AresEscortNYC

thanks @samhexum You got the citations! I'm gonna guess then it's bc this was drafted in 2016 (an era of non-regulation), that this has no teeth. That the FDA circa 2016 proposed cutting a paltry 12% shows no vision; that this entire charade is voluntary means it's an exercise in paper-shuffling not even the original draftees took seriously. .

Sucking cock. It's a gift, always came naturally.

Over the next 2.5 years, the FDA’s target sodium levels aim to cut average intake by 12% — from 3,400 to 3,000 milligrams a day. That would still leave average intake above the federally recommended limit of 2,300 milligrams a day for people 14 and older. But the agency says it will monitor industry progress and keep issuing updated targets to bring levels closer to the recommended limit over time Well this is totally useless: not only is it a measly 12%, this entire exercise is VOLUNTARY (& few will willingly comply). I'd say this isn't worth the paper it's printed on except we're on the net. OP, is this really from 2021? There's no date given or citation for this article.

I agree. On both clients and providers part, discretion is paramount. It's easy enough to block out portions of ones passport to ensure privacy. To those who might find censoring portions of ones vaccine passport suspicious, I'd counter most clients don't want their full names out there either --- and the truth is, one could easily show a fake (or a friends) passport if they really want to. If you think about it, censoring your own passport is MORE effort than showing a fake/friends passport w/o alterations.

In 2021 I do believe you'd be negligent not to ask if he's vaxxed, and he should ask the same of you. It's too important an issue not to be addressed. If anyone takes offense at being asked, you probably don't want to be intimate with them.

It's a horrible situation for anyone to feel so beyond hope that they would want to destroy themselves. I can understand the impulse completely, but it's especially troubling when it's a child or teen, whose brain functions haven't fully developed and can't understand the scope and permanence of what they're doing. Obviously the young woman's behavior was ethically abhorrent. I can even see the young man's family having a legal case for some sort of financial criminal liability (which, like the current charges, seem to have no legal precedent.) But she wasn't cyber-bullying him (which I believe, like any bullying, should have criminal penalties.) Unless there's more to this case, and taking into consideration their ages, I can't see where the line was crossed to justify criminal charges for abysmal judgment. An adult encouraging a teen to follow through with their suicide plan would spin this story very differently for me.