bb1991

I know very few gay men who would be repulsed - we've all seen it before. In fact I sometimes watch straight porn - I find the majority of gay porn can be boring, sterile, unimaginative and filled with uninteresting twinks, where straight porn tends to have a bit more spark, passion and if nothing else is pretty much always bareback. As a side note: I have noticed under the "new posts" section the majority of posts seem to actually be under the straight/bi sections of this website (which is great). It seems to me straight men are more likely going to be repulsed by the graphic gay sex images in the website logo and in the porno ads on this website than gay men would be to the odd image of a naked woman.... Perhaps a choice on the front page to select which you would like to see would be most appropriate? - similar to how xtube do it? Loosing the "gay" onus and being more inclusively barebacking regardless of sexual preference, might entice lots of new members.

I'm quite surprised they haven't done this already. We have free trade and free movement of goods and people across the EU. The company could use suppliers and farms from anywhere in the EU and not trigger the Tax, Import Duties and VAT charges that importing from Russia would incur. The only reason I can think that they still source from Russia is that it is because of their branding and claims to be "authentic Russian vodka" but that's a thin argument when you look at Smirnoff. It brands itself as Russian and was originally founded there, but is now owned by a British company (same British company that owns Guinness, and lots of whiskey brands). It's vodka is made mainly in the UK and USA but that doesn't stop them portraying themselves as "Russian". And Naex , I agree with you. So much of this seems to be inspired by inflamed passions that reason goes out the window, replaced by the hypocrisy and lazy politics. Being gay will get you the death penalty in some countries (incidentally Russia is not one of them). Uganda for example - but you'll probably still have their coffee in your kitchens and their rare metals in your computers and gadgets. Saudi Arabia - America purchases 1.4million barrels of Saudi oil a day. Nigeria - previously close to Britain due to the amount of Nigerian immigrants in Britain. Stepping down you have countries who imprison gays: "friends" like India (who the British government give £1.4billion a year in aid to), Egypt, Morocco, Malaysia, Ethiopia. Again Russia is not one of them. In Russia being gay is legal. This boycott started because of the discrimination gays face there and the anti-propaganda law that stops advertisement of gay relationships to children (anyone remember Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988... not rescinded by the British government until 2003...). I by all means don't wish to belittle the struggle of gay people in Russia but boycotts against Russian goods seem hypocritical (and misguided when targeting pro-gay Russian companies such as stoli) when we are happy to overlook the worse conditions gay people face elsewhere in the world. I can only say it looks to be motivated by enduring anti-Russian cold-war style feelings rather than an educated and reasoned approach.

I'm in two minds. On the one hand it is a very Russian brand: founded and produced in Russia, with its branding and labeling making it very clear that it is a Russian product. On the other-hand its producer is very much a modern international company: it is officially based in Luxembourg (tax reasons?) and, as you say, partially produced in Latvia (which -as with the other Baltic states- is an enthusiastic member of the EU and a member of NATO; they're friends and we shouldn't hold it against them that they share a border with Russia). I guess what it really comes down to is your attitude towards government and people. Do you hate all Russians because of the actions of their government? In "democratic" countries such as the US and Britain, us plebs have little say over the state of affairs, or control over the actions of our governments... it would be stupid to hold every Russian accountable for the actions of a government they cannot control. At the end of the day, this company is the same: they have no influence over governmental policy and risk domestic reprisal for publicly opposing the anti-gay policies and supporting things such as world pride. If they are successfully boycotted and thereby put out of business, surely that is just one less pro-gay voice from within Russia?

Some guys like fast cummers... You're in them 30 seconds - not really got started yet - and they're asking you to blow your load... annoying IMO

I can't see PrEP working personally. That study is not that 8 out of 10 are committed barebackers, it is 8 out of 10 have had some form of unprotected sex. It's most likely casual or one off, and most are probably not the educated and committed barebackers like on websites like this. You'll find a similar if not higher statistic for young straight people (and lets not even play credence to ideas that its gay porn or hook up apps that are causing it). This is not a gay problem -I always remember the poster at school that said 1 in 4 16-24 year olds (straight/gay male/female) in the UK have chlamydia at any one time (a more recent study suggests 1 in 10 do). Nor is it a problem for the UK alone -lots of other countries are seeing rises in STDs Nor is it a problem related to youth alone -I've read a few things that suggest the highest rates of STDs are among the over 40s; especially people coming out of long term relationships or marriages who have had little or no knowledge of condoms. Although I think PrEP should be available for those who want it... the widespread, uneducated and casual nature of most unprotected sex and the potential side-effects of PrEP make me think it would never have a large enough take up to stop that tide of infections. Condoms are unnatural things; but arguably nature didn't intend the widespread promiscuity of the modern age. The issue will never be solved when it is compartmentalized into being a gay problem or a young person problem. The majority of the population do not use condoms regularly, and it needs that wider approach in order to make whatever solution there may be work.

Maybe someone can pick it up where he left off?

I think a distance thing can be quite good but there has to be limits. Gaydar.co.uk, for example, calculates distance based on your postcode (your street basically), but it never publicly posts that street or postcode, and as you have to input it yourself, you can choose not to input it, or put in a fake one (for my profile, I used a postcode for the city centre rather than the area I actually lived). And the distances it calculates are never more precise than a mile. So it's good for working out who's close but not too specific to risk privacy/stalking. After all, why do you need to know if someone is only 20ft from you? A mile is close enough for any hookup purposes (2 mins drive / 15 min walk). I'm in a similar boat to TigerMilner with grindr. I only use it when out or in new cities - never at home. And I always delete it straight after. I don't think I'd be comfortable using any hookup site that was publicly posting and mapping my location that specifically. If I did, it would never be my "main" site, and would just end up using it sporadically when away, and then deleting it, like grindr. For people on the cumdump network, they may have no qualms about posting their full addresses and contact details. But if you're trying to create a "mainstream" hookup site to rival the likes of BBRT, that's not going to work, and will put people completely off. Look at BBRT: the majority have their face pics set to private, or have none at all.

I kind of get where you mean. I've always had an issue with the "place of birth" thing for official papers and jobs etc. Place of birth for most is the local hospital. I live in quite a posh area, but the hospital is in a very scabby, rough area. -People see you're born there so think you're "from" there and they judge you on that.

I've never liked the word "gay". I always felt the word is trying to label us as something 'different', and had connotations of camp, effeminate behaviour, liking pink and fashion, hating sport etc. My personality doesn't fit those "queer" stereotypes, nor do any other guys I know. I'm a man like any other and my interests and personality are not shaped by who I have sex or a relationship with. I am not gay: I am a human being like everybody else. And I don't think I'm alone. Judging by how many feel the need to put "straight-acting" in their online profiles, I think the majority of MSM wish to distance themselves from that "gay" label, the camp stereotype and the "queer culture". In fact, my local STD Clinic doesn't use the gay label, only "Men who have Sex with Men". I recently read a very insulting article about what they were deeming "gay shame". It was written because the "queer culture" is dieing in the UK, and the article was alleging that people are shunning it because they are ashamed to be gay! How about the complete opposite: being "gay" is so normal and accepted that it is not the definitive part of their personality anymore? How ridiculous to believe people's sexual preference dictates their personality and because you like men you should also like drag acts, and the rest of "queer culture". If gay people can be homophobic, the people behind that article are homophobic. Your sexuality affects your personality as much as your hair colour affects your intelligence!

He's not "outing" people deliberately trying to spread HIV. It's just trying so shame anyone looking for bareback. It should be able to be done under hate-crime legislation, as it's obviously targeting only gay people, despite unprotected sex being something profuse across all sexualities. Young straight people only use condoms 50% of the time (that's not 50 don't use; that's across the whole spectrum, they use them as often as they don't). With the greater risk and awareness of STDs within the gay community generally, I bet that condom adherance is significantly higher. http://www.lifestyles.com/study-young-people-use-condoms-only-50-percent-of-the-time/ This is a homophobic hate crusade and nothing else. Thankfully he has very few followers; I'd advice trying not to raise any further awareness of the site, but please continue your attempts to get it shut down.

If you're not going to tell her, you cannot have sex with her. Even if it's protected, any reasonable person is going to freak when six months down the line someone says "oh yeah, I've got HIV." And if in the past you have been having unprotected sex, she'd surely be suspicious of you suddenly using a condom (and even more likely to freak at the possibility of HIV). If you don't want to tell her up, you might not necessarily have to split up, but you cannot have any sexual contact with her without exposing yourself to a barrel load of shit later on.

I think whether you plan to stay together or split up, it would probably be best to tell her. You say you want to split up. Having not had sex with her since catching HIV you could think you have no reason to tell her. Yes that might be easier in the short term, but what happens when word starts going round? You tell friends and family and before you know it everyone knows - and it will get back to her. How is she going to react? Most would freak and be very scared they may have got HIV. She might stir up no end of trouble or even contact the police and allege you have knowingly exposed her to HIV. In which case you're stuck with months (even years) of grief, trying to tip to through the legal system and prove you contracted the virus after ceasing sexual contact with her (not to mention the humiliation and aggravation of personal examinations and police interrogations). And the legal system isn't perfect - judges and juries have found many innocent people guilty. I think the best thing would be honesty about your infection. Tell her you screwed around during your break (you don't necessarily need to say it was with guys - straight people catch HIV too) and that you have unfortunately caught HIV. She may not be "ok" with it, but she can at least be reassured she was not exposed to something, and it is going to be a better situation than if she hears it on the grapevine and freaks out.

That's so sad. Think about how much on this side is wank fantasy. Or how many users on Grindr and BBRT are just people curious or who get off on the fantasy. How many of us have had conversations on those sites with people who just want wank chat and then you never hear from again. How many of us are those disapearing people, just looking for dirty chat while having a wank. It's so sad and hateful that people would try and ruin the lives and relationships with others over things that, chances are, they have no intention of doing. The Comedian Greg Davies said it well - "I can guarantee you, everyone on in this room has had a thought sometime today that if you told your partner, they would leave you." (that was either on Mock the Week or one of his Live Tour DVDs)

3 words - LACK OF EDUCATION. Safe sex isn't on young people's radar because they have no idea of the risks. Its the same reason why they aren't on BBRT - its not a fetish and they don't identify as barebackers.

Yes, me too please don't leave it too long