BootmanLA

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.

Complex thoughts require complex understanding, which not all posters here seem to be capable of. In a nutshell: Putin's long game is (a) restoration of the USSR/Russian Empire as a geopolitical force, and (b) defeat or disbanding of NATO, the primary threat to his expansionist plans. As long as Trump was in office, attacking NATO and threatening to withdraw, he was useful to Putin in goal (b). We now know from more of Trump's former circle of advisers that he had been quite candid about pulling the US out of NATO during his second term, if he'd won one (which he mercifully did not). That disruptive influence in the west was far more valuable to Putin's grand schemes than any territorial gain might be. This is an old concept known as the "useful idiot", one with which you may not be familiar (or at least not in the way one might think). Once Trump was defeated, and someone firmly committed to NATO was elected to replace him, the calculus shifted. Putin had to decide whether he could spread enough disinformation about Ukraine to get away with invading and seizing power (as he had done in Crimea, and to lesser extents in Georgia and other former Soviet republics). One good thing about Biden (among many) is that he knows that US intelligence, while not always perfect, is some of the best in the world. Because they had intercepted much of Putin's plans for false flag operations, etc. as a means of making Ukraine to be the aggressor, and Biden smartly chose to release enough of that intelligence that the world could see Putin's game plan for what it was: naked aggression. And as a result, the west is united against Russia in a way that would never have been possible without someone like Biden - who actually READS his intelligence briefings and more importantly, understands them - in charge.

I point out errors of fact when I see them. Who makes them, honestly, is of little consequence to me.

I believe you mean "times" per nanosecond. Which is a tad of an exaggeration. More to the point, I didn't point out that Johnson was a clown as a "campaign to magically improve gay rights worldwide". I called him a clown because he is. Which pretty much confirms my opinion that he's a clown, right? Because Putin's long game involves not just taking Ukraine (and the rest of the former USSSR) but also demolishing NATO. Trump was gleefully trying to assist with that effort (for his own, idiotic reasons) and was played like the fool he is by Putin. Putin knew that as long as Trump was serving his role of disrupting the western alliance it was better to wait on Ukraine, because it was unlikely the US Congress would allow the president to abandon NATO if a war broke out in Europe. Once Biden was elected and he began to repair breaches with NATO, Putin knew he had to act on Ukraine quickly, but it may be that he waited too long - the west is more solidly unified against him than ever would have been possible under Hair Furor (the US, not the English, version). I hesitate to be critical of a nation's entire people, especially one with perhaps the only electoral system more archaic and non-representative than ours in the US, simply because of which idiot rises to the top. If you mean specifically those who voted for Johnson, by all means, I consider them clowns as well.

So - just to clarify - what counts as "anything to do with health"? If a post mentions PrEP, for instance, does that mean it doesn't belong in general, but here? Here's the thing. Topic after topic, post after post, in this forum have zero to do with health, unless you consider anything related to "deciding to bareback" to be something "to do with health". Post after post of people talking about how great it feels. Post after post of people talking about "natural". Post after post of people talking about "just do it" - which has to be the least credible "health" advice since doctors in the 1950's were making ads for cigarette companies. A small percentage of posts do mention the health concerns tied to bare sex - STIs, primarily, but also other complications - but the notion that simply "deciding to bareback" is itself a health category, without any requirement that the discussion be about the health (as opposed to pleasure) aspects of barebacking stretches the definition of "health" beyond recognition. Look at the initial post in this topic: not a single word about health, unless you really stretch things and decide the offhand comment from the OP about wanting to be seduced a "health concern", as in mental health. And if that's the case, every post about fantasies is a "mental health" topic. And of course the responses largely have zero to do with the health aspects of barebacking at all, even the loosely defined mental health ones. People like ErosWired, and me, and a handful of others really try to focus on the health questions raised. And ten times as many people chime in with zero health advice, just "take the load man" comments. As long as those aren't weeded out, the weeds in this particular collection of topics (Making the Decision to Bareback) choke out all the actual health advice. And while I appreciate that posts reported for being seriously off-topic get handled quickly, it seems like reports that "this response has zero to do with health" get written off as "well, this is the one guy's opinion, and we're not the 'stay on topic' police, so if it is responsive in some way, it stays".

Generally I find (your mileage may vary) that people pick a spot on this spectrum based on their current circumstances and stay there unless the circumstances change. That is, Joe and Tom are monogamous until they agree they're not any more. Bob and Phil decided to be "monogamish" and they interpret that as they're free to have a casual fling with a stranger now and then, but it's one-off and not with friends. Fred and Mark are similar except they only allow each other to play when they're apart - one of them is traveling, the other home, and nobody talks about it when they're back together. John and Roy are polyamorous - there's nothing "casual" allowed, no rando fucking, but they date other people, either together or separately, as part of a larger extended family. Steve and Gene are a couple but they have no pretensions to monogamy or even monogamish or polyamory; they're each other's primary partner but sex with anyone else is fine, repeats or not. In other words, you choose where you want to be along the spectrum and work it out with your partner; you don't have to work your way from one end to the other. That's something the two of you have to decide for yourselves. As a general rule, if the lines are reciprocal (you both follow the same rules), then it defaults to what the "less open" person is willing to allow. That can be anywhere from "you can flirt but no touching" to "it's okay to fuck someone else". But you have to set the rules down, rather than assume you and he are on the same page. Note that you don't HAVE to have reciprocal lines. For instance, you might be fine with him sexting with someone but not actually meeting up. He might not want you to sext with someone else. As long as you are both comfortable with a rule that isn't exactly even, that's okay. Again, that's something you have to work out for yourselves. Some people have rules like "Not if we're both in town." Sometimes it's "Not if we're both at home - no bringing a guy home while I'm here, and no leaving me here alone to go out for a fuck". Sometimes it's "Not if we already have plans for something". Some of my friends just say "X guy wants to fuck me, I'll be back in an hour or so" as they leave the house and the partner's only response is "Try not to wake me up when you come in, I'm turning in early". Some couples like the "after" discussion, some don't. Some may think they can handle it but can't once they actually start to hear about it. If you've agreed that it counts, yes. I'd say by default it counts as a violation of monogamy, but whether it is a problem for monogamish people is for them to decide based on what they think about outside sex in general. By being a good husband at heart. I'm assuming based on this question that you think you're more interested in non-monogamy than he might be, or that at least he's got more qualms about it. One way to be reassuring is to agree that at any point, the other partner can declare the relationship closed again, at least temporarily, while you work out issues between you. And then honor that - if he says "we need to close this down", you agree - cancel pending trick dates, let guys know you're off the market again for now. That doesn't mean you have to stay forever like that; but that's a good test for him as to whether he can accept non-monogamy, and a good test for you as to whether you can give up other guys completely if that's what's important to this guy.

That depends whether you're editing on a Mac, a Windows PC, an iPhone, or an Android phone. Google "How to blur faces in a video on a <fill in device name>" and you'll get lots of options.

Unfortunately, this entire folder is probably devoid of health-related information and most, if not all, of its topic threads should just be thrown into the main general forum. At least that way, the "sexual health" area could actually focus on - shocking, I know - sexual health, instead of every casual poster on here getting his jollies by encouraging others to be sluttier than they even dream of being themselves. I mean, I get the original idea of this particular forum within Sexual Health was to discuss the health aspects of why people decide to bareback. But the reality is, virtually every topic becomes the same thing: "Oh, mah gudness, here ah am, this innocent widdle boy, never have done anything so shocking as BARE SEX, but this big mean brute man wants me to! Whatevah will ah do? <cue fluttering eyelashes and parasol twirl>. JFC. Do, or do not. Those are the options.

I *believe* you just "find out". I would note, however, that you don't need to be checking every day; sufficient participation to gain that permission isn't specified (like all such), but it's a good bit higher than the 17 posts you're showing as having made thus far.

You are correct. I shouldn't post when I'm tired and aggravated.

There are numerous discussions about tips for this, what often doesn't work, and the like. Instead of reinventing the wheel just for you, why not do a search here and see what dozens or hundreds of people have already contributed?

To this excellent point I would add that on the liberal side, everything below the orange-yellow line (where things cross over to problematic) is a niche, small-market item. Nothing below that line is anything but a website or podcast, and all with limited reach. But below that line on the "conservative" side? You've got the entirety of the FOXNews Channel, as well as two of its most popular shows (Hannity and Carlson), plus InfoWars. You have the Supreme Grifters of Turning Point USA and the Charlie Kirk Show. Not to mention Epoch Times and (as you noted) OAN on TV (soon to be dead) and Newsmax TV. In other words, the sites and people the right holds up as paragons of information are - by your own admission, by linking this here - among the worst of the worst. It's especially noteworthy that the "journalistic" personalities most admired on the right are also squarely among the least reliable AND farthest right. By contrast, though no one doubts Rachel Maddow is a lefty and Joe Scarborough is leaning in that direction, they're head and shoulders above Hannity, Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and Alex Jones in terms of accuracy and quality of their work.

Please re-read this thread, and the others on related topics. Simply being a member for a year doesn't do anything. You have to participate, and a fair amount at that, before you can message other members directly. You have made 19 posts in this time, or slightly more than one a month. That's certainly not a great deal of participation.

A4A is full of spambots and fakes, in addition to flakes. I don't see how anyone ever uses it for anything productive, but as they say your mileage may vary. Recon focuses on fetishes, and I think the problem there is that there are lots of guys curious about certain fetishes, but not curious enough to actually pursue them in any real way. That's certainly not true of all, or even a majority, of Recon members, but even a small number of flakes can make one wary of a site.

Six years ago, the idea that the Senate majority leader would be able to get away with a year of a vacancy on the Court was unthinkable - especially a vacancy with a single, highly qualified nominee waiting virtually the entirety of that time. Before the Garland standoff, only one "long" vacancy had occurred since about 1875, when Abe Fortas's seat came open. And in the case of Fortas's successor, the problem there wasn't a majority leader sitting on the nomination; it was Nixon's nomination of two successive unqualified and bigoted individuals who both had hearings and were brought to a floor vote. Only once he nominated a less repulsive judge was Nixon able to get Fortas's replacement confirmed. World of difference between that and McConnell just sitting on the nomination - and if he can do it for 14 months, why not 24 or 36? What, really, could stop him, as long as his party backs him? No dispute there. I don't see where the Supreme Court has "legislated" anything, really. That's another right-wing euphemism for "interpreting the Constitution in a way we don't like." Sandmann got a nuisance settlement. While the amount was/is confidential, most legal scholars believe, for good reason, it was in the low six figures - a couple of hundred thousand dollars. That's hardly enough to make him "one of CNN's highest-paid". Not even close. Then explain how originalism exists as a school of "thought" and how it's a school inhabited solely by the far right. In "originalist" thinking - and Thomas is the premier example of it - he simply believes that if the words of the Constitution as understood in 1787 were not seen to encompass something, that's it - game over, the meaning as written at the time is the only thing that matters (or, for amendments, as understood at the time the amendment was adopted). Many of Thomas's noted dissents are exactly on this point. Nope, we cannot agree on that. It's true that the op-ed parts of the cable news networks lean left or right - as op-eds in print and broadcast have always done. That includes Rachel Maddow and Tucker Swanson Carlson alike. But the parts of CNN and MSNBC that are "straight news" - which occupy far more of the 24-hour cycle than "straight news" does on FOXNews - are not notably biased. The "straight news" on FOX is biased in multiple ways - not least of which is their deliberate ignoring of any news story that doesn't fit the op-ed narrative they present in the non-news portions of their broadcast day. As for the Equal Time rule - it was obsolete by the time it was abolished, because it did not and could not ever apply to cable TV. Define "recent". What's important is that Thomas is recorded as in dissent from the majority's opinion more than any other justice, and frequently dissents even in 8-1 cases because his way of thinking about the law in question is so far removed from even his conservative compatriots on the Court. He's well-documented as willing to overturn precedent far more often than any other justice he served with, even including the arch-conservative Scalia (who said "I'm a conservative, but I'm not nuts"). Thomas believes, unlike almost any other justice in history, that prior decisions are owed no deference if he thinks they were wrongly decided. THAT is a sign of politics on the Court - the notion that you just appoint enough justices to get 5 who think in one way, and they'll just overturn anything that they disagree with, regardless of how much havoc that might cause. I do agree we're unlikely to agree. But I can point to many an issue on which I've changed my mind, when more actual evidence supporting a different outlook is presented.

As Viking noted, messaging is a privilege. But beyond that: again, the point of this site is not primarily for members to communicate on-on-one with each other. It's to develop a community. Once you prove yourself part of the community, you get the privilege of private communications.

Indeed, but depending on what you mean by "old", it's important to remember that probably the majority of those who were big in the 1980's and 1990's are now dead.