BootmanLA

Really, guys - this is the health forum, not "Look what a kinky slutty whore i am" forum. Seems to me asking about health related questions for A2M is pretty far removed from everyone throwing in his two cents about how much you love this act. There are entire topics where you can brag about what you like to do with a partner - and an entire freaking forum for you bi guys to brag about what you do with your girlfriend (who we totally wouldn't know because she's from.... um... Canada, yeah, that's it). Can we please not turn this into "See what a trashy slut i am? Part Infinity"?

For what it's worth: I personally go around and around with this one, unable to settle on a "this path is best" course in either direction. On the plus side: getting more people onto PrEP has proven to be a good thing, and infection rates in some populations have decreased sharply in recent years. That's great, and it suggests that getting even more people onto PrEP - in other words, reducing the barriers to both going on PrEP in the first place, and staying on it - would be a good thing too. But on the minus side: we know that in many vulnerable populations, taking medications regularly is an issue. We already see this with HIV *treatment*, where even one pill a day, when freely provided, is something that some populations can't manage. Granted, most of these are both (permanently or intermittently) homeless and (frequently) have some form of mental illness - which are separate issues that require intervention. But not all people who have trouble adhering to a treatment regimen fit those categories; and moreover, some not insignificant portion of the communities we're trying to reach with PrEP ARE in those categories. And the "tag along" problem that happens in these cases is drug-resistant HIV, which is at present a very small problem, but one which has the potential to become much worse. We have a number of diseases already floating out there which have variants that fail to respond to almost all treatments. The last thing we need is for a PrEP resistant strain of HIV to take hold in a particularly sexually active community. Really, there are at least three major groups that are currently "underserved" that have very little overlap. The first would be those I mentioned above - people without steady housing or employment and the mentally ill. The second would be young people on their parents' insurance who don't want the parents to know they're being tested for STI's and getting PrEP. The third is the poor population in states without expanded Medicaid who fall into the gap below qualifying for ACA subsidized insurance. There may be other groups I'm leaving out, and that's not deliberate, but these illustrate the differences we'd need in approaches to solving the issue for each. For the first group, it's a balancing act for preventing infection vs. preventing drug-resistant strains from developing and spreading. In the long run, the solutions there will likely be long-acting injections for PrEP, ideally ones that can be overlapped (so that you get them in every month for a booster, but if they are 3 weeks late, or miss a month, they're still protected). For the second group, it probably would require legislation separating dependents from their parents in terms of insurance information access - something unlikely to happen. If a covered dependent over the age of majority were allowed to opt to keep certain information private, from their parents, on insurance records, a young person might feel confident going to a doctor and getting PrEP (or birth control, for that matter). Since the insurer can't charge a copay or anything else for these services, in an ideal world only the patient would actually know what services were received. I'm sure right-wing parents would scream bloody murder, though, and I doubt you could get legislation protecting this information passed. For the third group, I'm not sure what to do. These are people who presumably wouldn't have a problem getting the tests and taking the medication, but without insurance, there's nobody paying for it. Maybe an expansion of Ryan White funding could fill in the gap in those 13 states, only for PrEP (and again, birth control for that matter), such that this one aspect of health care was actually universal. But that, of course, means more funding, and since it's directed at the states which were obstinate about expanding Medicaid, there might be pushback from states that did and chose to bear that 10% cost themselves.

Highly, highly unlikely. Let's assume a man's sexual life actively goes on for, say, sixty years - from age 15 to age 75. That would mean 16,99 holes per year, or 45 every day, 365 days a year. Even if you assume each one only takes ten minutes, start to finish, and maybe ten minutes to recover in between, that's still over 15 hours a day dedicated to fucking and getting hard again. Every day, day in and day out, for sixty years. Every "sick day" you take puts you farther behind. Stopping to eat puts you farther behind. Doing anything else - showering, shopping for food, earning a living - puts you further behind. I suppose in some distant foreign land, where some perverted potentate rules with an iron hand and has zero to worry about in terms of personal care, he might come somewhat close. Maybe by half. Otherwise: this is pure fap material.

Don't be so quick to give Hair Furor much credit for this. The first steps happened under his administration, but they happened without any help from his political appointees. Rather, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force gave PrEP an "A" rating as a means of preventing disease - something not a lot of medications and treatments get - and because of that, a provision of the ACA kicked in (remember, Don the Con tried like hell to repeal the ACA and was furious that John McCain voted against the repeal). That ACA provision requires insurers to provide preventative services with an "A" rating to insurees completed covered by the plan. Trump's administration did grudgingly put forth guidance that said insurers couldn't make people pay out of pocket for it (that is, they said the primary cost had to be covered). But their guidance didn't address copays, which can be substantial - some insurers were still charging hundreds of dollars a month in copays even though it was a covered cost. It took the Biden administration to clarify - this summer - that the rule means "no copay, no fee, no nothing," which is actually what the ACA requires.

There's been a lot of back and forth here about whether ejaculating inside someone who's specifically asked you not to qualifies as "rape". Let's get a few things straight: first, rape has a legal definition (in each state), and I suspect that in most of them, ejaculation has nothing to do with it. For instance, here's the Louisiana statutory definition of rape: A. Rape is the act of anal, oral, or vaginal sexual intercourse with a male or female person committed without the person's lawful consent. B. Emission is not necessary, and any sexual penetration, when the rape involves vaginal or anal intercourse, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime. C. For purposes of this Subpart, "oral sexual intercourse" means the intentional engaging in any of the following acts with another person: (1) The touching of the anus or genitals of the victim by the offender using the mouth or tongue of the offender. (2) The touching of the anus or genitals of the offender by the victim using the mouth or tongue of the victim. --------- So, assuming the sex itself was consented to, it's not technically "rape" (in this state) if the bottom says "Don't cum in me" and the top does anyway. In fact, I don't think there is (in Louisiana law, again) any criminal statute that would specifically address this behavior. But that doesn't mean it's not, as I say, "rape-adjacent" or some form of sexual assault. It is. If a person gives consent to a particular sex act *under specified conditions* and those conditions are violated, that's wrong. And it's entirely unnecessary. We all know there are plenty of bottom men out there who are perfectly happy to be bred. Anyone who feels the need to violate someone's consent in order to cum in a bottom who clearly and specifically said "Don't" is a first-degree shit of a person. Some of you, undoubtedly, will wear that as a badge of honor. It's not.

Paradoxically, here in the US, with our fucked-up health care payment and delivery system, a poor person is actually in a better place, in terms of affording care, if he's HIV-positive rather than HIV-negative and seeking PrEP. We have a federal program under what's known as the Ryan White Act (named for a hemophiliac boy who contracted HIV from a blood transfusion and died of AIDS some years later, early in the epidemic) that provides billions of dollars in grants to states, local governments, and community groups for fighting HIV. Most states have a program where anyone with HIV who makes less than a certain dollar amount can have fully-paid health insurance on the private market, complete with prescription drug coverage. In states that have expanded Medicaid, these programs generally kick in for people who make more than the maximum for Medicaid, but less than the maximum for the Ryan White-funded program. The idea is that providing this coverage keeps these people healthy, and productive, so that they (generally) work and pay taxes to help keep it all going. Right now, the biggest "gap" is in the 13 states that have not expanded Medicaid (the US health care program for the poor) as allowed under the Affordable Care Act. In those states, "traditional" Medicaid only covers certain poor people (most often: children, pregnant women, and the disabled), and if you are not in one of those groups, assistance is limited or unavailable. In order to take advantage of the ACA's subsidies for health insurance, you have to make a certain amount of money. So there's a gap between the poorest of the poor and those who make enough to qualify for an ACA plan, in those 13 states, where you're just out of luck. Lily, however, lives in Oregon, so she lives in a state where Medicaid WAS expanded. It might be a stretch to make the premiums, but if she's employed, there should be an ACA plan within reach; and if she's not, there should be Medicaid assistance available.

By getting an education. "don't want to get sick" is a vague, nebulous, impossible standard to meet. You have to decide what, if any, level of risk you're willing to take. The only completely safe sex is to masturbate and/or use sex toys that you do not share with anyone. Beyond that: Condomless sex presents multiple risks, some of which can be ameliorated, some of which cannot. If you are on PrEP - and following the instructions carefully, you are highly unlikely to contract HIV. If your partner is HIV-negative, or has HIV but is undetectable, you are also highly unlikely to contract HIV. Even if he has HIV and is detectable, there's no guarantee you will be infected with any one particular sex act - but the odds are notably higher. Even beyond HIV, however, condomless sex presents the possibility of many other STI's that can make you "get sick". Those include syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, HPV, crabs, and more. Some of these have vaccines which can prevent their transmission to you; others simply are a potential risk if you have condomless (bareback) sex. Even if you do have sex with a condom, that's not protection against all STI's, even when used correctly.

Ordinarily one gives advice to one's younger self to do things better than they actually happened. I've never seen anyone suggest he'd tell himself to be an even worse person than he apparently is (or at least start being worse earlier rather than later). But you do you.

Kinda hard to give credence to that when your profile says you're looking for a gifter. It may well be out of reach financially for you (although: no-copy insurance mandate, state assistance programs, etc. etc.). But looking to be gifted is fundamentally incompatible with actually wanting PrEP.

As far as I know, and as far as my research can tell me, the term "ultra high viral load" is not a defined medical term and I do not believe it is routinely used in the medical world. Rather, I have seen references to "Extremely high viral load", referring to a patient with a viral load of over 1 billion (which is exceptional). Ordinarily, "high viral load" begins around 100,000 - at least as far as what's called the "baseline" viral load, or what the viral load was before treatment begins. Baseline is the level measured when someone tests positive who is then expecting to go on meds more or less immediately. A "high viral load" of over 1,000,000 is not out of the ordinary for an HIV infection that has gone untreated and effects on the body may be progressing rapidly. Treatment usually knocks that down dramatically even in the first month. Anything below 10,000 is considered a "lower viral load" and while it's not ideal, it does mean that the virus is somewhat under control. So, unfortunately, there aren't "standard" terms for all ranges. Even the term "undetectable" has shifted in recent years, from 50 down to 20. As of now, then, "Undetectable" means a VL less than 20. "Detectable" means above that level. "Lower viral load" is anything from barely detectable up to about 10,000. There's no real term for people whose viral load is between 10,000 and 100,000. That could be because it's very hard to stay in that range; either you're on treatment and you'll be undetectable or nearly so soon, or you're not on meds and your viral load will likely spike over 100,000. "High viral load" is from 100,000 up.

Just so you know, there's an entire logical fallacy with the name "No True Scotsman". In essence, it identifies overbroad generalized statements (like "doesn't care what the top looks like...its [sic] all about his pleasure using your hole") that are purported to be accurate by adding "A true..." or "A real..." as a qualifier. It's considered a fallacy because you're artificially limiting the universe of [fill in the blanks: cumdump, cum slut, Scotsman] to those that just happen to have the characteristic you're describing and dismissing anything that doesn't fit as "Not true" or "Not real". It's one of the sloppiest forms of argument there is.

I agree. However, as we often see here, that judgment flows in both directions. There are people who look down on those who seek out lots of casual sex, sure. But there are also a lot of people *on this very site* who loudly trumpet that it's "natural" to want to spread seed far and wide and look down on anyone who wishes to be more restrictive in his play. Let's not pretend EITHER side has the moral high ground.

Couple of points. It's true that it's not all that likely for a poz bottom to directly infect a negative top, that's true (unless the bottom has a high VL and is prone to tearing and half a dozen other "it would help if..." scenarios. On the flip side: a bottom on treatment might well be emboldened to take on tops of any status, and a negative top who fucks a guy who was just bred with a toxic load might well get infected by THAT guy. So more of a situation with guys fucking pre-loaded ass, especially where there could be multiple loads (ie a bathhouse or sex club). As for separating fantasy from reality: if there were some magic coding that separated fantasy posts from reality posts on here, you could store an archive of the reality posts on a 3 1/2" floppy disk. Unfortunately, this site is full to the brim of wankers and fappers who view it solely as a way to get themselves off with outrageous stories.

Would you like a medal?

I'm certainly not going to deny that there is sometimes (often) a sense of sex-negativity in profiles that emphasize things other than cock/ass pics or sexual interests. But I've known a surprising number of guys over the years who actually do enjoy sex a great deal; they just don't want that to be what people "lead" with. For those guys - who often want/need more of a "connection" with a guy before having sex, jumping straight to X pics or "what are you into" is a turnoff. And I'm not going to paint them all with the "get over your heteronormative sex negativity" routine. If someone feels that way, and you're curious, you can always ask why they feel that way.

The problem is that this study's results do not line up with what you said, which is (to quote): "those meds are even used for covid." That is incorrect. What the study found is that if you are ALREADY taking HIV meds, you are at lower risk for Covid infection and your symptoms may be milder. That is a huge - HUGE - distance from using HIV meds to treat Covid. And here's the second problem: Yes, this approach was studied. Notice the date on this article is from May 2020, coming up on 2 years ago. Here are some of the reports on the success (or rather, lack thereof) from those studies: [think before following links] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/10/study-hiv-drug-no-benefit-hospitalized-covid-patients While this link takes you to a page that requires further exploration, click on the second "+" sign for a detailed answer: [think before following links] https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-hiv-and-antiretrovirals In response to the specific, 77,000-person study your article noted, see the following: [think before following links] https://www.thebodypro.com/article/hiv-meds-may-not-reduce-covid-19-risk-experts-say And so on. I get that you "don't let people or media influence me anymore" but since you're going to post links, it's only reasonable to look at all the links, not just the ones that (very early on, rather prematurely) supported your premise.

"Need"? Perhaps not. "Could absolutely benefit from? If you are a bareback bottom, as your profile suggests, you could certainly benefit from it. You should know that the meds for HIV generally contain the same meds, or classes of meds, as PrEP, PLUS additional components needed to keep an active HIV infection under control (because PrEP can't). In other words, skipping PrEP for the side effects assuming you'll be OK on HIV meds is pretty much stupid; you're not only going to then face the same potential side effects, but more of them (because HIV meds contain additional components) AND you won't have the option of stopping when you're not sexually active, as you can with PrEP. Also, no, HIV meds are not used to treat Covid. Some of the medications now used to treat Covid are in the same *classes* of drugs as some HIV meds, but they are not the same drugs. In fact, speaking broadly, there were multiple studies done early in the pandemic that pretty much conclusively demonstrated HIV medications were of little to no use in fighting Covid. And even if they were, the point was that these are not baby aspirin; they're serious meds with potentially significant side effects, not something that you can take to ward off Covid like an allergy pill. Well, you're letting someone influence you, because you're clearly getting bad information about medication from somewhere.

Not a dick at all. But... maybe time for an eye exam? 🙂

Not to disagree with the other parts of your post, but these are, as stated, bullshit. "Monogamy doesn't truly work." - For you. I'm not saying it's easy (it's often not) but it does work for lots of people, and their experiences are no less valid than yours. "as we should." - "Should" is the most useless word in the English language. Who died and made you Princess of the Universe to declare what other people "should" do? (Hint: nobody.) It's not your place to determine what other people "should" do in their own relationships, which don't affect you one iota (unless, of course, you view them as prey that need outside sex and you go after them to get them to cheat, in which case, maybe it's your business but then maybe again, screw you). "The Divorce rates are so high because of the control tactics of Monogamy." - You have zero basis for making that statement, unless you believe that the primary driving factor in divorce is people wanting to fuck other people and not being allowed. You're just over 30, so let me try to enlighten you just a tad: there are a thousand reasons people get divorced, and most of them don't have anything to do with one person wanting to fuck around.

Of course it's possible. Almost anything is possible. But that's on him, not on you. And you wouldn't be an asshole for pointing it out, if he ends up unhappy: "Look, we agreed on an open relationship. I'm not saying you have to stay in it, if you're not happy; but I won't be happy if it's completely closed off, either. So if we can't find a compromise that works for us, we should part now, on as good a set of terms as possible, rather than making us both miserable because neither of us can be what the other needs."

Sure it is. Look for the big magnifying glass (the universal symbol for 'Search') on the top row of icons, just above the red and white "breeding ZONE" logo. Harder to do a screenshot there, but it's right there in front of you.

I wouldn't say "aren't a turn on for men" as though it were some sort of absolute. If there's one thing that nearly 40+ years in the gay community has taught me, it's that there are men out there into just about everything. Now, that doesn't mean that some sorts of partners aren't much more universally appreciated than others; and yes, both chubbiness and being a trans man are things that appeal to fewer men than, say, a swimmer's build twink with a really firm butt or a hairy muscle daddy with a thick cock. (I'm neither of those, myself.) And because those are two "specialized" interests, you may well have fewer guys interested than some other people. On the flip side: you apparently live in Pittsburgh, which is a pretty good sized city. While the city itself is only about 68th in population, the Pittsburgh metro area has about 2.4 million people and is the 27th largest metro area in the US, which means you have a lot more options than someone living in, say, the Texarkana metro area, which has about 150,000 people. So you have an advantage that many men in your situation may not.

To all of the advice above (most of which I find sound), I'd also suggest considering this: What do you (ultimately) want? If you're hoping to someday be in a monogamous relationship - and monogamous means NO outside sexual partners; having threeways with your partner and another guy doesn't count as monogamy, even if you both are always present and always agree on the guy - then that's one thing. If you are open to that, but are also willing to consider an open relationship (of whatever kind; they come in all flavors), then that's something else. If you're sure you don't want a monogamous relationship at all, but you're open to other sorts of arrangements, then that's yet something else. Answer that question first, and that will guide you further. If you meet a guy and go on a date, there's no reason you can't ask him what he's looking for, ultimately, as well. You don't have to tip your hand right away (although you should try to answer any question honestly, if you do answer it); but his answers can give you powerful guidance on where to go from there. Let's say you know you'd consider a monogamous relationship, but you're not set on that as the only long-term option. He mentions that he's ready to settle down with one guy. You can feel him out - "Do you think you'd want that to be a strictly monogamous relationship, or do think you'd prefer something less rigid?" If he says "absolutely it would have to be monogamous" then you have some additional info to work with. You know his end game, and even without telling him yes or no to that, you can evaluate this and future dates, if any, with that in mind. And if at any point you feel like "This is fun, but I don't think I could ever settle down with this guy exclusively", then you've got your answer, and you can either break it off, or make it clear to him that this won't end up where he wants it, but you're willing to keep seeing him if he's OK with something more casual. But in general: you can, if you want, upfront, say something like "It's not that I date around a lot, and I always hope things go well with a date and we hit it off. But I don't want either of us to assume exclusivity until we reach the point that we talk about it and agree that's what we want. In the meantime, I hope we enjoy each other's company as we see where, if anywhere, this leads us. Cool with that?"

Thank you for this thorough and clarifying post - it's the kind of thing I tend to do (as you probably know) but I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Search is in the upper right corner. It's a drop down menu. See: