 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / December 2004Call me Old Fashioned
Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. Afterall this is a serious meeting place where lives can be on the line, where we can all try to help, advise and direct each other in the fight against PCa. I can see that some folks are uptight/intense about erections and advice about how you might get one, but the graphic comments about what couples are doing in the privacy of their own homes should I think stay private. There's no way I would ever titilate the world and his dog by going into {any} detail of the relationship that I have with my wife, I think too much of her. Maybe I am Old Fashioned, maybe this is how folks talk these days, would it be appropriate if we all chipped in with graphic detail of our bedroom daliances ? No doubt some folks somewhere would "benefit" from it, but quite frankly it sickens me to see such a public defiling of the folks we are supposed to Love and Respect. I'll bow out, and leave you all to it... Canada Bob. The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. Bob: I join you and would also classify myself as old fashioned. Comments by some to the original post that "you ought to send a video" reinforce the premise that some things just need to be kept between husband and wife. It serves no purpose to venture into the bedroom, regardless of the so-called benefit to the rest of the group. Lets not get carried away with "helping" others. Roy in Winston Salem > Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here > seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Canada Bob. > The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. Hello Roy... > I join you and would also classify myself as old fashioned. I guess we're not alone Roy, I'd just had enough of it. > Comments by some to the original post that "you ought to send a video" > reinforce the premise that some things just need to be kept between husband > and wife. It serves no purpose to venture into the bedroom, regardless of > the so-called benefit to the rest of the group. Lets not get carried away > with "helping" others. My point exactly Roy, said more succinctly than I did though. Canada Bob. The guy that doesn't measure love by the length of his penis. Alright, this has gone too far! Morality is not at issue here. What is at issue is that a user posted a support-type message. Another didn't like the message. Rather than debate the issue, he attacked her right to post it. It is my experience that the only way for this to end is for the original transggressor to apologize. Bob, that means you! It aint easy. I've had to do it before, so I know. But I'm betting your faith does not extend to a point where you would rather see prostate cancer victims leave than to admit that you were out of line. > Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here > seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > what couples are doing in the privacy of their own homes should I > think stay private. I agree that bedroom matters should generally be kept private. I don't generally discuss my sex life with others. But impotence is a serious issue for men who have been treated for prostate cancer and for their partners. Sharing information can often be helpful, and you sometimes have to be quite explicit. How far one wants to go in discussing details is a matter of personal choice as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't personally go as far as some of those who have commented recently have done, but that is me. I think they are trying to help others and I admire them for that. I am not offended by their comments, and I don't see myself as a moral guardian of the newsgroup. If such comments bother you, you have the option of not reading them. > There's no way I would ever titilate the world and his dog by going > into {any} detail of the relationship that I have with my wife, I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > frankly it sickens me to see such a public defiling of the folks we > are supposed to Love and Respect. Isn't that a matter of perspective? What you consider defiling might be considered evidence of exactly that love and respect by someone else. Also, the discussions I've seen are hardly titilating. It is more love among the ruins. > I'll bow out, and leave you all to it... > > Canada Bob. > The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. On December 2, while responding to Canada Bob, Leonard Evens wrote in pertinent part: > > What you consider defiling might be considered evidence of exactly > that love and respect by someone else. Also, the discussions I've seen > are hardly titilating. It is more love among the ruins. "Love among the ruins." Bingo; exactly. Regards, Steve J __ "It is an ugly world. Offend Good people, how they wrangle, The manner that they never mend, The characters they mangle. They eat, and drink, and scheme, and plod, And go to church on Sunday - And many are afraid of God - And more of Mrs. Grundy." --From "The Jester" by Frederick Locker-Lampson, 1857 I join in on lauding Leonard's great line "Love among the ruins." On the appropriateness of some of the posts, I also consider myself old fashioned (my wife would certainly agree on that), but I cannot say that I have been offended by what I think is being referred to here. My view is a little different than the others perhaps. I consider this "family", and there are a lot of topics here that I would never discuss in other settings. My own boss cut me off when I came back from the surgery and started to talk about the catheter and incontinence. Guy to guy in private that was too much for him to bear. My own wife is uneasy about discussing the pump and injections with me. She changes the subject and tells me to do what I want (I don't think that includes the blonde with the sports car down the street). Anyway, my step-son tells me stories about the girls in eight grade giving blow jobs to their boy friends (hope your kids are grown). There is a lot more going on out there than what us old farts know about I think. Finally, one thing I absolutely hate is the type of comment that says "if you don't like it don't read it". No offense to those who may have said that here. For one, that is not the way I feel about those who have voiced an opinion against some of the subject matter. You are a full member of the club and, for one, I do not take a "love it or leave it" attitude toward your viewpoint. I may not agree, but I also do not think that you should just have to sit silent or join in with something you are not comfortable with. Speak you peace. I may not agree, but I will read your posts. Talked (typed) too much again, didn't I? Sorry. Thank you. David S. > On December 2, while responding to Canada Bob, Leonard Evens wrote in > pertinent part: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve J > Finally, one thing I absolutely hate is the type of comment that says "if > you don't like it don't read it". No offense to those who may have said > that here. For one, that is not the way I feel about those who have voiced > an opinion against some of the subject matter. You are a full member of the > club and, for one, I do not take a "love it or leave it" attitude toward > your viewpoint. I don't see her comment as love it or leave it. It was more like, if you are not interested in a particular post, don't read it. >> Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here >> seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> Canada Bob. >> The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. Well put Leonard! (If you don't like the show, change the channel) Philski Hello Leonard... > I agree that bedroom matters should generally be kept private. That's the point I was making Leonard. > I don't generally discuss my sex life with others. Nor do I, I think more of my wife than to debase her with such comments. > But impotence is a serious issue for men It's as important as they "make" it Leonard, it's way down the scale of important things to me, not even on the same scale as the love I have for my wife and the love she has for me. My relationship isn't based on how hard I can get, sigh... > Sharing information can often be helpful, That's why groups like this can be so helpful... > and you sometimes have to be quite explicit. I don't see why, if you need to get graphic then do a direct e-mail. > How far one wants to go in discussing details is a matter of personal choice > as far as I'm concerned. I Personal choices in a Public Place ??? I don't want to hear the graphic details of someones efforts to cause arrousal, to me it sort of debases us all. > wouldn't personally go as far as some of those who have commented > recently have done, but that is me. Again that's my point... > I think they are trying to help others and I admire them for that. Trying to help don't always help Len... > I am not offended by their comments, Maybe you're not, and I can't say that I'm offended, just nausiated at times, and an awkward feeling about how things that {to me} are personal, private and maybe precious are presented in such graphic detail, I don't think there's a need for that. > I don't see myself as a moral guardian of the newsgroup. Maybe there is a place for moral stewardship ? or is it always "how low can we go" ? do we have to find the lowest common denominator ? does that benefit us ? > If such comments bother you,you have the option of not reading them. Is that a sort of reverse McCarthyism ??? if I don't like something I'm expected to keep my mouth shut... > > No doubt some folks somewhere would "benefit" from it, but quite > > frankly it sickens me to see such a public defiling of the folks we > > are supposed to Love and Respect. > Isn't that a matter of perspective? What you consider defiling might be > considered evidence of exactly that love and respect by someone else. Gawd help anyone who feels that graphic depicions of what they do with their wives is evidence of love and or respect, sigh... > Also, the discussions I've seen are hardly titilating. It is more love > among the ruins. Have to agree with you there Len, certainly sounds like "Love Ruined" to me. Canada Bob. The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. > Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here > seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Canada Bob. > The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. I think that there have been discussions here about our sex lives that have been very professional and helpful. After all, we are mostly guys talking about a guy problem. While the women who come here are welcome and are here because of their guy, we still are mostly men here. I have been helped by some of the talk of sexual function that has gone on here. I was much more active on this newsgroup in 1999 and 2000. Where else can you have a serious, tasteful, not too descript conversation? BUT, there have been times here when the information was TOO much and TOO graphic. Just my thoughts, and of course we can all cruise over the posts that we don't care for. Dale P Quoting DP: > BUT, there have been times here when the information was TOO much and TOO > graphic. That's my point, no more, no less... > Just my thoughts, and of course we can all cruise over the posts that we > don't care for. I don't exactly agree on that, the "freedoms" that we have, which also include writing groups like this aren't exactly "free for alls". With "freedom" comes responsibility to consider the values of others, and by that I mean the community that we are frequenting... I see this group as a place where many of us are staring death eye ball to eye ball, and in the battle to stay alive some of us find ways to combat PCa and feel a need to help others have options and feed back that otherwise they wouldn't have had, possibly life saving options. If there are spin offs from what we are going through then fair enough, maybe a considerable number of men finish up with problems, but how important is an erection ??? I guess if you have 8-10 a week they aren't important at all, well, maybe not very important, but if you get zero erections then the problem {for men} seems to shoot up the scale and then the problem seems to be magnified and get worse, then it becomes ANOTHER problem that some poor beggar who is trying to cope with PCa has to cope with. How much of life {for men} is an erection, would your relationship be on the rocks {pun intended} if you didn't get erections ??? what percentage of your relationship is down to getting an erection. What I'm trying to say is, Calm Down, forget the erection thing, and then when you've done that, you might just get one. But knowing that some men will become permanently impotent I want to be supportive of them too, and try to get things in perspective for them, you know there must be a lot of guys in this group faced with this situation, I'm more concerned about them than a graphic descrition of someone being gobbled off... sigh. Canada Bob. >Subject: Re: Call me Old Fashioned >From: robert01942@hotmail.com (Canada Bob) >Date: 12/3/2004 1:03 PM Central Standard Time >Message-id: <8435bc6b.0412031103.2cf21b4c@posting.google.com> It has sometimes been graphic, but never "too" graphic" I don't read 'em or write 'em 'cause I have never recovered potence and I don't want to discourage anyone. I mention the fact that I do get orgasms, 'cause that's encouraging. This is all clinical, Bob, and definitely on topic. >Quoting DP: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >Canada Bob. >> How much of life {for men} is an erection, would your relationship be > on the rocks {pun intended} if you didn't get erections ??? what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Canada Bob. I am one of the permanently impotent guys. From the age of 49. Yes it has had an impact on my relationship, but we have endured. It can be a real cause for depression, as one thinks about the old days. Yet, as with so many things in life and things here, it is something we sometimes cannot change. Learn to live with it. Yes, our sex life has changed in what we do and how we get to that means, but I am with you that I really don't want to go into detail about what happens in our private home. Dale P You are not old fashion. what is the problem with taking viagra? Are you upset? I have nerves cut and use viagra, small amounts. I had RP it was tough... We are folks that love our wives, that like to be able to stimulate them.... That is it. Give me a note. Nothing wrong with an erection..... That is normal Nothing wrong with stimilating your wife. Hang in there,,,,,,,,,,Your wife loves you. > Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here > seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Canada Bob. > The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. Hello John... > You are not old fashion. It seems it sometimes John... > what is the problem with taking viagra? None far as I know of... except for the blue haze and the headaches, grin... > Are you upset? Yea, I guess I am John, I believe in human diginty that we should show respect not our a.s {or erections}. > I have nerves cut and use viagra, small amounts. > I had RP it was tough... No problem with that at all John... I feel we have a crossed wire on this. > We are folks that love our wives, that like to be able to stimulate them.... No problem there either John, but like smoking I don't want it blown across my face. > Give me a note. $5 on it's way John {just being humourous, not disrespectful}. > Nothing wrong with an erection..... Might be at the Bus Stop, grin... > That is normal It's when you show it to folks John it's not quite kosher... > Nothing wrong with stimilating your wife. But I don't need to know it do I ? > Hang in there,,,,,,,,,,Your wife loves you. After a 40 year realationship John I know, respect and value that. Canada Bob. The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. Hey, Sex is not bad, and boners, and kunts, and clitoris, etc...... We were brought up in a religious realm. No sex, no nothing, hide...... Well it is out of the closet and running around. You better hide cause it may come to haunt you! Men with Prostate cancer are compromised..... We talk about success. Our wives love that! they will admire us with a softy but love us more for a proper hardon! That is life. We have 2 ears maybe. We have hands and feet maybe. We have a face. maybe We have lips, and a smile. maybe. We have tits....maybe. We have that and a penis and a vagina. maybe. We use this equiptment all the time! We should be able to talk about compromised situations either it be a lip, and ear, or a penis! My 2 pennys! John Loomis! Took me 2 years to regain some erectile function, and without the help of this group, and the discussions.....I wonder? Please do not feel bad. We have moved above the table here. we talk! John Loomis > Hello John... > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Canada Bob. > The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. Hi John... > Hey, Sex is not bad, and boners, and kunts, and clitoris, etc...... This is getting to be too juvenile for me. > We were brought up in a religious realm. No sex, no nothing, hide...... You might feel that way John, but I wasn't oppressed by anyone or anything, and my values aren't based on my angst or opposition to something that I felt once repressed me. > Well it is out of the closet and running around. > You better hide cause it may come to haunt you! What the hell does the above mean ? > Men with Prostate cancer are compromised..... Men with mortgages are compromised John, sigh... > We talk about success. > Our wives love that! > they will admire us with a softy but love us more for a proper hardon! Back to schoolyard banter hey... > That is life. > We have 2 ears maybe. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We have that and a penis and a vagina. maybe. > We use this equiptment all the time! Can you raise the debate above the erogenous zone John... > We should be able to talk about compromised situations either it be a lip, > and ear, or a penis! > My 2 pennys! I'm glad you weren't asking for more than 2 pennies John. Canada Bob. Dear John Loomis, BioScience Communications is working together with Pfizer Inc, the makers of VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate), to help people and doctors learn more about erectile dysfunction (ED). We have a new information only program in which we are reaching out to some of the most engaged talkers about erectile dysfunction online and inviting them to join our VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) Expert Consumers Forum. It is a password protected site that will contain useful information on ED, and new developments in research. We would like to invite you to become a member. If you are interested just let us know and we will forward you a user name and password. Also, if there is anyone else you think would be interested, please feel free to forward the message below. Thank you for your time and interest. Sincerely, ED TEAM _____________________________________________________________________ We are BiosScience Communications, a medical education and communications company, working together with Pfizer, the makers of VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) to help patients and doctors learn about ED treatments. Please forgive the intrusion, but we have been researching online information about VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) and recognize that discussion forums can be a great patient-to-patient education resource. Our team is impressed with the information and conversations that take place here. We work closely with Pfizer's ED experts health care professionals and consumers and we would like to invite you to join our VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) Expert Consumers Forum. This is not an advertisement but an invitation to explore information in our forum. The VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) Expert Consumers Forum is an exclusive new resource for people like you, influencers who share high-quality comments and provide emotional support. Please let us know if you would be interested in learning more about our expert consumers forum and having access to ED information only available from Pfizer Inc. Sign up now by replying to this email at EDteam@pfizerexpertconsumersforum.com to set up your username and password. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, BioScience ED Team The health information contained herein is provided for educational purposes only and is not intended to replace discussions with a healthcare provider. The products discussed herein may have different product labeling in different countries. All decisions regarding patient care must be made with a healthcare provider, considering the unique characteristics of the patient. VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) is a medicine used to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). The use of VIAGRA ® (sildenafil citrate) and organic nitrates in any form, at any time, is contraindicated. Before treating ED, physicians should consider the impact of resuming sexual activity and the mild and transient vasodilatory effects of VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) on blood pressure. Physicians should carefully consider whether patients with underlying cardiovascular disease or other more unusual conditions could be adversely affected by vasodilatory effects, especially in combination with sexual activity. Patients with the following characteristics (recent serious cardiovascular events, hypotension or uncontrolled hypertension, or retinitis pigmentosa) did not participate in pre-approval clinical trials. In these patients, physicians should prescribe VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) with caution. In a controlled interaction study of VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) and amlodipine, the mean additional reduction in supine blood pressure was 8 mm Hg systolic and 7 mm Hg diastolic. When the alpha blocker doxazosin (4 mg) and VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) (25mg) were administered simultaneously to patients with BPH, mean additional reductions of supine blood pressure of 7 mm Hg systolic and 7 mm Hg diastolic were observed. When higher doses of VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) and doxazosin (4 mg) were administered simultaneously, there were infrequent reports of patients who experienced symptomatic postural hypotension within 1 to 4 hours of dosing. Doses of 50 mg or 100 mg of VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) not be taken within 4 hours of alpha-blocker administration. A 25 mg dose of VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) may be taken at any time. The most common side effects of VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) were headache (16%), flushing (10%), and dyspepsia (7%). Adverse events, including visual effects (3%), were generally transient and mild to moderate. As there have been infrequent reports of prolonged erections lasting more than 4 hours or priapism, patients should be advised to seek immediate medical attention should these occur. Use of VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) offers no protection against sexually transmitted diseases, including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); therefore, physicians should consider counseling their patients about protective measures. Use a starting dose of 25 mg for a patient who may have increased plasma levels (age>65, hepatic impairment, severe renal impairment, and concomitant use of potent CYP450 3A4 inhibitors). Patients taking ritonavir should not exceed 25 mg in a 48-hour period. Please see full prescribing information for VIAGRA® (sildenafil citrate) (25-mg, 50-mg, 100-mg) tablets. Brought to you by Pfizer http://www.pfizer.com/copyrightfrm.html http://www.pfizer.com/privacyfrm.htm http://www.viagramd.com/general/contactUs.asp http://www.viagramd.com/general/siteMap.asp This information is intended for residents of the United States. The blue diamond tablet shape is a registered trademark of Pfizer Inc. > You are not old fashion. what is the problem with taking viagra? > Are you upset? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Canada Bob. > > The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. > Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here > seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Canada Bob. > The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. Don't read those threads,no one is making you and if you find a thread has gone into waters where you dare not tread, then mark it as read and move on. Still having sex in all kinds of ways. Lori Hi Lori... > Don't read those threads,no one is making you May I say respectfully Lori that the above isn't the answer, it may work for an ostrich to bury it's head in the sand but if I'm aware of something I don't like I'll say I don't like it. Presuming that you're in the US I might remind you that the US was/is based "freedom of speech" but that inclused the right to say what you don't like too. > and if you find a thread has gone into waters where you dare not tread, then > mark it as read and move on. Lori, {I again repeat, "respectfully"} there are no waters that this lad fears to tread, I have worked in and for the British Armed Forces for many years, I don't fear things but I do object to some things that I don't think are "decent", I stand up for the dignity of people, not the debasement of them. > Still having sex in all kinds of ways. Moi Aussi, {Me too}, Lori, but I don't feel it would be appropriate for us to exchange graphic accounts of our intimacies... yet others frequently do, sigh. Canada Bob. > Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here > seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > advice about how you might get one, but the graphic comments about > what couples are doing in the privacy of their own homes should I I think you have too much starch in your shorts Bob. Old fashioned yes, but we are way past burning witches. Men normally don't share intimate details, and this is not a good thing. One of the many side benefits of this group is for us to grow up and stop hiding behind closed doors. We can learn alot from "Sex In The City" about sharing with friends. I can promise you that we all know what oral sex and mastubation are, and that they are a good thing, despite what the church says. How many times have we told a newly diagnosed or RP guy that YES you can have a great orgasm without an erection? It's OK to practice, in fact the more the better. If some kindly wife decides to not only help her limp man out, but openly shares the fact that it worked, I think that's great! If the story titilates any one of us into a small "woody" then I say WOW.... keep it coming! (no pun there).... There is so much free porn on our computers, that I'm sure you don't view, that you can very easily click on by the details described here. I vote for no boundaries, and complete and unadulterated X-rated full frontal nudity! I can use the material...  SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories Hi Glassman... > I think you have too much starch in your shorts Bob. You obviously don't know me then, sigh, too easy to jump to the conclusion that fits the way you's like to think. > Old fashioned yes,but we are way past burning witches. Last time I looked it was Communists ? I think... maybe we all have phobias. > Men normally don't share intimate details, and this is not a good thing. Looks like we have walked different paths, since I started work at 15 many conversations at work, in the pub, gone fishing and the like have been men talking in graphic detail about their exploits with their wives and/or girlfriends, have to say I never felt comfortable with this. > One of the many side benefits of this group is for us to grow up and stop > hiding behind closed doors. I'm not sure what the above means ? but there hasn't been a door built that I've hidden behind, bold as brass this lad is, no brainwashed by anything including the conventions of my time or place, well abled to think for myself. > We can learn alot from "Sex In The City" about sharing with friends. Cor Blimey, learning from TV ? gawd forbid, there's a real life out there, learn from that. > I can promise you that we all know what oral sex and mastubation are, Not much of a promise ? and I don't have a problem with either, you're not talking to your local Minister here, but at the same time you don't have the local pervert seeking to look into your intimate moments either. > and that they are a good thing, despite what the church says. It was a fair bet that the Church would enter the fray, but in their defence I should add that my throughts, values and social responsilibities are "mine" and mine alone, no one imprinted them on me, sold them to me or broke them into my head. > How many times have we told a newly diagnosed or RP guy that YES you can > have a great orgasm without an erection? It's OK to practice, in fact the > more the better. Sure, but NIMBYP {not in my back yard, please}. > If some kindly wife decides to not only help her limp man out, but openly > shares the fact that it worked, I think that's great! Me too {sort of} but spare us the graphics. > If the story titilates any one of us into a small "woody" then I say WOW.... > keep it coming! (no pun there).... Each to his own... > There is so much free porn on our computers, that I'm sure you don't > view, Hmmm, how the hell would you come to that conclusion ? what do you know of me ? I guess it's easier to pidgeon hole me, and fit me into your expected profile, where does it leave your credibility of yopur WAY OFF BEAM ??? > I vote for no boundaries, and complete and unadulterated X-rated full frontal > nudity! I can use the material... Each to his own... I'll vote for respect, dignity and consideration towards other people, rather than some self indulgent fantasies {even though I may well share your appetites, I have other priciples as my priorities}. Canada Bob. > Hi Glassman... > > > I think you have too much starch in your shorts Bob. > > You obviously don't know me then, sigh, too easy to jump to the > conclusion that fits the way you's like to think. I don't need to know you, to know you are upset by a single comment made by a PCa survivors wife. It wasn't really very descriptive when you go back and read it again. Keep in mind that we have never even heard from the guy once, only the wife. I bet he'd never talk about it. But she's been posting here a long time. You don't need to convince us what a worldly and outgoing guy you once were. The tales you swapped with your buddies, weren't exactly what I meant by men sharing intimacy like the women of "Sex In The City". Yes we can learn from a well written TV show as well as a book. Why not? You are certainly entitled to feel any way you please Bob. I have no ill will towards you, how you feel, or your right to express it. As you said to me many times in your reply "to each his own". No one is suggesting you can't offer up your opinion here, but when you are told to click by and not read it, you don't like that option either. You are never going to censor this or any public newsgroup, so the point is mute. When there's a particular poster than offends, it's really easy to place them in your killfile, so you never even see them again. Let's all move on and help each other with more pressing issues, which are survival and quality of life. SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories > You are never going to censor this or any public newsgroup, so the point > is mute (sic). When there's a particular poster than offends, it's really > easy to > place them in your killfile, so you never even see them again. Let's all > move on and help each other with more pressing issues, which are survival > and quality of life. Absolutely correct. I've seen this sort of thing before, only nastier. No one will change anyone's mind, but some will keep pecking away until exhaustion overcomes them, which will be long after everyone else's eyes have glazed over. Yes, let's move on. Regards, Steve J __ "I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." --Professor Bernardo de la Paz I seem to recall seeing a post from another wife in the group before John's surgery telling about how she and her husband were pleasantly surprised to discover he was able to get an erection just weeks after his RPP. I have seen several posts about erections since John's surgery. At the time I posted, I was still elated over our experience as we had tried quite a few times with Viagra before but had had no luck. After the rash from the injections, we were not sure what we were going to do but decided to give Viagra another try. Of course, if it didn't work again, we would not have given up. We were more concerned with the fact that John has so far survived his cancer and we are happy he's here. We were willing to accept the fact if we would have had to give up the sex because his presence is more important. John is my second husband, and I am his third wife. We have been married over 8 years, which is pretty good considering our previous marriages never made made it to 5 years. I love John and respect him and would never "publicly defile" him. If we were all talking face-to-face, I would not be able to talk about this. It is much easier for me to talk about this in the anonymity of an internet group. On 12/2/04 3:52 PM, in article 8435bc6b.0412021552.30c2d579@posting.google.com, "Canada Bob" <robert01942@hotmail.com> wrote: > Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here > seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Canada Bob. > The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. FWIIW, I think what Bob was referring to was not the success at having an erection, but the part about the oral stimulation. I think that is what he thought went too far. If I am off base here I am sure he will chime in. >I seem to recall seeing a post from another wife in the group before John's >surgery telling about how she and her husband were pleasantly surprised to [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >> Canada Bob. >> The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. I think that is tremendously important. There are some new to this NG, especially in our average age group, that do not understand that climax by oral stimulation is not only possible, but medically indicated for the cure of post-RRP ED. SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non Illegitimi carborundum > FWIIW, I think what Bob was referring to was not the success at having > an erection, but the part about the oral stimulation. I think that is [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > >> Canada Bob. > >> The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. I mentioned the oral stimulation because it was a big help in obtaining the erection. John had attempted the injections because so far the Viagra had not worked. However, we tried the Viagra again after he got a rash after his third injection. It appeared to me that John might need a little help so I tried this not knowing if it would work. On 12/3/04 4:19 AM, in article 41b056b6.346436279@news.duke.edu, > FWIIW, I think what Bob was referring to was not the success at having > an erection, but the part about the oral stimulation. I think that is [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >>> Canada Bob. >>> The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. > I seem to recall seeing a post from another wife in the group before John's > surgery telling about how she and her husband were pleasantly surprised to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > At the time I posted, I was still elated over our experience as we had tried > quite a few times with Viagra before but had had no luck. After the rash Debbie don't you dare apologize or attempt to explain yourself to us. You did nothing wrong. Here's a bit more about all this to add to my previous posts. We have a real separation of victims over here. First and formost we have the 'let's get rid of our cancer and be alive group". Then there's the "OK I'm cancer free now but my sex life needs help cause my "willie" looks like an earthworm most of the time". Lastly and sadly there's the "I'm OK but I have no more sex life cause it just won't work" group. Sadly the last group wants nothing to to do with group 2, and their associated problems. They become envious and holier than thou with their preaching of morality, and how all other things in life are more important than sex... and I don't want to hear about it anyway. Please group 3, we are not rubbing it in your face if we talk frankly about sex and it's joys. Like Bill Clinton "we share your pain", but we now have some other issues that we like to address too. When I see chat about hormone therapy, I click by as it doesn't apply to me. Don't be mad or offended. Just click on by if the subject of "better" sex doesn't appy to you. SignatureJK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios http://www.sinrodstudios.com/ Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories/ But that lady's post was one of the most important on the subject of ED to have appeared here. It was a success story. If that's the message Bob was objecting to. Having server problems and I can't access all the messages as usual today. jimhoney > But that lady's post was one of the most important on the subject of > ED to have appeared here. It was a success story. > If that's the message Bob was objecting to. Having server problems > and I can't access all the messages as usual today. Nope, wasn't that at all John, I'm no prude, yet I don't have any interest in the intimacies of other people, if I needed help with impotence I think I'd either rent a few movies, or get some professional counselling, I wouldn't be bareing it all in here or anywhere else. My original post was a response to a number of posts that I feel were OTT {Over The Top}, what next talk of penis size and the like, it's the wrong place for lewdity like that. Canada Bob. > > But that lady's post was one of the most important on the subject of > > ED to have appeared here. It was a success story. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > OTT {Over The Top}, what next talk of penis size and the like, it's > the wrong place for lewdity like that. But what if your size has changed as the result of RRP? Is that lewdity, or is it opening a discussion of the possible side effects from RRP surgery?? There are other non-sexual implications related to a size change - but I won't go into that here... Sandy K. again, I say, Ignore the threads! don't try to censor what ADULTS are reading and posting, If you need to then join a moderated group. HTH Lori >> But that lady's post was one of the most important on the subject of >> ED to have appeared here. It was a success story. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Canada Bob. Old fashioned? Maybe. But, only relatively so. Views of human sexuality have been a lot more discussed and a lot less discussed in prior times. It is cyclic. However, we here and now participate in this support group for prostate cancer patients. When asked to do so, each of us list our top three priorities, with reference to PCa, as life, incontinence and impotence. Some of us transverse #2 and #3. At least one of us has listed life as #2 or #3. The point is, impotence is near the top of everyone's list. And, this is a support group. Do we sometimes go over the limit in our discussions of it? Yes. Has any one of us spent an inordinant time drolling on about our sexcapades with our wives? No. I would suggest that if you find it offensive, when you see a poster use the words "oral stimulation", immediately hit the down arrow on your news reader. It's what I do. SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non Illegitimi carborundum > Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here > seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Canada Bob. > The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. Hello Steve... > When asked to do so, each of us list our top three priorities, with >reference to PCa, as life, incontinence and impotence. > Some of us transverse #2 and #3. Understood... >At least one of us has listed life as #2 or #3. I {almost} rest my case, sigh... > The point is, impotence is near the top of everyone's list. If there are only 3 concerns Steve then impotence is automatically "near the top". > Do we sometimes go over the limit in our discussions of it? Yes. I'm glad that you didn't say that before me then, I've saved you some flak. > Has any one of us spent an inordinant time drolling on about our sexcapades > with our wives? No. Steve, I don't need to know the intimate details of oral, anal or any other kind of sex, I don't feel it is appropriate, to me it's personal. I don't mind some one saying they have found oral sex helps, does it need anymore info than that ??? > I would suggest that if you find it offensive, when you see a poster use the > words "oral stimulation", immediately hit the down arrow on your news > reader. It's what I do. I hear what you say Steve, but do we have to have noise like this cluttering up a group where information can save lives, surely there are groups were masturbaters can talk all night about their techniques. Canada Bob. The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. > > The point is, impotence is near the top of everyone's list. > > If there are only 3 concerns Steve then impotence is automatically > "near the top". I did not say there were only three concerns. I said impotence is always in the top three. > I hear what you say Steve, but do we have to have noise like this > cluttering up a group where information can save lives, I guess if it was merely saving lives for which this NG is in existence, maybe. But, .... well, we just go back to the top three issues. I guess I'll chime in on this. I have not shared a whole lot of intimate details because I didnt feel mine would be particularly helpful to anyone. However, I am not offended reading details that anyone else posts. None of this is meant to be titillating. Basically, sex is a body function---important, yes---but a body function. If sharing details of the sex is helpful to the person doing so, or helpful to anyone else reading it, do it. This forum is all about helping ourselves and each other. And as far as respecting our partners, many people here use their real names and their actual email addresses. This need not be done. We can post anonymously, as basically I do, and in so doing protect our partners. It's not like we're sharing this stuff at a neighborhood meeting. Just my $.02. > Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here > seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Canada Bob. > The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. Hi Claude... > Basically, sex is a body function---important, yes---but a body function. I hope we don't get into graphics on other bodyily functions Claude, sigh. I guess it boils down to some folks simply not having the discernment to know what is in good taste, what is acceptable / commonly decent in a serious group like this. Some folks simply like to be voyuers, then there's the others who like to provide them the "service". Canada Bob. > Hi Claude... > >> Basically, sex is a body function---important, yes---but a body function. > > I hope we don't get into graphics on other bodyily functions Claude, > sigh. Actually we have, Bob. Urinary problems and bowell difficulties have been dealt with graphically in this group.... since one is a common side effect of RP and the other of radiation. > I guess it boils down to some folks simply not having the discernment > to know what is in good taste, what is acceptable / commonly decent in > a serious group like this. "good taste" is just that....a matter of taste. What is "acceptable/commonly decent" is also a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't like to hear or see graphic sexual details. But in this group, the way it has been done on the whole is, for me, OK. It serves a wholesome purpose: recovery of health. And what is not acceptable and commonly decent for you in this context, may be for someone else. Therefore there is a need for tolerance. > Some folks simply like to be voyuers, then there's the others who like > to provide them the "service". Your other responses have generally been very balanced and fair. This one is not. Hello Claude... > > I hope we don't get into graphics on other bodyily functions Claude, > > Actually we have, Bob. Urinary problems and bowell difficulties have been > dealt with graphically in this group.... since one is a common side effect > of RP and the other of radiation. Yea, I understand that Claude, but I do we need a graphic on a bowel movement ! is it not enough to say they have a bowel problem ? > Personally, I don't like to hear or see graphic sexual details. Seems I'm not on my own then... > But in this group, the way it has been done on the whole is, for me, On the whole I'd agree, but I feel that we should recognise there are occasions when the line is crossed and comments are OTT. > what is not acceptable and commonly decent for you in this context, may be > for someone else. Therefore there is a need for tolerance. Maybe folks are missing the opposite side of the coin Claude, is tolerance one sided, that I am obliged to censor the threads that I read ? or should tolerance include the consideration by folks who post that what they have to say could be seen as a little too graphic. > > Some folks simply like to be voyuers, then there's the others who like > > to provide them the "service". > Your other responses have generally been very balanced and fair. This one > is not. You're probably right Claude, I guess I was just getting a tad weary of what I regard as juvenile/schoolyard/penis size-function banter, I see the fight againts PCa in a more serious way than busting a gut about erections. I try to post stuff that might help folks beat cancer, that's my aim and intention, I care a good deal less about erections,if folks face these problems then the best thing to do is seek professional help. Canada Bob. > Maybe folks are missing the opposite side of the coin Claude, is > tolerance one sided, that I am obliged to censor the threads that I > read ? Yes you are. You have the option of skipping them and that does not impinge on your freedom of speech, but you telling other people WHAT THEY CAN POST OR NOT is impinging on their 1st Amendment rights (or at least in the USA where I gloriously reside) > or should tolerance include the consideration by folks who post > that what they have to say could be seen as a little too graphic. Filter out the posts with message filters. duh >> > Some folks simply like to be voyuers, then there's the others who like >> > to provide them the "service". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > see the fight againts PCa in a more serious way than busting a gut > about erections. You know, Bob, My husband is probably one of the sickest men who are talked about on here. and the ability to be "manly" is very important to him. it is a QOL issue. > I try to post stuff that might help folks beat cancer, that's my aim > and intention, My husband isn't curable. > I care a good deal less about erections, That is your choice.. >if folks face > these problems then the best thing to do is seek professional help. for what? many have tried professional help, what they are looking for here is fellowship. to share to reaffirm that they are not alone, that what they are experiencing is "normal" side-effects. as a woman who had a tubal ligation 4 years ago at the age of 35, I mourned the loss of a huge part of my being, my ability to conceive and carry and birth a child. I felt like one of my main biological purposes was gone forever. It took me a long time to come to terms with that, and the fact that I will be widowed (again) in my early 40's and sterile is bothering me again. So maybe the possible "permanent" loss of "manhood" is very important to these men. ( I know Curt is very grateful when he gets and erection and achieves climax, he feels powerfully "male" at those times and not so "sick") Just my opinion HTH SignatureLori Devoted wife of Curtis, Stage 4 Prostate cancer at age 40 PSA 865 Dec 30,2003 44 Feb 23,2004 17.3 Mar 15,2004 18.9 Apr 16, 2004 17.3 may 15,2004 14.59 =))) July 10, 2004 28!!! Oct 5,2004 37 Oct 27, 2004 next psa Dec 9 mets to bone and lymph, Left Lower Lobe [?] Lupron Q3months Casodex 50 mg daily (stopped) Zometa qmonth Ketoconazole + hydrocortisone (he stopped these, made him nauseous) Probable Taxotere/Thalidomide by Christmas (maybe Omnitarg??) http://community.webshots.com/user/lorismiller. Okay, you're old fashioned. My impression is that this is a support group for men and their families to help deal with the knowledge that you or a loved one has developed PCa. I found this group after I was diagnosed last March. Most of what I've read here or discussed has helped me to deal with a major life change. As one of the younger guys here (age 47), I literally freaked-out when I began to realize how my life would change. This board has provided me with the knowledge and support that has helped me get through it - on all fronts. When I met my doctor for the first time he explained that there were three things that we have to deal with. In order they are: 1. Getting rid of the cancer 2. Regaining continence 3. Eliminating impotence Seems to me all three items should then be open to discussion. We all have our ups and downs and if one person wants to share what's going on during their recovery, or to assist others to help recover by sharing their experiences, then it should not be a problem. You can always ignore the posts that bother you. Sort of like, if you don't like what you're watching on TV or hearing on the radio - then turn the channel!! It amazes me how sexually repressed the people of the North America have become. Violence on TV is fine, but gosh, a little sex or nudity and people freak out. Seems a bit bass-akeward to me. Sandy K. > Maybe I am Old Fashioned, but some of the threads/comments in here > seem {at least to me} to be a tad too near to the bone {pun intended}. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Canada Bob. > The bloke who thinks more of his wife, than his erection. > Okay, you're old fashioned. My impression is that this is a support group > for men and their families to help deal with the knowledge that you or a [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Sandy K. I agree completely. Two weeks ago, TIME ran an article describing in graphic detail what our marines were doing on a combat mission. But they blanked out the "f-word". C'mon, now. Talk about "values"---Let's get 'em straight. Hi Sandy... > You can always ignore the posts that bother you. Sort of like, if you don't > like what you're watching on TV or hearing on the radio - then turn the > channel!! Does that mean I should clock off, or you should ? or that your values should out rank mine ? or conversely that mine should over ride your's. > It amazes me how sexually repressed the people of the North America have > become. Violence on TV is fine, but gosh, a little sex or nudity and people > freak out. Seems a bit bass-akeward to me. Only one thing wrong with your assumption Sandy, I'm not North American, born and bred in the NW of England {lived in Canada for a while}, but no matter where I lived it wasn't in the Bible Belt. I agree with some of your comments especially on the 3 {or more} problems that men with PCa have to cope with. But regarding the violence on TV etc, just because folks do tend to tolerate that, did that bust the Dam of consideration do I have to accept thing I don't care to {the lack of dignity afforded from one human being to another} ? I don't want to walk down the street naked, nor see anyone else do that,or fornicate on your front lawn etc. Society has freedoms but also should also have discernment and consideration, seems to me these two values are missing in some folks. Canada Bob. >Subject: Re: Call me Old Fashioned >From: robert01942@hotmail.com (Canada Bob) [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >I don't want to walk down the street naked, nor see anyone else do >that,or fornicate on your front lawn etc. This is not the street. This is clinical therapy, view it as such. Stay away from the clinic rooms (threads) where problems you don't have are being treated. Society has freedoms but >also should also have discernment and consideration, seems to me these >two values are missing in some folks. > >Canada Bob. >Subject: Re: Call me Old Fashioned >From: roachable@aol.comneat (Danny McCarty) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>people >>> freak out. Seems a bit bass-akeward to me. Oops, this IS getting a bit off-topic. Violence is a necessary public activity, sex is not. Cops have to interrupt and capture criminals. I don't mind violence on TV, but I do mind sex on TV. Not "bass-akeward" at all. >>Only one thing wrong with your assumption Sandy, I'm not North >>American, born and bred in the NW of England {lived in Canada for a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >>Canada Bob. > Hi Sandy... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > should out rank mine ? or conversely that mine should over ride > your's. No, it doesn't mean anyone's values should supercede those of the other. It means if you don't like what you're seeing/hearing then change the channel, turn it off or don't read the "offending" post. Some may enjoy or appreciate, learn from and even take solace in what's been shown/said or written while others don't. Those who don't shouldn't impede their will on those who do. I'm not familiar with the term "clock off" It sounds rude to me, so I would never suggest that some "clock off" > > It amazes me how sexually repressed the people of the North America have > > become. Violence on TV is fine, but gosh, a little sex or nudity and people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > American, born and bred in the NW of England {lived in Canada for a > while}, but no matter where I lived it wasn't in the Bible Belt. Fair point. Then I can only assumed that you were raised with a different set of values from those I was raised with. Not a bad or good thing, just the way it is. My opinion is that differnet values & ideas are what makes the world go around - it would be quite boring if we all felt the same way. I was just trying to point out how ludicrous it is that violence is allowed in the media but human sexuality is not. > I agree with some of your comments especially on the 3 {or more} > problems that men with PCa have to cope with. But regarding the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > also should also have discernment and consideration, seems to me these > two values are missing in some folks. I don't want to walk down the street and see that either - okay, in my sick kind of way it might be neat to see it once or twice :>) I agree that overall society must have discernment and consideration. However, in a newsgroup such as this, where there are people from varied backgrounds - - open discussion regarding our hardships and joys should be welcomed. We can all learn from eachother. Bob - I mean no ill will towards you and I hope you don't see any. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I hope you realize that I am entitled to my own. You asked if you were being a bit old-fashioned and I responded according to the way I felt. Sandy K. Hi Sandy... > No, it doesn't mean anyone's values should supercede those of the other. It > means if you don't like what you're seeing/hearing then change the channel, > turn it off or don't read the "offending" post. Some may enjoy or > appreciate, learn from and even take solace in what's been shown/said or > written while others don't. Those who don't shouldn't impede their will on > those who do. Sandy, the above "arguement" doesn't hold up, think about what you don't want your kids exposed to, would you prefer they flip past the porno channel or that it wasn't there in the first place ? > I'm not familiar with the term "clock off" It sounds rude to me, so I would > never suggest that some "clock off" Sandy, it seems you are convincing yourself that I am trying to be abusive, and that what I say is almost certainly meant to offend you, if this is how folks gather their values then we are all in trouble. Clock Off mean to sign off, comes from folks finishing work and heading home, I have more consideration and respect for you than to try to offend you, clocking off has never been seen as an offensive comment, so don't convince yourself that it was my intention. If we don't know what someone said let's not shoot them for it. > > Only one thing wrong with your assumption Sandy, I'm not North > > American, born and bred in the NW of England {lived in Canada for a > > while}, but no matter where I lived it wasn't in the Bible Belt. > > Fair point. Then I can only assumed that you were raised with a different > set of values from those I was raised with. Then again Sandy, probably not, we most likely have more things in common than in conflict. > My opinion is that differnet values & ideas are what makes > the world go around - it would be quite boring if we all felt the same way. Too sweeping a statement Sandy, we all need values to hold together our families, our communities and our Countries, few of us "like" Communism, do any of us think that Communism helps make the world go round ? I could add the values of lots of other folks in to that, but I wouldn't even waste the bandwidth on mentioning some groups of perverts {and for gawds sake I'm NOT talking about anyone in here}, but the values of some folks must be resisted or they will turn our society upside down. > I was just trying to point out how ludicrous it is that violence is allowed > in the media but human sexuality is not. I fully understand that Sandy, I've rented my share of video's {bet that's blown away some folks in here who have already profiled me the way they'd like to}. But, maybe there is a difference in renting a movie {I make that decision as to it entering my home}, but I feel less comfortable with it being transmitted through the air to all and sundry, like in most things there's a time and a place for erotica. > I don't want to walk down the street and see that either - okay, in my sick > kind of way it might be neat to see it once or twice :>) Grin, with you on that Sandy, I'm in no way ashamed of my sensual nature or erotic thoughts, but I'd never impose them on you or anyone else, a sensual relationship to me is a cherished one, not a public one. > I agree that overall society must have discernment and consideration. Glad we have that common ground then... > However, in a newsgroup such as this, where there are people from varied > backgrounds open discussion regarding our hardships and joys should be > welcomed. We can all learn from eachother. As long as it's not OTT {over the top} and done with due respect to those it is presented to, taking into account the wife or husband then I'm with you. > Bob - I mean no ill will towards you and I hope you don't see any. I hope that you now see that the clocking off wasn't offensive, I'm not that sort of a guy... > You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I hope you realize that I am > entitled to my own. As I have said earlier, tolerance works both ways, because I think one way doesn't mean to say I have a right to broadcast it, and claim "freedom of speech" and all that, saying that anyone who doesn't like what I say is "intolerant" tolerance includes asking yourself "could it be that what I'm about to do cause offense" and if you think it might them be tolerant of those who don't see the world the way you might see it. > You asked if you were being a bit old-fashioned and I responded according to > the way I felt. I know that I am "old fashioned" in some of the values that I hold Sandy, but {and I now don't know if it's right for me to say this, grin}, but I'm not old fashioned or repressed {by anyone or anything} in my relationship with my wife, I'm simply private and respectful towards her and the relationship that we have. The one thing I can't get my head around Sandy is "what the hell is the big deal" that men inflict on themselves about impotence ??? {maybe this is where I differ from most}, but I value so many other things in our relationship that it is of little concern to me. Part of my intent is to be supportive of the men who find themselves impotent, it's not unknown for them to top themselves {committ suicide} how tragic is that ! If I felt that the relationship that I have with my wife was based {in any major way} on whether or not I got an erection then I'd be thinking of jumping off the bridge. I don't know how to put this across, but "it aint a big deal" yet men sweat it out, thinking they aren't men anymore, thinking their wives will wander off, how damned stupid are they. They have already gone through enough by getting PSa, without putting themselves under more pressure... I guess that it's my way of saying to men that if your wife had breast cancer and had to have her breast removed, would that impact your love for her and your relationship ? Unfortunately it would for some folks, and I feel saddened about that, I'm just trying to put the boot on the other foot, love isn't down to an erection, well not in this house. All the Best Sandy, never intended to be rude, I hope that you can see that now. Canada Bob. > Sandy K. > Hi Sandy... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > don't want your kids exposed to, would you prefer they flip past the > porno channel or that it wasn't there in the first place ? But we're not talking about kids here, are we? We are a group of adults who run the gamut from conservative to liberal. But this newsgroup is open to all of us. Does that mean those who are more liberal should cow tow to those who are conservative in their thinking? If you truly believe you should not have to *change the channel*, then why should others have to refrain from posting what they consider to be completely acceptable??? I don't buy it, Bob. If you don't want my values imposed upon you, then show me the same respect. I'll continue to post what I want here, thank you very much. If it bothers you and you feel that it's more helpful to counterattack.... and if you feel this thread of the past two days has been *HELPFUL* to men with impotence problems who feel they need a place to discuss them, then YOU are the one with the problem, IMO. I have been reading and posting to this group for the past three years. I have *NEVER* been offended by anything of a sexual nature being discussed in the open forum. I feel that a lot of good has been done by some wonderful people who are here.... and, might I add, from some very WONDERFUL people who are no longer with us because they lost the fight with PCa. Robert Young, who created www.phoenix5.org, comes to mind. If you check out that web site, you will find he didn't censor information pertaining to sexual issues that *should best be kept behind closed doors lest we violate those we love and cherish the most*. There is a lot of intimate information... in detail... about dealing with impotence. Would you attack his posts, too, Bob? He's dead now, so he can no longer defend himself. He'd be an easy target! Bless you, Bob Young... and Berky, folie a deux! I am so thankful that our paths crossed before you slipped away!! > Sandy, it seems you are convincing yourself that I am trying to be > abusive, and that what I say is almost certainly meant to offend you, > if this is how folks gather their values then we are all in trouble. Abusive, no? Bordering on being a troll? Perhaps. I think you have embroiled many good people in a worthless debate that really has nothing to do with what you *say* you have come here to do in the first place... help men and women who are dealing with prostate cancer and it's aftermath. >> > Only one thing wrong with your assumption Sandy, I'm not North >> > American, born and bred in the NW of England {lived in Canada for a >> > while}, but no matter where I lived it wasn't in the Bible Belt. Hmmm.... isn't that the source of the television broadcast that Curtis' post referred to? where the couples will actually be filmed enjoying their first orgasm? Is that something I would have done when I was still able? NO... Do I judge those who choose to participate in that if they choose as consenting adults? NO. What about all the innocent children who will witness this horrible sight, Bob? And in your own country, of all places? Don't you feel an obligation to protect them?? You, yourself, said you speak out where you feel that things have gone OTT. Would you consider that to be OTT? > I was just trying to point out how ludicrous it is that violence is > allowed >> in the media but human sexuality is not. Good point, Sandy. Case in point: I went to see the film Titanic back in 1998 when it had been out for only a couple of months and the theaters were still packed.... every seat was filled. There was a middle-aged guy sitting in front of me with his 12 year old son. Just before the scene in the movie where Jack is to make the drawing of Rose with her nude breasts are exposed, the guy took his kid out. Two minutes later, they came back in. They remained for the rest of the film... with people dying, drowning, being shot, and ultimately floating around dead in the water. All that violence and death was somehow *okay*.... but a 20-second view of a pair of female breasts was something that his son had to be shielded from. It's ludicrous! > I fully understand that Sandy, I've rented my share of video's {bet > that's blown away some folks in here who have already profiled me the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > through the air to all and sundry, like in most things there's a time > and a place for erotica. All the more reason I would think you would want to investigate and contact the powers that be that are in charge of the aforementioned *Orgasm TV Program* being broadcast over the air in the UK. Geez.... the very idea!! >> I don't want to walk down the street and see that either - okay, in my >> sick [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > else, a sensual relationship to me is a cherished one, not a public > one. Again, your conservative (old fashioned if you wish) opinion. That doesn't make it right or wrong... it's just *yours*... and should not be imposed upon everyone in the group. This group has been around for a long time and has helped a lot of people... >> I agree that overall society must have discernment and consideration. And so would I. But I'm not going to openly put someone down or criticize them for speaking their minds in a way they feel comfortable with in this *open forum*... one of the *FEW* places people have to come for support. Not support *A la Canada Bob*.... but support from a variety of people of many thoughts and backgrounds. >> However, in a newsgroup such as this, where there are people from varied >> backgrounds open discussion regarding our hardships and joys should be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > those it is presented to, taking into account the wife or husband then > I'm with you. But you are taking in to account YOUR wife, Bob. You don't know my wife. You have no idea what does or does not offend her. Don't presume to tell me that I am *defiling her* by talking about sexual details or intimacy issues. If you feel the need to refrain from such discussion, please do so. But don't censor others who feel differently! And yes, no matter what you say, that is *exactly* what you are attempting to do!! Sadly, you may have accomplished that to some extent by this thread.... and your comment to the poster, "Why not send us a video?" That was really supportive! >> You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I hope you realize that >> I am >> entitled to my own. You are entitled, yes. And as I am entitled to mine, I shall continue to post about whatever I feel I need support on. And I applaud those who feel they can talk about intimate sexual issues that affect many of us in the aftermath of this disease and I ENCOURAGE them to do the same!! > As I have said earlier, tolerance works both ways, because I think one > way doesn't mean to say I have a right to broadcast it, and claim [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > might them be tolerant of those who don't see the world the way you > might see it. But you have been doing just that in your posts to this thread over the past two days, Bob. You have been saying that you have the *right* to tell specific posters that their posts about oral sex are OTT.... and that they should refrain from posting such *rubbish* as it might offend you.... and therefore has no place in the newsgroup. I don't agree that we all need to wrap our minds around *your* acceptance of what is tolerant and limit our discussion to only that! > I know that I am "old fashioned" in some of the values that I hold > Sandy, but {and I now don't know if it's right for me to say this, > grin}, but I'm not old fashioned or repressed {by anyone or anything} > in my relationship with my wife, I'm simply private and respectful > towards her and the relationship that we have. And it sounds as if you truly love and respect your wife (in your own way)... and I applaud you for that. > The one thing I can't get my head around Sandy is "what the hell is > the big deal" that men inflict on themselves about impotence ??? > {maybe this is where I differ from most}, but I value so many other > things in our relationship that it is of little concern to me. Here again, since it is *no big deal* to YOU, you are making the assumption that it should be no big deal to anyone else. You imply by such statements that men who struggle with impotence issues are somehow *deficient*.... or *just don't get it*. I value a lot of things in my life, Bob. And I've come a long way in the past two years. But I certainly understand and relate to the man who feels he has lost the very core of his being when struck with the resulting impotence. I sympathize with those guys. I certainly don't put them down for feeling that way. > Part of my intent is to be supportive of the men who find themselves > impotent, > it's not unknown for them to top themselves {committ suicide} how > tragic is that ! If I felt that the relationship that I have with my > wife was based {in any major way} on whether or not I got an erection > then I'd be thinking of jumping off the bridge. So you're idea of support is to just tell them that they should forget about it? Just *pull yourself up by the bootstraps* and move on with life. Well, *they* are not at the point you are. They are feeling overwhelmed. To the guy who *is* perhaps suicidal and will no longer post to the group for fear of offending your sensitivity, I want him to know that MY mailbox is always open! And I know others on this newsgroup who feel the same way. > I don't know how to put this across, but "it aint a big deal" yet men > sweat it out, thinking they aren't men anymore, thinking their wives > will wander off, how damned stupid are they. Great example of a SUPPORT statement, Bob! This is sure to help a lot of guys who just *ARE NOT WHERE YOU ARE* with this. To them, it IS a big deal. To you, they are all "damned stupid." They have already gone > through enough by getting PSa, without putting themselves under more > pressure... I guess that it's my way of saying to men that if your > wife had breast cancer and had to have her breast removed, would that > impact your love for her and your relationship ? No. But would it help to bury my head in the sand like the ostrich and *pretend* that it will not psychologically affect my wife if she has to have a breast removed. My wife has told me point blank that if she is ever diagnosed with breast cancer she will NOT have surgery.... because she could not live with the psychological pain of the aftermath. If that scenario ever comes up, I hope to be able to change her mind, because I *do* love her and I want her around as long as possible, with or without breasts. But I can guarantee you it won't be by telling her that her thinking is *damned stupid*. > Unfortunately it would for some folks, and I feel saddened about that, > I'm just trying to put the boot on the other foot, love isn't down to > an erection, well not in this house. But yours is not the only house, now, is it, Bob? And other people have a right to seek help and support as needed in reference to their own situations... in their own houses.... in their own bedrooms, even. If their thoughts offend you to the point that you would deny them the right to express them, then I feel truly sorry for you. > All the Best Sandy, never intended to be rude, I hope that you can see > that now. I don't intend to be rude, either. And if my thoughts or comments have offended anyone in any way, I apologize. That was not my intention. This debate has been going on for two or three days, now.... and there are new people reading the group everyday.... and I don't want anyone to be turned away for fear of being *too explicit*. We are all adults... we should be able to handle whatever language is presented here. I don't see any evidence that this group is becoming a porn shop. I know that it has been a HUGE help to me over the past three years. It's about the only place I have to come to talk about some of the issues that are important to me. If impotence is *not an issue* to you, fine! I'm happy for you! But don't judge and tell me I'm *damned stupid* because I'm not in the same spot! This is *my* struggle, and I'm dealing with it the best way *I* know how! MikeH Wow: After reading some of the "blood lettings" to Bob's original posting, what started out to be a discussion has evolved to name calling and rudness that has turned me off. I came aboard several years ago to browse and recently has RRP. I learned a lot from some of you here, but this most recent lambasting of Bob has turned me off and I'll exercise my option to TURN YOU GUY OFF. I'll get my information in other places less hostile. Bye. Roy in Winston Signature---------------------------------------------------- This mailbox protected from junk email by MailFrontier Desktop from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com >> Hi Sandy... >> [quoted text clipped - 249 lines] > > MikeH On 12/4/04 7:23 AM, in article QDksd.12144$8S5.1435965@twister.southeast.rr.com, "Roy in Winston-Salem" <rbensonjr@triad.rr.com> wrote: > Wow: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Roy in Winston |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message