ejaculaTe

I'm guessing you might have disabused the OP of any notion that you're a chatbot.

The concept reminds me of Dry January. I can see there'd be health benefits from Dry January, but as @ErosWired has explained, the physical benefits from NoNutNovember aren't very obvious. The whole thing has overtones of Victorian masculinity which viewed jerking off as a drain on the masculine essence, leading to physical and moral decay.

This article from the Journal of the American Medical Association discusses some of the reasons. Community-based organizations step up to confront HIV in southern states.pdf

Thanks for finishing the tale of your encounter. I know I never got offers like that when I went in to the office early.

You seemed to have stopped in mid-stroke so to speak. Any chance you'll continue your tale of shagging the cleaner?

And just as aggravating, it's likely that they haven't seen a doctor in years except on tv.

Don't get writer's block -- we're all into this story....

I'm a bit out of practice so 7, 5, 1....

Proving yet again that experience overcomes youth. Simply awesome....

I suspect that there are plenty of us who have had experiences like Treehugger but prefer to forget it as much as possible. And sometimes, as Treehugger writes, all you can do is laugh.

Condom failure because of a manufacturing defect would be evidence that there was no intent to cause the harmful or offensive contact; if the defense can convince the jury that the thing broke of its own accord, the defense wins. (The testimony about quality assurance at the condom factory, to my mind, would surely be one of the stranger moments in legal history.) That defense, even if factually true, is hardly a surefire winner. If the person being sued (call him “D”) says, “Hey, I started out with one, but it broke,” the next question is “When did you discover that it broke?” That question is surely followed by “Why didn’t you stop intercourse (or whatever) when you realized it had broken?” Facing a “it broke by itself” defense, the person bringing the lawsuit (let’s call that person “P”) will have to show that the failure was created by D. Evidence of D’s prior behavior can’t be used to show that D had a tendency to act in a particular manner. Thus, the fact that D has a history of condom failures can’t be used to prove that he broke the condom in this case. But the history of condom failure can be used to establish the absence of accident in this case. (If you think that’s a distinction only lawyers and judges would create, you’re not alone.) One condom failure is likely an accident; failure of condoms in almost all of a man’s sexual encounters isn’t bad luck, but something beginning to look like a campaign of condom sabotage. Stray observations: (1) In a criminal prosecution, the State has to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil lawsuit, for example under the California statute, the burden of proof isn’t as demanding as the criminal standard — P has to prove the case by “a preponderance of the evidence.” (2) As to whether the California statute will prove “to be a lawyer’s picnic,” since the time of Henry VIII (if not earlier), lawyers have been accused of making the law so complicated that the lawyers turn out to be the only “winner.” (3) Consent is a defense to a claim of sexual battery under California law. But if P gives consent when he’s intoxicated or under the influence of controlled substances, the consent is worthless as a defense for D. The flip side is that a jury might not be very sympathetic to P who will have admitted to using drugs.

I'd say that even before this year's amendment to the statute (which added the specific language about removal of a condom), the statute covered intentional damage of a condom to infect a sexual partner. The statute defines "sexual battery" as acting "with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact... and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results." I'd guess that most juries would view damaging a condom to be evidence of an "intent to cause harmful or offensive contact" and infecting (or attempting to infect) another person with HIV to be "sexually offensive contact." Side notes: (1) The California statute is Civil Code §1708.5; it was enacted in 1990. (2) The definition of "offensive contact" has been in the statute from the start. (3) Moreover, the definition of "offensive contact" used in the statute is pretty much the same definition used in American civil law for purposes of defining "battery" (as in "assault and battery"). (4) The New York bill would amend the state criminal code. (5) The issue has come up in several criminal cases in England; the one that comes to mind at the moment is that of Daryll Rowe. He was convicted in 2017 under the Offenses Against The Person Act 1861 for infecting (or attempting to infect) sexual partners with HIV, tampering with the condom if the other man refused to go bareback.

NY Senate Bill 4401 would have died at the end of the 2019-2020 legislative session. The bill introduced in the current session (2021-2022) is AB 4994. There's a "Sponsor Memo" attached to Senate Bill 4401 that explains the statutory text and the need for the amendment. (The language in the NY bill was somehow easier for me to understand than the California bill.)

If I cleaned out the milk crate, landscaping stuff, trash, etc. out of the car and put up the 3d row of seats, I could offer rides <wink, wink, nudge, nudge>.

You haven't lived until you've done laundry for a friend and the smell of Crisco pervades the laundry room. Silicone lube offered far less room for comments by and raised eyebrows of the building's other residents.

I'm rather old-fashioned, I suppose. Over the years, Wet Platinum silicone has been my lube of choice (I used to buy it in, if I recall correctly after all these years, by the gallon (or maybe it was by the quart -- you get the idea)). It has no taste or odor, and sucking a dick that had been greased up with it didn't bother me. I've also used Swiss Navy silicone as well, and it strikes me as pretty similar to Wet. When I think my checking account can withstand the stress, I buy Pjur original.

What @YourNoLimitsBottom said is spot on. Another possibility is to do volunteer work, though, of course, the pandemic put a damper on socializing and the like. And there are plenty of magazine and web articles on the topic; I came across the Deadspin article in 2014, and a trip with your favorite search engine should unearth lots. [think before following links] https://deadspin.com/why-is-making-grownup-friends-so-hard-1501033717

[the iPad ate the original version] Yep, there are small banks, and they can issue credit cards. The problem isn’t with the banks, but with the card associations. The credit card brands like Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express are card associations. They set the policies and standards for payment processing (such as interchange fees), as well as serve as the middle man between issuing banks and merchant banks. If I’ve read the news reports right, MasterCard has decided it won’t accept processor requests for transactions originating from merchants such as OnlyFans unless the merchant has various mechanisms in place to resolve claims regarding illegal or unauthorized posting of videos. OnlyFans made a separate decision to remove sexually explicit video from the site in order to facilitate corporate financing, a decision that has the collateral benefit of complying with the policies set out by MasterCard. [I readily admit that I may not have correctly recalled all of the details, but I think I have the basic narrative correct.]

Experience over youth every time. There are some things you don’t want to be teaching at 3 in the morning.

Armchair psychology is always risky. My guess - unencumbered by the thought process - is that you topping him would represent his loss of control. Another guess, suggested by your description of what he says, is that he’s afraid you won’t find him sexually satisfying, thus leading to your leaving him.

all is explained: [think before following links] https://www.vox.com/2016/3/8/11179492/ted-cruz-zodiac-killer

Hold the special sauce on that order....

once I figured out what 550 cord was, you had me hooked.

Theme to "Dragnet" begins to play....