Queens teacher who had sex with 14-year-old student gets 6 months jail

A former Queens teacher was sentenced to six months in jail on Monday for sleeping with a 14-year-old student.

Daniel Reilly, 36, was also sentenced to ten years of probation, and has to register as a sex offender for being sexually active with the girl, who was one of his English students at IS 237.

Sex addiction? Sorry, chaps, it's just plain old lust

Although the New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner is unlikely ever to trouble British voters, that is not to say Mr Weiner can be filed away, with complete confidence, under the category "US politicians who have incautiously disseminated images of their private parts, using the alter ego Carlos Danger". For one thing, given the reach of social media, and the man's irrepressible ambition, it must only be a matter of time – unless some sort of technology can be invented to block transmission – before a young British subject, switching on her telephone, suddenly finds that she is Carlos Danger's latest penis pen-pal.

In the more immediate future, it seems quite likely, should Boris Johnsonstand again, that Londoners could soon be asking related questions about sexual behaviour and fitness for office. Has Weiner really done enough, with his lame "sexting", to be considered a serious contender? In London, evidence of vigorous and sustained priapism has become so strongly associated with mayoral ambition as to be pretty much a prerequisite for office.

Long before Boris Johnson showed the world how to brazen out a vibrant history of extramarital impregnations and assignations, both short and long term, Jeffrey Archer, the perjurer and prostitute's john, was the Tories' favoured candidate, followed by a man actually nicknamed "Shagger". Shagger was beaten by Ken Livingstone, an unlikely but notably successful ladies' man, whose idea of drinks party chit-chat, awed Guardian staff once discovered, is the line, delivered with tremendous nasal authority: "When a woman opens her heart she opens her legs."

Until last week Mr Weiner appeared to be getting an equally tolerant hearing in New York. He had become a mayoral candidate having been forced to resign from the US Congress, in 2011, after sending photographs of his penis to, he finally admitted, "about six women". He said he would seek "professional treatment". Announcing his candidacy in May he asked for a second chance and let it be known, via an emotional, New York Times interview, that he had undergone therapy. And before he was exposed as Carlos Danger, his comeback suggested considerable acceptance of ostensibly resolved sexting issues. Weiner was ahead in the polls when news broke, last week, of another, illustrated, six-month, "cyber liaison" forged on a website called the Dirty, which seems to have coincided with his period of supposed penitence.

Within days, the Carlos conquests had multiplied to three; at least, Mr Weiner said, comfortingly: "I don't believe I had any more than three."

Even then, some reporters' questions suggested that, if Weiner's conduct could be defined as an illness, some further extenuation might be available. Was he in therapy? Was his difficulty, as many have speculated, sex addiction? Although Mr Weiner demurs – "I don't believe it is" – this could well be a reluctance to over-dramatise activities he has characterised as "background noise"?

For Weiner has been happy to exploit, as a token of his seriousness about rehabilitation, the language of addiction, therapy and recovery. "I worked through these things," he reminded a press conference.

He had professional help, he went on a journey to triumph over a problem that, if not actually that big a deal, was way more complicated a tale, you gathered, than some undignified urge to get pervy with strangers.

If his Carlos problem needed "work", as well as acknowledgement, then the public probably owes Weiner the same kind of support it has previously extended to alpha sex addicts such as David Duchovny, Tiger Woods and Michael Douglas, and our own premier sufferer, Russell Brand, former owner of "a harem of about 10 women, whom I would rotate in addition to one-night stands and random casual encounters".

"I think there is such a thing," Brand writes in My Booky Wook . "Addiction, by definition, is a compulsive behaviour that you cannot control or relinquish, in spite of its destructive consequences. And if my life proves nothing else, it demonstrates that this formula can be applied to sex just as easily as it can be to drugs and alcohol." Neuroscience, on the other hand, tends to take issue with Mr Brand's analysis of his harem-keeping. Recently, sex addiction was excluded from the DSM 5, the US manual of mental disorders, along with behavioural addictions to food, the internet and caffeine.

"We looked at sex addiction," said one of authors, "but there was no science at all. None."

Now a new study casts such doubt on previous assumptions about sex addiction that questions are even being asked about Boris Johnson's alleged satyriasis. Could he be, in fact, normal? Shouldn't NHS Choices take another look at its claim, on its sex addiction page (with hilarious, addict-face illustration) that: "This addiction is similar to substance abuse because it is caused by the powerful chemical substances released during sex."

Who wrote that – Tiger Woods?

Because researchers at UCLA tested brain activity in self-diagnosed hypersexual people and found no evidence to separate their participants' reactions from those of normal people with a high sex drive.

"One of the frequent critiques of sexual addictions is that it pathologises normative, socially unaccepted, sexual behaviours," say the authors. "These data appear consistent with that perspective."

For sufferers such as Duchovny, Sheen, Douglas et al, their feelings on discovering that their affliction is no more than a culturally constructed disorder designed to buttress sexual norms can only be compared to the female shock and fury each time that another cherished diagnosis, PMS, is discredited, as a convenient means of portraying women as hormonal nutters.

What will the sex addicts do now? If celebrities must quickly find an alternative to incarceration in a private clinic, as the immediate response to a sex scandal, the de-addicting of compulsive sexual behaviour also leaves civilian sufferers without an accessible, 12-step approach to their troubles, one that a US psychologist has disparaged as "the addiction made me do it".

Beyond that, it's hard to see the disappearance of sexual addiction from the lexicon of celebrity/political excuses as anything but an advance. Not only because of the lack of physical evidence for sex addiction, but because any definition of out-of-control sex must relate to social norms.

When harems were in, for example, Brand's outfit might have been quite appealing. Compared with Boris, or Clinton or Berlusconi, or even John Major, Weiner, phone sexing in his bedroom, is Saint Anthony of the Dirty; US politics' answer to Nicholson Baker.

Suppose Weiner had not had, at his disposal, the routine narrative of inexplicable compulsion followed by much work and hard-won redemption, the public might have had to consider the gravity of his online experiments, their implications for his politics and, given that she has volunteered for popular inspection, for his wife.If diagnoses of sexual addiction help promote repressive or unrealistic definitions of normal sexual behaviour, they also provide a watertight defence against allegations of betrayal: "God knows – I must have been mad."

Sex and the H.I.V. Morning-After Pill

I RECENTLY had a serious H.I.V. scare after an episode of unprotected sex. The next day, at Whitman-Walker, a clinic in Washington that specializes in treating gay patients, I began a monthlong regimen of the drug Truvada, a form of post-exposure prophylaxis, or PEP. It has to be taken within 72 hours after potential contact with the virus that causes AIDS. The price tag would normally be $1,200, but I was able to get a subsidy the manufacturer gives to low-income earners.

“You can only get this deal once,” my doctor warned.

“Jeez, I hope so,” I said. “I mean, it’s not like there are PEP regulars, right?”

She sighed. “Oh, there are.”

More than 30 years since AIDS emerged, and two decades since antiretroviral drugs transformed that epidemic into a chronic but manageable disease, conversations about H.I.V. remain awkward, especially for gay men.

When were you last tested? Did you test only for antibodies, or was it a full polymerase chain reaction test? What have you done sexually since you last tested negative?

It can be tough to rekindle any bedroom passion after such questions come up.

Two recent developments could make these conversations less awkward, or even render them moot. But they also raise troubling questions about promiscuity and responsibility that are reminiscent of debates from the 1980s.

The first development was the approval, last summer, by the Food and Drug Administration of an over-the-counter rapid-response at-home H.I.V. test kit. The test, called OraQuick and available nationwide since October, gives results 20 minutes after a cheek swab. The second is the increasing availability of PEP and of pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP.

PEP — the medication I am taking — has been called the H.I.V. morning-after pill, and PrEP, to follow the analogy, is akin to birth control. A study in the British medical journal The Lancet this month found that drug-injecting addicts who took PrEP were half as likely to become infected with H.I.V. as those who did not; other studies have shown that the drug reduces transmission of the virus from mother to child, and transmission among both gay men and heterosexuals.

The at-home OraQuick tests, at $20 a pop, are a bigger phenomenon than drugs like Truvada, which can be used as either a pre-exposure or a post-exposure prophylaxis, and can cost more than $10,000 a year.

A study by Columbia University researchers, published last year in the journal AIDS and Behavior, found that the at-home tests could be effective if widely used. It gave at-home testing kits to 27 gay men who reported having routine unprotected sex. Over three months, the 27 men had a collective total of 140 sexual partners; 124 of them were asked to submit to testing before sex, and 101 agreed. Of the 101, 10 tested positive (six learned of their H.I.V. status that way). None of the men had sex with a partner after learning that the partner tested positive.

The at-home test, OraQuick, also is not a sure thing. It tests only for antibodies, which sometimes don’t emerge for months after infection. So the newly infected, who are 8 to 10 times more likely to be infectious, can still test as negative.

As for the pre- and post-exposure pills, cost is not the only barrier. Of 403 H.I.V.-negative gay men surveyed in a different study by Columbia researchers, only half said they would take PrEP on a regular basis. A 22-year-old art director on the Lower East Side told me of a recent scare he had after he took home a handsome but sometimes homeless man he met at a bar. Very drunk, they had unprotected sex. The next morning the art director panicked, but eschewed the post-exposure pills, he told me, because “I’m pretty health-conscious and careful about what I put in my body, especially medicine.” (Weeks later, he did a regular H.I.V. test, which came up negative.)

Dan Savage, the nationally syndicated sex columnist who coined the concept of “monogamish” relationships, expressed similar worry, fearing that clinicians do not understand the psychology of the population they’re trying to help. “The guys these sensible health care folks are trying to reach are not sensible,” he told me. “They are self-identified idiots who can only be saved by a vaccine.” Right now, in the final weekend of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, it is a good moment to reflect on these issues. In the nearly two decades since “Rent” and “Angels in America,” a generation has grown up in a world where AIDS did not equal death. That has led to a complacency that helps explain a troubling increase in new H.I.V. infections among young men who have sex with men.

I fear that, for all their potential benefits, at-home tests and the new pre- and post-exposure H.I.V. medications might give some gay men an exaggerated sense of safety, and encourage the promiscuity that Larry Kramer, the playwright and activist, has spent so many years railing against.

When a gay crowd gathered Wednesday on Christopher Street, where the modern gay liberation movement was born in 1969, to celebrate the Supreme Court’s rulings on same-sex marriage, there was much cheering and talk about progress. But I wondered what the crowd did with the rest of their night.

24 Sex Secrets to Avoid Tiger Woods-Level Disaster

Are people who marry their first sexual partners more likely to cheat?

Actually, they are less likely to cheat, but they are getting harder to find. According to Edward O. Laumann, author of The Sexual Organization of the City, as time goes by, "the more likely you're not going to have people who did not have multiple sexual experiences before they finally married." Laumann guesses that more sex partners before marriage is related to more and better cheating later on, and that those, how do you say, fidel couples, "tend to be married, somewhat more religious, and... have somewhat less likelihood of infidelity because of the normative beliefs that they have."

This Blog is all about sex knowledge, Fucking Tips, Sex Videos, Clips.  If you have any query, or have any suggestions, Then please contact us by giving your comments on this blog..