BootmanLA

Just as the thought that nobody can tell you're gay without you wearing your fem attire is total hogwash. IMO, of course.

So you believe in "live and let live" as long as those living do so in a way you approve. Otherwise, you consider them "pieces of shit". As for half-naked: I assume you mean bare-chested. Do you wear a top when you go to the beach or to the swimming pool? As I said before: incoherence and inconsistent are hallmarks of conservative "thinking" these days.

No, you did not. However, you offered no principled reason why "natural" should apply to ONE basic bodily function (sex) but not to OTHER basic bodily functions (eating, sleeping, waste elimination). Why should "natural" be important for one but not the others? And I stand by my answer. It's not because raw is "natural"; it's because it feels better, and too many people have just enough repression that they can't admit that the only reason they do it is that it feels better. Here's another way to look at it: tooth extraction. To do it naturally, you'd have to avoid all anesthetics. Would you argue that we should extract teeth without anesthetics because "it's natural"? Of course not - the natural way hurts more, so we don't do it. Raw sex is simply the opposite of that: we opt for raw because it feels better. If condoms somehow enhanced the feeling of sex, you can bet your ass that gay men right and left would be using them every chance they could.

Just get on PrEP already. Most guys I know can't piss when they're hard enough to penetrate, which means they'll have to get in, and then soften up a bit. Chances are they'll already be putting you at risk via precum, and some of them are going to want to fuck you "just for a little while" and will end up cumming. This is a stupid strategy that is bound to backfire. Moreover, the feeling of being pissed in is very different from the feeling of being cum in. If you want piss play, ask for that, but don't kid yourself it's a "safer sex" way to get "stuff" in your ass.

If you think everything must be "natural" then I have to assume you don't use toilets (because they're unnatural), you don't use forks, knives, or spoons, or plates or bowls (because they're also unnatural), and you don't sleep on a mattress or with sheets or blanks (again, guess). Using "it's natural" is a lazy excuse. It's fine to bareback, but acknowledge that you do it because it feels better, not because it's "natural" - unless you carry out all of life's OTHER basic functions (sleeping, waste elimination, eating) in a completely natural way as well.

In the case of the man who answers "Are you poz?" with "I'm safe", I'd argue that he has deliberately misled the person. It's true that scientifically speaking, he's "safe" - but he's not only NOT answering the question asked, but he's doing so in a way calculated to mislead, AND missing an opportunity to educate the other guy. If the other guy does end up finding out, the selfish actions of the guy saying "I'm safe" are likely to have more backlash, where his onetime partner now has less reason to trust people. You know, and I know, that an UD top essentially can't infect a negative bottom. But the bottom still deserves to know the status so he can decide for himself whether that's a risk he's willing to take; so answering in a way that could mislead the bottom to make a decision in favor of sex (or bareback sex) when he would not otherwise, is stealthing. I wouldn't say ALL nondisclosure amounts to stealthing. Stealth, to me, in this context implies deceit. And deceit requires at least some level of intent, beyond "not volunteering information". It includes lying by commission and lying by omission. "I'm safe" is true, but it omits the truthful answer to the question asked. But just because I think "not volunteering information" isn't stealthing doesn't mean I think anything goes, morally speaking, if no questions are asked. I just think it falls into a different category of behavior than "stealthing".

It's not OTC because it requires medical supervision to be used correctly and safely. If a patient isn't willing to submit to being tested regularly for HIV, to make sure that he's not developing a resistant strain of HIV due to sloppy adherence to PrEP coupled with getting infected, then PrEP isn't for him.

In other words, like most Republicans, completely incoherent and inconsistent. And a member of a party that would gladly slit your throat for your personal life choices.

Actually, most of our Founding Fathers quickly aligned with one of the two dominant political parties as soon as they were formed. It's a myth that all of the Founders objected to parties; Adams was an ardent Federalist, whereas Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were Democratic Republicans (the party which evolved into the Democratic Party). George Washington warned against "factions", but he was, as they say, sui generis - unique. And in reality, had Washington been less modest, he could have capitalized on his cult of personality and gotten himself repeatedly elected president-for-life, and then more or less choosing and anointing his successor.

There is a difference between being a chaser and having pozzing fantasies. People with the latter sometimes become the former, but not necessarily. If you find yourself seeking out detectable tops, skipping PrEP doses, etc., then you might have cause for concern. Until you find yourself taking actual risks, I don't think you are a chaser.

Just for the record: condoms aren't necessary for stealthing, which has multiple definitions. A top promising a bottom he'll pull out, and then ejaculating inside (especially if he can cum again "outside" soon after) is stealthing. So is a top telling a bottom he's negative when he knows he's not, and getting the bottom to bareback under false pretenses. As you say, they're all violations of consent, whether or not condoms are involved.

I think the various previous posts have largely covered it. Sometimes, it can mean closeted; sometimes, it can mean cheating; sometimes, it can mean "don't want people to know I sleep around a lot". But there's also the simple, unvarnished meaning of the term, i.e. it's nobody's business who I'm sleeping with, and we don't talk about it. That used to be the default assumption for public figures, for instance. Spencer Tracy was unhappily married (and an alcoholic) and lived separately from his wife of many years, in a cottage on movie studio grounds. He was a loyal Catholic and would not consider divorce as an option. But for more than 20 years he lived in that cottage with Katherine Hepburn, "discreetly"; when he died there, some studio hands quickly showed up to move all of Hepburn's wardrobe and personal items before his family arrived. Everyone involved knew what was going on, but from the family to the studio to the press, they agreed it was a personal matter that had no bearing on his profession or his fame. None of us (that I know of) are golden age movie stars, but I could understand, certainly, those who might favor a similar sort of discretion in their private lives.

It's true that men lie about things, especially related to sex. But if a man is going to lie when he is poz and detectable/toxic, he's just as likely (or more so) to lie and say he's negative, as to claim to be undetectable when he's not. So even in the case of people you know casually, it's probably a better bet than relying on people saying they're negative.

I realize you only briefly summarized your discussions, but there's a lot missing. You say the idea to poz you came from him. Why? Has he given you reasons why he wants you pozzed? Do you agree with those reasons? Do you WANT to be poz yourself, or are you doing this for him? Would you want to be poz if he dumped you next month and you were single, looking for a potential partner? Because there's no guarantee your relationship will last forever, or even until next week. You say you know what's coming if you do convert. You only know what you've seen from him. Have you researched whether (where you live) you will have affordable access to health care? Here in the U.S., where the health care system is highly fragmented, if you don't have insurance from an employer, you would need a private policy to cover your medication costs - are you insured? I see all sorts of things that you need to consider if you haven't already. As I said, you may have, but your terse messages don't give any sign these are things you've thought through.

I would add: I have a really broad definition of sex worker. I even include guys who list themselves as "FinDoms" - you're taking money for turning someone on, you're a sex worker.

I agree there's a difference. I'm openly gay, but I don't tell people what I get up to behind closed doors (whether it's a bedroom door or a bathhouse door). But I think the key thing is, being willing to openly say "Yes, I'm gay" if asked and to correct people who misgender my partner ("His name is Jonathan"). If you can do that, you're not closeted. Granted, someone could take the position that it's nobody's business who you date, but I've never known any heterosexual to take that stance.

I think asking whether we "perceive" them differently based on X Y or Z is kind of open-ended. If you mean "Do you judge group A more harshly than group B?" the answer is no. If you mean "Are you equally likely to engage a sex worker if he/she is X, instead of Y?" then yes, of course, I would presumably hire a sex worker that meets the desires and needs I have at that point. As far as I'm concerned, cam work (and "fans" site work) is sex work. Whether or not physical contact comes into play, the person in front of the camera, live or not, is presumably helping the viewer pleasure themself/selves, and it's a commercial transaction. That's sex work. I don't see either as better or worse than the other; just different, like a Big Mac is a different sort of meal from a medium rare ribeye steak with all the trimmings. I might say I "like" the steak much better than the burger, but then I don't get to eat steak multiple times a week. And I don't consider the steak restaurant a morally superior place to the McDonald's, at least not as far as the food is concerned. (Employee practices may make a morals judgment more relevant).

If I had to hazard a guess, I would think most men who remain closeted have serious regrets about it - even if, looking back, they don't see any way they could have done differently. I, too, am 58, and came out to friends at the age of 18 (in 1981, just as AIDS was beginning to ravage the gay community). As tough as it was, sometimes, I guarantee it wouldn't have been "easier" if I'd stayed closeted and pretended to be straight. I'd just have traded one set of problems for another, much more pernicious set. And while I have regrets about some of the things I haven't done, I have ZERO regrets about coming out at the start of adulthood. I didn't leave a trail of broken marriages in my wake, I don't have kids who can't understand why Dad doesn't actually like women, and I don't have ulcers from worrying about who might find out. That's not to say everyone else should have done the same. But I've never known any closeted man in his late middle age or older who looked back and was happy with the life he'd led.

Dude, if cold bothers you, Boston is not the place to be. Did you even look to see what winters there are like?

Your post makes no sense. (I'm assuming English isn't your primary language?) First, "clean" is a shitty, offensive way to describe someone who does not have HIV, because obviously that means someone who DOES have HIV is "dirty". That's an English language term that you should forget. Immediately. Second, if you are going to have bareback sex, you are risking infection with STI's. Period. If they have sex with someone else with an STI (and even if you were in a committed relationship with both of them, you can't police their activity when you're not present), then they could acquire an STI and transmit it to you. This is one of the risks everyone who has bareback sex has to take. HIV is a specific kind of STI, and it's the only one that you may actually be able to prevent yourself from getting. That is because there are medications, collectively known as PrEP, that you can take that prevent you from acquiring an HIV infection. However, it may not be available where you live, based on the language barrier you present. You do not have to bleed to get infected with an STI. In fact, virtually all STI's can be transmitted with no blood whatsoever. So bleeding shouldn't be your concern.

Not that I disagree completely with @hntnhole but a blanket suggestion to "avoid red states" isn't necessarily called for. I'm not sure why he cuts slack for western red states by suggesting you just avoid rural areas, when the same advice would apply in the south. For instance, Atlanta, Georgia, is in the heart of a mostly red state, but the Atlanta metro area is exceptionally progressive and has enormous health care resources (so likely a good spot for dental research). The same is true to a lesser extent in New Orleans, Louisiana; and the same is true in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, and Fort Worth in Texas. (Houston has an enormous medical research community as well.) All of these places have lively gay scenes in addition to lots of other fun and cultural activities. It's true that California has a lot to offer. But it's expensive. Average cost of a studio apartment (that is, essentially one combo living room/bedroom with a kitchen area and a bathroom) in Los Angeles will run you about $2,000/month. A one-bedroom apartment (that is, the bedroom is separate from the rest of the living space) averages about $2,200. There are areas that are more expensive and less expensive, but any way you look at it, rent alone in Los Angeles will consume much of your budget - before you add in the cost of utilities, which are typically extra. Then you have food and transportation costs as well. It's about the same cost in San Diego (the southernmost large city in CA) and it's considerably more in San Francisco (where you'll be hard pressed to find any rental for less than $2,500 and that's a tiny studio). And lastly - remember that you'll need some sort of health care. In some states, you might (or might not) be able to get onto some sort of publicly assisted plan, but there's nothing even vaguely resembling ESY here. Granted, I'm an older guy (58), but I have an individual health care plan and it costs over $1,200 per month. Yours may be much lower cost, as a young man, but even so, it's likely to be a few hundred dollars at least, if not more. So be sure to factor in costs. It can be frightfully expensive to live in the U.S.

Considering that you have zero profile information posted - no location, no age, no interests, no... nothing, I can't really suggest much of anything. Even under the best of circumstances, in populous regions with lots of sexually active men, these events are hard to arrange and frequently end up with few or no participants.

So you say you'd have a total of $3,000 per month for living expenses. If you were able to line up a shared-living situation (ie someone looking to share an apartment, or rent you a room and bathroom), you might be able to make it in most, but not all, areas of the country. You say you don't like freezing cold weather - which could eliminate much of the northern half of the country. You mention that a "corresponding institution" must accept you here - does that mean a dental school? If so, that alone will limit your choices, as there are only 62 (I think) accredited dental schools in a country that is more than 3000 miles across. And if only certain schools participate in this program, that would limit your options even further.

You highlight the issue there. The biohazard symbol was almost unknown as a tattoo choice until it was adopted as a symbol of being proud of being poz. Ergo, it's a reasonably safe assumption that, especially on a gay man, it means "poz". (I suppose it's possible that some straight guy who has a career in handling biohazardous materials might get one, but even that seems like a stretch.) I've seen lots of tattoos of venomous creatures on people who I'm pretty sure are not poz. There are undoubtedly some on people who ARE poz. But that just proves the point - unless it's a reasonably universally recognized symbol - the star of David for Jewish people, the biohazard symbol, the anchor for sailors, etc. - it's a crapshoot guess what a particular tattoo means to the person who's wearing it. Ask.

Um, congratulations, I guess? Not sure what the point of the post is, this isn't a personal ad board.