fskn

As a top who loved to fuck a preloaded hole, all I can say is, "Thank you for your service"! Let's hope @TS1209 sees an activity notification and logs back in to read your advice, or maybe to post an update about their first gangbang.

I hope this suggestion is welcome, given that I'm a top and am coming at this from the perspective of what's comfortable for me to wear, not of what attracts me to a bottom per se. I never wore jocks until I discovered WoofClothing / Commando, a small, gay-owned mail-order business based in San Diego. Their jock design is minimalist and super-comfortable. I haven't seen it elsewhere. I'm not posting a link because I don't like to make commercial recommendations here, but the company is easy to find online if you are curious. Two downsides: 1. Though the owner designs the products himself, he has them manufactured under contract in China. Quality is good, but who knows about the working conditions. (This is, of course, doubly true for major fashion brands, which know how to save the last penny while simultaneously cultivating an image of social responsibility.) 2. At $24 + about $6 shipping, the regular price is a bit high for such a simple product. As far as what kind of jock attracts me to a bottom, any jock that you like to wear will do, as jocks in general allow for easy access and demonstrate that your hole is available.

My pleasure. Also, the morning after I wrote it, I hope my post doesn't come off as preachy. It was meant to come off as angry — not at @briefbouy, who asks a very good question that many PrEP users are curious about and that has even come up here in BZ before, but at medical providers who leave their patients with questions like this.

Your first resource for any PrEP question should be your medical provider. That person is licensed, knows you, is paid to give you medical advice, and has an ethical obligation to you. If your provider isn't available to answer your questions, or if you are afraid to ask, then it may be time to find a better provider! Three PrEP products are now approved in the US, Truvada (daily or intermittent pill; generic versions made by Teva or Aurobindo also approved), Descovy (daily pill) and Apretude (2-month injection). Assuming you use either Truvada or Descovy, here is the official word from the CDC's 2021 PrEP guidelines: "Data from exploratory [Truvada] pharmacokinetic studies suggest that maximum intracellular concentrations of TFV-DP, the active form of tenofovir, are reached in blood PMBCs after approximately 7 days of daily oral dosing, in rectal tissue at approximately 7 days, and in cervicovaginal tissues at approximately 20 days. "[Descovy] pharmacokinetic study data related to potential time to tissue-specific maximum concentrations are not yet available, so the time from initiation of daily [Descovy] for PrEP to maximal tissue protection from HIV infection is not known. "Data is not available for either [Truvada] or [Descovy] PrEP in penile tissues susceptible to HIV infection to inform considerations of time to protection for male insertive sex partners." Also note that if you use Truvada (not Descovy, at this time) and you and your provider have agreed on intermittent/"2-1-1" dosing (in accordance with the CDC's 2021 PrEP guidelines), then starting with the 2 Truvada pills 24 to 2 hours before sex is considered adequate. Last but not least, more than any other safety check before you resume PrEP, please be sure that you are still HIV-negative, as demonstrated by a 4th-generation HIV antibody+P24 antigen test (or a qualitative HIV viral load test, if your provider is really sophisticated). Some providers still use prior-generation HIV antibody tests, which don't give positive results until months after a person has been infected with HIV. Being sure that you are still HIV-negative is crucial because PrEP is sufficient to prevent but not to treat an HIV infection. Truvada and Descovy each contain two drugs, whereas an HIV treatment regimen usually involves three (possibly in a single pill). Apretude contains 1 drug given every 2 months, whereas the existing injectable HIV treatment regimen involves 2 drugs, given every 1 month. The 2021 guidelines and lots of other information are available here (although, once again, the onus is on your medical provider to interpret this material for you): [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/clinicians/prevention/prep.html

Obviously your husband is missing out on your skillz. Works in 99% of cases, though. 😏

This really says it all. So many stupid books about "how to save your marriage" leave out the most important tip: suck your man's dick often, swallow his nut, and learn to like it. This would have a much better success rate than couples counseling, would take less time, and would cost nothing.

Me too. Please get in touch any time you are in the San Francisco Bay Area!

Agreed! I am finally seeing new faces near me on Grindr. It seems to be a combination of vaccination, booster doses, resumption of economic activity, and increased travel. The other day, I bred a flight attendant twice, just before his flight.

Your memories are beautiful, and beautifully expressed. From one top to another, thank you for inspiring me!

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the bottom is chasing, but I think you and I would agree — and it's also a matter of reality — that a bottom who allows a top to enter him bare faces the risk that, despite the strictest of agreements and the best of intentions, some semen will end up inside him. All barebackers need to understand and accept the risks inherent in what we are doing. I hope that those who aren't chasing will also take sensible steps to protect their sexual health. Asking a top to pull out is not an effective way to prevent STI transmission, nor a completely effective way to prevent HIV transmission, whereas other interventions, such as the Hep A, Hep B and HPV vaccines, and HIV PrEP, have been demonstrated, through research, to be very effective. Frequent STI testing and appropriate treatment is, of course, also borne out by research as an effective strategy. In heterosexual couples, we have research about the effectiveness of withdrawal as a pregnancy prevention method. Similar research about withdrawal as an HIV prevention method is not available (and would not have been ethical to conduct). The closest thing was the research done to confirm that U=U, which involved mixed-status couples in which the HIV-positive person had an undetectable viral load, and which involved condomless sex without withdrawal.

To prevent the spread of any misinformation, and reaffirm what @BareLover666 and @iman2004 had posted earlier:

As a top who has occasionally enjoyed these scenes, this gives me insight into the bottom's perspective, and demonstrates the effort involved. Thank you for writing this, @rawislaw87. May it encourage lots of people to organize pump-and-dumps! Have you thought of writing a brochure that could be printed and distributed in gay venues? Better yet, have you considering writing a book with this as the nucleus, and perhaps other kinds of sex advice or your own and other people's stories to fill the rest of the pages?

I've never tried it. Recommend?

With all respect for your lived experience, much of what you wrote applied in the past or ignores my third point about the health mitigation options available — even to bottoms. The purpose of my post was to reduce the blast radius, so to speak. I proposed a rational, harm-reduction framework that would allow people to consider which harms can easily be avoided and which harms cannot. Once people acknowledge that for years there's been no reason for an unwanted insemination to cause HIV or any common STI for which no vaccine or cure is available (that leaves HSV, which is merely treatable), then people can focus their attention on the potential physical and psychological harms (violation of clear, advance consent, etc.) of an unwanted insemination (or of barebacking in general, noting that transmission can occur well before insemination, and the bottoms in our discussion have consented to bareback sex short of insemination). To willfully ignore all the progress in sexual health for GLBT people, and the responsibility of all sexually active people, including bottoms, is buying into shame-based, heteronormative, religious fundamentalist, science-denying, fear-based, Anita Bryant thinking. GLBT people who still subscribe to the fiction that gay sex is likely to cause inevitable disease are worse than uninformed heteros; you're putting down members of our own community and giving our opponents a field day. If a bottom (or a top, though you allege that almost all tops are irresponsible) does the following, then health harms are not a consequence of an unwanted insemination: • Take PrEP (available since 2012 in the US) • Get vaccinated for Hepatitis A (since 1995), Hepatitis B (since 1981, which surprised even me; I got this vaccination in the early 1990s), and HPV (since 2006 for young women; since 2009 for young men; since 2018 for adults, without the need for off-label prescribing, which was possible in the past) • Get tested regularly for other common STIs, i.e., syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and Hepatitis C. These tests are all part of the US prescribing requirements for PrEP. • Get treated in case any of the above STI tests is positive. Syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and Hepatitis C are all curable. All of this is "standard of care" in the US — no sugarcoating.

Noted. That is a big loss, both to gay culture and to all people (including straight-identified men who depend on glory holes). Makes sense. I was more concerned with glory hole bottoms who use face pictures to select and reject tops. That doesn't make much sense to me in the context of a glory hole encounter, where a dick pic would be more informative for the bottom than a face pic. A few of these types are constantly active on Grindr near me. Their reticence, coupled with their always-online status, make me wonder whether they are sucking much dick, or just fantasizing about it. Lately, they've even discovered the 🕳 emoji! "Glory hole open...just not for you" feels very different than the open-ended experience in an adult video store arcade. There is one guy near me who posts his cross-streets and the name of his apartment building in his Grindr profile, and only goes online when he's ass-up, face-down, ready to take loads. I've never visited but I admire him. I can tell that he's serious about having fun. He's someone I'd love to fuck...and talk with...someday.

I'm with you. It defeats the purpose of glory hole sex. I don't understand the "glory hole lite" experience. I have face and body pictures in my Grindr profile but I skip over selective private glory hole bottoms. This usually does work out well. People who are categorically unwilling to share a clear and recent face pic online often have some kind of hang-up. Even when it doesn't interfere with sex, it can make the experience less pleasurable. It's no fun, for example, fucking someone who is ashamed that he needs to take dick behind his boyfriend's or his wife's back once in a while. Nice! I bet you have more fun, and are more fun to be with, as a result of being flexible.

Thanks, @JimInWisc! To everyone: It's easy to self-moderate. If you want to talk politics (or branch off into some other related but separate topic) you can create a thread in another forum and post a link here. Simply copying the URL of the new thread and pasting it into a message here will generate a neat call-out. That was how I created this thread, in fact. The conversation about barriers to PrEP started in a thread about whether someone should get an HIV test or experience the thrill of not knowing. As much as I wanted to continue the tangent about PrEP, I wanted to respect the prior participants and leave space for their conversation to continue.

May I ask that we keep this thread focused on PrEP barriers, and start (and link out to) threads in other forums for more-than-incidental political discussion? I think political discussion is a great thing, but it risks drowning out what I hope will become a compendium of reasons why people stop PrEP. Ultimately, that could lead to specific improvements in the way we educate people about PrEP and support them in using it. Thank you for considering this request.

Thanks, @BareLover666 and @iman2004. The original article also mentioned that the variant had been circulating in the Netherlands for decades and that its prevalence was declining. Delay is a reality for genetic sequencing efforts. There is too little systemic sequencing going on in the world, and it tends to be for academic research (slow) rather than for surveillance (fast). Had this variant been circulating in South Africa, it would probably have been identified sooner. That is one country with a robust, systemic genetic sequencing effort, first for HIV and now also for COVID-19.

@BBArchangel, I'll send you a private message to learn more about the UCLA cure research program/study. @hntnhole and @bbpoznow, please report back! It will be interesting to hear what your doctors already know, or are willing to find out, about this brand-new PrEP option. I'll also be curious whether you encounter any roadblocks if it might be right for you medically and if you are interested in it. I had initially been optimistic about Kaiser San Francisco (which already has a program for Cabenuva, the monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine injection for HIV treatment), but they're already trying hard to quell interest in injectable PrEP, including spreading incomplete information about research findings to patients who dare to ask. Apretude would cost them more, require more staff effort (not just in administering the injections, but also in coordinating insurance coverage, patient assistance rebates, and delivery from an external pharmacy), and in general, entail change, which people generally avoid. @WiChaser, FYI, Descovy hasn't yet been recommended for intermittent/"2-1-1" use — only Truvada, so far. That constraint aside, in case your doctor isn't familiar with intermittent PrEP, encourage them to check the 2021 CDC PrEP guidelines, published late last year, with a new chapter for intermittent PrEP. If you are comfortable sharing, let us know what you decide on. Thanks. What can I say, I'm an altruistic top who likes to verify the effectiveness of new treatment and prevention options by regularly breeding bottoms! I also like to administer booster injections...of cum. Why should people have to wait 5 or 6 months? 😈😏 In all seriousness, I believe that science matters, implementation and access matter, and that if we as a community continue to speak up and stay involved, we can help each other.

Is it possible that your husband has secret sexual outlets of his own? Do the two of you have different levels of COVID-19 exposure risk in day-to-day life, for example, if one person is a health care worker whereas the other works from home? Sexual health risk and COVID-19 risk aside, how would your husband respond if you told him or he found out about your glory hole adventures? Hopefully people who love each other will come around and realize that fun on the side doesn't diminish that love.

Information is starting to trickle in about Apretude (cabotegravir), the 2-month PrEP injection recently approved in the US. A practical "getting started" brochure for providers is out but I don't think there's an open link yet. You can read information for patients in text form, here: [think before following links] https://gskpro.com/content/dam/global/hcpportal/en_US/Prescribing_Information/Apretude/pdf/APRETUDE-PI-PIL-IFU.PDF#page36 The bad: • Must be given by a medical professional • Only supplied by a small number of specialty pharmacies • Insurer, medical provider, specialty pharmacy, and patient assistance program (if required) need to coordinate • Resistance to the whole drug class (integrase inhibitors) is possible if you do get HIV; HIV testing before every injection matters, as does starting a different form of PrEP if you stop injections The good: • In two large studies, people receiving cabotegravir injections were significantly less likely to get HIV than people receiving Truvada pills; for both, adherence matters • Patient assistance will be available to people with private (not Medicaid, Medicare, VA, TriCare) insurance; up to $7,850/year; [think before following links] https://apretudecopayprogram.com/ • 7-day window for injections • California is already warning insurers that they cannot avoid covering this drug or impose barriers; guidance for Department of Insurance-regulated plans (Department of Managed Health Care to follow suit) with useful background about illegal practices like pre-authorization: [think before following links] http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0300-insurers/0200-bulletins/bulletin-notices-commiss-opinion/upload/CDI-Bulletin-2021-10-Preventive-Services-Coverage-for-HIV-PrEP.PDF It may be a little while yet before Apretude is available, but if you are interested in injectable PrEP, this may be a good time to start talking with your medical professional. Please share news and experiences in this thread.

The original question was descriptive: "Do you still cum in a bottom who asks you to pull out?" Wouldn't it make sense for people who like debating ethics, law, rape and so on to start a separate, normative thread? I feel as if I were reading Anita Bryant's newsletter! I reject: 1. The assumption that cumming inside a bottom necessarily carries a health risk. Come on, we are barebackers! If any group of people is informed about, and attends to, sexual health, it is us. I don't go around willfully nutting without consent inside bareback bottoms, but if ever I did lose control and fail to pull out in such a case, I would definitely not be exposing the person to HIV. I've been using Truvada for PrEP since 2013 and take it daily, without fail. Similarly, the majority of Poz tops are on ART and have an undetectable viral load; empirical research established long ago that undetectable = untransmissible. My exposing the bottom to an STI (beyond the baseline risk from skin-to-skin contact and fluid exchange before ejaculation) is highly unlikely. I have had all available STI vaccinations and I get tested every month for other common STIs, so the number of days that I might have an undiagnosed STI is small. Why do bareback enthusiasts repeat (and thereby, amplify) the false assumptions of heteros? Maybe some harms do result from an unwanted insemination, but with responsible bareback tops, health harms do not. Once we ditch the shame and grant our own community credit for decades of sexual health activism and practice, the stakes in this debate become much smaller. 2. Denial of physiological reality re: ejaculation timing. Yes, consent can be withdrawn, but the top's body operates under physiological limits. Orgasm and ejaculation are processes with a long build-up but a very quick end. If you cancel an Amazon order immediately after placing it, the cancellation always succeeds. If you wait until Amazon is "Preparing for shipping", you get a warning that the cancellation might or might not succeed. After the build-up, ejaculation is on a hair-trigger. Bottoms who withdraw consent will get better results if they do so early. It's stupid to stake this debate on the fact that consent can be withdrawn at any time. Yes, a bottom can withdraw consent at any time, but no, it might be too late for the top to delay ejaculation and pull out. 3. The innocent, hapless bottom versus evil, wanton top dichotomy. Unforeseen events are possible in sex as in any other activity. PrEP, and vaccinations against HPV, Hepatitis A, and Hepatitis B, have been available for years. If commentators held bottoms to the same standards of responsibility as tops, the stakes in the debate would be further reduced. Again, maybe some harms do result from an unwanted insemination, but with responsible bareback bottoms, health harms do not.

[Digression, for fun] [think before following links] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols is a start, but as someone who likes learning and teaching, I find most logic references badly-designed. Every site I found "explained" ⇒ with lazy examples. Instead of using generic inputs like A and B, or worse yet, Greek letters, attach some meaning to the inputs! To understand ⇒, consider this example: smile ⇒ happy "Simile implies happy" is True in all cases except one. It's OK to not be smiling and not be happy. It's OK to not be smiling but still be happy. It would be strange to smile when you are not happy; that is the one False case. Last but not least, it's natural to be smiling and to be happy. References often give "truth tables" to show, for each combination of input values, whether the output value is True or False. They get the counting order backward, and people wonder whether all of the cases have been covered. It becomes easy as soon as you realize that False is 0, True is 1, and 1 is the maximum digit in the binary numbering system. When you reach the maximum digit, the same thing happens with decimal and binary numbers. Decimal: 9 + 1 = 10. Binary 1 + 1 = 10 (whose decimal value is, naturally, 2). Now you have everything you need to know to count in binary. Start your table with all zeros (all inputs False) and count upward until you reach all ones (all inputs True). Stop at whatever version of the truth table for ⇒ makes the most sense to you: smile happy | smile ⇒ happy 0 0 | 1 0 1 | 1 1 0 | 0 1 1 | 1 smile happy | smile ⇒ happy F F | T F T | T T F | F T T | T smile, happy | smile ⇒ happy not smiling, not happy | OK not smiling, happy | OK smiling, not happy | not OK smiling, happy | OK Now, to bring this digression back to the topic at hand, see which of these you agree with: cheating ⇒ fun ("cheating implies fun") cheating ⇒ ¬ethical ("cheating implies not ethical") ¬cheating ⇒ ¬fun ("not cheating implies no fun") The ¬ (not) operator just means, switch a value to its opposite. A False value becomes True, a True value becomes False, a 0 digit becomes a 1, or a 1 digit becomes a zero.