BootmanLA

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.

You make *me* laugh because in this comment, you proved *every* point that I was making - that your limited experience in a particular community and economic stratum makes you think the entire world is like that. It's like you look at your navel and think you're seeing the horizon. You don't KNOW what the situation of the victims was, and yet YOU were willing to saddle them with responsibility to get a drug that wasn't approved for regular use yet, or to have your preternatural gifts for miraculously being able to determine a condom was broken or cut. You may have an asshole filled with tiny little fingers that can detect the difference between latex and skin, but not everyone does - I daresay I know far more guys who can't than who, like you, immediately know the difference. You're going all-in trying to defend this guy not getting a life sentence for deliberately fucking up the lives - the ENTIRE lives - of at least five individuals. They're the ones who came forward. How many others might there be that we don't know about, who didn't want to bring charges? Do you think he's somehow going to be "rehabilitated" with a sentence of, say, 10 years per count? That getting out of prison in his 70's he'll suddenly have become a good, law-abiding citizen with respect for his fellow human beings? Are you saying LESS than ten years per victim, when he's sentenced them to a lifetime of being on medications to hold off a fatal disease, is appropriate? All you're willing to say is you think it's overkill for this guy to pay for the rest of HIS life, for what HE did to at least 5 guys for the rest of THEIR lives. Frankly, five consecutive life sentences would have made more sense.

We're starting to see the true colors of Trump supporters on full display - not that anyone with an IQ above room temperature couldn't see it already. In Texas, a group of Trumpanzees driving pickup trucks with Trump flags tried to force a campaign bus from the Biden Campaign off the road between San Antonio and Austin, in order to disrupt a rally in Austin. Clearly there's a contingent of Trump Twits who are scared to death of actual democracy, of people getting to vote for the candidate of their choice, and they're willing to use violence to disrupt their opponents' candidacies, just like you'd see in one of those countries Trump calls a "shithole" - the kind of place he's trying to turn the US into. And what does the candidate himself think of this? He retweeted images from the incident with the caption "I LOVE TEXAS". Categorically unfit to be president.

There's no guarantee that taking it daily would resolve this, but it's not out of the question, either. If you regularly consume a particular product (and drugs being dissolved in the digestive tract count), your body may - again, MAY - develop the means to counteract the ill effects. I develop gastro issues when I eat Lebanese food, which I like (the food, not the issues). When I'm on a kick of eating it regularly, my gut biome tends to develop whatever's needed to counteract that - but only if I eat it regularly. If I stop for 2-3 months and go get some, it's back to square one. Something like that MAY be an issue with on-demand PrEP for you. If you can swing it, you might try 90 days of daily use and see if your body stops reacting badly.

Define "unusual". It's certainly something others have done, and certainly something some others crave. What matters is not "usual" or "unusual" but whether you're familiar with, and comfortable with, whatever health risks may exist. In this case, if you're thoroughly cleaned out, and you don't mind the taste of lube, you're probably as safe with this as with any other oral and anal sex acts; anything he picks up in your ass and delivers via your mouth is a bug you presumably already had. And anything he's got coming in, you likely will get without regard for the sequence of oral vs. anal you take. Fretting about "unusual" is a waste of effort.

But that's the problem: the notion, under the law at least, is that until judgment is developed to a certain point, "consent" is meaningless. An adult can convince a teen to do or try almost anything, from sex to pot to meth to heroin, and as long as "consent" is obtained, predators can go free. Say you had a 40 year old man who had a nice, clear recording on his phone of a 10-year old boy answering the question "Do you want me to put my cock in your ass?" with "Yes". That's consent. It's also meaningless, especially if the boy was groomed to want that. And since there's consent, by definition it's not rape, so you can't charge for that. Our current age of consent laws may be screwed up in various respects, depending on what they are, but junking them entirely is a bad, bad idea.

The moderators have explained elsewhere that the algorithms used to determine these things are not public. That is to keep spammers, etc. from figuring out how to game the system by automated postings, then blasting messages to members.