BootmanLA
-
Posts
3,985 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by BootmanLA
-
Latest "study" says nose size and penis size are related
BootmanLA replied to Coldfusion's topic in General Discussion
FWIW: The saying (again, obviously bullshit, but...) was "Big nose, big hose". -
Unless he lacked a voice to be able to respond and couldn't even vocalize the word "No" (or its equivalent in your language), I don't think it counts as rape. But next time, why not just explain what you want first and get the okay? Tell him you want to fuck, but you can only manage to penetrate if you do it roughly. He can say yes or no, and then you act accordingly.
-
Your initial reaction was appropriate and no, you did not "clearly deserve" it. It's fine if you've chosen to be okay with it now, but that's because you choose to be, not because his actions were "deserved".
-
That's true in a small handful of "large cities". In other large cities, police are still slow to respond to calls of, say, domestic violence between two people of the same sex. When a crime is committed against a gay person or group, it's often put on the back burner for investigation if the cop it's assigned to doesn't like gay people. Even if the police aren't raiding public parks, that doesn't (by itself) make them pro-gay. Or even gay-neutral.
-
Over time, sure. But as the old saw goes, in the long run, we're all dead. People running for office in 2021 are not concerned that negative ads are going to mean only 40% turn out in 2035; they only care about winning the election that's on the ballot this year. And I agree that negative ads are a problem on both sides. But "I'm against X" is not the same thing as a negative ad, at least in the way political scientists view them. Positive ads are ones that promote the candidate's views; negative ads attack the other candidate. Both sides do that. But one side's candidates, in their positive ads, talk about the things they want to accomplish - universal health care, better roads, whatever. The other side's candidates, in their positive ads, talk about all the stuff they're against: against forced busing, against integration, against immigration, against taxing "job creators", against police reform... and on and on. And that's why it's asymmetric. When the Democrats win, they have to assemble a coalition to overcome filibusters to enact legislation to achieve actual goals. When the Republicans win, they mostly need to block things from happening.
-
I agree, McAuliffe was a terrible candidate. It didn't help that he was a former governor, running in one of the only states that prohibits a governor from serving consecutive terms. When a state has that rule, it's a sign voters generally don't want repeat faces. As for what voters want to hear: I think Democratic voters want to hear what you're for, because Democrats want their officials to do something. Republican voters want to hear what you're against, because the defining principle of Republicanism these days is being "against"; against liberals, against socialism, against minorities (except those that know their place), against progress. But to his credit, McAuliffe knows that Trump is still a danger. If he decides to run again in 2024, he's almost guaranteed to win the nomination, unless he's facing trial for tax fraud, and even then, he might still get the nomination. And if Republicans in places like Georgia and Arizona succeed in implementing the voting restrictions they're pushing, Trump might well beat whoever is the Democratic nominee. The problem is that too many Democrats don't recognize Trump, and his hold on the GOP, for the authoritarian danger that it is. Particularly if GOP gerrymandering enables them to take control of the House again.
-
FWIW, Republican executives (ie governor or president) no longer really see the need to "govern" in the classic sense. They simply issue executive orders attempting to rule, not govern, by fiat. So a divided legislature is hardly an impediment to a determined GOP governor. Especially since the GOP agenda, broadly speaking, consists of not doing anything and preventing other people from doing anything, either. When you're in favor of less regulation of industry, for instance, all you have to do is direct your agency heads (which are almost always appointed by the incumbent governor) to not enforce this or that or the other regulation. Someone may sue - this is America, after all - but lawsuits can take years to get to the point where anything is accomplished, and in the meantime, industry can run amok. Additionally, even when the executive order accomplishes absolutely nothing, in practicality, the governor can still tout them as examples of his "leadership". Look for Youngkin to issue an order forbidding Virginia schools from teaching "critical race theory", for instance; even though critical race theory isn't taught below advanced college classes, and thus the EO does zero to change things, he'll still promote it as his standing up to the "socialists" who seek to "divide" us (even as it's his stoking of white resentment that really divides). Really, the biggest difference between the Democratic and Republican parties is that the Democrats want government to actually DO things, and to do things requires legislation to be passed. Republicans, on the other hand, want to STOP government from doing things, and stopping it simply means ordering agencies not to do certain things any more. It's asymmetrical and it's a reason why Democrats always seem to be floundering on their agendas - because they're actually trying to do something. It's always easier to get people to do nothing.
-
Reading a profile... Hmmm, main interest is cheating people - in other words, deception, lying, dishonesty, dishonor. Yep, sounds exactly like a Republican. Congrats, you've found your political home among equally contemptible people.
-
First piece of advice: be upfront and honest with people about what you're looking for. As you note, fucking and dating can be entirely different spheres, and what you can get away with for a casual hookup/fuck, in terms of opening up, will be different from what you can do with someone you're hoping for something "more" with - whether it's just a series of dates, or a relationship of any sort. Someone who knows you're new to same-sex dating should be more accepting of your inexperience (and anyone who's not accepting is probably not a good dating candidate). But they have to KNOW you're new to it, or else they may just think your "flubs" are deliberate.
-
Sadly, the Republican won by trotting out the same old tired racism that the GOP always falls back on these days. Whether it's accusing immigrants from Mexico of being drug dealers and rapists, or shouting "Jews will not replace us!" while waving Nazi and Confederate flags, or screaming about "critical race theory", all the GOP has left is stirring up resentment by whites against everyone else. Of course, the idiot we're responding to lives in "Europe" - nothing more specific. Given that he can't seem to identify the country he's in, much less the city, I doubt he could find Virginia with a map, a GPS unit, and a billboard that says "Welcome to Virginia". I'd lay odds he's either one of the French LePen racists or someone in one of the neo-Nazi parties in eastern Europe.
-
Where in the hell did you come up with "64%"?
-
I will say upfront that I'm not especially excited by Halloween in general. But I will point out that not all socializing, or social/sociable events, among gay people need to revolve around finding someone to fuck. I'm not calling you out for wanting the "into a sling within 20 minutes thing" - I've certainly been in that mood myself a time or two (or more) myself. But yeah, if all you're looking for is a hole or a cock, then I can see why Halloween isn't the holiday for you.
-
Generally, yes. A minor correction, however: It's not that you are "prevented" from participating at first - there has to be a way to participate from the beginning, or else you'd have a chicken-and-egg problem: not being able to participate until you advance, which you can't do until you participate. Rather: the WAYS in which you can participate, at first, are limited. For instance, you can add a comment to an existing thread (I'm pretty sure) from the beginning. You can't make unlimited comments from day one, but you can post several, and the limit imposed is "per day", meaning the next day, you can comment more (on those or other threads). Making multiple posts, in turn, eventually unlocks other ways to participate, such as being able to create a new topic or react to posts, or post (or react) more frequently each day. It's not a perfect system (nothing is), but the idea is for the community to gradually increase its "trust" of a member such that he can do more here.
-
Why are black people at greater risk of catching HIV?
BootmanLA replied to Safer's topic in HIV Risk & Risk Reduction
While I agree poverty is the key driver - by far - I think it's unwise to discount the cultural issues that can be involved as well. For instance, in the U.S., a Black person is much more likely to come from a religious tradition that is fundamentalist or evangelical than a White person, and overall is much more likely to come from a family environment that firmly believes in the existence of a God. That background is much more likely to produce "down low" individuals, who are unlikely to readily encounter messages about safer sex (whether by PrEP or condoms). In other words, the stigma may not be all a product of poverty, but of other cultural factors. -
Why are black people at greater risk of catching HIV?
BootmanLA replied to Safer's topic in HIV Risk & Risk Reduction
To quote a commercial that ran extensively on television here in the US a few years back: "That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works." This is a membership-driven public forum. If you don't wish to see my (or anyone else's) responses to your (or anyone else's) posts, you have the option of placing that member on ignore. -
Why are black people at greater risk of catching HIV?
BootmanLA replied to Safer's topic in HIV Risk & Risk Reduction
No, they aren't speaking about Africa. -
Read the URL again. It's for "xvideos.com" not "xtube.com".
-
1. If you take it AFTER being bred, it's no longer PrEP. PrEP stands for PRE-exposure prophylaxis, and "PRE" means "Before". 2. There is such a thing as PEP - Post-exposure prophylaxis. Conceptually, it's like the morning-after pill for women; if taken soon enough after exposure to HIV, it can help ward off infection. The dosage is set by the prescribing medical professional. My understanding is that there is a large dose taken up front (kind of like PrEP on demand), followed by 28 days of daily dosing. This is not something you want to self-dose or self-medicate with; it's a case of "get to an emergency room or urgent care (or local health unit clinic, if there is one) ASAP" and let them prescribe for you. 3. It is NOT guaranteed prevention against infection and is intended for emergency use only, for cases where someone was exposed to HIV accidentally (condom failure, needle stick, sexual assault, etc.). 4. The CDC says that you must being PEP within 72 hours for it to be effective (and again, it is not guaranteed to work, depending on the viral load, how much was received, how long before PEP treatment was started, etc.).
-
Horse market in Berlin (fickstutenmarkt)
BootmanLA replied to wiltslad's topic in General Discussion
I take this (along with the statements by the sponsors themselves on their website) that yes, it does indeed matter what you look like. I respectfully suggest that those who say "I never got challenged" probably are within their acceptable range of body types, rather than assume nobody's looking. -
In my book, if you know you're HIV-positive, you have an affirmative moral responsibility to disclose that to sex partners. Period. Anything less than that is lying by omission, which amounts to (attempted) stealthing. Even if you're undetectable - and yes, I realize that means you can't, under ordinary circumstances, infect someone - that person has a right to know so he can make an informed decision about the risk. Can that be made legally binding? Probably not. Lots of things, though, are morally required even if they're not legally required. It's presumably not illegal to use the entire roll of toilet tissue in a public restroom, for instance, but it's still wrong unless you have a serious, serious NEED for it, right this minute - otherwise, the right thing to do is to use what you must, and leave the rest for other people. I think most normal people know what they SHOULD do, but too many people are sociopaths who don't care how their actions affect anyone else and who figure it's every man for himself.
-
I will admit I used to feel that way about law enforcement. I think part of it was the notion that here's someone who's sworn to uphold the law and protect and serve and all that, and he deserves to indulge his baser instincts in return. In more recent years, as story after story after story comes out about how police corruption infects entire departments (even the cops who aren't on the take or directly guilty of beating suspects, planting evidence, lying under oath, etc. are often well aware of those problems and keep their mouths shut), I lost interest. Now, to the extent I fantasize about law enforcement officers, it's about them getting the abuse they heap on others as payback.
-
It is an extremely uncommon to rare STI, which means that "on the rise" is a relative term. For instance, in 2019, there were approximately 30 cases in the UK (population 67 million, or less than one case per 2 million people). It's even rarer in the US despite our much larger population (ca. 330 million). So even if an infection goes from, say, 15 cases a year to 30 cases a year - horrors, it's doubled! - it's still a tiny, tiny number of cases and extraordinarily rare. It's also treatable - it can be serious if left untreated, but come on, if you have sores on your cock, you need to have them looked at regardless of whether it's this, or syphilis, or whatever.
-
Here's the thing, though. In the United States, medical doctors are not the only health care providers with prescription authority (the legal right to write a prescription for medication). It's a state-by-state matter, but taking Louisiana as an example, not only can medical doctors (those with an "MD" after their name) can prescribe, but so can osteopathic doctors (OD), podiatrists (DPM), optometrists (DO), dentists and oral surgeons (DDS), medical psychologists (they hold PhD's, not medical degrees), advanced practice registered nurses, aka "nurse practitioners" (APRN or NP), and physician assistants (PA). The last two ostensibly work under the supervision of a medical doctor in a collaborative practice agreement, but the reality is that in many rural areas where there is no doctor, the NP or PA works largely unsupervised and the supervising MD just signs off on their paperwork periodically. And that's just in Louisiana. In some states other health care providers may prescribe medications, including pharmacists. The situation I describe is what's behind almost any online PrEP source you may see advertised on the Internet. In a state with fairly lax rules about telemedicine, a company can contract with a doctor to "supervise" several physician assistants or other prescribers, host these "online exams", and order a prescription for PrEP (filled by the same company, for convenience!) which is then billed to one's insurance company or in some cases a medication assistance program. In a way, it's a great way to get PrEP to people who don't want their local doctor's office to know (it's illegal for a health care provider or his employees to divulge most health care information, but in a small community, people tend to find out anyway). But as you note, to be done right, the prescriber needs to monitor the person and ensure he's tested regularly.
-
It's true that a health care provider is more likely (by a good margin) to have accurate information than a random google search. That said: there are health care providers that are up-to-date and knowledgeable about HIV issues, and there are providers that still don't understand PrEP. Moreover, "random google search" is not synonymous with doing research on reputable sites like the NIH or CDC websites. And given that a significant number of people's interactions with a "health care professional" on the subject of PrEP consists of a phone/tele-health conversation for five minutes with a PA or NP licensed to prescribe medication via one of the "get PrEP discreetly" services, I wouldn't be so fast to assume people have access to accurate, up-to-date information via a "health care provider". I stand by my statement: the point of a drug-resistant strain of HIV is that the drug in question, to which it is resistant, can't be used to treat it. That drug doesn't miraculously become effective if you're taking it for PrEP rather than as treatment - HIV that is resistant to drug A can infect someone who's relying on Drug A to protect him. This is not a common situation, but it's why I make a point of correcting people who speak in absolutes - i.e. "You CAN'T get X if Y".
-
Agreed. That statement ("you can't trust any guy on his word if it becomes to bareback sex..") is the most overly broad, unsubstantiated piece of crap I've read this weekend. That's not to say you CAN trust everyone, but "can't trust any guy"? That's crap.
