SirBillybob

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.

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.