question for Buzsaw (re: the 'Traditional Values Coalition')

Without a doubt no one has influence in Washington like the Xtian and Jewish fundies.However Feminist fundies make strange bedfellows with the Xtian fundies (especially at local levels) to stomp on sexual rights of women and men.In one rare Washington collaboration both groups got together to prevent Hustler from sending photographers to Afghanistan. Ultrarightwing Xtians and Fems could get in, sexual liberals could not. Smooooooth.Nothing like watching people normally at each others throats on a talk show to gangup on Flint.------------------
holmes

Actually this is not true.Historically some of the worst diseases in Western history (the major plagues) were exacerbated by Xtian ignorance regarding disease and how to treat it, thus hitting them much harder than they had to.Hmmmmm, looks like the same thing now too. When an ultraXtian named Reagan saw the beginnings of a disease (which by chance in the US began in the gay community) he "washed his hands" of dealing with it. Pure ignorance and bigotry.In this way a greater tragedy was wrought than if actual care for fellow human beings was practiced (a supposed Xtian virtue).As it turns out, HIV is highest among heterosexuals (when looked at worldwide) and not homosexuals. Sex is a huge vector, but only when you combine this with ignorance about one's personal health and practicing unsafe sex. You can have just as much sex as rabbits without ever catching anything if you know how to practice safe sex right.And surprisingly God has not made his chaste children immune to HIV. Instead he has made the only naturally immune people on the planet a family of prostitutes. Totally sexually promiscuous in the worst possible way (even shocking to me).You do not show your age by acting like HIV is a curse by God against Gays, or against Hedonists. All you show is your ignorance about HIV.And if you are one to look for messages from God in disease, please tell me what his message is for meningitis (which hits college students the most), west nile virus (which hits the elderly or young like to spend time outside), and Ebola which thankfully is limited in scope due to quarantines but spreads to anyone and everyone?------------------
holmes

I don't know what these particular feminists were about, but don't you think that letting Hustler photographers take sexually explicit photographs of Islamic women who are living in what is still a rather restrictive, tribal, patriarchal religious country might:1) Put women who agreed to pose in a very dangerous position if they were ever caucht by religious leaders, and,2)would be a diplomatic nightmare in a very delicate situation, and3) is in extremely poor taste?Jesus, just because it's sexual, holmes, doesn't automatically mean it's "good".[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-05-2003]

Page not found - Hacienda Publishing...and an excerpt or two:(ephasis added)

quote:

---

Since the fall of the Western Roman Empire, there have been three major bubonic plague epidemics, which afflicted large segments of the population in the continuous Eurasian landmass and North Africa. Death quickly followed the trade routes of the times. The death toll is almost incomprehensible. The Plague of Justinian (6th Century A.D.), the Black Death (14th Century A.D.), and the Bubonic Plague (1665-1666, which coincided with the Great Fire of London) caused an estimated 137 million dead in a world much more sparsely populated than it is today.

​

To make matters even worse, one must also remember that these pestilences assailed and ravaged mankind at a time when the average life span was short --- less than two decades during the Middle Ages. Survival to age five was a miracle not only because of endemic disease, dirt and filth, concomitant poor hygiene and sanitation, but also because of the primitive state of medical knowledge. Pestilential disease thrived under such conditions. Moreover, during the Middle Ages, bathing and cleanliness, even in the upper classes, was a rarity, being viewed as unhealthy as well as irreverent --- acts of vanity in the face of God.

---

quote:

---

The germ theory of disease was the Achilles heel of those old, furious enemies of humanity --- plagues and epidemics. Once scientific theory was put into practice with improved hygiene and sanitation, disinfection, and the use of antibiotics --- the old bacterial enemy was largely vanquished.(5)

​

Yet, infectious disease has not been eradicated. In modern times, the Influenza Epidemic of 1918 suddenly erupted and unmercifully killed 20 million people. Of those who survived, many later suffered unusual sequelae, such as atypical Parkinson's disease.

​

Thus, enemies of humanity, like viruses (e.g., human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] that causes AIDS), some protozoa (e.g., malaria, toxoplasmosis, etc.) and even infective particles made up of nucleic acids (i.e., DNA and RNA) and/or proteins, such as prions which are posited to cause such dreadful diseases as Jakob-Creutzfeldt disease and Mad Cow Disease --- are yet to be subdued. Medicine still has a lot of work to do in the struggle of humanity against epidemic illness, disease, and pestilence.

---

So, Buz, were the 20 million people who died of Influenza in the single year of 1918 engaging in some kind of "unacceptable practices"?That death toll for HIV/AIDS from the past 20 years since we have known about it is just about the same as the death toll from the Flu from just that one year.What were those people doing that God need to punish them?

Thanks for making my point. It will put them in about the same position as any of the other western freedoms we have been foisting on their society.Not wearing a Bhurka in public is considered the equivalent of being naked. They are one and the same. If we view this level of sexual freedom (which is what removing the bhurka is) as a necessary "good sign" their women must be given, why should we not be willing to promote the freedom of women to undress for money inside a building, if they so choose to do that as well.Wouldn't these brave women be just as "heroic" as the ones marching off to schools and removing their veils? If not, why not?The line separating the two is only in one's mind (ie beginning prejudices).This was the point of my "undress enough to offend them, but not me" comment. Anymore than allowing Xtian proselytization? Or sending women back to schools (not sure if you've heard but many are still to frightened to attend and men are upset by this being forced on their culture)? Or sending in tons of cameramen to shoot pictures of women without their bhurkas (which is the cultural equivalent of being naked).How about encouraging that men and women do things together?I find this an amazing comment when both wars have been exercises in nightmarish diplomacy... especially as we demand rights for women follow our cultural opinions and act as if they won't be "free" until all their women get on board. Exactly whose taste should be forced upon the women of Afghanistan? Isn't that one of the wonderful things we were supposed to be doing... freeing the women of Iraq to do whatever they want? Doesn't that include doing things in poor taste (or being able to decide that it might not be distasteful)?After all, we are not talking about women being FORCED by Hustler to have their pictures taken. If they feel it is in bad taste, then they just wouldn't do it and Larry loses a bunch of money in the effort.Seems to me the only reason for the Xtians and Fems to be worried is because they know women might very well want to... and THEY don't want to see THAT.Wasn't the sudden rush of media glorifying the new found materialism of Afghan culture, and companies being free to get them goodies for us to watch them have fun with... just slightly in bad taste?That was just as pornographic to me. This was priceless. An athiest feminist saying "Jesus", right before saying sex doesn't automatically make something good... It's like a cherry on top.You are right of course that sex does not automatically make something good. Conversely, just because something is sexual does not mean it is "bad". Sex is value neutral.Heheheh. I never said Hustler doing a shoot there was a great thing. I simply said there was no right to BAN THEM from going there.Out of all the media given the ability to run in and exploit the new western materialism and "freedom" we were shoving down their throat, only Hustler was BANNED. It was decided that full nudity (which is offensive to Xtians and Feminists) was too much. While insulting Islamic sensitivities regarding propriety was deemed "just fine", treated in fact as Heroic Acts for our consumption and glorification.Sex: "neutral". Freedom of choice: "good". Fundamentalist take over of other cultures to impose their own: "bad".Along the line of freedom thing, do you believe Afghan women should be given the freedom to have abortions, or be taught about contraceptive use? Won't those violate all three of your above questions?And if you say it wouldn't be in poor taste, let me know why.------------------
holmes

Look, Holmes, any magazine that features a pair of women's legs disappearing into a meat grinder cannot possibly be interested in their humanity or dignity.

quote:

---

Wouldn't these brave women be just as "heroic" as the ones marching off to schools and removing their veils? If not, why not?

---

No, it's immoral and coercive to offer desperate, destitute people money to do something that they would not otherwise do.Remember "Bum Fights"?It's a series of videos where the makers would pay homeless people to beat each other up.How is offering money to destitute Afghan women to pose nude any different?

quote:

---

Not wearing a Bhurka in public is considered the equivalent of being naked.

---

Are you saying that, in Afghanistan, going without a burkah is equivalent to someone in a western nation walking around nude?If so, then being in Afghanistan and posing nude would be considered even worse.

quote:

---

Anymore than allowing Xtian proselytization?

---

No, that's also bad, and I have no idea why you brought it up as it is irrelevant to my argument.It's a strawman.You are doing it again.You are putting words in my mouth and then getting hysterical.

quote:

---

Or sending women back to schools (not sure if you've heard but many are still to frightened to attend and men are upset by this being forced on their culture)?

---

Forty years ago, the cities in Afghanistan used to be some of the most cosmopolitan in the middle east, and women there had opportunities, educations, and freedoms rarely enjoyed in most Islamic countries. Then there came decades of civil war and then the Taliban took over and made it one of the worst places on earth for women.The Taliban is not really their culture.Besides, there were underground schools for girls operating throughout the rule of the Taliban.If you can show me where girls and women risked their lives to attend secret, underground porn photograpy sessions (for no financial gain), I'd be very interested.There's an ENORMOUS difference between people doing something for fulfillment and people doing something for money out of desperation.Payment is coersion in this situation.

quote:

---

Along the line of freedom thing, do you believe Afghan women should be given the freedom to have abortions, or be taught about contraceptive use?

---

Yes, if they want it, which they most likely will because they had contraceptive services 40 years ago (and in some cases even during the Taliban regime).

quote:

---

Won't those violate all three of your above questions?

---

No.

quote:

---

And if you say it wouldn't be in poor taste, let me know why.

---

Because it will be a return to pre-civil war and pre-Taliban Afghanistan.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Ignorance. Do you have ANY IDEA why that image was on the cover of Hustler?The publisher had recently converted to FUNDAMENTALIST XTIANITY and the image was designed to be a TURNOFF. IT WAS DESIGNED TO SAY THAT SUCH PICTORIALS TREAT WOMEN AS MEAT! I can't remember right now, but I think the text that went along with the pic was that Hustler was no longer going to treat women like meat. It was the announcement of a change in editorial policy.A disgusting image? Maybe. The same type of repulsive imagery used by abortion and animal testing opponents. He was simply (and quite ironically) trying to make YOUR POINT. Than Bum Fights? You must be kidding me.Maybe you aren't aware what adult models make. It can even be made into a career (getting them out of the poverty they might be experiencing). The women on professional shoots are treated with respect and do not in any way have to harm themselves or others.I guess the "right" thing for women to choose is back breaking labor in the fields, or hours of toil in the next Starbucks we setup there?Short work+big cash=professional modelling.Most women do it for a short period of time. Enough to pay for college so they can get a better career. Or are these poor desperate women you speak of going to miraculously choose "brain surgeon" as their new career?The closest approximation is not Bum Fights, but professional boxing or wrestling. Some may get lured into the profession out of monetary desires, but that would be their CHOICE.Working for the advancement of commercial materialism is something they would not want to do as well, yet many will CHOOSE to do so for the money. Where exactly is the line crossed into that we should not allow... when sex enters the picture? You don't seem to understand other cultures.Here is another example. In a certain Islamic country there were calls for a woman to be stoned because a woman had kissed a man in public. Well gosh, then sex must be that much worse? No. The line of taboo is simply set that far back. Kiss=sex.Posing naked might seem a bit more outrageous than not wearing a bhurka in public, but that is like the murderer who stabs someone 50 times, instead of twice. I didn't say you were for proselytization. I was trying to point out that in bringing our "values" to that country we have done A LOT of things which are offensive to them.This raises the question: where do we draw the line?It sounds funny to say, "we can't have Hustler exercise their right to the freedom of press because it would offend the religious beliefs of that nation" when at the same time we are going in there and allowing all other manner of offensive behaviors (and press) saying "their religious beliefs must change to embrace freedom for women, democracy, capitalism, and freedom of the press."Don't you understand what this does is try to build a nation that OUR fundies would like to see in this country, but can't have because of our freedoms? Point very well taken. Under the Soviet occupation, the shackles of relatively strict Islamic law were shattered to embrace secularism. This allowed women the ability to teach and lead like they never had before.Then what happened? The United States felt this was a threat and encouraged hardcore Islamic fundamentalists to rise up against these "oppressors." I still recall the chilling footage of Zbigniew (interestingly enough a Russian on OUR side) delivering a speech to these Islamic militants of how they could regain their nation and bring Islamic law back into practice.We did this all over the place. And it was not simply the Taliban. The Taliban simply took it one step even further. It was supposed to be a return to moderate oppression of women like they had before (still no teaching... sorry about that), but the Taliban were much more hardcore.Now we claim we are bringing freedom to these people like we are heroes? It makes me sick. We were the ones that "delivered" them from it in the first place.And now we are going to make them as free as we'd like to see our own nation, which is free enough to offend them (moderate Islamic tastes), but not enough to offend the intolerant in this country. Hmmm. I'm not sure where you get the footage anymore. I think it was CNN that ran the special regarding women under the Taliban...You know why you never heard of women getting together for underground "porn" parties? The US press didn't cover that kind of stuff. Not good for our public consumption. Did you even look for such stories?Ah but the truth of their reality could be seen.The closest we got to see women getting sexual in an underground sense was in heroic defiance of orders against makeup and sexually suggestive clothing. That was definitely an interesting scene in the movie I think was called "behind the veil."But you could see adult magazines being burned, adult oriented tapes strung up along telephone wires and from street signs. Certainly you must have seen clips of that? Somebody had the tapes.And ultimately you can watch people who did such things being shot to death in the sports arenas before crowds of Afghanis. It might be wonderful to think they are all women heroically going to their death for reading a book. The truth is just as many (if not more) were scared women being slaughtered for sexual improprieties.Wherever sex exists, which is everywhere, there will be people wanting to explore and to express their sexuality. That includes for free. It may not be YOU. It may not be the majority. But they are people struggling to do so and should be just as free.I'll see if I can get my Iraqi friend to come here and let you know what it is really like "behind the veil". He has lived in many midEast countries (his family got out of Iraq to escape Saddam). His first experience with porn was with a bunch of people in... I think Saudi Arabia (punishable by death)... they put sheets over the windows and kept the volume low. All these people simply wanting to watch erotica, and risking death to do so.A female relative of his, who worked in an upscale clothing store, was often invited to underground sex parties.Oh yeah, and this one lady I know had a fascinating experience of being invited (and going) to Kuwait (or was it the Emirates) for an underground gangbang.Ah simply not heroic to you or the American public. But there are people just as desiring to experience and express their sexuality, as there are people wanting to become doctors. Yes, and in a poverty stricken country whose doing what for which purpose exactly? And who are YOU to say no women would find it fulfilling?Paying money MAY be considered a kind of coercion (of course that holds just the same for McD's paying people to flip burgers), but legally restricting a person from being able to make the choice at all is CERTAINLY coercion. No, teaching women about contraceptives and abortion would not be offensive to religious leaders in that country, perhaps leading to the endangerment of women that do such things?Are we talking about the same country? They may have gotten such things under the Soviet occupation, but those are some of the very reasons everyone was offended and threw the soviets out.The religious leaders there are just as nutty about that subject as the religious leaders here, and they enjoy a much greater following/devotion by the population than our religious leaders. Look at views on contraceptives and abortion in this country. It's much worse over there.We ARE violating their cultural sexual norms to bring it in.And on point 2, yes, it has already led to diplomatic problems. The only place such things have played well to is the liberals within this country. Interestingly enough the Xtian fundies would like to side with the Islamic fundies on this and make sure it stays out.If only the feminists and liberals would support them in this as they did with oppressing people from actually expressing their sexuality as some may want to. Why is that not in bad taste? To conservative Xtians it sure would be as the state you are describing is the Societ secular model. They'd like to see it go back to the time before that... moderate Islam.And exactly how far back do we get to choose is good or bad taste? If we continue back far enough we can find sexuality in their culture... whoops not that far then?This whole invasion/enculturation has been in bad taste.To be fair, I think the soviet Afghanistan was much better than post or pre soviet "Islamic" state. Then again, I liked the ancient Afghanistan better than that (much richer and luxurious).If we are going in to "free" them, then it should be in totality and not a pick and choose thing from the fundies of OUR society.At the very least it is hypocritical to say they should be freer then they are "even if it offends the religious majority because human freedom is important", but not as free as we are "because that might offend their religious sensitivities".Removing the Bhurka is sexual freedom, not allowing women to remove the rest (or even wear tight shorts and jeans) is sexual oppression.BTW, who ever said Hustler was going to take pictures of women naked? Certainly they would if there were women willing to do so, but they could just as easily have done cheesecake style photos (pinups) to celebrate the new freedom women had.My guess is that is what they would have ended up with, if they ended up with anything.Last question, shall we help oppress any sexually related press which may try and form in the new Afghanistan? If not, why should we put limits on our own press (which is supposed to be free)?------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-06-2003]

This comparison was troubling for me (as in it was a poor analogy) and over lunch I figured out exactly why. My proboxing, promodelling example was appropriate but not explicit enough in the qualitative difference, as I only discussed money.The point of Bum Fights is specifically to lure the destitute and mentally ill into a violent situation for everyone to laugh at them.Boxing on the other hand is about skilled (or those wishing to show their emerging skill) in a combat sport, for the entertainment of people who enjoy contests of strength, endurance, and skill. The fighters are viewed as "champions" and not "chumps."While the destitute are lured into such careers for money, it is a real chance to move up and gain fame and self respect.Bum fights are about further degrading the already downtrodden, giving them no possible way to either move up, gain fame, or any measure of self respect.Most porn producers (especially big names like hustler) are based on selling excitingly HOT imagery. It is not enticing to know that a girl is desperate for money, and that she is being tricked into further degradation and anonymity.The point, like boxing, is to show "champs" not "chumps." They are supposed to feel good and we are supposed to feel good about them. The model may not only view this as a way to make money (moving up), but a way to gain real fame, and self respect.You may laugh at the notion that posing naked and letting millions of men drool over your picture as some form of self-respect. But it contains infinitely more self-respect than being ashamed of one's body to the point that one wears a clown suit, enduring hourly abuse by customers and employers, in order to make a minimum wage that can't get one out of a studio apartment.Some people find a true sense of pride and self worth in the realization that they are sexy, and that many find their sexuality appealing.It is the same for the prize-fighter (though generally less dangerous to one's health and appearance).Some recent pornsites (the Bang Bus and HookerConfessions) have moved into the exploitation arena, along similar lines as Bum Fights. I believe this is a symptom of our public's waxing interest in degradation of others, specifically the powerless.This is a problem, but Hustler and most porn producers (just like other producers) are not a part of it.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

As it turns out, HIV is highest among heterosexuals (when looked at worldwide) and not homosexuals. Sex is a huge vector, but only when you combine this with ignorance about one's personal health and practicing unsafe sex. You can have just as much sex as rabbits without ever catching anything if you know how to practice safe sex right.

---

Of course it is higher among heters because only a small fraction of the population are gay. PERCENTAGE WISE or per capita, a far higher percentage of gays get HIV than straight ones do. It passes from gays to heters round about as some who practice both spread it. From there it goes into promiscuous heters who are not gay.The bottom line is it would die off if permiscuous sex of all sorts were abstained from.

quote:

---

And surprisingly God has not made his chaste children immune to HIV. Instead he has made the only naturally immune people on the planet a family of prostitutes. Totally sexually promiscuous in the worst possible way (even shocking to me).

---

The only way truly chaste Biblical folks are going to get it is via a sex route or a bad medical needle and such accidents. This would be rare. Many who claim the Christianity don't live it and if they're sexually permiscuous, they're vulnerable.THIS IS PRIMARILY A SEX DISEASE which began it's journey into society by such gay practices as anal sex. EEEEuk!!

Not to say you are wrong, but do you have some stats? This may be true in the US and Europe, but from what I understand this is not true in the rest of the world.And just to let you know transmission to and among heteros was not necessarily through bisexual sex. It is believed sharing dirty needles accounted for more of this. Wrong. Abstention from promiscuous sex is the only "prevention" if one MUST engage in unsafe sex with partners who are wholly unaware of their sexual health. Frankly you can even leave off that last bit if you limit the nature of your sex acts.Please explain how anyone at a jack and jill club (where multiple partners masturbate each other) can reasonably be considered at risk of transmission. They are not. But I am reasonably certain that counts as promiscuity to you, right?Oral sex is also a pretty safe sex act, even with multiple partners. One has to be careful that there are no open sores in one's mouth or on the body part one is pleasuring, but outside of this there is little chance of transmission, even without protection. This is due to a chemical in saliva which destroys HIV.I am certain you would consider oral sex with multiple partners promiscuous as well.So you are wrong about having to end all promiscuous sex. And if everyone at the sex club gets tested regularly you can pretty much go bareback all the time for even anal sex... yay!!! Without question this is true. The main source of shared bodily fluids is sexual.However this does not mean sex causes it, and one is able to get it no matter how chaste one is in everyday life.You ducked the issue buz.You claimed it was some sort of message or punishment from God. It has already been shown not to affect the promiscuous, only the unfortunate (in the beginning) and the risktakers and unfortunate (today). You can be promiscuous all you want, especially if you are a lesbian (who are gay by the way and in the US have lower rates per capita than straights... ask rei about this fact).Moreover, if God sends diseases as messages, what were the messages of those other diseases I mentioned?------------------
holmes

If you cannot accept that ofering money, ESPECIALLY large amounts of money, to desperate, destitute people to do something that they would otherwise not do is coercive and immoral, and if you cannot accept that risking one's life to learn how to read is fundamentally different than risking one's life for financial gain, then you are simply a fundamentalist with an axe to grind.You cannot see anyone's viewpoint but your own, you consider yourself having already figured it all out, there is no possibility that anyone else could possibly have another valid viewpoint.Holmes has perfect knowledge.I am tired you ranting at me.Actually, I am tired of you occasionally ranting at me, and the rest of the time ranting at somebody else in your replies to me.I DON'T HOLD many of the views you are criticizing in your replies to me.Then, in my replies to you, I end up saying, "I don't think that. Where do you get this? I didn't say that."It's just not enjoyable.If you want a soapbox, then write an essay, don't waste my time lecturing me about the US government.

Buz, maybe you missed my message in this thread?Here's the relevant bit again, for your convenience:So, Buz, were the 20 million people who died of Influenza in the single year of 1918 engaging in some kind of "unacceptable practices"?

Look, I want to tell you that I like you, holmes, and I generally think you have great posts.This subject, however, seems to be very emotionally charged for you and you often fall into preaching and attempts at conversion and railing against imagined, unheald positions instead of listening to and responding to your partner in conversation.That is really annoying.

quote:

---

If you cannot accept that ofering money, ESPECIALLY large amounts of money, to desperate, destitute people to do something that they would otherwise not do is coercive and immoral, and if you cannot accept that risking one's life to learn how to read is fundamentally different than risking one's life for financial gain, then you are simply a fundamentalist with an axe to grind.

---

I personally give more to aleviate the needs of others, including third world unfortunates than I do to my own church, and for my own food and medical needs combined, but I don't see putting 10 to 15 times per person more into a disease, primarily caused by devient practices such as sex and drugs, more money than other diseases. So your personal verbal attacks against me are unwarranted and simply meanspirited and hateful.

quote:

---

You cannot see anyone's viewpoint but your own, you consider yourself having already figured it all out, there is no possibility that anyone else could possibly have another valid viewpoint.

---

I've produce factual input to this thread. You've produced nothing substantial here of consequence and imo, a poor looser in debate. Poor loosers seem to wind up with nothing left to resort to but personal attack. That's what I see here.

quote:

---

Holmes has perfect knowledge.

---

Holmes, as usual has typed in so much unfounded spin and irrevelant yada that I simply don't have the time, nor the desire for response to the majority of it. I do respond soundly to some key points he brings up.

quote:

---

I am tired you ranting at me.
Actually, I am tired of you occasionally ranting at me, and the rest of the time ranting at somebody else in your replies to me.

---

Hey, madear, who's ranting?? You've initiated as much or more groundless rant about ole buz as a most do about anyone here in town since I've been here.

quote:

---

If you want a soapbox, then write an essay, don't waste my time lecturing me about the US government.

---

If I remember correctly it was you, dear, who opened this thread about the government. Now you're all fussed up, throwing insultive falacies and crabing at me for responding..........all an obvious indication you've lost the debate for lack of substantial data.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-07-2003]

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

I see where you are coming from, but let's face it, it simply is the truth that women's health issues unrelated to reproduction, and even some that are reproduction-related, have been historically rather neglected until relatively recently.

---

Indeed. But let's face it. It simply is the truth that men's health issues, period, have been historically ignored until the past decade. Let's take the simple question of reproductive medicine. The position of the gynecologist has been around for many decades. But in order for a man to achieve the same level of care, he needs to see three separate doctors: His GP, his urologist, and his proctologist. All too often, these physicians do not talk to each other, do not coordinate treatment, do not consider how the actions of one affect the others. For other aspects, see below.

quote:

---

Again, I do not disagree at all that funding for medical research is political. I am just stating that pointing out how women get more than men in this area (where men for many decades have historically "gotten more" than women) seems strange.

---

Which only goes to prove my point, schraf: Yes, you could say that it's a "knee-jerk reaction," but you'd have no basis for it.Remember your own thread, more about idiotic fundamentalists!! where you deliberately set a trap for buzsaw regarding how he would react to calling fundamentalists of a certain stripe "idiotic" but not to fundamentalists of another stripe?Have you considered the possibility that I chose the prostate/breast cancer situation to show how you would respond not on a basis of facts but of politics?As you said to buzsaw, "Thank you very kindly for participating in my little test of your motives."

quote:

---

Women currently live longer partly because we actually tend to go to the doctor where men tend to not go to the doctor.

---

Indeed, partly. One of the big reasons, however, more responsible than anything else, is the advent of modern obstetrics and the ability to keep women from dying during childbirth. At the beginning of the 20th century, women had a shorter life expectancy than men (if I recall correctly, it was about 4 years difference) and it was primarily due to death during childbirth. These days, it's about 7 years the other way.How many methods of treating breast cancer can you think of off the top of your head? And how has surgical treatment of breast cancer changed over the years?Now, how many methods of treating prostate cancer can you think of off the top of your head? And when was the last major breakthrough in surgical treatment of prostate cancer?We're still performing prostate surgery today the way we were doing it back in the 1930s.

quote:

---

So, despite this historical glut of men's health research

---

Not quite. Just because the research was done on men does not mean that it was "men's health" research. One needs to take into account the specific factors that make men male. Hormonal levels of men in their 20s are not the same as those of men in their 50s (and this has only recently been looked into, as well), for example. And yet, these men will be lumped together in general studies. While the results certainly aren't something that can necessarily be extended to women, it is too generalized a picture of men, too, that it can't really be called "men's health." Only recently have there been studies into how the male body specifically works.For many years, physicians studying women's health knew to separate women based upon their biological patterns. There's a reason we looked at women who started birth control pills in their 20s and looked at how those pills affected things like endometriosis, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, heart disease, etc.Did we start doing this study early enough? No. Indeed, looking into the major differences between the biochemistry of men and women and how that affects treatment was horrendously late. The assumption that the aggregated female body would react the same as the aggregated male body was ridiculous.But there is a distinct reaction that to treat men as distinctly as we have come to realize we must treat women is somehow "sexist." The idea that all of this research that has been done on males is "sufficient" to be described as "men's health" is just as ridiculous.Look at the reaction to the introduction of Viagra. Many corners claimed it was a waste of resources and a sexist product, insisting that the introduction of Viagra would be a blow to women.Now, if we want to discuss the stupidity of having Viagra on the prescription drug insurance plan but not the Pill, you'll get no argument from me. But the question here is not who is paying for the service but whether we have the service to begin with.You see...you invoke more politics.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!