TonyRedux

US law isn't based on Common Law - informed by it, but our system is generally different. In the US people aren't accountable for what they do when they're under "extreme emotional distress" (like when they're in the middle of getting beaten). No one here wants to be assaulted, so we give a pass to people who are defending themselves - even if they go a bit too far.

overall this is correct, thank God, but at one point states like Massachusetts had Commonwealth-style laws about self-defense...such as the horrifically absurd requirement that someone experiencing armed home invasion was legally required to be able to prove that they were cornered and had no other room to escape to before using violence against the invader. thankfully that dark comedy has long been repealed in Mass., but it serves as a reminder of where such legal attitudes about self-defense eventually lead. my impression is that Great Britain regularly prosecutes home dwellers for attacking burglars, and homeowners who attack "squatters".

in the USA, "squatting" typically means taking residence in an abandoned home or other structure...however in Great Britain apparently there is an epidemic of people burglarizing homes, registering themselves with the local jurisdiction as residents, and then enjoying legal protection from attack or even eviction when the RIGHTFUL resident returns!

that sort of government idiocy is in retreat in the USA, thankfully...but what sucks is that the mere existence of it elsewhere serves as a bogeyman for the US right wing political element.

clean out good, grab a big bottle of silicone lube, n get to nyc...submit, n i will defeat ur ass for u.

Ralph is a scat bottom and he cleans off with Howard Stern's wig.

As an Ontarian, I recommend you guys get down off your high horses and learn the real story before trashing the Canadian legal system--you know, the one that's based on the exact same common law as yours. Raynard allegedly responded to verbal taunts with physical violence. He was drunk and attacked teenagers with a brick for fucks sake. Also his plea bargain did take into account the harassment he received prior to losing his cool. He received an absolute discharge, meaning that if he stays out of trouble for a year, the whole thing will be expunged from his record.

From a more balanced account:

"Raynard himself has admitted, 'I may have exceeded some bounds. I’m a little bit in shock that I reacted that way. I’m not a violent person. There was alcohol and flared tempers. I have feelings of massive regret. It’s something that I’m dealing with on a daily basis.'"

my high horse is fine and true, no need to get off at all. u neglected to include a link from ur "more balanced account", but such is the nature of internet argument about news stories...sources vary in reliability. what is NOT in doubt is the larger point about how Commonwealth nations disregard self-defense and self-armament for the average citizen in favor of agents of Government AND whatever criminals n reprobates that choose to ignore Government authority. that is a social theory that has no purchase amongst most Americans...and the attempt by The Few to foist that idea upon The Many is in severe retreat.

Thank God.

LOL, Tony, I definitely have to meet you next time I'm in NYC. Even if only for a beer.

holler bro!

BTW, there are some really dumb people out there, so make sure they understand what you are asking.

Once, a guy told me he was undetectable. It turns that he was not on meds and he had a measurable, not too high VL, however, he told me no one could tell only from seeing him that hew was poz. Epic facepalm.

Just wondering what factors got you to start barebacking... Was it bareback porn? Barebackers on hookup sites? Bareback discussion forums? The desire for a better sex life? Or a sex partner who insisted on bareback?

For me the first time I barebacked was with a guy who insisted on it. Then years passed and I started barebacking with a boyfriend. Then I didn't want to go back to condoms.

u omitted the option of "i turned poz". there is already broad consensus that raw feels better, seroconverting is a paradigm shift.

Serosorting won't work. For sure. You are safer with undetect guys, and hoping none of them is lying to you.

agreed, on all counts. in the absence of on-demand PCR tests, there's no such thing as "serosorting", only "seroguessing".

truth is that the ass has a main job and what we use it for is moonlighting...shit indeed happens. i tell my bottoms that their normal clean out is drastically insufficient for my fuck, and that they should clean out as if they planned on being double-fisted for hours. besides being over 8" with a fat head, i also fuck very rigorously. one of my favorite strokes is one i call The Strobe, where i plunge past the 2nd spot n literally vibrate back n forth about .5-1 inches, around 20x per second. THAT stroke alternating with punchfucking full strokes is the Big Test. if they didnt deep clean, any mess will show within 5 minutes tops.

frankly i used to getthat with over 95% of my bottoms, and had to learn how to coach guys thru cleaning out n dealing with THEIR occasional freakouts "ooo, i feel very self-conscious now!"...nigga please, it's YOUR shit *I* have to smell while teaching YOU!

now i do a better job of scaring prospects, AND i'm trying for shorter fucks so i get more nut out n deal with fewer "somebody HELP MEEE!!" bailouts. i even sometimes jump on my husband's uncleaned ass n give him a ruff quickie, after which we stay locked together as i walk him to the tub n we dont decouple until the shower is on. i wont allow my husband to install a shower-shot type douche in our apt bcuz i dont trust the temperature-stability of our water supply. pisses him off, bcuz using the rubber bulb to douche takes an hour or far more. still, i'd rather get a ruff quikie with him or wait 90 minutes for his full game rather than cook him internally with suddenly scalding water.

no one else gets that consideration, tho i have fucked a few undouched asses at The Black Party. as gross as the truth is, if a guy has a decent diet with a hi-fiber intake, u can often fuck him awhile n have only minor dirty mucous to clean off.

what the fuck do u people think most homos did for most of human history? buttfucking is older than homo sapiens, n douching is a recent invention....all that said, i hate when scat bottoms reach out to me. sorry.

Sorry, but that study has serious problems. The biggest one is that they didn't spell out the characteristics of the people who died. I've seen other studies that say that when you look at just the people who actually die of AIDS you see that the vast majority of them 1) didn't start ARVs until their CD4 dropped below 200 and/or 2) had drug abuse or other issues that meant that they didn't take their meds consistently once they did start treatment.

The first part of the study where "early" is defined as CD4 between 350 and 500 - we're in agreement there - that seems like a reasonable time to start to me. It's the second part of the study where I see problems. They should have sorted the participants into 3 groups, not 2. By mixing the people with really low CD4s with people with reasonable CD4s they're giving a distorted picture. Notice that they don't give mean CD4 counts for each group - they only give median and inter quartile ranges. That means you can't tell how dire the lowest quartile is - that could be where a large part of the deaths are.

The other thing which is a huge red flag is the 95% confidence intervals - with up to 9,000 people in the study they should have been a lot smaller. Something fishy is going on there. That indicates to me that they're using the unusually large sample size to help them tell a story that isn't really there.

On top of that - they only know the cause of death for 16% of those who died. It could be random bad luck that's causing the deaths. If, as other studies have shown, poverty and drug addiction keep people off ARVs - then it could just be that poor people are more likely to die. I mean, they do some analysis of how other factors like Hep C and IV drug use factor in - but unless they can tie the deaths back to HIV in some way, it really weakens the results. As they mention, this was not a randomized trial - there could be a variety of cofactors that determined when the person chose to start ARV treatment.

This isn't tinfoil hat... Very particular details are missing from the study. It baffles me how they could not discuss the characteristics of the people who died. That's the outcome variable. Comparing people who dies to people who didn't die is far more important than looking at the differences between two arbitrarily defined groups.

I've heard it said that numbers don't lie, people lie with numbers. The results of that study are crafted in a very particular way to give the message that the drug companies want told. First, they wanted to get people on ARVs when they were in the 350-500 CD4 range - no problem there. But then they went further - to try to get people on drugs years before they may actually need them.

I'll end by listing the drug company affiliations of the researchers - they speak volumes...

"Consulting & Lecture Fees" are given to people who market drugs to other doctors. I know, I've helped recruit and pay the doctors.

Bottom line - this is a drug company study passed off as legitimate research and you accepted it as fact. This is exactly what I've been ranting about in this thread.

since studies such as that ARE being used to rationalize earlier treatment, y not publicize ur analysis n critique more broadly in journals where u would face reasoned rebuttal AND where those who rebutted u would have to disclose any conflicts of interest they may have?

nothing is sexier on a man than the feel of his anus, rectum, second-spot, and large intestine around my cock...in the broad sense there is always the glorious sense of consuming the will of a man, breaking it to the rhythm of my painfully hard dick...dangling his manhood on a string in front of him, just beyond his reach. in particular i look upon a masculine, boyish-faced, thick-bodied n full-assed man n see a Holy Sow to breed.

however, it's the physical part that ultimately rules. my dick has a fat hard head that spends most of it's time in a warm, moist sheath of foreskin...which retracts at perfect cue during erection, makes it's presence known when fucking becomes punch-fucking, n then gloriously retracts irrevocably when my head swells yet again just b4 orgasm. my stamina and endurance allow me to reach a stage of sensory experience dense with sweet novelties...not only the unique contours n tensions within every individual, but the unique ways every physical parameter evolves during my onslaught. how this or that ass swells up or bruises at the 30 min, 1hr, 3 hrs mark. how their hole tightens up again after a 5 or 10 min break. how their 2nd spot suckles, how tight it is, how stable or slack the the rectum is on the forward/backward axis...how their ass jiggles in rapid-fire doggy, how the jiggling affects the internal feeling, how the stress of full-stroke all-in/all-out punchfucking at 1 or 2 or 4 or 6 strokes per second makes their diaphragm spasm unique to each bottom, and what it feels like when ur vary the angle of ur stroke n punch a liver here or a kidney there thru the wall of their GI tract, how all of this effects each bottom uniquely in the psychological sense...one bottom will growl like a possessed child, another musclebear starts crying out "i'm sorry!! i'm SORRY!!! I"M SORRREEE!!!!" as i harpoon fucck him at maximum power...and the feeling on my dick has gone many levels past all description.

the sensation often commands deep and hard and completely paroxystic ejaculation, yet fighting and dodging and edging and toying with that feeling becomes a shamanic urge, as u feel the changes in ur own sensation and disposition as u wind up that all-important first nut into a ritual breeding that brings all-involved to that state of joyous, holy suffering that Mel-thenutjob-Gibson recently reminded us all is the real, ancient definition of the word "Passion".

good, good stuff. it's why i top!

from what i'm reading i expect more of this in the future, but i wonder how they can ensure this without incarcerating him?

http://www.americanindependent.com/208474/local-michigan-county-wants-to-force-meds-on-hiv-criminal-suspect

Local Michigan county wants to force meds on HIV criminal suspect

By Todd Heywood

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 9:55 am

Sangeeta Ghosh, assistant corporate counsel for Kent County, Mich., says should the 51-year-old man charged in two cases of failing to disclose his HIV-positive status to sexual partners make bail, the county is prepared to ask a court to force him to take antiretroviral medications.

“The county is taking steps that if he gets out, we will file a civil matter to make sure he takes his medications,” Ghosh told The American Independent.

Ghosh was speaking of the Comstock Park man who turned himself in to Grand Rapids police Dec. 22, alleging he attempted to infect hundreds of people with HIV through unprotected sex and sharing needles. He was placed in a psychiatric hold for two days, and on Dec. 24, he was arraigned on the first of two charges of failing to disclose his status to a sex partner. Several days later, prosecutors added a second charge of failing to disclose. He is currently in Ypsilanti undergoing a psychiatric evaluation to determine if he can stand trial. He is being held on a $100,000 bond.

TAI does not identify the names of those charged with HIV disclosure laws unless both the accused and the accuser are named in court documents, or one or both provide TAI permission to publish their names.

The case, media releases and subsequent reporting have resulted in what experts have told TAI were “sensationalist” reports in the wider media.

But this is the first time county officials have indicated plans on how to deal with the man if he is released on bond.

The announcement, however, has HIV advocates worried.

“Forcing anyone to take treatment is a slippery slope,” said Sean Strub, co-chair of the Global Network of People with AIDS, North America (GNP+), in an email. “This person’s most important health issue seems to be his mental health, not his viral status. Forcing anti-retroviral treatment on anyone is a slippery slope. Once the camel’s nose gets inside that tent, even in such a rare and bizarre circumstance as this peculiar case, it is not such a huge step to mandatory testing and treatment for an ever-expanding number of people with HIV.”

While the advent of antiretroviral medications in the mid-1990s resulted in a staggering revival of persons living with AIDS and s sharp decrease in AIDS-related deaths, the drugs themselves are quite toxic and cause a host of side effects. In addition, scientists are not in agreement as to when is the appropriate point in clinical progression to begin treatment, resulting in many mixed messages to patients.

Michigan does have a part of the state health code that allows health officials to declare a person a health threat to others (HTTO). HTTOs are a civil action and can amount to anything from counseling to forced civil confinement for as long as six months. TAI reported in December that many people thought the law was being abused when it was revealed that any HIV-positive person who was diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection was immediately issued an HTTO. In other instances, women who became pregnant were issued HTTO orders and HIV-positive people who were named in partner services programs were also targeted for HTTO orders. The state, which oversees the HTTO list, denies pregnant women were targeted but said the STI and partner services programs were appropriate uses of the state’s name-based HIV list.

“[The suspect] does not have an airborne disease spread through casual contact; he has a disease that, regardless of treatment, is not easily transmitted. Even without treatment, the primary routes of infection — unprotected anal or vaginal sex — result in HIV transmission roughly one percent or less of the time,” said Catherine Hanssens, executive director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy. “So the threat of mandatory treatment is not a reflection of any danger [the suspect] poses, but of Ms.Ghosh’s dangerous misapprehension of both HIV transmission and the law governing the very limited circumstances under which treatment of an individual can be mandated.”

Photo: Kent County, Mich. logo (www.accesskent.com)

i enjoy beating up a guy's nuts with my big hard dick, especially if he's been unruly...especially in missionary. across is fun, just not as fun.

i'm usually very expressive when i have a good serious nut after a long hard fuck...generally a loud deep rumble. God help the fool who tries to shut me up in that state.

Very well said.....there is a reason that was placed into our constitution.....Our forefathers had some amazing foresight!!

i remain astonished at how easily people of demonstrably lesser intelligence and wisdom than the Founders have the temerity to declare the US Constitution irrelevant because it was written centuries ago.

per the abominable Godfather 3, I KEEP TRYING TO GET OUT, BUT THEY KEEP PULLING ME BACK IN!!@!

rawtop, ur correct that docs at the same institution will commonly back each other up, and that big pharma wields gross and insidious influence in medical decision-making at all levels, and that science is by definition never holistic, always materialistic and concerned with testability and repeatability. i was also raised in a martial arts household where i was taught to feel, nurture and respect chi, within and without.

nonetheless, some of ur comments here could easily be used to script portrayals of mid-80's New Age healthcare charlatans who told a long stream of AIDS patients that the illness was essentially their fault for not being "balanced within"...so i'm curious as to how u firewall ur comments from being interpreted to that extent. to this day i know of HIV doctors in NYC who believe (and tell their patients) that even tho Federal guidelines advise starting meds when t-cells fall below 500, they themselves believe that it's still credible to consider waiting until their t-cells fall below **200**.

y do u concur with the current consensus that 350-500 t-cells is the "sweet spot" for starting therapy, yet refuse to change ur assessment if the consensus shifts to above 500? why isn't the 350-500 "sweet spot" tainted by Big Pharma in ur eyes?

look at what i've said... it's hardly tin foil hat wearing sorta stuff... i say people should go on meds when they need them. you're 200/350/500+ question is exactly where the debate should be. thing is, meds from day 1 no matter what your t-cell count is, seems to be where policy is going. that scares the shit out of me. and now with PrEP they're trying to give meds to people who aren't even poz. what happened to "first, do no harm"? i mean PrEP completely violates that principle. these aren't asprin they're telling guys to take (hell, even asprin can be dangerous)...

to answer your question if it were me, i'd take meds starting when my t-cell count consistently dropped below 500, but before it consistently got down to 350. but that would be after i saw how things stabilized - from what i've heard things bounce around a bit the first 6 to 12 months. and when i would go on meds i'd take as few meds as possible, and go for the mildest ones that work on whatever strain i had. i wouldn't shoot for absolute zero viral load - i'd be happy enough with "détente" - just enough meds so my t-cells stay good and things are generally in balance. if i'm a bit above detectable that would be fine with me (though i'd do more research to make sure that's not a bad choice).

overly aggressive medicine isn't something that's theoretical for me. for 22 years i was told i had a brain tumor and doctors had me on meds to stop seizures that were supposedly caused by the tumor. the meds fucked with my gums pretty badly - still have problems in that respect. the doctors did very dangerous biopsies to figure out the type of tumor but refused to believe the results of the biopsies - that it was just scar tissue. i don't have a brain tumor - never did. and i don't have seizures - never did. i have a scar that was caused when i fell and hit my head on concrete steps when i was a kid in summer camp. and i have vasovagal reactions to things - pretty simple blackouts. it was all quite clear when you look at the records but i was essentially lied to by doctors for years and years - and they were some of the top doctors in their field - some of them were quite senior at memorial sloan kettering. i knew the MSKCC doctors were full of shit - i knew my body. but it took me years before i could find doctors who were willing to go against the MSKCC diagnosis.

it goes further... when my lover died of aids in '95 his social worker said "you know, his doctor is really well respected and he's at all the conferences giving papers, etc. but a lot of his patients die whereas the doctors who are less well known and aren't as aggressive in their treatments - their patients tend to live".

those experiences, and what i've seen of the pharmaceutical marketing business scares the shit out of me when i see doctors treat aggressively. there are certain forms of cancer where aggressive treatment is called for - but beyond that the less weird shit you put in your body, the better... [i'm not big on recreational drug use either...]

the other thing is that i had to deal with my own mortality pretty young. they told me i had a brain tumor when i was 18. the next few years were an emotional roller coaster but as the years went on i became less afraid of death. in that whole process i learned to focus on the quality of life rather than the quantity of life. it's not about how long i live. it's about accomplishing something and enjoying the journey - no matter how long or short that journey is.

treating people aggressively is usually focused on the quantity of life, not the quality of life - it's the wrong objective. and as wrong objectives often do, i predict it will backfire and the people who treated their hiv aggressively will live shorter lives as the drug side effects start damaging their bodies. i came to peace with "my brain tumor" and when i see poz guys, the ones i respect the most are the ones who've come to peace with their hiv. hiv doesn't define them, they're not consumed with it, and they're not trying to eradicate every trace of it from their bodies. they may even embrace it. their lives are about other things - they just go on living, they don't ignore their medical needs, but they're ok with a moderate approach to things.

what i'm advocating isn't hardly in the category of tin foil hat - it's about finding a middle road - everything in moderation... but you have to be at peace with things to be ok with that sort of approach. i understand how some people just aren't in that mindset. i saw it in my boyfriend that died. being poz destroyed him emotionally to the point where he'd take toxic doses of herbal remedies. i had to lock all of the pills he bought at the health food store away in a cabinet - they were hurting him. he never did come to peace with being poz and i think it was a big reason why he didn't survive. he wanted the aggressive treatment - but that aggressive treatment killed him. if he could have just been at peace with things and taken things more slowly and calmly he might still be alive - it was only a year later when ARVs came onto the scene... but slowly and calmly just seems wrong when you're in the middle of what you think is a crisis - often it's only later that you understand it was the right approach.

that's quite a bit to respond to just now, as i'm about to shower n hunt some ass while Boo e-surfs n watches movies. to re-clarify the 'tin-foil-hat' analogy, i distinctly said u were not there but that the particular reasoning u cited could eventually lead u there. also, u've answered one threshold question, "how many t-cells would rawtop need to get to before initiating HAART?"...but u left my first threshold question unanswered, so i'll ask in terms of broadest consensus: if the START trial shows conclusively that initiating HAART when t-cells r above 500 produces the best health outcomes, would u still avoid doing so if u were poz? would u still advise others to do so? i submit that at THAT point u would in fact be wearing a tin-foil hat.

i'm certainly curious about ur detailed response, but i wonder if i should ask certain questions privately...

Let me see...Rawtop says don't start meds too early, my Doctor says start right away....mmmmm? not sure who I should listen too.

with all due respect, and as someone who disagrees quite substantially with RT's position, i must note that ur analogy is overly simplistic. ur doc by default has primary authority (beside YOURSELF) over ur healthcare, but HIV/AIDS more than any other ailment has paved the multi-lane path for patients, stakeholders and lay persons to join the debate. the family of retroviruses has proven far more wily than any single human can grasp, let alone counter. every reasonably informed opinion counts.

one more thing to add, RT: when u say that drug toxicities may appear 20-40 years down the line, that is actually at least double the life expectancy of most people who are HIV+ and NOT on treatment. what the medical community has proven beyond all doubt is that, when using current therapies, starting treatment when t-cells fall below 200 extends survival time and improves health substantially less than when one starts treatment when their t-cells fall below 350. furthermore, the medical consensus has emerged in US and elsewhere that the same relationship applies to starting when t-cells fall below 500 as opposed to 350 (earlier is better). what remains controversial is whether the medical community should wait until the results of the START Trial b4 making a decision on whether to advise starting treatment when t-cells exceed 500.

so let me ask u, RT: if tomorrow u were told that u have 600 t-cells and HIV-1 infection, at what point would YOU choose to go on meds? what's ur threshold?

@GermanFucker & Tony... You're both ignoring the effect of the pharma industry on the research and discounting the long-term side effects 20, 40+ years from now. I mean doctors put people on meds before they even know whether the person is genetically able to suppress HIV. What pharma affiliations do the researchers of those studies have? Do you know? It makes a huge difference. Seriously...

Tony I know you shoot for super undetectable. For you that's an informed choice (and ironically from what you told me I'm the one that got you interested in being super undetectable), but it's one thing to make a decision like that for yourself. It's another one for it to become general medical policy (for the reasons I've stated above).

not at all, the Big Pharma effect is well-documented and appreciated in the HIV-treatment sector...however the consensus forming around early treatment has continued to snowball over the last half-decade, and eventually there's a fine-line to cross between "alternative opinion" becoming "dissident opinion", and between "dissident" and "tinfoil hat wearer". right now your opinion is deep into "alternative" territory...but since the reasoning ur citing in ur response can easily carry u into tin-foil-hat territory, i'm curious if there's a threshold of consensus that would ever be reached at which point u'd get on board?

as for undetectability, my first doctor was pushing it from the moment i met her in 12/03. what gave me the final push toward that paradigm was a combo-event in 1/08: a certain young twink i'll bet we've both fucked hollered at me around Pride 07 on Manhunt, during my serosorting era, and after repeated questioning he "admitted" to being poz. we didnt get to play until september, and he rode me cowgirl-style quite sweetly. then in January 08 he wrote me on MH from his phone, he was just down the block at XES. as i walked him back to my place he said "i just found out yesterday i'm POZ!", to which i instantly n blithely replied "congratulations". he became upset, saying "what kind of thing is that to say to someone", and even as i gave a desultory apology i was thinking "bulllfuknshit! u lied to me months back, n who knows how many other people! u aimed for this goal, u got it, CONGRAT U FUKN LATIONS!"...

2 weeks later came the Swiss Statement. my doc had been pushing me to switch regimens for a year, and i gave in...however designing my own ultra-powerful ARV+ regimen that has continued with minor tweaks to this day.

what i had told u is that ur ad in 2007 asking only those HIV+ people with "consistently undetectable viral load" to contact u was definitely an influence, as it was the first sex ad i had seen employing that exact phrase. ur ads have often been trailblazing in employing current medical terminology.

as an aside, the way to break Big Pharma's hold over current treatment is not to fight every population-wide decision made re: treatment guidelines, but rather to lobby Congress to ensure that newer biotech startups with extremely promising new treatment technologies don't end up penniless and being bought up by Big Pharma in receivership...which is happening at this moment.

For reasons only tangentially related to HIV, the doctors started me on meds quite early. The argument detailed by TonyRedux for relatively early introduction to the antiviral medication, is probably the reason my physician said, when we were speaking this past week, that by all measures I am in very good health, notwithstanding the presence of the virus in my system.

there is some evidence that starting fully adherent ARV during initial infection, while being too late to arrest infection itself, can mean blunting or entirely preventing the decimation of the B-cell population of the gut, which in tandem with our gut microflora r probably responsible for MOST of the total immune activity in our bodies. B-cell decimation (and the general inability to recover them) is the primary reason that HIV+ people r regarded as being "permanently immuno-compromised", regardless of T-cell count.

the more ARV drug toxicity can be minimized, the more imperative and inevitable early HIV-treatment becomes...even when a cure is found, there will be reason to medicate those HIV+ people who can not yet access such a cure for whatever reason.

i o u a long hard fuck, Aj.

i prefer short over tall, but it's not a big deal...i prefer thick over thin, and it is a big deal.

tall n skinny is my kryptonite.

One thing you have all tellingly ignored is that HIV itself has long since been proven to be a SYSTEMIC virus, attacking nearly every system in the body, and does not simply attack the immune system as was previously thought. The mere presence of the virus causes the human body to unleash an overall inflammatory response that further damages itself...and that this cycle of progressive damage at deep levels starts from the moment of HIV infection, and for the vast majority will continue until death absent anti-retroviral therapy.

A wider appreciation of this is not helped by the undeniable greed and self-interest of the pharmaceutical industry, but the scientific consensus continues to swing in the direction of early treatment being better. When you have HIV, it is essentially trying to eat you. There is no historical precedent for determining that a deadly virus should be allowed to incubate for best health. The only argument toward that end is based on the toxicity of HIV meds themselves, and by all accounts they are far less damaging than ever before.

The actual systemic damage of HIV at every stage of infection is something that gets far too little attention in every argument I've ever seen about "when to treat" among lay persons.

i've fucked him b4, after years of him chasing me...i eventually added him to my buddy list and was pleased last autumn to learn he was much hotter n his ass much more voluptuous in person. i stabbed deep into his ass several times per second and churned his hole into cherry-mashed potatoes. he avoided my emails since then until recently, telling me he needed me help to become a better bottom who could sub to the ruffest of ruff, asking how i broke my husband in. i told him that pain comes with real buttfucking from big rock hard cock, and that simple submission and embrace was far more important than any physical strategy of movement or mental role-play.

then i put him in deep-doggy, rapidly determined which strokes pleased my big fat dick the most, n then which strokes caused him the most trouble, and proceeded to alternate explosively and musically between either type of stroke. he had not fully cleaned out to the degree needed for my fuck (u gotta douche like u plan on getting deep-fisted all nite, ALL the way up!), n i sent him to clean up again several times...since he only took 2-5 minutes each time, i knew several trips would happen. i was horny, didnt care...they were his fukn sheets.

i finally had him clean enough to get really nutty on, to where his desperation kicked in, and of course as he tries instinctively to break away and escape i bearhug him and rapidly neutralize the movement of any limb he gained purchase or leverage with, as i blasted my nut deep in his 2nd spot and rumbled a deep, amused and happy growl in the ear of that sweet blond man-sow. about 30 seconds into this long frenetic orgasm, his body is fully defeated and he collapses as my spasms taper off...whimpering and thanking me.

after that i showered n dressed as we talked, and coincidentally, he's the one that led me here...i knew about this site but didnt know that rawtop had mentioned playing with my husband n myself, and i came here to read his accounts.

Canada is a Commonwealth country, where the right of Authority to crush you is ultimately royal/divine. In that model, the Government very jealously guards its right to be the only "legitimate" source of violence.

the American system fully rejected this theory from our Revolution on...which is why both the American electorate and the US Supreme Court have thoroughly rejected the ultimate claims of Gun Control theorists. self-defense is a basic and inalienable right...and it very much includes the inherent human right to keep and bear arms.

Kick him? He should have shot him. Glad I live in America, because even though NYC is really no better in this matter, that is likely to change over the next few years of emerging litigation now that the SCOTUS has handed down the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions .