SirBillybob

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.

He admitted it was from his “elderly dachshund” and he had intended to dispose of it (though what does canine age have to do with it?) Anyway he was sacked (February), the ballet director that is, not the pooch. We already know the poo was sacked. Regarding the vending machine idea it’s possible this classic European bar is sold there.

The critic assumed dog feces. Requires further analysis. Coulda been swan droppings close at hand.

For best behinds best be Heinz. Just ask a young Joey Tribbiani fresh off his Spartacus cover.

Why I rip open the ketchup packet(s) ahead of time, prior to wrapping my hands around a greasy whopper.

Just follow Mary Katherine’s lead.

Only to discover it merely contained oxygen.

In this case, evidently three sides. The 3rd party or 2nd overnight escort and the client (OP) have apparently written a review of each other with identical wording. An inexplicable 3-legged race of an arrangement, though perhaps neutrally rendered strategically to support plausible deniability of running afoul of prostitution law. Rentmen seems to be set up in an overarching way as a community of sorts, the arbitrary distinction between two membership categories potentially blurred; smart in a way, and supports Jarrod’s view of separating theft events from hookup context. One missing piece is whether the second chap could corroborate evidence of thievery, or might he worry about risk of implicating himself by getting involved.

Queen Olga, well for a day at least. A great series, and well done, ANZ hosting.

I do believe, on stand-alone basis, it is actually the crime of joyriding or unauthorized use of a vehicle, not GTA, if it was actually the OP’s (that part is unclear, if keys referred to Airbnb only), and even if it’s purpose was to get access to the tourist lodgings for entry and theft. But then, can one do much more than speculate with bare bones info?

The sentence regarding violence has the flavour of hearsay, and risks a solid argument on the part of the escort to have the site delete the entire review, not that negative reviews have a long shelf life, as we know. I think it would have been better to cut it short, just the event facts, and viewers can read between the lines.

Was this a cash-sub : findom dynamic according to kinks you had previously described? The fine line between a true badass and a convincing performative badass? And at exorbitant cost amounts according to your suggestion that you are open to undertaking the hobby albeit very expensive and without physical interaction to boot. Not sure if you were half-joking then. The narrative is ambiguous. You seem to possess a level of intelligence that would ordinarily inoculate most clients against the mishap you reported. You had subsequently attempted contact with the understanding that a role-play scenario was to be wrapped up later but he broke the contract? You wrote “no answer yet”. As of today, it appears you were clearly wronged. The net effect of robbery is the same in terms of resources and legal recourse, outside of implicit role-based arousal, but I’m not sure if there was upfront negotiation that set up the events and it went south, as opposed to the more typical sex for money. This to me is as interesting as the obvious implications and options of police reports, state prostitution law, theft or travel insurance, tech damage control, etc. I also wonder if there was a clear set $ fee amount stipulated or more vague ‘goods in kind’. And what about the 2nd guy? Was your capacity to pay him impaired by the loss of wallet, etc? Brief aside: A legal defense viz prostitution law might be that you solicited a dude with a view to paying him not to have sex. Might be an interesting test case in relation to the “deviate sex” wording (although I think it may refer to sodomy; haven’t read the legislation), depending on whether communication tracks were on the site or a few degrees of separation such as phone. Seriously, though, I suggest keeping it simple if you decide to report it, as others have suggested, merely as a necessity for an insurance claim. Though true cash subs surely have enormous underwriting deductibles.

It’s a nod to Metallica’s 1st album and stencilled in the same style, as poetic to some as Tennyson. Not sure, though, it would go ever well meeting your parents, or would impress as a wedding date unless he was your +1 at their Montreal stadium concert last week (as ad suggests you could take him anywhere). A tattoo of “metal up your ass”, the originally conceived and dialled back album title, might have been too on the nose. Overall, best to stick to the T-shirts. There were mobs of them cramming the subway home, apparently many soccer Moms & Dads seeking nostalgia, sprinkled with adult young’uns, funny how heavy metal still takes.

A regular filed away a comment I made in passing that I liked to read books on shortlists in candidacy for various major annual fiction prizes. He researched and gifted me 5 such novels one Christmas, along with the receipt, in the event I had read any and wished to exchange. He outdid my own creativity in spite of my being obsessed with him at the time.

Hah … outrageous. Yeah, best not to look and risk tripping onto a Brandunning‘s dogmatique posts, unless you seek a particular side dish of grey matter with the chap you choose for sex. Seeing the content can be a mistake if a satisfactory erotic experience could have otherwise neutrally transpired. Often the crew guy entourage hold similar views. Many of them should stick to physique posing. Doesn’t necessarily mean not decent fellows worth spending certain types of time with, unless you pick up meta elements of contempt (wink nudge), eg viz orientation. Remember that the education major is moving weight around and valuable insertion in some areas from those viewed as sheeple is restricted. I had a longterm regular years ago that refused to consider the salutary benefits of influenza vaccination. Didn’t make or break the enjoyment, but the basis was natural vs artificial immunity, nothing conspiratorial. We also had arguments surrounding anecdotal reports of supplement benefits typically without gold standard RCT underpinnings. He actually, however, exerted a big influence facilitating my physical condition and health.

Well, Doxy PEP certainly holds promise but bacterial STI drug resistance is a genuine concern that requires further investigation and has put most of the clinical world outside San Fran Health on greater pause. In fact, the known higher level of already existing gonorrhea tetracycline class resistance in France compared to USA is put forward as a possible explanation for the difference in some of the research findings regarding Doxy PEP impact between the two settings. Another important factor is the overall high gonorrhea incidence in trials for both treatment and control arms, compared to syphilis and chlamydia. One might be impressed by risk reduction figures but not be comfortable with the actual incidence rate of gonorrhea that nevertheless occurs on PEP, in spite of a small average handful of different partners. There may be some good news regarding the potential for gonorrhea infection risk reduction conferred by Meningococcal B vaccine, as it has shown significant effects on its own in research tacking it on to Doxy PEP study, I believe not yet assessed in combination. Unfortunately, just one small trial recruiting in USA at this time: in Chapel Hill, but with a urethral gonorrhea exposure challenge (!; I doubt a fun one, and the cohort upper age limit is decades below our median) Therefore, global efforts may eventually involve a multi-pronged approach. That said, one major way to reduce incidence and prevalence remains via regular surveillance and diagnosis-centred treatment prn. If this were to be done assiduously the effects would be enormous.

Odds are ratios. Just ask your bookie or the bored mechanical rabbit at the dog track. Probability can be computed as an odds ratio and vice versa. 1.4% probability is odds p/(1-p): .014/.986, commonly depicted as .014:.986, but because odds are best depicted as x:1, more steps are required to find the multiplier, 71.43 in this case, to convert the ratio to 1:70.4 … It’s just faster to divide 100 by 1.4 to yield the chance 1/71.4 In some cases chance is a better descriptor than probability. As @Unicorn correctly states, PrEP infection probability is reduced to .014%, but that may be less relatable compared to 1.4%. Therefore 1/7,144 chance of infection may be employed. At that high a figure an odds of 7,143:1 of NOT infection does not add much info. [I had mistyped 1/9,091 as opposed to 1/7,144 in an earlier post, edit window having expired] Of course, chance is just an informal synonym for probability but I prefer not to use them interchangeably because probability has a defined range 0-100% or 0.0-1.0

Well, no. It is true that the single event probability is static and that probability is not influenced by successive exclusion, as in, say, lotteries where each ball number can only be drawn once. A clinician would certainly not present the ‘reset’ idea to a HIV serodiscordant couple. The probability does carry over in this context. 1% the first time, 1.99% combining 2 times, 2.97% combining 3 times, and as I wrote, 63.4% by the 100th time. Well, not literally 63.4% THE 100th time, but the aggregate of 100 events produces a risk of at least 63.4% overall. Additionally, the higher the number of risk events the greater the chance of an unspecified number of additional infection events occurring, beyond 1, although only one infection event is basically relevant for probability purposes. Clinical factors related to multiple transmissions may pose additional implications. One can reverse engineer the formula to calculate the number of risk events that produces an arbitrary probability, say 10%. The formula contains an exponential component, so 20 times in total does not exactly double the risk of 10 times in total, and so on. In research we call this a nonlinear function. One must account for successively avoiding the 1% single event undesired outcome. (Well, not successive in succession because the infection may occur prior to one of the events in the aggregate that did not transmit infection) That is why during COVID peaks where infection transmissibility status was unknown the recommendation given for, say, 6 as opposed to 10 guests at a holiday dinner, or 6 as opposed to 10 1:1 lunches to carry less overall risk.