fskn

It sounds as if your friend and the guy might have different expectations. Is there mention of past "sex dates" with other people, on the guy's feed? Either way, especially in British usage, sex date should be taken at face value: meeting for the purpose of fucking.

Great spirit, wanting to help others! As a chaser you could make a very important contribution. Clinical trials at different stages will include (and exclude) participants at certain risk levels. Typically, early-stage trials that establish that a product is safe, measure immune response, determine the appropriate dose, etc. enroll low-risk participants, because there is not much evidence that the product works. Depending on ethics, study design, prevalence of a disease in the study population, and transmissibility of the disease, later-stage trials that measure efficacy — how well a product works, in a study — might enroll either low- or high-risk participants. The less common a disease is and the harder it is to transmit, the more likely that it will be necessary to enroll high-risk participants. Otherwise, getting enough positive cases in the control group would take too long or require too many people. On the other hand, ethics discourages reliance on high-risk participants in a blind trial, because they won't know whether they're receiving the real product (which might, optimistically, be found to provide some protection) or placebo (which certainly won't provide any protection). Because establishing the efficacy of Truvada for PrEP depended in part on knowing how much sexual risk the study participants had, some later-stage Truvada for PrEP studies required participants to log their sexual activity. Higher-risk participants who received Truvada in essence challenged the product more than low-risk participants. To use another PrEP-related example, in countries where Truvada for PrEP is now the standard of care, other HIV prevention studies (of: antibodies, as in the AMP trial; PrEP products other than Truvada; HIV vaccines; and behavioral interventions) have to be larger, run longer, or be designed differently because it is not ethical to deprive participants of routine care. We know that Truvada for PrEP is very effective in preventing HIV, and we can't withhold it from study participants if it's generally available. All of this is to say that study volunteers who are at high risk of getting HIV can be very important to HIV prevention research.

I haven't had any problems with BBRTS admins, but I agree with you completely about the excessive notifications and e-mails, and about the need for a paid membership. (In fairness, Grindr, Scruff, and other similar hookup apps are also pretty limited unless you pay.)

For people's information, intermittent or "2-1-1" PrEP has been recommended in France for years, following the successful IPERGAY trial, and it also appears in the pending update to the US CDC PrEP guidelines. Data do not bear out worries about drug resistance. The components of Truvada and Descovy (more PrEP products are coming, including injectables that last a month or two; see the draft CDC guidelines) are also recommended as part of first-line HIV treatment regimens. Were resistance common, this would not be so. Safety assessment/testing is part of the CDC guidelines. For example, for the small number of PrEP patients who encounter kidney problems when taking Truvada or Descovy, periodic testing will detect the problem. Although PrEP does not protect against STIs other than HIV, CDC guidelines require medical professionals to provide quarterly STI testing to at-risk PrEP patients, including men who have sex with men. Often, this is a condition for refilling a 90-day PrEP prescription. Given that many sexual infections are asymptomatic in men, frequent and routine (i.e., from a medical provider with whom you have an ongoing relationship, so you'll get your results and be able to return for treatment if necessary) STI testing makes PrEP users safer than non-PrEP users, who tend to test infrequently and rely on unfamiliar clinics (many clinic visitors never return for treatment). STIs in PrEP patients will be detected and treated quickly. Most of all, it's important to discuss PrEP with, and receive comprehensive PrEP care from, a medical professional. (Depending on state practice guidelines, this need not be a doctor; in California, for example, PharmD's and other non-doctors can prescribe PrEP.) Intake testing; regular safety, HIV and STI testing; and support for adherence all matter. It's more than filling a prescription!

There's nothing novel about requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination for travel or other activities. Many countries require arriving passengers to show proof of yellow fever vaccination (ref: "yellow card"), and schools in many jurisdictions around the world require parents to provide proof that their children have been vaccinated against polio, whooping cough, etc. We do have to be realistic about the limitations. Paper documents can easily be forged, and it's impossible to verify every item. Within one country or state, there might be a central, computerized vaccination registry, but it is bound to have data gaps. The goal is a high enough level of coverage that fake documents and missing or incomplete computer records don't put the overall population at risk. Between two countries or states, computerized vaccination registries have zero intercommunication. When we go beyond routine vaccinations, there is no single source of truth. In the US, some STIs are still "notifiable", meaning that the laboratory or doctor's office has to report the positive result and the name of the patient to the CDC. Identifying numbers are not reportable, name matches are not perfect, and, as we realized decades ago when HIV testing was introduced, if providers insist on verifying peoples' identities, people aren't willing to get tested (ref: "anonymous" versus "confidential" HIV testing). The US CDC's STI registry would be "garbage in, garbage out" if it were used to identify individuals. Unlike state vaccination registries, which schools, doctor's offices and local public health departments can query, the CDC's STI registry isn't designed to be queried for individual records. And of course, negative test results are not registered centrally. An individual sex partner, a play group, or a sex venue can request test results. (It's an error to say, in the US, that HIPAA precludes this; HIPAA established privacy rules for medical providers and insurers.) It would be myopic to assume that requesting test results protects people, though. In the absence of a centralized, individually queryable registry of negative test results, we're back to paper documents, which can't be verified. Medically speaking, test results are about the past. Any test has a window period, during which recent infections won't be detected. For example, the best HIV diagnostic tests — PCR qualitative (yes/no rather than numeric) viral load tests — show infections that occurred several days before. Most people rely instead on cheaper tests that can detect an HIV infection within several weeks; older HIV tests (some still in use!) required months. To the window period, add the time elapsed since the test was taken, and you really are looking at the past rather than the present. What good would it do to show an STI test result from 3 months or 1 year ago? (These are typical testing frequencies, 3 months being the US requirement for sexually active men who have sex with men and who take PrEP.) With all these pitfalls, requiring test results would provide a false sense of security. Much better for sex partners to openly discuss their sexual health practices, testing habits, and so on, and for sex venues to encourage more, and more frequent, STI testing (which they often do by partnering with public health departments or non-profit agencies that offer weekly or monthly pop-up clinics).

I agree with others: bare is always best! I also encourage both of you to be completely realistic. Talk of not being "that promiscuous" should not inform any decision about sexual health. It's vague, unverifiable, about past rather than future behavior, and medically irrelevant, in that it only takes one encounter with one other sexual partner to introduce an STI. I'm not suggesting that you worry about STI's, but rather, that you both acknowledge that they are likely to occur eventually. Claims about not being promiscuous offer no protection. PrEP, even if used by just one of you, will protect you against HIV and limit the impact of some common STIs thanks to frequent testing and faster detection. Be sure that you, and ideally also this guy, are following a recommended PrEP regimen. This means taking Truvada or Descovy (other options will follow in the future) daily or understanding and following the "2-1-1" intermittent dosing rules; receiving HIV and STI tests at least every 3 months plus safety tests at appropriate intervals; and being under the care of a medical professional. You probably know all of this already, but I mention it because I see many Grindr users who claim to be using PrEP but cannot possibly be, based on what they tell me when I ask them a question or two. Last but not least, with all the talk of COVID-19 vaccination, deciding to bareback with a new partner is a also great time to review sexual health-related vaccinations with your doctor. Vaccines against Hepatitis A and B, HPV, and meningitis are available.

Living separately helps, although since you live together and even commute to work together, maybe designating certain nights or hours each week for possible play would make going out less awkward. You posted in May, so have you tried some things since then, @a2nudist? Also, have you checked in with your husband about this issue? Maybe telling him you're on your way to hook up with another guy will be less awkward than you think. I recently met a very self-aware polyamorous guy. I was texting my boyfriend goodnight and asked him whether he also texts his primary boyfriend each day. He said no, and that they had established specific boundaries about time together, time apart, and communication. Although they are another couple who don't live together — different from your situation, I know — I think there's something to be learned from my friend's deliberate approach. The pioneering early-1970s book "Open Marriage" by Nena and George O'Neill (worth looking up; amusingly, the capsule review calls it "seminal" 🤣 ) mentions that privacy, even within a close relationship, can be a good thing. So, if it turns out that telling your husband why you're going out really is awkward, having standing days or hours for possible play might make going out routine and eliminate the need to explain where you are going. Please come back and share what ends up working for you and your husband. Whereas couples in monogamous (and/or heteronormative) marriages have Disney movies as an early and pervasive model, there is no "manual" for those of us in open relationships. This makes sharing our ideas, experiences and discoveries crucial.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Blocking negative people is efficient and effective!

This would be a great, preemptive use of the block button! As someone who has volunteered in HIV prevention for more than two decades, I'm finally conceding that my own efforts to educate others can no longer come at the risk of my being insulted and abused. Some people aren't open to accurate information about sexual health. I recently had a bacterial STI, asymptomatic but caught and treated immediately because I elect to receive monthly testing as part of my PrEP care. The responses from my sexual partners have been fascinating. Instead of asking how I am, one guy immediately switches into shame-based, self-pity mode, asking how many other partners I've slept with in the month. (This is someone I fucked once and don't know well.) He believes that nice people don't get STIs, he's afraid of STI treatments (for bacterial STIs), and at the same time, he hasn't considered, let alone completed, STI vaccinations (Hep A, Hep B, HPV). He's on PrEP, but he imagines that he can protect himself from STIs other than HIV solely by inquiring about his partners' sexual habits and by having less sex with fewer partners. In the same breath, this brooding 35-year-old insured professional laments not getting fucked as often as he'd like. 🤔 After several weeks of daily small talk by text message, I haven't heard a word from him lately. Good riddance! Meanwhile, a 21-year-old uninsured Starbucks worker says thanks, that he'll get tested, and that he'll even let me know what he finds out. 🙂 He is grateful that I mentioned the nation's foremost sexual health care provider, San Francisco City Clinic, which offers low-/no-cost, culturally competent, medically innovative services. I've also met him only once, but he is an amazing fuck and his sex-positive attitude means he's welcome back in my bed any time. People who never get STIs are probably not having very much sex. Stupid profile comments like "clean and disease-free and you be, too" help us weed them out. I want to meet other people who are sex-positive, highly active, realistic about sexual health risks, and who communicate openly and without shame when an STI does occur, so that we can all get tested and treated and get back to breeding.

I don't know who wrote that, but it's not what I wrote, or even what I wrote about. I wrote about becoming aware of our unconscious criteria for attractiveness, asking ourselves whether our criteria help us select for better socializing and fucking (or not), and never shaming people who don't meet our criteria (which are about us, not about the other people). The claim in the second sentence is possible, especially in cases where someone has a conscious, and very strong, prejudice. Nevertheless, in the US, marital bedrooms are much more heavily segregated than workplaces. I hope other readers will rethink the claim in the first sentence, substituting "effeminate men" and then "trans women" for "twinks", to recognize that gender-based prejudice can indeed also spill over. I was aware of your preference to be excluded upfront. My own preference for myself, and my practice toward others, is just different. This would be a great debate to have with the owners of Grindr, who decided last year to change their profile moderation practices, making negative racial preference statements (though not positive ones, which, when inverted, amount to the same thing) subject to removal. They felt that this would create a less toxic online environment. I would add two things about excluding people in profile text: 1. It's hard (well, impossible, actually) to write up an explicit exclusion statement if we're not conscious of the reasons why we find some people less attractive than others. Yes, a stereotypical redneck who has a strong, conscious bias against Black people would know this well enough to be able to write it in a profile (if it were allowed, i.e., not on Grindr), but most people have much more complex decision-making processes. 2. The fear that people's time is being wasted, a reference I often see in Grindr profiles, strikes me as one-sided / self-regarding. Both parties give time when interacting online. Communicating successfully (i.e., understanding each other) takes time. Neither party is presumed to be God's gift to the world, worthy of instant responses and absolute clarity. How many seconds does it really take to tap someone in Grindr? And how many minutes does it take to move on and tap the person in the next grid square, if the last guy didn't tap you back (which was my idea for a minimum-harm way of rejecting people we don't find attractive for whatever reason)?

I think some people deny reality. Except when you're putting your dick through a glory hole or wearing a blindfold and getting fucked by any and all cocks (both fun activities, though as a top I've only experienced the former), of course you are determining whom you find attractive and whom you don't! Supposedly, this split-second decision is an evolutionary response that helps heterosexuals find the healthiest mates with which to reproduce. For some animals, the criteria are simple: brighter feathers, bigger body parts, or a louder mating call. In humans, the list of criteria is endless. We apply some criteria consciously, but others, we aren't even aware of. Skin color, and/or the traits we associate with it in countries like the US where race is (unfortunately) central to the society, are probably at least on the subconscious list, if not on the conscious list, for most of us. I don't think we can explain away racial criteria, let alone wish them away, in the complex, instantaneous, and highly individual process of determining whom we find attractive. Instead, why not focus on discovering and acknowledging the attractiveness criteria that we do apply, on figuring out whether those criteria help us to select for better social and sexual experiences (or not), and, most of all, on making sure that we apply attractiveness criteria in ways that satisfy us while doing as little harm as possible to other people? Skin color is like height, eye color, and other apparent traits: it cannot be changed. Weight is similar: major, sustained change is unlikely. We can choose to keep the immutable traits we dislike, to ourselves. Rejection always hurts, but you can reject a short person (if you dislike short people) as painlessly as is possible by not answering the person's message or tap. If you had put "no shorties" in your profile or if you responded with "[Sorry, / Thanks, but] I don't fuck/date/chat with short people" — whether out of fake vicarious concern or just callousness — you would be blaming and shaming the other person (a) for not meeting a criterion that is yours (in your own mind / not universal) and (b) for having a trait that they couldn't change even if changing to suit you made sense and if they wanted to change! Sticking to positive preference statements in profiles isn't the answer, either. For example, saying that you like Black and Latino men could mean, by extension, that you don't like Asians. The toxic effect on people who don't qualify is the same. @BlackDude has a unique insight. Decisions about attractiveness are so quick and complex that we are not always able to articulate our own criteria. Observation — having Grindr, dating apps, etc. tabulate the features of the people we respond to most (and least) — would give each of us a better sense of our preferences. (However, @BlackDude suggests that our observed preferences be locked in. I disagree. For me, this is a descriptive exercise, not a normative one. Preferences don't have to be symmetric. It's OK for old people to like young people; there's some evolutionary biology at work there, at least as far as fertility is concerned, for heteros. It's OK for fat people to like thin people. It's OK for our preferences to change as our own bodies age, as we meet people with different features than we were used to, etc. Symmetry is OK, too. It's fine, and probably quite natural, for some people to select other people who look the same, talk in familiar ways, have similar socio-economic status, etc. It's all OK, as long as we don't shame others for not being what we want and for having traits that they couldn't change even if they wanted to.)

For some reason this reminds me of an unhappy customer I saw in an adult arcade in San Francisco years ago. Other people were pairing off in booths and getting action but he wasn't, so he started to reach into empty booths, set the doorknob locks to lock, and pull the doors closed from the outside, taking those booths out of commission. It was like musical chairs! I guess he thought that once there were no more available booths, someone would have to get together with him. Eventually, another customer must have reported the situation to the cashier, who came back with a key and unlocked the doors. The misbehaving guy wasn't identified and removed, though, so he went right back to locking doors. 🤔

Hot! I have bred two FTM guys...an incredible feeling each time. The best is when I'm given permission to cum inside, even though there's still a risk of pregnancy.

Very well said! Your last sentence should be required reading for all health — and especially public health — professionals. I think our minds work this way in many health-related domains, from sex (nowadays: is an intention to use condoms sufficient, or is PrEP, with required, frequent HIV and STI testing, more reassuring?) to COVID-19 (unvaccinated people who imagine that they are protected, or can somehow protect themselves adequately) to alcohol ("just one more drink..."). Question: What are some constructive ways to help people realize the error in their logic, and motivate them to make choices that are empirically proven to be protective (again, in today's context, PrEP, COVID-19 vaccines, etc.)? Aside: Based on your profile picture, I would have found it hard to resist going bare with you the first time. 😉

This seems a reasonable breeding rate. Would you wish for early DNA testing so you'd know which of the tops/potential fathers had the strongest sperm? Maybe decide to carry some of the babies to term if you're really into the father?

You'd think people would want maximum pleasure, right away the first time! The idea of using condoms at first might be something that gay men borrow from straight men (although straight couples might wait even longer to ditch the condoms).

My position will be unpopular, but I agree with the FDA's warning people against taking unregulated, non-prescription vasodilators during sex, often in combination with alcohol and drugs. Of course, a ban wouldn't work (which is why this garbage was once labeled as VCR head cleaner and is now labeled as a nailpolish remover, apparently). Maybe, however, the manufacturers should be forced to submit random batches of their products for testing on a periodic basis, at least to ensure that all of the chemicals in the bottle are disclosed on the label. A cigarette-style warning message should also be required. Of course, the freedom to market products that are harmful to people's health, without restriction, is a uniquely American freedom.

I think some people read far too much into "ghosting". This social phenomenon has always existed. People used to give fake phone numbers, shunt calls to voice mail or, long ago, let the answering machine do the work. People would plan to meet and then not show up; before cell phones, there was no way to check where they were. Communication technology aside, friends and even lovers might drift apart, getting together less and less frequently until the relationship had effectively ended (but with no explicit declaration that it was over). Rejection sucks, no matter how it's done. If desire is not mutual, or is no longer mutual, one person is bound to feel let down. There is no way around this, whether the interaction ends with blocking, with ghosting, with a declaration that the other person isn't interested or, worse yet, with a list of the other person's reasons (you're too old, too fat, too hairy, too short, too dark, your dick is too small, you're uncircumcised, your eyes are the wrong color, etc., etc.). The reasons are proper to the other person and, in most cases, have to do with characteristics that you couldn't change even if you wanted to. I prefer to be blocked, immediately and without explanation, if someone isn't going to meet me or isn't going to meet me again. It's like an excision with a sharp scalpel in the hands of an expert surgeon: quick, with minimal bleeding and as little scarring as possible. It's much healthier for me to concentrate on getting to know someone new than to dwell on someone who isn't interested. But ghosting also works fine for me. If I send a message and it's not answered, not answered reasonably promptly (within a day or two), or not answered with equivalent effort, the other person's intention is clear. For me, the psychologically healthy thing is to start moving on immediately. And why would I waste time being upset with the other person? He's looking for what he wants, just as I am. I allow myself to be sad for a little while, and then I remind myself that there are 3.95 billion less 2 (him, and me) other men on the planet! Recently I rediscovered "Man of My Dreams", an anthology of gay poetry and short stories that had been sitting on my bookshelf since my coming-out days in the 1990s. Part of my moving-on ritual if I'm ghosted by someone I was starting to like is to re-read Felice Picano's poem, "The Heart Has Its Reasons". "Not because you didn't call. I almost half expected that. ... "No, not because you... never gave me the chance to decide... whether I'd take the risk of true love or illusion. "But simply because I straightened all day... Did everything that was needed if a guest like you was coming. "Did, in short, what could wait, For that I could never forgive you." It's proof that ghosting has existed at least since 1977. [Apologies for the spaces between lines in the same stanza. I didn't see any way to do block formatting. I put a double line break to separate stanzas. For fair use, I quoted only part of the poem.]

@T-Girl-Cumdumpster gets it! So many people want to experience the dark side (no pun intended), i.e., the opposite of what they've been taught is right. There is truth to the lyrics of a certain song (whose title I won't repeat here because it comprises the name of a vehemently racist organization plus a misogynistic term for women) on Ice-T's "Body Count" album. As a mixed-race top whose father was from Africa, I have no problem with race play, and I like to know exactly what the bottom is thinking, because the scenario is so hot!

When you discover late in an online chat that a guy only uses condoms, what's the most diplomatic way to say no? Due to app store rules, Grindr and the other "mainstream" gay apps don't allow explicit mention of barebacking in profiles. Some people use 🅱️🅱️ emojis or other signals, but eventually those are detected and censored. My preference whenever someone rejects me is that he block me immediately and without explanation. We're not going to fuck; the reason doesn't change that. Psychologically, it's healthy for me not to spend any time dwelling on the matter, either. There are 3.95 billion less 2 (this guy, and me) other men on the planet, and I'd rather invest my energy in meeting one of them. Some people prefer an explanation, and I've read that some even experience hurt, emotional distress, loneliness or a sense of being undesirable, when they've been blocked. What is the solution? I've checked the boxes for PrEP on Grindr and on Scruff, but some condom users chat with me anyway. (Nothing precludes use of PrEP + condoms, but it's not as if these are people who know enough about PrEP to have taken such a position deliberately.) I've tried explaining my personal choice of relying on PrEP, taking my medication daily and getting HIV and STI tests monthly, but at best a guy will still insist on condoms, and at worst, he'll become insulting. I don't mind educating other app users, but it's a thankless role and never leads to my load in a guy's ass. I love BBRTS, where being a proud barebacker isn't a problem, but Grindr and Scruff have so many more users.

Although it's not something I seek out, I've ended up in several multi-year sexting relationships. Usually the guys fantasize about experiences they cannot have or have not yet had. One is a white guy into being dominated by Black men; he gets turned on by race play. Another is a bisexual guy, whom I've fucked in real life, and who likes to role-play scenarios in which I breed him, and invite strangers to do so, possibly with his girlfriend watching. I have a few younger friends who like to sext for Dad/son role-play, as well. I'd love to hear what scenarios people like to sext about...

Me too, @Ftm !

Would you keep all the pregnancies or would it depend who the father was?

Wonderful that you are serving those who serve our country!

This is wonderful! It's so encouraging when people remember to talk about the range of vaccines that protect our sexual health. For other people who read this, I would add HPV vaccination to the list to discuss with a medical professional. Although HPV vaccines provide the most comprehensive protection when given to young people without prior HPV exposure, recent guidance supports use in adults too, for protection from types of HPV that a given adult still has not encountered.