SirBillybob

This part may appear to be accurate but IMO is not. Perhaps you intended to represent it as such for emphasis. I only mention it, not to be contrarian, but because the erection biodynamics, vascular hydraulics of intracavernosal tissue, would not be subject to the meagre degree of pressure, of squeezing, per square centimetre (inch in your case? who knows: hand unit for horse?😏) applied by a condom. After all, much greater and more vigorous pressure typically facilitates erection. Of course, it’s up to you to determine whether a belief is useful in terms of an explanation regarding the reduced tumescence you describe. You come across as generally very intelligently aware of sexual function factors and related language, and the reasons for less than desired erectile reliability. However, I take the liberty of attempting to disabuse you of the assumption that a condom squeezes the blood out of your penis, backing it up, as it were, to where located when non-erect. Your intracavernosal tissue is constricting towards resting setpoint due to attenuated subjective arousal, thus not sponging up the volume of blood that confers robust erection. The constriction is an artefact of reduced firing of smooth muscle tissue relaxation chemical messengers activated with subjective arousal, not a result of condom physical pressure. They are very cooperatively dormant with the least iota of anxiety. One can easily see how the two could be conflated. Certainly, condom application is implicated in the manner you otherwise put forward. That you can be objectively erect performatively, a unique phenomenon, simply substantiates the notion that condom interference is exclusively psychophysiological. May you be consistently spared abandonment.

I tuned in out of curiosity when I saw that Marsden is Emmy-nominated. I found many of the hi-jinks to be guilty of being laugh-out-loud funny.

Not to mention that the judicious use of straps in both gym and dungeon should be elective.

This is my predominant escort keeping fit.

There are options.

They should be thinking about something special, at least.

Rubiales has a shitty publicist, or has neither a publicist nor capacity to read the room. He played right into his accusers’ hands, defensively, with classic own goal. There is a playbook for this kind of dust up. Nigeria’s Alozie, following loss in initial knock-out round: “I’m fine. My butt is fine from her (England’s James) stepping on it. I didn’t understand what was going on at first. There’s no hard feelings. It’s just a game.” [Of course, her team rage feigned or otherwise at point where James foolishly and ostentatiously applies meagre pressure with her cleats on her opponent’s derrière. The gesture, brazen gratuitous physical contact, illegal compared to, say, sliding in with one’s boot’s targeting an opponents ankles … plausible deniability] Alozie: “We are playing on the world stage. This game is one of passion, insurmountable emotion and moments.” James: “All my love and respect for you. I am sorry for what happened … I promise to learn from my experience.” It did not change the red card and that game suspension of James, nevertheless won on penalties, and her ban from -quarter and -semi (if I recall correctly) that COULD have spelled disaster for England. Rubiales arguably committed neither sexual nor simple assault. It may be ruled as unambiguously sexual but that is opinion, not incontrovertible fact. He believed, albeit possibly incorrectly and without even the most superficial of thought processes, that he explicitly possessed a green card to place his lips on Hermosa’s. He may have erroneously internalized the assumption that his position conferred particular prerogative. That is the broader protest, that misogyny and gender inequity exists, and a broad range of phenomena actually manifest it. He would have been well advised to get in front of it early, taken some lumps, having been gifted initially with Hermosa’s apparently neutral first response at a point in the news cycle when he was otherwise being raked over the coals by particular factions, something like, “However Ms Hermosa’s experience of a celebratory hug and platonically intended meeting of lips, I realize that not everybody is on side with this type of gesture. It is not my intention to convey that girls and women, anybody for that matter, walk around in a state of perpetual consent. I now have a better sense of when and how I can demonstrate my joy, related to an amazing sports game win, without necessarily including physical contact. I apologize for not realizing this at the time.” Simply having said that he gets it would have shaped the field in a way different from what subsequently rolled out. Now it’s too late to state that he could be tuned in to a different perspective, however much the actual buy in and his course correction in adjusting genitals more privately.

Brain fitness, Officer Krupke: FullSizeRender.MOV

I would venture to say that the company’s philosophy may be irrelevant, depending on … The medication uptake for a total employee constituency could be measured in total costs and fed back to the policy purchaser for fiscal purposes, but medical insurance as I understand it is subject to the same confidentiality as is required of licensed health professionals. A physician is usually the face of supervision of insurance claims adjudication related to eligibility, etc. A small company could conceivably know of a sudden uptick in utilization owing to an individual’s changed health circumstances. I am not sure if it would be stratified pharmacologically or collapsed within other insured professional services contained in the insurance contract. I have known HIV patients working in small outfits that felt backed into a corner related to expensive antiretroviral medication insurance claims because they feared being profiled, that is, assumptions made about who among the team suddenly has an expensive and undisclosed illness. They were usually young and perhaps out viz orientation, but many typically younger heterosexual men and women as well. Even patients working in large companies where an upward blip in professional costs would be absorbable within the overall annual sum of services paid out often required considerable reassurance. They sometimes phoned, say, Clarica, SunLife, ManuLife, GreenShield, Blue Cross, etc, at the outset, to confirm confidentiality. Small company policy premiums are often pooled into groupings of smaller outfits in order to manage random hits to HR budgets, and that was often assessed as well. It is illegal in some provinces in Canada to tap into the public payer based coverage assistance system without first using all private insurance options possible. All this is to say that using your workplace insurance is likely failsafe as far as confidentiality and the risks of red-flagging. I expect that PrEP, particularly taken intermittently (on-demand) would be of a cost magnitude that would not raise eyebrows compared to many other drug costs. No spreadsheets of what employee filled what medication prescriptions.

So, roughly 70’s-ish currently?

I cannot find a way to delete the long stretch of profiles in the ‘who saw me?’ and ‘who did I see?’ fields. I tried blocking individuals in the first category simply to see if it would remove the clutter, not because I thought there was any reason to block. The profile names and lead photos still sit there. Perhaps they would notice they are blocked if they cared to communicate. But my intent was to only try to clean up the feed. There is no slide and delete option. I cannot even delete those among ‘who did I see?’ whose profiles expired. I only have a dozen or two overall plunked into these fields but curious if I am somehow missing the key to deletion. I think that perhaps I should look at profiles without being logged in. How would a provider create a shorter list from among hundreds or thousands of views? I realize Drew’s query may relate to having been blocked within off-platform text. That would be a different matter compared to the conundrum I describe.

Then visited a Wednesday and Thursday, and the bar no better. Prolly more third base action at the ball game. I understand that this couple’s outing inning was shortstopped by security.

“The offside rule? I’m gonna put it the same way the Supreme Court did ages ago when they defined pornography. It ain’t easy to explain but you know it when you see it.” ~ Ted Lasso “I never know how to react when a grown man beatboxes in front of me.” ~ Keeley Jones On what takes away from a victory, ie, a draw or apparent opinion stalemate in this recent context in terms of positions ranging from assertions of toxic masculinity to celebratory innocence: “Look, we are not playing for a tie. Ain’t nobody here gonna kiss their sister.” ~ Ted Lasso (credited to US Navy coach Eddie Erdelatz)

I cannot weigh in on 3rd party testing / dispensing, but I likely wouldn’t take PrEP if exclusively insertive with condom protection. My tenofovir-emtricitabine uptake as versa is based on occasional receptive anal with consistent condom protection. The key clinical factor in your case, due to insertive oral, if unprotected, is screening for other STIs. I assume that if you get tested for them it is not through your physician, as otherwise it might make sense to address PrEP with her although I can understand that reluctance is justifiable. It is also prudent to inform your physician of all medications that you take. If not, you will need to micromanage potential drug interactions and contraindications, adverse events, ie, researching this knowledge; consider alterations in blood chemistry that she may detect doing the clinical work she needs to execute without being hamstrung, without compromising the care relationship, and so on.

Passed through a Sunday Monday and Tuesday recently, not a holiday weekend. Brought much cash that all stayed in my pockets. $5 cover Sunday. No attendant to whom a cover charge would be paid Mon or Tues, and bartender did not request it. I had other options, serendipitously, from OF subscription, that panned out well in person. I am given to understand a weekend visit to Cock may be more fruitful, as others have also suggested.

A smart power bottom always has adapters on hand.

I think that the first two paragraphs’ content is not entirely separate in application. [Just one sample piece relevant to the integration of the legal and clinical is appended.] This is all evolving, and being aware of the factors under consideration is as important as the more elusive consensus possibility. It stands to reason that any court case would involve a deep dive into a lot of variables. Interestingly, Hepatitis B infection, for example, is a reportable communicable disease yet does not seem to be subject to the same standards, though transmittable without intercourse, and can yield acute presentation that comes with extreme morbidity or worse. That said, what a provider or client should not assume is that he is above the law, at point of conventionally accepted infection transmission risk activity, itself a moving target, simply because there are developing arguments that mitigate the implications of non-disclosure as conceptualized when viral control was less advanced. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/hiv-vih/pdf/Consultation_paper_Survey_Questions_HIV_Non_Disclosure_Consultation_EN.pdf

It all requires revision anyway because detectable HIviremia below a newly established but higher threshold is deemed to be untransmittable. The new threshold is way above the limit of quantification. It is at the magnitude of 5 million viral particles within the average adult. In fact, a structured treatment break from highly active antiretroviral therapy may sustain viral load control, to a point, without risking drug resistance. Transmission equivalency potential between somebody U on ART and technically carefully monitored but not U and not on ART, both less potential than somebody unaware of a problematic viremia uptick, changes the picture. At a consent level the legality is centered in some jurisdictions on ‘reasonable’ probability of transmission. These are reasons for supplementation of simplistic labels by open inquiry between sexual partners. Even if an ad admin tried to vet providers along these lines it would be too complex. The status menu is designed to open up 1:1 information exchange, not guarantee accuracy of info.

Right, we could assume the misrepresentation of HIV status happens irrespective of your concrete examples, that I don’t question.

Yes, that would apply to submitting an untrue selection in the status categories. It is not obligatory to advertise HIV status. At point of unprotected anal intercourse, failure to communicate poz status may vitiate consent, depending on clinical variables. The onus is on the poz sexual partner whether or not he is asked directly.

Rentmen frames the HIV status categorization as an optional way for members, escorts and clients alike, to describe personal medical context that might be relevant to some members in sorting out preferred partners and what prevention steps might be influenced by the information or reservations about its credibility. If the option applies to both providers and punters then I don’t know if it’s advertising in the same way that other variables are more clearly descriptors that are deemed as such. If HIV status communication is optionally executed at point of face-to-face contact, as many sexual interactions are, due to today’s complex nuances, even beyond the front-end sorting that culminates in face-to-face, then it falls into relevant information sharing. That said, I don’t question that using a status category will often be viewed as promotional as much as a way to be preferentially assortative about status. The commercial dynamic drives assertions of ‘best in class’ appeal, and poz stigma chips away at stock value. One problem with the communication method within the drop-down menu, inadvertently hierarchical in potential stigmatization, is that the categorization is overly simplistic. I think that other contributors on this topic have sufficiently outlined the nuances that support the idea the method is reductive, so that they they don’t all need to be outlined again here.

‘Do not show’ is a genuine option and does not signify a change from seropositive to seronegative. It is an omission, not misrepresentation. No different from a fellow always choosing to not specify. Other examples in the thread do represent mendacity. Any potential client can ask for details regardless of the status delineation.

Stock Easy VIP open doorway access room between main club and Stock’n’Soda does not seem to be getting much business, other than its beautifully designed can. I haven’t seen a soul in there since official opening. Customers walk through and sometimes a security person is stationed to ensure patrons don’t bypass the entrance charge counter for main club access. So wages to an additional bartender and security staffperson may erode overall profits. Extremely loud separate music track in Stock Easy to obscure the strip club M/C announcing and music. Perhaps they would turn down volume on request if a group wanted to congregate there, though I don’t know why they would want to be sequestering in what seems like a really nicely appointed walk-in closet with a dedicated bar and blasting speakers, when the club energy cannot be witnessed from that space. The positive thing is that it is a small area that, if unused, does not compromise the venue’s revival.

And the signature urine scents left behind are invisible.😏 He was there on the Sunday as well.

There are a few sources with different figures, and quite a range of UDVL percentages, with variation among subpopulations but I provided a rough estimate 25% DVL, based on what I read, less representation by IVDUsers’ meds adherence (they inflate DVL rates) but accounting for infected yet undiagnosed. In contrast, MSM UDVL rates for diagnosed & on treatment are good. You have to sometimes just pick a rough estimate for a specific context. In this case the estimate of MSM HIV prevalence (UDVL + DVL) is 20%. I can revise according to a few scenarios. The 1.4% per-event DVL risk (based on exclusively detectable insertive partner) for random encounters status unknown would be reduced by the estimate of percentage of MSM infected and the rate of undetectable, so with these metrics 1.4/20 (where 20 is 1/5 times 1/4) = 07%. Even then, the 1.4% from the literature estimates has a 95% confidence interval spread that puts adjusted risk metrics within a lower bound and upper bound that might seem quite a difference when probability is calculated as 1 in thousands. Obviously, these variations impact on cumulative event transmission probability as well.