SirBillybob

Professionally Instituted Glamour Shots. YMMV.😜

Not sure what happened. You viewed them without having toggled the ‘do not track my views’ option but you returned to simply view the profile? Or you ascertained you were blocked because you attempted to message them through the platform? Surely you can still check out the profile. “When I returned to their profile” means …? You wrote “without even contacting the provider”. Do you mean that you attempted to contact and they had preempted? Whichever way you discovered whatever impediment to the ad occurred I cannot think of anything in it for the advertiser and it implies he’s a just chip off the old block. Doesn’t he still have a list of blockees to manage? That could be a longer list stuck in his dashboard than the breadth of messages subsequently initiated by previous viewers that he may need to sift through, ignore, respond to, or delete. In which case he’s not making his work life particularly easier. Surely the quantity of viewers vastly exceeds messengers.

I think Blanche heard that as pant crease.

If they can sculpt a snowman as well as make moves on it they’re in the running.

I just noticed that when I request private gallery access the platform picks up my handle and the response is “Hey, … , you can view my Private gallery here.” The ‘here’ is underlined but it does not seem to be a link; it just denotes that the images appear when returning to the profile. I assume it’s a standard generated response cued by the consenting advertiser.

The site has been down all day so far for me here in Europe.

He’s celibate for you for a year? What a gusher that’ll be!

Especially non-honorific since the enterprise is geared to abstinence.

I think it’s our obligation to give wise counsel to the generations coming up following our footsteps: Yes, it’s true that in your likely eventual arranged transactional polygamy of convenience the love won’t be there initially, but it may develop in time.

I haven’t been required to verify my ID, even when renewing recently (client), but indeed their data policy suggests they possess such ID (eg, passport) if you provided it, I suppose, at their insistence. They already know your credit card details. https://rent.men/about/datacollection

Oh those towel service no-shows inn’t.

So no HE?

As long as the enthusiasm is tempered.

Especially where I am currently, Zürich, where ‘sleigh ride’ is schlittenfahrt. 📣📢🧨🕯️🪭

Does farting Waltzing Matilda at Melbourne’s Beans Bar for free drinks count?

The distinction isn’t made because the synthesized estimate is based on a combination of incidence rates according to estimates of background prevalence, essentially receptive partner HIV positive or serostatus unknown, and of incidence rates based on partner HIV positive, obviously viral load data unavailable overall. Since being “top” uncircumcised insertive partner is much higher risk it is odd that the final estimate of .11% did not seem to incorporate that metric. However the authors point out a UIAI risk estimate of .22% in another study, not stratified according to circumcision. Interestingly, a “top” anally is more likely to be infected from a positive partner than a woman’s likelihood of acquiring infection from vaginal intercourse with a positive male partner. It can be as much about circulating virus in mucosal secretions as virus in semen.

Especially a nose ring making you stand out too much from the herd.

Still, sucking himself while shaving, impressive flexibility and time management, if not perfect dexterity.

It’s a good question because obviously a one-week lead-in does not occur. Since there is very little difference in drug concentrations and no difference in estimated protection between an average number of 4 doses vs 7 doses weekly, as well as no difference in breakthrough infection comparing 2-1-1 and daily, it is assumed that the 2-dose on-demand lead-in augmentation of drug concentration is sufficient for equivalent protection. Drug concentrations are in fact specifically organized around the risk event. However, the actual breakthrough infection risk cannot be compared for single events within the two uptake versions because a study can only compare by person-time denominators and number of intercourse risk events is impossible to comparatively tally over time. Similarity in breakthrough infection incidence may be a function of greater protection conferred by daily dosing that is undermined by a greater frequency of risk events. Therefore, the preference is based on convenience and the frequency and capacity to forecast events, or to be able to access some degree of protection for an impromptu encounter. That said, full protection is a misnomer. Protection can only be as good as it gets.

+ / - 💃 🕺(salsa)

One can approximate the relative risk for bottoms as about 12 times that of tops for one episode of intercourse, outside of PrEP considerations. There is no known relative risk factor for intercourse “too soon” following initial PrEP dosing because that time frame is continuous whereas sexual position is binary. The increase in risk is theoretical. However, the top engaging in intercourse “too soon” forfeits some of the aforementioned risk difference relative to the bottom who delays intercourse until optimal drug levels are obtained. Since penile mucosal tissue drug concentrations may be similar to vaginal concentrations in that it is known such vaginal concentrations are much less and take longer to accrue compared to rectal mucosal tissue (either gender), practice wisdom would not lean towards tops shortchanging the duration of time in which intercourse postponement is recommended.

The answer is in two parts as I assume a “top” wonders about the confluence of drug concentrations in his bloodstream and mucosal tissue, while not typically exposed to semen, unless of course residual infected semen in the “bottom’s” rectum from very recent encounters which is rare . Two factors: Insertive anal and time to PrEP protection. The time to protection in terms of drug concentrations in penile mucosal tissue is not as clear as for rectal mucosal tissue but it is reasonable to assume similar or more tentative. The point is that urethral, glans and foreskin tissue is vulnerable to infection from virus contained in rectal mucosal tissue fluids and traces of rectal blood plasma possibly present, but transmission risk is less than for receptive intercourse. However, bacterial STI infection could increase risk as well. If a “top” trades off some degree of wait time to peak drug concentration levels, the point at which the advantage of lower behavioural transmission risk by virtue of insertive position is lost is unknown.

If it’s code it prolly means arrives on the dot, then not splash and dash, but pay much mor$e for punctuality and punctilious treatment.

Nevertheless I only purchase pure virgin wool garments accompanied by a lab test certificate.

Wait until after the competition. Shortlist your favourites and search for their placements and socials. With so many categories, yet only the one 1st in each, chances are your shortlist will be comprised of mainly 2nd place or lower. DM “You were obviously robbed and I’m available if you want to take it out on someone and also walk away with full coverage for supplements on your next cycle, and more. Signed: Antonio The Muscleworshipper”