SirBillybob

I didn’t even know this was a thing.

Age is simply a number. It’s just that I cannot see it without having to rack my brain regarding where I left my reading glasses.

One of the “C” South American heartthrobs is apparently on sabbatical in Canada’s westernmost province, working on his thesis in Comparative Geo-Orthography & AI Transcontinental Articulatory Phonetics Migration. Among his fellowship targets is an academic program situated in South Carolina’s capital, research grant courtesy of Scripps. And that’s barely into the alphabet.

If the inability to regain tumescence was genuinely mostly attributable to marijuana use, and this was a habitual rather than isolated occurrence, he’d be poised to voluntarily and repeatedly, perhaps sheepishly, rebate a sizeable portion of his fee. That’s a difficult business model to sustain when the benefits of calibrating consumption around work commitments are so obvious.

M is intelligent and articulate, but I hope that nobody else in a similar situation tries to invoke the escort / prostitution distinction argument. It usually runs aground. Highlighting that escorting is a broader category than prostitution isn’t the same as showing that activities fall outside the category that concerns the immigration authority. I think that border patrol already concedes that not every booking includes a guarantee of transactional sex, and Maggie’s would similarly consider it a straw man position that implies to an officer that they are intellectually incapable of appreciating nuance. In contrast, porn acting is legally outside the bounds of commercial sex work but of course paid work restrictions come into play there.

Just so everybody knows … WhatsApp chat page with all your history has a search function. A search term such as “$” won’t pull up a chat but 100, for example, or any unfractioned multiple of 100 will, and the dollar sign if it happened to be included. Or a single word sexually adjacent term such as “cum”. It would take an agent 10 seconds to ascertain that I have MSM content of some kind. If I engage a hot Carioca to join me for a BFE dinner then that date arrangement thread can be pulled up by entering “reais” IF compensation came up using such a term without subsequent content erasure.

The key chart is misleading. It cannot be used as evidence that a smartphone inflection point accounts for an already pre-existing fertility decline trajectory that occurred for many of the countries depicted. By flattening one-decade pre-inflection fertility decline trends to about 0%, when some of those actually approach the same level of decline as depicted post-smartphone, as opposed to running temporal longitudinal trend lines through the steadily dropping fertility metrics that unequivocally cannot be attributed to smartphone prevalence, that history is falsely nullified. (See Mexico for illustration) That is likely an artefact of the attempt to adjust for national variation year by year in a single standard for estimating inflection influence. However, that distorts the graph, visually artificially elevating the true potential impact of smartphone availability, as well its scope of abruptness. At most, such device access can be considered as potentially accelerating fertility changes that had been, and continue to be, attributable to a host of other variables unrelated to the “tech shock” inherent in hand-held computers. The verbal presentation compensated by suggesting that the smartphone analysis can only speak to whether fertility fell faster than what might have been otherwise expected. Fertility transition had been substantially well on its way. For example, Mexico’s fertility decline rate is almost symmetrical around (pre / post) the proposed inflection explanation point posed by widespread smartphone uptake.

13-second video. I had to double speed to reduce its size to attach here. Looks like the understudy for Tybalt, Prince of Cats, hadn’t read the brief for its entrance cue, or just wanted its moment. My Movie 24.mov

Of course, rightly so. What do PrEP product monographs contain regarding condom use?

Sounds like an appeal for special insight that you apparently uniquely possess relative to certain others. That’s doing a lot of work rhetorically. Elevating the preference for condom use for insertive anal, particularly in a transactional context where services and health risk terms are commonly negotiated, to evidence that the client doesn’t understand close physical connection feels like it’s changing the subject from typical boundaries to that of flimsy assumptions about deficits related to grasping desire and arousal. Some bottoms find condomless sex more satisfying. Some tops find condoms preferable. (Here I use these terms insertive / receptive behaviourally rather than as defined person categories.) This isn’t to say that both parties’ access to satisfaction reasonably on their terms isn’t important. However, one wouldn’t expect the incompatibility to yield psychological trench warfare at point of intercourse. The reason the OP started the thread was that the experience was startling, truncating the type of encounter that usually plays out without drama. Nobody here that may view the ritual of condom application, its brief pause and associated anticipation, as intentional and relational has necessarily lost the plot regarding sex dynamics.

You’re serving common sense across a few behavioural health risks with inarguable cascade effects. This is familiar territory inn’t. Historically, sex has attracted moral scrutiny. But it doesn’t follow that concern about STI transmission is therefore a disguised sermon where the character of people making certain choices is condemned, or that inconsistency in other areas of wellness is hypocrisy. A parent whose health status is undermined by obesity or the dude whose flecks of puke land on your shoes outside the pub is nevertheless qualified to dissuade their family member from smoking. That STI health guidance is so frequently conflated with moralism may say less about the guidance than about the unique cultural space sex continues to occupy. Locked in a binary of virtue or vice, the discussion can only go in circles. And now I’m headed to the fitness centre where gripping barbells may have a desirable depilation effect with respect to the hairs on my palms, after which I may check out possessing an adequate supply of condoms.

Whataboutism and false equivalence much? By that logic, anybody regularly taking one basically established health-related risk such as a side of chips versus rocket at lunch forfeits the right to discuss another, along with weighing in on prevention guidelines and preferences, and gonorrhea checks your BMI before infecting you. Of course there is a value judgement regarding condom use, and public health messaging is inherently normative. Avoiding infection is preferable to acquiring one. In fact, it’s a rather uncontroversial values position. Recognizing it isn’t the same thing as demonstrating hidden moralism. You yourself may be inclined, with good intentions (how else would your motives be?), to discourage a guy’s smoking habit. Reality is under no obligation to be less carcinogenic in deference to his personal autonomy.

I suspect it’s as much work to get laid thru it as it was to get cables laid for it. Lotta deep diving.

Surprised and sympathetic. I’d have thought that decent trade was merely a local phone call away from The Luxor.

A housecat at the time probably filed a missing pyjamas report.