BootmanLA

The short version of most of the responses decrying age of consent laws seems to be "Better that some kids get raped because they didn't understand they were being manipulated than that I should be denied an orgasm with another person just because I felt I was ready."

It's not even a violation of the oath, honestly. There's no duty under the 25th Amendment - just a privilege, of sorts; the group is empowered to act, if they feel it is necessary in their best judgment. You can never prove what their best judgment ought to be. In fact, I don't think there is any sort of all-purpose offense of "violating their oath of office" which could even be charged; criminal offenses must be specifically defined, including all the elements needed to convict, and there's just nothing there.

It doesn't actually "grow back" - it's more that existing skin on the cock is gradually stretched to make a new foreskin. Bear in mind that decades of being cut will have left the head of your cock "tougher" than one that has been covered virtually all the time like an uncut one would be. So your head won't be as sensitive as it would have been if you'd never been cut. There's anecdotal evidence that the head skin can become more sensitive, eventually, but I don't know of any studies documenting this.

For people who take the pill *every day*, *without fail*, that is correct. There are plenty of people who miss doses of medication, even knowing they're extremely important. Life has a way of getting in the way. You build a schedule around taking it at lunch with your meal, for instance, and you forget it at home one day when you're eating out. By the time you're home again, you've forgotten because it's not in your routine to take it in the evening, so you miss a dose. Or you take it each morning at work with a quick breakfast or your first cup of coffee, but ooops, it's Monday morning, you were running late, and you forgot your pills at home. Tuesday mornings, you're used to the pills being at work for the week, and you forget to grab them because it's not your Tuesday routine. Ooops, you've missed two doses. Or you're used to taking it each morning while you get your desk sorted for the day, but this morning, you arrived to an "all hands on deck" meeting that you have to go straight into. You're not comfortable taking medication in front of your coworkers, so you decide you'll take it later, during lunch break. Only lunch ends up being sandwiches brought into the conference room and everyone works through lunch. It's so crazy you don't think about it until you're on your way home at seven o'clock and realize the pills are in your desk at work. That's why regular testing is important. Because people screw up. They make mistakes. Life gets in the way.

I would suggest you discuss this with a urologic specialist, one who doesn't think circumcision is automatically the right solution. There are kits I've seen out there for guys to restore a foreskin. They appear to have a cone-like thing you place over the head of the cock, and then you pull up whatever skin is left and use something akin to athletic tape to attach it to the cone - basically, putting some gradual stretch to the foreskin. Over a period of time, eventually the remaining skin grows through stretching, just as your skin grows when you gain weight, and is able to cover the head eventually. It's *possible* some sort of stretching like that might work for you, especially combined with some sort of lotion or cream that keeps the skin from splitting or tearing. It would be worth exploring, if you haven't already, with someone who's open to alternative ways to treat this.

For the record: I'm not saying 18 should necessarily be a solid age everywhere under all circumstances. My own recommended approach is a multi-level concept. First, there's a floor, below which there's simply no consent available. Maybe that's 12, maybe that's 13, maybe that's 14. I'd defer to professionals (developmental psychologists, for instance). Above that floor, until both parties reach the full age of majority, a sex partner can be no more than two years' age difference or there's no consent possible. That levels the playing field, so to speak, somewhat; it allows the sixteen-year old boy to have a fifteen-year old girlfriend, but not one who's less than fourteen. It allows a twelve-year old boy and his thirteen-year old cousin to experiment sexually without fear of a prison record but keeps a 17-year old Scout leader from being able to molest a 13-year old scout. Below that, consent is impossible. And as always, there would be special limits for those whose developmental status precludes consent - for instance, a 16-year old girl who has the mental age of six (for whatever reason) doesn't count as 16 for those purposes. At some point, that developmentally hindered person will become an adult, and that's another bridge we'll have to cross - balancing the rights of those persons with disabilities with the state's responsibility to care for them. But those are rare enough cases that can be saved for another day.

The problem - as I keep pointing out, and people keep ignoring in their zest to promote kids having sex, is that it's easy to talk a curious kid into "consenting" to try and do all sorts of things. As for the "shouldn't be kept from enjoying...." line: that's just an apology for pedophilia. We've come to understand, as a society, that people under the age of 18 are not mature enough to understand consequences for capital crimes and thus cannot face capital punishment. Yet you're arguing that kids far younger are mature enough to make informed decisions about sex. That's horseshit.

Tempting as it might be, there's no crime in not invoking the 25th amendment, nor in voting not guilty in the impeachment.

Most of Hitler & Mussolini's commandeering of private enterprise came as part of the war effort. In that respect, the US, UK, etc. were no different during the war. It's what nations at war DO. No reputable historian classifies Hitler as a "socialist", least of all because of his appropriation of the term "socialist", any more than East Germany or North Korea were/are classified as democracies simply because one was the "German Democratic Republic" and the other is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". One could cite approximately a hundred examples of regulations and executive orders of his being struck down on both statutory and constitutional grounds. One could cite the myriad court cases he's lost trying to keep records of his administration hidden. Those are hallmarks of dictatorship, as are his incessant demands for personal loyalty. Even now, as a lame duck president, he's firing officials who he perceived as "insufficiently loyal" during the election, even though they will all be out of a job soon along with him. And he tried, though too late, to shift a huge portion of the classified civil service - the permanent workforce of subject-matter experts who serve EVERY administration - into the category of "fire at will" - again, so he could purge anyone he suspected of disloyalty. Most of his net worth is a mirage. As a private company, he doesn't have to disclose audited financial statements to the public like a public corporation would. But whenever the press gets hold of documentation as to his income, expenses, and assets and liabilities, they show he's worth far less, and makes far less, than he pretends. That's been his MO his entire life, from when he used to claim to own all the apartment buildings his dad actually held, in order to appear to be a billionaire long before he was worth that, if ever. Then you're simply not paying attention. Odd how even the Trump Justice Dept. keeps bringing charges against Trump-supporting "Proud Boys" and "Boogaloo Boys" and other groups for inciting riots at what had been peaceful BLM protests - riots they try to pin on the BLM supporters. As for hysteria, call it whatever you want, but they're still rejecting all sorts of scientific and physical evidence.

Political and economic systems are not entirely overlapping. One can be a fascist capitalist, one can be a fascist socialist. One can be a democratic capitalist or a democratic socialist. Trump is simply a con man and a tax cheat.

Also science and math, both of which are hard for Trumpanzees.

Gave you a couple of weeks to provide proof of this lie and - zip. Nada. Zilch. I'm officially calling it now: you lied here. Not surprising.

I don't believe that's an actual Twain quote. But regardless, it's not true. There are politicians who are scum, no doubt, and many are mediocre. But there are a number who are outstanding, and quite a few who are doing the best they can trying to serve a very divided country. As for your recollections on DOMA: You're omitting quite a lot. 1. DOMA is the official acronym for the federal, not state, law. It provided two main things: that the federal government would not recognize (for the purpose of federal law) same-sex marriages performed in other states, and that if you got married in a state that did perform same-sex marriages, no other state was required to recognize that marriage. That was signed into law in 1996, before any state recognized same-sex marriage (some states were beginning to recognize civil unions). 2. A few states began to pass laws to specifically exclude same-sex marriages in those states, but the pace picked up when Massachusetts recognized them. starting in 2002. The biggest tranche of such laws passed in 2004 when Bush the Younger was running for re-election and needed some red meat for his base to feed on. 3. The provision about the federal government not recognizing state-approved SSMs was struck down with the United States v. Windsor case, in which Edith Windsor, as widow of her NY-legally-recognized wife Thea Spencer, had to pay estate taxes on the entirety of Spencer's estate, whereas if Windsor had been a man married to Spencer, the estate would have been transferred tax-free. SCOTUS held that treating same-sex and opposite-sex marriages differently was unconstitutional. Notably, the Obama-Biden administration would not defend the federal government's official position that the law required the original taxation. 4. The other provision of DOMA - not requiring states to recognize SSM's from other states - was rendered moot by the Obergefell v. Hodges case, which held that states couldn't bar same-sex marriages at all. SCOTUS "chimes in" when someone files a lawsuit that makes its way up through the legal process (including appeals) and then SCOTUS chooses to take the case. They decide to hear less than 1% of the cases brought to them, and declining to hear a case does nothing to establish new law; it simply leaves in process the decision(s) below. But those decisions are typically only applicable within the jurisdiction of the court that rendered the decision.

I think it's less a "sweeping generalization" and more of a "general rule that has exceptions". Virtually every major insurer has what's called a drug formulary - a list of approved drugs that doctors can prescribe for patients in their network. Formulary-approved drugs get the highest coverage from the insurer; in turn, they're usually given special pricing by the drug maker for their "preferred" status. That's particularly the case with drug categories that have lots of established competitors, like statins and pain relievers. When a generic is available, most insurers require doctors to prescribe with the generic option, unless there are medical indications for doing otherwise. So, for instance, Descovy won't be approved in lots of cases where the generic version of Truvada will work just fine; but if a patient has impaired kidney or liver functions, or begins to develop them, the doctor will (probably) readily be able to switch the patient to Descovy once he documents that issue.

The point is that a person on PrEP who gets pozzed and who stays on PrEP doesn't develop resistant HIV immediately, and by getting him into treatment in the first few months after exposure (which you can do, if you're tested regularly) you prevent the HIV from becoming resistant. In other words, it's the combination of becoming poz AND staying on PrEP instead of getting HIV treatment, for an extended period, that produces drug-resistant HIV. The regular testing does away with that "extended period" issue.

This particular sub-forum is specifically for political discussions. If you don't want to talk politics, then don't come in here - simple as that. I don't want to talk about sex with tweaked-out drug addics so I stay out of the Chem Sex forums. Why this is a difficult concept for some people to grasp, I can't imagine.

That's the scary part. Not only did nearly half the people who voted in the country vote for him, but a non-trivial percentage of gay people did - based on comments here and some exit polls. I only wonder if they're going to try to relocate to a country where we have no extradition treaty.

My point is that it's a lot easier to manipulate a younger person into "consenting" when he or she has no concrete understanding of what "consent" means. Translating this to adults: most prosecutors won't touch a case of rape or sexual assault if there's any serious evidence that there may have been consent - in the form of emails, texts, whatever. Perhaps they should, but the truth is that a jury weighing credibility is going to consider whether the accuser "consented" to sex if there's documented evidence, like a text or an email or a video, that suggests they did. Translating that back to kids: it's a hell of a lot easier to get someone, say, 13 or 14 to "consent" to something, especially if they were groomed to do so. That's why we have an age, below which we decide that no matter what the young person may have said, or written, to indicate consent, they're simply not mature enough to meaningfully consent. WHAT that age is can be debated. But the idea that no age is needed because you can focus on "consent" is just stupid.

It's true that you can't assume anyone will always be 100% trustworthy. That said, you can have bareback sex AND not want to get pozzed - the answer, as should be obvious, is to go on PrEP and stay on it faithfully. That way, regardless of whether a particular partner is deliberately lying about his status so he can stealth, or ignorant of his status and infectious, or whatever, you are taking proactive steps to protect yourself.

There's a reason for the regular testing for PrEP. PrEP is not a full-scale HIV treatment. Truvada, for instance, consists of emtricitabine and tenofovir, two of the components frequently used in HIV treatment. Those are two of the ingredients in Biktarvy, for instance (along with Bictegravir) and Genvoya (along with elvitegravir and cobicistat). The two components that are in PrEP are PART of the treatment for HIV, but they're not sufficient on their own. They can block new infections, but they're not suitable for treatment over the long haul. If you are on PrEP, and you miss doses and have unprotected sex with someone who's got a high viral load, you can become poz despite the PrEP. Without regular testing, you may not find out you're poz, and assume you're negative. The third and/or fourth medications in actual TREATMENT - not prevention - of HIV work with the emtricitabine and the tenofovir to keep your infection from becoming resistant to those two compounds. So, if you continue to take PrEP after becoming poz, your HIV infection can become resistant to some of the medication needed for the treatment, and you may actually end up untreatable. Does it now make sense why they require regular HIV tests when you're taking it? Now: if people are using PrEP as a way to try to avoid infection while cheating on a partner, and they're worried the frequent testing will expose their cheating, I suspect they're worried about the wrong thing. I have no qualms with monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, open relationships, or whatever, as long as nobody's being deceived as to what sort of relationship he or she's in. Cheating - that is, sexual interactions outside the agreed-upon parameters of the relationship - is wrong. If a married man is worried his wife or husband will find out he's being unfaithful if the spouse discovers that he's having regular STD/HIV tests, well, that's an issue for the cheating spouse to deal with at home.

subBottomKink is correct: there HAVE been a handful of documented cases of PrEP failing to protect against HIV infection, but there are very few details available (ie was the infection a particularly strong strain, did the person who converted take on several highly toxic men, or whatever). PEP works, but not with the efficacy of PrEP, and because they're blasting your system to try to eradicate anything you may have picked up, I suspect it's worse on your system than simply being on PrEP would be, unless you're one of the handful of people who have issues tolerating daily PrEP. It's not the kind of thing I would waste time worrying about. Get on PrEP, make sure you take it faithfully, and relax and enjoy. If you're relying on PEP after possible exposure, you're playing Russian Roulette, although with a gun that has lots of chambers and only a few bullets. It's still not a good bet.

For what it's worth, you can detailed descriptions of real-life sex happenings that involve poz sex in the miscellaneous topics here in the Backroom - you don't have to use the fiction folder. The rules for that section are spelled out here:

Ha ha ha ha - and now Trump's gone and done the same thing in Butler, PA tonight! Trumpanzees will never learn, Hair Furor cares about NOBODY but himself, whatsoever, and he's happy to leave his minions to die in the cold. The crowds are trying to walk back to parking, since again the busses got stiffed and won't keep running without being paid, so the police and ambulances can't even get in to help deal with people who are being felled by the cold. The people who can't organize shuttle buses for 1,000 people - who blew through over a billion dollars in this campaign, the most expensive campaign in US history - expect us to believe they can organize Covid vaccines, whenever they arrive, for 325 million people. What a pathetic joke.

Another great example of how stupid Trump supporters are: In Omaha, the Trump campaign set up a rally at the airport (because thanks to the Trump virus, he can't have enough people indoors to make him feel adequate about his tiny hands and "other" issues). Airport rallies are great because he can fly in, rant and rave and bitch and moan, and then hop in Air Force One and just fly off. But that doesn't take care of the peons on the ground. Obviously, you can't park your car anywhere near the runway where the president is going to land and talk, so people had to park in remote lots 3 miles away and get bussed in. Thanks to piss-poor communication between the airport and the campaign, people got bounced back and forth between two parking lots, with the result that hundreds were still in the security lines when the president got up to talk. He delivered his usual spiel of bullshit and then left. Meanwhile, the bus companies had been promised payment when they showed up at the airport for running the shuttles. This is Trump, remember - who's notorious for stiffing every vendor who's ever done work for him, with the possible exception of Stormy Daniels - and true to form, the campaign wasn't prepared to actually pay for the buses. I've worked with a lot of campaigns over the years, and the number one rule is "NEVER offer a campaign credit - they have to pay at the delivery of your service or product, or you'll never see the money. Most campaigns end in debt and the vendors who offer credit are the ones who get stiffed, along with all the lower-level paid workers. So nobody paid the buses, and the buses left, leaving all the rally-goers stranded on the tarmac, including lots of the elderly people Trump has conned into donating parts of their social security checks to him. In near-freezing temperatures. The airport and rally people had to call the Omaha transit agency and borrow dozens of buses from them to transport people to their cars. Or, in some cases, to the hospital for frostbite and other cold-related illnesses. And the campaign didn't do squat about it. That's what Trump thinks of the forgotten "little people" who pushed him over the top four years ago. Have you figured out yet you were conned? Suckers.

That's an issue too, but that doesn't mean self-hating doesn't exist. It's well documented, especially among gays who were raised in extremely conservative/religious households. They're taught that there is something wrong with them, and even if they give in, occasionally, to the physical need, they hate it. Some pray to have the desires taken away. The ones you're talking about are the Log Cabin Republicans and the GOProud and other house faggots. They're convinced that when push comes to shove, if they identify closely enough with the interests of their political masters, they'll be spared in the purges. They're wrong.