Jump to content

BootmanLA

Senior Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,053

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BootmanLA

  1. BootmanLA
    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.
  2. BootmanLA
    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.
  3. BootmanLA
    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.
  4. BootmanLA
    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.
  5. BootmanLA
    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.
  6. BootmanLA
    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.
  7. BootmanLA
    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.
  8. BootmanLA
    Not necessarily. A bottom on PrEP is not "chasing" even if he is "taking raw seed".
  9. BootmanLA
    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.
  10. BootmanLA
    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.
  11. BootmanLA
    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.
  12. BootmanLA
    Can't speak for the second half of that contrasting pair, but I'd say you have the first half down pat.
  13. BootmanLA
    You're looking in the CENTER of that page. Look in the column to the left.
  14. BootmanLA
    I've rarely had call to respond to something unprovoked like that, but I think my variant would be "I wasn't planning on asking you, but if your need to reject is so great you have to pre-emptively do it to people who have no interest in you, be my guest."
  15. BootmanLA
    I'm sure that exists. But I'm not so sure "superiority rejecting men" is all that common a motivation. Rather, I suspect a lot of guys on there are looking for stimulation for their masturbatory fantasies and so have no intent to actually meet. I don't think most of those guys are sitting back feeling superior at all. I think they figure they're not likely to succeed in person, and so limiting interactions to the virtual world in turn limits the rejection.
  16. BootmanLA
    You ask several distinct questions up above (I've pulled them out from the commentary, to highlight them). But they boil down to the following: 1. Why do I want more sex but find myself unable or unwilling to pursue it? 2. What do I need to do to change this? The first question, honestly, sounds like you could benefit from some therapy. Not that you're broken or anything; it just sounds like you are questioning yourself, which suggests you don't understand yourself completely, and therapy is a good way of accomplishing that - learning about yourself. A good therapist can help you figure out why you're blocking yourself from what you want (or think you want, at least; it may be that with deeper analysis, you find you don't really want the sex, but you're assuming you do because you think it will fulfill some other need. Just a thought). The second question gets answered after the first one is solved, and it may solve itself once you know why you're doing this to yourself. As for the final question: that's the rub: what worked for other people may or may not work for you, and finding out what YOU are about is a faster way to solving the problem than just randomly trying things that other people have found worked. Not least because (at least on this site, and online in general) you have no idea how valid or truthful any responses you get are.
  17. BootmanLA
    I'd seen other articles on this variant this morning. I wouldn't say they characterize the damage to the immune system as "higher"; rather, it does the same thing as other variants of HIV, but faster. As I read the various pieces (together), this new variant: 1. infects more readily because it gets access to your system more readily (this is the part that makes it easier to contract); 2. multiplies much more rapidly in your system, again because it gets access to your cells more readily; and 3. it starts diminishing your immune system more rapidly, such that you progress to AIDS-level infection within 2-3 years instead of the more typical 6-7 years. As you noted, though, this variant does seem to respond equally well to treatment. So for a person who gets tested regularly and whose infection is detected early and begins treatment immediately, there shouldn't be any issue with health, overall. The thing to worry about is when the virus goes undetected for a good while, the reservoir of t-cells in the infected person's system may diminish significantly and not fully rebound, such that there's little to no option for a med holiday if side effects are becoming problematic.
  18. BootmanLA
    Fair point. I think where your prior post didn't really follow this pattern, though, is right at this juncture: The final part of the first sentence ("I find that...") is clearly a statement of what *you* believe/act on, and clearly 100% your call to make. But the next sentence (and the one that follows, after the gap) are fairly categorical statements that "X group of people do Y" - which is kind of, you know, speaking on behalf of a lot of people who may not share your perspective.
  19. BootmanLA
    Not that I disagree with the main point you're making - resolve those consent and limits questions BEFOREHAND - but I do have a quibble, as usual, with the broad brush painting. *Some* tops do exist to cater to bareback bottoms, some *do* like when the bottom takes charge of what happens. You may not be one of them (and in fact, they may not be all that common) but it's always a bad idea, in my book, to prescribe a behavior that one thinks is obligatory for all members of a group - either a group that the person belongs to, or a group that he wants to have sex with.
  20. BootmanLA
    You quoted me in the post above, but the words you quoted are from another user. I would absolutely never make a sweeping, categorical statement like that (and in fact, that's the kind of fucking bullshit I repeatedly call out here). I'm assuming you meant to respond to the fapper extraordinaire who made the original posting referring to "lowest of life forms" and mistakenly quoted me instead.
  21. BootmanLA
    Fskn, the problem I see here is that you're operating under the assumption that the reason a bottom asks the top not to cum inside him is for safety, and that it's not always possible to be 100% safe. But that's not the point. The point is, the bottom is an autonomous, living, breathing person with the right to control his body. If he consents to being fucked with the express understanding that the top will not ejaculate inside, then that's the terms of the deal. Violating that - whether the top is negative or not, whether he "lost control" or not, whether the top is good or evil, is all beside the point. If I tell you you can't cum inside me, and you do, you've violated my consent. Period. With respect to the "physiological reality": a man should know how to recognize his impending orgasm, and be able to stop short of that. If he finds himself unable to stop, that's not a "physiological reality"; that's a "I fucked longer than I should have allowed myself to and ignored the warning signs that I was getting close." And yes, it happens, but the responsibility for that LIES WITH THE TOP. And as I've said a hundred times before: no, a top isn't being forced to pull out. He can pass that particular bottom by, and find one eager to take his load, Bottoms are a dime a dozen and even good, quality ones are pretty easy to find. Now, I do agree that a bottom who waits until the top is just about to cum to demand "pull out, pull out" is unlikely to get the results he wants. But I don't think most of this thread has been about that. From the very first post, this has been about guys who ask UP FRONT for the top not to ejaculate inside, and that very first post was about how the OP gets around that. And top after top on this thread has (fap material or not) talked about how if he gets inside he's going to cum inside regardless of what the bottom wanted. Fuck that.
  22. BootmanLA
    Not at all. I just call out BS when I see it.
  23. BootmanLA
    Bear in mind, as I've noted repeatedly: much of what you read in the Backroom (and even here in the main forums) is purely masturbatory fantasies and has as little connection to reality as the Wizard of Oz.
  24. BootmanLA
    Predator need not mean "kill for food" (or even kill at all). For instance, here's the Merriam-Webster online definition (secondary): "a person who looks for other people in order to use, control, or harm them in some way (e.g. a sexual predator [=a person who commits sexual crimes against other people]."
  25. BootmanLA
    Maybe, just maybe, you should speak for yourself and not for "we" anybody.

Other #BBBH Sites…

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Top Bareback Porn Sites…

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.