SirBillybob

Unless I’ve missed something, Bozo, he’s on court-ordered probation following statutory release, not parole. Those aren’t interchangeable terms; statutory release, commonly applied by the presiding judge as an administrative corrections systems procedure, based on two-thirds sentence completion, does not require a Parole Board decision. Moreover, organizing parole machinery to spring into action during the judicial equivalent of a coffee break between sentence handed down and being cut loose would suggest being remarkably well connected. No Parole Board was standing by with bated breath in Longueuil. Another wrinkle is that statutory release terminates at the end of the prison sentence warrant, roughly a year from now. At that point, the balance of the probation order applies, some two years more. It is a judge who determines whether a probation breach has occurred and what sanction to impose. None of this is to suggest he has carte blanche with respect to employment. It’s only to say that accuracy has relevance in terms of how release is supervised.

As long as the account phone number you are using is not in another person’s contacts where you are listed, right? I don’t think one can circumvent that. I know of somebody that unwittingly entered content in their Telegram bio that most people would not want random folks in their Contacts app to come across. They may have obscured the phone number from view in Telegram settings but the link was clear enough otherwise. When you say you don’t need to use your “real” number I assume you mean using an alternate to ordinary use. All functioning phone numbers are real.

Too bad the absurd hilarity of the gaffe had to stop here. Otherwise the next round would have necessitated an emergency bulletin from FIFA announcing the unexpected twist that Harry Kane had just discovered he’s actually Kanadian, while Kylian Mbappé had been spotted patiently waiting in the U.S. lost passport substitution line at the Honolulu office after his documents went missing from his luxe White Lotus resort suite. Meanwhile, anybody fluent in Klingon, or English for that matter, knows Balogun translates to Belgian. And he’s just been awarded the Futbolgate boot he never asked for.

Lest the symposium inadvertently drift to overly USA-centric … In contrast to USA extraterritorial jurisdiction based on age of majority 18 years, Canada’s extraterritorial jurisdiction is based on age of majority 16 years. In both nations and about one-quarter of countries globally with similar ETJ legislation, the legal reach is domestic prosecution for activity abroad. Otherwise, a Canadian tourist is subject to local abroad age of majority standard, eg, 17, 18 in countries where it exceeds 16. Prosecution in those cases applied locally. As such, for example, it is apparent that a 22-year old Canadian is not free to be intimate with a 16 year old Canadian friend when they are in Detroit, compared to its acceptability in Windsor, assuming for the latter location the older person not defined as a position of essential authority and it isn’t transactional, “obtaining sexual services for consideration”. That said, obtaining sexual services for consideration is more serious and with harsher penalties for the purchaser when the provider is under the age of 18. Age of majority, definition of minor, shifts according to the Protection of Communities Act. I assume that the ETJ applies abroad and the age 18 minimum provider age standard underscored in the thread clearly stands.

OP: Age 18+ recommendations, please; no upper limit but youthful bearing and able to read ‘Daddy’ off a cue card. Replies: Before we proceed, let’s convene a Model UN symposium on international age-of-majority thresholds.

‘Memorable encounters’, but what’s the “*” in Big D*ck Clark?

Young stans in England supposedly making a pitch for upcoming Sunday viewing, a school night.

Just spitballing, but it’s equally plausible that the probation officer would look askance at this category of employment even though technically legal for the escort. These order conditions stipulate the requirement of training, tax-obligating employment, or volunteer work, as well as lifestyle consistent with rehabilitation. It’s not surprising if sex work is deemed non-compliant with respect to keeping the peace and being of good behaviour (over some 3 years going forward?). After all, each session is basically associated with illegal behaviour on the part of, paid by, a third party. Additionally, a probationer must typically report leaving the province, the basis of such a privilege requiring clearance of a somewhat higher bar.

In U=U MSM PARTNER1/2 research combined, 1500+ individuals in some 750 serodifferent couples were completely aware of their own and their partner’s HIV status. The intention was to maintain non-transmission via sustained viral suppression throughout follow-up periods of condomless and pre-exposure drug prophylaxis-less anal intercourse. Otherwise, behavioural adjustments on the part of the seronegative partner, such as being lower-risk insertive in anal (a seronegative cohort majority), and receptive anal but without poz partner ejaculation (almost half) were clearly optional. In contrast, there would have been no strong argument for the seronegative partner to refrain from coital ejaculation. It goes without saying that the knowable was normative and influenced the risk hierarchy. It doesn’t matter that there was non-incidence of infection in both subsample categories, stratified according to whether within-anal ejaculation by the HIV-positive partner reportedly occurred. If one wants to be aligned with U=U research in one’s own risk management there is little daylight between the norm of status awareness and the imperative of awareness, the necessity of awareness and the right to know. However, the real world outside of prevention research is not so simple. A seroconversion due to viral breakthrough in a TasP study is censored data and disqualified as posing cohort incidence greater than zero. Otherwise, all components of overall not knowing in the real world call for judicious, context specific, use of various prophylaxis options. A limit to knowing when the information exists but is not accessible, for whatever reason, is more inclined to get hackles up irrespective of downstream health outcome. Although rights and responsibilities are ideally complementary rather than contradictory, tension arises when emphasizing one is mistaken for diminishing the other. As you say, Phil, information governing behavioural decisions at point of intercourse may be scientifically flawed for reasons already mentioned and beyond the scope of the truth vs mendacity consideration. Jurisprudence is not caught up with that unless it has material value in individual case adjudication.

IDK, but do keep us informed regarding any signs of Shrinkflation.

Hold hands? But with a spare small lube bottle containing sanitizer.

Right, concede that you usually cannot know completely what you are getting in to, rather than fabricate what you are getting in to. That he could hit you suggests a different and more nuanced approach to safety than an approach based on the notion that he will hit you. The latter is, for some, a more paralyzing negotiation that needlessly discounts additional information that could be available. The risk mitigation infrastructure is not predicated on the assumption that all sexual partners are HIV-positive. It’s possible to dislike a mantra because it’s overly simplistic, even if one’s own HIV prevention playbook as a seronegative person happens to be PrEP + condom - full adherence.

The implication, for all intents and purposes, is that there is no sexual partner spared having a particular transmittable retroviral infection on board. If everybody would please just concede to that mantra, getting with the program and behaving accordingly, then there would be no need for additional discussion and we could dodge the endless repetition of the only and most obvious solution. Any other questions on the topic amount to a dead end. Apologies to anyone offended as a result of vainly grasping the notion of exceptionalism and its relevance to best practice. It is the nineties, after all, albeit with transmission mitigation: presume that gay men as a collective have a disease that is demographically somewhat unique, cheating a common method of spread. In fact, any communication whatsoever about relational fidelity that was regularly but fruitlessly associated with the specific disease prevention arrives at the same health management cul-de-sac. If there were to have been any flaw in the assumption of uniform seropositivity then all that is required is the assumption of breach of monogamy across the board. Problem solved, for the umpteenth time. Yeah Pharma, and prophylaxis simplicity. Let us all bow down and give thanks for the persistent searing insight that amounts to zero by thirty, if only all involved would just remove their head from the sand and embrace it.

Haha. It’s central to, taken from, the jurisprudence language. I have no control over the posing. One can always thank the courts for new emotional support words.

In Canada, representing yourself as “HIV negative on PrEP” when you know you are HIV positive, even if durably undetectable viral load, is still a factual misrepresentation. Whether that misrepresentation ultimately vitiates consent to penetrative sex is a separate legal question. The analysis begins with the fact that an untruth was told (occurred), where in the context of duty to disclose considerations in Canada in fact there is no legal distinction between a lie and silence. It does not begin by asking whether the risk of HIV transmission was negligible. Similarly, if the facts are serious enough to attract consideration of an aggravated sexual assault charge (the legal framing of indictment that still stands, however outdated it seems), the inquiry would first acknowledge that a misrepresentation occurred. Whether charges are laid, or whether the Crown (prosecution) ultimately proves the legal elements, including based on current science whether there was a realistic possibility of HIV transmission under the applicable legal framework, are subsequent questions. None of those later determinations erase the fact that the original representation was false. It would be the alleged factual information distortion itself that spearheads the legal analysis within which alterations in criminalization rhetoric and guidelines are actually desired, needed, and ideally applied uniformly. For example, case law that shifts the definition of reasonably executed transmission eradication from that of [TasP + condom] to [TasP (U=U) alone]. If you’re not arguing the logical point backwards by prevailing upon transmission outcome equivalency, the lie doesn’t evaporate simply because the eventual answer to a different legal question happened to be ‘no’.

Welp, now I understand why the DJ refused my request of Stairway to Heaven.

While it’s reasonable to speculate about the role of sexual orientation discrimination and racial othering in attracting scrutiny, M had evidently previously entered multiple times without secondary inspection. Although the practical consequences were ultimately more punitive than the obvious immediate disruption to his January travel plans, exacerbated by the misfortune of shift schedule, the underlying immigration provisions apply irrespective of gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. The ban culminated from downstream evidentiary sequencing in which some degree of profiling often occurs upstream, as underscored within overarching travel guidance for the occupation. In that sense the operative admonition is less “don’t be a gay tourist” (perhaps consider boycott) than “don’t engage in detectable conduct that can be classified as commercial sex work”. It doesn’t deny homophobia reality but frames travel adaptability accordingly.

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.