Jump to content

BootmanLA

Senior Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,985

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BootmanLA

  1. BootmanLA
    It's a racist myth that blacks "dabble in recreational drug use more". Drug usage rates are pretty consistent across races; the KIND of drugs used may vary, though, and criminal sentences (naturally) tend to reflect that. White people, for instance, are far more likely to use powder cocaine than crack, black people the opposite (or at least, that was the case for a long time, not sure about current stats); but for decades a particular amount of crack had a minimum sentence up to 100 times as long as the same amount of powder form. One big reason that the powers that be keep wringing their hands over "the opioid epidemic" is that so many of the addicts who've gotten caught up with them are white (and poor).
  2. BootmanLA
    I think you're correct that "private mode" is the problem. If I remember correctly, the "Chat" system on here is a completely separate bit of software from the forum, and it relies on validating your identity back from the BZ forum. If you start off in "Private" mode, I suspect it's not visible to the separately running Chat software. I'd suggest trying it very briefly in normal mode, and if that works, at least you'll know that's the issue.
  3. BootmanLA
    Links are no longer posted as "clickable" HTML links - the "[think before following links]" language is standard on this site and has been for over two years now. That's well-documented here:
  4. BootmanLA
    Anyone who's too embarrassed to tell a health care worker who specializes in sexually transmitted infections that he might need to be tested for those STI's, is someone you should probably avoid. He's precisely the sort likely to acquire an STI and allow it to go untreated because of that embarrassment.
  5. BootmanLA
    The reason I mention this is that if you look at organized religions earlier than 4th century Christianity, there's still a pattern of attacking the outsider. For instance, post-Exodus Judaism: the Hebrews claimed God told them to take Canaan for themselves, and they did, annihilating the residents in many areas until control was established. Likewise, there was a mixture of religion and civil authority in many other cultures of the Middle East, most of which spent centuries attacking one another trying to control people and territories. The Romans were (to a large degree, with exceptions) tolerant of local religions in areas they conquered, as long as the locals added imperial worship to the menu, so to speak, but even they went to extremes at times to eradicate religions they found incompatible with the Imperial cult - Druids, for instance. So this isn't so much to excuse the militancy of early Christianity, post-Constantine; it's more to note it's in line with a long history of the state and religion merging, completely or not, and imposing both on others as a means of control.
  6. BootmanLA
    Then flush the toilet once or twice before taking any water from the tank or bowl. A single flush should largely empty the tank; a second should mean that virtually every drop of water in the tank is "new" (I hate to say "fresh" because, as you note, old pipes can be a problem). But if someone is worried about the water, just carry a few individual bottled water bottles in your bag as well. If you're a real snob about it, carry Perrier.
  7. BootmanLA
    You refer to plugs as an inch or an inch and a half in "radius". Radius is one-half of the distance across the "circle" (so to speak), from the center to the outer edge. A plug that is an inch and a half in radius would be three inches in diameter and over 9 inches in circumference. It would not be surprising that you couldn't take that - most guys, except experienced fisters, would have trouble getting a plug that large in. And honestly, I can't imagine you'd need to be able to take a plug more than 9" around in order to handle *any* human cock. It's overkill. If instead you mean the plus are an inch or an inch and a half in *diameter* - that is, that's the distance from one side of the plug to the opposite side - then one that's 1.5 inches in diameter would only be a little over 4.5" around. That should be manageable. But something else to remember: with a plug, once it's inserted, the anus closes around the narrow part of the plug, which is by design; that's what keeps it in place. It's great for feeling "full", but unless that "narrow" part of the plug is nearly as wide as the plug itself, it's not going to stretch your anal ring much at all. So when a cock any larger than that NARROW part of the plug - as opposed to its "fat" section that's kept inside you - goes in, it's going to stretch you again, and that's going to hurt some. If your goal is actually loosening the anal ring so that you can take larger cocks, you'd be better off loosening up with a dildo, not a plug, that is close to the size of the cock you want to take.
  8. BootmanLA
    To be fair, organized religion has been perpetrating outrages since the development of organized religion. Mind you, I draw a distinction between belief systems like some (most?) of the eastern traditions, which focus on the individual's relationship with greater powers, and "organized" religions, which typically have canonical beliefs in a deity or deities. There are individual "threads" within some of these organized religions - think, for instance, some of the contemplative orders of Christians - that share this focus on the individual's relationship with the the divine, and do not seek conversions or conquest, but those tend to get drowned out.
  9. BootmanLA
    You have to be a member for a certain length of time and participated to a certain level before you can send individual personal messages. According to your post (look to the left-hand side, next to the "speech" balloon), you've only made 8 posts on here, which isn't enough. Keep participating, and you'll eventually get that ability.
  10. BootmanLA
    You might start by posting in the appropriate Fiction section. This particular forum is for porn videos.
  11. BootmanLA
    Under standard circumstances, these STI's are confirmed with a urine test, not a blood test (on the assumption that such STI's would transfer between a man's penis and a woman's vagina, in either direction). But yes, with an possible STI spread by oral-genital contact, or genital-anal contact, a throat swab or an anal swab would be needed to detect these in a "receptive" person. This is an older article on the topic, but it's apparently still on point: [think before following links] https://www.aidsmap.com/news/may-2005/stis-will-be-missed-unless-gay-men-have-rectal-and-throat-swabs
  12. BootmanLA
    It varies from place to place. In some places, people get out of their cars, walk around like they're stretching their legs, etc. Some go straight to a restroom where activity occurs. Some walk through trails and other areas that provide cover. There's no foolproof method that works everywhere, and it's worth noting that even in places where gay sex is legal, that generally pertains to sex in private places (including some, but not necessarily all, commercial establishments). It's still generally forbidden in public parks and such, and police do still patrol such areas (again, it varies where, when, and how frequently). If you do anything that could be construed as illegal (exposing yourself, rubbing a hard cock through pants, etc.), you could face criminal charges if the jurisdiction opts to prosecute such things. Granted, there are some spots in particular cities that are sort of "off limits" to law enforcement - they know what goes on but as long as it's contained there, they leave it alone. But that's a discretionary tactic that might be revoked at any time. So... be forewarned.
  13. BootmanLA
    I think that's an overly generous reading of the situation. There are way too many guys out here in the US who could best be described as "ammosexuals" - they view guns as an extension of their (probably inadequate) genitalia and it makes them feel "manly" to own a powerful weapon they can use to punish people who they think deserve it. It's odd that the same people who are so intent on allegedly "taking responsibility" for safety are the same ones who refuse to get vaccinated. And if they're so intent on taking responsibility, you'd think they'd all have advanced home security systems with 360-degree camera coverage, to be able to identify threats and help identify lawbreakers. But no, all they want is a gun to shoot someone who threatens them. Which might -MIGHT - make sense if we had absolutely foolproof ways to determine guilt - not just "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "without question". That is almost never the case, with the result that statistically, it's a virtual certainty that the government has executed people for crimes they did not commit. Those who support the death penalty, therefore, are tacitly admitting we're going to get it wrong sometimes and that's somehow an acceptable price to pay in order to get to kill some of the bad guys.
  14. BootmanLA
    Just remember that trolls on BZ urging you to get pozzed and glorifying it as some sort of sacrament, with all the stupid, ignorant GIFs promoting a fatal disease, will not pay the first dime towards your medical bills or lift a finger to help you when you get sick. And when your boyfriend breaks up with you - and statistically, he almost certainly will, because virtually no "first relationships" last more than a few years, if that - your "closeness" to him through sharing HIV will be worth a bucket of warm spit. Your profile says you're in Berlin, which is one of the more advanced democracies on the planet, with a national health plan that covers PrEP for free. You have literally NO reason to pursue this except some misguided attempt to "bond" with your boyfriend du jour. When I think of the hundreds of thousands of gay men who died of complications of HIV and AIDS, who would give ANYTHING to have not been infected in the first place, it boggles my mind that people like you even exist. Maybe if you'd watched 100 or more of your closer friends die a miserable death from this disease you're actively seeking out, you'd understand why this is just downright appalling.
  15. BootmanLA
    Nope.
  16. BootmanLA
    It will show up if they test for it. Here's the thing about urine and blood (and other sera) tests: When the sample is analyzed, there's no Star Trek device that says "This is composed of 26% X, 23% Y, 18% Z..." and so forth. Different types of screenings use different methods. For instance, if they're looking for certain types of bacteria, they may apply a stain to the sample, a stain that's known to be absorbed by the bacteria in question. If they're conducting a blood sugar test, there are things that can measure the relative amount of sugar. But each one is a separate test and unless they're instructed to do test A, they don't. That said, tests interact with one another. It's possible, for instance, that having substance 1 in your system can throw off a test for substance 2. That depends on how those two substances interact; as a completely hypothetical and made-up example, perhaps residual amounts of crystal meth might cause an increased reading for blood sugar, making your sugar level appear abnormally high. And of course, the effects, if any, of a substance on your testing will fade over time. Bottom line: it's probably best NOT to do illegal substances before a urine or blood test is scheduled, ESPECIALLY if you don't know exactly what they're checking for.
  17. BootmanLA
    Well, not so much that condomed sex can feel "natural" (at least not in the sense of how it should be) but the conditioning made it seem - I don't know, necessary? Expected? Obligatory? It was drummed into us that it's the way you have to do it if you wanted to stay alive. I think people who, like you, were stuck hiding due to religion, marriage, etc. were less likely to hear that drumbeat of safer sex messages, the kind that were delivered to "out" gays at gay bars, at gay bookstores (not "adult" bookstores), at gay community centers - the sorts of places that deeply closeted people were less likely to enter, due to fear of being found out. And thus, less likely to hear the messages about (then) safer sex.
  18. BootmanLA
    It's not that you're wrong about what's natural. But it's a generational/timing thing. As I recall, you were married and on the DL at least through most (if not all) of the 80's and 90's. Those of us who came out (and were out and involved in the community) in the early 80's were inundated with safer-sex messages - that a condom was necessary *every* time you had sex, And we all knew someone who didn't follow that mandate and who ended up poz, at a time when there were either no treatments or only very rudimentary ones, and no PrEP. For literally an entire generation of young gay men, it was largely inconceivable that people would continue to have sex raw - or at least, that anyone would admit to it. While it undoubtedly happened (as we can see from HIV infection rates that continued to rise), bareback sex was a risk a huge portion of gay men were unwilling to take. That's why people chose otherwise, and there are some, to this day, who don't trust PrEP or who want to prevent, as much as is possible, other STI's. So many of the guys who publicly came out and were "significantly" sexually active pre-condom/pre-HIV are now dead - a big number from HIV, but some from simple aging; a man born in 1950, and thus in his mid 20's in the 1970's, would be 71 today, which isn't "old" but isn't exactly spring chicken territory, either. There's a much bigger cohort of us born in the 1960's and 1970's, who were part of that generation for which "condom sex" was promoted as standard. That's why some "people choose otherwise", even today in the era of HAART and PrEP.
  19. BootmanLA
    In addition, many of the OG families weren't "live-in" in the sense that the OP is describing. You might have eight or ten members of a family, but (at least in the ones I know) only a core two or three lived together, and the rest (uncles, cousins, whatever) were visitors on a more or less frequent basis. I think that sort of thing is perhaps more sustainable than a large family living together.
  20. BootmanLA
    What he means is that there is a difference between a role (a part you are playing) and a roll (something you eat with dinner). Probably wise not to confuse the two, as you did initially.
  21. BootmanLA
    They exist, but for each additional family member added, the number of such "families" drops by an order of magnitude. By which I mean, if there are 100,000 same-sex male couples living together as "daddy" and "son", there may only be 10,000 triads where there's a dad and two sons, or dad, son, and uncle. Getting up to four members reduces the numbers even more sharply. And that's for two reasons. First, it's just harder to find four guys of the proper balance - an oldest guy who likes younger, a somewhat younger guy who likes both older and younger himself, an even younger guy who likes everyone else to be older than him, and a fourth who somehow fits among all the others. Second, there's an exponential factor to relationships as you add additional members. If there are two, then there's simply A's relationship to B and B's relationship to A (which may be different - ie a dad sees his son differently than a son sees his dad. Add in C, and you have A's relationship to B, A's relationship to C, B's relationship to A, B's relationship to C, C's relationship to A, and C's relationship to B - as well as how A views the relationship between B and C, how B views that between A and C, and how C views that between A and B. Add in D, and the complexity quickly grows to difficult levels. Just look at actual blood-related, non-sexual families, and see how hard those are to keep close with the complex dynamics between members - and that's with tens of thousands of years of practice at family relationships handed down as collective wisdom (how wise, of course, varies). Adding in sexual attraction and activity to the mix can make things exceptionally complex to navigate. Not surprising that few such relationships exist - and with societal disapproval of non-monogamous relationships in general, and polyamory specifically, and I'm surprised we know of any (I do, but they aren't common).
  22. BootmanLA
    I think the percentage is high because all the "look what a toxic slut I am" assholes are likely to respond to these kinds of polls because it's yet one more chance to be an obnoxious twat about their depravity, whereas I suspect (and hope) that thousands of guys who know better simply didn't answer the poll because it didn't appeal to them to even check out the topic.
  23. BootmanLA
    I think you completely misunderstood my posts. I am not twisting what you said nor am I saying you said that "natural should apply to one thing but nothing else." What I said was that by *not* addressing "natural" with respect to other human body functions, you left a gaping hole in your argument that "natural" is the reason people have raw sex. Which, as I suggested, I think is bullshit. You don't have to agree. I just don't think opinions expressed here are sacrosanct and shouldn't be challenged. You may or may not respond as you choose.
  24. BootmanLA
    Amen. This is the thing I hate most about this site. Too many twatwaffles who think it's a pissing contest to demonstrate who can pretend to be the nastiest, whoriest, sluttiest, most depraved individual on the site.
  25. BootmanLA
    I agree with those who think this guy is insecure and thus thinks you're "out of his league" because he doesn't have a clear, objective view of whether he's attractive or not. (I assume you think he's attractive, but he doesn't seem to think he's "enough".) As long as your interactions/socializing with him are "casual" (meaning: hang out as buds, or fucking without strings) I see no problems, really. But if you have an actual interest in dating the guy, just be aware: guys who are insecure like that will often (if not usually) be really dependent on constant reassurances, to the point it'll drive you insane trying to convince him you really do like him. And if he's still not convinced, he might well sabotage the relationship by constantly insinuating you must be cheating (because a man like him could never be enough for a man like you), to the point where he drives you away - and then he feels vindicated because he was dumped by a man he thought was "out of his league". So just know what you're getting into, and make it clear to him that you'll be appropriately supportive and reassuring but you can't solve his issues for him.

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.