Posts made by MrMazda

@antstorm:

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

@eurostud29:

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.

@groovedware:

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.

@groovedware:

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.

@groovedware:

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.

@groovedware:

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.

The biggest key is to start slowly and make sure that you use lots of lube. Slowy begin to play with yourself back there and you'll learn to start relaxing. Before you know it, you'll be good to go.

Also, in some cases, finger nails (among other things) can bring a certain level of pain when playing with yourself that a cock for some reason just doesn't. Do not fear this, as it is normal and will pass. That being said though, make sure that you keep pushing yourself slowly over time. Remember…. Rome wasn't built in a day.

I'm an au naturel kinda guy…. I hate the use of condoms, especially if I am topping.

I guess for me it's not exactly a cut and dry thing. The biggest factor involved would definitely be the chemistry between me and the other person. There are some people that at first sight, the primal animal instinct kicks in and the sexual juices start flowing. For other people on the other hand, I find it better to go a little slower and take my time before just rushing into bed. It's really hard to say actually…

For me it all depends on the person, the setting, etc. In some cases, just a quick peck is all that is warranted, whereas in other cases (such as when you're starting to get comfortable and close), open is definitely the way to go.

This may also have to do with where QTM was installed. If you install it to C:\QTM and make sure to run the install file as an administrator, this should resolve the issue as well. Otherwise, you may need to run QTM as an administrator every time.

To my understanding, there are two main ways of doing this…. The first is to use iTunes, which Apple forcibly crams down their users' throats..... The second one is a little more geeky. Linux should be able to pull said pictures off of the device as a USB drive. If you don't want to install Linux, there are a few options available...

Ubuntu for example offers an option to "Try Ubuntu", which allows you to boot into an Ubuntu session out of your system's RAM, as not to remove or otherwise modify your current operating system. You can find that legally for free at http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop

As for the alternative method, you can also try UBCD (Ultimate Boot CD), which will allow you to boot into a virtual Linux session (also running from RAM) using their "Parted Magic" tool. The UBCD is also available legally for free at http://www.ultimatebootcd.com

If either option should fail, I may have other ways of doing it. I will have to play around with an iDevice myself fist to be able to provide more detailed instructions on how to do this.

This may sound strange, but my favourite place is usually anywhere that's risky to get caught. Something about the risk of getting caught just adds to the thrill. Such places include a cemetary, a public washroom, a church basement, and the back of a police cruiser… Yes... That's right.. I've had sex in the back of a police cruiser befoe. It was a pretty fun way to get out of a speeding ticket actually. :hehe:

True enough…

The one up side though to closetted men is that strangely, I've found closetted men tend to be tbe kinkiest in the sheets for some reason. It's kind of strange because they're all open minded usually, but not willing to admit that they're gay in public. :crazy2:

@nmd:

My guess is that you have both sets of cables connected at once and this is confusing for it or your TV or both.  Try only using HDMI and see how that goes.

This is quite possible… There is also another possibility as well. I know that when my WDTV box once did this, the solution I fould was to do a hardware reset with the reset switch on the back of the box. It was a little bit of a pain to get it going again after that, but if it's not the issue as mentioned above, this may be worth a shot.

I too have migrated from the world of Windows to Ubuntu some time ago and have never bothered to look back. Given the more advanced firewall options that you can create yourself, it's much easier to secure a network when running it behind something like Ubuntu than it is to directly expose a Windows base computer directly to the internet.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one on this site who seems to have taken to that switch to make it over to the world of Ubuntu.

Amazing HIV+ Gay Men: Tyler Curry
Source: HIVPlusMag
He was 28 when he found out he was HIV-positive. Though he worried about being ostracized, the accidental activist posed naked and sudsy to protest the use of “clean” to describe people who don’t have HIV.

BY Jorge Rodriguez-Jimenez September 05 2014 3:00 AM ET

He was 28 when he found out he was HIV-positive. Nothing was more scary to Tyler Curry than figuring out how to disclose his status without being ostracized by others in the gay community.

“So with impending doom off the table, what is there to be afraid of? Well, for me and for many I know, it is the person that is reading this article,” Curry wrote in a December 2012 online op-ed for The Advocate. “It is being the rotten golden egg that plummets to the bottom of the dumpster in Charlie’s Chocolate Factory. It is the deafening effect uttering the letters ‘HIV’ can have in a conversation.”

Well, that rotten golden egg has taken the HIV and LGBT community by storm since then, immersing himself in activism and becoming a major media presence, often using his own body and image to get his message about HIV across. As an Advocate contributor, Curry once appeared naked in a sudsy shower to protest the continuing use of “clean” to describe people who don’t have HIV. And while older activists bristled at the attention Curry got for things they’ve been saying for years, it was clear that this Gen Y upstart was getting through to a lot of young people.

Curry launched the Needle Prick Project, an editorial and visual campaign aimed to open dialogue on the current state of living HIV-positive. It included a series of published interviews and photographs of Curry with other poz notables. In addition to writing for The Advocate, he has contributed to Instinct and The Huffington Post, and today he’s senior editor and head writer for a Web-based HIV resource and magazine, HIV Equal Online.

Curry reminds us that youth is for pushing forward, making noise, and bringing attention to a cause. “Even though I probably won’t die tomorrow, I can still live better today,” Curry wrote in that 2012 column. “Realizing just that is the change in our lives that we all deserve.”

Yes… Far too often people don't disclose their status in an anonymous or group sex type scene. Most of them do not disclose their status from my experience because they're undetectable. The rational behind that is that as per what the article outlines, undetectable viral load more or less means damn near NO risk of infection.