Some Links

16 thoughts on Some Links

1. Some select quotes from the Chicago Tribune story: ” But it wasn’t until very recently that anyone thought to test those theories by asking women.”

   And: “We don’t understand normative, healthy sexuality well enough to make judgments about what’s dysfunctional.”

   My brain just exploded.

2. That Jell-O link made my morning. Truly delightful.

3. ” Viagra, which treats erectile dysfunction by increasing blood flow to the genitals, does not appear to work in women.”

   That’s bizarre. I could have sworn there was a fairly sizeable number of anecdotal accounts of it helping at least postmenopausal women.

4. Office of Women’s health gets payback for not toeing the radical right line:

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601584.html

5. Good afternoon, everyone! Interesting links. I’ve checked out this blog before on occasion but just recently posted a comment for the first time, that no one responded to 🙁 Being a gay guy, I’m a little sheepish about posting on a feminist blog, so please bear with me and don’t kill me if I inadvertently ask a stupid question or something! 😉

   It should go without saying that male circumcision is off-topic, but there’s always somebody.

   OK…(gulp)…I’ll be that somebody. But wait! Don’t stop reading and roll your eyes! It’s not what you think, I promise!

   FGM is without question a barbaric, misogynistic mutilation and should be outlawed everywhere, and those laws should be vigorously enforced. It’s a revolting practice and my heart goes out to all the millions of women and girls who’ve suffered it and have to live with the terrible consequences.

   Male circumcision is an indirectly related issue for one reason only: Whiny men with nothing better to do and too much time on their hands who try to force it into the public consciousness as a parallel issue. Those anti-feminist men piss me off to no end. They’re not concerned about little boys being harmed, like they claim. They’re only concerned with distracting people from the real issue of FGM with the non-issue of male circumcision, in order to undermine feminist advances and prop up patriarchal attitudes, and make themselves out to be victims. What bullshit.

   OK, with that said, I’d like to take this opportunity to try to reframe the issue of male circumcision as a feminist issue (no eye rolling, remember) and argue strongly in favor of it.

   Now that I have your attention (I hope)–I believe passionately that ALL men and boys should be circumcised. Let me repeat: ALL OF THEM (US).

   Circumcision is a very simple surgery with an extremely low complication rate (almost non-existent in the USA). It is not a form of mutilation! The foreskin is not a medically necessary, or even vital, part of the male sexual anatomy. A boy circumcised right after birth will not remember the procedure or suffer any long-term ill effects or trauma from it. A boy circumcised at an older age, or a man circumcised as an adult, will not suffer anything other than a few days of mild discomfort either, nothing that Tylenol can’t fix. Of course the older male undergoing circumcision will be able to make before and after comparisons and will have a memory of having a foreskin, and the boys might be upset about the procedure, but even still there will only be long-term effects in a very small fraction of patients. This just reinforces why it’s much better to have it done as an infant: There’s no worry about such things 🙂

   The benefits of circumcision are many. Cleanliness, convenience, and aesthetics (IMO, but that’s irrelevant to such a decision). The biggest benefits are health benefits. Circumcised men have significantly lower rates of STI infections and of transmitting STIs to their sexual partners (including HPV, which can cause cervical cancer). New studies have shown conclusively that circumcised men have 60% lower rates of HIV infection, and therefore would have dramatically lower rates of HIV transmission to their partners. There are some conditions of penile dysfunction caused by tight, restrictive, misshapen foreskins that would not be an issue thanks to circumcision. Finally, circumcised men have a sharply lower risk of developing penile cancer than uncircumcised men do. Penile cancer is not that common, but the only viable treatment for it in almost all cases is amputation of the penis. I don’t think too many men would care to have thatconversation with their doctors!

   To sum up: Circumcision provides significant health benefits to both men and boys AND their sexual partners. It really should be a public health issue. IMO, no boy should be admitted to public school without being circumcised, like they have immunization requirements, but that’s just my opinion!

   What is the downside? Nothing in almost all cases (except those extremely rare instances of complications). The foreskin has basically two functions: 1) Lubricating and moistening the glans penis; 2) Extra nerve endings (erogenous zone). As I mentioned earlier, neither of those functions is necessary or vital in any way. The glans doesn’t need the moist environment, and in fact that’s the feature of an uncircumcised man that promotes STI infection and transmission (the warm, moist environment fosters bacterial and viral growth and survival). As for the nerve endings–circumcised men have no problem being stimulated and performing, thank you very much! And really, when you think about it, do we really need men running around deriving MORE enjoyment from their penises than they already do? LOL I’m only half kidding…

   Mothers-to-be: Please have your newborn sons circumcised. You owe it to him and to his future partners.

   If you already have a son who was not circumcised after birth, please strongly consider having it done as soon as possible. Again, you owe it to him and his future partners.

   If your husband, boyfriend, or partner is not circumcised, please strongly encourage him to have the procedure done.

   Encourage your female friends and family members to do the same. Circumcision won’t be mandated by law (although IMO maybe it should be) but if enough social and cultural momentum develops to encourage the practice, we’ll be well on our way to a healthier society, for both men and women, girls and boys 🙂

   That’s why I said that male circumcision is in its own weird, convoluted way, a feminist issue 🙂

   Take care and have a great day everyone!

6. Chris, when I say something is off-topic, I mean that something is off-topic.

   I have had it up to the teeth with discussions of female bodies turning into discussions of male bodies. If I had wanted to talk about male circumcision, I would have introduced that as a topic.

7. In fact, “Chris,” since you are using the same IP address as our friend Marianne and have a very similar stance, you’re likely her sockpuppet (or she yours), and are therefore banned. The both of you.

8. That’s bizarre. I could have sworn there was a fairly sizeable number of anecdotal accounts of it helping at least postmenopausal women.

   Same here.

9. I, like Ema, found the part about her father’s reaction fascinating. To me, it brings up a question about how much women do to appease the patriarchy that the individual men in their lives don’t give a fuck about, or are againt.

   It makes me think about a group I saw on Facebook the other day, called “Liberal women don’t do it for me,” or something similar. In my personal experience attending a conservative Southern school and dealing with conservative jackass males, they don’t give a fuck whether a woman is a liberal, a feminist, or a radical liberal feminist who is left-wing even for Canada. If there’s a possibility of sex, there’s no limit to what they’ll put up with as long as they get to keep objectifying the woman in their heads. I feel sorry for the young women who keep capitulating to patriarchal demands because they haven’t absorbed that. Seriously, women don’t even need to shower regularly if they don’t feel like it.

   In this case, I think we’re seeing something different at play, though. I mean, I don’t think her father was thinking, “Why bother? The men can objectify my daughters anyway.” A lot of fathers are just very tender towards their daughters and can’t deal with anything bad happening to them. And honestly, I can’t imagine that there aren’t African men who wouldn’t appreciate partners who find sex mutually enjoyable.

10. Pingback: Pax Nortona - A Blog by Joel Sax » Blog Archive » Insert A Trite Metaphor for a Corral #60

11. “Viagra, which treats erectile dysfunction by increasing blood flow to the genitals, does not appear to work in women.”

    That’s bizarre. I could have sworn there was a fairly sizeable number of anecdotal accounts of it helping at least postmenopausal women.

    To be more accurate than popular press tends to accept, Viagra does work on women who have the precise problem that Viagra addresses — but most women with FSDs have further underlying problems rendering Viagra on its own inadequate.

    [Hey, look! Doctors and big pharma not pushing an inadequate square-peg solution!]

12. Since the 1960s, researchers have operated under a variation of the simple model proposed by William Masters and Virginia Johnson that says the human sexual response starts with desire, progresses through excitement or arousal and ends with orgasm. But experts argued that notion might reflect the experience of men more than women, many of whom don’t see orgasm as a goal.

    Maybe some women don’t see orgasm as a goal b/c they been raised within the male-centric model in which sex ends after male orgasm.

    Re: Viagra and women

    The makers of Viagra sponsered a double-blind study for women which found it to be no better than placebo. I don’t know all the details, like, sample size, age, race, childbearing status, etc. A single study shouldn’t be the definitive answer, but the initial results are not promising.

13. “To be more accurate than popular press tends to accept, Viagra does work on women who have the precise problem that Viagra addresses — but most women with FSDs have further underlying problems rendering Viagra on its own inadequate.”

    The anecdotes were pretty much all from women who had self-described good sex lives until menopause hit them, after which they had almost the same level of desire for sex but a markedly decreased ability to derive satisfaction from it. The last I’d heard, though, Pfizer wasn’t looking to get Viagra approved for use by women who fit the bill. They probably considered the potential market too small to bother, or were looking at the time-frame for patent-loss.

14. “The anecdotes were pretty much all from women who had self-described good sex lives until menopause hit them, after which they had almost the same level of desire for sex but a markedly decreased ability to derive satisfaction from it.”

    Precisely. The hormonal factor* probably has to be addressed before Viagra makes much of an improvement.

    ___
    *calling postmenopausal hormone levels a “problem”, “imbalance”, or “deficiency” can imply a value judgment which some consider objectionable. I’d rather avoid those flamewars this round. 🙂

15. Those were actually the ones that were helped by Viagra. Women whose libidos had tanked in addition to their ability to derive their customary pleasure from sex were not helped by Viagra.

16. Maybe women are having a hard time achieving orgasm because their male partners are selfish (boys are taught to be entitled to anything from day 1 and are taught to not care about anyone else’s needs or wants) and don’t give a crap whether she’s really enjoying herself or not…….I don’t even know where to start about the obliviousness and selfishness of the guys I’ve screwed! Okay, I’m gonna stop there..
    My point is: why is it that if women are having a hard time achieving pleasure or orgasm it is suddenly WOMEN’S fault???? Why are men not held responsible for their serious lack of, um, pleasure-giving?

Comments are currently closed.