BootmanLA

I don't think I said that "sex addiction" is necessarily excluded from addiction's definition; rather, the point I was trying to make is that most people who claim 'sex addiction' don't really (a) suffer the kind of physical dependency that "classic" addiction (drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc.) is characterized by, or (b) have the kind of life disruptions that truly addictive behavior causes. If "sexual addiction" isn't causing you to miss work, miss important life events for friends and family, causing you to routinely cancel planned non-sexual events in favor of getting laid, etc, then I don't see the "consequences" that would normally define addictive behavior. For those that do, of course, it's a compulsion that certainly should be treated, if possible. But I think "sex addict" is more often than not used as a bragging point, not an acknowledgment of a problem. After all, for "classic" addiction, the addicts can be broadly grouped into those who deny having a problem, and those who have come to realize they have a problem and have tried (successfully or not) to treat that problem. I don't know anyone who both admits to being an alcoholic AND who gleefully touts how much beer, wine, and booze he's going to consume each week.

Actually, I find (in my own, limited experience, so take that for what it's worth) that most people who call themselves "sex addicts" really mean "I love sex and I jump at every chance to have it and I think about it a lot" - which, if that were a sign of addiction, would cover an awful lot of people. It's become trendy to call anything and everything an "addiction". So if we turn to the American Society of Addiction Medication's definition of addiction as "a treatable, chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual’s life experiences. People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences," then I think most "sex addiction" can be excluded from this clinical definition. That's not to denigrate the problem, which I think is more properly classified as compulsive behavior. It's not different, in that respect, from the person who can't walk past a picture on the wall that's slightly askew without adjusting it, or who otherwise feels compelled to DO something. But unless "sex addiction" reaches the point that, say, you're getting disciplined at work (or fired) because you miss too much work because you're constantly skipping out to get laid, or some other harmful consequences occur, then I think that's the wrong term to use.

It would probably be most effective if you did get your own. Medications are often effective (or mostly effective) for some time after the printed "expiration" date, but there's no guarantee; three years is a long time, especially if it hasn't been stored properly (as @Oldercumslut noted). And antibiotics, from what I understand, are less "shelf stable" than, say, pain relievers. That doesn't mean the dose you took is completely ineffective. But it may not be effective enough, depending on whether the guy had anything or not.

I'm not shocked by anything Trump does any more. But it's quite possible to evaluate someone who's been in the public eye, very loudly and prominently, since the early 1970's, about whom millions of words have been written and who has actually had multiple books about himself ghost-written for wide distribution; moreoever, we're talking about someone who publicly flirted with running for president more than once before actually doing it in 2015 and exploiting the foibles of the Electoral College (and a uniquely unpalatable-to-many opponent) to win the election. If you don't understand the difference between being able to judge a public figure like Trump, and tea-leaf reading a handful of posts on a website like this and claiming to KNOW what people "REALLY MEAN" - well, I'm not shocked by that either.

It honestly depends on the hotel. Many hotels don't look twice at people walking in if they stride purposefully toward the elevators like they belong there - especially if it's a slow evening with only one person working the desk, in a suburban location where the customer base is mostly tourist families and business travelers, and even less of an issue if it's the kind of place you need a car to get to. It's more of a problem at, say, a big event at or near a downtown hotel that gets lots of pedestrian walk-bys - not that they're all that concerned about guys showing up to hook up for sex, necessarily, but they're always on the lookout for criminals looking to rob people or rooms, drunks looking for a place to hit the bathroom, etc. - the kind of thing that is actually disruptive to actual guests. Those are the sort of places where you can't get past security up front without a room key. Or where you can't make the elevator work without your room key, and it will only stop on the floor for your room.

"Our government" (in a general sense) did no such thing. The U.S. House (which is one half of one branch of the US government) passed a bill that did something else entirely. What the proposed law in question does is codify (in Civil Rights Act of 1964) the definition of anti-Semitism used internally by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. That definition reads as follows: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." Note that there is no mention of the word "Israel" or the phrase "government of Israel" in that definition, whatsoever. The law goes on to incorporate the IHRA's "contemporary examples of antisemitism", but none of those examples "codifies" the relationship between the U.S. and Israel. It's simply false to say that they do. Now, one may argue whether that's an accurate or good enough definition of anti-Semitism; that's a reasonable debate to have. And one may say that this, or that, example of antisemitism shouldn't be considered as such, and that, too, is a reasonable debate to have. But it's false - provably, demonstrably false - that this law "codifies" any sort of relationship between the United States and Israel. For one thing, that's a huge separation of powers problem; the president, not Congress, is given the power to recognize foreign governments. See Zivotosky v. Kerry, in which the Supreme Court held that the power of the president to recognize foreign nations is exclusive (ie that Congress cannot interfere with it).

It died of starvation.

I agree with that - both that we can't know for sure, but it appears that way. I say "can't know for sure" because I know a lot of people who never update their profiles. And it's clear on some sites, which require a birthdate to sign up and then show the person's calculated age. I see profiles that say something like "47, 6', 200 lbs," but the calculated age thing shows they're actually now 55 - they just have never read their own profile closely enough to realize it needs updating. That could be the case with "last tested" info - again, if there's nothing to prompt you to update it, it could go unchanged for years even if, in fact, you're routinely tested. I make a point of reviewing/updating my profiles on sites every year on my birthday, even on ones where my age is not written in, because it's as good a trigger to "update" as anything else might be.

A few thoughts on this: 1. I think it's a mistake, in general, to say "Trump wants to...." anything, unless it's "run everything, save his squalid business empire, and get re-elected so as to avoid prison". When it comes to ordinary governmental policies, Trump has no beliefs of his own, whatsoever; his only line of inquiry is "What's in it for me?". For instance, Trump is widely reported to be anti-immigrant. But he routinely employs immigrants, including ones on limited temporary visas, to work on his properties, because he can get them cheaper than he can hire US workers. That goes way back, even to his construction of Trump Tower in the 1980's, where he stiffed a bunch of immigrant construction workers on their wages. For Trump, immigration is simply one more issue he knows he can use to inflame his base of support and get them riled up to vote. The same is true of any "social" issue - abortion, porn, gay rights, trans rights, whatever - he only cares if he can use it for his own purposes (again, to gain power and to avoid prison). Trump was very pro-choice until he started nosing around about seeking the Republican nomination for president in the early 2010's - after he got pissed off at President Obama for mocking him at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner over his "birther" claims. Now, it's increasingly true that there's no division between Trump, his campaign, and the national GOP - it's all one big cluster of ego-propping-up, and with Trump happy to endorse GOP policies as along as they don't threaten his electoral prospects. (That's why Trump keeps wavering on abortion, taking credit for killing Roe at evangelical events but stressing he doesn't want a federal ban to suburban housewives who can and probably will tank his return to the presidency. He doesn't give a fuck about abortion itself except when he's got to pay for one for one of his mistresses, but he can't just take that stance without pissing off part of his base.) But Trump wanting to ban porn? Please. He doesn't want any such thing; he knows that even if the GOP managed to get porn removed from under First Amendment protection (a huge task), so that states could ban it, it's still going to be widely available everywhere.

So, let's add "psychic" to Kevorkabob's skill set, since he "knows" what other people "really mean" instead of engaging with the words they actually write. (And yet, when WE engage with HIS actual words, he loses his shit. Imagine.)

Reading comprehension does not appear, at first glance, to be your strong suit; I'm not sure about where you live, but adult remedial reading skills courses are available in most English-speaking places. Might be something to consider. 1. No, I am not "always cheering" you for being banned - if you get banned, it's due to your own behavior, and I assume it's a penalty handed out by the moderators responsibly. 2. I'm not terrified of much; certainly not of debate with anyone. 3. No, I do not think other people "should" be strangled. Perhaps you do not understand the English language idiom "makes me want to..." - it means that a particular person, action, saying, or whatever makes one WANT to do something (that one nevertheless won't do, and would not want actually done). As in "That child's screaming makes me want to slap his parents to get their attention." As in "People who drive like that make me want to shove their car into a compactor." As in "Some people are so frustratingly dumb that it makes me want to strangle them just to marginally improve the gene pool." It is not intended as a suggestion for a serious course of action.

That "if" is a mighty big "if". As in "IF". The reality, of course, is that such a bill is unlikely to even be brought up in the Senate, much less passed, and even less to be signed into law.

No, I did not. I never intended to use such an epithet for you. If I had, you can rest assured I would have.

I have mentioned this before, and I'm glad to have backup for it. It's not that we individually can't have supportive poz friends; it's that there's no magical brotherhood that suddenly solves all our problems when we become poz. And there's a whole bunch of new problems to deal with that come along with that status (at least for most of us). I'm not so sure that's true. The medical community will tell you that you must take your medication every day to keep the virus suppressed, and for a lot of guys, that's probably true. But it's not universal; some guys' innate immune system hasn't been decimated by HIV, and missing a few doses may not have a huge impact on their health. Then again, being off meds for a few days (or even a week) is unlikely to produce the kind of viral levels that are highly likely to infect someone. The bigger problem with stopping meds for a time and restarting (now that we have such highly effective treatments) is that HIV, if allowed to reproduce, does so sloppily and creates mutations - most of which don't help the virus, but occasionally a mutation will develop that your previous medication won't be able to control as effectively. Then, even if you go back on meds, the mutated version may still keep propagating. Sometimes a med change will be effective, but there are only so many variants of HIV medication so far, and most contain some subset of the same handful of active ingredients.

I'd like to point out that "safe sex", by itself, is a misnomer; even strictly in the context of HIV, the only "safe sex" is masturbation, and if you go beyond HIV, even masturbation isn't 100% guaranteed safe (you can shoot cum in your eye and harm your vision, if only temporarily; you can masturbate so roughly you damage some of the tissues in your cock; and so forth). "Safer sex" - the designation preferred by health advocates - for years meant using a condom, every time, no matter what, even if one also sero-sorted and even if two people were monogamous after being each other's first everything. Anything less than that kind of "we've only ever been with each other, for our entire lives", even with condoms, meant some other STI's could still be transmitted, making them technically not 100% safe. Safer, yes. Anything without condoms was automatically demoted to "not safer sex". Now we have PrEP, which (when used correctly) is at least as effective as condoms (when used correctly). So even as some advocates have failed to update their recommendations, the reality is that sex without condoms is NOT NECESSARILY "not safer sex".