BootmanLA

That was certainly the case for a period. But once things moved from "you're ordered to stay home unless it's an absolute necessity" to "you really should limit your outings to essential activity", the number of people circulating grew fast. And I'm not sure population size has a lot to do with it. Three of the ten largest cities in the country are in Texas, which had very limited lockdowns and where the state is constantly trying (and often succeeding) in overriding local initiatives to contain the virus.

If you think getting barebacked by a poz top makes you a woman, may I suggest a basic human sexuality class?

Finally, someone who posts an honest answer instead of the latest trying to outdo everyone else in appearing depraved.

With that clarification: sure, it would attract some guys. Thing to remember is that most guys will know you're not actually biologically dad/son, so to them, it's just two bottom partners, one older and one younger, getting fucked together. Because no matter how much you and your boy have a Dad/son relationship at home, very little of that is going to translate well to a gangbang situation. You won't be interacting much with each other than some verbal talk, and that's not a lot to hang the whole relationship on in a way that the visiting tops can appreciate. I honestly think it would be much more successful to have you watching, coaching, and egging on the tops to breed your boy, which helps them get into the headspace you seem to be aiming for. Or for the tops to fuck you while your boy has to watch and learn, so that you're "teaching" him how to take cock like a good boy. Those are, I think, scenarios that would get into the tops' heads a little better. But that's just my perception.

Perhaps because he realizes that partners, like friends, can "come and go"? Because he realizes that a partner may well NOT "be there with you no matter what"? I'm not downgrading the value of a relationship - I'm in one myself. But I've been in three others before (I'm now 58), and each one of those "came and went". Each one of those started with "be there no matter what" right up until he wasn't any more. It may shock you to learn that the vast majority of relationships end before the death of either partner. Even legal marriages end at a pretty substantial rate. So let's not pretend that "relationship" is some magic formula that ensures you'll never be alone. In fact, I think your friend probably has a healthier outlook on relationships than you do. They're great when they happen to work out, but they don't always, and they're not always essential. And to use your metaphor, sometimes adding salt to the stew completely ruins the flavor.

Or maybe they're just not that into you and don't want to hurt your feelings by expressing their true opinion of you. Seriously, this is as self-centered as the guy who says that in his "pure observation" restaurants exist to make you unhealthy because the only restaurants he visits serve burgers and fries. There are a multitude of reasons why people might not think sex is all that important. Some men have low testosterone levels, for instance, and their libido just isn't that great. Some men have erectile dysfunction issues and are content with other forms of affection. As I suggested, there are other forms of sexuality (asexuality, demisexuality, sapiosexuality, etc.) that might make someone feel sex is "not that important" in particular cases or relationships, none of which have anything to do with your limited worldview that it's all about dick size, appearance concerns, or STD worries). Ever stop to think that maybe the issue is YOU think sex is way too important? Why do you assume the importance YOU place on sex is normal, and anyone who doesn't agree is abnormal? While you're navel gazing, clean out the lint. It's blocking your line of sight.

I would suggest that anyone who finds he's gotten SIX reactions on his FIRST post on a forum, all downvoting, might want to think about what he wrote and whether there's a faint chance he just didn't express himself well, or whether in fact he's being an ass.

I would say that the meaning of the terms varies with the person, so much that there's no universal agreed-upon terminology. But it seems to me that in both of these cases, the guys involved seem to associate anal sex at the first meeting as "hook up" territory. That's neither wrong nor right, inherently, but that seems to be their thought process. What I would suggest, as the recipient of them expressing this, is that in the future you be more specific in your planning. If you're open to sex on the first date, make sure a guy knows that before you actually have the date. A halfway joking line, either spoken (if you met in person) or in your profie (if you met on an app/website) along the lines of "Note: I've been known to fuck on the first date, if the chemistry is there for both of us" at least lets the person know you're capable of moving at a good speed. You might also consider holding back on going all the way, as they used to say. That's not to shame casual sex, but sometimes building towards something like anal sex is more appealing for "dating". Because I think for most people, a "date" implies that if successful, it's going to advance, slowly or not, towards something more: second dates, meeting each others' friends, taking things a step farther on the sex front. When you hit anal sex on the first date, it can seem like you're skipping a bunch of steps and headed fast towards something serious. Because some guys - not suggesting how many - think of anal sex as something you do only as you get a little more serious with someone.

Realistically, you're talking about gathering two bottoms at a time (since they're coupled), so the number of bottoms will very quickly exceed the number of tops willing to come to a sex party like that. You'd be much, much more likely to succeed if you aim for Dad/boy couples that are not both bottoms; whether the dad or the boy is the top, let the tops trade bottoms and each guy can watch his partner fuck/get fucked while he's doing the opposite. I could be wrong, of course. But in my experience and from what others report, getting enough tops for any sort of sex party is the biggest problem; starting with a pile of bottoms seems predestined to fail because to keep them all busy, you need at least two tops for every Dad/boy bottom couple you invite, and probably more, so that tops who need a breather or need time to recover between fucks can do so while not having the bottoms just lying there waiting.

In some relationships, yes. Not in all. Under your formulation, an impotent man could never have a "healthy" relationship. Asexuals could never have a "healthy" relationship. What matters is what YOU want in a relationship; if what matters to you is having a guy dress up like a clown and rub his bright red rubber nose against your asshole until you ejaculate, then that's what YOU need for a healthy relationship. Just don't project your needs onto others. No, it's not. It's arrogant and ignorant.

Exactly. What this is about is how much of the drug remains active in your system and for how long. With most daily drugs, the dosage is calculated such that roughly 24 hours after taking it, you're about at the point where another dose is needed to keep the levels of the drug effective. But that's an approximation. If you normally take at noon, but one day you forget and don't remember until 3 PM, go ahead and take it then (which will bump up the level in your system again). Where this gets problematic, if at all, is when you forget to take that noon dose completely, and the next morning, you have receptive anal sex with a poz guy who's got a very detectable load. That scenario combines several factors: a missed dose completely, which means the level in your system is dropping significantly lower than normal, plus a risky sex act performed with a very much potentially infectious person. After all, missing the dose but eventually making it up is "no harm, no foul" if you don't get exposed to HIV in the interim. It's not like your body "remembers" that gap and leaves you at risk. So, go ahead and shift your dosing forwards or backwards as needed to fit your new schedule. Just don't skip any days entirely AND have unprotected sex while you're waiting to take the next dose.

I'd replace "many" in that first sentence with "a few". Seriously. I don't think there is any place on this planet with "many" confident young tops who "positively enjoy the challenge" you describe. If so, that place's location is the best-kept secret on earth.

"Luke" doesn't appear in that line. The actual line is "No... I am your father" (emphasis on "I"). One of the most misquoted movie lines of all time, along with "Play it again, Sam" (it's actually "Play it, Sam".)

Technically, you don't know he "forgot" to put them away; he could well have been just abandoning them for some reason. I wouldn't consider that stealing, since he left the gym/locker room entirely. The shower guy - that's different; he could well have just figured he'd put them back on when he got out.

FWIW, this is a widespread and widely known phenomenon/issue in the gay community. Part of the problem is plain old ageism: anyone over a certain age is considered generally disfavored for sex. Tops get more of a pass because there are so many fewer tops than bottoms, so the "Daddy" top gets attention far later in life than a Daddy bottom. And that's not always true in every city, of course; certain places where there are lots of older gays (and where it's often too expensive for lots of younger gays to live on their own) have a more balanced approach - the tops are still busier, but they're less able to get hordes of sub-30 guys eager to get fucked regularly. The flip side is the college town, where every year thousands of young people move in, including a significant number of LGBT youth, and it's bottom city.

FWIW: I have no problem with people adopting the occasional "get out of X free" card - whether it's a blowjob or fucking or whatever. Yes, monogamy is hard (at times) and yes, people are socialized to expect the one Disney prince and all that, but still: as many people in this thread have made clear, they have zero intention of honoring their word, not because it's hard to keep but because they never intended to keep it in the first place. Savage has also written that while cheating is *sometimes* the least bad option, that's not a blanket license to do so, which so many responding posters here have suggested.

I certainly didn't mean to imply it was the only or even primary tool used to justify discrimination. But it was always a great fall-back when others failed, in part because black men couldn't prove they WOULD'T rape a white woman, given the chance. When the argument is "they're not smart enough to vote" you can counter with lots of examples of intelligent, well-educated people; but you can't prove a negative (that black men won't engage in certain behaviors) and that renders it stubbornly resistant to reason.

My thought is that he uploaded to the general "user gallery" and not to a personal gallery, and now wants his picture out of there. Is that a possibility?

Here's my thing. UNLESS there's an expressed commitment that's monogamous, then it's not really relevant. You get to worry about whether someone else is "on the apps" when you've agreed with that person to be exclusive. Otherwise, it's MYOB. A better question would be "Why are you so wrapped up in what someone other than yourself is doing with his life?"

You can't, yet. After you've been a member long enough, and after you've participated sufficiently in *other* ways (making posts, replying to posts, etc.) you get the ability to react to a limited number of posts each day. As you continue to post, comment, and otherwise participate, that limit increases and eventually goes away. The same is true for being able to directly message another member - something you only gain with proven "good behavior" on the site across the forums. There are discussions elsewhere as to why, but in a nutshell: disruptive people were creating accounts and spamming other users with links to outside info (including some of which may have been non-cybersafe), and otherwise disrupting the forum here (certain reactions raise or lower the "score" of the poster being reacted to). The exact points at which you gain these abilities isn't posted publicly, precisely to prevent those same disruptive types from gaming the system to get to the appropriate level as fast as possible. At a minimum, your internal "score" (which determines what you can do on here) depends on length of membership, number of posts, number of replies to posts, number of topics created, and other peoples' reactions to what you post (so a thoughtful, well-reasoned reply may get you a boost if people upvote your answer). Be patient, and it will happen.

I've said before that I wouldn't wish this on anyone, so no. Mind you, I don't think being poz is anything to be ashamed of, and if someone is turned on by the thought of it, well, that's his business. But deliberately hoping/wishing that someone else has a lifetime of medication to take in order to stay alive, and all the crap that comes along with it? No, I don't even wish that on my worst enemies.

I think we'd need to clarify some terms. The study of viruses, especially retroviruses like HIV, undoubtedly increased dramatically once HIV was discovered. We forget that back in the early 80's, there was a lot more discussion of "superbugs" - ie bacteria that were antibiotic resistant - possibly developing, whereas we seemed to have a reasonable grasp on viruses - cold, flu, pneumonia. They still affected millions and some years thousands died but we had a good handle on vaccines and the bigger problem was just getting more people to take the damned shot. We'd largely eliminated smallpox, polio, and a host of other viral diseases with vaccinations and improved treatments. Then along comes HIV - a virus that nothing really worked on to treat, and against which we had no tools to prevent infection, either - and it was, for almost all patients, especially at the end, painful and fatal. And that's for a virus that is, for all its power, relatively hard to transmit. It dies very, very quickly once it leaves its host unless it immediately infects another in the process. Imagine a virus with the destructive power of HIV coupled with the ability to survive outside the human body for extended periods, the way some cold & flu viruses can, and that doesn't require contact with permeable tissues (vaginal/anal/oral linings) to infect. That fear prompted a lot of work that helped in the development of treatments for HIV (eventually); and even when treatments failed to "shake out" from particular research, the increased knowledge of how viruses work helped science across the viral study front. In fact, the Moderna mRNA vaccine for Covid is built on work that Moderna was already doing on HIV, which helped them get up to speed quickly. But to be clear - that's research for an HIV vaccine, not "HIV treatment", which isn't the same thing. There ARE some antiviral drugs coming on the market - oral ones - that also build on HIV treatment research. In some cases, avenues explored for retroviruses like HIV that were dead ends found new life - and better suitability - in treating coronaviruses like SARS-CoV-2 (the Covid-19 virus). So I'd say the short answer is "Kind of" but with the note that HIV vaccine research was more productive in facilitating Covid vaccines than HIV treatment research (specifically) has ben in facilitating Covid treatment. And broadly speaking, But specifically, HIV *TREATMENT* leading to a Covid *VACCINE*? Not really. The former is (ongoing) work to find ways to manage HIV in already infected people; the latter is a product that prevents (or dramatically limits) infection in the first place.

That would have earned him a report to Uber for me. He's free to believe what he wants but passengers - customers of his employer - shouldn't be forced to listen.

And admitting it's a pretense means there's a seed of doubt now planted in the finder's head, as to what else in his life might be a pretense.

Eww. Aside from the rumors that he's supposedly hung very well, it's like Beetlejuice before he was dead.