BootmanLA

And if you read through that article, aside from that passing mention that they are "vasodilators" in the lower-case, generic sense (and not in the Upper-Case, specific, treatment-for-hypertension-and-heart-conditions sense), there isn't a single other mention of PDE5 inhibitors. Not in the section on Indications (where the drug may be useful for treatment), even though the indications for different types of vasodilators are outlined. Not in the section on Mechanism of Action (how they work; because their effect is very limited to particular parts of the body), even though the mechanism of other types of vasodilators is outlined. Not in the section on Administration (how to give the medication), even though the method used for PDE5's (oral administration) is covered for other drugs. Not in the section on Adverse Effects (what can go wrong with them), even though the adverse effects are listed by the other classes of vasodilators. Not in the section on Contraindications (when they should not be used), even though contraindications are listed by the other classes of vasodilators. Not in the section on Monitoring (how to keep tabs on their effects), even though vasodilators are well-known for requiring regular monitoring. Not in the section on Toxicity (at what level/to what extent are the drugs harmful themselves), even though toxicity is analyzed by category of vasodilator. Not in the section on Enhancing Team Outcomes. In other words, you found a passing reference to PDE5's in a paper about vasodilators (because they have a limited form of that effect) and from that, you extrapolate somehow that this is the category of drugs in which they belong (which is simply not true). In actuality, if you do a little research, there are plenty of listings of interactions BETWEEN "vasodilators" (as a class term) and the various kinds of ED drugs out there. If they were simply another kind of vasodilator, they wouldn't be listed that way. By default, the assumption is that ANY two drugs in the same class require checking/monitoring for interactions; you don't specify a group of drugs in the same general class for interaction monitoring because the *assumption* from the start is that you don't go on two drugs that do the same basic thing unless there's a specific, articulable reason to do so in a particular case.

To what @ErosWired wrote above, I might add: try to stay as close to prepared as is reasonably possible - ie eat the kind of diet that makes cleaning out easy. Lots of fiber, for one thing. Take a fiber supplement daily. The more your system gets used to one good solid bowel movement a day (or rarely, two), the easier you'll find it to clean out in between.

Unfortunately, a series of court cases interpreting the compensation of elected officials would preclude that. First, the Constitution itself says that Congress shall set the pay of representatives and senators. There's no provision allowing one representative or senator to be singled out for a pay increase or a pay decrease. (The leadership (Speaker, President Pro Tem, and Majority/Minority leaders in each chamber), make more, but it's because there's a salary supplement tied to those specific offices, not because they voted to give Mike Johnson or Mitch McConnell any extra money.) They've set the pay by statute (ie by law). Secondly, the 27th amendment to the Constitution says that any law varying the compensation of senators or representatives (either increasing or decreasing) doesn't take effect until after an intervening election. So, for instance, if this Congress passed a law giving all members a $25,000/year pay raise, it would only take effect once the next Congress were sworn in, in January 2025 (by which time Greene and Boobert may both be gone).

Again, incorrect. I don't stalk individuals - I do monitor certain topics, and I downvote (or upvote, or give thanks) to express my opinion of the posting, not the person. As for sociopathy: No, not all cheating is sociopathic. I do believe that someone bragging about wanting to have him and his female partner kidnapped, her gang-raped and infected with sexually-transmissible diseases, while he watches and masturbates, pretty comfortably falls within the meaning of that word. Your mileage, of course, may vary. As I have said elsewhere: cheating is sometimes the "least bad" option - the one you turn to when (a) you've agreed to a monogamous relationship, (b) you have very good, solid reasons to not leave a relationship, (c) you're not being sexually satisfied within the relationship, AND (d) your partner refuses to either do anything to meet your sexual needs him/herself AND refuses to allow an open relationship that allows you to meet your needs. But all three of those things need to be met. If you didn't agree to be monogamous, it's not cheating. Just be sure that you didn't convey to HIM that it's monogamous while having no intention of honoring that. if you're just staying with the guy because you wouldn't live as comfortable a life on your own, well boo fucking hoo. Be a fucking man, leave the guy, and go be on your own unrestricted by a relationship that isn't enough for you. If your partner is ready and willing to have sex with you to meet your needs but you just want more variety and don't want to negotiate openness, then again, boo fucking hoo. You made your bed; now lie in it, or leave it, but don't fucking lie and cheat because you want different dick or ass. And finally, if your partner IS willing to open the relationship, but under terms you find too onerous (like, you want to fuck all your joint friends and he thinks outside fucks should be outside your social circle; or you want to fuck them at home and he wants your joint home reserved for the two of you; or he wants all outside play to involve you both, and you want to have sex without him present), then again, break up. I simply do not understand people who think it's okay to make a promise to someone - and we are talking strictly about relationships where there's an understanding of a set of rules both are going to follow - and then break those rules with impunity. Fucking grow up, break up, and go live your best and happiest slut life as a single man. But if the whole enjoyment is in cheating - if you get off on breaking your word, in a way that is bound to hurt this person you're in a relationship with, if he finds out - then you're just a fucking shit person. 100%, completely, totally shit.

I think maybe I'm not communicating my point. "Vasodilator" is a specific, defined kind of drug. Broadly speaking, the key is that they dilate ALL the veins in the body; it's what they're designed to do, as a means of (among other things) regulating blood pressure. "Vasodilator" is a term used for drugs that affect *systemic vasculature* - the blood vessels of the entire body. THAT IS WHAT THE TERM MEANS, pharmacologically. There are other drugs, like the ED drugs Cialis and Viagra (and generics) that can cause SOME vasodilation. In fact, the reason they work without dropping your blood pressure across your body is that they target something in the tissues of the penis (and lungs - the only places where these tissues contain enough of this chemical (Phosphodiesterase Type 5, or PDE5) to be effective. They do NOT have an effect on systemic vasculature and that is why they're not classified as vasodilators. It's absolutely correct to say they dilate *particular* blood vessels (or rather, keep them from constricting). It's NOT correct to call them vasodilators, because that term has a specific medical, pharmacological meaning. As a comparison: I write some software code, professionally, as part of my job. That, however, does not make me a "writer" - a term which we understand to have a more specific meaning linked to literature, fiction, non-fiction, essays, and poety - but not to computer code. Calling us "writers" confuses the issue, even though we undoubtedly "write" stuff. That's what calling a PDE5 inihibitor a "vasodilator" does - it confuses the issue, because "vasodilator" has a more specific meaning.

If by "hardly physical fitness fanatics" you mean "tweaked out toothpicks who probably couldn't explain where they were during a shoot if you asked them", I agree.

More thoughts: if you think you do have a type, you might break it down and decide what specifically you like, for various "features". For instance, you might consider the Brawny Paper Towel guy 'your type', but does that mean you want muscles? Facial hair? Outdoorsy? Or some combination of all three? And bear in mind that sometimes, we find someone very worthwhile to play with (or even do more with) who wouldn't necessarily grab our attention at first. Try to keep an open mind if someone seeks you out.

Chances are you did request it at some point. I would suggest writing to the staff asking that the removal be canceled.

Here's another point to remember about down-ballot voting. "Jaws" takes place in the early 1970's (the book was published in February 1974, meaning it was written sometime well before that and almost certainly set in what was then "present day". The movie version came out in 1975. Jaws 2 came out in 1978 (not based on a separate book), so we're talking at least 5-6 years between the first book's writing and the second film's creation. And yet, the same stupid motherfucker idiot was still the mayor, all those years later, despite how much his royal fuck up over closing the beaches led to just how many deaths again? THAT is what happens when you don't turn out to vote in local elections. And there are places, I'm sure, where that idiot would have been governor by about 1984.

I'd suggest doing some thought about what it is you really want. If you want nothing more than "more cock", as @Close2MyBro suggests, just forcing yourself into the game in a different mode may well solve the issue. But there's also the possibility that you want more sex, but only of a certain caliber (and by that I mean whatever it is that makes sex meaningful or memorable to you). If that's the case, 5, 50, or 500 more cocks a year isn't going to improve things one iota for you. Think about what you want, and then figure out what the best way to get it is.

I would further note that the medical term is now "STI" (sexually transmissible infection). It's a better term in that it focuses on the infectious agent (the virus or bacteria or fungus) and not the specific disease or diseases that it can cause. It's also better in the sense that some STI's do not necessarily lead to any disease, and some STI's can lead to more than one (completely different) disease. For instance, HPV is a virus, and it's an STI, but not everyone who gets HPV actually has any disease outbreak, and among those that do, there are multiple possible diseases that can develop. Beyond that, "sexually transmitted disease" has long had a dirty connotation - it's thought of as something you got from having illicit, unapproved, "dirty" sex. But you can get an STI from anywhere, and while "disease" isn't inherently a bad word, coupled with sex it has bad associations. So I always encourage people to use "STI" and not "STD".

Possibly. On the other hand, older buildings in old parts of cities often have way-out-of-code electrical wiring, and if they're really older buildings, they have exceptionally dry timbers as framework, not steel. They almost certainly don't have modern firebreaks built into the structure. Given that any replacement building will need to be built to today's building codes, and given that older buildings are frequently under-insured because values aren't updated frequently (especially replacement costs), I don't think it's necessarily an insurance scam at all.

See, this is the kind of sociopathy I mean. Here's someone actively wishing HARM on his primary partner, including infecting her with STI's during a gang rape. And I get that it's probably a fantasy and won't ever happen, but that means you deal with it as a fantasy. You jack off to it. You think about it, if you want, during sex if it helps get you off. You write FICTION about it to share the thoughts with others. When you tell people it's what you want to actually have happen, you're pretty much exposing just how sociopathic you are.

Again, that's not cheating. If you and a partner agree on X or Y or Z rule for a relationship, and that's what you do, 100% I'm in favor of it (as long as X or Y or Z isn't something like murdering the guys you share, or something like that). Cheating is breaking those rules.

One third correct. I am not a cuck (what a pitiful, low-creative insult that is) and I don't downvote people, only posts. But yes, if people are going to promote sociopathic behavior, I'm going to express my opinion of it. Why it seems to bother the sociopaths is beyond me. I mean, if you're so certain that cheating is something to be proud of, my little downvote of your post shouldn't concern you. On the other hand, if someone is doing it simply because he thinks "being a bad boy" is praiseworthy, I guess finding out not everyone thinks so could be somewhat jarring.

Some people have done all sorts of things "with no problem" on that particular occasion. All warnings of this sort are generalized and may not apply in every case. Your success with taking both in the past does not mean you or anyone else may not have a problem mixing them in the future.

I *believe* the vasodilation is an indirect effect from the relaxation of the muscles around them, rather than a direct expansion of the veins themselves (ie a true vasodilator). Put another way, something can have the effect of dilating *specific veins* without being a *vasodilator* in general - and in fact PDE5 inhibitors like Viagra and Cialis work by relaxing only certain muscles of a particular type - the spongy kind in the penis (and in parts of the lung). The dilation of the veins in the penis as a result is because of the increased blood flow allowed by the muscle reaction, not because the veins *themselves* are being expanded (as is the case with a true vasodilator). Vasodilation (the effect) is not just caused by vasodilators (the class of drug), but by other things that allow vasodilation to occur.

Some do, some don't. I had an ex who had always masturbated with a really hard grip (like he was trying to yank it off, literally). He was so conditioned to that sensation that anything less wouldn't get him off. Now, could he have gradually retrained himself to get off with less of a death grip? Sure. But that requires (a) the ability to recognize that this might not be the best course of action, long term and (b) the willingness to do the work, including foregoing orgasms by his "old" method to make his body adapt to a lighter tough. He had neither that ability nor that willingness. I think he just broke up with his eighth or ninth partner.

It's big a big story in multiple news sources. I *think* Rolling Stone broke it originally, but as a non-subscriber to that magazine I haven't read the article. Our local paper has (finally) written an article about it, here: [think before following links] https://www.advocate.com/politics/mike-johnson-son-porn-monitoring But I think if you google "Mike Johnson porn phone app" you'll get a long list of stories about it.

Not quite the case. Poppers are vasodilators, but ED drugs (Viagra, Cialis, etc,) are actually a different class of drugs entirely called PDE5 Inhibitors. Rather than dilate the veins (which poppers do), they work by enhancing the effect of nitric oxide on the muscles of the penis. When a penis gets that influx of nitric oxide, the muscles in it relax, which allows blood to flow into it, causing the erection. Rather than the medication dilating the veins (again, what happens with poppers), the relaxed muscle allows increased blood flow to expand inside the veins. So rather than a loosened vein with improved flow, the ED drug helps the vein fill itself and harden the penis. That's why poppers so often cause a top to lose his erection, while ED drugs (typically) improve it. And it's why they're dangerous together: the vasodilator in the poppers keeps trying to expand the veins (not just in the cock but everywhere), which causes a drop in blood pressure. If you further relieve the pressure on the veins in the penis by relaxing the muscles around them (giving them more room to expand, the veins can lower pressure over the body so low that you can have a BP "event".

I'm sure this will get some interesting discussion. It turns out that there are apps out there (at least one, maybe more) that can be installed on a smart phone that monitor whether you view porn (presumably via a long list of porn domains). You configure the app so that someone else is set to be notified, on THEIR phone, when you look at porn on your device (I assume it works with tablets as well as phones). The idea, presumably, is to keep you from looking up stuff you (as a good god-fearing Christian) shouldn't be looking at. It turns out that our new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has installed this software on his phone and that of his 17 year old son, with each other set up as the one who's notified if the other looks at porn. So many questions. 1. What the actual fuck? What kind of father installs an app that tells his teenaged son if Dad is looking at porn? 2. Johnson said his son "has a clean slate" - while notably NOT having commented on whether he, himself, has a "clean slate". I'd have to argue that's an admission by omission. Which means that Johnson's app is very likely sending the names (and who knows what else - links?) to porn sites to his minor SON. (This, by the way, is his ACTUAL son, not the black youth Johnson pseudo-adopted with no legal authority whatsoever back before he married his wife.) 3. Does anyone believe that the son doesn't have another device - a burner phone, a tablet, a chromebook from school, or whatever - that he's not looking up his porn with? Mary, please. 4. Again, what the actual fuck? This is almost Duggar-level creepy.

When you say "club" - for those in particular who may not know about Slammers - it would be nice if you explained what "club" entails: dance club, sex club, bathhouse/sauna, whatever. Inquiring minds would like to know.

OK, a lot of things to unpack here. First: you say that they "overexpose" you to LGBTQ content. How much exposure is "overexposure"? Have you considered that the 90% of the time you're NOT with them is spent in heterosexually-dominated realms, and they're just happy that, for a few hours a week or whatever, they can escape to a place where LGBTQ people are the norm, not the exception? You hint, without saying it, that you're still closeted. I'm not saying this is the case for you, but there's a lot of correlation, in a lot of people, between "being closeted" and "being annoyed by openly gay people". Assuming you are, in fact, closeted, why? Is being gay something you're ashamed of? Is it something looked down on in your (native) culture, and you've internalized those feelings about yourself? Because it bears remembering that straight people are very out - straight couples hold hands, talk about their weddings, hold engagement events in public, show off the kids they're having (which pretty much, generally, confirms they're sexually active heterosexually). Spouses are routinely invited to attend work events. Straight people rub their straightness in the face of their gay friends and coworkers, even the ones they don't know are gay, every single day. But you seem to be treading carefully about even slightly doing what the straights all do. That said, you don't have to like anyone. But it helps if you understand WHY you don't like someone. If you don't like them because they're loud and obnoxious when they're drunk, that's one thing. If you don't like them because they're out and proud, that says a lot more about YOU than it does about them. And I'm not going to say you're homophobic, but we recognize a thing called "internalized homophobia", which is where gay people who've heard negative messages about gays all their lives see it as something to be hidden, and shameful, and look down on those who aren't burdened with that upbringing. I'll also note that you're confused about what "toxic masculinity" is. It has ZERO to do with a lesbian who appears butch. Toxic masculinity is when a man feels his identity as a man is so central to his being that he's offended by anything that might call that masculinity into question. The toxically masculine man sneers at any but the most basic fashions because it's "gay" to wear nicer or more stylish clothes. The toxically masculine man hates when anyone suggests he might be gay because he thinks if they can tell, he's failing as a man. The toxically masculine man derides things like drag shows and gay poetry readings because "real men" don't do that sort of thing. And so on. I can't say whether that's true for you or not, but it sounds like there's a possibility it might be. Worth exploring. As for the gay bear friend: based only on your description, I'd say he might be something of a snob. But I haven't met him, so I can't say that for certain. I question, though, whether he might be reacting to something you've said - denigrating gay life in a big city, for instance. Or maybe he IS just a snob. That's something you might be able to figure out once you have a better grasp of what it means to be gay yourself. Finally, your written English here is pretty good. It's a little formal, in a way that tells me that it may not be your native tongue, but it's certainly not horrible. But written and spoken languages can have different levels of competence. I can read and write three languages besides English, at least for the rudimentary figuring things out, and I've got the skills to figure out the rest when it's more complex. But speaking? I can stumble along moderately in one, very (VERY!) poorly in the second, and essentially not at all in the third. So it may be - I can't know for sure - that you need more practice with your spoken language skills. It's rude of him to say it, regardless. But if you're as dismissive of gay issues with him as you were in this post, I can see why he might have no real interest in helping you improve your skills. One last thought: it sounds like you're in a foreign country. There's a saying in English: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Being proud of where you're from is fine - seriously - but if you're dismissive of your current location the way you're dismissive of the gay world in it, I can understand why you're rubbing people the wrong way.

Obviously, a "side" shouldn't get insulted when someone tells him "Sorry, but I'm looking for something else". But without suggesting you approached it wrong, I will say that how you convey to anyone that you're rejecting him matters. "I appreciate what you're looking for, but that's not me, and I don't want to hold up your search for that, so best of luck!" is definitive and polite and even supportive and encouraging. It also solidly puts the onus on you - you've made a decision that you're not what HE wants. When you say "I need X, not just Y that you're offering", it may convey a dismissive attitude toward Y and a superior attitude about X, and that's kind of insulting to the other person. It's saying "you're not what *I* want" - which is true in both cases, but it can be taken as hurtful. Now, I don't think that there's any "moral" reason you can't say "I want X, and you're not it"; but as you note, this is about the pushback you're getting. It's a lot easier to avoid if you just make it clear that *you* aren't what *they* need, as opposed to telling them *they* aren't what *you* need.

I 100% agree - but my point is that pundits on the right, especially, have equated "Jews" and "Israel the nation-state and its government" for decades - if you don't support the latter, you oppose the former. That's bullshit, but it's the environment that the right has created. I reject that, but it doesn't stop the right from insisting on saying it, and accusing everyone who opposes how far the Israeli government has gone (both historically and since 10/7) of being anti-Semitic.