unicorn

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/2/russia-to-boost-size-of-armed-forces-by-170000-troops "...Russia had undertaken various efforts to give a boost to its army – including drafting conscripts... All Russian men from age 18 to 27 (or age 18-30 starting on January 1, 2024) must serve one year in the military...". https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-signs-decree-autumn-military-conscription-2023-09-29/#:~:text=The new legislation comes into,but undisclosed casualties in Ukraine. "Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree setting out the routine autumn conscription campaign, calling up 130,000 citizens for statutory military service, a document posted on the government website showed on Friday. All men in Russia are required to do a year-long military service between the ages of 18 and 27, or equivalent training while in higher education. Putin's move comes as Russia's armed forces press on with their "special military operation" in Ukraine, now in its 20th month... The president, who signed an order in March calling up 147,000 people for the spring campaign, said this month he was bracing for a long war in Ukraine. In July Russia's lower house of parliament voted to raise the maximum age at which men can be conscripted to 30 from 27. The new legislation comes into effect on Jan. 1, 2024...".

This nut has been to all countries on the planet:

I can only wonder if a visit to Yemen will be possible during my lifetime... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Yemen

Maybe someone who didn't want to die in the fields of Ukraine?

I always thought that he was the most ridiculous figure ever in the history of the planet. And the name of the 2nd largest city also cracks me up: Bimbo. I suspect it's a country I'll never visit. Of the countries I wouldn't visit today, but would like to someday if the political climate improves, I'd probably like to see Iran, Burma, and Yemen's Socotra Island the most. I'd rather see Socotra Island:

That seems unlikely, if one's to believe the surveillance footage. Putin seems to like to murder people in spectacular, outrageous ways, to leave no doubt that he did it, and will do it again with impunity if he so wishes. Putin likes to murder openly, with the aim to instill fear as much as to silence any vocal opponents.

If you were truly putting posts up because you were interested in finding out more about the procedure from a scientific/medical perspective, then I apologize. Unfortunately, that's not how your posts came off to me. In particular, the post in which you wrote: "Really? Objectively measuring and comparing sensitivity between 2 groups is silly? And you pray science?" came off as hostile and provocative. I felt similarly about the post in which you implied that men who'd had circumcisions as adults couldn't possibly remember what sex was like before they developed the condition which forced them to have a circumcision. I found it difficult to believe that you actually believed that contention as well. I do feel these specious arguments are quite similar to those who make false claims about the election being stolen, by using bogus videos or other "evidence" purporting to show election workers cheating. Those who made those false claims were tried and convicted, and had to compensate their victims. When examined with an unbiased mind, the facts will ultimately win out. Trump has so far been able to use legal machinations to avoid his criminal trials so far, but probably will eventually get his just deserts. It certainly gets tiring to keep hearing the same bogus arguments, promulgated by those who embrace either willful ignorance, or intentional deceit. These false statements have all been discredit by scientific scrutiny. One of my prior links has references to the multiple studies on these matters. Circumcision does not cut the nerves going to the glans, nor does it cause any form of sexual dysfunction (impotence, premature ejaculation, difficulties with orgasm, and so on). Anyone who maintains otherwise is either ignoring the science or willfully lying. The health benefits of circumcision have also been well-documented by countless studies, and accepted by professional medical societies. Ultimately, of course, most parents simply opt to choose to consent or decline the procedure based on the appearance of the father's genitals--and that's fine. No one is suggesting that parents be vilified for declining the procedure.

The fact that he came in alone, then returned and came back alone, seems to point to suicide. If so, one has to wonder why he went to the trouble of getting rid of his identification documents. That comes off as perhaps rather passive-aggressive to me.

If I understand your question correctly, you are asking where Thai same-sex partners can marry nearest to Thailand. While legal in most of the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand, there is so far only one country in Asia (Taiwan) and one country in Africa (South Africa) which allow same-sex marriage. You can find more information on Wikipedia. My understanding is that in Asia, Japan and Cambodia are the most likely to legalize same-sex marriage next. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage Countries in dark blue have full same-sex marriage on an equivalent basis to gender-divergent marriage: Among those countries which do not require visas for Thai citizens (in green), it looks as though the main choices are Taiwan, South Africa, or various South American countries. If a Thai person were to marry a citizen of one of the dark blue countries above, in most cases he'd be allowed to live there permanently, and eventually become a citizen if he stayed clean of the law. If a Thai person were to marry a citizen of the US, EU, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, he would carry two passports which would be very powerful indeed, since he could visit almost every country without a visa, with the exception of some truly weird ones one would never want to visit anyway, such as Venezuela, Algeria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, and the Central African Empire (I mean Republic 😉).

I also felt that Emma Stone was hands-down the best actress in a leading role. A lot of pundits thought they'd give the Oscar to Lily Gladstone, since no Oscar has yet gone to a Native American woman, and it seemed there was political pressure to make history. However, I think there was little question but that ES's role was far more challenging than LG's character, and ES showed a wider array of emotion and talent. LG did fine, but I definitely felt ES outshone her competition. Kudos to the Academy for doing the right thing (at least IMHO).

Well, not quite objective since obviously this was not a blinded study. Also, even if the results are accurate, and not just someone trying to prove a point, they're absolutely meaningless since the real-life facts from men who've actually had the procedure rule out any significance to the findings. The myth of any significant loss of sensitivity has been thoroughly discredited from multiple real-life studies. Removing the foreskin does not, as he suggests, damage the nerves going to the glans. What a pile of crap! Someone simply doesn't know the basic anatomy (prepuce refers to the foreskin): As usual, just a bunch of BS from people trying to confuse others with outright lies. Reminds me of those MAGA idiots:

Obviously silly study by someone desperate to prove a point. Real-life studies are obviously what are important.

Really, now. These men obviously didn't always have phimosis, etc. They can certainly remember how the sex (or masturbation) was before and how it was after. Not at all complicated, nor difficult to understand.

Finally an intelligent move on Xi's part. That being said, if there's any foreign country for which I would probably want to spend over 2 weeks, China would be it. Well, we did spend a bit over 2 weeks touring Switzerland recently, and I've also spent over 2 weeks touring France, Italy, and Spain. I doubt the courtesy will be extended to the US for political reasons, but it would have been smart for economic reasons. Not that China's visas are that difficult.

Tattooing is not analogous to a circumcision because there are multiple well-documented health benefits to circumcision, and obviously none for tattooing. Obviously, infants lack the capacity for informed consent for medical procedures, and the parents are entrusted to make these decisions. No one would expect to get consent from an infant, or even a 5 year-old, to ask whether he wants to get his shots or his blood drawn, and so on. I do remember one patient I had who became a complete terror when it came to getting his shots once he turned 8 or 9. At that age, it would have required several people to pin him down, so we just gave up, even though his parents wanted him to get his shots also. I kept asking him every year, and it wasn't until he was 18 or 19 that he finally let us give his overdue HPV shot, tetanus shot, and flu shot. To answer your question on tattooing of children, that may vary according to jurisdiction, but here in California the answer is no. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/laws/how-old-do-you-have-to-be-to-get-a-tattoo-in-california/#:~:text=California law requires that a,is charged as a misdemeanor. California law requires that a person be at least 18 years of age in order legally to get a tattoo. In fact, according to Penal Code 653 PC, it is a criminal offense to “ink” or administer a tattoo to a minor under the age of 18. A violation of this code section is charged as a misdemeanor. The crime is punishable by: custody in the county jail for not more than six months; and/or, a maximum fine of $1,000. ... Is it legal to tattoo a minor with the parent’s consent? No. California law prohibits tattooing minors across the board. Penal Code 653 PC does not provide a “parental consent” exception. Now, I did see in my career a number of parents who got their babies' ears pierced. That did give me a twinge of discomfort, since there are obviously no health benefits to getting one's ears pierced. Rarely did I see complications from those piercings, though--one infection and a few allergic reactions--none serious. Not a big deal. One nice benefit from the no tattoos on minors law is that if you see a photo of a young man with a tattoo, and are worried if it might be possible he's under 18, the presence of tattoos provides strong evidence the man is not, in fact, a minor.

I'm glad you put those two words in quotes, because you form your opinions while ignoring the facts and the studies used to find those facts. You decry what you perceive as "religious lunacy" yet use a religious term ("desecration") to put down a procedure simply because of your cosmetic preferences. You're certainly providing no scientific evidence to counter the evidence I presented, but simply post hysterical ramblings. You're no better than those who go around screaming about a "stolen election" from 2020, although all of the actual evidence points to the fact that Biden won fair and square. Screaming and bombastic language don't change the facts. In my over 3 decades working as a family physician, I never once saw a complication from a circumcision. I did see a number of boys and men develop medical conditions which wouldn't have happened had they been circumcised. That being said, obviously most men do fine even when they're not circumcised. However, there are documented medical reasons which might want parents to get their boys circumcised. Professional societies and the CDC agree on this. If you know of bona fide medical studies which show you're right and medical professionals are wrong, please post a link to the studies. Otherwise, your choices are to shut up, or to continue mouthing off like some MAGA idiot who believes what he wants to regardless of the facts.

These questions have been studied scientifically multiple times. Not difficult to do, since one need only ask men who've had the procedure done as adults. The studies consistently show no loss of sensitivity or sexual function. As for the STD risk, this question has also been studied with multiple diseases many times, They've consistently shown that for every STD which has been looked at, circumcised men have a much lower risk of STD's. The link in my prior post references many such studies. As for the sensitivity issue, this article reviews the studies which have been done: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515301727 Conclusion The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction. Morris BJ and Krieger JN. Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?—A systematic review. J Sex Med 2013;10:2644–2657.

It looks as though NATO now has firm control over the exits to the Baltic Sea as well as the Black Sea. NATO allies South Korea and Japan also control most exits to the Sea of Japan. I guess Russia still controls the Strait of Tartary if it wants to use the port at Vladivostok....

Your response is hysterical and devoid of thoughtful consideration. There are legitimate medical considerations for male circumcision, including a marked decrease in infant urinary tract infections, as well as other well-known medical problems such as STI's (including, but not limited to HIV), balanitis, phimosis/paraphimosis, penile cancer, and so on. Infants are now routinely anesthetized for the procedure (when done in a medical rather than a religious setting). Serious complications when done in a medical setting are rare. Most medical societies (at least in the US) feel it's appropriate to inform parents of the risks and potential benefits, and feel that either choice is fine. The CDC published a recent summary: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456Heah benefits of neonatal male circumcision: o The estimated risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in uncircumcised males: • aged 0.1 years is 1.3% (uncircumcised), 0.3% (circumcised) • aged 1–16 years is 2.78% (uncircumcised), 0.4% (circumcised) • aged >16 years is 28.2% (uncircumcised), 8.3% (circumcised) • over a lifetime is 32.1% (uncircumcised), 8.8% (circumcised) o Male circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs in circumcised males: • aged 0–1 years by 90% • aged 1–16 years by 85% • aged >16 years by 71% • over a lifetime by 23 Informed decisions should be guided by science and actual facts, rather than by hysterical reactions. One of the conclusions: "The American Academy of Pediatrics Taskforce on Circumcision states that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it." Please also not that the scientific summary notes: Considerations for the timing of male circumcision: • Neonatal male circumcision is safer, less expensive, and heals more rapidly than circumcision performed on older boys, adolescent males, and men. • Most of the health benefits of male circumcision occur after sexual debut (i.e. after becoming sexually active). • Male circumcision can also be conducted in adulthood when the individual can make the decision for himself. However, male circumcision after sexual debut could result in missed opportunities for:  HIV and STI prevention during the window period between sexual debut and circumcision  Prevention of UTIs during infancy. Considerations for the timing of male circumcision: • Neonatal male circumcision is safer, less expensive, and heals more rapidly than circuConsiderations for the timing of male circumcision: • NeonaConsiderations for the timing of male circumcision: • Neonatal male circumcision is safer, less expensive, and heals more rapidly than circumcision performed on older boys, adolescent males, and men. • Most of the health benefits of male circumcision occur after sexual debut (i.e. after becoming sexually active). • Male circumcision can also be conducted in adulthood when the individual can make the decision for himself. However, male circumcision after sexual debut could result in missed opportunities for:  HIV and STI prevention during the window period between sexual debut and circumcision  Prevention of UTIs during infancy. tal male circumcision is safer, less expensive, and heals more rapidly than circumcision performed on older boys, adolescent males, and men. • Most of the health benefits of male circumcision occur after sexual debut (i.e. after becoming sexually active). • Male circumcision can also be conducted in adulthood when the individual can make the decision for himself. However, male circumcision after sexual debut could result in missed opportunities for:  HIV and STI prevention during the window period between sexual debut and circumcision  Prevention of UTIs during infancy. mcision performed on older boys, adolescent males, and men. • Most of the health benefits of male circumcision occur after sexual debut (i.e. after becoming sexually active). • Male circumcision can also be conducted in adulthood when the individual can make the decision for himself. However, male circumcision after sexual debut could result in missed opportunities or:  HIV and STI prevention during the window period between sexual debut and circumcision  Prevention of UTIs during infancy. Obviously, each parent should be given the information needed to make a rational decision as to what's best for their baby. Hysterical statements, devoid of factual data, do not help further rational discussion.

I'm going to show my ignorance. Who's in charge in Thailand, the King or his Prime Minister?

According to that link, one must apply for US visas in Poland. If you can get permission to visit the EU or US, your leader certainly can't. I suspect he could be allowed to make a speech at the UN without being arrested. He could leave from Vladivostok to avoid EU or Canadian airspace.

Sociopaths don't feel remorse. That's a given. Russia has a long history of leaders who slaughter millions to stay in power. At least I can travel the world, and he cannot. Nor can you--thanks to him! 😁

What I wondered was which passport he used--did the Thai Embassy issue him a Thai passport, or did he use his US passport?

What is it with stupid Swiss men in Thailand?