay resort town, and the gay population is swelled considerably, but for about half the year, it's much slimmer pickings. So as a general rule, you're going to want to avoid most places on either coast (unless it's an exception, like Providence). Chicago, likewise, is getting extraordinarily pricey inside the city proper in the areas where gays tend to live. Unfortunately, most of the larger cities in the interior of the country, even if they're relatively liberal and gay-friendly, are in fairly red states, often meaning oppressive state governments controlling what the locals permit. But the cities themselves may insulate you from much, if not all, of that. So, for instance, Texas is a very red state (in terms of its government, if not the people), but San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth are all becoming much more liberal enclaves within the sea of red. To a lesser extent, so is El Paso. In Ohio, Columbus has long been considered fairly gay-friendly and progressive; ditto for Indianapolis in Indiana. I'd steer clear of Florida (the gay-friendly parts are expensive). Going west, Tucson, AZ is fairly reasonably priced (although buying a house can be expensive) and is the largest "liberal" city in the state. Colorado is tougher because Denver is fairly liberal and a nice place to live but it's getting very pricey, too; the more affordable places are still overrun with Trumpanzees and the Christo-Nazis that surround the Air Force Academy. Those are some starting ideas, on which some residents of said places may want to chime in.

Good choice. I will add: For a certain percentage of people on this site, bragging about being toxic, taking loads constantly, not being on PrEP, etc. is all masturbatory fodder - they're all playing a game of one-upsmanship pretending to be someone they're not. In other words, there's a lot of liars online, and some of them - in my experience, a not-insignifcant number of them - are lying about being thrilled at being poz. Those people certainly exist, but fewer in number since PrEP became widely available as a way to bareback without (virtually all) of the risk of HIV that came with barebacking. As to whether there's actually some feeling of "brotherhood" about being poz: I will admit that it's easier, generally speaking, to discuss one's status as poz (even if undetectable) with other poz people or people who are in a relationship with a poz person. So there's that. But as for some mystic "bond" between us? I think that's a product of fevered imaginations sometimes fueled with chemical enhancements.

On the contrary. I read your comment and took it for what it was: saying politics and party choices don't matter. They do. One party wants to protect our rights; one wants to strip them away. Republicans don't deserve to get off in a gay man's body when their party is actively working to make that illegal again.

Right up until the "bullshit of life", aka politics, drops police at your door to arrest you for gay sex. Think it's not possible? The Supreme Court struck down laws against such activity on the basis of a right to privacy, a right that at least five current members of the Supreme Court believe does not exist. They're prepared to throw out nearly 50 years of jurisprudence based on that regarding abortion. You think they won't toss out less than two decades' worth over the right for two men to fuck each other in the ass?

This is something you need to discuss with your doctor. Going off meds for a month is typically not fatal, but at the same time, your viral load is likely to spike upwards and your t-cells may drop. This is especially an issue if you went undiagnosed as poz for a good while after conversion. Most often, once you begin treatment again, your numbers will improve again, but you may never get back quite to where you were (or you may; it really is patient-dependent). Look into programs that provide HIV medications for free or low cost in your new area (and for that matter, where you are now, because they may be able to refer you somewhere). Additionally, I know my insurer (a Blue Cross affiliate) allows ongoing prescriptions to be filled 25 days after the last fill. That makes sure there is overlap between your current fill and the next one, and it's possible you could get an "early" fill for your medications before you leave, to help tide you over. Your doctor may also know of specific resources for continuing this kind of medication on a stopgap basis. Don't be afraid to ask - there's a lot of assistance out there, but someone often has to point it out because it's not readily apparent. AHF, for instance, provided my meds for free while I was first signing up for coverage that would take care of them (because my doctor is an AHF affiliate).

Which tells me it's not a site bug at all; it's Safari not playing well with a standard on the internet, which is scarcely surprising. Apple developers sometimes are obstinate about adhering to standards.

I wouldn't count on the fact that there are pictures of you out there where you're having sex resulting in people paying attention to you. There are tens of millions of pictures of sexual activity out there, and people tend to only pay attention to the ones that appeal to them.

You do you, of course, but I don't think men are obligated to enjoy a particular sexual activity just because it's what someone else wants, and they're not "selfish/lazy/boring" for doing so, any more than I would think you're lazy for not wanting to fuck women. I know guys who just don't like performing oral. I know guys who adore it above all else. I know guys who can't do it much if at all because of TMJ or other jaw issues. None of them are selfish, or boring, or lazy. I know guys who never fuck, and guys who never get fucked - and some who fit into both categories, and some who fit into neither. We like what we like, and I think it's pretty shitty to shame people for how they're wired. For the OP - I don't think there is a recognized (or "community-accepted") nickname for people in this category.

Lots of people have those feelings. That's exactly why PrEP exists.

AGAIN, you didn't seem to read RawTop's posting. One of the ways they control the spammers that plague sites like this is by only gradually opening up abilities. More participation over a longer period of time = more message capacity. You've made a total of 58 posts and replies in nearly ten years of membership on this site (five of which have been in the last day and two of which are in this complaint thread). That's roughly one every other month. That is not the sign of a person who is participating extensively in the site. Reading? Sure, you may be reading a lot on here, and that's great. But the site only succeeds when people *contribute* to the site, in terms of content, as well.

The New York Times ran an article today that notes the case of a third person cured of HIV, in her case by a blood transplant using umbilical cord blood from a partially matched donor. The previous two persons cured of HIV were cured by bone marrow transplants from donors who had a genetic mutation that blocks HIV. According to the doctors, the umbilical cord blood treatment route offers the potential of a greater number of people who can have the virus eradicated from their systems. It's probably behind a paywall, but for those who have NYT access: [think before following links] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/health/hiv-cure-cord-blood.html

My usual response to something unsolicited and off-topic is "That's nice." and leave it at that.

As has been noted several times throughout this forum: the moderators do not divulge exactly what combination of participation items (number of posts, number of responses generated, etc.) triggers a move from one level to another, because doing so would tip the hands of those who want to game the system in order to spam-post or spam-message the membership. I will note that the system indicates you've only made 43 posts and replies in total over the years. That's not "nothing", but it's also not a huge amount of participation. One can be an "old hand" at reading this site without actually advancing very much. I always advise people: keep posting, keep commenting, and the rest will follow pretty quickly once you make it a pattern. I don't think a couple of warning points that old would really make a difference now, other than perhaps having set you back a little bit when you first got them.

For starters, "Mylan" is (or rather was) a company, not a specific medication. Mylan merged with Upjohn (itself a subsidiary of Pfizer) back in late 2020 to become a new company (Viatris). So comparing Truvada to Mylan is impossible; one is a specific medication, one is a manufacturer of medications. Viatris makes generic versions of medications that have gone off-patent, like Truvada. Their generic version of the drug is, like Truvada, 200 mg of Emtricitabine and 300 mg of Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (I find no references to a 200/245 formulation). So chemically, the generic produced by Viatris should be identical to Truvada. Of course, the coloration, shape of the tablets, etc. may be different.

You're clean? You mean you take showers regularly? "Clean" is an offensive term when used to mean "do not currently have an STI". It by its nature implies that anyone who does have an STI is "dirty". Lastly, if you "never really thought about STIs" then don't be so damned sure you're "clean" (to use your word). Many STI's do not present symptoms though they can be detected with lab tests and treated, but only if you actually bother to check for them. Assuming you're "clean" because someone else claims to be "careful about who he introduce you to" is an excellent recipe for getting an STI that progresses pretty damned far.

Bear in mind that (although you're certainly correct), the original post was the typical "Fap Fap Fap Isn't this a hot idea Fap Fap Fap Look at MEEEEEEEEEEE how depraved I am Fap Fap Fap" post. I think if we put all the topics and posts that were purely masturbatory fuel pretending to be serious discussions into one forum, this site would capsize from the unbalanced weight in that area.

I know it wasn't your question, but it's worth addressing. First, you now know this provider (whether it's a specialty doctor or your primary care physician) can't be relied on to nag you to come in for a refill consult appointment. Perhaps they should, perhaps they don't view it as their responsibility, but in the "it is what it is" camp, assume they're not going to. Your choices (going forward) are: find a new primary care provider that is better at notifying you (which can be a crapshoot), or utilize technology to keep yourself updated. On the day of your medical appointment, either make the next appointment (for 90 days out), or at a minimum, ask them how much lead time, typically, you need for getting a non-emergency appointment. If it's two weeks, set a reminder on your phone for THREE weeks ahead of the ninety-day mark. Set a second reminder at the two week mark, in case you dismiss the first one and then forget. My own doctor always makes the next appointment before I leave his office for the current one, and they're very good at automated email notifications to get lab work done, etc. beforehand. Not all practices are good about that, however.

I do not believe there is a "regularly found in nature" viral load level that would be described as "almost certain" for transmission. While you're correct that there's a general increase in risk of transmission starting with "essentially zero" for an undetectable VL and rising along with the VL. But even when a person has an uncontrolled HIV infection, there's still a much better than average chance that a single sex act will not infect another person (absent that person himself already having a weakened immune system). As for what the shape of that curve is, between the extremes of "undetectable" and "uncontrolled HIV infection with a VL in the high 6 figures or higher", there just isn't evidence to graph it, and frankly, it would essentially be a waste of resources that could be far better spent on other, actual serious issues.

Again: it's not for the top to determine "relevancy". If the agreement is "you'll pull out without cumming inside me", then that's the agreement. Violating it - WHICH IS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD - is a violation, period. Full stop. It's not the top's place to decide it's an irrational concern. It's not the top's place to decide it's not important enough to honor the deal. That's how consent works. Consent is not founded on "I stick to the agreement as long as I think the agreement makes sense." Now it's true that this is (probably) increasingly unlikely a scenario to encounter. But IF the scenario exists, the only decent options are (a) stick to the deal or (b) decline the deal and move on to someone else.

You're correct that it was killed by FOSTA-SESTA (the actual acronym of the act). They were pretty quick on killing it because their lawyers understood the enormous risks they'd be taking under the law. In fact, CraigsList sex ads were one of the acknowledged primary targets of the campaign to push the two bills that became this law. If I were their lawyer, I'd have strongly recommended pulling the sections immediately upon the bill's enactment as well.

1. Because people have differing ideas about what level of risk they're willing to take. 2. Because it doesn't matter what the point is - when a top agrees to not cum in a bottom and violates that agreement, it doesn't matter that he thinks the risk is pretty much the same as with his precum. What matters is that he unilaterally changed the terms of engagement and that's a shit thing to do. Period.

Not necessarily. A bottom on PrEP is not "chasing" even if he is "taking raw seed".

You're overthinking this. A lot. You found out you enjoy sex with men. Great. You found out you don't want sex with women. Also great. You found you can have both emotional as well as physical attraction to a man. Also great. You found out he at least somewhat shares your feelings, you still want to be able to have sex with other people, and he's okay with that. Great, great, great. I literally see nothing in any of this to be concerned about. So as for "now what", just stop the fucking worrying about whether you'll be thinking about X while you get Y and so forth. You're wasting mental energy on non-issues.

This is a tough one. If you're essentially monogamous with each other (I'm reading between the lines here), or at least you two don't have bareback sex with anyone else, then risks are low - not zero, by any means, but low. Go on PrEP, recognize that it works, and just tell him up front not to warn you he's about to cum and not to pull out when he does. Once you've done it once, or a few times, you'll find it easier. But if you are NOT limited for raw fucking to one another, I can understand a little hesitancy - even though pulling out is not a guarantee of safety. Again, get on PrEP. There's no reason not to, unless you have a wife or live-in girlfriend that you'd have a hard time explaining it to (and even then, unless they're privy to your finances and/or health paperwork, you don't have to keep the medication where they can see it). All that said, there's no shame in NOT letting someone cum inside you. Regardless of what you read on here, it's YOUR call what you allow to happen, and if you're not comfortable with it, maybe that's a sign you aren't ready for that, at least not yet.

As I recall, Bork (a) received a hearing from the Judiciary Committee and (b) received a floor vote in the Senate, whereupon he was not confirmed by the widest margin in Senate history after serious legitimate questions about his judicial philosophy, including his rejection of the Civil Rights Act. The Reich Wing's distortion of his actual record and the subsequent portrayal of this as character assassination is one of the greatest feats in whitewashing history.