It is possible that one of our moderators may have made a mistake. I will look into that for you now.
EDIT: I'm not sure why it was moved or even who moved it, however I have restored it back to the regular torrent queue and promoted it for you.
This type of torrent removal can be undone. 
I see exactly what you mean… I can fill in the information in Chrome, but it will NOT allow me to hit the "Help me" button. It won't even acknowledge that it exists as something clickable. I will forward this to our admin. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
The other thing to look at is the top torrents list on the front page of GT.ru… Those are the most popular torrents, which means they are potentially great for the ratio if seeded enough, especially if they're FL
After looking at your profile, it appears that it was removed as being not gay themed. When posting reading material, there must be some sort of gay theme to the content of the torrent.
Edit: sorry I didn't save the numbers, but my math does include the actual HIV transmission rate, which some may find surprising what it actually is.
Yes… The shocking thing is about the rates is that since 2000 when the studies started getting done with the newer meds that have come out post 1998. The interesting thing with them is no matter what the regime was, if the person had an undetectable viral load, there has not been so much as ONE documented case since the studies began 14 years ago of HIV transmission from an HIV+ partner who is undetectable. This is why I say that you could reasonably conclude that it's "safe" for lack of a better term. Even the statistics with condom use do have some (albeit not many) cases where infection has occurred as the result of a condom failure.
It seems to me that you are just looking for exceptions almost as if that justifies the act, no matter what you wish to call it. Â A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Not at all… What I have been wondering for a while now and am going to finally outright ask is why do you seem to feel the need to be so argumentative with everyone? I was only pointing out that "cheating" is a matter of opinion. Some relationships will accept cheating as any type of contact with other people such as a simple kiss, whereas other couples (like my last ex and I) don't consider it to be cheating if you go out and shag some random fling on the side as long as you do not withhold that from the other. All I'm saying is that "cheating" is not a cut and dry term. It's a matter of opinion.
Now that gay marriage is becoming more common, do people's answers to this question change if the married man is married to another man rather than a woman?
With the change in gay marriage laws, I think it does have some impact, at least for me. Part of the thrill of the married man experience is knowing that you're converting a "straight" man over to the dark side of gay sex. If you they're married to another guy, while it can still be fun and all, there's that extra little something about it that's just not the same. At least, that's the way it is for me anyway.
If you believe there are differing views about what constitutes cheating, make sure you and the person with which you enter into a relationship share the same defintion.
This is why a lot of relationships fail. The definition of cheating is not a literal term. Where one person may see kissing someone (even just a quick peck) as a form of cheating, someone else may not. That's the down side to opinions. That should be the case with any relationship as part of the discovery stage of the relationship.
Enough of that though…. What about sex with me? I'm still technically legally married, but haven't actually been with my still legal husband since September 11, 2007. Would that make sex with me constitute sex with a married man?
I am available over the holidays for assistance with setting up the NAT correctly. I support all makes/models of hardware, and can offer remote assistance over TeamViewer. It's available for Windows, Mac, and Linux (Debian Package / RPM / Tar Ball). It's free to use and it works over a secure connection. I can also do telephone support walk through in many places in the world if I dial out to you, and it's potentially free if you have a long distance plan that includes Canadian OR US calling. I have digits in both countries that will route the call through to me.
This likely means that you're either experiencing a temporary tracker glitch or the torrent has been removed. To find out for sure, click the torrent with the red arrow in uTorrent, then click the "Trackers" tab. If you see "Unregistered Torrent", it means the torrent no longer exists…. Otherwise, it is some other form of issue that it should identify with some sort of error.
I won't begin to deny that there is a lof of judging and shifting of the blame onto others that goes on around the subject, especially in cases where people are not sufficiently informed. That is a part of the reason why I disagree with making failure to disclose HIV status a criminal matter. My view on that is that sex requires 2 people, so the responsibility shouldn't just be one-sided.
When properly informed of things like an undetectable viral load, it definitely redefines what the word "safe" in "safe sex" actually means when it comes to HIV. I know all too well the kinds of things that happen to people, based solely on the fact that they're HIV+. I myself am a victim of such things on a very large scale. Education on the actual facts is the only way to change that sadly.
So there is a way for someone to share their seedpoints with you?
Yes…. All you need to do is to upload a torrent. If users like the torrent, they can attach some or all of their SBP to the torrent, which then adds them to your available SBP count.
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I did - it didn't help.
However, I just noticed that the Helpdesk page does seem to work in Internet Explorer. (The time I tried before was in Firefox.) I'll use IE now just to send my request, but perhaps that provides a hint to fix the issue?
I'm a little confused about what the problem could be. I've tested this myself on Firefox and cannot seem to duplicate the issue. This seems strange.
honestly, I cringe when i see sex ads on apps from guys you know the profiles that when you read between the lines is like…
hey im a slapper with an arse that is open to more traffic than a 7/11 store , but ya know i only bareback with neg guys so its cool
cringe worthy , I could say "oh well its their own lives", but unlike the US , people in Australia subsidise 90% of HIV medication
I lived for 11 years with an HIV positive partner who contracted HIV via molestation he always hated the fact that he was HIV+
he always said he wished that he could have dodged this bullet and would nevereven entertain the notion of risky sex knowing what he knows now
he would tell me some stories of when he would speak to gay youth for NAPWA , that used to make me roll my eyes in horror.
I just don't understand the blasé attitude of people who bareback , why should your irresponsibility for your own health be a burden on Medicare ???I'm not going to apologise for being hard line about this…
You shouldn't have to opologize for that. You are entitled to have and express your opinion and views.
That being said though, does knowing the factual observations and statistics of maintaining an undetectable viral load influence your view on unprotected sex in some situations?
I have had much experience with playing with couples. Assuming that the third wheel (usually me) has a connection with the other two people involved, they can actually work quite well. Sometimes with two people, if all parties are equally as interested, it can be quite fun actually.
Haha…. Funny you should mention conforming to ways dictated by other people, and loop holes... That brings to mind another way of looking at the situation of marriage and sex.
As in this example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY
I always play safe
What may I ask do you define as "safe"? Statistically speaking, unprotected sexual intercourse with an HIV+ partner with an undetectable viral load is actually proven to be safer than sexual intercourse with a condom with an HIV+ person with a high viral load. This could reasonably conclude that it is "safe" to do it raw with an HIV+ partner with an undetectable viral load.
I am willing to disclose in an anonymous situation but when one comes at me in unprotected manner be it top or bottom without discussion I then assume they are making their own judgement call.
I couldn't agree with you more. The fact of the matter is that even the dumbest of people know that there is a "realistic possibility" (in the words of the law) that the person with an unstated status could be HIV+. It is also true that even the dumbest people know that there is a "realistic possibility" that a person who has identified themselves as being HIV- could actually be HIV+ and either not know it, or are lying about it. If you're really all that worried, you wouldn't just engage in random sexual encounters without at least inquiring about your partner's status.
What really gets me is the guys advertising online for bareback sex negative only. Twice i have taken the time to explain (because I was hoping for a little sneaky pete) that if they really are negative and wish to remain that way they would be better to seek out the guys that identify as undetectable as opposed to negative.
I never quite thought of it that way until you pointed it out actually. You do raise a good point from a medical perspective. Most people who have HIV and don't know it are generally not far from the seroconversion stage. When this happens, the viral load is often rather high, thus elevating the risk. By the same logic, you at least know that if they identify as being undetectable, you at least have the peace of mind of knowing that that you do not have to worry about how the possibility of finding out later that your partner was wrong about their status for some reason.
I also know there is a large segment of guys who willfully attempt to spread the virus. Pretty much anytime the ad says negative looking for bareback I assume this is what is happening.
That is a safe assumption in terms of risk factor. I do know that there are some people out there who will still be honest about it at least. As much as I do not understand such people, there are some HIV+ people who seek out HIV- partners for bareback sex with the goal of infecting them because somehow that gives them sexual gratification, when both partners know what they're getting themselves into and still want to excercise their free will to go ahead with it anyway, who am I to judge? hehe
I don't think it's possible on the forum part directly, but I know there is a way to block the user account on the main side of the site. I just don't know if it can be done at regular user level at this time.
And after looking into your account history (namely the reports), I think I know who this particular user is. All that I will say is that I share the opinion you have expressed with respect to a particular user in a forum report you recently made.
This gives me an idea for a reclaiming "dirty" poster. Clean sex is for breeders and clones.
:lolp:
In some cases, as much as the law states that disclosure is required, I cannot really pass judgement on someone for not disclosing. Anonymous public hookups like cruising in the park, not asking questions, or in some cases, not even being able to identify the other person are such situations where I have a different view than the law around disclosure. Given the whole thing with the undetectable viral load, it would stand to reason that the law is a little out-dated.
Say you go to a bathhouse, and you see someone blindfolded in a sling in a dark corner, it's pretty obvious what they want, and that they do not care. In such a case, if you as the undetectable top decide to dive in raw, disclosure in my opinion shouldn't be necessary under those pretenses. The same holds true for the bottom. If they're in a sling and don't care, it is equally the responsibility of the other person to protect themselves if they're concerned with it, especially if the person in the sling is undetectable. Sadly though, the law is quite clear that disclosure still must occur.
All this being said though, it will be interesting to see how long it takes for the legal system to catch up with the facts that while there is no evidence that proves that it is impossible to transmit HIV with an undetectable viral load, but there sure is an overwhelming amount of evidence that statistically seems to indicate that an undetectable viral load is actually safer than sex with a condom. Condoms have been known to break, slide off, or otherwise occasionally fail in some way. If used properly and they do not slide off or break however, they are a proven method of preventing HIV as well. If you ask me, ZERO cases of infection from an undetectable viral load over the 10 - 14 years that the different studies were conducted sounds like a whole lot safer odds than a reasonable bet that infection is not possible, knowing that there is always a chance that the condom could break.
This is the kind of information that more people should know. There's a whole lot worse things than HIV that are possible that you can get a LOT easier than HIV itself at this day and age. I provide information like this as a reference for people to be able to make their own choices for themselves, knowing that they can make their decision proplerly informed with all the facts. Just because something is possible, doesn't necessarily mean that it's likely.