I have watched the HBO series Girls since its start last year. I heard a lot about it in advance, both positive and negative, and thought it might be up my alley. I watched last season with consternation. I liked some aspects of it and completely disliked others. But I kept watching because I felt like there was maybe something there that just hadn't fully formed yet. I liked that most of the sex seemed to be more honest than what you normally see on TV - it's awkward and people are often confused or less than satisfied. I like that Hannah is not stereotypically beautiful. I wouldn't say the character is confident about her body but she isn't particularly shameful about it either. I like that we see her naked often even though she's not thin and she doesn't have perfect boobs. I also like that the characters are deeply flawed. I think it's fun to have a main character that's not all that likeable.
HOWEVER. None of that was enough to keep me liking it after last night's episode. In fact, when it was over, I flew into an irrational rage that I'm sure my partner thought was hilarious.
Here's what pisses me off the most about this show. It's about 20 something women living in Manhattan figuring out who they are. But they never really seem to figure anything out or even be trying to. They don't even seem to care. The show focuses on their boyfriends and their sexual adventures. This is what really boils my potatoes about TV shows about women. Sure, we have lots of them now, but we cannot seem to ever have a show about women that doesn't focus on their pursuit of men. On this episode Hannah, who lives in what appears to be a pretty expensive apartment in Manhattan and works part time at a coffee shop, tries cocaine for the first time because an on-line magazine editor suggested she write about it. Her decision to do this is quite inexplicable, her willingness to do it doubly so, and how she goes about procuring the cocaine even more so. No mention is made of how she pays for this. She works part-time at a coffee shop and is doing this in order to make $200 by selling an article. She really can't afford cocaine? But she does it anyway and the 'hilarious' series of events that follows finally leads to her declaring that she hates her roommate and that he must move out because he had sex with her friend. Yes, I can understand why her feelings would be hurt but Hannah HAS NO MONEY! She can't really afford to throw her roommate out on the street because she got her feelings hurt. Why this means so very much to her is unclear to me anyway. Her roommate is gay - yes they used to date but it was eons ago - she has some silly fantasy that she was his last heterosexual sexual experience and that this is somehow the only reason they can be friends. In the last season, she pissed off her previous roommate (the friend that Elijah fucked) so she moved out, she alienated a guy who seemed to love her so her didn't move in even though he wanted to. And now she has kicked out this roommate. She never thinks about the consequences of her actions and there never seem to be any.
Similarly her friend Marnie has lost her art gallery job and has taken a job as a hostess at a lounge - just to pay her bills. In the previous episode, she takes a strip out of Hannah for criticizing her choice to take this job,saying how much money she will make and that she needs the money. But in this episode, she just walks out of her job because a hot guy from the gallery she used to work at invites her to his place. She just walks away from her job - doesn't even tell anyone that she's leaving. Again - consequences be damned.
So what bugs me about this is that it makes these women look like idiots. They are overly emotional, impulsive and immature. What guys think of them is of the utmost importance to them - so much so that they will do things that put them in financial peril just to save face with a guy or to get a chance to be with a hot guy. That makes me nuts.
What also bothers me about it is that it seems like the producers of girls think that the only interesting thing about women is their sex lives. Their jobs, their friendships, how they make their decisions, their families - all of that is not the least bit interesting, viewers only want to know about their boyfriends and their sex lives. In the very first episode of girls, Hannah's parents take her out to dinner and tell her that they are not going to give her any more money. From this point on, she will have to take care of herself. I loved that scene and the premise. I thought it was going to be a great show about what happens when your privileged suburban girl life comes crashing down around you and you have to face reality, find a job, pay your bills and make your own way. That's a show I'm interested in. But it wasn't about that. Hannah lost her source of income and.......it didn't matter at all. She doesn't seem all that concerned about it and is somehow managing to survive with temporary and part-time jobs. By herself in a two bedroom apartment in Manhattan.
Maybe it's because I'm so much older than these characters that I can't relate to them. Maybe its a 20-something thing to not really know or care how you're going to support yourself, to not really be trying that hard to build a career for yourself. But I know when I was 20 I was not like that. Even though I love my parents and they would give me anything I needed, I would have rather stuck a hot poker in my eye than had them pay my rent. And I would not have spent all my time gazing at my navel wondering whether a guy likes me or whether I like him and I would not have walked out of a job I needed just to fuck a hot guy (I would have made arrangements to fuck him later).
So Girls, I'm done. If you start portraying your characters like intelligent women, I may come back, but until then, so long, farewell, auf wiederzehn, goodbye.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Monday, January 7, 2013
After Porn Ends
Over the holidays, I watched a documentary called 'After Porn Ends'. It's the stories of a number of people who were in the porn industry (mostly actors). Some of them are still in the industry in one way or another but most of them no longer do it for a living.
All of the various arguments I've heard and have had about porn, seem to come back to the question of whether the industry is inherently exploitative and abusive - ie. will doing porn mess you up for life?
This documentary made something quite clear to me that Nina Hartley - former porn actress and current porn producer and director articulates in the film. If you are someone who is lonely, craving attention, prone to addictions, vulnerable to abusive relationships, and/or confused about how you feel about your body and the value of sex, you will probably find and be attracted to in porn exactly what you don't need. You will find people who will prey on your insecurities and who will take advantage of your vulnerabilities. You will likely be confused about how you feel about it and ultimately end up feeling shameful and regretful. You will likely have an extremely negative experience. If you are someone who is confident about your body and who understands how you feel about and value sex, if you are someone who is confident about yourself in general and is able to handle yourself and set good boundaries that makes sense for your life, you will likely find in porn exactly what you need. You will find opportunities to make money and build a career whether in the porn industry or outside of it. You will feel good about what you're doing because you will understand the things that make you feel bad and will avoid them. You will stay in the industry as long as it works for you and when you feel that it is hurting you or is no longer beneficial, you will get out.
So are there a lot of victims of abuse in the porn industry? Are there a lot of alcoholics and drug addicts? Are there a lot of people who regret what they've done? Yes, yes and yes. But look at it from another angle and you can see that this is the case with any type of entertainment genre. You could say exactly the same thing about movies, television, music, and modelling. In fact, there are a lot of industries about which you could say the same thing. Is it necessarily the sex aspect that causes the problem? I think that's only a small part of it.
The documentary shows both scenarios pretty clearly. There are several people featured who were abused and/or feel that what they did was abuse. They regret their involvement in it and some have even dedicated a good part of their life to trying to keep others from doing it. There are others who feel that it was very beneficial for them. Some of them built big names and big careers for themselves. Some of them just enjoyed having sex on camera for a living.
I think the experience will depend mostly on the individual and then mainly on the people they meet and work with in the industry. There is good and there is bad.
'After Porn Ends' is not an exhaustive look at all of the aspects of the porn industry but it offers very interesting perspectives from the people that know it best - the people who have done it.
All of the various arguments I've heard and have had about porn, seem to come back to the question of whether the industry is inherently exploitative and abusive - ie. will doing porn mess you up for life?
This documentary made something quite clear to me that Nina Hartley - former porn actress and current porn producer and director articulates in the film. If you are someone who is lonely, craving attention, prone to addictions, vulnerable to abusive relationships, and/or confused about how you feel about your body and the value of sex, you will probably find and be attracted to in porn exactly what you don't need. You will find people who will prey on your insecurities and who will take advantage of your vulnerabilities. You will likely be confused about how you feel about it and ultimately end up feeling shameful and regretful. You will likely have an extremely negative experience. If you are someone who is confident about your body and who understands how you feel about and value sex, if you are someone who is confident about yourself in general and is able to handle yourself and set good boundaries that makes sense for your life, you will likely find in porn exactly what you need. You will find opportunities to make money and build a career whether in the porn industry or outside of it. You will feel good about what you're doing because you will understand the things that make you feel bad and will avoid them. You will stay in the industry as long as it works for you and when you feel that it is hurting you or is no longer beneficial, you will get out.
So are there a lot of victims of abuse in the porn industry? Are there a lot of alcoholics and drug addicts? Are there a lot of people who regret what they've done? Yes, yes and yes. But look at it from another angle and you can see that this is the case with any type of entertainment genre. You could say exactly the same thing about movies, television, music, and modelling. In fact, there are a lot of industries about which you could say the same thing. Is it necessarily the sex aspect that causes the problem? I think that's only a small part of it.
The documentary shows both scenarios pretty clearly. There are several people featured who were abused and/or feel that what they did was abuse. They regret their involvement in it and some have even dedicated a good part of their life to trying to keep others from doing it. There are others who feel that it was very beneficial for them. Some of them built big names and big careers for themselves. Some of them just enjoyed having sex on camera for a living.
I think the experience will depend mostly on the individual and then mainly on the people they meet and work with in the industry. There is good and there is bad.
'After Porn Ends' is not an exhaustive look at all of the aspects of the porn industry but it offers very interesting perspectives from the people that know it best - the people who have done it.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Anti-Abortion Group Finally Gets Called on Their Lies
What a great Christmas present! The Advertising Standards Council told the PEI Right to Life Association that their recent ad contained three specific false statements and therefore must be pulled. Woohoo! It's pretty common for 'pro-life' propaganda to be liberally peppered with stretched truths and outright lies and it seems no one ever does anything about it. It makes me so angry to see them making up stuff to try to guilt women out of having an abortion. If there were really strong arguments against abortion, they could allow them to speak for themselves instead of making up all this stuff. I'm so pleased that complaints were made and that the Advertising Standards Council sided with the truth.
The three things that they took issue with are the claim that abortion is never medically necessary to save a woman's life. We all know that is not true. I looked at the Right to Life Association's defense of this and, if you really want to contort the facts, they may be right. Yes, it is a rare case where we know for sure that a woman will die if she carries her baby to term. In cases where we know that the woman's health is at risk, and she wants to carry the baby, lots of options are open to do the utmost to save the baby's health and her health and often, though not always, these are successful. So, can we say that there are many cases where we know for sure that a woman would have died if she hadn't had an abortion? No, there are probably very few. But we do know that there are many cases where it is discovered that the woman's health will be at serious risk if she carries a baby to term. The anti-abortionists don't consider a choice for abortion in this case to be medically necessary because the woman's health is merely at risk, she is not certain to die. In other words, they believe that choosing not to carry a baby to term because there is a strong chance that you could get very sick and die, is tantamount to murder. I disagree.
As well, if they want to continue to make the claim that abortion is never medically necessary, I would direct their attention to this story from Ireland.
The second claim was that Canada's lack of a law amount to abortion on demand in Canada. I don't really get what they are on about here, but the Advertising Standards Council found that this was not true.
The third claim was that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of getting breast cancer. This is the one the really boils my potatoes. Firstly, it's simply not true, even though PEI Right to Life is sticking to its guns. The idea comes from the knowledge that when a woman becomes pregnant, her breast tissue begins to change in preparation for breast-feeding. If the pregnancy does not go to term, the natural hormone cycle is not complete and may leave open the possibility for abnormal cells to grow. But if that is true, then it's not just women who have had abortions who would experience this but women who have had miscarriages as well. You don't see Right to Life bringing that up, do you? And it is were true, what would the point be? You should have your baby because if you don't, you'll get breast cancer? How does that make any sense at all? They are two completely unrelated issues and I don't think the possibility of cancer would factor into a woman's choice to bear a child that she didn't want to bear or to raise a child she wasn't ready to raise.
And anyway, all of this doesn't matter because IT'S NOT TRUE! The Canadian Cancer Society has a great page that explains the quite thorough research on this issue which shows that now significant correlation has ever been found between abortion and breast cancer risk.
As much as I don't agree with their position, I do think that these groups should have the right to advertise and promote themselves. I think that any belief or opinion group should have the right to do that. Others who believe as they do should have an opportunity to find like-minded people.
If you think abortion is wrong and you want pregnant women who also believe abortion is wrong to have support, that's just peachy-keen with me. But don't put blatant scary lies into the public domain where vulnerable women who aren't sure what they want will be guilted or terrified into making the decision you want them to make. It's abusive and unfair. I'm thrilled that the complaints were made and that they were taken to task for it.
Although this is the first one I've heard of, apparently it's not the first time it has happened. The Advertising Standards Council has investigated complaints against anti-abortion advertising several times and has decided against them several times. Maybe they'll get the message soon.
The three things that they took issue with are the claim that abortion is never medically necessary to save a woman's life. We all know that is not true. I looked at the Right to Life Association's defense of this and, if you really want to contort the facts, they may be right. Yes, it is a rare case where we know for sure that a woman will die if she carries her baby to term. In cases where we know that the woman's health is at risk, and she wants to carry the baby, lots of options are open to do the utmost to save the baby's health and her health and often, though not always, these are successful. So, can we say that there are many cases where we know for sure that a woman would have died if she hadn't had an abortion? No, there are probably very few. But we do know that there are many cases where it is discovered that the woman's health will be at serious risk if she carries a baby to term. The anti-abortionists don't consider a choice for abortion in this case to be medically necessary because the woman's health is merely at risk, she is not certain to die. In other words, they believe that choosing not to carry a baby to term because there is a strong chance that you could get very sick and die, is tantamount to murder. I disagree.
As well, if they want to continue to make the claim that abortion is never medically necessary, I would direct their attention to this story from Ireland.
The second claim was that Canada's lack of a law amount to abortion on demand in Canada. I don't really get what they are on about here, but the Advertising Standards Council found that this was not true.
The third claim was that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of getting breast cancer. This is the one the really boils my potatoes. Firstly, it's simply not true, even though PEI Right to Life is sticking to its guns. The idea comes from the knowledge that when a woman becomes pregnant, her breast tissue begins to change in preparation for breast-feeding. If the pregnancy does not go to term, the natural hormone cycle is not complete and may leave open the possibility for abnormal cells to grow. But if that is true, then it's not just women who have had abortions who would experience this but women who have had miscarriages as well. You don't see Right to Life bringing that up, do you? And it is were true, what would the point be? You should have your baby because if you don't, you'll get breast cancer? How does that make any sense at all? They are two completely unrelated issues and I don't think the possibility of cancer would factor into a woman's choice to bear a child that she didn't want to bear or to raise a child she wasn't ready to raise.
And anyway, all of this doesn't matter because IT'S NOT TRUE! The Canadian Cancer Society has a great page that explains the quite thorough research on this issue which shows that now significant correlation has ever been found between abortion and breast cancer risk.
As much as I don't agree with their position, I do think that these groups should have the right to advertise and promote themselves. I think that any belief or opinion group should have the right to do that. Others who believe as they do should have an opportunity to find like-minded people.
If you think abortion is wrong and you want pregnant women who also believe abortion is wrong to have support, that's just peachy-keen with me. But don't put blatant scary lies into the public domain where vulnerable women who aren't sure what they want will be guilted or terrified into making the decision you want them to make. It's abusive and unfair. I'm thrilled that the complaints were made and that they were taken to task for it.
Although this is the first one I've heard of, apparently it's not the first time it has happened. The Advertising Standards Council has investigated complaints against anti-abortion advertising several times and has decided against them several times. Maybe they'll get the message soon.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Sex Addiction Fails to Make it Into the DSM5
The American Psychological Association has announced the changes to the Diagnostical and Statistical Manual that will be coming out with its fifth edition, and the addition of sex addiction is not one of them.
I, for one, am relieved. If you've read my blog before, you'll know that I don't believe in the concept of sex addiction (Sex Addiction is a Myth). I believe that people can have all manner of anxiety issues and troubles coping in life and that although those may express themselves in a number of ways, included compulsive sexual behaviors, it's the underlying issues that are the real problem, not the behavior.
Many others vehemently disagree with me. A number of psychologists, psychiatrists and, lets be honest about this, conservative religious groups, have been lobbying hard for the acceptance of the idea that sex addiction is a real thing. In fact, what was presented to the APA for consideration was not sex addiction, but rather 'hypersexual disorder'. Rory Reid, a research psychologist who studies this 'condition' described it this way for My Health News "recurrent and intense sexual fantasies, sexual urges, and sexual behavior," that lasted at least six months." That seems just a little vague, doesn't it? Doesn't that describe about 85% of the human population? We are sexual beings and intense sexual urges and fantasies are a normal part of us. If we use this definition, I have this disorder.
However Reid also says that, "Diagnosis requires that these urges cause the patient distress, and aren't brought on by drugs or another mental disorder. The behavior must also interfere with their life, for instance, some patients in (Reid's) study lost jobs because they could not refrain from watching pornography and masturbating at work." This is what the proponents of sex addiction as a mental illness always throw in there. It's not just that someone likes sex or masturbates a lot, it's that they have no control over it and it's having a negative impact on their life. When you add that to it, it sounds completely reasonable. Of course if you masturbate at work all the time, you have a serious problem.
My question is though, is the problem hypersexual disorder or is it obsessive compulsive disorder and/or difficulty dealing with stress and anxiety? Are we diagnosing the illness or just the symptom? My personal belief is that considering anything that is actually a biological need like food, sleep, or sex to be addictive is dangerous. How do you determine what's a normal amount of eating or moderate over-eating and what is addictive behavior? How do you determine what is a normal amount of masturbating and what is addictive behavior? When we look at addictions to substances or things that we do not need to survive like alchohol or cocaine, the prescribed solution is almost always complete abstinence. That's how we know how to deal with addictions. Where does this leave someone who is diagnosed as having a sex addiction? They can never have sex again? Is that healthy? If that's not the case, then how do you determine what's healthy sex and what's not?
I have no doubt that many of the professionals who do believe this is a real disorder are honestly trying to help their patients. They see what is happening for them and they are looking for information, recognition, and resources that will help treat them.
However, I do believe that there are some professionals, and some people and groups that support this idea who are doing so because they have an agenda. When you hear people talk about cases of sex addiction, the person is almost always addicted to internet porn. The focus of this conversation is internet porn about 90% of the time. I believe that many of the people who support this being added to the DSM5 are sex-negative conservatives who want to use this as leverage to push the enforcement of obscenity laws or the creation of new censorship around pornography. If they can show that it is actually addictive, and there are some people already who are trying to say they have scientific evidence that watching internet porn creates neural pathways in the brain that foster addiction, they will have a lot of ammunition in that endeavor.
Sex addiction has also been used by a lot of people as an excuse for infidelity and other inappropriate behavior. Celebrities love to do this. They get caught doing something they absolutely should not have been doing and they claim they are sex addicts and could not help themselves. They are not sex addicts. They did something really stupid, inconsiderate and reckless and they got caught. And even if they actually were sex addicts (if that was a real thing) it still doesn't excuse the behavior.
I think it is very useful to understand how substance addictions work on the brain so that we can provide the best possible help to people who are dealing with them. But underlying even a substance addiction is life problems that must be dealt with so that the person has less of a need to turn to the substance to cope. So, I think, it is with these supposedly out of control sexual behaviors. The questions is not so much 'how can we stop you from masturbating at work' as it is, 'how can we help you to determine the triggers that make you want to engage in compulsive behaviors and make changes to those conditions in your life'.
I, for one, am relieved. If you've read my blog before, you'll know that I don't believe in the concept of sex addiction (Sex Addiction is a Myth). I believe that people can have all manner of anxiety issues and troubles coping in life and that although those may express themselves in a number of ways, included compulsive sexual behaviors, it's the underlying issues that are the real problem, not the behavior.
Many others vehemently disagree with me. A number of psychologists, psychiatrists and, lets be honest about this, conservative religious groups, have been lobbying hard for the acceptance of the idea that sex addiction is a real thing. In fact, what was presented to the APA for consideration was not sex addiction, but rather 'hypersexual disorder'. Rory Reid, a research psychologist who studies this 'condition' described it this way for My Health News "recurrent and intense sexual fantasies, sexual urges, and sexual behavior," that lasted at least six months." That seems just a little vague, doesn't it? Doesn't that describe about 85% of the human population? We are sexual beings and intense sexual urges and fantasies are a normal part of us. If we use this definition, I have this disorder.
However Reid also says that, "Diagnosis requires that these urges cause the patient distress, and aren't brought on by drugs or another mental disorder. The behavior must also interfere with their life, for instance, some patients in (Reid's) study lost jobs because they could not refrain from watching pornography and masturbating at work." This is what the proponents of sex addiction as a mental illness always throw in there. It's not just that someone likes sex or masturbates a lot, it's that they have no control over it and it's having a negative impact on their life. When you add that to it, it sounds completely reasonable. Of course if you masturbate at work all the time, you have a serious problem.
My question is though, is the problem hypersexual disorder or is it obsessive compulsive disorder and/or difficulty dealing with stress and anxiety? Are we diagnosing the illness or just the symptom? My personal belief is that considering anything that is actually a biological need like food, sleep, or sex to be addictive is dangerous. How do you determine what's a normal amount of eating or moderate over-eating and what is addictive behavior? How do you determine what is a normal amount of masturbating and what is addictive behavior? When we look at addictions to substances or things that we do not need to survive like alchohol or cocaine, the prescribed solution is almost always complete abstinence. That's how we know how to deal with addictions. Where does this leave someone who is diagnosed as having a sex addiction? They can never have sex again? Is that healthy? If that's not the case, then how do you determine what's healthy sex and what's not?
I have no doubt that many of the professionals who do believe this is a real disorder are honestly trying to help their patients. They see what is happening for them and they are looking for information, recognition, and resources that will help treat them.
However, I do believe that there are some professionals, and some people and groups that support this idea who are doing so because they have an agenda. When you hear people talk about cases of sex addiction, the person is almost always addicted to internet porn. The focus of this conversation is internet porn about 90% of the time. I believe that many of the people who support this being added to the DSM5 are sex-negative conservatives who want to use this as leverage to push the enforcement of obscenity laws or the creation of new censorship around pornography. If they can show that it is actually addictive, and there are some people already who are trying to say they have scientific evidence that watching internet porn creates neural pathways in the brain that foster addiction, they will have a lot of ammunition in that endeavor.
Sex addiction has also been used by a lot of people as an excuse for infidelity and other inappropriate behavior. Celebrities love to do this. They get caught doing something they absolutely should not have been doing and they claim they are sex addicts and could not help themselves. They are not sex addicts. They did something really stupid, inconsiderate and reckless and they got caught. And even if they actually were sex addicts (if that was a real thing) it still doesn't excuse the behavior.
I think it is very useful to understand how substance addictions work on the brain so that we can provide the best possible help to people who are dealing with them. But underlying even a substance addiction is life problems that must be dealt with so that the person has less of a need to turn to the substance to cope. So, I think, it is with these supposedly out of control sexual behaviors. The questions is not so much 'how can we stop you from masturbating at work' as it is, 'how can we help you to determine the triggers that make you want to engage in compulsive behaviors and make changes to those conditions in your life'.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
New Way to 'Rejuvenate' Your Vagina is the Scariest Yet
In my rounds around the internet, I came upon this site for a Toronto cosmetic surgery clinic that focuses on female genital cosmetic surgeries. I got there because I read about yet another procedure that some doctors are flogging, trying to tell women it will improve their sex lives. I've read a lot about this types of surgeries but this one was so scary and so ridiculous, I could not believe it could be true. But google led me to this site, and alas, it's true.
The procedure is called Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation. The clinic describes it thusly "Sexual gratification has been scientifically proven to be intimately linked to the level of friction created. But with vaginal relaxation (caused by pregnancy, age or other factors), the ability to create friction is dramatically reduced, thereby adversely affecting sexual gratification. ... LVR® is a proprietary surgical procedure that corrects "looseness" to enhance sexual performance. It is a modification of an existing surgical procedure that treats vaginal relaxation and its primary symptom, stress urinary incontinence. Only select physicians can perform LVR®." In case the pseudo-medical explanation is throwing you off, as it's clearly intended to do, let me put it into plain language. Your vagina is loose and doesn't feel good to your partner so we're going to stick a laser in there and scar it all up to create some texture and make it feel like it's tighter.
Yes, this is really what this is. They scar the vagina with a laser to make it feel bumpier and tighter. How in the world could this ever be medically necessary? When I hear this, the term female genital mutilation comes to mind.
They claim that, in addition to improving your 'sexual performance' it helps control stress incontinence but I cannot imagine how this would work. This laser procedure is not targeting the muscles involved in bladder control - it is just modifying the inside of the vagina.
I love this part of the site "Full recovery from Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation® surgery is generally within 6 weeks, depending on the individual. Common side effects, such as pain, discomfort, bleeding and swelling, may be less pronounced compared to the traditional method of vaginal tightening." First of all, I'd like to know what traditional methods they are referring to. If they are referring to surgeries for prolapse and/or incontinence - yes there are side-effects and recovery time because those are real surgeries to address real, not perceived, issues involving the pelvic floor muscle. This is just a laser treatment. And for it, it sounds like you will go at least 6 weeks without being able to put anything in your vagina comfortably. For something that's supposed to improve my sex life, it sure sounds like it will ruin it, at least in the short term. But it makes perfect sense, if you stick something in your vagina and scar it up, it's bound to be painful, uncomfortable, and to swell and bleed for some time.
Why, why, why would these doctors do this?
Admittedly, I haven't delved very deeply into this particular surgery. I don't know much about whether this one is actually approved by any regulatory board or if there are any long-term studies on the effects of it. However I have looked into some of the other ones like labiaplasty and the G-shot (in which either collagen, botox, or your own blood are injected into the area where the g-spot is supposed to be). None of those procedures has ever been studied for efficacy and safety. None of them have been formally approved by any medical regulatory body. And the doctor who spearheaded the g-shot procedure, patented it, and taught a lot of other doctors how to do it has been in extremely hot water with the medical revue board and may have had his license revoked. So forgive me if I'm skeptical about this one.
I do believe that women have the right to choose to do whatever they want to their bodies. But I think that they also have the right to complete and full information about the options they are contemplating. This is why I think these procedures are just plain wrong.
First, they are not medically necessary. Now it's fine to have a medical procedure for cosmetic reasons if you choose but the rhetoric around this stuff really verges on telling women that these things are medically necessary - or at least necessary if you ever hope to have a satisfying sex life.
Second, there is no reliable information as to whether they are effective or not. There are no studies showing that they actually work.
Third, there is the risk of very serious complication and no information on exactly what those risks are and how often complications may occur. When these procedures are described, they sound like simple, painless little day procedures. But this one involves cutting inside the vagina. There has to be a risk of cutting in the wrong place or too deep, of tissue or nerve damage, or of creating scar tissue that does become problematic. In fact many women suffer from scar tissue inside the vagina as a result of surgeries or medical treatments - should we really be engaging in a procedure that seems to do exactly that - cause scars in the vagina?
The fact is that vaginas do get a little looser as we age and they certainly do tend to get a little looser with every child we deliver. This is natural. For most, it is not a medical problem. It can be easily addressed by doing your kegel exercises, and being creative about how you have sex. It really is not something that needs to be medically fixed. These 'doctors' who specialize in this stuff are really just out to make us feel as if there is something seriously wrong with us in order to make some money. To me, the risks far outweigh the benefits.
The procedure is called Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation. The clinic describes it thusly "Sexual gratification has been scientifically proven to be intimately linked to the level of friction created. But with vaginal relaxation (caused by pregnancy, age or other factors), the ability to create friction is dramatically reduced, thereby adversely affecting sexual gratification. ... LVR® is a proprietary surgical procedure that corrects "looseness" to enhance sexual performance. It is a modification of an existing surgical procedure that treats vaginal relaxation and its primary symptom, stress urinary incontinence. Only select physicians can perform LVR®." In case the pseudo-medical explanation is throwing you off, as it's clearly intended to do, let me put it into plain language. Your vagina is loose and doesn't feel good to your partner so we're going to stick a laser in there and scar it all up to create some texture and make it feel like it's tighter.
Yes, this is really what this is. They scar the vagina with a laser to make it feel bumpier and tighter. How in the world could this ever be medically necessary? When I hear this, the term female genital mutilation comes to mind.
They claim that, in addition to improving your 'sexual performance' it helps control stress incontinence but I cannot imagine how this would work. This laser procedure is not targeting the muscles involved in bladder control - it is just modifying the inside of the vagina.
I love this part of the site "Full recovery from Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation® surgery is generally within 6 weeks, depending on the individual. Common side effects, such as pain, discomfort, bleeding and swelling, may be less pronounced compared to the traditional method of vaginal tightening." First of all, I'd like to know what traditional methods they are referring to. If they are referring to surgeries for prolapse and/or incontinence - yes there are side-effects and recovery time because those are real surgeries to address real, not perceived, issues involving the pelvic floor muscle. This is just a laser treatment. And for it, it sounds like you will go at least 6 weeks without being able to put anything in your vagina comfortably. For something that's supposed to improve my sex life, it sure sounds like it will ruin it, at least in the short term. But it makes perfect sense, if you stick something in your vagina and scar it up, it's bound to be painful, uncomfortable, and to swell and bleed for some time.
Why, why, why would these doctors do this?
Admittedly, I haven't delved very deeply into this particular surgery. I don't know much about whether this one is actually approved by any regulatory board or if there are any long-term studies on the effects of it. However I have looked into some of the other ones like labiaplasty and the G-shot (in which either collagen, botox, or your own blood are injected into the area where the g-spot is supposed to be). None of those procedures has ever been studied for efficacy and safety. None of them have been formally approved by any medical regulatory body. And the doctor who spearheaded the g-shot procedure, patented it, and taught a lot of other doctors how to do it has been in extremely hot water with the medical revue board and may have had his license revoked. So forgive me if I'm skeptical about this one.
I do believe that women have the right to choose to do whatever they want to their bodies. But I think that they also have the right to complete and full information about the options they are contemplating. This is why I think these procedures are just plain wrong.
First, they are not medically necessary. Now it's fine to have a medical procedure for cosmetic reasons if you choose but the rhetoric around this stuff really verges on telling women that these things are medically necessary - or at least necessary if you ever hope to have a satisfying sex life.
Second, there is no reliable information as to whether they are effective or not. There are no studies showing that they actually work.
Third, there is the risk of very serious complication and no information on exactly what those risks are and how often complications may occur. When these procedures are described, they sound like simple, painless little day procedures. But this one involves cutting inside the vagina. There has to be a risk of cutting in the wrong place or too deep, of tissue or nerve damage, or of creating scar tissue that does become problematic. In fact many women suffer from scar tissue inside the vagina as a result of surgeries or medical treatments - should we really be engaging in a procedure that seems to do exactly that - cause scars in the vagina?
The fact is that vaginas do get a little looser as we age and they certainly do tend to get a little looser with every child we deliver. This is natural. For most, it is not a medical problem. It can be easily addressed by doing your kegel exercises, and being creative about how you have sex. It really is not something that needs to be medically fixed. These 'doctors' who specialize in this stuff are really just out to make us feel as if there is something seriously wrong with us in order to make some money. To me, the risks far outweigh the benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
