![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphias(Proof that an activist is just someone who's been hurt enough to DO something about it, I guess.)
I read this article: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2421.html
My wife cannot have sex.
At all.
We cannot have children. Because she cannot have sex.
Doctors cannot help her. Because they can't tell what's wrong.
The reason they can't tell what's wrong is because they know nothing about what
happens in female arousal. So they can't tell where the problem is -- because
they don't know what it would look like if it was going right.
You can't fix what's wrong until you know what "right" looks like.
That's what this research is for. Finding out what "right" looks like, so that
women, like my wife, and forty million other American women, can go to their
doctors and find out what's wrong.
Pastor Swank, what do you think we should do? We want to have children. For
that matter, we want to have sex. We are married. I'm twenty-nine. My wife's
thirty-three. We've been married for four years, and have never had sex.
Think about that, Pastor Swank.
Why do you want us to suffer like this? What do you want us to do? How can you
be this cruel?
Please, Pastor Swank, can you find it in your heart to apologize to those forty
million American women, and their husbands, for your cruelty?
I'd appriciate any reply you can give me.
- Ian Osmond
i would conclude that persons who have no sex arousal would be turned off
even more so by porno flicks.
porno flicks do not portray love, genuine love, climaxing in sexual
satisfaction. porno focuses on selfish manipulation, that is, 'using' others
for self gratification.
yes, there are those who suffer as you state in your email to me. yes, that
is a problem. it is not to be ignored.
however, porno studies would not work for morally based individuals. in
fact, porno could further the revulsion against sex so as never to have any
hope of arousal.
therefore, i would suggest that you go to a therapist whom you trust who
deals in these matters, one who does not rely on self-gratifying porno
flicks for therapy. there are those visuals which highlight physical love in
the context of true love. these visuals would be beneficial hopefully to
those not presently experiencing arousal.
thank you for sending me your email. as you see, i took it most seriously.
and i wish you and your wife--along with the millions of others in your
plight--the best in the future. that is, i wish you the best under the
wisest conditions in finding therapeutic assistance. my prayers also go with
you.
blessings,
grant
7/17/2003 11:22:40 AM, "Grant Swank" <grants@gwi.net> wrote:
>i would conclude that persons who have no sex arousal would be turned off
>even more so by porno flicks.
>
>porno flicks do not portray love, genuine love, climaxing in sexual
>satisfaction. porno focuses on selfish manipulation, that is, 'using' others
>for self gratification.
Sir, with all due respect, how do you know that? Perhaps I presume, but I would
suspect that you don't have much direct experience with them. As, I'm sure you
can imagine, I've been following this reasearch for a while now, and the "porno
flicks" they choose for these studies are ones about genuine love, marriage,
connection, and so forth.
>yes, there are those who suffer as you state in your email to me. yes, that
>is a problem. it is not to be ignored.
>
>however, porno studies would not work for morally based individuals. in
>fact, porno could further the revulsion against sex so as never to have any
>hope of arousal.
I think you misunderstand the situation.
There is, of course, in some individuals a revusion of sex.
But that is not what happens in the case of my wife, and, it appears, in most of
the other women to whom this happens.
In most of these cases, there is an actual physical problem, which follows from
the lack of production of hormones in the system.
I don't want to become too graphic, but, without some of these hormones, nerve
endings don't fire. Sensation does not exist, other than excrutiating pain.
These facts were only discovered through the use of the sorts of studies which
you are denigrating.
>therefore, i would suggest that you go to a therapist whom you trust who
>deals in these matters, one who does not rely on self-gratifying porno
>flicks for therapy. there are those visuals which highlight physical love in
>the context of true love. these visuals would be beneficial hopefully to
>those not presently experiencing arousal.
I assure you that, after years of speaking with such therapists, and our Rabbi,
we discovered that there was nothing wrong that a therapist could cure.
The problem is not in my wife's head. The problem is not in my wife's soul. The
problem is in my wife's body.
A therapist cannot help; her mind is healthy. A cleric cannot help; her soul is
sound. A physician is the only one who can help. But he, or she, needs to know
what to work towards.
>thank you for sending me your email. as you see, i took it most seriously.
>and i wish you and your wife--along with the millions of others in your
>plight--the best in the future. that is, i wish you the best under the
>wisest conditions in finding therapeutic assistance. my prayers also go with
>you.
I appricate your prayers, and your time and response. And I certainly agree that
solutions to these problems have to include both therapy and prayer. But you
cannot cure a broken leg with prayer alone. Prayer certainly helps a broken leg
-- but you need to set it first.
Prayer will help us. And therapy will help us. But not until the physical
problems that cause this are taken care of. And in order to do that, we need
these studies.
It is neccesary for healthy women to become aroused, and for doctors to measure
what happens when healthy women become aroused. It would, perhaps be possible to
do these studies with husbands and wives together, rather than with "visual
aids". But the studies need to be done.
Again, I thank you for your time, and for your prayers.
- Ian
We'll see where this goes. I hope I can show people why this is important.
I read this article: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2421.html
My wife cannot have sex.
At all.
We cannot have children. Because she cannot have sex.
Doctors cannot help her. Because they can't tell what's wrong.
The reason they can't tell what's wrong is because they know nothing about what
happens in female arousal. So they can't tell where the problem is -- because
they don't know what it would look like if it was going right.
You can't fix what's wrong until you know what "right" looks like.
That's what this research is for. Finding out what "right" looks like, so that
women, like my wife, and forty million other American women, can go to their
doctors and find out what's wrong.
Pastor Swank, what do you think we should do? We want to have children. For
that matter, we want to have sex. We are married. I'm twenty-nine. My wife's
thirty-three. We've been married for four years, and have never had sex.
Think about that, Pastor Swank.
Why do you want us to suffer like this? What do you want us to do? How can you
be this cruel?
Please, Pastor Swank, can you find it in your heart to apologize to those forty
million American women, and their husbands, for your cruelty?
I'd appriciate any reply you can give me.
- Ian Osmond
i would conclude that persons who have no sex arousal would be turned off
even more so by porno flicks.
porno flicks do not portray love, genuine love, climaxing in sexual
satisfaction. porno focuses on selfish manipulation, that is, 'using' others
for self gratification.
yes, there are those who suffer as you state in your email to me. yes, that
is a problem. it is not to be ignored.
however, porno studies would not work for morally based individuals. in
fact, porno could further the revulsion against sex so as never to have any
hope of arousal.
therefore, i would suggest that you go to a therapist whom you trust who
deals in these matters, one who does not rely on self-gratifying porno
flicks for therapy. there are those visuals which highlight physical love in
the context of true love. these visuals would be beneficial hopefully to
those not presently experiencing arousal.
thank you for sending me your email. as you see, i took it most seriously.
and i wish you and your wife--along with the millions of others in your
plight--the best in the future. that is, i wish you the best under the
wisest conditions in finding therapeutic assistance. my prayers also go with
you.
blessings,
grant
7/17/2003 11:22:40 AM, "Grant Swank" <grants@gwi.net> wrote:
>i would conclude that persons who have no sex arousal would be turned off
>even more so by porno flicks.
>
>porno flicks do not portray love, genuine love, climaxing in sexual
>satisfaction. porno focuses on selfish manipulation, that is, 'using' others
>for self gratification.
Sir, with all due respect, how do you know that? Perhaps I presume, but I would
suspect that you don't have much direct experience with them. As, I'm sure you
can imagine, I've been following this reasearch for a while now, and the "porno
flicks" they choose for these studies are ones about genuine love, marriage,
connection, and so forth.
>yes, there are those who suffer as you state in your email to me. yes, that
>is a problem. it is not to be ignored.
>
>however, porno studies would not work for morally based individuals. in
>fact, porno could further the revulsion against sex so as never to have any
>hope of arousal.
I think you misunderstand the situation.
There is, of course, in some individuals a revusion of sex.
But that is not what happens in the case of my wife, and, it appears, in most of
the other women to whom this happens.
In most of these cases, there is an actual physical problem, which follows from
the lack of production of hormones in the system.
I don't want to become too graphic, but, without some of these hormones, nerve
endings don't fire. Sensation does not exist, other than excrutiating pain.
These facts were only discovered through the use of the sorts of studies which
you are denigrating.
>therefore, i would suggest that you go to a therapist whom you trust who
>deals in these matters, one who does not rely on self-gratifying porno
>flicks for therapy. there are those visuals which highlight physical love in
>the context of true love. these visuals would be beneficial hopefully to
>those not presently experiencing arousal.
I assure you that, after years of speaking with such therapists, and our Rabbi,
we discovered that there was nothing wrong that a therapist could cure.
The problem is not in my wife's head. The problem is not in my wife's soul. The
problem is in my wife's body.
A therapist cannot help; her mind is healthy. A cleric cannot help; her soul is
sound. A physician is the only one who can help. But he, or she, needs to know
what to work towards.
>thank you for sending me your email. as you see, i took it most seriously.
>and i wish you and your wife--along with the millions of others in your
>plight--the best in the future. that is, i wish you the best under the
>wisest conditions in finding therapeutic assistance. my prayers also go with
>you.
I appricate your prayers, and your time and response. And I certainly agree that
solutions to these problems have to include both therapy and prayer. But you
cannot cure a broken leg with prayer alone. Prayer certainly helps a broken leg
-- but you need to set it first.
Prayer will help us. And therapy will help us. But not until the physical
problems that cause this are taken care of. And in order to do that, we need
these studies.
It is neccesary for healthy women to become aroused, and for doctors to measure
what happens when healthy women become aroused. It would, perhaps be possible to
do these studies with husbands and wives together, rather than with "visual
aids". But the studies need to be done.
Again, I thank you for your time, and for your prayers.
- Ian
We'll see where this goes. I hope I can show people why this is important.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 09:27 am (UTC)Good for you!
Mer
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 09:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 09:32 am (UTC)Secondly, because I am a cynical bastard at heart, I have a shiny new nickel that says he sidetracks on your faith in his next response.
Good luck on all fronts.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 09:42 am (UTC)I'm betting he never responds.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 09:51 am (UTC)Go you!
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 09:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 10:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 10:14 am (UTC)Well, that, and damn,
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 10:25 am (UTC)My only additional comment is that anyone who wants their opinions taken seriously should probably learn to use capital letters.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 10:49 am (UTC)I'd pray he changes his mind, but I'd be reluctant to bet on it.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 11:03 am (UTC)(if he continues this dialogue, I wonder if you should send him excerpts from your "thoughts and information from the Boston University Medical Center lecture" writeup? It sounds like he's unaware of the real valuable research coming out of studies such as these.)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 11:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 11:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 01:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 01:28 pm (UTC)Thus since the studies involve porn, they are bad,
ie. not valid. This mind set gets in the way of his understanding
the issues involved. His statement "... one[therapist] who does not
rely on self-gratifying porno flicks for therapy" clearly shows
that he is failing to recognize the goal of the "porn stude",
which is to study and quantify normal female arousal.
It will take a lot of gather data to find a baseline
before something like this could be used as diagnostic
tool.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 01:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 03:24 pm (UTC)Have you heard back from Flake yet?
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 03:48 pm (UTC)I've been reading what you've been learning about all of this with interest. Thanks for keeping us lot informed about the current science as you keep looking for something useful. I was particularly interested to hear your thoughts about the Pill having a deleterous effect when begun too early in a woman's development and continued for too long. It certainly sounds like an avenue worth pursuing.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-18 07:13 am (UTC)I also want to say how great your letter, and response to him were.
Prayer will help us. And therapy will help us. But not until the physical problems that cause this are taken care of. And in order to do that, we need these studies.
... and the Federal Government is the ideal body to fund these studies. Basic research of this sort is not going to be done by companies in today's economy. Even if a company like Pfizer did do the basic research (say, for a 'Female Viagra' drug), they're not likely to publish it and make it accessable to the general public for a long time. The problem is too big for one state to fund it. And the idea that the porn magazines would fund it is laughable.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-18 08:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-18 08:20 pm (UTC)