Posts made by yababylol

Negative guy here, and as I haven't had sex with ANYONE in at least 8 months and I've been tested recently, I know it for sure. That said … I hate the ignorance and fear that's persisting in our community about this issue.

We need to absorb this fact, or else we're being just as preposterous as U.S. senators entering the congressional floor with snowballs and trying to claim that climate change isn't real, and they've proven practically every scientist on Earth wrong with that one snowball -- you need to listen to the people with the ph.d's, and not your gut fears that have been drilled into your head. The fact is, all the actual scientific evidence shows that you're probably a lot safer with someone who's positive and knows their status than you are with someone who thinks that they're negative (and tells you so).

would not knowingly have oral or anal sex with someone who told me they were HIV positive even if they had a low viral load or even if I was on PrEP or Truvada unless for some reason I was so in love with them that I decided to take the risk

The thing is, if you're with someone who knows they're HIV positive and have an undetectable viral load, whether you're on PrEP or not (and it's a good idea to be on it), your risk is actually lower than having sex with someone who tells you that they're negative but their last test was … hell, even two weeks ago. Remember that the virus isn't strongly detectable until you've been infected for half a year as it is.

All the science supports that fact -- you literally, LITERALLY, have less of a chance of becoming infected by someone that's positive yet provably undetectable (when it's demonstrably and test-verified undetectable, as far as we know so far, the risk is essentially zero) than you are with someone that just comes up to you and says, "Yeah, I'm negative, here's my test from last month."

What "risk" is it you're not willing to take? It seems like the imaginary one in your head where you still want to believe your programmed fear and not scientists and doctors.

I've been all over the map through the years, I get a 'craving' for a certain type or another, sometimes completely getting polarity reversals in terms of being drawn to a type that would've been completely uninteresting to me in the earliest days of me realizing that I had a sex drive. When I first got access to porn at 18, I was highly drawn to the bronzed, perfectly chiseled Euro look of Bel Ami … but as I got older, I got a crush on a sassy twinkish guy (not too much younger than me, but he had a young look and vibe), and I suddenly developed a thing for very effeminate, petite, scrawny guys with no muscle tone at all.

I actually wish I could find more porn with highly feminine bottoms (not trans, but just very cute, very smooth, very non-masculine guys ... I've known men in their 50s that meet this bill, they don't have to be young), but I do seem to be in the minority with that particular taste -- most gay men I know are openly contemptuous of feminine guys, but I love 'em. Ironically, it's some of the most flamboyant guys I know that seem to have this prejudice.

I never used to be attracted to black men at all, either, but as I got older, that hangup rapidly went away. I'd happily date a hot man of color as readily as I would a white guy. I also stopped caring about perfect bodies so much; a little padding doesn't make-or-break it for me anymore. Oh, and baldness ... it used to look "old" to me, but now, I honestly don't care if the guy knows how to stay on top of it and rock a shaved head.

Now, there are still types I absolutely don't feel attracted to and don't think I could even get it up for, but my range has definitely broadened.

The formula for attraction is complex indeed. Maybe it's a little bit like learning to like different types of food? When we first become sexually active (whatever age that is for any one of us), we're essentially that toddler in the high chair flipping their plate up if they're offered anything but chicken nuggets and chocolate milk. You get older, you learn other foods aren't toxic, and can actually be pretty enjoyable. Just a theory.

Sometimes I forget that there are still people in the world that use IE.

What this whole thread's argument is really about is a bunch of people with libertarian political philosophies wishing the government in the U.S. didn't wrap so manylegal rights, tax status, and frankly … life legal standing ... up with marriage itself, thus making a marriage license itself a legal license.

Unfortunately, it does. You're actually asking for a whole lot more that's way tougher to get done and change by saying you want government out of the business of marriage, period, than you would be if you just acknowledged reality as reality and simply asked to be treated the same as a heterosexual pairing and gain that legal word -- "marriage."

It was the path of least resistance, and honestly, there are few enough people on a cultural level in the U.S. to make your anti-government-involved-in-your-married-status stance a viewpoing of a clear minority. It might thrill you to your core when you talk about shrinking government, and it might make you tremble in excitement when you envision a world in which Uncle Sam is less of a presence in your lives .... but still, acknowledge reality and understand that you could pull 100 people in the country at random and teleport them into your living room right now, poll them all, and you're almost guaranteed to be in a CLEAR MINORITY with those viewpoints. Most people like the fact that marriage licenses are a thing. In a democratic republic, that means your deepest desires for the exact approach about how this thing would happen is probably NOT going to happen.

This whole argument boils down to a moot point about a hypothetical country that exists in another universe -- it's also a moot point now because we've already won the battle, it's the law of the land, and it's a done freakin' deal. We did it the easiest, most rapid way possible for us, and it was a giant stride towards equality. I wasn't about to wait for six more decades for a glorious Libertarian revolution to gain momentum so you types could have your cake and eat it too.

Why are we still talking about it?

I prefer to smear bacon fat on my pants leg before calling Duke to cum do his thing.  If I need a thrill, I wear shorts and apply the bacon fat directly to my shin.  He does oral foreplay to my leg before giving it the ole' "1-2 I'm humping you:.

Haha, well … that's a very interesting contribution to the thread, sir. 

Some of my favorite clips feature the most petite of twinks (my "type," which is weird because I'm pretty bear-ish) getting double penetrated by two massive black cocks. They're among the hottest scenes I know of … as far as I know, only Staxus really makes these on a regular basis (let me know if you want the torrent links, by the way).

I'm more of a top, so I can't really say that I'm a size fetishist ... but there's something incredibly hot about seeing a much-smaller bottom being truly opened up and penetrated in a massive way.

I've managed to persuade a couple of lovers to allow me to really open them up to new heights before. Nothin' like a dick that seems so massive it borders on unnatural ... unless it's two of 'em.  

Concur.  Why are gays so hung up on the idea of doing what straight people do?

There are those that came to terms with their homosexuality by completely shaping their identity around it, and creating a sense of "otherness," an us-versus-them sort of philosophy. I went through a phase like that myself, and it's definitely an important part of the pie that makes all of us up as a community.

Other people like having sex with their own gender, but don't necessarily feel the need for "otherness," though. Some people want the white picket fence, the family life, the whole Somewhere That's Green bit. It's okay to be suburban, mainstream, and gay at the same time. The beautiful cultural shift over the last few decades has allowed for more and more options for how any of us chooses to live our lives … including those who want the whole suburban thing.

Remove the State from the business of marrying people.  No more State-issued marriage licenses for anyone.  Problem solved!

This is something that I constantly hear libertarian-oriented people say, but the truth of the matter is that to honestly expect that to happen very easily is a bit … naive. We all wear those ideaology-shaded glasses once in a while.

The legal status of traditional marriage, for better or worse, is deeply wrapped up into our legal and tax systems to convey certain benefits across a wide swathe of life's obligations. The courts and mainstream culture view the arrangement as a binding partnership agreement, and the creeping tendrils of that status penetrates EVERYTHING about your finances and interactions with the State.

To nitpick over this because of some ideals-based notion that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever ignores the fact that they already HAVE, and that battle is pretty much over. To try to win equality on a multitude of legal issues involving gay couples, to put them on something of a level playing field as a traditional hetero married couple, would mean a slow, tedious, expensive, and possibly-unwinnable-battle process of methodically untangling a complicated tapestry of legal rights in the court systems … and to make matters more aggravating, it would mean doing the same thing in every state and county in the country. Local marriage laws can differ quite a bit.

It's a lot, LOT more simple from a civil rights strategy standpoint to just knock all that mess out in one punch, by insisting on earning the legal and cultural concept of what the vast majority of the country grew up understanding (what marriage means for a human being) ... rather than spending the next 100 years necessary to unravel our system and remake the nation culturually and politically anew into a LIBERTARIAN UTOPIA OMGZ!!! (if that's what you're into), because government-completely-out-of-marriage would require a movement about that revolutionary.

TL;DR VERSION: Yes, yes it should be important to us. To earn the very word itself carries a lot of significance for the LGBT community's presence and standing in the country, and is culturally and legally VERY significant. To stubbornly hold out on that hoping for a small-to-zero-sized government solution to evolve in any kind of reasonable timeframe is political naivete and wishful thinking at best.

I can't believe nobody's mentioned the new Canadian prime minister yet, Justin Trudea:

I only have direct experience with a friend of mine starting one up, one I had strange dynamics with (basically a one-way attraction that we were both very aware of). Still, we were close and confidantes. It was painful for me, knowing I'd been rejected and trying to put my true feelings aside (and to be honest, he did the very human thing and used it to his advantage when my attention was valuable to him, which also sucked … but understandable).

We went through a strained period when he started to date someone (we'd both been single miserable fucks for over a year), but I was making every attempt to really let go of him and come to terms with it. That became doubly more difficult when he officially introduced a THIRD person into their relationship. I could never stop thinking that I had been rejected not once, but twice. It's hard to describe my sentiment ... and yes, I know that's making it all about me, but it did help give me the strength I needed to officially move on. It's not like we ever had real drama or fought or anything, we just talk less now and there's some distance.

So, that's one thing to consider -- it's not a simple thing to explain to others in your life, particularly those you might have a history with. I'd go so far as to say it's a lot more complicated to deal with in terms of whether or not the people close to you will be aware of what's "really going on" than the simple act of coming out and introducing a monogamous same-sex partner. Comparatively, that's easy.

As for myself, I used to believe that I would consider it (I even romanticized the idea, as I'm prone to infatuation and the idea of being in DoubleXLove was romantic and exciting to me). That was when I was young and romantic and horny. I'm still all three of those things ... but I also am now better acquainted with myself and I understand how incredibly jealous I'd be throughout the whole thing, and how difficult striking a true equal balance between all three people would wind up being.

It's so easy to lose that balance and hurt feelings to develop; the moment anyone gets the impression that time was spent or stuff was said behind their back, and they feel left out ... it's fucked.

Do what you want and report back, we're all ears, just saying ... understand what you're getting yourself into, and be honest with yourself about what you're expecting to get out of it. Your chances of success and long-termedness is pretty small.

@Firmhand:

i dont hate bisexuals but i could never have another relationship with 1 im not into sharing

This is what confuses me … why does everyone believe that a bisexual guy is going to INSIST on sharing? I want monogamy ... I'm not into sharing either! I have no idea why this is such a common misconception; I have a good gay friend who recently got into a threeway relationship which boggles my mind, but hey ... they all have a penis, so they get a lot less guff from the rest of our friends than if I were to admit that I had gone on a date with a woman two weeks ago.

I'm bi … there's definitely a phobia. One sentiment I've seen expressed in this thread is something I've encountered a lot before, which is this rejection of the idea of "pureblood" gays that we're not really part of the movement.

Nonsense. The whole concept of sexual orientation is a very new one; there was not really a concept of bisexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, or beyond, prior to a few decades ago. There were bisexual men in the Stonewall riots; we've been in it since day one.

Also ... bisexual women may face less discrimination, but bisexual men mostly definitely do not. To most of the straight world, you're simply perceived as "gay," and for much of the gay community, you're either told you're in denial and your true identity doesn't actually exist, or you're feared and discriminated against in terms of potential romantic connections. I've had a drunk guy who had been hitting on me for an hour at a bar once, suddenly unleash a screaming tirade against me (the boy was actually QUIVERING, he was so angry) once I'd told him I'd been bisexual as long as I'd had a sex drive that I could recognize.

Whether or not a person has life experiences to feel the way they do about another group of people ... it's still prejudice when you make blanket assumptions about that group based on your tiny, microscopic interactions with a meager few of the people that make up the entirety of that group. I've never understood a gay guy telling me that he wouldn't date a bisexual man. It all seems to be based in fear that there's something not completely 'honest' about us, and we're going to do something wild and unpredictable.

It's funny that the same guy that was quivering in rage at me that I'd dare identify myself with the word had just slurred through a sob story about how all his 100% homosexual partners of the past had cheated on him. Honestly, isn't the promise just humanity in general? Why the persistent need to attach a past experience of being burned onto some irrelevant detail about that person, and mentally assigning that as the cause?

Not me.

I've never been into grungy smells and … well, I guess it boils down to sweat ... when they've been allowed to bake a while, the way other guys seem to me.

I once had a guy going down on me tell me that I "smelled so good," and it actually made me worry that it had been too long since I'd bathed before having sex, haha. Some men really get into the whole funk of cock-and-balls just stewing in its own juices for an extended period of time ... but I prefer as clean as possible.

Clearly, though, if you ask, you dig something about it, and there's nothing wrong with it. Enjoy if that's your thing, no need to validate it with an opinion poll. 

I'm not going to try to be poignant or make some kind of substantive comment about the social and cultural implication of Caitlin Jenner's recent presence in the mainstream media … I'm just going to try address the original poster's initial gut reaction.

My answers:

1. I don't know.

2. If there's a male-beauty version of the same thing, sign me up, because I want some two.

And, as a P.S. ... based on the pictures, I'd do her.  >:D

I don't know what Opiam is smoking (pun intended), but there most definitely IS less risk for a top. It's not the same as NO risk, sure, but if you think of your chances of contracting HIV from a partner (someone, for the sake of science, that you know 100% has the virus and it's not getting treated, so his viral load is high) as some number between 1 and 100, a percentage … the odds of contracting the virus yourself from any given encounter is MUCH MUCH lower as a top than it is as a bottom.

A simple google search will confirm this, and honestly, I'd recommend that. Web forum advice is the worst. You live in the age of the Interwebz, you would've gotten a reliable answer a lot faster than this if you had asked the same question in a google query on your phone.

Self-educate and be powerful for it.

Here's the thing, though -- there are so many factors that change those odds. There's some research that indicates that if you're uncircumcised (I am and I like having my foreskin, thank you very much), your risk could be a bit higher as a top than it would be if your foreskin weren't there. An uncut guy has more tissue and may be prone to certain kids of skin tears that might make it easier for the virus to transmit. Depending on how low the viral load is in your partner, also, your risk could be much higher or much lower. Someone who is sure that they're positive and is on medication to the point that their viral load is "undetectable" is probably safe for you to fuck COMPLETELY BARE (yes, I'm saying you can have sex with a completely confirmed HIV positive guy without condoms and be safe, if he's on the right medicine) with close-to-zero fear of getting the virus, bottom or top. We've come THAT far with the mitigation of the disease. We could effectively eliminate it within our lifetimes if things keep going down this road.

... then again, if you're fucking someone that says "negative as of last December LOLZ" ... well, they've probably had lots of chances to be exposed to it since then, and unfortunately, the highest risk of catching HIV is from a person who doesn't know they've been infected. They won't be on medication, and their viral loads will probably be through the roof.

Even in that scenario, a top's risk is very low (something on the scale of 1 in 100 with an uncut top, and maybe as much as 1 in a 1000 with a cut top, and remember those numbers are based on you KNOWING that you're fucking a positive person), but it's not impossible or unheard of for a top to catch it.

The best answer is for me to tell you (and anyone else reading this) to go on PrEP. That's like a vaccine in pill form that you just take every day, and it effectively renders you immune (fuck to your heart's content and not worry about HIV, though it doesn't protect against other STDs ... most of the others are highly curable with a single doctor's visit, and are not the life sentence that HIV is).

Let's kill this virus before 2030, guys! We've got the medicine to do it.

Opiam ... research before you answer next time.

You're saying that you want a separate-but-equal status (like what African Americans had in the United States before the 1960s), and that's naive of you to think it's remotely workable.

Like it or not, there are real legal rights and statuses tied to having a legal document proving a certain person is your spouse … taxes, critical health situations and power to make decisions in those situations, ownership of property, guardianship of minors, blah blah blah ... so much is deeply rooted in having that legal status of being "married" to a person.

Sure, it would be TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE to run down a checklist of all 1,001 laws on the books that marriage affects and "correct" them individually (each one of which would be a congressional battle in its own right, and be a nasty clusterfuck, but I guess it could be done) to essentially give us the same rights with our partners that a straight married couple has right out of the box with a brand new, $15 marriage certificate ... you could do it.

Why, though? The quickest route is just to say LET GAYS GET MARRIED. It's less complicated, and it also means an important cultural victory for us. It fixes all 1,001 laws of those little issues in one fell swoop, and ensures that the particularly uptight people in the societies in which we live are forced to adjust to a mainstreaming of us. It basically means that a homophobe's grandchildren are going to understand, a few decades from now, that we are a part of humanity and a certain ratio of gays, lesbians, gender-swapped, yadda yadda individuals in the general population is a NORMAL THING.

...you wouldn't achieve that cultural victory without fighting for the word. The word is important. I want the WORD "marriage." Fuck not getting it. Yes, it's important.

.... at any rate, at least in the United States, this argument is moot and would've been more appropriate a year ago. All other developed nations will fall in line soon. We have the word; the issue is getting close to being over.

@junior:

A US Chemist who makes his own formulations   http://www.uspopshop.com/

I want to thank you for this recommendation.

Absolutely, I'd love to try it with the right two. It's been a recurring daydream of mine to have a husband and wife both. I've even gotten crushes on couples together (as an item, together … if that's not too strange to admit).

I do have to agree that I think equality would be all important -- everyone is in love with everyone, you all have fulfilling sex and affection with each other, and "privacy" now exists between three people rather than two (no shutting anyone out of any bedrooms, EVER). If you could somehow strike on that magical balance, it could work.

@baselmarcus:

Never used poppers. Would not know.

Well, not to be rude, but why post in the thread at all? 

@groovedware:

I also imagine if Health Canada has made them practically non-existent your American counterpart is likely looking at something similar.

Oh, they're available in the U.S., right out of the same old sex shops as always, it's just forced into this dark underground status because of silly laws. Nobody can ever pretend that it's meant for anything but an electronics or leather cleaner, and forget about asking actual questions about the products to the people selling it – it's a crappy thing when market-testing actually happens with consumers and a few brave souls.

It actually makes the stuff a lot more iffy and dangerous than if they just allowed it and regulated it so the ACTUAL CHEMICALS on things would need to be printed on the sides.

At any rate, I enjoy them and use them (very very rarely and usually solo), but I have gotten at least a couple of bottles in the past that made my vision blurred for a few minutes afterward .... as well as giving me a bit of a cough the following day (it really sucks if you're trying to get a workout in). Others have been a lot more benign for me -- I know it's an issue of what flavor of nitrite they're actually using, and I wish we'd just stop playing these stupid regulate-your-blood-chemicals games with free, grown adults in our society. It'd be a lot better (and less damaging) to allow the old amyl again.

I always get the smallest bottles, and to date, have never had a bottle more than a few days, and never used more than a portion of it before pouring the rest out (I get worried about side effects) ... they make you horny as hell, and while too much does indeed make you go soft, just enough makes your orgasms intense and gives you a rush of sexual bliss the likes of which you might not have experienced since you were 15.