SirBillybob

Like-with-like vaccination mixing affects infection breakthrough attack rates. Obviously, if vaccinated person A has 80% reduction in infection risk then the risk to vaccinated person B similarly possessing the benefit of 80% efficacy is less than if A is unvaccinated and had had zero risk reduction at point of A-B contact. Same with HIV PrEP, etc.

It’s a loose guideline. Even if all true (not wilfully distorted) to the best of lister’s knowledge, the sole unequivocal “status” delineation is ‘positive’, unless you deem the not listed option as equivocal in terms of a binary: inquire further, or … accept a range of equivocal along with the one unequivocal and optionally inquire further. If you require absolute specificity upfront, go with the HIV poz provider. The more ambiguous the listing the greater the justification for cracking open a dyadic conversation. The alternative is to second-guess, depending on the context of activity, and be subject to overthinking and fretting about it. The drop-down menu MO is more to stimulate and encourage dialogue than to completely assuage health concerns at point of attention to ad. You may be essentially paying to undertake a complex task. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. The outcome of the exercise further separates the wheat from the chaff.

Suboptimally staffed due to wide spread anabolic steroid use.

No worries. It is urban myth and the investigators themselves state that their findings need to be substantiated. I wouldn’t run out to invest in large-size condom manufacturing just yet.😉 It is much easier and faster to dismiss these research findings as specious than to undertake the onerous task of a similar investigation.

One specific mean length difference within the data set across the dozens of studies in the analysis is 11.1 cm (4.4 inches)!! The much higher value is situated within a later decade research project. This difference is equivalent to 5.9 standard deviations from the widely accepted global mean. 98% of adult men fall within 2 standard deviations. No sexologist or researcher with basic analytical skills would accept the legitimacy of such a vast difference. It is bullshit. Moreover, that particular computed difference is over 4 times the estimated temporal increase put forward by the investigators. There is something to be said for face validity and simple logic. Anybody with critical appraisal skills can see that this one methodological measurement flaw alone would skew results. There have been other convincing criticisms of the study methods, including the effect of greater prevalence of pubic bone press penis length measurement technique in more recent times. That approach is associated with greater length values, up to almost the temporal length difference reported in this study. It was not mentioned as a relevant factor and not controlled for in multivariate analysis. The investigators did not describe testing a null hypothesis of no difference. The most interesting finding would be a change that garnered attention; that bias ran through the article. What is also unknown is the breadth of manuscript peer review submissions and rejections prior to publication of a Stanford/Emory piece of work in the more obscure Korean educational entity journal. There are many high caliber periodicals within the field.

Some of us reside in metriculated regions. Otherwise, unmitigated growth will yield a newly emerging STD, foot-in-mouth disease.

Addendum: In sum, not buying it. I’d put a sock in it. The dynamics of differential between flaccid and erect length and girth, principly smooth muscle tissue relaxation, are not even a footnote. The potential for increased qualitative [sic] efficacy of penile injections, given they were evidently employed for clinical setting measurement, is not mentioned. Artificial tumescence does not translate to real world.

Overall average flaccid length decreased proportionally considerably more than erection length increased when comparing past 3 decades. Therefore, counterintuitive large changes in the differential between flaccid and erect call into question the accuracy of measurement, notwithstanding that the cohorts for flaccid and erect measurement do not overlap entirely. Statistical measurement artefacts such as regression to the mean may explain this anomaly better than the hypotheses put forward. In the same way that flaccid length measurement may have naturalistically self-adjusting outlier values showing reduced difference between true and observed amounts over time, the more recent erect length values could similarly adjust downward going forward from current higher means, subsequently trending towards the earlier lower mean values, nullifying the observation of increase over the last decade compared to previous ones. It also appears that erection length was predominantly measured by intracavernosal injection and, if not, the variation that would be expected by spontaneously solicited erections in a clinical as opposed to naturalistic arousal context could have been a factor.

“I’ll just say I like the PUMP! Jock on.” Despicably manipulative much? Evil vortex much? Who does that?!

Physical and moral revulsion are emotional cousins but associated with different cognitive states and autonomic nervous system processing. If you are primed to categorize the phenomenon of idiosyncratic physical disgust in relation to an entity as evidence of sociopathy, based on your background experience with an individual in which your perception is already negatively oriented, then your moral indignation related to this one isolated example is no less a logical fallacy than his assuming that his subjective and protracted physical response, also anchored in context, categorically defines the entity as disgusting. (I did not detect such an assertion on his part.) This bias alone nullifies the argument that the isolated phenomenon exemplifies a social background priming the privilege of othering. The legitimacy of moral (eg, character, personality) judgement is no less arguable than the physically induced affective state of revulsion. We see that either may spontaneously manifest and reside on a continuum of alterability.

… for some reason I tried to add a final paragraph and the edit function crashed but I caught a screenshot:

Yes, we are born to learn to be able to recognize the familiar and predictable. The unfamiliar evokes involuntary mental reaction and that is adaptive in many cases. Our central affective states are happy, sad, angry, anxious, surprise, revulsion. Note that the majority of affective adaptation exists in the more negative realm. I think I was more startled when first aware of intact foreskin. As well, surprised and curious when as a young child comparing my genitalia to that of my sister plunked into the same bathwater. Then surprised about her later menstruation onset. In your case perhaps it is harder to bury the lead: a kind of disoriented revulsion. First impressions tend to be strongly anchored. I will happily snack on dark dried raisins but I will never be persuaded to eat a slice of raisin pie, and I pick out and discard raisins from muffins and butter tarts. I guess I reacted poorly to the novel texture or I was nauseous for some unrelated reason. I have no problem with prunes or any other dried fruit in baking. We possess in common a seemingly irreversible and idiosyncratic revulsion not particularly amenable to alteration via more advanced cognitive processes. I’ll take mine, though, thank ye very much.

I think that to label male circumcision as “mutilation” is not outrageous because the ethical discourse surrounding it and female genital mutilation, though circumcision is obviously not monolithic, overlaps. The term need not undermine the concept of oppression of females since the physical result overrides personal autonomy and the beneficence of male circumcision is arguable. I think that to label genital intactness as “gross” is not valid because male, female, and intersex genital intactness is naturalistic and not behaviourally coarse or vulgar. It may be nonpreferred but if it evokes disgust that is contextually determined, assortative. Surely the total absence of male circumcision would never have induced revulsion.

Nicely put, S.S., and without unnecessary hubris.

Yes particularly if it’s capital, for that capital, you’d want the freedom to go downtown.

“I viewed your ad. Thank you for the information provided thus far. Now that you can see my client profile, what is the next step?” If it’s crickets, no acknowledgement whatsoever, I simply move on. If he responds he should be able to make a seamless transition from the ad info to content that was legitimately missing from the ad but necessary to proceed. The ball is always in his court.

Where the abbreviation RM is used are we to assume it’s RentMen within the Deli forum but RentMasseur within the Spa/Massage forum? What about here under Questions?

I hope the openings have legs.

Two ad photos; stolen from two different social media profiles. The Israeli is about 24, does not do porn. The ad is fake. English, Dutch, Russian. I wouldn’t be rushin’ into a booking even if I could go dutch with a few other suckers.

Yes, it’s RL, not the fellow whose face pic was entered above. The photo with Calvin Klein underwear was posted in early 2019. I suspect they are misappropriated photos. BTW, over 20% of total nations globally have a higher circumcision rate than Israel and non-circumcision is not a rarity among Israeli males.

Meta: Maybe I’m just not swift or my sensibility properly taylored enough to recognize I have ever met a troll here.

Surely there are things that don’t require validation via monetization. An escort or physician might express approval or simple commentary that you keep healthy and fit, or some other valued aspect, without a reference point that demeans anybody outside the exchange. The merit of positive reinforcement should be enough so that you aren’t yourself submitting an invoice in kind for the characteristic just affirmed.

Maybe coloured fingernails will grow on some of us. My sense is that an earring was at first incongruous with stereotypical masculinity and the rogue pirate analogy was invoked to neutralize any tone of femininity. Then which side ear to further stratify identification, that then seemingly neutralized. Yet earrings on a boardroom suit might not fly, or work well in certain job interviews. Values shaping place and time inevitably come into play. Tattoos on females may be considered less highly stylized and less overly faddish a look compared to when the trend began. Nose rings evoke bovine imagery for me. He’d have to be face down, however hot, for me to not feel going down the bestiality hole. Automatic pass on such an ad. Admittedly, rigid terms of personal taste. Rolling with tattoos in intimacy, not much choice. Eventually arousal paired with ink seems to neutralize misgivings. However, less is more and I don’t get the addition to infinity trend. It seems a desperate bid to stand apart but then ubiquitous enough to necessitate an additional level of distinction to a ridiculous level. And those stretched lobes? I mean where do you want me to insert it?🤢 As for painted shiny fingertips, when I said I like a polished look …

It’s impossible for me to see whether I have foreskin back there. SKYN episodically? Yes, consistently.