BootmanLA

Please do not attempt to tell me what words or phrases to use. I can assure you that's not an action that will end well.

Could you please try to explain your point by using actual words?

FWIW, there are a significant number of people who believe Mr. Vance is a closeted gay man in denial. While that shouldn't be, under normal circumstances, any reason to smear him with innuendo, he's the number two guy in an incoming administration that's actively anti-LGBTQ (and I'm not interested in anyone pointing out the occasional Uncle Tom queer guy in his administration - save it). And that makes him, for many, a legitimate target.

Partly correct. He was removed from the Navy RESERVE, not active duty military, for a positive drug test. That, however, would not have resulted being locked up and the key thrown away, even if his name was D'Quintal Jones, because failing a drug test is not, by itself, a crime at all. It can be a parole or probation violation, or a violation of a court order if one is ordered, but not because your employer tested you and discharged you because of the test. Nor was he was not charged "for the gun". He was charged with lying on a gun purchase application. The wording on the form is itself problematic - it asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" How far back does "are you an unlawful user of" go? If someone tried pot at 15 and is trying to buy a gun at age 30, is he "an unlawful user" at the present time? If he last used five years ago? A year ago? Last month? Last week? What if that recent time was the only time he's ever done it? That wording alone should disqualify the question as invalid because it's open to interpretation and there's no objective standard for measurement of whether the person is truthfully answering, unless he's literally under the influence at the moment he filled out the form. And under the Bruen decision, from a few years back, any government restriction on the purchase, ownership, or possession of a firearm must have a historical analogue dating to the time of the drafting of the Second Amendment. Were there, in fact, any laws restricting people who used drugs - to the extent there were any drugs in these categories - from owning firearms? I doubt it seriously. If you can point to any large number of people being convicted of lying on this form, much less serving any significant amount of jail time, I might concede you have a point. But the vast majority of federal firearms charges aren't for lying on this kind of form. They're for stealing guns. Or for possession of one while a felon. And Biden wasn't even charged with illegally possessing the gun - just with lying on the form. Apples and oranges. So no, if he was Hunter Jones from any of those cities, he wouldn't be locked up. He wouldn't have been charged, period, under these facts.

Your understanding is incorrect. The *actions* Hunter Biden took (with respect to paying his taxes late, and purchasing a gun when he legally wasn't allowed to) may have occurred before Joe Biden became president. That said, the investigation into his taxes did not begin until 2018, well into the Trump administration, and there is some evidence (and much suspicion) that Trump's DOJ opened that investigation under pressure from the president's team, to harm Joe Biden politically. Note that this began around the same time that Trump began pressuring Ukraine to announce a sham investigation into the Bidens for the purpose of hurting Biden's chances in the 2020 election, pressure for which he was later impeached. It's important to note that by the time the investigation began, Biden had already paid the late taxes AND the associated penalties, circumstances which normally result it (at most) misdemeanor charges with a non-custodial sentence. The gun charge is one for which federal prosecution is almost never used absent some other circumstance, such as the gun being used in commission of another crime. Substance abusers buy guns every day, signing the form declaring that they are not, in fact, users of illegal drugs, and no charges are ever brought simply for that false statement. Your implication that he was "gun toting" and "cocaine smoking" (while NEITHER was charged in the indictment) is a smear tactic worthy of the racists you supposedly abhor. All that said, the point is that if his name had been Hunter Jones, these cases would have been resolved without a special counsel, without the millions and millions of dollars spent investigating them, and we'd have never read the first word about them unless we're law nerds reading every plea bargain in every federal court. But his name is Hunter Biden, and as such, the GOP pushed all sorts of norms out the window in their zeal to "get" something on the Bidens, all because they can't defend the lifetime of criminality their own candidate (and now president-elect) has engaged in. And given that Trump's people have rather LOUDLY declared their intent to continue pursuing charges against Biden, no matter how trumped-up those charges are, Joe Biden took a step to put an end to that kind of bullshit. Is it ideal? No. But not a single fucking Trumpanzee has ANY moral high ground to stand on demanding that Biden be "ideal". JFC, Ivanka Trump's father-in-law (while under investigation for tax fraud) set his whistle-blowing brother up with a prostitute to then out the brother to his wife as a philanderer, in the hopes of shutting him up. Kushner, the father-in-law, did a significant stint in federal prison for that. Trump pardoned him, and has just named him as US Ambassador to France. So spare me your crocodile tears for Biden's actions. Maybe if Republicans weren't such shitty people, backing such a shitty presidential candidate, Democrats could do a better job of living up to the ideals that they at least try to honor.

To be clear: you don't owe me or anyone else an explanation. But when someone posts about an experience publicly, it's available for others to comment upon. And no one else is obligated to react to something the same way I do, or the way anyone else does. Just because I find something sad doesn't mean it's categorically sad for everyone.

It shouldn't, not for anyone who's using it 2-3 times a year. Though I'll note: the recommended dosage calls for 4 tablets (2 before sex, 1 a day later, 1 a day after that) per sexual encounter. If you're only doing that 2-3 times a year, that should be between 8 and 12, not 30 tablets. There's no harm in taking it for an additional day or two after sex beyond the 2 recommended, of course. Either way, a few isolated occurrences like this should cause no decline in kidney or liver functions - unless the person was already experiencing a failing kidney or liver.

I'm also going to just point out the old bromide that "correlation is not causation". A person can have an upset stomach issue after taking PrEP while PrEP is actually not the cause in the least. That's not to say it CAN'T cause gastric distress, but just because one happens after the other doesn't mean they're connected.

While two weeks of daily dosing is indeed the suggested minimum before going "all bare" for sex, the 2-1-1 "on demand" formulation seems to be effective to essentially the same degree. Both depend, of course, on actually following the directions. Missing doses is believed to be the #1 cause of PrEP failure, rare as it is.

1. No, you don't have to worry about becoming PrEP resistant or immune to PrEP by not taking it while you're sexually inactive. There WOULD be a concern if you were sexually active with partners who might have HIV, especially untreated HIV, and you were only taking PrEP sporadically. But if you stick to the recommended regimen (2 pills, 2 to 12 hours before sex; 1 pill 24 hours after sex, another 24 hours after that), you should be fine. Adding a third day of "24 after" couldn't hurt (since many guys are on daily dosing). 2. The kind of thing you're talking about - going last into a bottom with multiple loads already in - IS the main way a top might get infected by topping, especially if you have even tiny nicks, sores, or anything else on your cock where the virus might enter (along with entering through your urethral lining). All the more reason to be on PrEP at least for the duration of when you ARE having sex.

That's pretty sad, imho. I can't imagine having a partner/spouse where I had to keep something that important in my life from them, much less concoct a lie about it.

Perhaps. But it seems like (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you're more concerned about whether people today are inconvenienced (through higher taxes or whatever) than in providing long-delayed justice. It's a fact of life that we all pay taxes for things we don't personally benefit from. Likewise, we all have to pay taxes and fees for things we didn't actually cause. But if we have to do so in order to make something right - particularly something that our government (which is a continuous entity even if the people who make it up change) had a hand in causing, or permitting, or supporting - then so be it.

They don't do studies on things like this. What we CAN say is that this kind of dosing is not as effective as actually following the instructions. You said you started with 2 pills on Saturday but that you didn't take a load until Monday. That was the first mistake: the double dose should be taken between 2 and 12 hours before sex. If you take them a day or two beforehand, it's basically useless. The point is to have a HIGH level of the medication in your system - a double dose that hasn't filtered out yet - at the time you have sex. That double dose should have been taken on Monday, not Saturday. You need to then continue taking a single dose daily - as close to 24 hours after sex as possible - for each day until two days AFTER the last load. That means since you took loads on Monday and Tuesday, you should have taken pills on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Between the low-level in your system Monday (because you took the double dose 2 days early, and only single doses Sunday and Monday), and then skipping two more days, you've basically gotten the least amount of protection possible using more than the recommended number of pills. Bear in mind that even with zero PrEP, infection is not guaranteed. There are many factors that go into determining the actual risk of any particular sex act. About the most we can say is that this "event" was probably closer to the "zero" protection end of the spectrum than the "fully protected" end.

Technically, "the government" didn't make such a promise. One of the Union generals, William Tecumseh Sherman, made that promise, and it only applied to certain lands seized in South Carolina. It was never a broad policy promised to all freed slaves. For an excellent summary, see [think before following links] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/the-truth-behind-40-acres-and-a-mule/

How often do you take an on-demand dose set of PrEP? You say the last pill you took was Nov. 9. Do you (on average) take that 2-1-1 series once a week, once a month, every couple of months? That, more than anything else, will determine if it's affecting your body in a way that routine lab work will detect. In other words, a 2-1-1 series of PrEP, once a month, is highly unlikely to cause, say, enough damage that it would be detectable on standard screening tests. If you were taking a series like that once a week, on the other hand, that's more than half of what someone taking it daily would be getting, so it's not impossible that (a) it MIGHT be affecting your liver or kidneys or whatever AND (b) that damage was beginning to show via lab work. But the majority of people on PrEP, even taking it daily, don't have that kind of damage. So chances are pretty good that nothing will appear amiss. That said: you don't say why you don't want your regular GP to know you're on PrEP. But if he doesn't, he may end up prescribing something else for you (for some unrelated illness or condition) that, in turn, interacts with your PrEP in a negative way, rendering it less effective. It's NEVER a good idea to hide medications prescribed by one doctor from another, particularly if the latter doctor is one you see regularly.

With respect - this makes no sense. "Doxy" is short for doxycycline, which is an antibiotic used (in some cases) for prevention of infections OTHER THAN HIV. In other words, if you haven't taken your PrEP, then Doxy isn't going to do a damned thing to protect you from HIV. Not a damned thing. I should note: this thread is about DoxyPEP - using doxycycline to avoid an STI like syphilis, chlamydia, or gonorrhea from taking hold if you are exposed via unprotected sex. DoxyPEP is unrelated to HIV prevention.

Actually I see this as a way to absolve all the currently living beneficiaries of long-repudiated policies, to allow them to keep their ill-gotten gains. Your perspective seems to suggest - and please correct me where I'm wrong - that as long as enough time has passed, it doesn't matter how egregious the offenses were in the past that enriched certain people; their ill-gotten gains are duly whitewashed and taking the proceeds from their current owners - who, it might be noted, did nothing to earn those except to inherit them, often tax-free or tax-advantaged - would be "punishing" them. When the Nazis looted private collections of wealthy Jews in the 1930's, the items stolen did not magically become "non-stolen" property just because they passed through three or four or ten sets of hands between the theft and our discovery of where the item is. It's still legally (and most assuredly morally) the property of the person from whom it was stolen, and his or her heirs. The same is true for the stolen labor of Black people who were kidnapped and sold into bondage here. The same is true for the resources of the indigenous people whose lands were stolen and who were forcibly relocated to the worst lands in the nation (again, until those lands proved to be valuable depositories of minerals, at which time they were forcibly dispossessed of those lands, too).

So who are the "right" people?

I would not advise it, for no other reason than ED drugs (broadly speaking) are vasodilators, increasing the flow of blood; while caffeine is a vasoconstrictor, which restricts the flow of blood. The two would be working at cross purposes and most likely diluting whatever effect the ED medication would be having.

My suggestion would be aim first for the kind of sex you're looking to have, and if you have someone interested, THEN see if they'd be interested in filming, especially if they're not showing face in the video. In other words, it's probably easier to find people willing to film, which means searching for that first doesn't narrow the pool much. But if you limit the search to people interested in the particular fetish, then you have a lot fewer folks to have to try to convince to film.

I'll say this, too, jd: Years ago, I ran up against that posting limit (which may have been slightly larger at the time - the owner of the site has been known to adjust those as necessary), but there were a lot of discussions I wanted to participate in. I made a point of signing on each day, and that helped me use every one of my limited posting opportunities every day. As Viking pointed out, quality of the posts matter too. Because the system that evaluates and moves people up levels is mostly automated (if not entirely so - that's one reason it's not disclosed, to keep people from trying to "game" it), I'd hazard a guess that post quality is probably evaluated by things the software can measure, like post length and number of "reactions" it generates. So, for instance, a post replying to a hot fiction story that just says "Hottttt", while no doubt a welcome boost of confidence to the author, isn't going to inspire anyone to "like" your response. But in a General Discussion topic about something like relationship experiences, responding to a question with a thoughtful answer may well generate half a dozen reactions. A clever response with a pun or joke embedded in it might get several "HaHa" reactions in addition to up or down votes for people who agree or disagree with your point.

@rawfuckingonly You asked about rational gun restrictions. The most recent I can think of is the ban on bump stocks, a device used exclusively for the purposes of making a semi-automatic rifle operate more like (in fact, almost indistinguishable from) a fully automatic rifle, thus enabling rapid fire without having to pull the trigger repeatedly. The Court struck that down. Courts have struck down limits on high-capacity magazines (how many bullets do you need to kill a rabbit, anyway?). Courts have struck down location-based carry restrictions, saying in essence there's almost no place that any community can declare off-limits to guns, even crowded places like theaters that present serious management issues. They've even struck down laws criminalizing filing serial numbers off guns, making them untraceable (but it's still illegal to alter a VIN number on a vehicle). Lower courts have even struck down the ban on "ghost guns" (guns assembled from parts that all lack a serial number), though the Supreme Court may - or may not - be willing to let that regulation stand. I think we can all accept that some of us will have differing views on whether *particular* restrictions are sensible or not. For instance, I can't think of a sensible reason we should allow people to have AR-15s and similar style weapons (contrary to the bullshit their proponents push, they're not designed for hunting and they're a poor choice for it). But I can see where someone might argue otherwise. I can't imagine ANY rational argument that we should allow the production of handguns without serial numbers to make them untraceable. I can't imagine ANY rational argument that a large capacity magazine - which exists solely so you don't have to stop and reload as often - is useful for ANYTHING other than killing a bunch of people (in hunting, the first round fired is going to spook every potential target within range, giving you time enough to reload manually). Ditto for bump stocks. As a people we're contorting ourselves into pretzels to find that all these otherwise rational limits are, in fact, prohibited by an amendment that until 16 years ago wasn't even acknowledged as applying to individuals.

And why do we have mass migration trying to get to Europe? Because Europe is wealthier than the places these immigrants are coming from. Why is Europe wealthier? Because Europe ransacked those places (Africa, the middle East, Asia, the Caribbean, etc.) like every other colony out there. I'm not saying white-shaming is an effective topic. I'm saying that as long as white people keep pretending that they're somehow the heroes of the narrative where they brought enlightenment and civilization to the poor benighted natives, while ignoring centuries of theft of those natives' resources, we're not going to make any progress. I'm not sure which "past ancestors seem enviable through a modern lens". You'd have to clarify what you mean there.

The French learned their lesson with Haiti.

This is not correct, at least by what I think most of us understand as "toxic" (which, in HIV terms, is not exactly a medical concept). Within 1-2 months of being off meds, a person almost certainly becomes detectable. And he almost certainly becomes infectious - that is, CAPABLE of infection. But remember that not all sex with a poz, detectable person results in HIV infection - look at the number of people who've posted on this site in the "chasing" sections who can't seem to convert. When we say "toxic", most of us (I believe) mean "high viral load", with a good chance of infecting someone he breeds. That's not a level being off meds for a month or two is likely to hit. (Is it possible? Sure. If the person's immune system was already severely compromised by the time he went on meds, and it has never rebounded - very low t-cells even with an undetectable viral load - then yeah, it's possible a short no-meds window will quickly overwhelm his system again. I don't think that's typical of HIV patients today.