Jump to content

BootmanLA

Senior Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,053

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by BootmanLA

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. BootmanLA
    You might start by posting in the appropriate Fiction section. This particular forum is for porn videos.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. BootmanLA
    Nope.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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).
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. BootmanLA
    Just as the thought that nobody can tell you're gay without you wearing your fem attire is total hogwash. IMO, of course.
  20. BootmanLA
    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.
  21. BootmanLA
    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.
  22. BootmanLA
    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.
  23. BootmanLA
    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.
  24. BootmanLA
    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".
  25. BootmanLA
    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.

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.