SirBillybob

Appreciating the stripped down version.

Or this …

I just read the short story, like the film, set in New England.

Maybe he throws in the Feb 2018 Vanity Fair for free. 😏

Are you getting the 'existing user' prompt when logging in? I even occasionally get the error message when I login with the existing user prompt but still access the site. When logging in I only click ‘fill password’ without needing to complete the two fields.

I only use a smartphone and that happens occasionally but I still get access as well when clicking the 3 horizontal bars top right corner.

U=U, true. There would be no clinical reason to self-describe as being predominantly or exclusively insertive in anal intercourse unless you were implying that sexual position determines the legitimacy of U=U. Or if you simply wished to emphasize that sexual position is not a factor, but I didn’t read it that way. In contrast, sexual position is a determinant of risk where one partner is HIV+ with unsuppressed viral load.

Who knew that ‘making new friends get harder as you age’ [sic] is a thing? If we could only convince the younger prospective friends. 😏

Poor Calvin … fo’ shizzle shoulda chosen this film …

But surely you might clarify whether the beautiful hair is long, straight, curly, fuzzy, snaggy, shaggy, ratsy, matsy, oily, greasy, shining, gleaming, streaming, flaxen, waxen, knotted, polkadotted, twisted, beaded, braided, powdered, flowered & confettied, bangled, tangled, or spangled & spaghettied.

Mine comes to £8.00 equivalent for monthly over 6 months. A bit more for 3-month stretches. It’s far less than what it costs to source actual hires in more face-to-face contexts, considering that I very rarely hire from Rentmen although some just happen to also advertise there, and I use Hunqz slightly more. Hunqz PLUS is €85.00 one year.

If it’s Rentmen I am seeing X-rated photos in the main part of profiles when logged in as a premium member. I don’t know about the situation if not logged in or if non-paying. My location is Canada.

Aren’t there two platforms for which posters insist on using the same abbreviation?

I get very close, and then some.

There might not have been a thread emerging, but at the very least a floss.

And do you have an elderly lady embedded in your drilled out cavity?

Anybody else almost wishing for a GoFundAli?

And just like that, …😏

But the one-eyed snake gives everything away anyway.

And if that’s not enough on the nose …

Aidsmap’s Pebody and I share the same fault, that of incorrectly stating that the risk metrics are predicated on the assumption of an HIV-positive partner. In fact, the risk estimates data are limited by the fact that infectivity is unknown due to already existing modifying factors. The fault on my part is more grievous because I had already been aware of the distortion. Therefore, because variables such as per act seronegative status of both partners; per act HIV-negative status of one partner in tandem with close to negative status equivalency of the other partner due to extant infectivity modification; non-ejaculation; and circumcision are baked into the risk metrics at unknown proportions, my examples based on the assumption of poz partner with unsuppressed viral burden are underestimated, but to unquantifiable degrees, in the context of absence of TasP, PrEP, and condom use. The reason that factors that inflate risk and attenuate risk are presented separately is that one cannot easily mash them up with values in which the mix of infectivity is unknown.

It doesn’t really matter what assumptions about partners back the application of infection prevention options. Many people employ maximum protection, short of abstinence, in spite of assuming it won’t always have been necessary. To assert that they are incapable of measured nuance is absurd.

Use a condom if you’re mile-high. No, I’m not discounting anything. I am only applying the concept to the actuality of unprotected sexual intercourse with one or more partners HIV-positive with unsuppressed viremia, using those risk metrics. Believe it or not, that is how insertive partners are seroconverting, acquiring infection, even today in a world where better prevention options in combination nevertheless exist. If he had fucked 100 times over any previous period his cumulative risk of infection will already have been 10.4%. Another 100 added prospectively … 19.8%. I had applied it to a scenario of evaluating the appropriateness of PrEP when working with an inquiring patient whose sexual position was insertive, where he might assume that past experiences in which he evaded infection did not count towards cumulative risk due to false assumptions of a risk reset to 1/909. Those experiences could include time frames prior to the widespread clinical option of PrEP and the concept of TasP. But in my scenario the idea of TasP is irrelevant because, yes, the best estimate of transmission is zero (while mathematically > 0) due to sustained undetectability. The cumulative experiences with a poz partner with unsuppressed viral load are not precisely quantifiable unless one knows every partner’s viral load status, but the risk ratios are measurable if you compare tops and bottoms using each respective stationary setpoint of event risk and assuming the same proportions of partners’ categorical viremia status.

Per-act risk accumulates nonlinearly and repeated exposures compound differently because the number of risk acts is applied as an exponent to the probability of non-infection. This doesn’t mean that you cannot take an arbitrary probability of infection and calculate the number of insertive acts that it takes to achieve risk equivalency to the number of receptive acts. That there is no absolute guarantee of infection is an artefact of the impossibility of non-infection probability reaching zero because there is no exponent applied to either .9862 or to .9989 that can yield absolute 0. It just makes sense to round up to 100% probability of infection for high cumulative amounts of risk acts because the inverse of none is not none … one or more. Of course, in this context one is all it takes and more is superfluous unless re-infection complicates the clinical picture.