MrMattBig

That's a question with a dynamic answer. From my Rentmen ad my numbers are similar to yours, and go up depending on how my dates I have on my travel schedule and which cities I am in. (A lot of contacts message when they see me pop up in their city search, but don't realize that I am not there now, but next week) On my A4A profile I get winks and hi's every hour. When I first started advertising on Craigslist in the past it would be up to 50 contacts within the first couple hours till the ad got pushed down the list by newer ads. Non-stop messaging for 2+ hours to only get 1 appointment if lucky. Out of 50+inquires. Then give my fingers a break from typing and do it all over again.

I realized I was wrong. Still probably best to use discretion when using the term. If I overheard someone use it out in public, I might suspect they could be a client, sex worker, drug buyer/seller, or be using the term for any number reasons to talk about law enforcement in a discreet manner. Most of the general public would just say cop or law enforcement as the whole phrase. In terms of slang as well "five-o" would be used before leo.

True about the MSM point to an unknown extent. I get requests all the time when I am home in Vegas from guys trying to sneak away from there wife's and girlfriends to have some male on male fun. And if those guys go bare with their female partners, and then go bare with a male provider or hookup especially because they know that is the growing trend, now the broader population and the smaller sub group of those who identify as MSM are now intertwined. "Here with the wife, looking to sneak away and have a hot hung stud breed my hole" is not uncommon language used by straight guys.

Browsing the link I posted also made me think about how many don't actually know how to use a condom with the proper amount of lubercation and use the proper size. Which can lead to rips and broken condoms and then back to square one. Not to throw wood on the fire, but condom use requires proper use to even be effective as well.

I suck at the search function here, but https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvqbmv/we-asked-millenials-why-young-people-are-having-less-sex If you Google "younger people having less sex" there are several search results. I don't think they will mention what I said about logistics. But my experience is that things like discussing availability, hosting situations, and the like are after thoughts when people are actually trying to hook up. Which is kind of important when two people with two different lives are trying to cross paths to bone ?

I wouldn't even say this really. The idea of hooking up in record speeds and the actual act happening in my experience are two different things. Both in my personal sex life and escorting, whether it's someone in their 20s or 60s, are concerned with everything but the logistics of two people being in the same room to have sex, that I think the actual act of hooking up is less of an occurrence that most might assume. I am pretty sure there was a thread posted recently with an article link stating that younger people are having less sex in fact.

It was not under sanctioned race conditions (relating to total elevation changes and turns) and had very precise pacing cars and runners that would not be present in a race. It was tried in a similar way a few years back but fell over a minute short I believe. Regardless, it was still solely his body that made this time. To run at a pace of 4:35 minutes for just over 26 miles...mind blown.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/sports/eliud-kipchoge-marathon-record.html Absolutely insane!

It's definitely not safe, but when it protects against something, the unprotected label doesn't fully apply either. We are saying and agreeing to almost the same things. I am just being a stickler for the literal definition of what the word unprotected means regardless of what is being talked about. I'm not a Grammer Nazi, but I am the same when it comes to proper word choice. Sorry. ??

Yup correct

Leo is slang for those in the provider/client community primarily.

In a way he is right and wrong though. First, you are missing that he is referring to sex negative as how someone would view sex on prep without condoms as unprotected. Which he is right regarding the definition of unprotected. It is a layer of protection, obviously not at all effective against other STDs, but protective against HIV. Is it the safest or most protective....hell no. But by definition is is not fully unprotected either. He is slightly wrong in mentioning the sex negative moron part, but as proven here, it takes a not as open mind to see it's not as unprotected as it seems on the surface. Regardless, I agree that condoms should still be used in conjunction with PreP. Plain and simple. I absolutely see that the reckless justification you described is a thing. I would just hope that if I would describe myself as sex positive on here, Twitter, or anywhere online, that you won't and wouldn't assume I am talking about condom and prep use.

I absolutely do. It's unfortunate, and like I said I don't condone those types of behaviors, but I wish we would persecute them to the extend of the attitude on this thread is. Because, like I said earlier, if someone is having "protected sex" with multiple partners and not getting tested for potentially years at a time, that is a huge issue as well. I am having an issue with his stated definition of what sex positive is "Sex Positive = selfish, stupid, reckless sex that increases the risk of most STI transmissions to all involved." Being sex positive can include that attitude. No doubt about that. But to say in essence that that is what it means and equals is ridiculous and reckless. It's the same erroneous inference that leads to racism and bigotry.

I'm not missing his point at all. I know what his point is. But it's constructed around a false understanding of what sex positive actually means.

Sex positive does not, at all, have anything to do with safe practices. Being open to having 3somes is sex positive. Open to fetishes is sex positive. Open to BDSM is sex positive. Open to sex before marriage is sex positive. Open to hiring escorts is sex positive. Open to homosexual sex is sex positive as well. Please get your head out of the sand.

Omg, that show as a whole was creeeppyyy! I remember watching it with my younger sister when we were all little.

An easy way to look at it is sex positive is openess towards sex and more liberal and accepting, sex negative would be conservative and not open minded

Absolutely! The issue is rarely just about supplying resources, but getting people to actually use those resources. It's the same issue with homelessness and drug addiction at times. There is usually plenty of resources to get someone off the street, but too many choose not to use them. Same with STD screenings. The issue isn't really providing more resources for STD screenings, but rather how to get more to actually utilize them. Which then is a personal accountability issue just like you mentioned.

Super side bar, not to get into politics, but if we pushed to mandate a tax penalty for not being enrolled in healthcare coverage, why can't we also mandate some type of tax break incentive for meeting certain health obligations, such as more routine STD/sti screenings. It would take some burden off the healthcare system by preventing more issues instead of treating them after.

I am definitely going to look that up and read later. If that's the case it will start to defeat the purpose of PreP to prevent HIV in the first place. One of the reasons behind the 3 month testing is to maintain HIV strains becoming resistant and compromising the whole system.

Completely agree. I was making the point that ironically as well, you can make the argument that transmission of STD/STI's potentially is still lower amongst PreP barebackers versus non PreP users because of the 3 month testing. I once had an inquiry who asked if I did bare, and went on to state they were "clean" but last got tested a little over a year prior. Who knows what exposure that person had over 13+months. Most things can be transmitted without full intercourse. So the fact that there are those out there who think they don't have to get tested often because they are having intercourse with condoms is baffling. In my opinion, while completely different obviously, the person who has intercourse with condoms with multiple partners but doesn't get tested for well over a year+, is culpable as much as a PreP user who partakes in bare sex.

Absolutely correct! It's not about the math, it's more about the behavioral trends that accompany PreP. Especially when straight guys are in relationships but hooking up with guys on the side, the issue of STDs and PreP now crosses to all demographics. I feel the math point was made in defense because most will point to simply PreP users choosing to go bare as the problem and cause, but it's way more complicated than that. And while PreP is still mainly an LGBT prescription, those outside our community will then blame and persecute gays as being the problem and cause. So I see the math defense as hyperbolic and inaccurate as well, but considering the possible ramifications of jumping to the PreP user conclusion, completely understandable.

While hyperbolic, @latbear4blk is correct. People out there label bare sex on prep unprotected, when it's only "unprotected" in terms of a societal norm of without a condom. But when PreP is adhered to correctly, it protects against HIV, and even if you contract other diseases/infections, because of the 3 month testing protocol enables relatively quick treatment compared to the rest of society. Which, on a good day will get tested every 6 months to a year. I am not advocating in any way that people should have bare sex just because they are on PreP, but the broad strokes of labeling that decision in such a negative and ignorant fashion need to stop as well. Personally, I find inquires whose first question is if I do bare as the real problem. If the concern of that interest being accommodated is put ahead of asking if I'm on PreP, stating if they are as well, discussing availability and logistics, that indicates recklessness that I rather not be apart of.

When some frame it like a commitment question like you mentioned, it's always interesting because the answer to that is polyamory. Which then blows up there understanding of the world around them just a bit more. Lol.

This behavior persists across all age demographics. Digging deep enough, the trending lack/decrease in condom use, and laxed testing protocols for those not on prep, is related to how we as a society don't prioritize preventative health measures.