BootmanLA

Massage presents its own set of problems because (a) massage, itself, is not only legal but widespread, broadly advertised, and (to some extent) a regulated industry; but (b) "massage" is not infrequently used as cover for prostitution, (c) technically, a masseuse offering to "relieve your stress" if you get an erection during the massage isn't breaking the prostitution law, and (d) there's certainly nothing provably wrong about asking, after such an experience, how much extra of a tip the masseuse thinks it's worth for the "quality of his massage" - the key, as always, is to avoid saying anything that makes a quid-pro-quo provable in court. A masseuse who says "I've had guys give me an extra $50 for that, because they were so relaxed afterward" is probably going to stay in the clear too - not that some vice cop might not try to arrest him, but a conviction almost certainly wouldn't stand. (If an arrest would be the end of the world, erotic massage may not be not something you can safely pursue unless you meet the masseuse through a trusted source. All that aside: there are ethical issue with "legitimate" masseuses, particularly licensed massage therapists (LMT's), providing those services, and for them, getting caught offering it could quickly end with license revocation. Someone who, by contrast, advertises as a "body worker" or offers "stress relief through full-body massage" probably isn't licensed and thus won't be running that risk - but that doesn't mean they're not undercover cops looking to sting customers (it's rare, but it does rarely happen; it's much more common to send young hot(tish) undercover cops for a massage trying to get the masseuse to agree to sex in exchange for compensation.

I can't speak for the site or for RawTop (ie on the policy) but I can speak a bit towards the legal issues. While the exact definition of prostitution varies from state to state, ie what the basic elements of the crime are, that must be proven for a conviction, as a general rule it's agreeing to accept something of value in exchange for a sexual act. "Something of value" could be cash, jewelry, drugs, or whatever; "sexual act" could be anything from a handjob to full-on intercourse. The tricky part is "in exchange for" - ie, would the parties have agreed to engage in the sex act but for the something of value? So any request for assistance, support, etc. that comes AFTER the act becomes pretty problematic in terms of proving prostitution - it's not like the purported sex worker can "take back" the sex if the other person doesn't tip. That doesn't mean waiting to pay until you're done with sex puts you in the clear - the key is whether the agreement for the payment happened before the sex act happened. Stating that you're seeking "generous" guys, but accepting a monetary thank-you after the fact, is probably walking right up to the line but not crossing it. (See negotiations, below, for more on this.) For things of value that exchange before the act - the more attenuated the circumstances the better, legally speaking. So, for instance, taking someone to a nice dinner, and then going back for fucking afterward, might technically be prostitution if the agreement was explicit - feed me and I'll fuck you - but that so rarely happens. The non-sex-worker, in such a case, has a pretty good case that he was simply taking out someone he fancied, and was hoping that the fancying went both directions. Transportation is almost certainly in the clear: the implication is that you were going to have sex, regardless, and paying for his transport to get to you was simply a logistical issue, not a commercial transaction. If there's any negotiation - discussing what $25 vs $150 might get you - it's pretty much a slam dunk case.

Within the French Quarter it's basically impossible these days to get to a hotel room without proof you're the room resident (like a key card). It's a safety issue; allowing non-guests to roam the property invites crime. And the last thing any hospitality business in New Orleans wants right now is on-site crime.

And I'm sure you know this, but that belief is false on its face - Catholics venerate (that is, hold in esteem) Mary, as well as the angels and saints, but do not worship her or them. But like the idea of mixed race vs. "one drop" people, that's too complex an idea for their little pea brains to comprehend.

It's hard to know what the OP thought, 3 and a half years later. But as the first person to address his question: given that it was in the Health forum, I treated it as a Health question. I think the discussion went on from there.

I'm not so sure that's true, at least for what MAGA considers "Caucasian". Since a large proportion of Central and South American "Hispanics" actually have both Spanish and Indigenous roots, they're probably not "Caucasian" in any traditional sense. (And that's one of their objections, obviously.)

Granted (along with your description of the obscenity test), but at least it is a (somewhat poorly) defined term with a specific legal meaning. Deciding whether or not a particular work is obscene or not may be fact-specific and might get different results if tried in different places (strike "might" and insert "certainly would"). But, as I say, at least it's a peg to hang onto, and the Court has been specific in the past that "obscene" refers to sex and only to sex - not violence or anything else that might be harmful to minors. But the bigger point is, it's already illegal to provide obscene material - to anyone. For that matter, it's illegal to receive obscene material; it's not illegal to merely possess it, though that raises the question of how you received it in the first place. Anything else, a restriction that imposes any significant barrier to access by adults is going to have First Amendment problems. "But the kids can see it" is not carte blanche to ignore those problems, and the courts have long ruled that one significant barrier that is unacceptable is a government requiring people to identify themselves in order to access the material. And there's no way to enforce age restrictions on access to online material without requiring people to identify themselves for the purpose of age verification. That said, of course the Court could overturn its previous holdings on the issue, but given that it has (generally) expanded rather than contracted First Amendment protections across the board, even under the current conservative makeup, I'd say that's unlikely. Eventually - and it will take a while, probably - someone in one of these states is going to file the right lawsuit and the Court will take it up and strike down such laws. But until then... we're stuck.

For general information: You can bet that, sooner or later, one of these cases will percolate up to the Supreme Court. We can no longer assume "stare decisis" (the legal principle that once a question has been legally answered, that answer stands except under extraordinary circumstances) - as we saw with the overturning of Roe v. Wade last year. But this Court does seem to be taking First Amendment issues very, very seriously, and that gives some hope that these laws will be struck down. Because it's well-established in law (for now, at least) that the government can't make you provide identification in order to exercise your First Amendment rights. It's why newspapers can protect their sources, and it's why PACs (at least, some of them) don't have to disclose their donors: you have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously. And protecting children - the phrase that ALWAYS rears its incongruous little head - is no excuse. The government, the Supreme Court has held, cannot deprive me of MY right to read something simply because it's inappropriate for children to read it. And even "inappropriate for children to" is a bad phrasing, because even children have some First Amendment rights, and while it's legal to criminalize giving them material that is legally obscene (very little "porn" is), there's no really clear line as to what else, if anything, government can forbid them from seeing (and punish those who provide it). At some point, someone with deeper pockets than RawTop (and I don't mean that as a diss) will sue. And he's likely to win. It's just going to take a while and it won't be a pretty fight.

And that's fine if you're choosing that path and know (and accept) the risks involved! But this is the HEALTH forum, and I think it behooves us to acknowledge those choices here, instead of playing them up as some inevitable consequence about which we can do nothing.

I'm not sure such a federal law would be constitutional, at least not with this Supreme Court. It's true that Congress has the power to regulate commerce on an interstate level, but you might have a hard time convincing two (or more) of the conservative justices that Congress can go THAT far, especially with respect to doctors treating people within their state. Add in that the practice of medicine has, historically speaking, been the exclusive province of the states, and you've got a problem: which Clause of the Constitution gives that power to Congress?

The only things I'd add: the rules on HRT (including how many medical professionals, and what kind of professionals, must sign off) are generally state-level, not national.

Oh, granted. But people can be transgressive online while being discreet elsewhere. Hell, there are probably people who post incessantly about how much dick or ass they're getting that actually haven't been laid but a handful of times since the end of the Trump administration. And in any event, one can be the loudmouth braggart talking about how hot it is to be with a cheater, without actually being the one doing the cheating - they're the ones being cheated WITH. The "other man". A good bit of the bragging is third parties like that who like fucking guys in relationships and sending them home to their partners.

It's fine if that's what you want to do (assuming you know the risks). But please don't assume "there is no way you can stop" - of course you can fucking stop. I certainly can.

Just a couple of thoughts to add to this. First, it's not just hiding the meds themselves that is an issue for some married/partnered men whose wives don't know. There's also the question of insurance; while most people's insurance covers PrEP (assuming the courts eventually uphold the preventative care mandate), itemized insurance paperwork can and does come to people's houses, and in some families the wife's in charge of all that paperwork stuff. Even if the husband's in charge, there's no guarantee she won't see the records at some point. Second, while it's technically true that taking a load from an undetectable guy is just as safe, statistically, as being on PrEP, there is a difference. When you're on PrEP, you're taking charge of your sexual health. When you rely on your partners to be undetectable, you're putting THEM in charge of your sexual health. And over the long haul, in my experience, something that personal really needs to be something YOU are in charge of, because sooner or later you may end up putting the wrong person in charge of it. So, sorry to say, there's no perfect answer for how a man who's married to a woman can (A) have receptive unprotected sex (B) with a range of guys you don't know (C) while remaining healthy yourself and (D) protecting your wife while (E) she never finds out about it. It's not that you CAN'T have all five things happen in your life at once; it's just that it's very hard to find all of them at once and increasing the odds for one may decrease the odds for another. For instance, going on PrEP protects your health and your wife's health (ensuring C and D), but decreases the odds that you can keep it 100% secret (decreasing the odds of E). Restricting yourself to U+ guys lowers the amount of sex you may have (lowering A and B) but boosts (C) and (D), though not as high as PrEP, but you have a greater shot of keeping (E) in place. And so on. It's a balancing act, and one I don't envy married guys who like dick for. But ultimately, life is a series of choices, and these choices all stem from the initial choice to marry a woman and not disclose that you're getting fucked by men on the side. You pays your money and you takes your chances, as the saying goes.

It's not common to see the kits being distributed for free, but it does happen - generally, it means some group got funding for a supply of them and is able to share them that way. But many groups offer free testing on a regular basis (though you do have to "go there" to get tested).

And without quoting/replying to piece-by-piece of subsequent post about drag personas and stage performances - again, those aren't the same thing as DQSH. Try this experiment: google "Drag Queen Story Hour" and then click on the "Images" tab to see associated images, and tell me if that's the kind of drag your nephew does. I'm willing to bet it's not even in the same universe of drag. And yes, I realize that news media like to use shocking pictures to grab attention for a story. But I couldn't find a single image - not even among the promotional material for DQSH events - that showed what I would call the "true female impersonation" type of drag. And I don't think that sort of drag would work for what DQSH sets out to do - and I suspect that's why you don't see it illustrated.

True. But the children who are present for Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) don't grasp "drag" in that way, and so we can't decide that because WE as ADULTS see things that way, children do too. True speaking historically - the role of the fool in history (both in literature and in political dynamics. But again, not necessarily true in the last, oh, 100+ years. Circus clowns seldom have any "message" to impart, other than deflating pompous egos (belonging to performers who themselves are clowns without the makeup), and nobody invites a birthday clown to serve as a social justice emblem. I don't mean to insult your nephew's drag performances or talent in the slightest, no matter which form they take. But as someone who's closely watched account after account of DQSH flare-ups, the drag queens in question were, invariably, the "skag drag" type that Hntnhole mentions - wild hair, vastly exaggerated makeup, flamboyant clothes. As a matter of fact, I haven't read to children much in a while, but when I did, I did my absolute best to grab the kids' attention with sound effects, broad gestures, and all sorts of other things designed to have them focus on me - because then, they were also focused on what I SAID. Nothing, in my experiences, causes kids to tune out faster than a person in normal, everyday clothes reading something to them in normal, boring tones just like they could hear in any classroom. The same reason kids will gather round a clown at a birthday party and pay close attention when he does tricks, or pranks, or tells jokes - because he focuses their attention - is the reason kids go to DQSH. They aren't going to develop an appreciation of linguistics or fine literature; they're going because their parents want their minds stimulated by stories, and the way to stimulate their minds is to grab and focus their attention. Because bear in mind: any damned fool can read a book to a child. Parents come to these things because they know the kids enjoy it, and they WORK. And not a single kid is ever coerced to attend one of these events without his parent or guardian's assent - which suggests the parents find some value in it, too. As I've said: sometimes the kids don't even know it's a man in a dress. For those that do, you're making a HUGE assumption that they "don't get it" - or even that they're TRYING to get it. Kids accept an awful lot that just "is" - if it's entertaining. Projecting your own concerns about men in dresses back onto little kids says a lot, but not about the kids. 1. You assume that this is an "overt pitch" for anything, because you can't imagine that it could just be harmless fun. Like a clown at a birthday party. Again, that says more about you than it says about them. 2. You say it's a cynical ploy, but again, I think this shows your own cynicism. The "added value", as I've said, is like the costumes at Disney. They grab attention. They focus attention. Kids are oblivious to the notion that this gender-bending or whatever - to them, it's just funny. And no, that doesn't mean I think your nephew's drag performances are "just funny" - they are, presumably, a different kind of performance marketed to a different kind of person for a different reason. I simply reject the notion that the only drag outfit suitable for reading Mary Poppins is a Mary Poppins costume. The performer/reader/artist isn't merely there to illustrate the text and bring it to life. And as for children being used as pawns: again, no parent is forced to bring their kids to a DQSH. The fact that DQSH's exist, and are popular enough for venues to book them, suggests there's a place for them. I would presume any parent who's comfortable enough around drag to bring their child to a DQSH is probably going to be bringing up that kid in an enlightened manner, culturally speaking. The people waging the "culture war" are those who want to control what those parents - the open-minded ones - can allow their children to see, when there's literally nothing age-inappropriate about the events (and in saying that, I'm assuming that the performances are age-appropriate insofar as exposed flesh and language and so forth - if not, by all means, ban those not because it's DQSH, but because it's inappropriate for children like an R-rated movie). I see zero reason to cede that ground to those "culture warriors" - because it's unnecessary, and because this is just one more way they're trying to get to their real goal (which involves suppression/criminalization of the entire LGBTQ spectrum). They've ALWAYS been the ones to use children as pawns - "We can't have THOSE people teaching our kids! It's not safe!".

It's the transgressive "Look at MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm such a trashy SLUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a WHORE I ammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" mentality, aka, I'm hot shit because I'm so transgressive and I'm not bound by stultifying cishet moral standards. Of course, they only feel that way about CERTAIN moral standards. Steal most of the balance of their checking account right after payday and watch a meltdown about how dare someone do something so fucked up and hurtful. Some people just feel the need to be not just "more than" but "excessively and entirely more than".

You asked this of @Shotsfired but if you'll allow another perspective: I'd look at what he wrote regarding saying what you're looking for up front, in your profile. If you only get onto an app or site to find a hookup that afternoon or evening, say that! If you don't want to engage in conversations that aren't going to lead to a hookup (now OR later), then say that too. After that, it's on the other guy to read and comprehend, and if he doesn't, there's no reason you can't be blunt: "My profile says I'm looking for now/today/tonight. If that's not you, thanks, but I really don't want to get into a long discussion." Polite, to the point, but firm. If you do already have that restriction in your profile, I would ask by about the third question he asks: "Not that I mind answering questions about myself, but let's be clear: I'm looking for [name activity] [timeframe: now/today/tonight]. If you're interested in that, great; if not, get back with me when you're ready."

Let me say up front I understand what people are saying about how cheating is "hot". And let me say I draw a distinction between two situations. Let's posit there's a couple who either are supposed to be monogamous (by mutual agreement) or who have specific rules about third parties (as in my previous post, above). You're a third party, and you meet one of the guys in the couple. If you don't know about the situation with the couple, or you don't know he's coupled at all, or he tells you it's fine because he's in an open relationship, then morally, I think, you're in the clear. If you do know, but you have sex with him anyway, and you don't feel bad about it - well, congratulations, you're adding to the misery in the world. Sure, the cheating partner is more responsible for relationship than any outside person ever could be, but you're aiding and abetting someone who is deliberately acting in a way that hurts his partner. If you feel "hot" about that, you're a sociopath, in my book. And while I won't say I hope your dick falls off (which would be a truly karmic response from the universe), I will say karma has a way of evening things out in the long run.

Not necessarily. Cheating is, by definition, the breaking of a rule or rules. One can have an open (ie non-monogamous) relationship that nonetheless has rules, and breaking those rules is just as much cheating. For instance: a couple might be open but agree to one or more of the following: --Never with someone we're already friends with; --Never in our own bed, which is just for us; --Never here in our hometown, but only when traveling; --Never with the same guy more than once [or twice, or whatever limit]; and so on. For that matter, one could have a closed polyamorous relationship, which by definition isn't "monogamy" [which means one sexual partner]. In such a closed polyamorous relationship, sex with an outside party (beyond those in the relationship) would be cheating because it violates the "closed" rule of the relationship.

That's not exactly accurate. HIPAA applies to more than just doctors; it applies to anyone who has professional (that is, through his work) access to covered medical information. That means it includes nurses, any other allied health profession (audiologists, pharmacists, lab technicians), and insurance employees, among others. Second, even a subpoena can't necessarily force disclosure of HIPAA-protected information. If health care information is subpoenaed, then the custodian of that information (the doctor, insurance company, or whomever) must make reasonable attempts to notify the patient that the information has been subpoenaed, and the patient has to then be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the disclosure or to seek a protective order from the court overseeing the subpoena. (Remember that a subpoena is a request for information from a party to a legal action, not a demand from the court, so compliance with a subpoena has to allow for time to handle objections.) That's different from a court order to supply the information (and for the purposes of HIPAA, that includes administrative tribunals, such as an SSI disability hearing panel. But such an order must specify the exact information requested, and the custodian of that information can ONLY supply that information, not anything else. But in general: yes. Not only can person A ask person B about his health information, but A is under no obligation to keep that information confidential if B does tell him. Lastly: One of the drawbacks to HIPAA is that there is no "private cause of action" under it - which in layman's terms means, if your doctor (or nurse, or whomever) violates HIPAA by disclosing some of your health information, you can't sue them yourself. What you can do is file a complaint with whatever regulatory body covers the offending person. That might be the state medical board, for instance, or the state nursing board. Or the state department of insurance (or its equivalent) if an insurer leaks your information. It's then generally up to the regulatory board to punish a violation, as they see fit. You may also have a state cause of action (in state court) if your state recognizes this as a valid claim (some do, some do not). Where such claims are recognized, it's usually as some sort of variant on "breach of contract" or something similar. The state law may incorporate HIPAA by reference, saying in essence that if a provider or his business associates within your state violate HIPAA, you can sue them in state court for damages.

One could make the same argument about any costume, including clowns. Yet we not only tolerate people in clown costumes interacting with children; we (or, at least, some parents) pay good money for them to entertain children at events like birthday parties. We take and send kids to Disney parks by the millions, where they see adults dressed up like: talking mice, fairy godmothers, princesses, talking dogs, talking dogs that belong to the other talking dogs, talking ducks.... the list goes on and on. Yet nobody says a word about kids getting confused by these characters. Children are naturally drawn to the bold and colorful. You don't see drag queen story hour being produced by drag queens who look like the Church Lady from SNL; they're deliberately bold, colorful, with extravagant makeup and hair, because that grabs' kids attention and they listen to the fabulous person telling them a story. I keep trying to understand this but I can't even figure out what you mean - are you saying that at some level, drag is *always* sexual? Why is drag - the cross-dressing kind, at any rate - "sexual" but dressing up like a talking dog who owns another talking dog is just clean fun? If what one wears conveys "sexuality" then cis-dressing people are also conveying sexuality - just of the "approved variety." See that woman in that skirt? That's SEXUAL! But as I say - that purpose may simply be (like the makeup on a clown) to grab the kids' attention and focus it on the speaker. They can listen to a cis-dressing person drone on and on reading a story to them, but their attention is likely to flag, just as it may in school. Having a hook to draw the kids' attention makes a difference. There may be an agenda, but I think it's mostly just to enhance the experience. But: even if the purpose WAS to point out to the adults that see, we're safe around kids - what's wrong with that? As I said above, I don't buy for one second the notion that drag is inherently sexual. I think that says a lot more about the people who think that, than it does about the people wearing drag. And that's just the same argument that was used for decades about us - that as gay people, we were *inherently* sexual, that our very existence was *sexual* and moreover, a sexual *threat* - and that was used to justify all sorts of horrible treatment. It's appalling that we would treat drag the same way. Again: this is the same argument used about us for much of the 20th century. We can't be around children because we might "influence" them. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.

This says pretty much all of it. I get that monogamy isn't easy (and moreover, doesn't even appeal to a lot of guys). That's fine. Acknowledge that, and figure out how you're going to make things work, to whatever degree of openness, and go have fun. And that openness can be anything from "we share a third partner together" to "we each have whatever fun we want on our own"; it can be "we don't talk about who we fuck outside the relationship" or "we tell each other everything and enjoy hearing each others' exploits" - or anything in between, such as acknowledging an outside partner if it comes up, but not mentioning him otherwise. Open can take a plethora of forms, and only the couple in question can decide what form is right for them. What makes no sense to me is either or both parties pretending to be monogamous but not actually doing so - and lying about it. I just can't wrap my head around a relationship which has that level of dishonesty so close to the core. It's not the fact of the other partners - sexual exclusivity isn't necessary in a relationship, in my view. But honesty is. For the guys on here who've gushed about how "hot" cheating is: I suspect you wouldn't say that if you were the one cheated on. And I suspect you wouldn't feel that way if the "cheating" were something other than sexual. Like, for instance, let's say you found out your partner was skimming $200 a week out of your joint finances to give to a boyfriend on the side. Or to pay off a gambling debt. Or whatever - would you still think it's "hot" that your partner is violating the terms of your relationship?

And I should add: Never forget that George HW Bush gave us Clarence Thomas, replacing the nation's then-only black Supreme Court Justice, with a stellar record as a defender of the downtrodden, with a sexually harassing bureaucrat with a chip on his shoulder about having benefitted from affirmative action his entire life - who has voted against gay rights in EVERY SINGLE CASE brought in his more than 30 years on the Court. He has not once - NEVER - voted that any civil rights law, whatsoever, protects gay people; he has never voted once - NEVER - that any law targeting gay people is unconstitutional. Justices sometimes surprise us with how they end up voting on our issues. Gorsuch wrote the Bostock opinion that laws that bar discrimination on the basis of sex include gay people, for instance, and Chief Justice Roberts joined him that opinion. But Thomas never has, and, I'd wager, never will.