pubic_assistance

I checked him out. He should stick to his Olympic dreams. I wouldn't be interested in his nudes if they were FREE..so no idea whos PAYING for this kind of mediocrity.

I would imagine that ANY contact with a 20-something would eventually lead to you paying for their spoiled lifestyle. 😆

The kid is very nice and definitely attractive. If there was no mismatch of preferences between you two, then I would recommend you schedule another appointment . He's a sweetheart.

Absolutely. Nothing more disgusting to me than shaved pubes. Love a man who shows up with what God gave him.

I don't doubt thats true. But its 40 years later..and they still never funded the B cell immunity project.

I remember these too. Seems like they were all shown as day time reruns for decades. The thing these all had in common was the various degrees of "camp" humor. Something all the gay boys seem to love.

I dont take any offense becasue you're right. It is his opinion based on his experience. That is true. As far as why its not on 60 minutes can be explained by the fact that my friend's indignation was borne of his youthful desire to help mankind. Now he's the CFO of a pharmaceutical company, he's not in a position to make waves about the greed of the industry. His opinion however (in private) is still that Fauci was a disgusting industry crony for blocking the funding.

Who says I want to rim it ? 🍆

I see he lists "Thai" massage as one of his skills. That would be nice if it were true. Tough to find actual Thai massage in NYC these days.

Yes. This happens all the time. Even people who I fucked YEARS ago, will pop up in my list of suggested "friends".

I happen to know it was a decision based on profit. The refused to fund a respected research project that would have lead to BLOCKING HIV from spreading via your T cells.

I don't agree with that assessment. I understand your point about the DATA being skewed, but my point is not about numbers and data but just logic. We know that tops CAN be infected. MY point is that ANYONE who is infected, whether top or bottom, likely needs the same degree of protection, because an infection is an infection. Whether you have a huge load up your ass, or a few cells in your urethra.

That was indeed the narrative being promoted in the 80s. However. Its 40 years later and no funding has ever been found for that cure that would end the very profitable pills that thousands of homosexuals rely on.

Absolutely . I have always asked providers who I have an ongoing professional relationship with, if their name is their given name or a name chosen for business purposes. I am not, however insulted if they choose to continue to keep their real name private.

I call sloppy seconds. I agree....definitely a delicious ass.🍑

You need more hobbies other than jerking off to porn. Its summer time. Go hang gliding, parachuting or ride a roller coaster for thrills.

Well...when you're hooking up with ONE person, its not unusual to lay around after sex. When you're at a sex party, you fuck somebody, cum in their mouth or in their ass, pat them on the back, say thanks and you move on to the next. The room is full of gorgeous men, so there's lots of treats to get you going again.

Wow. You were definitely blessed. I grew up in the late 80s with condoms being absolutely mandatory for sex with anyone...and I wasnt even sleeping with men back then. You definitley dodged a lot of bullets there by being a top. But this reinforces my opinion. Maximium efficacy of PreP is the same for tops and bottoms. Its just that tops arent as in the same hi risk position as a bottom.

Well...thats my point. Its clear that risk is higher for a bottom than a top. BUT when it comes to the question - which is: How many days does a top need to take PreP v.s. a bottom. It seems to me that the dosage has nothing to do with your sexual position. The Russian Roulette quality of risk in a top barebacking, seems to be the only variable. Day of infection vs. efficacy of saturation in the blood stream is therefore the same for both.

I am confused by this question. WHY would efficacy be different for a top than a bottom ? 🤔 I 'get' that the bottom is taking a BIG load of virus, while the top is somewhat less likely to have virus sneak in, but it only takes ONE little virus to start an HIV infection ....so to me whether top or bottom, you need the same protection.

Guess who was the director of NIAID who needed to approved the research. Answer: Anthony Fauci. My friend said his lab had developed groundbreaking research demonstrating that B cell response to HIV can prevent the virus from attaching to your T cells. They had a mouse model where a single immunization tricked the body into always making a B cell response instead of a T cell response. This could have lead to the development of a vaccine in the early 90s. Fauci refused to further fund the research (it was a university lab that had some funding for initial foundation work). The letter of refusal specifically said that they are currently focused on TREATMENT (pharmaceuticals)..and although their proposal had merit, there was no immediate funding available for such an approach to preventing the spread of HIV. 😳

A good friend of mine is an expert in immunology. He said when he was younger there was a big rush of HIV research money. BUT - anyone who proposed a CURE was shot down and denied research funding. The ONLY projects ever funded were those that focused on TREATMENT (pharmaceuticals), not CURES.

The Leatherman on Christopher Street is always the best, most experienced place to buy a cock ring. They also do custom work if you can't find exactly what you want off-the-shelf.

When I was in my 30s my best friends were those who were around 10 years older. Now in my 50s those are the ones who are still around and all the "fabulous" people I've met over the years, my age and younger have since disappeared

Even worse position to be in. At least when the others were doing it they had already won their medals.