sniper

In some jurisdictions I think they are compelled to provide the information to the health department.

My fitbit estimates oxygen variation while asleep(I assume it's a fairly crude measure as a flag for possible apnea) and I've noticed that when I sleep on my back the variation occasionally gets into the zone they flag, but when I sleep on my side it's totally fine. Maybe sleeping on your side would be enough?

Very few people bought in precisely at 6547 so that's not really a fair point of comparison. What was the Dow in, say June 2001? it was over 15,000. Someone who bought and held then saw a 40% return...over 19 years. That's about 2% per year. P/E earnings are completely out of whack given the aging population and loads of corporate debt, and they also seemingly reflected the assumption that the Trump tax cuts would last forever. After all the stimulus spending there is no way taxes won't be going up in the coming years. And if it's personal taxes but not corporate taxes going up, that means less money for consumers to spend and less revenue for the companies. Also, 10 years is NOT a long time frame. The idea that a 56-year-old should be getting more into stocks than they currently are is not a good one given they have less time to make up a large loss. We don't know what allocation he was starting from. If he's 100% in stocks, he absolutely should be shifting out because that's highly risky. If he's 20% in stocks, well sure ride it out. There is a lot more room for the overall stock market to fall and still not be a "buy". There might be some short-term bumps based on stimulus, but I am bearish on the relatively near-term. There might well be individual stocks that make sense to buy now, but the market as a whole will be taking a beating for a while.

If you're properly distancing and doing any kind of mask, odds you will catch it are significantly reduced. It's the compounding effect of partial measures that reduces the risk. Sure, we could all wear hazmat suits and then just do pretty much whatever we wanted, but that's kind of unrealistic. But You do one thing that cuts risk 20%, and another, and another, and you have really made a dent in things. Suppose the number of cases triples every month if we do nothing. At the end of the year, one case becomes 3^12=531,441 cases. Now suppose everyone takes measures that reduce the rate of transmission 50%, so it doubles every month instead of tripling. Then that one case becomes 2^12=4,096. So by implementing measures that are only 50% effective, you could reduce the caseload 99%. And that buys time to develop a treatment or vaccine. Similarly even if not everyone adopts the measures but most people do, there's still a strong effect because chains of infection get broken. The above were made-up rates to illustrate the concept. Things that on the individual level are not perfect still have a profound cumulative effect. tl;dr doing something is better than doing nothing, and you don't need to freak out about not doing absolutely everything as long as most people are doing something. (If you yourself have a reason to think you are in a higher-risk group of complications, though, you are not wrong to want to take extra precautions beyond the recommendations).

Your 401k should have multiple fund options, including one that is cash or a money-market type fund. You can contribute but direct your contributions to that for now and then gradually move back into the market as it stabilizes. At 56 you should be shifting so a lower proportion of your portfolio is equities anyway.

It appears there are more bottom than tops in the general population, and don't about half if men over 45 have some level of ED? I'd guess their assumption is based on experience. Older tops, being a rarer commodity, are less likely to need to pay for it in the first place judging from the number of thirsty young bottoms into daddies I see in Grindr...

But how many people's willingness to pay even 20 is dependent upon a particular dancer/type of dancer to appear? And then that ups the number of dancers which the money must be spread among, which further lowers the vield per dancer, which means fewer dancers are going to bother, which means fewer people want to pay. They initially said they needed 30 customers willing to pay 50. If they had dropped it to 20, sure they would have gotten more than 30 customers, but would they have gotten 75 of them? I doubt it. They might have gotten 50, which means total of $1000, which means maybe 3 dancers(as opposed to 5) plus Tim and Matt's time and effort and I can't see how they'd want to bother at that point, and the customers who paid 20 bucks but whose preferred dancers didn't make the smaller lineup would be like, "Hey I can just go watch Sean Cody videos on xtube for free"... Their mailing list is probably just a couple hundred people, some of whom themselves are facing financial uncertainty. And they are also people who like to pay for a more tactile experience than a video show. It's by no means obvious that a lot of them are going to want a cam show, so it makes sense that they started small and at a high price point so they can have a critical mass of dancers to see if this thing is viable.

He's been known to do the occasional lapdance if it's slow at the bar (and I've had a few from him) but I got the impression he does not so I didn't ask. I doubt he'd be shocked/offended to be approached though(assuming you're polite about it).

The dancers will make money. Will the hosts? 50/30 was the point at which Tim and Matt find it worth their while to set it up. I was responding to the person suggesting they could have made it way cheaper, and I'm saying that's unlikely as most Adonis regulars know where to find naked pictures online...the relative handful of people to whom this show appeals are going to be those willing to pay a premium to see specific guys. If they drop the price to 10 bucks, I don't see it bringing in many more customers, and then they wouldn't have enough coming in to make it worth the dancers' time. Because they likely have regulars they can make their own deals with for something they aren't willing to put out in semi-public on the internet.

They're not a charity. What do you expect them to do? Their mailing list I would imagine isn't so large that they can make it cheap right off the bat and I don't expect them to do something where they are sure to lose money. Maybe as they do more of these there will be sufficient numbers they can lower the price and still turn a profit. Or maybe the "Adonis experience" simply doesn't transfer to a webshow and it's not worth the effort to them. They're trying something in response to customer requests.

We have a risk of HIV at least an order of magnitude higher than the general population. 3/4 of transmission is still MSM when we are well under 5% of the population. There's more data supporting the MSM ban than there is on a number of the other exclusions(travel to the UK for example).

Where did Jorge work before?

Event insurance typically does not include coverage for this particular stuff (there's a standarfd exclusion for communicable disease -even the government telling them to shut down is typically only covered if it's related to a covered cause of loss in the policy) without an endorsement added, which it might not have occurred to seek. Now an event as large as this could have had what's called a manuscript policy, meaning it was custom-written and negotiated with the carrier(or at least it should have been). So it's possible their insurance would cover, but I'm guessing given they didn't make the obvious call, it's not covered.

I'm assuming the promoter simply doesn't have the money to refund people and that's the only reason he's hemming and hawing.

Given that the stimulus bill is adding $600/week on top of unemployment benefits I'd think most of those eligible are going to be okay.

There's also the issue that over the past 10-15 years there has been a crusade of sorts to label any and all sex work as human trafficking, which evokes a more visceral response.

I see this more as gay people tend to start out more conservative as a defense mechanism. It's my 20something gay friends who all want the white picket fence for the most part, for example. And I think they do get inundated by older creeps who are playing a numbers game, and so they put up some walls.

I definitely have some friends/acquaintances like that. One of them got pretty outraged at even the idea of going to a bar where they gave lapdances...."I don't pay for sex." Meanwhile, he had sex with anyone and everyone he met, despite having had a roommate who got murdered by a trick.

I think someone's response to this is largely informed by their financial position. If you have the means to travel, pursue hobbies, etc, you are likely to find a regular job constraining as it limits your ability to do those other things. If your alternative to working is staying at home, cooking and cleaning for yourself, and watching TV you are likely to feel, regardless of whether your work was "meaningful" that you were happier working. At least there you have some interaction with other people.

I suspect they list it because they think it's easy enough to do, not necessarily because they are into it. I can't imagine am escort not being willing to do it assuming we're not talking about to the level of leaving a mark.

Apparently they still make those jerseys with all the little holes in them and hairs tend to get caught, so a lot of guys shave.

Maybe it's a courtesy thing for pickup? Shirts vs skins is common and a lot of contact is involved

Well I mean isn't that always the supply/demand problem...?

Some people just age differently even if they're doing everything right though. I've always had not great skin but somehow seem to be aging better than some much more attractive friends of mine who had beauty regimens. The only thing I do is avoid the sun.

I wouldn't trust any numbers coming out of China. South Korea and Japan, sure.