Dongorongoro

I think the way the OP's post is worded is a bit close-minded in terms of thinking that "satisfaction" has to come in the form of an orgasm and cumshot right then and there. Though for him that may be the case, I think for many of us, or at the very least myself, there is a dual satisfaction that occurs by taking loads and not getting off until later, especially if you take several in a night (or longer!). Even for the guys that are are into chastity, there is clearly some sort of satisfaction for them-- if there wasn't, they wouldn't willingly be doing it. As a personal example, when I was living in NYC where it was very easy to find more than a few guys to breed me in a single night, I would often either only slowly and gently stroke my cock while getting reamed, building up as much tension as possible without actually getting off, or, preferrably, wearing a jockstrap and massaging myself with my hand-- built up so much pressure but couldn't make myself cum unless I pulled my cock out of it. After I finished up with the guy, I'd head home and get right back on BBRTS or A4A and find another guy to fill me up ASAP. After a few times, I'd either decide this particular guy was going to be my last for the night and edge myself until he cums and unload myself, or, the more usual, just go home, toke on a bowl, shove in a plug and beat off furiously, thinking about how much seed there was deep inside me. For me, doing this made my final orgasm at the end of the night 100,000 times more powerful and amazing than it ever would be if I just got off while getting fucked. The longer you wait to get off, the better it feels when you finally do. Though I love a top to tell me he's just using me to unload and doesn't care if it feels good or not because I'm just a slut, the simple truth is that as long as I get his spunk in my ass I'm using him just as much as he thinks he's using me.

It sure won't-- Imodium is actually an opioid and has the same mechanism of action as codeine and others. Unlike codeine though, it's pumped out of the brain as soon as it enters it, preventing it from acting as a pain reliever (as well as from getting high and being addictive). If you're taking an opiate be extremely cautious with how much imodium/loperamide you use, or you might just end up stopped up pretty good.

Maybe a biohazard symbol on a shield? I dunno. If you ever come up with a good one let me know, never really thought about it, but I'd totally get one.

Personally, I don't like the sounds of this guy. As wood pointed out, When considering this, I think it's important to point out that it's safer for the bottom, but it's unlikely to afford any addition safety for the top. As a doctor, he should be well aware of that. Since he claims to be STD free, his rationale doesn't make any sense-- it's not any safer for you, because the risk of spreading something you don't have is 0%. As said, it isn't any safer for him either, so even if he doesn't trust you, it's pointless to pull out before shooting. I suppose it might be the case he's doing other guys raw too, which would justify being worried that he might get something and pass it to you, but if that's the case, he's being misleading by saying he's free of STDs-- he might have been when he got tested, but clearly any time after that but before he presented symptoms or got tested again, he wouldn't have any idea if he truly was free of any infections. The only other alternative that I see is that he just doesn't want to do it, and is trying to come up with an excuse. Thus, unless he's a really bad doctor with no idea of how STD transmission works, he's holding something back from you. In either case, my personal recommendation is to confront him on these matters, and if he doesn't give a satisfactory answer, get rid of him. I find it doubtful you can't find several other guys in DFW willing to pump some cum into your hole without the runaround.

Well, yes, that's definitely true, and to be quite honest, I think that many of us in the bb-only scene are probably at an increased rate for falling into the trap of addiction. It can't be denied that we all are knowingly and willingly exposing ourselves to easily preventable communicable diseases, and not a single one of us could ever say we didn't know. Given just how big of an impact taking that risk is (especially those of us that are total cumpig bottoms ), I struggle to imagine that many of us aren't rather bold with other things...like thinking we can be strung out on a ton of crystal every weekend and have it not go beyond that. It's just my little theory, but consider how many cumdump tweakers you've seen versus how the number of tweaker guys that won't take off the rubber until a month or two into monogamous relationship. It's too big of a difference to just chalk it up to just being a "scene thing".

It's important to consider what exactly is meant by neurotoxic and the mechanism of toxicity of methamphetamine before making blanket statements like that. In fact, alcohol is actually quite neurotoxic as well, as is MDMA and a host of other drugs. Even water can cause neurotoxicity by destroying neurons after huge amounts of water are consumed. People who drink alcohol with moderation aren't insane nor rationalizing an alcohol addiction. The mechanism by which meth brings about neurotoxicity is that, either in extremely large doses, above 1 gram in a day for a 150 lb/70 kg person, or long-term moderate daily doses of about 210 mg for a 150 lb/70kg person, the neurons are depleted of the resources to continue functioning properly, and degenerate in a manner similar to Parkinson's Disease. This is why it's approved as a prescription drug; the typical dose for a child is 25 mg a day, usually divided into two administrations per day. The average bump is between 30 and 60 mg, averaging about twice as much that a child is supposed to take to control ADHD. As such, doing some meth isn't going to degenerate your neurons if you are truly using it in moderation and stay well below those amounts. Of course, many people simply don't have the control to not ramp up use and get to that point, but that is a different story, and that certainly doesn't prevent some people from being able to do it on occasion without becoming a junkie. It's unreasonable to use say that someone is insane and a drug addict simply because the word neurotoxin sounds scary and dangerous. I don't condone the use of methamphetamine and have never and will never use it myself, but the pharmacology clearly shows it is no more harmful than drinking alcohol occasionally when done in moderation. I encourage you to look up facts on PubMed or another such tool before rebuking people and implying they're drug addicts. At any rate, this went way off topic. The original post asked why gays seem to use more drugs than straight people, and several other people have hit the nail on the head, I think; most straight people end up getting married and having kids, which makes isn't exactly conducive to doing meth or other party drugs.