BootmanLA

Strictly speaking: while the infection itself cannot be transferred sexually, sex *can* transfer the bacteria which *cause* the UTI, leading the partner to develop one independently.

Oh well, I suppose you having a stats degree makes the work of all the statisticians, epidemiologists, and other researchers, virtually all with multiple advanced degrees, suspect.

No, it does not. PrEP stands for "Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis" and ONLY applies to medication taken by HIV-NEGATIVE people to prevent infection with HIV. This study was about people ALREADY infected with HIV, who BY DEFINITION are not on PrEP - they are on ART (which stands for Anti-Retroviral Therapy). These are two different things, even if they may use some of the same medications. The study looked to show what would happen to the viral load of a person who was already HIV-positive (ie, NOT on PrEP) who stopped using ART. I realize some ill-informed people assume "PrEP" refers to any and all HIV medication but that is absolutely wrong.

As someone with a background in European history and a very good grasp of contemporary politics, I can assure you he's pretty damned close.

You apparently believe the completely bullshit lies that Trump is telling about "$500 billion" going to China with nothing in return. It's not like we simply wrote checks for that amount and China cashed them; we BOUGHT stuff, lots of stuff. That's why it's called TRADE. It's arguable that we should perhaps not outsource so much of the production of the goods we need and consume to China, but that's a strategic decision not made by the government, but by greedy corporations seeking to maximize their profits. Also you completely undermine your stated position by suggesting we get nothing in return, and yet acknowledging the enormous costs to farmers because China isn't buying billions of dollars in agricultural products any more. Only a Trump supporter could fail to see that this is inherently contradictory - if we were getting nothing in return, then there would be no sales for farmers to lose. Typical Trumpanzee logic. As for history: hahahahahahahahahahaha. History is going to rightly judge him as the biggest fool ever to serve as president.

If you read the actual journal article, as opposed to the summary that nogiftwrap wrote on his own, you'll see PrEP isn't mentioned; the article is about HIV+ individuals who were undetectable ceasing treatment for a period of time. It has literally nothing to do with PrEP.

I'd say that "exact" is overkill, but in the same general range is probably advisable. Drugs that are intended to be taken once daily do not suddenly leave your system 24 hours after taking them; they're gradually cleared from your body via various systems - your kidneys, your liver, etc. - and it takes a while to do so. Unless a particular drug is so toxic (think: chemotherapy) that taking it too soon after a prior dose may cause serious complications, then the "once a day" mantra doesn't mean exactly 24 hours between doses. That said, it's probably wise to take them as close as possible to the same time, so that the level of the drug is maintained in your system for a long-enough period to accomplish its goal. An hour or two isn't likely to be an issue. A full day later could well be. The reason PEP doesn't likely work as well as PrEP, of course, is that with PrEP you are building up a more-or-less constant level of the medication in your system on an ongoing basis, so that you already have a solid defense by the time HIV attempts to infiltrate your body's systems. PEP is more of a race against time to build up that defense before HIV gets embedded so deeply it's not removable. But I'd think the biggest point of worry would be in the period between exposure and beginning PEP; the longer that period is, the less likely it is to fully succeed. So the sooner your start, and if you keep at it for the first few days, exact timeliness would be less of a worry the more days that pass after exposure.

To answer the first part: [think before following links] https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/lgbtq-rights-rollback To answer the second part: President Obama made the decision, when cases on same-sex marriage reached the US Supreme Court, not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. When it came to states seeking to uphold their discriminatory same-sex marriage bans, not only did Obama refuse to have his Justice Dept. support those states, he encouraged the suits to go forward and celebrated the victory when it was won. He pushed through an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He paved the way for transgender servicepersons to continue serving. And while it's not specifically "gay", his passage of the Affordable Care Act meant that, for the first time, insurers couldn't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions for individual insurance policies. Before the ACA, if you were HIV-positive, and you didn't get insurance through your employer, you were almost certainly out of luck for getting coverage anywhere except (possibly) a state-run high-risk pool, which was guaranteed to be enormously expensive. For the first time, insurers had to consider your health just as important to cover as anyone else. If you're not in the individual insurance market, or you're not HIV-positive, you probably can't begin to understand what a gamechanger that was. More: While ENDA has not yet become law, if and when it does, it'll be because Democrats pushed it hard for years, not because any Republican has EVER lifted a finger to try to get it passed. And of course, if you bother to read the list of anti-LGBT actions the Trump administration has taken (linked above), you'll see that virtually everything he's UN-doing is something done in a previous Democratic administration (under Obama, for the most part). Care to try again?

I wouldn't say that. Jimmy Carter was and is an extremely religious person - a Southern Baptist who teaches Sunday School! - and while his overall record for LGBT rights while he was president is kind of sparse, keep in mind it was the 1970's, when the leadership of gay rights organizations weren't pushing for same-sex marriage at all, just early versions of domestic partnership recognition. In retirement he's been exceptionally on our side. That also ignores the gay clerical leadership in several mainstream denominations - there are a number of openly gay Episcopal bishops, for instance. While they aren't "in office" in that sense, it's clear that it's possible to be a prominent religious figure and to be adamantly pro-gay-rights at the same time. In other words, while I take your general point - that religion can and often is a lightning rod for anti-gay bigotry (among other evils) - being deeply religious need not disqualify one from office. At least, I don't think it should.

Were they also duplicated in addition to being out of order? Because that was the first part of the complaint. (And not saying moderators should "do" anything about members who quote an entire fifteen paragraph story post only to add "Hot!" as a comment, but it is still annoying.)

The duplication is most likely people "quoting" a post to reply (as I did here, with your post) and thus repeating the whole thing, which is admittedly annoying when it involves an entire chapter in the story.

I'll note that some of those sheaths are open-ended - that is, they add girth, but don't have a tip to add length. For those, the sex isn't protected. As for the ass sleeves: All I can say is, on one of the few occasions in my past when I was asked to top, my usual concern about not being hard enough to penetrate didn't prove to be an issue. Let's say it was like inserting a business card into a 10"x13" envelope. For that kind of guy, anything to reduce the diameter might be a blessing for his top(s).

Sorry, but this is a bunch of naive BS. "All lives matter" is a cop-out. Of course they SHOULD; the problem is that in America, white lives have ALWAYS mattered and black, brown, yellow and red ones have not. Of course [people of] every race should be treated with respect. But people of one race have been treated with respect from the beginning, even if that treatment was frequently coerced at the end of a gun or knife or other weapon. People of other races have been treated with disrespect for that same length of time, whether it's 250 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow, the Trail of Tears, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Japanese internment in concentration camps, or the mass incarceration of African Americans that began under Nixon's demands for law and order. "All lives matter" glosses over and ignores 400 years of mistreatment and expects everyone to just immediately assume everything's fine and dandy. It's not. And as long as people ignore the past, it never will be. You will never "abolish" hate and fear. To abolish means to FORMALLY put an end to some practice, and you can't legislate emotions. You can hope (again, perhaps naively) to eliminate hate and fear, and that's a noble goal, but fear is hard-wired into the brain; it's a reaction developed millions of years ago by our primitive ancestors helping us survive by fleeing perceived dangers. The problem isn't that we fear, but that some people, power-hungry would-be despots like Trump especially, thrive by stoking fear among their supporters. That fear is channeled at "others" - those with less or no power, who can be scapegoated as the supposed cause of the fear stoked in those people. And sadly, the historical record is exactly contrary to your point: it DOES work, it doesn't "always fail". Maybe, in the long run, it's unsustainable, but from the perspective of the despot, in the long run, he's dead anyway. And lastly, that line - "Anyone thinks I'm speaking out of line, please keep it to yourself" - really? So you think YOU are privileged enough to express your opinion here, but nobody can come along and challenge you? Mary please.

Rather than have them get together, get them both to commit to come to you at the same time (with the understanding they know it's for a spit roast/tag team situation). Make it clear their participation is key; if they are just "looking for now" or are otherwise noncommittal about it, pass them over and be blunt: you want guys who can be counted on to show up. I'd further suggest you ask each guy if he's comfortable with you sharing his profile with the other participant. If not, consider it a warning sign he might flake. Agree that if you can show his to the other guy, you'll do the reverse for them - gives each guy a shot to back out if he's not interested given who the other guy is or what he looks like. And finally, make it clear that if he needs to cancel, he can, but a no-show with no notice puts him on the shit list. There will be some, no doubt, who say "sure" and still don't show up, for a good reason (my dog died) or a bad one (I forgot, I got tied up). But that's what the shit list is for. And don't be shy about sharing the shit list with other locals - not posted publicly, but privately shared by message or email, with anyone else considering signing on. Eventually, you'll know who can be counted on for future repeats. And if you've got guys you've played with who enjoyed it, ask them! Once you've got the connection established, they're a lot more likely to follow through, in my experience.

From early in the Democratic primary process, -when there were what, 25 self-declared candidates running? - I've been asked repeatedly who "my" candidate is, the one I was supporting to become the nominee. As I told each of them, "I'm voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she may be, even if it's the reanimated zombie corpse of Adlai Stevenson." Because this, exactly - four more years of what we have occupying the White House now will destroy what's left of America. Nothing about Joe Biden - nothing that's been reported thus far - even begins to stir me from that position.

Again, there were not "these millions" of voters who might choose Trump over him. There were just over a million, last go-round, and every, and I do mean EVERY, credible poll suggests that Trump's standing with the African-American community has eroded substantially. At this point, I would predict with some confidence that he will get a lower percentage of the black vote than Romney or McCain did. That does not mean Biden's gaffe was harmless. While not presuming to speak for black voters (unlike some), I will note that I believe I understand the point Biden was making: that black voters backing Trump are unlikely to have shared in the overall, experience typical of black Americans. He is certainly not an eloquent, off-the-cuff speaker, but he is still light-years ahead of Trump in terms of everything that matters. And in the long run, that is ALL that matters. Bitching about his imperfections is only going to dissuade voters from showing up to vote, and we need every voter we can get.

There is ZERO evidence for this fantasy of yours. Did it cause some black voters to question supporting him? Almost certainly. Is he still likely to cause a significant drop in African-American votes for Mango Mussolini? Yes. It's especially hysterical to see you waving the Trump banner when you claim to be so supportive of alpha males, when your candidate wears lifts, lies about his height and weight, whines like a baby incessantly about how badly he's treated, and throws Twitter temper tantrums whenever he gets cranky. The toddler-in-chief is the least adult male president we've ever had, and you sing his praises like a cuckold. Pitiful.

It's not critical (I can masturbate anytime, I suppose) but there's nothing like cumming while a cock is pounding your hole. So I count that as a distinct plus when it can be arranged. I'm even happy to cum early on and then let the top really pound away after I've shot.

No, they didn't. The total turnout in 2016 was about 132 million people, in round numbers. Of those, roughly 12% were black, or about 15.8 million. Trump got slightly less than 8% of that black vote, or just over 1 million votes. And that was before the last four years of stepping into stinking piles of shit, like his unforgivable comments about the "very fine people" who marched in Charlottesville waving Confederate and Nazi flags. But we'll see what happens come November. Trump may win - I doubt it, based on the panic you see coming out of their campaign - but it won't be because of any surge in the black vote.

Biden also recognized his mistake, apologized genuinely and sensitively for it, and moved on. When was the last time you heard the Orange Turd even admit he isn't perfect, much less apologize for anything he's said? He's still pissed that he had to halfway walk back his "on both sides" crap from Charlottesville and has long since doubled-down on the sentiment. As for Biden's comment: it was a graceless way of stating something very true at its core: no matter whether you're African-American or not, if you have to even stop to think, briefly, about whether to support Trump or Biden, then your life experiences are so out of sync with what virtually every other black person in America faces, you might as well be purple.

To be fair - the number of cases confirmed is going to continue to go higher in areas where testing was limited before; since most cases are low-symptomatic or asymptomatic, the more people test, the more cases they'll find (which will reduce the percentage with complications and/or death). But that doesn't mean it's not going to spread faster as things open up too early, and people at risk, more than anyone else, need to continue to avoid contact with others as much as possible.

Virtually anything used that way is likely ineffective over the long haul. HIV works by compromising otherwise healthy immune systems; most HIV-negative people have more or less healthy immune systems and yet can be infected, particularly if they have unprotected receptive sex with someone who's got a reasonably high viral load. That's what makes HIV so insidious - with the apparent exception of people who have a particular, very uncommon genetic variation, the virus is capable of infecting almost anyone, in the right circumstances. And once it's there, its very nature is to secrete itself in cells that the immune system normally can't touch. There it slowly replicates, wearing down the immune system over time, until the body's protections give out. If you don't want to contract HIV, and you want to have unprotected sex, then use PrEP. There's no "natural" or "herbal" shit that's going to protect you.

JFC. Yes, there are possible dangers. Mixing chemicals of assorted types, produced under undoubtedly limited oversight, ostensibly intended for one use ("video head cleaner", as though anyone still has VCRs) - what could possibly go wrong?

Or my favorite, saying they want a younger (or rarely, older) guy, but no clue as to what their age is.

To those who accuse Biden of being incoherent, here is our current president, this morning, answering the question as to whether he was still negative for the coronavirus: "And I tested very positively in another sense. So this morning. I tested positively toward negative, right? So no, I tested perfectly this morning. Meaning I tested negative. But that's a way of saying it. Positively toward the negative." Yeah, I'm not worried if Biden occasionally has to reach for the right word.