BootmanLA

There is ALWAYS a paper trail for this sort of thing. It's a prescription medication, so there will at a minimum be a prescription record at the prescribing end and at the pharmacy/filling end. And since you want low-cost, that means a prescription assistance program, and those always have paperwork. The paperwork is largely confidential, of course (HIPAA rules) but without knowing what you're trying to conceal, it's hard to advise. If you simply want to make sure that someone in particular doesn't find out - like a parent or a spouse/partner - then get a P.O. Box somewhere, use that as your mailing address, and don't give anyone else permission to get information about your medical history with the providers. That's not particularly difficult. In any event, the starting point for finding low-cost PrEP would probably be getyourprep.com (which redirects to [think before following links] https://readysetprep.hiv.gov/).

I think if you (a) spot something demonstrably untrue (b) posted by a Democrat and (c) link to evidence that it's clearly not true, then I believe that person should be (and would be) sanctioned as well. Especially if (as in this case) the poster in question was corrected, with citations to prove he was wrong, and he doubled down on his demonstrably false statement, thus proving it wasn't simply an error. I, for one, make mistakes, When an error of mine is pointed out, I try very hard to acknowledge that; and moreover, I concede any "but for" conclusions I drew as well. By which, I mean that if I post Factoid A, and a conclusion that is in turn based wholly on Factoid A, then if Factoid A is disproven, I also withdraw the conclusion I drew from it. ("But for Factoid A, I would not have made this conclusion.") That said, sometimes Factoid A is only one element of several things supporting a conclusion, which means not everything based in part on A will be withdrawn - just those things that depend on A for their truthfulness.

Thanks for clarifying! It is indeed possible that this could happen - in fact, if the constitutional protection for same-sex marriage were overturned by a conservative Supreme Court, that would almost certainly happen - because some states' existing prohibitions on same-sex marriage would kick in again, just like older abortion laws have kicked in, and yet if the marriage was legal at the time it was contracted, a decision like that can't invalidate it. That is possible. But I think it's a little less likely, because you're getting into a pretty clear equal protection problem there. Remember Gorsuch is the one who wrote the opinion that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation IS discrimination on the basis of sex, and Roberts was also in the majority on that one. Even replacing Ginsburg with the Handmaiden, you still have five votes for equal protection.

One of my favorite advice columnists has written, many a time, that sometimes cheating is the least bad option there is, and it's defensible under certain limited circumstances. I don't see any of those here. It would be one thing if you had been with this guy for 15 or 20 years, or you owned a house or business together, AND you'd had a healthy sex life in the past but his interest has dwindled and he's not interested in meeting your needs any longer. But you've been with him all of five months. You haven't had sex yet (oral or anal). You haven't even made out. Dude, he is not your boyfriend. He's a well-meaning friend with no benefits, someone you no doubt want to keep close as a friend (and yay for that), and maybe even socialize together frequently. But - He.Is.Not.Your.Boyfriend. Boyfriends may or may not have actually had intercourse yet - a rare few do wait for a good while before having sex the first time. But you haven't even made out. Does he even know you consider him a boyfriend? As many people above have noted; the person you need to talk with is not us on this board, but him. Or, rather, you need to ask him questions, and then listen to his answers. Such as: --How do you see the relationship between us - good friends, dating, something serious, or what? --If it's in any way romantic, what are your feelings about sex? Are you expecting that we will have it, someday, or is that not important to you? --If he has no interest in sex, but he has romantic feelings for you: What are your expectations regarding my sex needs? Do you expect me to repress them or am I free to satisfy that part of my life elsewhere? --If it's not romantic, that means I'm free to seek romance and/or sex elsewhere, right, and we still have whatever we have in terms of friendship, right? And so on. At the worst, you may break up "whatever this is" - but dude, again, this isn't a boyfriend as things stand now. It's clear you need more than you're getting currently, and the time to find out if you're ever going to get it with him is now, not five years from now when you've bought a house together and then you find out he never intends to have sex. Or not nearly frequently enough to satisfy you.

I'll just note here that (non-legally speaking), having read the case, she should have gone Lorena Bobbitt on him.

I have no idea what "it" is that you're on, but assuming it's a controlled substance, I'd suggest you take this to the chem fiction forum and ask there. My suggestion is that you review the stories posted there (as well as in the General Bareback Fiction, Bug Chasing/Gift Giving Fiction, and (if relevant) the various fetish fiction sections, and see what people are responding to. That should give you some ideas about what people like to read about.

Americans are notoriously bad at math. I did a quick sketch to demonstrate to someone why a particular path from my parking spot at work to the building doors had the least-steep rise (and thus was the least stressful to walk in the summer heat), and when I casually mentioned "y=m(x)+b" as the way to determine the slope, he looked at me like I'd grown two heads and wanted to know what kind of engineering degree I had to figure that out. I was like "Dude, this is 10th grade geometry" but he couldn't grasp the basics of the math involved, even with no numbers.

The official recommendation is two doses four weeks apart, which is projected to give very long term immunity. What's being bandied about is the fact that apparently a single dose gives you that level of protection for a year or two, at a minimum, and doses are in short supply, but are expected to grow in availability over the fall and winter. The logical conclusion to draw from that is, if you only take one dose now, the second can go to someone else as HIS first dose, and both of you can get your second dose later in the year, before immunity wanes, and thus the current supply will protect a lot more people. It's being suggested as a way to help get this under control faster by vaccinating more people with the available supply.

You mean that the Supreme Court of Canada is holding that you can't legally fuck someone while intentionally violating the terms of the consent they gave? Shocking. Good for them.

If your advisor has signed off on this destruction of materials, then that's one thing, but if that's something you've chosen to do on your own, I urge you to rethink this, for a couple of reasons. First: it's not unknown for there to be challenges later to your research (not in this area in particular, but in general). It happens not only with academic research, but professional research as well. In particular, in the sciences, some may well question whether your sources were real, etc. Having those recordings, and not just your notes, will help validate your research. What you don't want to do is end up in a situation where someone is alleging you made up most of your interviewees, and you don't have any concrete way to prove they existed. And even if your adviser has signed off on this: remember that you, not he (or she) will be on the hot seat if your research is challenged. All told, I would look into other options for long-term storage of the original material, even if encrypted, so that you can retrieve it if need be.

Again, made-up bullshit. You know this works both ways, don't you? If it weren't against the rules to target another member, one might envision all sorts of fabricated statistics I could make up about "TotalTop" and his sex life and what he enjoys and his criminal history and god knows what else. But I won't, because that wouldn't be right. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Assuming this friend exists, and assuming he actually has a wife, and assuming they actually have at least two children, and assuming they actually did this unnamed, undescribed, unknown "test" you mention, and assuming they did not in fact have an abortion, and assuming they had a boy, and that the first was also a boy, and assuming this second child is in fact healthy and assuming he did in fact turn 5 - a LOT of assumptions for which there is zero evidence, I'll note, other than your word - that still doesn't make fetal tests "notoriously inaccurate" any more than the one time you might have theoretically had trouble with an erection makes you "notoriously impotent". 24% of abortions occur in cases where the couple was using a form of birth control - most often condoms - and the birth control failed. That doesn't birth control isn't very effective; it means that sometimes, it doesn't work. In your world, such people are consigned to carry the pregnancy to term, apparently.

There was a time when I would have said "Well, the Supreme Court has already ruled on that" but these days.... There is a case from decades ago precisely addressing that issue. Texas recognizes common-law marriages - if you agree to be married, live together, and hold yourself out as a married couple for two years, you are legally married under common law. Louisiana does not recognize common-law marriages for its own citizens/residents. A couple who were common-law spouses in Texas came to Louisiana to visit relatives here. The husband was killed in a traffic accident, and the surviving wife sued, under Louisiana law, for various damages. Her right to sue was predicated on her being his surviving spouse - if she wasn't his spouse, she couldn't sue the other driver. The other driver's attorneys tried to dismiss the suit on the grounds that they couldn't have gotten legally married this way in Louisiana, so she wasn't eligible to sue. But the courts held that the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution required Louisiana courts to recognize her marriage, which was valid in Texas where they resided - just as if, say, they were first cousins married in a state that permitted cousins to marry, even if the state where the accident occurred prohibited cousin marriage. But, as I say - with this Supreme Court, who knows what precedent they might throw out?

If I'm reading the thread right, you seem to be saying that people who married in California found themselves "un-married". That's kind of true, kind of not. The circumstance came up twice. The first was when San Francisco unilaterally started issuing same sex marriage licenses in contravention of state law. Ultimately, the courts first ordered the license-dispensing to stop (which SF did) and then later held the marriages null and void because there was no authority for them in the first place. The ruling was, essentially, that a license acquired in violation of law (like one, say, issued to a man and his six-year old daughter) was null and void from the start, and couldn't be retroactively upheld. Later, the state was sued and the Supreme Court of CA held that a ban on same-sex marriages violated the state constitution. and struck down that ban. People rushed to get married while at the same time anti-gay forces pushed a ballot initiative to prohibit same-sex marriages in the CA Constitution. That initiative narrowly passed. This time, the Court held that the marriages had been legally entered into at the time of the marriage, so the state was powerless to void that contract. Later still, the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was challenged in federal court and it was struck down under the US Constitution. Once that was affirmed at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, same-sex marriage became legal in all the states in the 9th Circuit (a huge swath of the western US). But at no time were the marriages conducted in California AFTER the courts ruled them legal in the state ever voided - just the ones authorized by San Francisco in 2004.

"Many"? Please cite an authoritative source for this adjective. My description for this characterization is "bullshit". I'm not calling you a liar but it sounds to me like you hang out with a rather seedy crowd, if that's actually true. Again: please cite an authoritative source for your bullshit claim that "kill[ing] the infant after he or she is born" occurs in abortion clinics in the USA. "Hi, I just had this baby, and I meant to get an abortion but forgot. Can you take care of killing it for me? Kthanksbye" It's true that the fetus dies. The rest of this paragraph is again fertilizer-quality bullshit. Prior to the horrible Dobbs decision, two-thirds of abortions took place in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and 88% took place in the first 12 weeks. Others have already pointed out that abortion in the first trimester has a much lower complication and much lower fatality rate than pregnancy, so I'll leave aside your false statement about safety otherwise. I will note, however, that at 12 weeks - less than a trimester - a baby is not "almost developed". If they were, such babies could be saved in a miscarriage in a neonatal care unit. As it is, the youngest developed fetus to survive a premature delivery was 21 weeks, 1 day along. Anything before that, by definition, the baby is not "almost developed". More importantly, by that point, nobody's using abortion as casual birth control. A woman who has gone 20 weeks into pregnancy is almost guaranteed to want the child, but tragically, abortion is sometimes the safer and saner option. Abortions at this stage almost always involve something like severe fetal abnormalities that, IF the fetus survives to delivery, will almost certain end in a painful death. Sometimes the abortion is to remove a fetus that is already dying and has no chance of survival, and removing it from the mother is her only chance at survival as well. The point ought to be obvious: these are decisions that a woman should make, in consultation with her health care providers, and what you or I or anyone else thinks about it really shouldn't matter one fucking bit. Now, would I agree by the third trimester, absent such a clear reason, abortion shouldn't be permitted? I could be persuaded. But the thing is, under Roe and Casey, states could ALREADY prohibit such abortions, because they're past the point of viability. What the Supreme Court said in Dobbs is, in essence, a state can prohibit all those circumstances you say you'd support a right to abortion in - that states can, in fact, prohibit it entirely, even to save the life of the mother, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop a state from doing so. And in fact, that's effectively what some states have already done. So don't pretend you're some sort of reasoned moderate who recognizes that there are some limited circumstances where it should be protected - because you cannot, repeat cannot, square that with the Dobbs decision. It's not possible.

It is true that MANY DECADES before the Civil War, there were some slaves in the Northern states. Let's look at the numbers, shall we, since we have the census data for every decade starting with 1790. In that first census, there were zero slaves in Massachusetts (which then included Maine). There were 475,327 persons in Massachusetts (more than any state except Virginia). There were 16 slaves in Vermont, 158 in New Hampshire, 948 in Rhode Island. In total, in that first census, for states above the Mason-Dixon line, there were 49,257 slaves out of a total of 2,027,248 persons, so roughly 2.4% of the population north of the Mason-Dixon line was a slave. By contrast, none of the states south of the Mason-Dixon line had fewer than 12,430 slaves (Kentucky, which was sparsely settled at that point). The 49K slaves in the entire northern US pales in comparison with South Carolina (107,094 slaves), North Carolina (100,572 slaves), Maryland (103,036 slaves), or Virginia (a whopping 292,627 slaves). All told, there were 645,023 slaves in the six southern states out of a total population there of 1,866,387 people. In other words, 34.5% of all persons in the six southern states were enslaved. Let's leap ahead to the eve of the Civil War, to 1860. In that year, there were a grand total of 18 slaves in New Jersey and 1,798 in Delaware. Those were the only states of the original 13 where slavery was still legal, and only tangentially so (the reason numbers are so low). That's a total of 1,816 slaves in the northern states, out of 18,912,763 persons, or roughly one in every 200,000 people. In the slaveholding (that is, southern) states, there were 3,948,713 slaves among a total of 12,128,077 persons, or 32.5%. Now, as to making money off slaves: it's true that for a time, the slave trade flourished in both northern and southern ports, and banks in the north made a profit financing the purchase of ships and their human cargo. But the importation of slaves was illegal after 1808, or in other words, for more than 50 years before the Civil War. Thereafter, northern banks continued to profit by financing land purchases, slave acquisitions, and agricultural pursuits, that's true. But that enriched, as always, the wealthy banker class and not the average Northerner. And it's worth noting that by 1860, a lot of that finance had moved south, to New Orleans and Charleston and other southern port cities. In other words the north had largely purged itself of the limited stain of slavery those states had incurred by the founding of the country. The South? Not one bit. Zero. Nada. Pretending you know something about history when you display this sort of ignorance of what the actual numbers show only betrays one's ignorance.

Potato, Potahto.

I agree, with the slight modification that: Trump cared not one whit about conservative judicial priorities as articulated by McConnell and the Federalist Society et al. - it wasn't that he didn't necessarily believe in it, he just didn't give a damn, because his experience with the courts has always been delay, delay, delay, and eventually things go away or settle for a pittance. Notice that he's almost never the plaintiff in any action - he threatens to sue constantly, but he never did when it was his personal or corporate money. He only got involved as a plaintiff when it came to his campaign, because that was all someone else's money. To the extent he cared about judicial nominees at all, it was with the expectation that they would be "Trump judges" and rule in his favor all the time. That was his big miscalculation, because the FedSoc judges that they crammed onto the federal bench have a dim view of executive power. Right now, it's Biden's regulations they're striking down, but these ideologues (on the appellate courts, that is) are just as likely to strike down Trumpian overreaches if he gets back into office.

I think this highlights a distinction that of which people should be aware. When health officials opine on the difficulty of a man getting pozzed through topping, they're referring (in general) to a man fucking an HIV+ bottom and being directly infected by him. That is relatively hard to do (but not impossible, certainly; it generally requires there to be some sort of tear in the process, where blood comes in contact with the top's cock, either through a tear of his own, or by leaking up into the urethra, which is easier to infect). But when the top is fucking a bottom (of any status) and there are already loads in that bottom's rectum, the calculus is changed. If those loads are all undetectable, pozzing is highly unlikely. But if any of those loads has a high viral content, then yes, pozzing is definitely possible.

FWIW, although I use an Android phone day-to-day, I have an iPhone I connect to wi-fi to use to test websites under development to see what they look like in Safari. When I go to [think before following links] https://breeding.zone directly in the Safari Browser, it takes me to this site. That makes me think that you're probably trying the wrong URL (the address in the title bar) - for instance, if you're using "breedingzone.com" that won't work. If that isn't the problem, I can't really suggest why Safari won't work directly for you. It should never be necessary to go through Google to get to a website if you're using the correct URL.

Kinda wonder, then, how you would have had sex before HIV was a thing, because the "risk" simply didn't exist.

First: Just because *you* don't believe in "bi, str8 curious etc." doesn't mean those things don't exist. Sexual orientation is a spectrum, not a black or white issue. Just because *you* can't imagine yourself being attracted to women as well as men doesn't mean there aren't plenty of men out there who are (and women who are attracted to both, as well). It's true that in some societies, it's more acceptable to be bisexual (especially if you mostly are interested in the opposite sex) and thus some actually gay men will claim to be bisexual and publicly date women (although not actually have sex with them). That was a common thing in the 70's and 80's here in the U.S., when "experimenting" young men would declare themselves to be "bi" before later admitting they were gay and had no interest in women. BUT - not all people who say they're bisexual are, in fact, gay or straight. More importantly, it's not your place to decide that they are - as you correctly note, it's none of your business. As for "bromance": Here in the U.S., as I understand the term, it's used to describe a relationship between two men that has a "love" component without a "sexual" component. Two guys who are mostly inseparable but who aren't having sex (whether they identify as straight, gay, bisexual, or whatever) are said to be in a "bromance" - a kind of love that is like a brotherhood (hence the "bro" part) where the guys have emotional attachment (the "romance" part). Whether that's what your gossipy friends at work were talking about or not, I can't say. On a side note: based on your description, it sounds like everyone in your workplace is spending an inordinate amount of time worrying about who is sleeping with whom and what gender each person there is attracted to. Or is it just that *you* spend a lot of time thinking about this, so you ask a lot of people about it, and then it seems to be all they talk about? You might consider whether you're just adding fuel to this fire of gossip.

First, a quick review of the (limited) possible benefits: today's HIV medications, though much more powerful and at the same time milder than early meds, can and sometimes do take a toll on your body's functions. Notably, in some number of patients kidney function gets gradually impaired, but there can be ripple effects in other parts of your body. Those effects may or may not "reverse" if you go off meds, but for someone experiencing them, they shouldn't get worse (unless there are other factors at play). It's important to remember, though, that some changes wrought by being on HIV treatment are much harder to reverse. That said: the negative effects are multiple. Not only does your viral load go up, but your innate immune system keeps trying to fight off HIV, with more limited success than when you're on meds - and that success almost always ends up failing, meaning your immune system largely gives up the fight. And just like HIV drugs can damage other parts of your body, so can HIV itself. But in the interim, while your immune system is fighting and being gradually overwhelmed by HIV, other infections that you might readily fend off otherwise can take hold. At one time, before viral load counts and undetectable statuses were a thing, judging someone as having AIDS wasn't about the numbers; it was having one or more of some well-known "opportunistic infections" - things negative people only rarely get, but which were commonplace in people with advanced cases of HIV infection. Cognitive impairment is certainly possible, if HIV becomes rampant in your system. There are infections that can devastate your lungs, your eyes, your nervous system, and your gut. Some of these are treatable, some are not, and some of them can themselves be fatal. In the long run, it's suicide. That doesn't mean you can't stop for a while, and go back on meds later (though doing so periodically may render those meds or meds made in part with those compounds ineffective), but that's not a decision I would recommend without consulting your doctor. It's possible he or she will agree as long as you continue to get routine blood screenings and commit to going back on meds when a particular threshold is reached. It's possible he or she won't. The question I'd ask is, "Why?" Not saying there are no good reasons to do this in a particular case (and to be fair, no one owes anyone else an explanation for that kind of decision, except perhaps one's partner if one exists). But doing it because you're facing issues with side effects, and doing it because you're wanting to become toxic, are very different scenarios.

Maybe if you read the posts in question more closely you'll see I was talking about two different things. (Or maybe you don't care, you're just looking to try to make me look hypocritical. I can't know which it is because I can't get inside your brain.) The earlier "I get it" post refers, rather clearly, to the fact that I get you are neurodivergent and that you perceive and interact with people differently because of that difference. I don't have to "get," on a visceral level, exactly HOW it's different, to recognize THAT it's different. Just like I don't have to "get" what it's like to be a black man in America to know that his experience and mine are, in many respects, radically different. In fact, I can even identify many of those respects in which many such men and I are different - the need for behaving in certain ways when dealing with law enforcement, for instance, even knowing that behaving exactly as recommended is no guarantee of fair treatment; what I can't "get" is how that feels, what it's like to live like that. I can guess, I can imagine, but I can't KNOW. Likewise: I can identify some of the respects in which many neurodivergent people and I are different - in part because of the work they, and their advocates in the health community, have done to educate us. I can't "get" how it feels to be neurodivergent, nor do I pretend to. I do fairly confident that when such a person tells me "I am unable to pick up on X type of signal from others", I can make that statement with respect to his circumstances and not be pulling shit out of my ass. I may not understand how that affects him, but I can recognize that it DOES affect him.

I fully acknowledge I don't "get" autism the same way I don't "get" what it's like to be Black in the U.S. I can understand some aspects of both objectively, I can observe from the outside to a certain degree, but "get"? No, I don't pretend to. But that also means you don't "get" what it's like to be neurotypical, either - only that you see aspects of it going on around you and it's outside your ability to experience as we do (that's my limited understanding of it). And you drive that home by describing what they are *based on how they feel to you* without qualifying that this isn't some universally agreed upon convention - and in fact, obviously, a lot of people find these things useful or the software apps wouldn't have them in place.

I figure "both" as well. I'm happy to share a face pic here with anyone for whom there's a reason, but since I treat this as a discussion spot, not a hookup/dating/whatever spot, I consider faces less necessary.