BootmanLA
-
Posts
4,053 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by BootmanLA
-
Small technical correction: a white hood means stallions can ONLY mount the mare with a condom. A red hood means stallions may mount the mare either bareback or with a condom as the stallion chooses. It's true that at such parties most stallions prefer bareback and there are few, if any, white-hooded mares. But if a stallion prefers to wear a condom, he may do so with any of the mares. (Some stallions, for instance, may prefer to start off with a condom to avoid ejaculating too early; others may want to avoid STI's beyond HIV.)
-
That's correct. Insurers must cover PrEP for their customers, but they're allowed to require the generic if one is available for the brand name prescribed. They can also have a "formulary" (that is, a list of approved drugs for each kind of treatment) that doctors are expected to use if the patient expects insurance to cover that medication. Almost invariably, however, a doctor may specify a non-formulary drug if there's a medical reason to do so, with the approval of the insurer. In order to have it covered, the provider submits a request for Prior Authorization (an advance "OK" to use the non-formulary drug). If approved, it gets treated like any other preventative care medication (ie no cost/no copay).
-
As a general rule, we do not have "loser pays" rules in civil court unless that particular tort or other civil action is expressly set up that way in the law. In fact, the concept that each side bears its own legal costs is so widespread that in legal jargon, it's referred to as the "American rule". There are two types of cases where the American rule doesn't apply. There are those where the law specifically allows a successful plaintiff to seek attorneys' fees on top of any judgment earned. Civil rights cases, for instance, in federal court generally allow for attorneys' fees to be awarded. The other type is a law designed to discourage frivolous lawsuits. Many states, for instance, have adopted what are known as Anti-SLAPP provisions. SLAPP stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation", and they target suits filed by people who are seeking to shut down otherwise legal commentary, op-eds, and the like. A deep-pocketed plaintiff can sue a small paper or magazine, for instance, for defamation, and the costs of defending against such a suit can be astronomical and devastating to the publication, which may fold rather than incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Anti-SLAPP laws allow the defendant in such cases to raise a robust First Amendment defense that, if successful, leaves the plaintiff responsible for the defendant's legal fees. But again, those types of provisions are generally uncommon to rare in US jurisprudence.
-
It's more the latter; creating a cause of action for a civil offense does not negate possible criminal charges for the same action. As some of you are old enough to recall, the former American football player O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife and her friend, but held liable in civil court for their deaths. Proving stealthing isn't necessarily hard. Especially in the era of apps, an encounter that starts online can be documented with the bottom clearly stating "safe sex only" and making it clear to the top anything else is unacceptable. Presenting that in court, up against the top claiming "he changed his mind in person", while not a slam dunk, is likely to result in a judgment in favor of the bottom. Tops who think they can convince a bottom to change his mind will learn, quickly, to get the bottom to send a message to that effect before they do the deed. And no, it's not sexy, and of course people aren't going to "want" to stop and renegotiate. But for far too long, we've essentially given the guys who violated the consent the benefit of the doubt (not just with condom/bare sex, but for all sorts of sexual assaults). Shifting the balance doesn't upset me. And as I noted before, maybe tops who really want it "bare only" need to stop going after "safe only" bottoms with the notion of trying to convince them otherwise. And bottoms who say "safe only" but who can routinely be talked into bareback, need to stop pretending they'll only do safe or else deal with the drought of "safe only" tops out there.
-
To be fair, tops are almost always in high demand, no matter how picky the locals may be.
-
Then you clearly don't understand viral epidemiology. Most guys are not "revolving doors" sexually. Good for you or whatever if you are, but that's not the reality for most guys. A sex party, however, turns all the participants (epidemiologically speaking) into the equivalent of those with "revolving doors". Given that the typical Delta variant patient infects between 5 and 9 other people, a sex party with 10 participants is likely to produce hundreds of infections within a short period. That's simply not the case for the average guy hooking up on occasion.
-
Can people tell when you've had sex?
BootmanLA replied to backdoorjimmy's topic in General Discussion
I think this though kinda makes my point: you know she's glowing more than usual because you know her normal as a coworker. There are some people who "glow" like that all the time, and they're not all permanently pregnant. -
If you mean you posted a message about a party on BBRTS but in a section other than the party section, then they did the right thing. The point of closing the "party" section is to prevent publication of events via their site that present an unacceptable (to the owners of the site) level of risk for Covid. Posting the same information elsewhere doesn't make it somehow valid.
-
I agree - enforcement of a lot of laws is difficult. But I still think the laws are worth having. The threat of prosecution alone is enough to deter some instances of most offenses.
-
It's true that in California - and generally speaking, the U.S. - where the law under discussion is being enacted, the burden of proof in a civil case is "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". But that's a good thing. That said, a single piece of evidence can easily be enough to convict someone in a criminal case, if that evidence is persuasive enough. In our criminal courts, there are (broadly speaking) two types of evidence: direct evidence, which means testimony as to personal knowledge ("I saw the defendant point his gun at the victim and pull the trigger, and the victim collapsed", for instance, and indirect or circumstantial evidence, which means any other kind - fingerprints, bullet casings, blood splatters, DNA, whatever. A credible direct evidence witness can be all that's needed, sometimes. And since security cam and video recordings are also direct evidence, sometimes they're exceptionally compelling evidence. And the point about "convicted for an act one is innocent of" makes the point: it's NOT a conviction if it's a civil suit. There are no "convicts" in civil suits. There's a plaintiff, and a defendant, and if the defendant loses, he's not "convicted" of anything - he's simply held liable for damages.
-
That's my point. Way more people than we want to admit are sociopathic, spiteful, mean, and vindictive.
-
I can get why someone would WANT to, just like I can understand how some guys WANT to rape women, or WANT to kill others, or WANT to steal from their employers. I just am aghast that people will actually *defend* the people who want to do these things.
-
I can translate this one easily. "Just looking for fun" means "I want sex, but with someone hot, and I'm not looking to date but if someone really hot and rich wanted me to, I probably would, and I'm too much of a moralizing prig to admit I'm just slutting around, because I'm not trash like that, so I can't be blunt about it, but yeah, really, I just want to get fucked by hot (and only hot) guys."
-
If you're choosing to have unprotected sex with "multiple random anonymous loads" and you think being on PrEP would take away the thrill, you are most definitely a chaser. Which is fine, just admit it and embrace it, if that's what gets you off. It's just too "twee", as the Brits say, to claim otherwise.
-
How can a woman who goes to a man's apartment prove she was raped instead of getting fucked with her own consent? In either case, it becomes up to the trier of fact (the judge or jury) to determine credibility. The point is that yes, in some circumstances, it would be harder to prove stealthing than in others. That doesn't render the law useless; just because sometimes you can't expect to get a conviction doesn't mean that the law is inherently a bad idea. If there's a string of text messages or app discussions that point to the receiving person expressly insisting on a condom, that becomes solid (not ironclad, but solid) evidence that the sex was initiated under a particular agreement about how it was to be done. The problem isn't the law. The problem is the guys who agree to have protected sex and then use every trick in the book - begging, coercion, or simply stealthing - to swap to unprotected sex. Maybe if these dickwad assholes didn't feel the need to say "yes" to protected sex in the first place, and hold out for what they really want, they would never be in the situation of defending themselves against a stealthing charge. What's appalling is the number of people defending the stealthers on the flimsiest of grounds that it might be hard to prove, instead of calling them out for being the shitheels that they are.
-
Some of these guys are undoubtedly chasers. Some of them are conspiracy theorists. Some are probably positive already but don't know it. But if you're referring to people on this site, it's also quite possible that they are just spouting things they find "hot" and are jacking off thinking about it.
-
COVID vax passport vs other vax/test passport
BootmanLA replied to Cutedelicategay's topic in General Discussion
If by "goalposts" you mean "rules", of course rules change over time, If this is the first time you've encountered an online site changing its terms of service, you have led a sheltered life indeed. Regardless, the rules are the rules. -
What a silly statement. Government needs to stay out of the sex lives of *consenting* adults. Stealthing is about subjecting someone to a sexual activity to which they did NOT consent. That pushes the activity squarely into sexual assault territory. Now - admittedly - it can be hard to prove crimes involving sexual assault, even more so in cases where the general activity was consensual, but it took a wrong turn (as here). That doesn't mean society has no place doing what it can to prevent sexual assault.
-
This is the only part of this I quibble with, and only to a limited degree. No, doctors don't "always" need to know everything about a patient's lifestyle, but they should know the key points of both medical history and lifestyle/behavior so that they can be on the watch for relevant issues. For medical history, it's obvious: if you have a family history of cancer, or diabetes, or heart disease, a doctor should know that so that they look harder during exams to head off any future issues. But the same is true for behavior; much of modern medicine is managing risk, and if the doctor doesn't know what your risks are, s/he can't help you manage them (unless they manage for everything, which can be extremely intrusive and overbearing). And that goes for more than sex. If a patient is a smoker, for instance, his doctor should know that, so that he can monitor more closely for respiratory conditions and lung cancer.
-
Can people tell when you've had sex?
BootmanLA replied to backdoorjimmy's topic in General Discussion
OP, I'd say that despite what your hairdresser said, his recognition of your sexual habits stem more from knowing you and how you normally appear than any innate ability to pick that out for just any rando on the street.- 23 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- sex
- after glow
- (and 2 more)
-
True, but control of female sexuality has been a tool even longer than forever, if such a thing is possible.
-
Of course. But proving who blabbed could be a problem. Was it the doctor, someone in his office, or someone at the pharmacy who filled the prescription? If all you know is that people are talking, pinning down the source of the breach of confidentiality could be a problem. And even if you figure it out - going after them, in a small town, could invite more trouble. If you get the beloved nurse in the local doctor's office fired because of a HIPAA violation, who knows how the locals will respond? Again, I agree with what SHOULD happen - but real life in small communities tends to be a lot messier.
-
You don't have to give a reason, and it's unlikely anything will be noted to file. If pressed, you can just say that you aren't comfortable continuing under her care, and prefer another doctor. Trust me, the way doctors protect each other, one non-specific transfer to someone else is not even a blip on the radar.
-
The ONLY reason you need for changing doctors is "I don't feel comfortable with this doctor." The snark embedded in the comment about "lifestyle" is all it would take for me to pull the trigger and go. You asked a serious question about a medication, and she should have given you a medical explanation, not a snub based on your "lifestyle". Not sure where you live, but if you know any other openly gay people you could ask who their physician is, and if they're satisfied with the treatment they get.
-
I agree, but.... as I noted, sometimes there simply aren't other choices, if you live in a rural area where there's only one doctor. Or no doctor, and you have to travel 30+ miles to get to the only one within an hour. And yes, I know, that's a small portion of the gay community. It's just that for those people, if nobody else, options that let you bypass a locally gossipy medical presence are better than nothing.
