SirBillybob

Roulette is simply a hazards analogy. Playing it is not a death sentence. If accurate information were to accompany the decision as to how to use PrEP there wouldn’t be an inclination to downgrade effectiveness hyperbole with narratives that appear to attempt to cancel out the merits of Truvada when a balanced view of effectiveness and risk is paramount.

It’s only obsolete to the extent that one is rigid about applying probability notions to any number of situations ranging from dire to comparatively innocuous. If marriage was the roulette example there might be some contrarian objection to the analogy except for those trapped in it likening it to a death sentence metaphorically, depending on the outcome. The probability of failure is as high as one roulette pass. The HIV analogy works for some better than others. Nobody is stuffing a rubberless idea into you.

It’s not an analogy I would necessarily use. Everybody knows the current implications of HIV infection. That is the reason I framed it in temporal terms. In fact, firearm roulette odds differ according to whether the bullet is left in the chamber or is removed and replaced in the chamber that is then spun for subsequent risk event. What is missing in the education that should accompany prescribing and dispensing Truvada (and its generics) is that in the most recent randomized trial comparing it to Apretude, the rate of infection was such that the chance of HIV infection over a sexual activity lifetime of 82 years was calculated as 100%. The time to inevitable infection in spite of Truvada uptake is even less, when applying the incidence metrics, for younger men and for men leaning towards a greater proportion of receptive anal intercourse. In fact, the real world efficacy studied retrospectively for young men is very low. Look up “PrEP Jourdain (author)” if interested. Since the intent of Truvada uptake by consumers is to avoid treatable infection, you can leave it to Truvada recipients to do the math regarding their own arbitrarily chosen chunks of time going foreword or you can employ a analogy that pertains to particular hazard odds in order to crystallize infection probability in a way that is more relatable than a span of 8 decades. All this is to say that if hyperbole about efficacy, when in fact Gilead and generic producers will commit in the product monograph to evidence of 42% and 75% efficacy in two studies respectively, is used to encourage uptake but not accompanied by all the breakthrough infection risk facts, decisions about condom supplementation occur in an information vacuum. As posted upthread, about 1 in 82 acquired HIV infection over a median duration of 9 months. If anyone here took Truvada over the past 6 years with a sexual activity profile consistent with the trial participants your chances of infection would be 10%, even higher if predominantly receptive over insertive because the probability of the former is 12-fold greater. This is a probability calculation that may play a role in future condom usage for some, not an efficacy calculation that is distorted according to whim.

I thought the rentmen dot eu platform was being phased out. Could be it cuz messages are functioning in rent dot men on my phone.

“Drop off only, back bay” Just saying.

Et voilà, summoned.

He is the person in the photos, as posted earlier this year by another board member, and his OF which is linked within rent dot men but seemingly not linked in rentmen dot eu. From near Campinas, lives in Asia where some Caucasians try to make their mark in modelling and where a group of them can share accommodations at very low cost. He has occasional presence in Europe but I doubt has stepped foot much in USA but he did post a visit of a few days in LA June ‘23. In contrast, he posts huge volumes of Asia and Europe travel, as well as the usual Dubai.

“Fancy a …”? Who are you?

Ejaculating or not could cum down to the same thing in terms of the potential for sufficient arousal within the sexual response cycle. Unlike in unpaid hookups or personal relationships, he more likely stratifies the costs and benefits in such a way as to hold all the cards regarding progress to orgasm or inhibiting orgasm. Whether he actually blows ‘accidentally’ or with true subjective pleasure intention, a possible lapse in physical control finesse or in the contract, or a pre-existing or emergent urge, there is nothing but advantage for him to subtly or overtly impute to you that you were hot enough to govern it. In a transactional context orgasm may be monetized within the session or in terms of repeat booking advantages. In contrast, non-ejaculation may be monetized going forward to a subsequent booking in which situational orgasmic conservation will have had a role that day, or with a partner in which such occupational conservation may be subsequently relevant for intimacy. The point is that absence of orgasm with you may represent no less inevitability for orgasm than if he hadn’t somehow truncated his arousal in order to regulate ejaculation, to the extent of his having mastered ejaculatory control. Labeling his ejaculation as a unique pleasurable outcome for him is overly simplistic because the transactional context uniquely dictates that outcum. While in you he may have been no more no less into you according to whether his orgasm occurs. He holds the superpower majority, so let go of attempts at interpretation regarding your capability for being a turn-on and for considerations of its influence on exchange in kind. His ejaculation can only be an upsell because the broader client constituency both assumes it’s the penultimate aim of sexual satisfaction and is willing to pay for an illusory ego boost. 😏

How Orwellian. What better way to suggest somebody implies some are more equal than others and criticize that perspective than to counter it with the notion that some are more equal than others? Does this mean we have to retrospectively review and correct all posts using the term ‘MSM’ and regressively replace with gay/bisexual? Can I age down a few decades too?

Perhaps there’s a middle ground between false amplification of HIV PrEP effectiveness level and the use of hyperbole to represent the risk of breakthrough infection without condom supplementation. In the Apretude non-inferiority research, MSM and TGW (transwomen), the incidence of HIV infection within the Truvada arm by person-years denominator was very high, considering the chances of infection per single receptive anal intercourse exposure to semen with non-suppressed viral load is merely 1 in 72. One in 82 subjects taking Truvada seroconverted prior to the ethical decision to offer unblinding and access to the more protective Apretude (itself not at all failsafe). Given sexual behaviour patterning consistent with the overall study cohort, sustaining such risk predicts a guarantee of infection within 95 years of such activity. Obviously none of us thinks in such terms of longitude, but theoretically one within a group of 10 of us all taking tenofovir / emtricitabine, equally representative of the research cohort’s sexual interaction, would likely seroconvert with HIV over the upcoming decade. Again, this is extrapolated from systematic research findings, not real world (eg, retrospective case-control) data. Both Truvada (and it’s generic equivalents) and Apretude product monographs urge condom use to augment prophylaxis. They are not downplaying infection risk. Treatment as prevention (TasP) is floundering; the general population incidence of untreated HIV infection is unfairly stacked against the risk reduction conferred by pre-emptive antiretroviral exposure. Bear in mind that a majority of those using PrEP are taking Truvada or Descovy but neither of these would receive ethics approval for a comparison with placebo, because some benefit is inarguable, yet more importantly with a drug (Apretude) now deemed to offer a satisfactory metric of relatively greater protection. Simply put, Truvada PrEP will no longer be studied using gold standard methodology, not because it’s deemed sufficiently effective, but because it’s technically inadequate compared to other fairly inaccessible pharmacological options . How does this fit the standard roulette analogy? 1 bullet in one of 6 receptacles, 5 empty chamber receptacles? You would have to work out your risk tolerance. Apart from other STI acquisition risk, and assuming sexual behaviour volume consistent with that of trial participants, would I tolerate HIV infection risk equivalency of 1 pulled trigger every 15 to 20 years? Not me, not in terms of my standards of expectations when committing to a medicine. It’s but the icing on the condom. Like has been said before, it is futile to go exclusively by risk reduction while neglecting baseline incidence risk magnitude, taking the actual regimen, in decision-making.

At the studio level two ideologies intersect in the context of preponderance of non condom choreography: responsibility and autonomy. It is easy to curate in practical terms so as to accommodate safety within collective occupational hazard while implicitly modelling individual preference unencumbered by condom application and visibility. There is no accompanying message “do as we say, not as we do”, whereas the former is based on a relatively invisible yet complex and detailed set of behind the scenes protective measures and the latter conveys a mode of intimacy for maximum erotic charge that itself reinforces the preference of freedom to optimize arousal irrespective of the reality that non use for some is simply because condoms impede pleasure and that pharmacologically augmenting risk reduction for others (or both) may be no easier to perfect than overcoming condom use complexity. Without modern prophylaxis and STI surveillance developments we would be more likely seeing the same condom presence as when such was expedient. The two ideological components are easily integrated in entertainment erotica because the scenes often seem to be more realistic than they are. In the real MSM world we seem to see a division in condom use position that is ideologically split, where embracing use is more likely to be erroneously conflated with responsibility for self and others, and non use tends to be more falsely conflated with individual autonomy, labelled reckless even, for optimal pleasure. Condom use ranges from easily facile to fraught with complexities. I identify with the former, but I view it more as random good fortune to the extent that condom use has true health promotion value, rather than a unique skill that places me above others in sexual health self-efficacy terms. At a time when condom use was imperative I tripped into discovering that a kick-start wrapper tear for a few on hand eliminated the frustration of lubed fingers slipperiness and made it simple to extract when needed, not just a single accessible in this manner because often one applies multiples in sequence with slippery hands; that solo practice made perfect in terms of brand, size, fit; that solo practice enabled finesse in the more difficult task of condom application on flaccid tool, in fact eventually either non-erect or erect application accomplished in seconds; that mutual ambiguity about HIV status and disease implications more serious than exist currently supported immediate understanding of condom presence and preference; and that health security and attendant emancipation from disease risk could be fused with psychosexual arousal. All this could easily promote a superiority complex because health is a penultimate value. It could easily be packaged as representing a greater level of responsibility for others, of collectivism. However, my interpersonal sexual practice also just happens to align with personal autonomy; my pleasure is inadvertently tied into it and altering the measures would downgrade my enjoyment. The historical habituation also facilitates condom use accompanying HIV PrEP. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to position myself as a cut above in awareness and consideration for universal well-being. I believe that most of those well adapted to consistent condom use have just enough pleasure to justify it, whereas those that more likely endured condom usage but now implement it less than previously did not suddenly shift in terms of whatever responsibility / self-serving split may come into play in related discourse. The distinction is artificial. Now then, what should I expect from others more on the opposite end of the spectrum with respect to comfort, ease, and preference regarding condom use? The ideological embrace of autonomy is equally a logical fallacy, particularly if it insinuates I’m unnecessarily stuck in the aforementioned transient piece of the fossilized past in which condom use was inarguable but is now less expedient. I’ve already established that condom use can enhance the end game of sexual pleasure; in fact, I failed to mention that the degree of enjoyment is subjectively no less compared to a reference period of non condom use predating HIV emergence. If you truly have understandable struggles with condom use for a variety of legitimate reasons and have lacked opportunity for mitigating such difficulties, the merit of fronting such a reality with assertions of some type of more advanced modernity, of greater capacity for optimal sexual pleasure, of a superior grasp of the risk-benefit equation, is simply lost on me. Apart from the misapplication of ideological positions, which overall subgroup group do you think can be said to more greatly experience and express a range of regret? Those that acquire disease due to condom non-usage or those that use condoms and maintain sexual health albeit some trading off some degree of pleasure?

Yes.

I stand corrected. I’m not American. I erroneously word-saladed Assistant with SDistrictNY.

Right, palace PR on disclosure discussion: “yeah, but, the butt of butt jokes”. Far greater vulnerability to tasteless comments wrt Farrah Fawcett, even.

The same ADA prosecutor was assigned in April to the case of the fellow charged at that time and ostensibly the person that informed on Smith, assigned a public defender. If she is still prosecuting both cases I assume they are tied together. Just my speculation but if her trial prosecution of Smith were to be strengthened by the sworn testimony of that fellow in which he corroborates the FBI affidavit I would think it all hinges on the ongoing status of that case. Isn’t one implication for that fellow that he potentially self-incriminates by testifying on the stand? Therefore, his plea position is relevant, no? And both defendants seeking downward sentencing variance. I would think that a grand jury indictment step would depend on evidence based on that fellow’s formal sworn testimony before the grand jurors, if indeed the grand jury step allows for witnesses beyond the prosecutorial arguments put forward to that jury. I assume that the grand jury process requires that the prosecution lay out all evidence and all sources of testimony that would occur in trial. If a primary witness is incarcerated his capacity to make it to trial testimony and survive, as a detention abuse target, the duration elapsed is also a factor. He endures the dual labels of pedophile and snitch. With that fellow’s case possibly resting on testimony of those charged and having informed on him early in 2024, systemic gridlock comes to mind as a variable that in part explains delays and continued postponement. A development within any part of the web will inevitably resonate with other web areas.

LA has 45,000 registered listings. I doubt has resources for tracking even the extended proportion. Probably a good idea, though, to make a show of your presence for neighbours when you are there between exiting and arriving guest gaps.

I think that there is a formal notification to adjacent and abutting property owners upon registration as well. Listed all year does not mean the host does not reside in the home from time to time. Anyway the extended privilege dynamics are directly related to what you want to do in terms of how you split up where you reside when. What ratio are you aiming for? Principal residence and its details on drivers licence, IRS, voter registration, etc rests on a combination of presence and intent. I imagine that it’s best if it’s the only property you own in LA. You will likely need a system for retrieving mail or need a PO Box. But it is your prerogative to be away for indefinite periods of time as long as you label and intend to reside in it when you are not elsewhere, whether that be travel or crashing down the road. That said, the extended registration simply supports letting for greater than 120 days and less than or equal to 365 days, as long as it remains categorized as your principal residence, as I understand it. You could be away on a world tour for a year; if the home were not listed it would still be your principal residence. Letting it for rent in such a case would not nullify that status.

Bear in mind that from the same age Elizabeth’s visits to Australia were about 5 years apart, I believe 2000, 2002 (a meeting not a tour), 2006, and 2011. Most folks age 75 would be knocking on wood regarding the next cycle let alone somebody recently treated for non-specific cancer. What I find surprising is that a prostate cancer diagnosis would likely have been disclosed by the firm if it had been so, seeing as it was openly revealed it was being assessed (needle bore biopsy I think). Why play the cards so close on another type? … to avoid tasteless joking perhaps? Anyway, there are more likely suspects than pancreatic; remove prostate from the equation and the probability it is not pancreatic (the pie sliver at 9 o’clock) is about 95%.

My uninformed armchair take: Arrested/charged based on an information or complaint submitted by the prosecutor, in which probable cause is satisfied based on the FBI’s submitted investigative affidavit-type material. Likely held based on societal safety and flight risk. What is postponed to date is a preliminary hearing where the judge determines probable cause OR a grand jury indictment satisfies that step in order to proceed to trial. I don’t think an indictment is always necessitated. Plea bargaining suggests that some degree of culpability is acknowledged with a view to circumventing a trial and jumping to sentencing based on the criminal guilt agreed upon and other mitigating factors such as informant role cooperation.

Also pau25 on Hunqz. Lists as age 31. Not bothering to link as I’m not logged in right now; you can simply Google it. Began high profile porn 2008 so I’d age him up at least 5 years, but that’s OK. I don’t think he’d object to revealing porn name or production outfit, but I’ll refrain. Looks hot in RAI clips.

You may need to comply with a noise level detection device according to the municipality codes.

The 6-month residency can be spread out any way annually (I assume fiscally from your start up) so that allows permanent listing that won’t raise eyebrows, but with 120 days max home sharing on the platform. Interfering looky-lou neighbours will tally the unavailable dates (those with X’s on your availability calendar) and report you if you exceed the 120, but unavailable dates could incorporate that you reside there or don’t want to rent for those periods. Nevertheless you may need to open your books to LA authorities if a complaint is made even if you had technically rented within the 120 max rule. If a guest exceeds a 29-day rental period and you wish to max out rental days beyond 120, I wonder if you can exclude that particular rental from the tally, but be aware that some municipalities are requiring a one-year minimum lease when a one-month let had previously exempted the unit as a home share that requires registration. I don’t think there is a regulation that restricts you from mixing and matching your occupancy, short-term lets on Airbnb, and lastly longer-term lets through the platform that can be excluded from the tally. There is provision to apply and pay about $900 as opposed to basic $90 registration fee for the extended home share prerogative, a short time after you have been established. No home residency requirement for you and allows you to exceed 120 days hosting with no limit. Probably worth it even if you want to let out the residence on Airbnb for less than 120 days. Make sure to check out liability and damages insurance beyond the Airbnb minimum requirement. Try to get a lead on an accountant knowledgeable about what expenditures count as eligible tax deductions from your profit in the home share rental domain. If there’s a pool, check out safety requirements. Read up on guest injury damages claims. In reverse, some hosts require damages deposits. When you are residing there don’t let the bed bugs bite. Those critters don’t class discriminate. Provide ample luggage stands like in hotels. 3-bedroom implies suggested capacity for 6. There will be on average far greater unmonitored traffic than that per rental. https://www.rkmlaw.net/personal-injury/air-bnb-injuries/