BergenGuy

On 9/19/2023 at 3:38 PM, norubbers said:

Brock's Gaze snapped to the door in time to see Uncle Dale entering the office. And he looked pissed.

I'm confused.  I thought that Dale was already in the office.  After all, he was the one who introduced Brock to Dr. Shah.

12 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

The instructions for 2+1+1 don't say when to start counting the 24-hour doses ...

I always found those instructions to be frustratingly vague.  But, I see that the CDC site is finally more explicit:

Quote

The type of “on-demand” PrEP that has been studied is the “2-1-1” schedule. This means taking 2 pills 2-24 hours before sex, 1 pill 24 hours after the first dose, and 1 pill 24 hours after the second dose.

Although it provides information about "on-demand" PrEP use, the CDC doesn't recommend it (they don't seem to oppose it, either).

[think before following links] https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep/on-demand-prep.html

9 minutes ago, ellentonboy said:

I recall hearing that all hotels would now require a room be cleaned each and every day so that some nut job could not hoard guns over a period of days.

I don't know if there is a law that requires that a room be entered daily, but the law that requires rooms to be cleaned daily was repealed in May of this year:  [think before following links] https://thenevadaglobe.com/775times/nevada-governor-signs-bill-eliminating-daily-hotel-room-cleanings/

3 hours ago, INcumdump said:

Interestingly enough, in person, those same tops ended up willingly fucking me without a condom... and giving me their load.

I've encountered bottoms who are the same ... "safe sex only" in their Grindr/Scruff profiles, but never mention condoms once the sex starts.  My theory is that they're concerned about being "outed" to friends who may know their profiles, so they're using the socially-acceptable response to the safer-sex question.

4 hours ago, UKFFBBBtm said:

They'd also need to be careful implementing any form of ID submission check in the UK and EU countries as we have very tight and strict data processing/handling laws, when it comes to personal/private data of people, that they could possibly fall foul of.

A lot of companies might just cut their losses and block the US and not implement any form of check as its too expensive, too prohibitive or just can't be bothered.

I don't disagree that there won't be some major issues.  There will be some loss of membership, I'm sure.  I guess my point is that large, revenue-generating sites like Grindr have the resources to try to work around these problems.  Free sites like this one do not.

5 hours ago, Malesack said:

I’m not how true it is but a guy on another site said Grindr will be forced to do this soon.  

Grindr has the resources to implement compliant age verification systems, if needed.  Sites that don't charge users or earn substantial advertising revenues can't afford to develop such systems and need to resort to blocking states.  This will entrench the big playes, such as Grindr, and discourage the rise of competitors.

21 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

Definitely Van.  We all know the social pendulum swings.  I am hoping it will slow its course soon and start to swing back.  

Once in place, laws like this are unlikely to go away.  You know, "think of the children".  Those four words cause a lot of irrational behavior.

On 6/28/2023 at 10:20 PM, Lustofalltrades said:

I wish finding 2 guys for what I want to do came thru as easy as the first guy.

You've just increased the difficulty tremendously.  First, not only do you need to find two relatively local guys who are into what you're seeking, but then you've added an additional complication of wanting them to be a couple.  Remember, other guys can be just as picky as you.

4 hours ago, PupLucca said:

The real problem is republicans don't want to do anything that would actually benefit the people of this country. So to distract from that they have to create villains and the homosexuals  are always a popular group among their followers to hate on

Yes.  This comment multiplied by 1000!  DQSH isn't new ... it has been a "thing" for years.  Most of the books that right-wingers complain about have been in libraries for years, if not decades.  What's new?  Now that Roe has fallen, the right-wing needs a new target for its hate to distract from the fact that it has no solutions to the problems facing Americans.  No solutions for affordable housing shortages, unaffordable healthcare, declining education outcomes, international competitiveness challenges or climate change.   But, it has managed to convince the MAGA crowd that none of this matters as long as gays are kept in their place and away from "normal" people.

13 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

I don't know if "requiring" more information in the profile is the way to go.  After all, this is a Forum, some people wish to share less than others.  They may not want to be tracked, or give other members an idea as to who or where they are.

Maybe a compromise would be somewhat of an (easy) opt-out approach.  When someone joins, they could be presented with the profile questions.  They wouldn't have to answer any of them, but it might encourage more guys to respond if they're presented with their profile upfront rather than having to seek it out to update.

8 hours ago, VersGuyAnon said:

There's a lot of "queer" in the UK now, but I hate the word. I'm gay. 

I'm with you.  I despise that word "queer."

3 hours ago, Raw&Vers said:

I'm not sure if It's just me or if anyone can view it.  I get a screen that says "GONE! The requested resource is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address. Please remove all references to this resource."
wtf?

I get the same message when I attempt to view your profile, Raw&Ver, but I can view my own and others without a problem.

4 hours ago, chaserslut said:

For several days now the chat icon has just been three little dots for me and doesn't open chat.

Same here.  Clicking on the icon just brings me back to the home page.  I've also tried various browsers, to no avail.  I know that the chat room was often empty, but sometimes it could get lively and it certainly made the site more interesting.

7 hours ago, sus-tor said:

Sure, we had Barz in Nyack, but we also were a 30 minute drive to Chelsea...

I remember Barz.  It was the only bar in the area to survive long-term other than Feathers.  Too bad it was mostly lesbian except on Friday nights.

In my 35 years in the area, I've seen a number of bars open and close (Triangles and Pulsations in Rockland, B Lounge in Westchester, Connexxions and numerous bars that didn't last long enough to visit in NJ).  Bergen County can seem to support only one gay bar despite having a population of 950K.  Even that bar, Feathers, is no longer open seven nights a week, although I think that some of their fall-off in business is self-inflicted.  Westchester County, with a population of a million, doesn't seem to be able to support any.  Driving into the city is a pain, but there's not much of a choice.  Not that I go out much these days.  When not on vacation, my weekend nights tend to end at 10pm.  That's when they used to begin.

I don't know if suburban gay bars are declining nationwide or if it is a trend unique to metropolitan areas.

On 4/27/2023 at 3:30 PM, nicktheslut said:

Good start. I can't wait to read the next part.

Part I was written nearly 11 years ago.  I really doubt that there's going to be a Part II.

On 2/23/2023 at 6:30 PM, BootmanLA said:

And in every case, even if I can't find a reason to vote FOR either candidate, I can almost always find a reason to vote AGAINST one of the two candidates. It's rare that both candidates are equally bad, even if neither is someone I'd pick from an open field of thousands of possibilities.

You're so right.  It frustrates me when someone says that there's no reason to vote because there's no difference between the candidates.  Of course there are differences!  No two candidates have the same experience.  No two candidates take identical positions on all the issues.  One candidate is always less objectionable than the other.  Vote for that one.

4 hours ago, valleyvers said:

This seems to be the prevailing line of thought. Even when there was gay bars in my area play really didn't happen on premise, you had to click and then go get a hotel. Didnt have much luck at Feathers in River Edge

I don't know that any suburban gay bar, at least in the NY metro area, ever had much action on premises.  Feathers, with the "woods" across the parking lot, was probably the closest to something like that.  But, the woods are fenced off now, or they were the last time I was there several years ago.  No gay bar, with the exception of Feathers, seems to last very long in the Bergen/Rockland/Westchester area, and even that bar is now only open four or so nights a week.

18 hours ago, Lustofalltrades said:

FINALLY, someone else from my area. I've been on here on and off for like 2 years checking out this part of the message board hoping to see someone or a group of someones hosting something,

I'm from Bergen County, NJ, just a mile or so from the Rockland line.  There's never anything in the area.  I think that being so close to NYC just sucks the gay life out of the area.  The prevailing attitude seems to be why hang in the 'burbs when there's a gay playground in Manhattan?

On 4/1/2023 at 10:01 AM, ytowndaddybear said:

Without any assurance that stopping coverage of PrEP would reduce their exposure to HIV+ patients it is unlikely that any non-religious affiliated insurer would stop coverage, doing so is simply illogical.

Actually, it isn't illogical at all.  For the insurance industry as a whole, it would be illogical to end coverage.  But, for any one company, it could make sense.  Since many employers tend to change carriers every two to three years, an ininsurance company might assume that, on average, a number of the HIV infections that result from the non-coverage of PrEP would actually be the problem of another insurer.

But, I agree with you, that isn't likely.  Most, if not all, commercial insurance plans covered PrEP even before it was designated preventative.  But, PrEP was subject to the standard deductibles and copays.  A return to those days is the real problem.  Many people can't afford a $3,000 deductible before the cost of PrEP and associated labs is covered.

24 minutes ago, viking8x6 said:

It has an edit button.

Thanks!  I don't see that option under the "..." menu, but I might be noticing my mistakes more than 10 minutes later.

2 hours ago, brnbk said:

If Grindr takes pains to make sure it is available and operating in these non US jurisdictions, then it needs to make sure it is doing  whatever it reasonably can to protect gay men's health and well being in those places. 

It turns out that this isn't Grindr's program (it is one partner among several in a bigger initiative) and the campaign is supported by a CDC grant, which would explain why it is limited to the US.

[think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/grindr-joins-major-public-health-push-distribute-free-home-hiv-tests-rcna75751

A quick search of the internet turned up several articles on the free HIV kits.  There's some interesting information, including that the fact that this is not Grindr's program.  It is a partner in the "Together TakeMeHome" campaign, but doesn't run it.  The program is funded by a $41 million grant from the CDC, which explains why it is limited to the US.

[think before following links] https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/22/business/grindr-free-hiv-tests/index.html

[think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/grindr-joins-major-public-health-push-distribute-free-home-hiv-tests-rcna75751

So, in summary, Grindr isn't racist.

5 minutes ago, brnbk said:

While the three countries don't have medical regulatory regimes that are necessary aligned, they do have agreement — and at home test kits would not be an issue either in Canada or Mexico.

Of course the kits could be an issue.  Grindr can't distribute an unapproved test kit in any country.  I've worked in the medical device industry.  You seem to dismiss logistical and legal issues as trivial.  I'm telling you that they're not.  Just because a test kit is approved in one country doesn't mean that it is approved in another.  It depends on whether the manufacturer decides that the time and expense for approvals in another market was worthwhile.

You're also ignoring that Grindr probably isn't undertaking this on its one.  The expense would be huge.  The source of financing may be limited to the US.

1 hour ago, ErosWired said:

The generation that is coming into adulthood does not think as they do, and will in time reshape the world to their own liking.

Which is why the regressives are so frantic to sanitize education.  They are desperately trying to get the next generation to think as they do.  Their plan would have a good chance of succeeding if it wasn't for the internet and the "woke" media allowing the "outside world" to seep in.  That's why I expect the regressives to turn their attention to both very soon.  Utah has already passed a law requiring teens under 18 to have their parent's consent to use social media sites.  As usual, it is couched as "protecting the children."

1 hour ago, Cumpigmelb said:

i heard they want to ban the statue of David? 

So far, only in Florida.  I think the heat and humidity have finally driven them crazy down there.  

This country is rapidly being split in two by regressives who can't stand the idea that straight male WASPs are no longer in the majority.