BootmanLA
-
Posts
3,985 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by BootmanLA
-
I think the problem here is that you're conflating cultural Judaism with religious Judaism, along with the assumption that anyone who is "culturally" Jewish counts as Jewish even if they do not practice that faith at all. I would argue that someone who doesn't practice Judaism - particularly someone who considers himself an atheist - is not "Jewish". He may be "of Jewish descent." but even that is so ambiguous as to be virtually meaningless. Meanwhile, there have been any number of famous people (and lots of non-famous people) who have no Jewish ancestry but who converted to Judaism and were undeniably Jewish, including Sammy Davis Jr., Elizabeth Taylor. and Marilyn Monroe. I would posit that very few males who were born into practicing Jewish families (not necessarily "super religious") were left uncircumcised. Counting atheists as "Jewish" merely because their grandparents were proves nothing. I was born into a Catholic family and even raised as one, but I would never describe myself as a "Catholic," especially not for the purpose of proving that Catholics don't share some characteristic because I don't.
-
I get your point, but it's important to note that it's no longer PrEP and not "just a different formulation." Prevention of an infection, and treatment for that infection, are two different things, and even more especially when the treatment can't eradicate the infection, just manage it. For instance, this man may have been registered as an organ donor - chances are close to 100% that if he dies suddenly any of his organs might make it to someone else. A few places are now undertaking poz-to-poz transplants, but not many. Although in the US, at least, gay men are still largely expected to self-defer for blood donation, many who know they are negative and at very low risk for HIV infection nonetheless do so. That's no longer an option, either. If he applies for most life insurance (other than some company-sponsored policies), he's likely to be asked if he's ever tested positive for HIV. A truthful answer will render him ineligible for most policies, and a lie is likely to be discovered (and possibly result in fraud charges or a lawsuit). And on and on. There have been a number of threads here over the years about how life changes when you become poz - and it's not "just a different formulation" of medication. Not in the slightest.
-
It's certainly your right to impose a time limit on foreplay, but some of us occasionally like longer lead-ups to fucking. Make it clear in your profiles that you're only interested in brief foreplay if any, and tell them you have a timer on your phone counting down till you're out the door. That should limit you to the two or three people in your metro area who don't mind being on a ticking timeclock. If you're talking about a sling or a fuckbench, I'm with you. If you're talking about "just taking up space along a bench" - well, sorry, but a lot of spots in a sex club are intended to be multipurpose, including foreplay (extended or not) and/or voyeurism.
-
Here's the thing: as you yourself point out, it's "not the same" as stealthing. When a woman lies and says she's on the pill and gets pregnant because of unprotected sex, the man involved still had the option of protecting himself against unwanted fatherhood. Yes, condoms can break, but *used properly* that's a rare occurrence. "Used properly" includes using condom-safe lubricant, using a size that fits properly, leaving a space at the tip for collecting semen, and so forth. And it means not using the same damn condom that's been in your wallet for 2, 5, or 10 years. JFC. When a top "lies" by removing a condom without the bottom partner's knowledge and consent, the bottom doesn't maintain the ability to protect himself against unwanted STI's. True, he can be on PrEP, but that only protects against HIV, not against any of the myriad other STI's out there. People who think "condom" and can't think beyond "HIV or pregnancy" are ignoring a lot of other things that are still valid concerns. Bottom line: absent a man being tied down and milked for his semen, either by a woman riding on his cock or collecting it for insertion later, a man cannot father a child completely against his will. If he has sex with a woman and doesn't know how to properly use a condom, he's running that risk, even if she claims to be on the pill, have an IUD, have had a tubal ligation, or whatever. -
Are you actually saying that "true tops" can't be poz men?
-
Please check this out and respond…
BootmanLA replied to rawTOP's topic in HIV/AIDS & Sexual Health Issues
Except that high-risk sexual practices only affect the health of the individuals involved. When your idiot employees get sick, they'll undoubtedly infect quite a few others along the way before they realize it. -
So, you've already gotten therapy (Good!) and you have information that, at least to me, sounds valid: the therapist thinks it's not sexual at its root, but proximity makes you think of it in those terms. Your emotional closeness, I'm hearing, is keeping you from finding a more appropriate outlet for your desires. But you're choosing to sabotage the work you did, for a year, by moving back in with him. Result: you can't live with a partner at the same time (presumably), so you can't establish a deeper relationship with that guy. I don't know anything about the dynamic between the two of you; but I do know that frequently, family bonds between twins are much deeper than any other family bond. But still: you are an individual, and if you don't put your own needs first, nobody will. It sounds to me (based on this limited info, granted) that what you need is to be away from him for day-to-day living, so you can live your own life and establish your own relationship with someone, but you're putting his emotional demands (he's "sad" that you aren't there) ahead of your own needs. You have the power to tell him "No, I'm not mad at you. You're my brother, I love you, and I'll always be in your corner. But I need to build my own life, too, and I can't do that when I'm living with you, and you can't build your own either, because we end up relying on each other for all the things we should be getting from a husband or wife." And then do it. Because otherwise you'll be feeling this way for the rest of your life.
-
A therapist is the person you should discuss this with. Here on BZ, you are going to get a lot of "oh man that's hot, you should totally put the moves on him" crappy advice. Others will tell you that you need to get over that. Some will be quietly disgusted but won't say anything because they don't want to appear negative. The reality is, you need to figure out what it is that's driving this, and that's something you're unlikely to figure out without a trained therapist who can work this out with you. Sorry to be blunt, but this is the sort of thing for which there are no shortcuts, as you've already discovered.
-
Please check this out and respond…
BootmanLA replied to rawTOP's topic in HIV/AIDS & Sexual Health Issues
I agree with all ten, but I would note that I *suspect* there are large numbers of people out there who would flat-out disagree with the first point - that what they do affects others. Or at the very least, large numbers of people view that as "a problem for the others" - that is, it's incumbent on those who are worried about infection to do whatever it takes, including, if necessary, staying home 100% of the time in isolation, rather than expecting other people to alter their actions in any way. I think that's the key divide right now, between those who feel a sense of responsibility to the community at large and its weakest members to take reasonable precautions, and those who feel any limitations on what they can do are an intolerable restriction on their freedom. -
I'm not sure this makes sense. You tout PrEP (yay!) but then your profile says you're a poz bottom on meds. Being on meds largely means you don't have to worry about whether your partner(s) are on PrEP or not.
-
The “thrill” of Hard to Get - Turn On or No?
BootmanLA replied to NorfolkUK's topic in General Discussion
I suspect that some are indeed time wasters, but also some people, despite just wanting sex, want that sex to be with someone that they actually might kind of like. And there's nothing wrong with that; just as there's nothing wrong with believing you don't need to know anything more about the guy than that he's willing to fuck, and now. But that's those are the kind of things that have to be made clear. So: if your profile says "I'm not interested in idle chat; I'm ready to fuck, so let's not waste time with pleasantries", you're in the clear. You made your interests known, and those who can't follow your lead can be safely ignored. On the other hand, if you HAVEN'T been that explicit, then you can't blame them for feeling you out to see what sort of guy you are. -
Planning A Sex-Capade Vacation for 2022/2023...
BootmanLA replied to PendragonSpirit's topic in General Discussion
I would add this about New Orleans: it's a tourist destination town, and as such, it can be lively and busy when there are lots of tourists (major holidays, especially gay-centric ones like Mardi Gras, Southern Decadence, etc.), but it's not the same city when it's a typical mid-week evening or even a weekend in a slow period. That may not have always been the case, but remember that New Orleans has shrunk in size dramatically over the last few decades. At its peak, the city had over 625,000 residents. But today, most especially thanks to Hurricane Katrina, the population is only about 390,000, or less than 2/3 what it once was. Moreover, the character of the city has changed considerably too; pre-Katrina, the city had a very large LGBTQ population, with many of "our people" living in the French Quarter and the Marigny, where much of the city's gay culture thrived. Those neighborhoods have become dramatically more expensive and many former renters have been priced out of the market, especially by people buying former rental properties and turning them into short-term rentals (aka AirBnB and the like). As the community dispersed, so has the "local" culture. The bars are (mostly) still there, they still do good business, and so forth, but it's not what it once was. -
This is only relevant if you haven't showered/bathed since you "let to [sic] spunk run over them". Assuming you wash regularly, this should not be an ongoing problem. Sounds to me like (a) you like this, (b) other guys like this, so.... who says anything is "to be done"? If you like it, keep it going. If you don't, bathe. This is not rocket science.
-
For me the best gifts have always been experiences, not objects, as well.
-
Though I will say I wasn't in a fraternity myself, I was friendly with a number of frat boys in college, and while the ratty couch part may be realistic, the boys (in my experience) are not. At least here in the south, fraternities are much more about money and status, even when it's "rich good old boy", than about pure debauchery. Even back when I was in college, shortly after the dinosaurs were wiped out, the vast majority of frat boys didn't smoke, and with the declines in smoking in general, I suspect the percentage today is markedly lower; but it seems to be a huge fetish for the Fraternity X creators. I also realize that today tattoos are more accepted at various levels of society but the kind of "graffiti art" tats that are so common on tweaking porn boys today would still never be found in any fraternity I know. And speaking of, while most frat boys were no stranger to drink, and many were known to use some of the party substances of the day (mostly coke and the occasional pill), the meth-head aesthetic prevent in FratX videos is so far removed from the fraternities I saw (and still see)
-
To expound on this a bit: I remember a scene in a Jeff Stryker compilation that was so incredibly silly and poorly made I don't know how anyone ever even got hard watching it. Stryker was portraying an "Indian" (their term) who rescued a white man who'd been staked down spread-eagled in the hot sun by someone (presumably, some "savage" natives), and took the man back to his cave encampment. Ostensibly this cave (which was pristine - no dirt, no loose rocks, almost perfectly smooth floor) was where he lived; there was a "campfire" but no signs of any means of cooking or food; and despite being a cave with no visible entrance for daylight was nonetheless as bright as a modern office building thanks to the lighting used. (The part that made it really laughable was the execrable dialogue - "Suck this red man's cock white boy" and the like - but it MIGHT have been almost passable if they'd managed the cave idea a little better.
-
Obedience is not the same thing as consent. Sex without consent is rape. Period.
-
I can understand the chuckle. But good porn often is good in part because of attention to details, and sets can be part of that (and conversely, bad porn can be worse because of the sets). I'd imagine that the proliferation of amateur porn, there are fewer "behind the scenes" jobs like this available, though.
-
Yes. It's called rape.
-
Not that I disagree, but... I think you're off on the age range. I was born in 1963, so in 1981, when Reagan took office, I turned 18. I'm much closer to 60 now than 50, so those of us in our 50's - particularly anyone who didn't come out right at 18 - also got those condom messages. I remember the first gay student organization meeting I went to, in 1983 (we didn't have a group until then) that was already emphasizing safer sex practices.
-
Why are black people at greater risk of catching HIV?
BootmanLA replied to Safer's topic in HIV Risk & Risk Reduction
1. Black people represent approximately 14% of the population of the United States. The percentage in other countries, of course, will differ dramatically. 2. I sincerely doubt that what percentage of your sexual partners have been black somehow affects the prevalence of HIV in the black community at large, and it's first-degree navel gazing to suggest that "we as bottoms" do anything in particular simply because you do. -
I can't answer definitively, but I'd guess it's like most jobs: by word of mouth and making a connection.
-
I remember that too, but that was back in an era when most hookups took place after going to the bars/clubs, etc. and not from apps. I think partly it was a reaction to wanting to be among "more of our kind" after a day or days of being surrounded by biological family, some of whom were probably hostile to indifferent at best. (And for some, it was a chance to be around "more of our kind" after a day alone because the bio family rejected them long ago.) To some extent, as more of us have come out and families (broadly speaking) have become more accepting, there may be less demand for that need to socialize with our kind.
-
You ask a pretty complex set of questions here that could have any number of answers. There are some generic, trite ones some of us might supply (i.e. you like bondage/restraint), but the truth is, if you want to explore what this means *TO YOU* I'd suggest getting a good therapist who specializes in fetish fantasies. A bunch of random theories spouted by BZ members are unlikely to prove definitive answers.
-
The point is, there is literally no statistical evidence to support your notion that "some physical difference does exist". And you say "have fun" as though casual racism is a fun event. Though it's good to know you're showing you're a hypocrite with one face you'd show if you were "running for the councel [sic]" and then the more honest one you show here.
