 |
 | 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 2006where does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle get it's information to initiate the erection?
i have not been able to find an explicit explanation on how the erectile nerve works or it's specific purpose. i know it's mandatory to initiate the erection since i have not had an erection yet since my RLRP oct 31st, with both nerves spared. i started viagra 9 days after the surgery. i would like to know how that nerve works so i have a better understanding of what is happening. i might start with injections soon so i can resume my sex life and since i am beginning to believe it might speed up my recovery with more blood flow and by exercising the ED muscles. if anyone knows how that nerve works, please share. it's not explicitly in the books. gary Hello Gary, It takes time....First of all. You are lucky with 2 nerves spared.... As much as I understand there is a muscle that relaxes to allow blood flow into the unit. If one or both nerves are spared, the muscle using the nerves, sends a signal to the area, to allow blood flow. This happens when a man and a woman, or man and man, or woman and woman, get in close contact. The muslce relaxes, and the blood rushes in.. Viagra helps.. Viagra did not work with me for 2 years.... Injections work fine... So, keep trying, there is no majic answer.... Good wishes Walk, run, keep trying.... John Loomis RP 1999 >i have not been able to find an explicit explanation on how the > erectile nerve works or it's specific purpose. i know it's mandatory [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > please share. it's not explicitly in the books. > gary > i have not been able to find an explicit explanation on how the > erectile nerve works or it's specific purpose. Gary, I wrote in a previous post as follows: If you go to http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press/2002/MARCH/020318.htm, there is a good explanation of the link between nerves and the initiation of an erection. In short, it says: "Researchers at Hopkins ten years ago discovered that release of nitric oxide from nerve endings in the penis caused erection, but the temporary release of nitric oxide - a neurotransmitter that survives just a few seconds before breaking down - couldn't explain how erections are naturally sustained over time. Working with rats and genetically transformed mice, Hopkins scientists found that after an initial burst of nitric oxide from nerve endings triggers erection, blood vessels release more nitric oxide to harden and maintain the erection." Also at http://health.howstuffworks.com/understanding-erectile-dysfunction-me... a little more detail is offered. It says: "As an erection forms, the release of nitric oxide by nerve endings in the penis promotes smooth muscle relaxation. Nitric oxide accomplishes this by stimulating an enzyme called guanylate cyclase. This enzyme, in turn, promotes the accumulation of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), a compound that causes a reduction in the amount of calcium within a muscle cell. This, in turn, results in relaxation of that muscle cell and promotes penile erection. The more cGMP inside the cell, the better an erection will be. However, cGMP is broken down by the PDE5 enzyme, which is available in large supply in the penis. That's why Viagra's ability to block the action of PDE5 is so essential. The drug allows the accumulation of cGMP, which permits an erection to develop and be maintained. Viagra does not directly relax the erectile tissue itself, so in the absence of nitric oxide and cGMP it has no effect on erection. It is for this very reason that arousal has to occur before Viagra will work. And that's why Viagra is an enhancer, not an initiator, of sexual relations." Finally, at http://www.mercola.com/2003/jan/29/impotence_drugs.htm it says: "immediately following release of nitric oxide and production of cGMP another enzyme, cGMP phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5), is activated. PDE-5's main activity is to destroy cGMP almost as fast as it is formed. The result of this breakdown of cGMP by PDE-5 is a rapid decrease in smooth muscle relaxation and a loss of blood flow to the penis. Subsequently, the penis returns to a flaccid state. Unfortunately as we age cellular concentrations of cGMP decrease. Viagra works to achieve and maintain erections by enhancing the effect of nitric oxide and maintaining higher levels of cGMP. The way Viagra does this is to selectively inhibit the cGMP destroying actions of PDE-5. By blocking the actions of this enzyme system, cGMP is no longer broken down. This leads to elevated cGMP levels in the corpus cavernosum. This, in turn, prevents relaxation of the smooth muscle in the corpus cavernosum, increases blood flow to the genitals, and leads to stronger erections and intensified sensations." I think it goes like this: Step 1. The brain sends a signal through the nerves to the penis. Step 2. The nerves in the penis release a small amount of nitric oxide (NO). Step 3. The NO stimulates an enzyme that causes cGMP to build up. Step 4. The cGMP reduces the calcium in the smooth muscle cells. Step 5. The smooth muscles relax allowing the corpus cavernosa to fill with blood. Step 6. The expanding blood vessels give off more NO, allowing the erection to maximize and sustain. Step 7. PDE-5 is activated and begins destroying cGMP. Step 8. (I'm not real clear on this part, but I think) After orgasm, the PDE-5 levels go very high, causing the erection to subside. The Viagra-type drugs start to do their job at step 7. They inhibit the effect of PDE-5 to allow the erection to maximize and sustain until orgasm. The problem is, after surgery, the neuropraxia disrupts the signal at step 1. Step 2 does not take place. So, no nitric oxide means no cGMP, means no erection and Viagra doesn't get a chance to do its job. The Trimix, on the other hand, skips steps 1 through 4. It starts at step 5. It effectively does the job of the cGMP, but is not suseptible to PDE-5. Since PDE-5 does not destroy the Trimix, the erection continues until the Trimix wears off. Neuropraxia or no neuropraxia, it works where Viagra will not. Hope this helps. John John what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do? it is not located in the penis, so it does not seem like the nerve that releases nitrous oxide i appreciate your info, but like others, it doesn't seem to address this erectile nerve in the nerve bundle. gary > > i have not been able to find an explicit explanation on how the > > erectile nerve works or it's specific purpose. [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > John > John > what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do? > it is not located in the penis, so it does not seem like the nerve that > releases nitrous oxide I don't know where you got the idea that the erectile nerves don't go to the penis. Of course, they do or else they couldn't affect what happens in the penis. www.phoenix5.org supposedly has a simplified diagram showing the erectile nerves, but I can't get it to respond. See also urology.jhu.edu/prostate/erectyle_dyssfunction.php which shows how the cavernous (erectile) nerves run past the prostate to the penis. Upon sexual stimulation (or during REM sleep) they release nitric oxide which starts a complex biochemical process resulting in an erection. Perhaps you are confused because the cavernous (erectile) nerves don't pass through the prostate. > i appreciate your info, but like others, it doesn't seem to address > this erectile nerve in the nerve bundle. > gary Gary, Please get hold of Walsh's book Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer and read his chapter on erectile dysfunction. He really tells you what you need to know to start. If you have specific questions about treatment, you should ask your doctors. But remember that since you are not a medical professional, they are not going to be able to give you highly technical explanations. Also, you should understand that without many years of medical training, some things are just going to beyond you. Each of us in such a situation will build up some sort of conceptual model of what is going on, but it is usually not very accurate and may entail serious misconceptions. This leads to a feeling of puzzlement about some matters, but you just have to learn to live with that. thank you Leonard you have given the first explicit explanation i have seen describing the erectile nerve. i did review Walch's book and other books, but could not find an explicit description and that it attaches to the penis. the book talked about nerves but did not explicitly state the erectile nerve from the nerve bundle releases the nitrous oxide. it now makes sense to me to use the injections to speed my recovery since it bypasses the erectile nerve (viagra depends on that nerve's recovery) and releases chemicals to more naturally relax the muscles to allow blood flow into the penis. the pump seems to bypasses the nerve but does not relax the muscles for a natural blood flow. instead, it sucks the blood into the penis without relaxing the muscles. relaxing the muscles might be an important step in the recovery process since it is a rehab process, like what is used when we rehab muscles in the gym. it gets the those muscles working again. gary > > John > > what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > entail serious misconceptions. This leads to a feeling of puzzlement > about some matters, but you just have to learn to live with that. > the pump seems ... > sucks the blood into the penis without relaxing the muscles. relaxing > the muscles might be an important step in the recovery process since it > is a rehab process, like what is used when we rehab muscles in the gym. > it gets the those muscles working again. Muscles are made stronger only by contracting them until they tear microscopically, then letting them heal for two to four days. Relaxing them does nothing in the short term, quickly atrophies them in the "mid" term. I.P. >> John >> what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in the penis. www.phoenix5.org supposedly has a simplified diagram > showing the erectile nerves, but I can't get it to respond. Nor can Gary. Thus this thread. > Please get hold of Walsh's book Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer and > read his chapter on erectile dysfunction. He really tells you what you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > technical explanations. Also, you should understand that without many > years of medical training, some things are just going to beyond you. Every time I start digging deeply into even a small, discrete part of our anatomy, such as an eye or an inner ear or a "simple" swatch of muscle or skin, I'm always astounded. As I "unwrap" each new level of complexity expecting to find simple bedrock, it just gets ever more, not less, complex. It's like Lewis & Clark -- or maybe even an ant in some cases -- walking west, expecting each new hilltop to reveal the mighty Pacific, but instead revealing only bigger mountains to be crossed. It all sort of makes this agnostic doubt evolution; biology is just too dang complex to be due to survival of the fittest. It's also why med school takes so many years and STILL produces only narrow specialists and broad generalists, but no omniscient physicians. I think Gary's allies are, in descending order, time, homework, patience, chemical cocktails, and possibly ultimately a choice between mechanical claptrap and acceptance. I doubt a DIY urology degree is going to make any difference and suspect that research time may be better spent in any of several other pursuits, from experimentation on the immediate problem to adjuvant treatment research just-in-case. When I want more horsepower or better handling or stability control or Onstar, I buy a different car, not try to analyze and redesign the one I have. We don't have either option in our pants. If your penile performance doesn't resume 100%, remember: it's just one tool, not the whole tool kit. You and your wife can still be running very smoothly even if you've lost the best wrench from the kit, and odds are that wrench will surface some time next year. I.P. >>> John >>> what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > school takes so many years and STILL produces only narrow specialists > and broad generalists, but no omniscient physicians. I think all this means is that you haven't gone far enough into the subject. I am not a biologist, but I am a professional mathematician. Mathematics also involves subtleties and layers beneath layers and it is often true that there are further mysteries to explore. Still, many aspects are extremely well understood by those who have studied the subject, although that may not be clear to the uninitiated. In some ways, biology may be more complex, but I believe, for those who have studied the subject, certain things are essentially beyond doubt. The main facts of evolution are in this category. The term 'surivival of the fittest' refers to the theory of natural selection, which explains how changes are propagated. But the common understanding of that term is wrong or incomplete in many aspects. Life forms are not 'fittest' in any abstract sense. They are 'fit' in the sense that in the environment they find themselves they are more likely to produce descendants. A recent example is the discovery of certain genes in herding populations in Africa which allow people to digest lactose after infancy. These genes are different in different parts of Africa and different from genes with the same function in northern European populations. Such genes have arisen relatively recently, less than 6,000 years ago. One calculation showed that a parent with such a gene in a population of herders had a 10 times advantage in number of descendants. Given such an advantage you can see why lactose intolerance would be uncommon in modern day descendants of such populations. Also, other factors affect which genes survive and which don't. One such, discovered already by Darwin, is sexual selection. This refers to features which for whatever reason make potential breeders more attractive to the opposite sex. The classic example is the peacock's tail. This has no apparent advantage in finding food or escaping predators. Its function is to impress peahens. There are several other factors which affect how evolution unfolds. Other explanations, such as 'intelligent design', have had no success in explaining anything about how life evolves, and are rejected by all serious biologists, whatever their religious orientation. >>>> John >>>> what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > I think all this means is that you haven't gone far enough into the > subject. Far enough to make my point that the layers of complexity are so deep and intricate that I question their natural evolution by natural selection within the allotted time. That man doesn't yet understand every subtlety of the human body is simply a gross measure of its complexity, not an indication of divine design or man's inability to comprehend. > The term 'surivival of > the fittest' refers to the theory of natural selection, which explains [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > environment they find themselves they are more likely to produce > descendants. Precisely why I employed the term. I.P. >> I think all this means is that you haven't gone far enough into the >> subject. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > complexity, not an indication of divine design or man's inability to > comprehend. I understand that you find the arguments for evolutions through natural selection within the available time unconvincing. I on the other hand find the arguments for natural selection and the other mechanisms extremely convincing. But neither of us is a trained biologist. So our opinions don't really count. The important thing to remember is that essentially all the scientists with training in this flied find that the evidence is overwhelming for evolution through natural selection and other mechanisms, such as those I mentioned. By the way, 3 to 4 billion years is a REAL LONG TIME. But even restricting attention to our species, research has shown that features can evolve in a surprisingly short time. If lactose tolerance can develop among herders in a few thousand years, it is not hard to believe that the other characteristics of our species which distinguish us from our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, could have developed over millions of years. >> The term 'surivival of the fittest' refers to the theory of natural >> selection, which explains how changes are propagated. But the common [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I.P. >> the layers of complexity are so deep >> and intricate that I question their natural evolution by natural [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > evidence is overwhelming for evolution through natural selection and > other mechanisms, such as those I mentioned. I've read just the opposite, that many scientists in many fields are convinced by the complexity of nature that it testifies to supreme design. I.P. >> The important thing to remember is that essentially all the scientists >> with training in this flied find that the evidence is overwhelming for >> evolution through natural selection and other mechanisms, such as those I >> mentioned. > I've read just the opposite, that many scientists in many fields are > convinced by the complexity of nature that it testifies to supreme design. > > I.P. Uh, Oh! >>> The important thing to remember is that essentially all the scientists >>> with training in this flied find that the evidence is overwhelming for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Uh, Oh! Don't sweat it, Jerry. I got no dog -- or interest -- in this topic. It's going nowhere on my account. '-) I.P. >>> the layers of complexity are so deep >>> and intricate that I question their natural evolution by natural [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >I.P. How does taking something complex, such as our bodies or a honeybee, and to explain that complexity add something even MORE complex, a supreme being, how does that do anything but add MORE complexity to the whole thing??? > How does taking something complex, such as our bodies or a honeybee, > and to explain that complexity add something even MORE complex, a > supreme being, how does that do anything but add MORE complexity to > the whole thing??? It does. But then a supreme being theoretically had more time to evolve than did mammals, so who knows? No one, from the Pope to raging atheist Michael Newdow, can prove his position, so the debate is academic. I.P. >It does. But then a supreme being theoretically had more time to evolve Can a supreme being evolve? From what? Wouldn't the progenitor be 'more' supreme? Which theory do you mean? >than did mammals, so who knows? No one, from the Pope to raging atheist >Michael Newdow, can prove his position, so the debate is academic. Academic or not, when a debate entails faulty reasoning or fails to strike a fair balance - as appears to be the case in ID vs evolution - then it should be exposed. Science should never be dogged by the idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding for its own sake might be valueless. > Science should never be dogged by the > idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding > for its own sake might be valueless. I concur. Using the scientific method, go ahead and replicate the evolution of man. Get back to me on that, would you. Sure would save me a lot of time on Sundays. >> Science should never be dogged by the >> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding >> for its own sake might be valueless. > >I concur. Using the scientific method, go ahead and replicate the evolution >of man. Why hold back? - demand also a complete formulation of the physical world, and demand it NOW!. OR Note the sure, steady progress of science over the centuries and be patient. True the onion may be huge even infinite but peeling off successive layers can be enlightening, even ennobling. >Get back to me on that, would you. Sure would save me a lot of time on >Sundays. I see what you mean. There are places science shouldn't go. It should be cowed by dispute and concede defeat when its best efforts fail. Shrink also from reflection and all philosophical endeavour - they lead nowhere. >>> Science should never be dogged by the >>> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > and concede defeat when its best efforts fail. Shrink also from > reflection and all philosophical endeavour - they lead nowhere. I think you missed my point. Darn shame too, because I thought it rather clever. When stated that it was "academic", IP clearly meant that the debate of it is relatively useless considering the time it would take to A) debate it, and then B) prove it. (Maybe less useless in another newsgroup or milieu) The supernatural cannot be proven by the natural. Science deals in the realm of the natural and faith in the supernatural. Discussion of the difference can sometimes be fascinating, but will always be outside the scope of science and faith and clearly within the scope of philosophy. Some day, of course, we may gather so much knowledge -- say equal to the omniscient being we call God -- and prove it wrong. But, we have been trying since the time of Adam and Eve and failing miserably. Until we do, it will not be science and will be merely academic. Or, as happens many, many times everyday, people die and find out it was right. But, since they can't tell us, it's... well... academic. > Sure would save me a lot of time on Sundays. > I thought it rather clever. Yep. Succinct. HOWEVER . . . I'm sure you know that even if God announced from the heavens that, "They're right; I don't exist", you and a few billion other religious people would keep supporting their religions for one overriding reason; religion gives people hope and purpose and structure not available from any other source. > Or, as happens many, many times everyday, people die and find out it was > right. If so, won't that be one HELL of a shock to the world's atheists? ESPECIALLY if their elevator went DOWN? I.P. > HOWEVER . . . I'm sure you know that even if God announced from the > heavens that, "They're right; I don't exist", you and a few billion other > religious people would keep supporting their religions for one overriding > reason; During the CB craze, I found a CB that had a PA feature. Of course, I had to find a loud speaker and put it under my hood. I once was driving south on Plum Street and noted Dave Neiheisel (a high school buddy) walking on the sidewalk in front of the Saint Peter in Chains Cathedral. I got as close as I could and, in my deepest voice, broadcast "DAAAAAAAAAAVE NEIHEISELLLLLLLL". He immediately jerked his head up to the cathedral spires. Based on that, I think many would listen. But, then, one might argue that he has given us plenty of from-the-heavens notice and we just don't listen. > religion gives people hope and purpose and structure not available from > any other source. Even if God didn't exist, I would opt for religion to reign. As in a gun-toting society where people are a lot more polite to each other, in a regligious society, they are a lot nicer to each other. Basic human nature is to fear being shot or sent to Hell. And, you;re right, when you get cancer and are going to die, it's nice to have somewhere to go; even if when you get there you find it wasn't really there. > it's nice to have somewhere to go; even if when > you get there you find it wasn't really there. Better yet, if it really isn't there after all, it was the thought that counted, literally. Believers can't lose. I.P. >I think you missed my point. Funny that - I think you missed mine, but 'missing the point' is the life-blood of usenet. > Darn shame too, because I thought it rather clever. Ahh, that explains a lot. >> Science should never be dogged by the >> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding >> for its own sake might be valueless. > > I concur. Using the scientific method, go ahead and replicate the evolution > of man. Where do you propose to start? If you mean to start with the first life on Earth, that was something close to 4 billion years ago. If you mean to go back to the our last common ancestor with the chimpanzees, that was several million years ago. To replicate what happened over these times would of course take the same amount of time, so it is obviously impossible to achieve in the laboratory. That doesn't mean it is not well understood. By studying DNA, biologists have been making amazing progress in understanding in a fairly detailed way how humans evolved, something which no one would have believed possible before the discovery of the the genetic code. Let's take a different example. No one thinks scientists are capable of creating a solar system identical to ours in the laboratory. But that doesn't mean that the basic structure and dynamics of the solar system aren't well understood. Similarly, no one can create a star in the laboratory, but the structure and evolution of stars are quite well understood. Of course, not everything is known about these subjects, but we will never know absolutely everything about any reasonably complex subject. that doesn't mean the scientific method doesn't apply. > Get back to me on that, would you. Sure would save me a lot of time on > Sundays. Does your religious belief depend on there being gaps on scientific knowledge? O worse believing things that are patently false, such as that the Earth is 6,000 years old? If so, it must be pretty fragile and subject to disruption from the latest scientific advance. I think most religious believers are flexible enough in their beliefs so that they can also accept what science shows us. The facts of human evolution, in particular, are very important for medical science, and few of us would reject a treatment based on such insights because it contradicted some religious belief. >>> Science should never be dogged by the >>> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Where do you propose to start? Again, I thought it was clever. But, if YOU didn't get it, then I have failed utterly. No matter. You summed it up pretty well in your post. >>>> Science should never be dogged by the >>>> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No matter. You summed it up pretty well in your post. By the way, the previous pope didn't seem to think that scientific understanding of the evolution of humans made his time spent on Sundays a waste. It is not completely clear what the present pope thinks about that, but so far at least he has stuck to the established line. It is interesting that evolution has been generally treated scientifically without incident in biology classes in Roman Catholic schools for quite a long time now, but there are continuing efforts to introduce religious ideas in some public schools. > By the way, the previous pope didn't seem to think that scientific > understanding of the evolution of humans made his time spent on Sundays a > waste. It is not completely clear what the present pope thinks about > that, but so far at least he has stuck to the established line. I know, I know. I agree, the two are not mutually exclusive. > It is interesting that evolution has been generally treated scientifically > without incident in biology classes in Roman Catholic schools for quite a > long time now, but there are continuing efforts to introduce religious > ideas in some public schools. Continuing efforts to introduce religious ideas in some public schools? Do you know so little of the history of it that you think this is a modern movement? During nearly your entire lifespan, actually pretty much concurrent with your time on this Earth, some have been trying to push religious ideas OUT of the public schools. What little vestiges that still exist are the death throws, not an element trying some new idea to warp the young minds of mush. But, outside of some efforts to show that an unproven theory disproves the existence of God, I agree with you that some on the religious right have tied their banner to a position they cannot win. They should have stuck with the, "look what has happened in the last 73 years" approach. >> Science should never be dogged by the >> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Get back to me on that, would you. Sure would save me a lot of time on > Sundays. But are evolution and divine creation at odds? To me they co-exist, unless we're to believe that Adam and Eve were a 5'10" and 5'4" couple with expected lifespans of 80 and 72 with an SUV and a minivan in the driveway. IOW, why couldn't a supreme being have designed evolution as part of her plan? I.P. >>> Science should never be dogged by the >>> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > IOW, why couldn't a supreme being have designed evolution as part of her > plan? Oh, my! Failed with rosbif. Failed with an academic. Failed with a scientist. How disheartening. But, to answer your question, no. I have never stated as such. Darwin was wrong, but evolution, i.e. change, occurs. It is inarguable. But, it also does not fit the definition of "evidence" when discussing whether or not the big bang happened or was caused. >>> Science should never be dogged by the >>> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >I.P. No reason she couldn't have. But since it's just as easy to posit that the supreme being is a large rabbit and just as unprovable, what's the point in "believing" in any supreme being that is unknowable and unprovable? Why not just believe in what "is" and honor humanity because it's the right thing to do? Or do you need someone (such as a spokesman for a supreme being) to tell you what the right thing to do is? > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:51:46 -0800, "I.P. Freely" wrote > why couldn't a supreme being have designed evolution as >> part of her plan? > No reason she couldn't have. But since it's just as easy to posit > that the supreme being is a large rabbit and just as unprovable, > what's the point in "believing" in any supreme being that is > unknowable and unprovable? EVEN IF there is no supreme being, believers' belief and their religion's structure and guidance is extremely important and useful in their lives. Why not just believe in what "is" and > honor humanity because it's the right thing to do? Or do you need > someone (such as a spokesman for a supreme being) to tell you what the > right thing to do is? Apparently millions, from Britney Spears to Rosie O'Donnel to OBL to yer average gang banger, COULD use some external guidance, as they're all screwed up. Many university professors now teach moral relativism, in which each person is allowed to write his/her own 10 commandments, bible, Tora, golden rule, Qoran, etc. Uh, yes, apparently many or most people DO need to be told how to behave. I.P. >> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:51:46 -0800, "I.P. Freely" wrote >> why couldn't a supreme being have designed evolution as [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >which each person is allowed to write his/her own 10 commandments, >bible, Tora, golden rule, Qoran, etc. I see just as many "religious leaders" teach moral relativism. They don't call it that but they call for and support war, death, and destruction while claiming to honor a man of Peace. >Uh, yes, apparently many or most people DO need to be told how to behave. The ones who need it will almost always claim to believe in God. And you didn't answer the question.. Do YOU need a spokesman for the almighty to tell you right from wrong? >I.P. >But are evolution and divine creation at odds? Yes, completely. Evolution is a magnum opus, divine creation its peevish under-educated critic, a fault finding heckler looking ONLY for the chinks. I've been left floored so many times after hearing a militant creationist explain how a great scientific work, the very act of its discovery, was potentiated by divine creation itself. >To me they co-exist, Only in the obvious sense of occupying the same time-frame. In what sense are they complimentary or mutually supportive? >> But are evolution and divine creation at odds? >> To me they co-exist, > > Only in the obvious sense of occupying the same time-frame. In what > sense are they complimentary or mutually supportive? Couldn't God or Allah or Bhudda or, what the hell, BEELZEBUB, have designed and initiated evolution? I.e., "Here ya go, world; here's some ooze, maybe a few snails, maybe even a hairy thing with sperm. Now go forth and evolve." Does ANYONE really believe Adam wore Dockers? I.P. >>> But are evolution and divine creation at odds? >>> To me they co-exist, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I.P. Well, as long as the subject is "what COULD god have done"... Couldn't god have done whatever he wanted to do and then willed himself out of existence? > Academic or not, when a debate entails faulty reasoning or fails to > strike a fair balance - as appears to be the case in ID vs evolution - > then it should be exposed. Science should never be dogged by the > idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding > for its own sake might be valueless. Except that a) I don't have the time to debate esoterica at length, b) this ain't the place for it, c) by "academic" in this context I mean "of no practical use", and d) we are not going to resolve issues this big here, after at least a couple of sound thinkers have beat this horse to death long ago. Heck, I'll bet this was debated way back in the 20th century. ;-) Probably the most practical application of all this is in today's schools, as Leonard pointed out. If I had kids in school, my concern would be far more immediate and real. One thing's for dang sure -- if the horror stories I read and hear about today's U.S. public schools are true -- my kids would not be in government (i.e., public) schools. Apparently the teachers' unions and political correctness have all but destroyed them as learning institutions. I.P. > Apparently the teachers' unions and political correctness have all but > destroyed them as learning institutions. Now, IP, this is the kind of over-the-top statement that does nothing for this forum and angers some of us who see other aspects of the problem. I wish you would confine your comments to PCa. > Now, IP, this is the kind of over-the-top statement that does nothing for > this forum and angers some of us who see other aspects of the problem. I > wish you would confine your comments to PCa. Ooops. In that case, let me retract my last statement. It's 100% accurate, but I do not mean to offend. >> Now, IP, this is the kind of over-the-top statement that does nothing for >> this forum and angers some of us who see other aspects of the problem. I >> wish you would confine your comments to PCa. > > Ooops. In that case, let me retract my last statement. It's 100% accurate, > but I do not mean to offend. Nor do I, but I still maintain that facts cannot offend. I.P. > Nor do I, but I still maintain that facts cannot offend. Sure they can! If I said, "your mother is a no-tooth, dirty-ankle, hillbilly whore", would that offend you? No! And, for the very reason that it is not a fact. You would chalk it up to me being an ignorant troll. However, if your mother grew up in Eastern Kentucky, never brushed her teeth let alone go to a dentist, bathed less than the passing solstices and kept a list of every man she's screwed in a 3-ring binder and my name was listed 36 times, you'd be quite offended. There are no countrymen, occupations, ethnics, or any other classification about which there are no negative aspects that, if mentioned, would not offend someone. That is why we should really keep our comments to prostate cancer or Nigerian goat herders.  SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06, 6/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04 Non Illegitimi Carborundum >> Nor do I, but I still maintain that facts cannot offend. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > offend someone. That is why we should really keep our comments to > prostate cancer or Nigerian goat herders. Steve, agree with everything here---except the Nigerian goat herders. There has to be a Usenet group for them. You and IP can take your issues about Nigerian goat herding *there*! ;-) >> Nor do I, but I still maintain that facts cannot offend. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > list of every man she's screwed in a 3-ring binder and my name was listed 36 > times, you'd be quite offended. Nope. I've been candidly assessed and/or flat lied about by many people in many scenarios -- even punched in the face by a friend who incorrectly thought I had wronged him -- but was never offended by any of it. IT'S THEIR OPINION, and they're entitled to it as long as they have a specific basis for it. If someone says my wife is fat, I can't deny it; they'd just better not say it to her face unless they're her doctor. > There are no countrymen, occupations, ethnics, or any other classification > about which there are no negative aspects that, if mentioned, would not > offend someone. Negative in whose eyes? I'm proud of my southern accent, and Bush's "newkular" is no worse than Teddy Kennedy's "Cuber". A liberal should be as proud of that label as a conservative should be of his, if they fit. If a person resents an accurate assessment of his chosen group, maybe he needs to rethink his association with or support of that group. That is why we should really keep our comments to prostate > cancer or Nigerian goat herders. I hear you, but isn't socialized medicine, or religion as a cancer pt support function, a skosh more relevant than goat herders? I.P. > Nope. I've been candidly assessed and/or flat lied about by many people in > many scenarios -- even punched in the face by a friend who incorrectly > thought I had wronged him -- but was never offended by any of it. You make half my point. Being lied to and being punched for something you didn't do did not offend you. To make my other point, I would have to offend you. And, for the sake of argument, I'm not willing to do that. >> There are no countrymen, occupations, ethnics, or any other >> classification about which there are no negative aspects that, if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a person resents an accurate assessment of his chosen group, maybe he > needs to rethink his association with or support of that group. I said certain "aspects" of those general labels of which you speak. And I did not identify a southern accent as one of them. And I identify with Eastern Kentucky a hell of a lot more than I do Massachusetts. I'm sorry if I offended you. >> That is why we should really keep our comments to prostate >> cancer or Nigerian goat herders. > > I hear you, but isn't socialized medicine, or religion as a cancer pt > support function, a skosh more relevant than goat herders? I tend to see things more in black and white than hues of gray, but in the gray world, yes, socialized medicine does come closer than goat herding (though we were talking about public schools). Religion? I think that is dead on topic for a support group of terminal patients, but there are some threatened by it, so I try to avoid it (albeit unsuccessfully sometimes). SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06, 6/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04 Non Illegitimi Carborundum >> Nope. I've been candidly assessed and/or flat lied about by many people in >> many scenarios -- even punched in the face by a friend who incorrectly >> thought I had wronged him -- but was never offended by any of it. > > You make half my point. Being lied to Not "to" . . . ABOUT. As in attacked personally without factual basis, as one person repeatedly does in this forum. If it comes from a credible source without proof, I AM offended by it; if the source loses or had no credibility, the attack is irrelevant, without substance, and thus not offensive. In fact its only impact then is on the source. > and being punched for something you > didn't do did not offend you. To make my other point, I would have to > offend you. And, for the sake of argument, I'm not willing to do that. You're welcome to try. I don't offend easily for several reasons, including: Thick skin. Everyone's entitled to their opinions. If those opinions are wrong, ain't my problem 'cause they mean nothing. If these opinions are right, what right do I have to take offense at them? (Maybe at how they're PUT or any DISPERSIONS attached to them, but not to the basic FACT being stated.) Better yet, I may become a better person if the criticism is accurate, recognized as such, and involves something I'm willing to change. Being offended is a small price to pay for improving one's self. Yer mudder wears combat boots, so we're even. > Religion? I think that is > dead on topic for a support group of terminal patients, but there are some > threatened by it, so I try to avoid it (albeit unsuccessfully sometimes). Some people here are also threatened by the fact that various cancer treatments have various likelihoods of various side effects. I say tango sierra and discuss them anyway, because to conceal those SEs from pts considering treatments leads them into far worse places than "being offended". I.e., should I offend Sam, or save Bill's life? DUH! Similarly, anyone offended by someone else's religious beliefs needs to get a damned life. It's none of my business what idol or god you worship or do not worship; it becomes my business only if it drives your actions past the point my nose begins. When my Catholic neighbor says all non-Catholics are going to hell, that shouldn't offend non-Catholics; it merely makes my neighbor look stupid. I.P. >> didn't do did not offend you. To make my other point, I would have to >> offend you. And, for the sake of argument, I'm not willing to do that. > > You're welcome to try. Nope. It's not in my nature. Besides, your posts so overwhelming defends my point, I wonder if I misunderstood your object to it. I think this thread is ended. Go in peace. SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06, 6/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04 Non Illegitimi Carborundum I looked up the definition of "offend" and "offense". Far from being simple and direct, even in a small dictionary offense a very complex concept. I was wrong about its scope, but, IMO, right in its value for our day-to-day behavior. The distinctions, IMO, are useful in this forum and in our daily lives. I was wrong in stating that facts can or should not offend, because offense, by definition, can be taken/perceived/generated/claimed anywhere, any time, anywhere, by anyone, over anything, for any reason or excuse; it's in the eye and at the whim of the beholder. IOW, offense can literally have virtually nothing to do with what's said or done and virtually everything to do with what another person CHOOSES to take offense to. While anyone can offend almost everyone if they try, there are hundreds of millions of people who take very grave, even life-altering, offense at damn near anything. E.g., simply being non-Muslim offends the Qoran and its strict believers, and I'm going to hell because I'm non-Catholic. (OOOOOOOH!) Ya can't win. Thus I was right, IMO, that there's no point tiptoeing through life worrying about offending someone. Hell, the very act of tiptoeing probably offends gay-bashers, boot manufacturers, and tulips. There's nothing we can do or say, and no facts or opinions, that won't offend hundreds or even billions of people, often simply because they CHOOSE to be offended. Maybe the word "offend" should be eliminated from the language, because "offense" could almost be characterized as the offendee's choice, therefore the offendee's problem, rather than an active verb. Is there ANY action or statement that would offend everyone or no one on the planet? Again, Lincoln comes through: "You can offend some of the people all the time, . . . " I.P. >> rosbif wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for this forum and angers some of us who see other aspects of the > problem. I wish you would confine your comments to PCa. Sorry, but I have students and career teachers in my extended family, talk to many parents, and follow the news about unions in general and teachers' unions in particular. There's nothing over-the-top about it. You'll also notice that I used the word "apparently", indicating that I have not gone into the schools myself to observe this first-hand, but all indications are that anyone with kids in U.S. secondary schools, which rank very near rock bottom among the 25 top nations in the world, should give serious thought to what's going on in those schools. You'll also notice that Leonard, not I, took this thread into our school system with his accurate observation about our abysmal national science knowledge level. We SHOULD be angered about it! If I had kids or grandkids in school, I wouldn't have 10 minutes a month to devote to my cancer or this forum. I'd be in those schools and school boards and state and national officials' faces every day about the crap going on there. Greatest nation on the planet and our schools rank 18th of the top 25? INEXCUSABLE! I.P. >>> rosbif wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I.P. IP, I'm not going to debate this with you, not because I think you're right, but because it's inappropriate for this forum. That's my main point. My secondary but related point involves the following. There are people in this forum who love your statements about societal and political issues because they agree with them. There are others, like myself, who believe you are as wrong as you believe you are right, and as close-minded as you feel you are open-minded. We find your statements about societal and political issues very irritating, especially because of the aggressive way you present them. I personally wonder why you continually bring them, and frequently angrily, into a forum where we should be experiencing a sense of oneness as we fight the common enemy of prostate cancer and the damage it does to our lives. There are thousands of Usenet forums where you can debate these issues. Why here? Now, I know, you will say, "I didnt start it.", and you are correct. But the choice to continue it or to escalate it was yours. The responsibility starts with the person sitting in front of *your* computer screen. As you know, in the past I failed in this regard as well. But I've been really trying, especially recently, to keep my comments to issues directly involving prostate cancer. For example---and I don't like revealing a lot of personal stuff about myself on Usenet---I have a degree in biology as well as a theological degree. I was tempted at many points to jump into this thread, because I have strong and informed opinions about many of these issues. But I didnt. I couldnt see much purpose in this discussion in a forum meant to provide support for cancer sufferers. I'm a prostate cancer victim. That's why I'm here. That's why most of us are here. Claude > IP, I'm not going to debate this with you, not because I think you're right, > but because it's inappropriate for this forum. That's my main point. I'll take your message more seriously as soon as it's directed at all of the OT posters rather than just at me. I must assume your complaints aimed only at me are personal, and not about OT posting in general, else you'd address your complaints to them as well. After all, I am one of very few who try to mark these diverted threads as OT. > There are people in > this forum who love your statements about societal and political issues > because they agree with them. While it's nice to have facts or opinions vetted, it's more educational to have them refuted, with support. Most of need to be PERSUADED, not merely INFORMED, that we're wrong about facts. > There are others, like myself, who believe > you are as wrong as you believe you are right You'll notice that most of my political or societal statements are not "beliefs" but instead are facts based on hard news, corrections of others' untrue statements about those facts, or at least counterarguments to opinions I'm no longer willing to let go unchallenged because they relate to people our age even if not related to cancer. > We find your statements about societal and > political issues very irritating, especially because of the aggressive way > you present them. > I personally wonder why you continually bring them, and > frequently angrily, into a forum Facts are not irritating or aggressive or angry. They are facts. I can't keep others from anthropomorphizing them. Do you wonder why others bring them here? > There are thousands of Usenet forums where you can > debate these issues. Why here? 1. Why not ask that question of those who introduce them to the forum? 2. I often ignore them, but 3. As they escalate in importance, I am less willing to ignore them. I'm getting sick and tired of socialists gaining control in this nation partly because THEIR increasing emphasis on PC lets them go increasingly unchallenged. 4. One can't rationally debate anything in those forums because discussions there turn to ad hominem within 2 or 3 iterations. We have only a very short list of people here who resort to ad hominem the minute rational, factual discourse fails them. 5. You may also notice that many of my OT responses are answers to questions directed to me by name, and that 6. I ignore or parry some of even those in an attempt to stay relevant. > Now, I know, you will say, "I didnt start it.", and you are correct. But > the choice to continue it or to escalate it was yours. That's like blaming a fight on the guy who swung second, or saying "Bush stole the election", when in fact all Bush did was legally parry Gore's repeated attempts to steal it. While it's admirable for the swingee to walk away, I don't believe he's under any OBLIGATION to do so; I think -- and that's highly debatable and situational -- it's his call as to the relevance of the issue. Certainly socialized medicine is more relevant to us than is basketball, but what the heck should I care if some friends want to "chew the hoop" in a cancer forum for a while? (And did you criticize them for that?) > I have a degree in biology as well as a theological degree. I was tempted > at many points to jump into > this thread, because I have strong and informed opinions about many of these > issues. But I didnt. I couldnt see much purpose in this discussion in a > forum meant to provide support for cancer sufferers. I'm a prostate cancer > victim. That's why I'm here. That's why most of us are here. Thus I'd think your participation would be highly relevant to a group of people attacked by biology and trying to escape it by any means of SUPPORT possible, including technology, supplements, and/or divine assistance. AS I promise once before, I will try to do better. But I will not refrain from stating facts just because some people can't handle them (RT has SEs and Strum isn't as highly regarded as Scardino; get over it), nor will I ignore every attempt to shove socialism, especially socialized medicine, down our throats. And just ask Steve Kramer how relevant a belief in a supreme being is to his cancer. I.P. >> IP, I'm not going to debate this with you, not because I think you're >> right, but because it's inappropriate for this forum. That's my main [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > I.P. I give up. If this continues, I'm going to have to stop reading you. And I'm sorry about that because you do have some helpful things to say about prostate cancer. However, right now the negatives outweigh the positives. > I give up. If this continues, I'm going to have to stop reading you. And > I'm sorry about that because you do have some helpful things to say about > prostate cancer. However, right now the negatives outweigh the positives. Lincoln said it best, if one changes just one word: "You can please all of the people some of the time, . . . " You COULD, you know, just stop reading posts or threads you don't like, as many people do. I'm sorry if my beliefs offend you, Claude, but I can't and won't promise to think and/or behave exactly as you would like, especially since you're even more intolerant of my beliefs than of my willingness to express them, as demonstrated by the fact that you don't hold all OT posters to the same standard. I will not change my BEHAVIOR just because others are intolerant of my BELIEFS; that goes against everything this nation was founded on. I.P. >I'll take your message more seriously as soon as it's directed at all of >the OT posters rather than just at me. I think you began the drift from the erectile stuff to evolution. ..check the evolution of the thread.... >> I'll take your message more seriously as soon as it's directed at all of >> the OT posters rather than just at me. > > I think you began the drift from the erectile stuff to evolution. > > ..check the evolution of the thread.... I did, and see your point from a technical, literal point. However, I used the word to emphasize the complexity of our physiology, including the erectile system Gary wants to analyze, not to bring religion into this discussion. Are we to eradicate the word "evolution" from public discourse just because some people deny it? If so, this list ought to bring USENET to its knees: Holocaust. Christmas. Women's rights. Radical Islam. Reasonable liberals. Reasonable conservatives. Funny Woody Allen/Ben Stiller/Adam Sandler Movies. I.P. > Funny Woody Allen/Ben Stiller/Adam Sandler Movies. This would be easy. There are none. doubleowseven@theplacecalledyahoo.com wrote: > I.P. wrote >> Uh, yes, apparently many or most people DO need to be told how to behave. > The ones who need it will almost always claim to believe in God. And > you didn't answer the question.. Do YOU need a spokesman for the > almighty to tell you right from wrong? Didn't mean to dodge the question; thought I was answering it. Me, personally? Not any longer, but my values evolved from exposure to church, to highly moral parents (before drinking ruined my dad's life), to peers and a community with strong deep South moral values (the worst activity I ever saw or heard in grades 1-12 was a few spitballs being thrown; no one swore or drank in public, in school, or at private parties), and to a cadre of very good school teachers. Uptight bible-thumpers? No. Just a lot of well-behaved people who learned right from wrong from church and/or osmosis therefrom (is that a word?) Then came exposure to the young people of the modern military, which cemented it all together. In a word, DoctorLaura. OTOH, you and I have both seen what happens when people stray too far from religious precepts: cheating in school and life, Enron, deciding oral sex isn't sex, wondering what "is" is, a 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate in a major U.S. ethnic group, crime from child rape to car prowls and the increasing lack of punishment for same, fight clubs, bangers, child porn, the behavior of half the jocks on the planet, and the disgusting in-yer-face "TUDE" I see every day among today's 20- and 30-somethings. I.P. >> Funny Woody Allen/Ben Stiller/Adam Sandler Movies. > > This would be easy. There are none. Of course. Yet millions disagree with you and me. Heck, some sober people over 20 actually thought "Borat" was funny. I.P. >>> rosbif wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > officials' faces every day about the crap going on there. Greatest > nation on the planet and our schools rank 18th of the top 25? INEXCUSABLE! Certainly US education has some severe problems. But keep in mind that quality varies significantly depending on where you are. It is mostly education in inner cities and rural areas where problems exist. Suburban schools actually do pretty well. My children received first rate educations in public schools in Evanston. Indeed, my son felt there was a drop in overall the quality of his courses when he went from AP classes in high school to classes at a prestigious private college. My grandchildren are receiving first rate educations in their schools. Even in the Chicago public schools, where I have two grandchildren, pockets of excellence exist. Another thing that many people aren't aware of is that the same situation exists for private schools. There is a lot of variation in quality and you don't necessarily do better by moving your children out of the public school system. With respect to science education, you are likely to do worse if you put them in a so-called "Christian" school which insists on teaching science from a fundamentalist religious point of view. Many of the basic problems with US public education trace back to the family circumstances of the children. Others relate to large class sizes and the facts that many teachers are not qualified to teach the subjects they teach. In my own subject, mathematics, I can assure you that having a qualified teacher who understands mathematics teach students using "new math" ideas, much under attack these days, is going to do a better job an incompetent teacher who doesn't understand math using "back to basics" methods. Any teacher is going to do better with problem students if the class size is limited since the teacher can spend more time with each student. > I.P. > I.P. Freely wrote: >>>> rosbif wrote: <snip> <snip> <snip> <snip> <snip> gary, you should be ashamed...starting a thread like this. Imagine! Asking about erectile nerves and nerve bundles in a forum like this! SignatureJerryW Please respond to group; email address is not valid 2/11/04 PSA 2.6, Suspicious DRE (age 62) 2/23/04 Biopsy: Gleason 3+4=7, T2a, left lobe 5/18/04 RRP, Path: Gleason 4+3=7, T2c, both lobes Fully continent by 9/04 PSA <0.1 since >> I.P. Freely wrote: >>>>> rosbif wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gary, you should be ashamed...starting a thread like this. Imagine! Asking > about erectile nerves and nerve bundles in a forum like this! Point taken! I'm done. SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06, 6/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04 Non Illegitimi Carborundum > > I.P. Freely wrote: > >>>> rosbif wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gary, you should be ashamed...starting a thread like this. Imagine! Asking > about erectile nerves and nerve bundles in a forum like this! Now THAT is funny. <hand motion of plane spiraling out of control> It's amazing to watch thread drift, especially when there are so many subjects that are on-topic for this group. Here are some on-topic comments. Anyone have radiation and experience burning and stinging while peeing at the 2 year mark??? It normal in the first 6 months, then usually fades away. This started up again for me at 18 months and is still happening at 26 months. In the same time period, I've been passing, more like leaking a tiny amount of blood. After I pee in the morning, I'll see a very light pink in the water. Sometimes I can dab my tip with toilet paper and see a drop of pink. It's never red. A few times I've seen a tiny bloodclot in the water. How much semen do you rad-types produce? Does it keep "coming"? I produce about a third of a teaspoon, that is, if I save it up for a week. It almost feels normal now but this is over 2 years after seeding. There is still no "force". It dribbles or oozes out after orgasm. How's your libido? Mine is still the pits. I'm surrounded by gorgeous women on a regular basis but seeing them, thinking about them, doesn't cause even the slightest twitch. What does work is dredging up those weird stories from my younger days, thinking about them while, er, performing current activity. Best I can figure, it takes a extra stimulation to get the motor running. This is a big improvement from 2 years ago while on Lupron. At that time, there was nothing. With a vivid fantasy/story in mind, a lot of caring, touching, and stroking, I can get up to the 80 or 90% level without Vitamin-V. It's better with a crumb or two but I don't need it. The other side of the problem is that if I'm going full speed, maybe thinking about that first time 40 years ago in the backseat of the old chevy, it's like, "oh no, oh no, oh no, Dang, that wasn't very long." It's like there's a fine balance between enough mental and physical stimulation to get the love-rod hard and so much that it pops off. I used to be good for 20 or 30 minutes of vigorous thrusting, enough for her to have a couple satisfying orgasms. It's not like that now. I never had a problem with achieving an erection or premature ejaculation. (Well, I can think of 3 or 4 times in 40 years when I wasn't "up to it".) Now I wonder every time whether I'll get going and for how long. I used to love lavishing "care" on a woman without worrying about my erection. It was fun to bring her to orgasm or just to that point where her eyes are wild, her breathing is heavy, her body is ready, and at that moment, confidently slide slowly in. I don't have that confidence now. I miss that. I miss her being at "that point" and then taking both of us to the next level of pleasure. Other side effects. I don't have the strength and stamina that I used to. Simple things like walking, yardwork, taking the laundry, trash, and groceries up and down the stairs, exhausts me. If you can't do the laundry or take out the trash, how can you give a woman pleasure? You don't have the stamina. Anyone else notice an overall weakness? My joints hurt. I blame the Lupron for that. I think the Lupron has weakened my bones. Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty certain my side effects are on good side, much better than average. But the devil is in the details. How are you doing? -kh > Anyone have radiation and experience burning and stinging while peeing > at the 2 year mark??? It normal in the first 6 months, then usually > fades away. This started up again for me at 18 months and is still > happening at 26 months. > In the same time period, I've been passing, more like leaking a tiny > amount of blood. After I pee in the morning, I'll see a very light > pink in the water. Sometimes I can dab my tip with toilet paper and > see a drop of pink. It's never red. A few times I've seen a tiny > bloodclot in the water. RT SEs of several types can surface months to years to even a decade after treatment. Hope that doesn't offend you. ;-) > How much semen do you rad-types produce? Does it keep "coming"? I > produce about a third of a teaspoon, that is, if I save it up for a > week. *B*L*E*C*H*! You *S*A*V*E* that stuff? That's pretty sic . . . Oh. I get it. Never mind. ;-) > How's your libido? Mine is still the pits. I'm surrounded by gorgeous > women on a regular basis but seeing them, thinking about them, doesn't > cause even the slightest twitch. That's the ADT; pretty standard stuff there. It usually goes away after ADT stops, but by no means do we always regain interest. > if I'm going full speed, maybe > thinking about that first time 40 years ago in the backseat of the old > chevy > Now I wonder every time whether I'll get going > and for how long. Have you considered buying another Chevy? > I don't have the strength and stamina that I used > to. Simple things like walking, yardwork, taking the laundry, trash, > and groceries up and down the stairs, exhausts me. If you can't do the > laundry or take out the trash, how can you give a woman pleasure? You > don't have the stamina. Anyone else notice an overall weakness? That's the whole point of castration, chemical or surgical. That it also slows the progress of prostate cancer is almost a side effect. > My joints hurt. I blame the Lupron for that. I think the Lupron has > weakened my bones. None of this is the least bit unexpected with ADT. I.P. > RT SEs of several types can surface months to years to even a decade > after treatment. > > Hope that doesn't offend you. ;-) No and I hope other guys report their side effects. I've been having a "slower" stream in the last few months. It's like something is going on in my prostate. > Oh. I get it. Never mind. ;-) uh-huh. > That's the ADT; pretty standard stuff there. It usually goes away after > ADT stops, but by no means do we always regain interest. I'd call it 50% of my past libido and 80% of my capability. Which isn't such a bad place to be. It would be worse to have more libido and less ability. > Have you considered buying another Chevy? I don't think it was the romance of an old Chevy, the three on the tree, the torn seats, the sagging headliner. But could we ever make love on that back seat! I guess when you're 18 and she's 19, that's all it takes. > That's the whole point of castration, chemical or surgical. That it also > slows the progress of prostate cancer is almost a side effect. That might be in my future again. I'm at 26 months post seeds and IMRT and my PSA has been rising for the last year. I vaguely remember a report that some doc's won't look at a PSA for 2 or 3 years after radiation. Anyone have a pointer to that??? -kh > Certainly US education has some severe problems. But keep in mind that > quality varies significantly depending on where you are. It is mostly > education in inner cities and rural areas where problems exist. Suburban > schools actually do pretty well. Ten years ago, I might have agreed. But, now? Nowhere, except in parochial and private schools do they "do pretty well." Again, I have very close experience with innercity, suburban, and rural schools and other than ones selected for the exceptional students, none do "pretty well." All are just barely keeping their head above water as the tide is forcasted to rise. > My children received first rate educations in public schools in Evanston. > Indeed, my son felt there was a drop in overall the quality of his courses > when he went from AP classes in high school to classes at a prestigious > private college. Yes, AP classes. > My grandchildren are receiving first rate educations in their schools. > Even in the Chicago public schools, where I have two grandchildren, > pockets of excellence exist. Well, I guess then we agree. Pockets do not a garment make. > With respect to science education, you are likely to do worse if you put > them in a so-called "Christian" school which insists on teaching science > from a fundamentalist religious point of view. Do you really think that Christians cannot comprehend the difference between mitosis and miosis because they believe killing babies is bad? Or that they cannot comprehend the fascinations of the periodic elements and molecular design because they are taught that the Big Bang was caused? My God, Leonard, how deep does your fundamentalist anti-religion run? > Many of the basic problems with US public education trace back to the > family circumstances of the children. Agree. > Others relate to large class sizes and the facts that many teachers are > not qualified to teach the subjects they teach. Disagree. I don't think I had a class size of less than 40 from Grades 1 through 12. Those few that fell through the cracks (i.e., got put into public schools) did so because of the family circumstance more than any other factor. > In my own subject, mathematics, I can assure you that having a qualified > teacher who understands mathematics teach students using "new math" ideas, > much under attack these days, is going to do a better job an incompetent > teacher who doesn't understand math using "back to basics" methods. Any > teacher is going to do better with problem students if the class size is > limited since the teacher can spend more time with each student. Yes, and 1 on 1 is best of all. No! three or four on one! > if the horror stories I read and hear about today's U.S. public schools > are true -- my kids would not be in government (i.e., public) schools. > Apparently the teachers' unions and political correctness have all but > destroyed them as learning institutions. They are true. My wife was a teach, indeed a science teacher... actually, retired as a supervisor of entire science program of the 2nd largest school district on this state. It is an absolute travesty what unions, lawyers, politicians, California text book makers, etc. are doing to are schools. And then there are some parents..... SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06, 6/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04 Non Illegitimi Carborundum >>> the layers of complexity are so deep and intricate that I question >>> their natural evolution by natural selection within the allotted [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I've read just the opposite, that many scientists in many fields are > convinced by the complexity of nature that it testifies to supreme design. Scientists in fields outside biology, paleontology, etc. are not particularly qualified to judge the matter. Also, it all depends on what you mean by "supreme design". One can believe in that as an abstract philosophical principle but still believe that life evolved on Earth by means of natural processes such as natural selection without intervention by an "intelligent designer", either God or superintelligent aliens. An example of someone who believes that is Francis Collins, who was in charge of the US human genome mapping project, and there are a few other qualified scientists with the same philosophy. But originally, it was evolution through natural selection that you questioned. And virtually no scientists in relevant fields questions that. It is important to understand such distinctions because there is an ongoing effort, which is effective politically, to introduce religious beliefs such as "intelligent design" in the teaching of science in our public schools. Such ideas are not science and have no place in a biology curriculum. US citizens are woefully ignorant of science, and efforts to inject religion into the teaching of science hardly improve that deplorable situation. > I.P. > US citizens are woe |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message