sniper

He seems to have been traveling the last couple of months after having been based in NYC. I've been checking hoping he'd return.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201602/rape-is-not-only-about-power-it-s-also-about-sex

Most assuredly? According to whom? The actual rapists or the sociologists who claim to read their minds?

I'll confess to being unfamiliar with Gay Talese. But I was also going off the description of him as becoming "agitated" over the subject. A significant fraction of the 85 year old population has some degree of dementia.

85, huh? Are we sure this isn't more dementia than anything else? I've heard some doozies come out of the mouths of older relatives that I was confident was not how they thought when they still had their marbles.

I mean, there's not even any damn STEAM in the video. Lousy production values.

I knew a guy who killed himself at about 40. He had been in Iraq and got a concussion that led to CTE and he was not willing to live out his days like that. I didn't see him during the CTE so I don't know the extent of it, but from what I've read about football players with it, can't say I blame him for taking matters into his own hands.

Paperboys make less than minimum wage. While $3.75 was certainly above and beyond, only paying exactly $1.25 in this particular case did indeed make someone a bad tipper at a minimum, jerk in all likelihood. The cost of delivery was actually a discount off of what it would have cost to pick up the paper at the newsstand.

You'd think, but wealthier people are notoriously bad tippers for the most part. I had a friend who was a paperboy with his route split between the blue collar and the extremely wealthy part of town. Paper was something like $1.25 for the week, of which he kept 28 cents. In the blue collar section of town it was not uncommon for a guy to throw him a five and tell him to keep the change. In the rich section of town every last customer gave him $1.25 and not a penny more.

Tangent: I strongly disagree with the trope that rape is only about power, not about sex. I really think it's both, and it's missing the mark to claim it's only one or the other. The power issue is why it's traumatic for the victim, but the perpetrator is IMO definitely getting sexual gratification out of it. If it were only about power, then how is it that availability of pornography seems to be correlated with a REDUCTION in sexual assault?

I lost interest when I could see he was wearing shorts under his towel. NEXT!

How often do you get tested for HIV?

I'm comparing HIV infection with unintended pregnancy. It's sexual activity that causes something. It's not at all unreasonable to compare them. Over one in three women has an abortion in their lifetime. In addition to that there are other women who carry their unintended pregnancies to term. So straight people have a similar "failure rate" to gay people.

That said I agree the rate is too high. I'm just not sure how much lower it will get at this point until/unless we get true universal healthcare in this country.

We live in the USA where HIV-testing and treatment is excellent. IF you have money. Our HIV testing is not excellent because you have to ask for it specifically and fill out another form. There are historical reasons for that, but it suppresses the number of people who get tested. Other countries negotiate down the cost of HIV treatment and have socialized coverage. In the US people lose jobs, can't afford the COBRA premium, and might stop taking the pills for a month or two at a time until they can get their coverage sorted out. There are things people may come to the US for. HIV treatment is not one of them.

If you are 43 and had no clue the rate was this high you are part of the fucking problem because you weren't paying attention. I could understand a 23 year old not knowing, but you were a teenager when the shit started hitting the fan and should have been keeping yourself informed.

Will you maybe develop some reading comprehension? I didn't "equate being HIV-positive with killing your own baby and having an abortion." I made parallels between failure rates of prevention methods. There are much more effective per dollar spent methods of preventing pregnancy, yet we have massive numbers of unintended pregnancies each year. I'm saying it doesn't take gays being especially worse than straights in level of precaution taken to result in a large fraction of the population being HIV+. I'm saying there's an upper bound on what you can expect simply due to human nature. Countries with much lower rates either are places with the death penalty for homosexuality or socialized medicine, i.e. effective treatment for the infected which is what will really stop the spread.

It's also possible that stat is overstated as many MSM will decline to identify themselves as such for an interview, but we know more precisely how many people have HIV due to reported statistics. I have to say the majority of the people I know who seroconverted recently are, to put it bluntly, troubled. You can rail about condoms and PreP all you want but it's hard to get a bipolar person with substance abuse issues to be careful. I can't talk my bipolar unmedicated sister into just getting a job, any job, before she's on the street. I just thank God she's postmenopausal and can't go get herself knocked up to give her someone who will love her. Other things to consider - in the case of HIV the horse got out of the barn too late. There were already a million people with HIV in the country decades ago. So we hit a critical mass of infected people before we had TRULY effective means of prevention. Couple that with poor access and bad mental health treatment and the numbers are not likely to get where they should.

Consider that precautions have a failure rate. Consider also that in the case of HIV, once the failure occurs, that's it. As opposed to a birth control failure, where once a failure occurs, the parties still have the option of abortion to "remedy" the situation. Then consider that there are hundreds of thousands of new pregnancies per year. Consider also that we are a country with relatively shitty access to HIV testing and treatment for those who have it. Even if the rate of peoples taking precautions is improving over time, the absolute number of infections each year may go up as the population increases and the population of men who actually do explore their sexuality increases. When I was a senior in high school, I'm pretty damn sure of the 20 or so of us who later turned out to be gay, maybe two had actually done anything. I live in my hometown and there are more than that many teenagers on Grindr within a 3-mile radius and from the looks of things they've done it all already. And the absolute number of infections is now going down - given the large increase in MSM, that means things are relatively speaking getting much better.

"Kevin West Village" is actually very technically skilled while he does offer "extras" you can just say you want therapeutic and he knows what he's doing. He's also cheaper than most on masseurfinder. https://www.masseurfinder.com/members/wildmind.shtml

Supposedly during the show's run the rest of the cast and Shelly Morrison had some sort of falling out, I think over her spilling the beans about Megan Mullally's engagement. I wonder if that was part of the reason she didn't come back. Even if she wasn't well I'd think she could have recorded some lines to have been delivered from offstage.

No - I said 30somethings of today will have higher rates than 20somethings of TEN YEARS AGO...meaning the same people. Back in the late 80s early 90s 20/20 I believe did some profile of a gay teenager saying there was a 1 in 2 chance he would develop HIV during his lifetime. The incidence of HAVING HIV will increase as a cohort ages, simply because once you have it, that's it. So if you have a 1% chance of contracting HIV in a given year, assuming that risk stays the same, a group of 20 year olds who have a 1% incidence of HIV will, in 10 years, be a group of 30 year olds roughly 10% of whom have HIV. That does not mean the population as a whole had an increase in incidence, because there are new 20 year olds with a lower rate entering the population, and older people with higher rates exiting the population. It's even possible that the rate in the population could also be going up without transmission rates going up as people getting treatment live longer relative to the uninfected. **** Please note the above was a gross oversimplification of the numbers and risks are obviously not constant across a lifetime or a population as people's behavior changes. New HIV infections are in fact decreasing. http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2017/february/20170216_CDCreport None of this is to say that HIV is no biggie. Just that things are getting better but are masked by increased awareness. yeah 30 years ago fewer people got HIV because fewer people were doing things with the potential to transmit in the first place.

Given the advent of PreP and better treatment for those infected I don't see why you would think overall HIV infection rates must be higher today than they were 7 years ago. Now for a particular cohort it's true - the rate among 30somethings today will be higher than that of 20somethings 10 years ago, but that's a function of not everybody contracting HIV at the same age. I DO think that it's likely that the 18-24 cohort has higher rates now than 18-24 year olds 20 years ago, but that's a function of people coming out earlier in their "young and stupid" years when they are less likely to be careful than older people who have seen the effects of HIV. That's basically the same phenomenon as younger drivers being more likely to have a crash. It remains to be seen whether that will translate to higher rates overall. The more people get into effective treatment the less the virus can spread.

I didn't say there aren't abusers and I wasn't commenting on any specific case. I said there probably are SOME who more or less happily chalk it up to the cost of doing business. Powerful people trading money/power for sex will always be with us in some fashion. And it's part of why those who are unwilling participants often struggle to be believed.

Eh, people get talked into doing things they don't like for a partner all the time. Seems to me it's quite possible he had a line that was different from her line. I wouldn't assume he was happy about it(again, not the guy in the original post, the other guy).