BootmanLA

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.