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
    To me it comes across not so much as deliberate fiction as crap written by a 12-year old girl - the kind that practiced writing "Mrs. John Quarterback" or whatever in the back of her notebooks in the 1950's.
  2. BootmanLA
    This is what I love (NOT!) about this site. A user comes on to ask about a specific location, one that he plans to visit, and everyone has to chime in with what some OTHER city's location of something similar is like. Start your own topics about other places, if you want to share, but jeez, save the random comments so that someone looking for an actual ANSWER to his question can find it without having to wade through irrelevant bullshit.
  3. BootmanLA
    This has been a point of discussion before in similar contexts. For instance, if I block "UserX" I don't see his posts on any forum. But if someone responds by quoting "UserX"'s post, I see whatever he posted. And if "UserX" updates his profile status statement, that appears in the right-hand column list of most recently updated profile statuses (it's not smart enough to only pull the 5 most recent *that I'm not blocking*). And so on. Unfortunately, most of this is just limitations of the software RawTop licensed to run this forum on. Without access to the source code, it's probably not something that can be improved easily.
  4. BootmanLA
    The difference is that with HIV (ie "don't ask, don't tell") there is a course of action one can take (PrEP) that prevents infection if one is exposed by someone who is infected. There is no such preventative medication one can take for gonorrhea, or syphilis, or any number of other STI's, hence partners are much more reliant on people being forthcoming about known risks. And that's the important part: we're talking about KNOWN risks - people who KNOW they have an STI, have had it diagnosed, and who continue to have sex without disclosing that information. Some people seem to find nothing wrong with that course of action. They are assholes.
  5. BootmanLA
    Because every website is different, and the software package that underlies this forum works in a way you (and admittedly some others) find difficult. Asking the forum owner/moderators here why things are difficult to use is like asking someone who composed a document in Microsoft Word why it's so difficult to insert a symbol into text, or whatever. The people who wrote the software (however long ago that was) developed the features they wanted to offer. I've seen any number of online forum software packages (not individual forum sites, I mean the software that underlies those sites) that limit image posting - by restricting file sizes, making the upload difficult, etc. - precisely because they don't want the forum software used for, say, porn distribution. The key point is that forum *ownerss* (like RawTop, who created this site) have to work with the tools available. Eventually, this site may move to other software (RawTop has suggested that's in the works, but it's a huge undertaking), but until it does, well, we're limited. It's not THAT limited, either. There's just a size limit on photos and other uploaded files. The problem isn't the software; it's that modern cameras (including those in smart phones) assume everyone wants every photograph they take to be in HD-quality and taking up tens of megabytes. Maybe your ire should be directed at phone and camera manufacturers who make it hard to change the resolution for photos.
  6. BootmanLA
    Also: Meant to mention this, but I would rather bluntly point out that many people do not self-identify as "sluts". To assume that everyone in the world must assume the same risks under the same circumstances as "sluts" (however you define that term) and have no rights to expect that partners be upfront about their sexual status, simply because you and a handful of other "sluts" don't give a shit about your own sexual health, is pathological.
  7. BootmanLA
    Point 1: You have no basis whatsoever to declare that 7 out of 10 "sluts" wouldn't refuse a load and no basis whatsoever to assert that as a "fact". Maybe it's a language barrier but you do not seem to grasp what a "fact" is. Point 2: We are talking about people who KNOW they have a sexually transmitted infection, KNOWINGLY having sex with other people without disclosing that information (or worse, in some cases, lying about it). That is a sociopathic thing to do. Defending sociopathic behavior is borderline sociopathic itself. Point 3: If people have an issue with "stigma" about STDs and are too uncomfortable telling a potential partner "By the way, you should know I have gonorrhea (or whatever)", then those people are not mature enough to be having sex. You and others talk about "assuming the risk" but part of being sexually active is also "assuming the responsibility" of being a fucking adult, not a sociopathic asshole. None of this is to say that you or any other self-declared cumdump has to refuse to have sex under any particular circumstances. If you want to get your ass fucked by whatever dick comes along, whether or not it's infecting you with any number of things, you absolutely have that right. All we're saying is that OTHER people who have different standards should - in a reasonable world - be able to assume someone will voluntarily disclose he's got an active STI before having sex. The fact that some of you can defend people who deliberately do NOT disclose that information tells me a lot about you.
  8. BootmanLA
    Moreover: PrEP uses a two-drug pill that only contains two of the three (or more) components typically found in ART treatments. Both compounds in Descovy and Truvada (and the generic equivalent of the latter) are nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors - NRTIs - which prevent HIV from taking hold in the patient's system. Three-compound ART therapy usually involves an additional class of medication besides these two. For instance, the relatively new (~3 yrs or so) Biktarvy combines the two drugs in Descovy with a separate drug in the integrase transfer inhibitor class. That's important because ART may thus be even more harmful to the body than PrEP over the long haul. In fact, that's one of the reasons research continues on these treatments - to fine-tune the combinations so as to cause the least harm possible to the ART patient. So if someone is concerned about the health effects of PrEP on an otherwise healthy body, he should be at least as concerned, and probably more so, about the effects of what is (effectively) PrEP PLUS another compound working jointly on a body that is already infected.
  9. BootmanLA
    Don't worry - you did an excellent job of piling it on so that it could only be fiction.
  10. BootmanLA
    The Backroom is *exactly* the place where discussions of why people want to be poz go. Maybe - just maybe - there is some rational reason, somewhere, where people who don't want to be poz nevertheless go off PrEP. But outside of planning to never have sex again, I can't envision what it is.
  11. BootmanLA
    What makes you so certain that "there must be more/other reasons"?
  12. BootmanLA
    So much this. To which I'd add: there is this horribly toxic myth of a "Poz Brotherhood", where you suddenly are liberated from all the constraints that hobble ordinary mortals and you're free to indulge all your desires, without worrying about anything else. And sure, as @ErosWired noted, you CAN do that - and die a miserable death much, much earlier than you otherwise would. But your so-called "brothers"? They're not going to show up and take you to the Urgent Care or ER every time you contract a serious infection. They're not going to be delivering you food on the days you don't feel strong enough to stand up in the kitchen and fix a meal for yourself. And most definitely they're not going to be paying your medical bills when you start having to make two or three ER visits in a year and you lose your work insurance because you can't work any more. Brotherhood? It's more like that cool-but-toxic friend so many of us had when we were younger, always daring us to do something insanely stupid, that we gladly obeyed because we so wanted his approval - that then cut and ran the moment the insanely stupid act got us in trouble. Brotherhood my ass. Or you can do the responsible thing and get treated, and take those pills every day for the rest of your life, hoping that you're staying ahead of the damage they're (slowly but inexorably) causing in your system. Or - as he notes - you can avoid all this by getting on PrEP early and staying on it. When you know you're not going to be in a position to have sex for a while, you can stop it, as long as you restart a week or so before you start having sex again. You can thus reduce the toxicity the meds place on your body without putting yourself at risk. And if your sex drive wanes as you hit middle age, or late middle age, you can go off PrEP again to have more years of not imposing any toll on your body.
  13. BootmanLA
    This has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, but basically: you take a double dose of the PrEP medication anywhere from 2 to 24 hours before you have sex. Obviously that means you have to plan ahead at least slightly - it won't work if you take it and have sex in the next 2 hours - but apparently the levels in your system after two hours are enough to ward off initial infection from the sex. THEN, you also take a single dose 24 hours after the sex itself, and another dose 24 hours after that. So, for instance, if you plan on having raw sex sometime after 8 PM on Saturday, you'd take the double dose before 6 PM. If you actually take the loads around, say, 10 PM, you'd take another dose at 10 PM Sunday and again at 10 PM Monday. Apparently, the double dose wards off the initial infection, and the subsequent doses keep the level of the medication high enough in your system to catch any straggler HIV virus particles. I would think, though, that it's harder to remember the time you need to take the subsequent doses - or harder to time them if you had multiple loads over, say, a 3-hour period. Whereas if you take it daily, at more or less the same time each day, you don't have to worry about remembering the details of the sex - especially if you weren't looking at your watch as you got loaded.
  14. BootmanLA
    I think people who are inclined to think badly of gay people and HIV positive people are going to think those thoughts regardless. I think sensible people will recognize that it's highly unlikely that HIV and SARS-CoV-2 are somehow mutating one another. The obvious reasoning - that HIV+ people who lack access to treatment or who don't receive regular treatment are much more likely to have a compromised immune system, and thus be subject to a coronavirus as well - should suffice for the non-bigots. For the rest, who are determined to think badly of us anyway, they're not reachable anyway.
  15. BootmanLA
    Whichever one you think more accurately describes you. I can't give you insight into that, as I'm neither one myself and I don't know you; this strikes me as a kind of poll like "what color should I paint my living room?" I mean, dude, it's your room, you have to live in it, you pick what you like.
  16. BootmanLA
    That's theoretically possible but also somewhat misleading at the same time. What years of study have shown is that when someone has untreated HIV, the highest levels will be in his blood, with somewhat lower levels in his semen and even lower levels in pre-ejaculatory fluids. The same relationship exists for people who are on meds, but on a much-reduced level. What we call "undetectable" levels of HIV are measured in blood samples, and what it means is that there *IS* HIV in the blood - it's detected by a reactive test - but it occurs at a much-reduced level, fewer than a certain number of parts per milliliter. Many of those men, however, have no measurable HIV in their semen, and even those who do, seem NOT to have any in their pre-ejaculatory fluid. What does all that mean? Given what we know about the likelihood of being infected from a single sex act by an HIV+ top who is not on medications (possible, but not high), it's even less likely that his pre-cum alone would infect someone. Possible, yes, but it's not brimming with danger, on average. And given that this only applies to a poz top whose HIV is not controlled with meds: factor in that a majority of poz guys in the US, at least, are on meds and undetectable, and an even larger majority of gay men in general are HIV negative, the danger of pre-cum in any particular single sex act infecting a bottom with HIV are now almost vanishingly small. Hell, chasers are having trouble getting pozzed when they're seeking it out deliberately.
  17. BootmanLA
    Personally, I have no particular stake in whatever slang term or euphemism people want to use for semen. I just wish to fuck that people would stop saying "SPERM" when they mean "SEMEN". JFC it's hard to believe there are adult people who don't understand the difference between the two. Especially the ones who manage to work "sperm" into every post they make, always incorrectly in the context of meaning "semen."
  18. BootmanLA
    In an ideal world, certainly. There are still significant pockets of the US where you're taking your life into your hands trying to be openly gay. It's still legal to fire people for being gay in a significant portion of the country, as well.
  19. BootmanLA
    Here in the United States, the "southern states" (basically, the states that tried to secede in 1860/61 to form the Confederate States of America) have historically been the least welcoming to gay people (and to minorities in general, especially Black people). That's not to say the rest of the U.S. is open and welcoming - the mountain west states (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah) are no picnic either - but with a long history of White Supremacy here coupled with a lot of evangelical Christian denominations, the US South is particularly unwelcoming.
  20. BootmanLA
    Maybe he is, maybe he's not. I've known a number of guys who thought a lot about trying it, until they did, and realized that no, they weren't into the reality of it at all. That's not to say they shouldn't have tried it - otherwise, how could they know? - but to assume it's "the best sex" he'll ever have is massively presumptuous. A much more reasonable take would be "I (and many other guys) really love it, but you'll never know unless you try it - so do what you can to protect yourself and make yourself comfortable with it, and try." Gotta love (not) advice that presumes to know better than the advisee what he wants and how he'll feel about it if he gets it.
  21. BootmanLA
    As unsexy as it is, this is why (in my experience) it's important to talk about what you expect/permit/forbid in terms of sex with a partner. When you're clear up front as to what is allowable and what's not, you might still face a violation of those rules but at least you can put the blame where it belongs - on the violator. When you have NOT been clear up front - particularly with a repeat partner - it's easy to be left with the feeling you were violated but you can't point to anything that he did wrong - at least not that he knew about in advance. I think it's reasonable for a bareback top to assume - in the absence of being told otherwise - that it's okay to cum inside his partner. It's certainly reasonable to say that he can't, but the time for that is before the poking starts.
  22. BootmanLA
    I'd further add that PrEP is available to heterosexuals as well as gay/bi people; because it's possible as a man to contract HIV from a female sex partner, you can protect yourself without having to declare yourself publicly as seeking sex with men.
  23. BootmanLA
    It's also important to remember that the children themselves are NOT always the best judge of what they're ready for.
  24. BootmanLA
    I think the word you are looking for is "manwhore".
  25. BootmanLA
    That might sort of solve the racism problem in the term except nobody but a handful of people will assume that's what's meant. The other 99.6% will correctly interpret it as a racial term, with sadly only a few recognizing how offensive it is. And in any event it doesn't solve the problem of objectifying by reducing men to their genitals. It's admittedly more of a problem with the racial overtones intact because of the history of viewing black men as sexual predators, but it's still a problem even if we say "I met a BWC (or BHC or BAC) and he fucked me raw", as though the disembodied cock was just walking around on the street ready to shove inside any ass that expressed interest. Can't we at least acknowledge that there's a man attached to that cock, even if sex with him is extremely transitory and nameless?

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.