The Sickness of Disembarkment

Mal de Débarquement Syndrome (MdDS)

 "...MdDS is rarely recognized immediately and is often misdiagnosed as Ménière’s disease, vestibular migraine, motion sickness, or even as a form of psychosomatic illness.

MdDS is literally translated as the “sickness of disembarkment.” It is a disorder of rocking vertigo and imbalance that starts after a period of motion exposure, such as going on a cruise, flying, or even a long car ride. Unlike short-lived land-sickness, MdDS can persist for months or years."

~*~
At the end of August I traveled to Georgia. Upon returning I couldn't shake the feeling of still being in motion. 

My flights coming home weren't particularly turbulent. I have traveled extensively since infancy, and have experienced my fair share of turbulence; I've criss-crossed the country in old pick-up trucks, responsimobile-type family vehicles of myriad variety, by Greyhound, and etc. I am familiar with that weird feeling of being in motion that goes away after a few hours.

This wasn't that.

I couldn't shake the feeling for more than a week. It was really bizarre. 

I did a little googling and came across this condition of "land sickness" - which I read to be more or less what we landlubbers experience if we get on a boat. But I don't turn green on a boat, and I haven't ever experienced motion sickness that I can recall. Also, the focus was on boats, and I hadn't traveled by boat, so I set it aside. I saw MdDS mentioned, but didn't give that much thought because it was noted as extremely rare so it very likely wouldn't apply to me. I noted a few peculiar details, and later mentioned it to my husband in passing. We agreed it was interesting.

Then the symptoms dissipated and I forgot about it. Happily.

Last Thursday, my family embarked on a fall break adventure, a 4-day/3-night/1,293-mile circular road trip around the other side or Oregon. We went to Joseph, Hell's Canyon Overlook, Hines, the "scenic route" to Klamath Falls, to Crater Lake (and all the way around Crater Lake), to ...eventually... I-5 and back home. That's the highlights...but I'm not sharing it to brag. It was incredibly beautiful, fun, all that...but those areas of Oregon are very, very rural. The roads aren't always the smoothest.

Having grown up where I did, and having grown up as "junior navigator" through countless road trips (childhood to present), I'm used to mountains and trees. Specifically pine trees. Those great huge ones that reach up to kiss clouds. Most folks I knew growing up remember those mountains even if they never returned to that place.

Eastern and southeastern Oregon is incredibly beautiful. High desert with evolving landscape as you go through it, with oases of ranch land that offer green relief to the browns and yellows...and in the near and middle distance, always, the foothills and mountains. And their trees. Those pine trees that are for me reminiscent of my hometown hills.

Except...I have this weird problem with those trees. The tall pine ones. 

This problem started something like 20ish years ago. I can't remember exactly. It only happens if I'm in a car in motion and not driving. I can drive in the same places and conditions and am perfectly fine. But if I am in the passenger seat or in the back seat, going through mountains covered in pines...in places like Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, etc...I cannot look off to the distance or upward (though I can look at trees at eye level near me and sometimes looking downward) without experiencing something akin-to-but-not-exactly-like vertigo. 

This isn't any secret to anyone in my immediate family, since we've all been on road trips together for decades. It's a known thing, and I just take it into account when we're traveling through that type of terrain to put down the sun visor as a sort of visual shield. I try focusing on conversation or things that we're passing near by. I am unsure if this weird quirk of mine has ever come up in conversation with friends or other family. I can't remember.

I can remember that I did not always experience this. I traced back in my memory to the first time I remember experiencing it, and it was about 2003 or so. I might be off, but I remember it was back when I lived in Washington state, and I was frequently on the road, and I noticed something that I remember "seeing" as a kid. When I look at pine tree-covered mountains, I know that the trees are straight up toward the sun, but I see them at odd angles, and not all going the same angle. If I've commented to what I see, nobody has "gotten" what I meant.

And I'd never been particularly bothered by the visual distortion in and of itself ...until the first time I thought I was about to throw up and had to pull to the side of the road. 

If I am standing still, the trees don't bother me. If we're driving slowly (like through a National Park or preserve), no big deal. It's strictly while in motion but not driving (and that makes sense because focus is on the road while driving, generally). 

I wouldn't even bother sharing the timing of this weird quirk that began a couple of decades ago, except for how that timing occurs with something else that happened at about the same time, and why that becomes important in light of another peculiar detail about MdDS that I returned to after piecing these things together.

Another tiny tidbit, so to answer before the question is asked, yes...I have history with migraine. Several people on my maternal side deal with seasonal migraine. Mine was menstrual, but only until I started hormonal birth control, which brought the attacks under control. I did not experience menstrual onset attack after having my first child, though I still occasionally experience a kind of visual "halo effect" attack. I have another chronic condition that is seasonally-affected, so I find the seasonal elements interesting, in conjunction with the hormonal effect.

And honestly, I wouldn't share that tiny tidbit here at all were it not for the fact that the timeline from 20 years ago becomes relevant alongside the hormonal piece mentioned when taken together with the fact I was a 6-time egg donor and started a 7-th cycle with the hormones that was canceled mid-cycle. 

I've mentioned the fact of my egg donation in certain circles, and there are a couple of (now archived) blog entries here where I discussed it. There is much that I could say about egg donation from the long-lens perspective of hindsight, positive and less so. That is a blog entry for another day. What matters here, as it relates to everything else, is the fact there is so little research on the long-term effects on donors themselves.

That is changing, I am happy to be engaged with the research surrounding that.

Why that matters to what I'm writing about is that one side-effect we suspect my donating contributed to was premature menopause. When I turned 45, we learned I have a couple of chronic conditions requiring lot of adjustments on my part. We learned at the same time that I was in full (premature) menopause. I had been saying for more than a year that something was off. I suspected but didn't know, and was laughed off. It was frustrating, but answered some questions.

I had not made the connection directly between egg donation and some of my earlier (perimenopausal) symptoms until a recent interview with a researcher about my time as a donor. We covered a lot of history fairly quickly, and given her decades researching the subject, she was able to quickly throw a lot into a way I understood (and admired her skill in doing so). 

Most of my serious dental issues began...my lower back issues began...my tree woozies began...my perimenopausal issues began...all in Washington state, around 2003 or so. I was an active donor in Hawaii from 1999 to 2001. I started a cycle from Washington for the same agency (on direct request for me specifically) in 2002 -- and the cycle was canceled on the intended recipient end mid-cycle, but I still took several of the shots.

Being an egg donor involves a lot of hormone injections to stimulate the process of oocyte maturation. There are potential health complications during the entire process that I never gave any thought to - despite the sheer number of eggs removed from me (it is seriously surprising that I never experienced ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)), especially my last complete cycle. I am presently in contact with the agency I donated through (which has changed ownership twice now) in an effort to obtain my old files. I'm not optimistic, but we'll see.

Anyway, fast-forward to returning from our fall break adventure through the other side of Oregon, and I'm still in motion. I started reading about MdDS again, and I tripped over this, from the same site linked at the top of this entry...

"...It turns out that this under-recognized and understudied disorder affects thousands of people every year, typically middle-aged women, though also a fair number of men. Research into MdDS has shown that factors related to the aging brain, hormonal changes, and stress contribute to the vulnerability of triggering an episode. One could take 15 cruises in a lifetime and have no problems, but the 16th one could trigger persistent MdDS..."

I'm middle aged, I suppose, but even setting aside the physical aspects (back, teeth) of what hormonal aftermath of egg donation likely contributed to...it way well have contributed to other aspects of my lived experiences (visual distortions, halo attacks, perpetual motion). 

I am not saying or suggesting that I have MdDS...I have not been to a physician for diagnosis. I have the symptoms, but not extreme. I fit the criteria, and resent it. I don't want some rare condition that makes me feel like I'm moving when I'm trying to relax...but it isn't life threatening, and doesn't interfere with daily living...so whatever. I'll keep doing what I'm doing and move on.

I am just feeling, for the second time recently, the sickness of disembarkment.

Monday Mishmash...revisiting the nether regions

Okay, so...a couple of months ago, I wrote an entry about pubes -- to be or not to be, and what my position is on that topic. My position hasn't changed, as I am still an advocate of informed choice...whatever that choice might be. However, something has been brought to my attention that caused me to own up to something that I asserted...and admit that I was wrong.

Goodness, was I wrong. I read Dr. Emily Gibson's assertion about the "War on Pubic Hair" must end...and her reasoning...and found her discussion on the topic just a bit over the top. I could try to lay the blame back on her doorstep for not providing supporting citations to back up her assertions...but really, I'm a researcher. I know where the burden rests...and that is squarely on my own shoulders. I could've looked it up myself.

This sort of topic is one that I would ordinarily reserve for Hump Day...but the combination of other topics that caused this one to resurface happened so rapidly, with so much commentary, that I decided to just get it put up today. The original topic that brought the sidebar about pubes to the surface was an ad I saw on TV last night while watching a program about Trent Arsenault...with much admiration, I might add, even while finding the term "donor-sexual" a little on the odd side. As a former egg donor, I think what Trent is doing is simply amazing! However, it was the ad that I saw that sparked the discussion.

The advertisement was from Poise...selling feminine products while promoting "The 2nd Talk"...and understand, I think the 2nd Talk idea is actually a really good one, even if I am put off by the marketing campaign to sell more products. That was the original topic I brought up for discussion over in a secular feminist group I am active in over in facebook. Unsurprisingly, I was not alone in my reaction. The topic branched a few different directions (which is one of the things I really enjoy about that group), and the different branches were/are all quite interesting. From historical feminine hygiene advertisements, to the truth that men and women actually do smell mostly the same "down there," and...where my thoughts are this morning...pubic hair. Except my focus is targeted advertising geared toward men.

Understand, too, the topic of testicles has been on the table with unusual frequency of late. From ribald joking around between me and a girlfriend of mine (and her husband)...to ruthless joking around about "old man balls" (and yes, I know those jokes are tainted with ageism...but I'll openly admit that our human bodies have such absurd features, especially as we age, that the jokes are funny because they are so very, very human)...to chortling over Robin Williams' "Weapons of Self Destruction"...and now this: Ball Bashing. Yeah, that article is almost 3.5 years old, but it was new to me. With an opening image of kiwis, consider my mind blown. I honestly had NO idea.

Perhaps because so much perfection advertising is geared toward women, and my focus is mainly on women's health issues, the idea to research manscaping advertisements never even occurred to me. And omigawd the levels to which marketers sink to create the "need" is truly and grotesquely wrong. Women, of course, already know this...having been the targets for perfection advertising for generations. I suppose, as a feminist, I should be...what? relieved?...something...that the disgusting focus on men's balls seems to find a way to level the playing field in advertising. Score... (?!) Thing is, I already found target marketing toward women just all kinds of YUCK, and as a feminist who loves and values men (not matter how harshly I may tease them now and then) I find this particular focus utterly foul. The term "below the belt" springs to mind, but it's too easy of a pun...

Thing is, that Ball Bashing article opened my eyes to something I simply hadn't seen before. I was wrong about the "War on Pubes"...but so was Dr. Gibson...though both of us were wrong for reasons I simply didn't know...and in different ways. Dr. Gibson's focus is the past decade, as though the war on hair is something that happened suddenly. What appears more accurate is that the war on hair has been on for a century or more, and pubes were merely the next logical step in the progression.

I was wrong because while my focus is in the realm of women's health, so I have looked long, hard, and deeply into all things vagina, I didn't really bother focusing on hair itself, save for a surface scratching about genital topiary. So when I saw advertising images like this and this, I had one of those mental shift moments -- what some might call a Eureka moment -- and all I could say was, "Ohhh."

Hmmm. I don't really know how I feel about this particular shift in my thoughts beyond disgusted resentment. But it does provide food for thought. Hmmm.

Anyway, Happy Monday to you.

P/L/S

Underwearers, Nonderwearers, and the Infamous Letter E

Commandos in the Land of Lingerie

In the United States, people are sharply divided about whether undergarments should be worn neck to ankle, especially by women, whether they should be utilitarian, or simply for sexual provocation and excitement. Most people agree that some form of undergarment is necessary for people; that without them, there is something really wrong with a person - but especially women.

Some men insist that women be covered underneath her regular clothing from neck to ankle at all times except in the bath and in the bed, even while he has the option of wearing an undershirt and briefs. There are some comparatively liberalish men who feel that women should be able to opt whether or not they wear something more comfortable. There are still some others that believe women should be able to wear undergarments of their choosing, even if it's just a thong and nipple tassels.

In any case, the vast majority of men and women agree that undergarments are correct, even if minimalist. Something...anything...is better than nothing.

Simply, they are underwearers.

There is a smaller population, a marginalized community, that believes that undergarments are completely unnecessary. They are the nonderwearers. They recognize that people are born without them, and that although many different claims have been made about their necessity (breast support for the women; boxers help men's fertility by letting "the boys" hang free and loose; jockeys to hold men's packages neatly protected; etc), this subset of people knows that freeballin' doesn't harm the testicles...that while a bra can hold breasts upright, gravity catches up with all of us as a product of aging... and that no matter how snug those tightie whities are, old man balls will eventually develop.

This smaller population is disliked by the underwearers, by degree. The nonderwearers are called dirty, amoral, loose, unhygienic...the men are called dangerous, the women are called sluts. All because they don't buy into the notion that one must wear underwear to lead a good life. Nonderwearers know, though, that goin' commando has a few adjustments, especially when one was made to wear some form of undergarment from birth, but that all-in-all, life is much more free without the constraining bits of fabric.

Because this group of nonderwearers is such a small subset, and is highly distrusted by the majority of the population even though ugly things are said about them, they are pretty much left alone and treated as though they do not exist, like an evil boogieman or a monster, used to scare small children to keep their britches on.

Now, none of this is to suggest that there is no interaction, communication, and even in many cases friendships between underwearers and nonderwearers. In fact, there were, for generations, marriages and such between underwearers and nonderwearers who never let on that they only wore the undergarments to fit in. (Those types of relationships continue still.) Most nonderwearers never really let on their undergarment status one way or the other, figuring whether or not they wore undergarments wasn't anyone's business; many understood there were social risks involved in revealing that they didn't wear underwear, after all.

Except that after generations of nonderwearers made their small mark, inspiring younger generations, eventually the nonderwearers started seeking each other out, trying to form groups for solidarity. There were areas of disagreement, of course, which was to be expected. There were some nonderwearers who were adamantly anti-underwear, and who were antagonistic to underwearers for a variety of reasons. There were also nonderwearers who were more live-and-let-live, willing to support the right of underwearers to wear whatever they want, so long as they didn't try to force others into any, much less their specific, type of underwear. There were also nonderwearers who simply wanted to be left alone. More often than not, people got along, even while they disagreed from time to time. But because everyone -underwearers and nonderwearers- were all human beings, they were all subject to typical human flaws and frailties, such as ego, jealousy, envy...and some of the bigger things like homophobia, racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc etc etc.

In the underwearer community, social justice issues are rampant. Sides are regularly taken, especially in the political realm, with people wanting to know who wears what kind of underwear, and is it the right kind of underwear, and does it cover ENOUGH (of course with plenty of blame to heap onto women if their bras and panties aren't the right KIND, since it doesn't matter that nobody else can SEE the underwear, it's still HER fault if she's raped - typically without holding men accountable, since their underwear isn't designed to keep their dicks from getting hard, y'know). Plenty of political wrangling about where to wear certain types, who is taking it off in front of whom, and omigawd, are people wearing the proper COLORS ffs??

Most of the nonderwearers, of all varieties, observe the underwearers with a range of perspectives...from pity to annoyance to contempt, and in some cases, outright hostility. Yet, a few nonderwearers happen to notice that despite being nonderwearers, some of the same behaviors of underwearers are prevalent in their own community. There seem to be several men and women who want to know what is underneath clothing...what that lack looks like on different people. It isn't quite as big of a problem, in certain quarters of the community, as it seems in society at large, but it is still present. Some nonderwearers understand that, as part of the larger society, some of the social programming is pervasive, and in some cases pernicious.

At one point, a woman spoke out about an unverifiable event on an escalator, and was largely ostracized by many of her fellow nonderwearers, for speaking out about behaviors in their own community that *everyone* seemed to agree were prevalent among the underwearers. However, as events played out, her willingness to speak out, despite the backlash -even from one of the most prominent and outspoken nonderwearers who wrote a statement that she should hush about discomfort because there are women who are forced to wear razor-blade studded chastity belts under their neck-to-ankle underwear- other people began speaking out about their discomforts. As more people began talking, what became evident was that certain behaviors that were typical in the larger society were also typical in the the smaller subset community of nonderwearers.

About a year after the escalator fiasco, another nonderwearer woman had an idea. She wanted to open a group, a voluntary-entry group, opt-in if desired, where people could freely discuss matters of social concern being talked about by some, scoffed at in denial by others. A safe place. The idea was a proposal, with no formalized agenda, and no name. Someone suggested adding a letter...the letter e...partly to honor the woman from the escalator, partly to represent Everyone who understood and identified with the problems being discussed. The group's name, nonederwearers, was born and took off.

Almost immediately, the woman and her idea were vilified by other nonderwearers, who claimed that there were other groups handling social justice issues, and how DARE the nonederwearers co-opt the nonderwearers' name to even exist and provide another avenue for discussion?! That E was going to create a massive rift in the community! Those nonErrs were as bad and dangerous as the underwearers! Nonederwear rhymes with Underwear...the E is really for Eeeeeeevvvillll!!! Comments about personality disorders were hurled at nonederwearers by nonderwearers. Nonderwearers said things like, "Nonederwearing is pathology where you call people 'assholes' if they disagree with you" -- when in fact, one prominent nonderwearer who did not adopt the E, but who applauded the ideas presented, merely pointed out that, "...the assholes creep out of the woodwork to find excuses to tell these people, indirectly, that applying critical thinking to social issues is bad. Oh, they can’t come right out and say that, of course, because that would make their stupidity obvious; so they invent bizarre excuses..."

After weeks of getting verbally attacked and receiving personal threats, the woman whose idea became the Big E decided to step away and take a break. And the assholes cheered...never recognizing that they had created an environment every bit as hostile to members of their own community - for the sake of a single letter - as the underwearers made their larger society a hostile place to simply BE a nonderwearer...with or without the E. And at least the underwearers covered up their assholes with their undergarments instead of speaking out of them.

Since after all, opinions are kind like assholes. Everyone has one...nobody really wants to see 'em...and they usually reek of shit.

The E idea is a good one. It won't tear the nonderwearer community apart, and time will demonstrate that with clarity. Nobody is expected to join...there has been no insistence or threat of force. It is strictly voluntary. And as the E indicates, Everyone is welcome -- IF they can leave their intolerant egos at the door.

~*~

[Updated 29 Mar 2017 in honor of Jef; added some of the linkage to the actual events of 2011-2012, and the subsequent response from the "traditional nonderwearer" community-at-large, which explains, in small part, why I stepped away from the "movement" itself.]

Hump Day: Dr. PruthPetals Westheimer Sexytime Talk...and Pubes. *NSFW!*

*cough* Depilatory procedures...and the so-called undeclared "War on Pubic Hair", as told by Dr. Emily Gibson (repeated in The Guardian, The Independent, The Inquisitor, and elsewhere). This topic surfaced (again) in my attention when I was alerted to a discussion thread on this topic, with the opening statement: "Time for us to get rid of this vestige of desiring child brides. (That's why one shaves, to look prepubescent.)" Oh boy.

The discussion (which is still in play) has been...erm...entertaining. And I'm sure this will be an absolute shocker, but I'm embroiled in a little back-n-forth with a dude who seems otherwise very intelligent --yet on this topic is a complete Neanderthal. What fun this should prove to be. Seems he didn't like getting nailed with the male version of what he was attempting to assert (smell) -- and my statement that "If you're with someone who doesn't know the fundamentals of basic hygiene, then the problem isn't pubic hair. Kinda like uncircumcised dudes and the misconception of smell due to hygiene issues. Furthermore, if you're on about "ugly vag", then the pervasive influence of pornography has worked its magic on you, too." merited me a response of, "go back to self service"...aaaahhahahahahaaaaa...this is going to be FUN. (And yes, of course, I already responded...you think I'm gonna pass that up?! Pfffft!) Update: the individual who told me to go back to self service edited his original response to: "LMAO, Lighten up Denise... "Smarmy" is not an attractive quality in anyone" <--heh, calling me "smarmy" after completely editing a comment isn't really schmart.

Anyway, the actual topic on the table is: Pubes. To be or not to be?...that is the question. *rolls eyes and laughs*

So. *clears throat* Why do we have 'em? Why do we keep or remove 'em? What are the actual risks of removal? What role, if any, does the big, bad porn industry play in how we view pubic hair? Blah...blah...blah.

First, a lovely image...found in wikipedia:

Aside from the fact that the first thing that jumps out at me...teehee...is that the focus in the above image is on women, the picture shows a very small sampling of pube-scaping options.

Why we actually have pubic hair is a somewhat nebulous topic with no actual concrete answers, though there are many different theories. Hard to say if any definitive answers will ever be found, and frankly, I'm not particularly concerned about whether or not answers are found. I'm more focused on why there is a "war on pubes" at all.

To keep 'em (the whole 70s version of sexy hirsute style) or to remove 'em (current baby fresh version of sexy) or to simply scape 'em (erm...genital topiary)...these things are a matter of personal choice. Being the advocate of personal informed choice that I am, my only function here is to provide the information...and leave decision-making to the gentle reader.

Before I get into the risks/benefits...let me put something out there about the porn industry, as related to this particular topic. I really feel bad about all the scapegoating that the porn industry deals with, from pedophilia to homosexuality to serial murderers. To be clear, I have little-to-no interest in pornography (story for another day), but I don't have any issues with porn. Porn is wrongly blamed for many sexual/societal woes that ought to be redirected back to their actual source: religion. But again, that is a story for another day. However, as to what we (as women and men) find visually/sexually appealing can, at least partially, be traced to pornography. It's not a matter of blame; rather, it is a simple matter of who watches porn, at what age, and conditioning to what is and is not visually appealing/attractive. *shrug* Not that big a deal, really.

So...to the benefits and risks. In the ongoing discussion mentioned earlier, I read all sorts of so-called benefits of depilatory procedures. Unsurprisingly, most were directed toward women, though there were a couple of benefits named for men ("Makes the Junk look bigger" --no, not kidding, that is a direct copy/paste). The main "benefit" for women...the one I responded to above...was about smell. No doubt, our sense of smell is something that evokes a lot of different things, and this visceral response is quite likely evolutionary in nature.

For some, as pointed out to me by a friend, there is the simple matter of visual appeal ("some people just like to see what they're eating")...some people (myself included) dislike flossing while we eat. I get that. And, for some, the argument of smell seems to be the only one of any worthwhile measure...to which my response is -- hey, nothing like a bar of soap to cure your ills. Truly, the fragrance of fromunda cheese doesn't particularly appeal to me either. But that, alone, is not any sort of excuse or justification for whether or not one keeps, removes, or trims pubic hair. That is a distinct matter of hygiene...the maintenance of which is important for a variety of different reasons.

Now...for the risks. Yes, depilatory methods do come with risks. Being aware of those risks is the first step in making an informed decision about whether or not you choose to show, shear, or shine. I'll give an example. I was approached by a relative who was concerned that he may have contracted an STI. He was quite concerned about herpes, actually...and my immediate response was, "what are your symptoms?" He really couldn't articulate them very well, and admitted that he had had unprotected sex. I reminded him that condoms do not necessarily prevent herpes, and other preventive measures are necessary when engaging in sex with someone who has herpes.

Anyway, long story short, I had him show me the lesion to which he was referring and about which he was so concerned. I didn't mean to, but I started laughing.

After he pulled his pants up (a bit indignantly), I asked him when he started shaving. He blinked at me. I explained to him that he needed to consult a physician to be absolutely certain (and I would encourage EVERYONE who is sexually active outside of a committed relationship to screen for STIs at least once every six months), but what I was looking at was almost certainly not herpes. It was an ingrown hair, caused by shaving. Putting aside the embarrassment, which was intense on his part, we discussed depilatory options, and why when it comes to genital hair removal...if one is so inclined...I strongly encourage professional hair removal.

I can give all sorts of tips for DIY genital scaping, of course, but the bottom line is, to me it's like working with certain matters of hair maintenance outside of the nether regions. I would, for example, dye my own hair. I would not attempt to give myself a perm. As applicable to pubic hair, I might (and have) trim, and even (if in a hurry) shave a mild scaped area if I know I need to wear a bathing suit (not something that happens often, trust me...I have no wish to scare people with the idea of me in a bathing suit)...but really? The risks of ingrown hairs outweigh the benefits of touched up appearance. I have also indulged in full-body waxing. Frankly, I enjoy it...I like the feeling of being totally hairless (well, not my face, head or arms). That is just me. A huge benefit of going to a professional for hair removal is that they are also trained to check for potential ingrown hairs and treat what they see.

Ingrown hairs can be extremely painful, and can become infected requiring antibiotic treatment. And to be clear, there are other reasons that shaving the pubic region can result in ingrown hairs -- think, oh, surgical procedures like C-sections and vasectomies. This can occur even when you are shaved by a medical professional.

And sure, when you shave, you're not just removing hair from the surface of your skin...you are abrading the top layer of skin, which serves as an additional shield against irritants and infectants. So of course, with respect to the genital area, you're increasing your odds of contracting a surface infection...including STIs like herpes that can transmit via skin-to-skin contact.

In the end, though, the decision to remove hair...all hair, even...does NOT automatically mean you WILL contract something, which is why Dr. Gibson's assertions are a touch over the top. Does she have a point? Yes, of course.

My feeling, though, is...hair maintenance is a personal choice. Rather than freak out over a bush...or a heart-shaped landing strip...or a genital area that is as hairless as a prepubescent kid...research the subject. Get informed about your various options, and decide for yourself what is best for YOU.



Happy Hump Day!

P/L/S

On a topic that I rarely discuss here...

I will be adding to the "How We Give Back" series further on down the calendar, because I don't want anyone getting the impression that the House of Weirdz spends a lot of time breaking our arms patting ourselves on the back. My purpose in writing about that topic isn't self-congratulatory, but to offer people ideas that they can modify to their own lives...that ideas for giving back aren't rocket science. That little things really DO count...and little things, taken together, can become big things. *shrug* But I'll write more about that later.

What I feel compelled to write about today is something that has been weighing on my mind lately, and yes...it can be taken into the political sphere to some degree, when considered in the broader "War on Women"...but that isn't why it's on my mind. The topic I want to write about today is Third-Party Reproduction. Specifically, I am thinking about Egg Donation.

Some people know that, though I don't advertise it, I was an egg donor from 1999 to 2001. In that time, I donated the maximum recommended number of times (six) and with a 100% success rate -- and all multiple births. (Yeah, yeah...a dozen or so little Denises & Denephews out there...be afraid...be VERY afraid...) I was called upon in 2002 to be an egg donor again, for a woman in Japan, who had attempted IVF (in vitro fertilization) some twenty-seven times unsuccessfully...and she did not care that I wasn't Asian, but that I had a 100% success rate, and that the outcomes of all my donations were healthy, live births. I agreed to go through the procedure, only to have it abruptly cancelled by the recipient, who, finally, accepted that the chances of becoming successfully pregnant with a donor egg were not altogether much better than the many, many times she attempted IVF. The ego stroke here was that I got to keep my 100% success rate. And I received partial payment for good-faith services, even though the process was not completed.

Egg donation, these days, pays decently. The idea of "donation" in this sense is something of a misnomer. Yes, donors are *giving* their eggs...but they are paid (handsomely) for the hormonal upheaval they put their bodies through, the health risks they undergo as part of the ovarian hyperstimulation, and for the surgical procedure itself. Egg donation is not quite as simple as sperm donation...and sperm donors are paid to ejaculate into a cup. Heck, if only egg donation were that simple. The pricetag for egg donors has increased drastically in the years since I was a donor. A typical first-time donor can earn $5,000 for her service...my first-time payment was half that amount. Donors with a success record such as mine receive increased payments with successive donations. This, of course, has led to exploitative measures by prospective couples who are willing to pay out serious coin for college students with certain physical characteristics and IQs -- basically treating donors as chattel.

Here's the thing. I didn't go into egg donation for the money. Sure, the money was nice, and I would be a liar if I said that wasn't the case. But that wasn't why I became an egg donor. I don't feel any need to go into specifics about what prompted me, during my early teen years, to make the decision that someday...after I had kids of my own, that if there was any way I could help another woman become a mother, then I would. So after my 2nd child was born, and I saw an ad in passing about egg donation, I committed the phone number to memory. (I was in the middle of a move from Texas to Hawaii when I saw the ad, and thankfully, the number was extremely easy to remember...hell, I still remember the number to this very day: 800-411-EGGS ...heh.)

So yeah, I put my name in the hat about six months after having moved to Hawaii. The woman who ran the agency (and who would become a very dear friend) warned me to not get my hopes up in being selected for donation, because I was not Asian, and because I was not an islander of any kind. She was just as surprised as I was that I was selected within a month of becoming one of her prospective donors.

Donors who work with reputable establishments have to go through batteries of physical and psychological examinations...family medical background screenings...examinations of reasons for becoming a donor... et cetera ad nauseam. I didn't mind any of that. For me, it was just par for the course.

In the decade between then and now, I have no regrets. None. I have introduced people to third-party reproduction, and have friends who have become donors and surrogates, as well as friends who were struggling with fertility and were not aware of all of their potential options. Note - I never gave anyone *advice*...because everyone's situation is unique, and their needs are as unique as they are. For some, adoption really is the most beneficial option. I'm not a physician, so I'm in no way qualified to say what is "best" for any woman. I just put the information out there, and let people pursue the information as they see fit.

The reason that egg donation has resurfaced in my thoughts after more than a decade since having been a donor is that I'm experiencing certain physical symptoms that are ...well, possible indicators of early menopause. Again, I'm not a physician, so I'm not self-diagnosing (I don't do that)...I have an appointment set and blahblahblah... but the symptoms are what prompted the curiosity on my part. I am a curious person...I am a researcher. So curiosity leads me in often entertaining directions.

The curiosity about this led me to hunt for any actual studies done on long-term effects of IVF and hyperstimulation by donors. Plenty of studies have been done - on possible long-term effects of babies born thanks to medical science and third party reproduction. Certain immediate risks about hyperstimulation are well-known, and donors are often required to sign a waiver stating that they are fully aware of those risks. What I'm learning, though, is that not all women are advised as thoroughly as I was, and that only about 20% or so of women who become donors are made aware of the potential risks - at least the risks that are known. There is, to date, no centralized donor registry to track donors across decades, and there are still many unknown risks. Yeah yeah, correlation doesn't equal causation...I hear you, and I get it. I already got reminded by a well-meaning family member to not jump to conclusions -- articulating a brand of trust in medical ethics and "studies must have been done" -- as though I hadn't already thought of that. As though I hadn't already hunted for that information. The fact is, because there is no database, no registry...for donors specifically...no long-term studies have actually been done. Yes, I thought of a possible comparison study for IVF patients, but that wouldn't be the same, either. Generally speaking, IVF is only done once or twice in a lifetime by a person. The Japanese woman who sought me out because of my success rate is a HIGHLY unusual case. The procedure is cost-prohibitive, for one thing. Insurance only covers IVF once-per-lifetime, per patient. So no, studies about IVF patients would not quite parallel studies that would be conducted for long-term effects on egg donors...especially not multiple egg donors such as myself. The studies do not exist. A gradual increase in reports about potential risks is surfacing, but doesn't really answer my specific questions. I'm glad for those reports, mind...gives me an idea of things to keep my eyes open for, BUT my specific questions are still unanswered.

When the question is asked about potential early-onset menopause as a result of multiple egg donations, the answer given is still "no"...based upon the same reasoning given to me more than a decade ago, when I initially posed the question. The exact answer given, from well-respected John Hopkins Medical is:

No. The ovaries contain approximately 400,000 - 500,000 eggs at the time of puberty. Only 400-500 of these will develop to the point of ovulation during the course of the woman's childbearing years. The remaining 399,500 eggs undergo a process called atresia. This means that they fail to mature and are gradually absorbed by the body between puberty and menopause.

Because of the large number of these “spare” eggs, there is no evidence to suggest that the use of fertility medications or egg donation will decrease the egg reserves in such a manner as to lead to premature menopause.

This is the same answer I was given, back when menopause wasn't even any sort of concern for me...the same logic applied, even though no long-term studies had been done...and a decade later, no long-term studies have yet been done. It's still being assumed that because of the large (though finite) number of cells women have in their bodies, and only a teensy percentage of those cells are developed and released between puberty and menopause, that there is no reason to wonder about whether hyperstimulation multiple times could possibly lead to premature menopause.

I will mention that my menarche occurred when I was ten years old. I will note (repetitiously) that I donated six times, and began a seventh cycle. I will note that I was considered *extremely* fertile in hyperstimulation, with the largest number of viable cells extracted from me in the mid-20s (which was considered extremely unusual in a serendipitous way). I will note that I have had three pregnancies of my own, and three healthy childbirths. I will note that almost thirty years have passed since my menarche.

Those things there, coupled with many symptoms indicative of premature menopause, have me wondering. Of course I will be talking with my doctor about this, but since no long-term studies have been conducted, I cannot help but wonder just how much my doctor will be able to answer.

Hmmmm.

Moving along....

The Feminine Mystique

Having read more critiques than I can name about Friedan's "Feminine Mystique", I decided it was time to read the actual book. Some of the noted critiques are harsher than others - some academic, some not...the academic critiques are worth evaluating for content...and examining for validity (which I have done some, though not much...yet). At the surface, what I've found of the academic critiques of Friedan's claims, is that the rebuttals ring hollow - and examining the evidence shows distinct traces of dishonesty in statistics. This isn't to suggest that the authors providing critique are being deliberately dishonest - for I don't have that feeling or notion. It's more or less subjective interpretation combined with dislike of her findings that led to writing the now immortalized words within the book, presented in an attempt at objectivity and failing spectacularly. Academia is not without its arrogance and elitists...nor is it without its hardline gender feminists. Like other segments of society, academia is a broad cross-section of everyday.

I am particularly amused when the critics happen to be men. *chuckle*

Now wait, before I'm accused of being a misandrist, let me be very clear here. I do not dislike men in the least. I have my moments when I think they ALL suck, but really -- those moments are more misanthropic than misandric. *laughing* Why? Well...the history, of course. In the century+ since the first wave of feminism rolled across American shores, equality has not ever been achieved. It's improved, of course, but it's not complete. Not by any stretch of the imagination. In the halls of academia, an institution historically governed by men, the last century has seen its feminist movements. There are specific universities that champion gender feminism, which is a segment of the feminist movement with which I happen to strongly disagree, though I understand their frustration and anger. Most books about women a century ago were written by men. Psychology has been strongly influenced by Siggy Freud, who -for all his contributions to the field of study- did a disastrous disservice to women with his "findings".

See...a man can write about women. He can meet women. He can talk with them. He can have sex with them. But he can never understand them fully. Why? Because he's a man.

AND...women, the reverse of that is ALSO true. We're just as guilty of painting harsh and ugly stereotypes that are quite far removed from truth or reality. As an individual, I've been guilty of this, too...on more than one occasion, and usually in angry response to a man who *fits* the ugliest stereotypes. But I won't sit here and pretend I understand them. I don't and I can't, because for all the research and study and attempts at understanding, I am not and I will never be a man.

But the history of disparity - the vast majority of writings and "things known" about women? Were written by men.

Kinda brings a sensation of...duh.

So with the reading of her actual words, not just the critiques about her words...

...I found myself startled, slightly unsettled...like I'd been sighted, seen, identified, understood...

And she wrote the words almost a decade before I was even a thought.

I'll share a small portion of her words here:

"Of the growing thousands of women currently getting private psychiatric help in the United States, the married ones were reported dissatisfied with their marriages, the unmarried ones suffering from anxiety and, finally, depression. Strangely, a number of psychiatrists stated that, in their experience, unmarried women patients were happier than married ones. So the door of all those pretty suburban houses opened a crack to permit a glimpse of uncounted thousands of American housewives who suffered alone from a problem that suddenly everyone was talking about, and beginning to take for granted, as one of those unreal problems in American life that can never be solved--like the hydrogen bomb. By 1962, the plight of the trapped American housewife had become a national parlor game. Whole issues of magazines, newspaper columns, books learned and frivolous, educational conferences and television panels, were devoted to the problem.

Even so, most men, and some women, still did not know that this problem was real. But those who had faced it honestly knew that all the superficial remedies, the sympathetic advice, the scolding words and the cheering words were somehow drowning the problem in unreality. A bitter laugh was beginning to be heard from American women. They were admired, envied, pitied, theorized over until they were sick of it, offered drastic solutions or silly choices that no one could take seriously. They got all kinds of advice from the growing armies of marriage and child-guidance counselors, psychotherapists, and armchair psychologists, on how to adjust to their role as housewives. No other road to fulfillment was offered to American women in the middle of the twentieth century. Most adjusted to their role and suffered or ignored the problem that has no name. It can be less painful, for a woman, not to hear the strange dissatisfied voice stirring within her.

It is no longer possible to ignore that voice, to dismiss the desperation of so many American women. This is not what being a woman means, no matter what the experts say. For human suffering there is a reason; perhaps the reason has not been found because the right questions have not been asked, or pressed far enough. I do not accept the answer that there is no problem because American women have luxuries that women in other times and lands never dreamed of; part of the strange newness of the problem is that it cannot be understood in terms of the age-old material problems of man: poverty, sickness, hunger, cold. The women who suffer this problem have a hunger that food cannot fill. It persists in women whose husbands are struggling interns and law clerks, or prosperous doctors and lawyers; in wives of workers and executives who make $5,000 or $50,000. It is not caused by lack of material advantages; it may not even be felt by women preoccupied with desperate problems of hunger, poverty or illness. And women who think it will be solved by more money, a bigger house, a second car, moving to a better suburb, often discover it gets worse.

It is no longer possible today to blame the problem on loss of femininity: to say that education and independence and equality with men have made American women unfeminine. I have heard so many women try to deny this dissatisfied voice within themselves because it does not fit the pretty picture of femininity the experts have given them. I think, in fact, that this is the first clue to the mystery: the problem cannot be understood in the generally accepted terms by which scientists have studied women, doctors have treated them, counselors have advised them, and writers have written about them. Women who suffer this problem, in whom this voice is stirring, have lived their whole lives in pursuit of feminine fulfillment. They are not career women (although career women may have other problems); they are women whose greatest ambition has been marriage and children. For the oldest of these women, these daughters of the American middle class, no other dream was possible. The ones in their forties and fifties who once had other dreams gave them up and threw themselves joyously into life as housewives. For the youngest, the new wives and mothers, this was the only dream. They are the ones who quit high school and college to marry, or marked time in some job in which they had no real interest until they married. These women are very "feminine" in the usual sense, and yet they still suffer the problem.

Are the women who finished college, the women who had dreams beyond housewifery, the ones who suffer the most? According to the experts, they are, but listen to these four women:

'My days are all busy, and dull, too. All I ever do is mess around. I get up at eight--I make breakfast, so I do the dishes, have lunch, do some more dishes and some laundry and cleaning in the afternoon. Then it's supper dishes and I get to sit down a few minutes before the children have to be sent to bed...That's all there is to my day. It's just like any other wife's day. Humdrum. The biggest time, I am chasing kids.'

'Ye Gods, what do I do with my time? Well, I get up at six. I get my son dressed and then give him breakfast. After that I was dishes and bathe and feed the baby. Then I get lunch and while the children nap., I sew or mend or iron and do all the other things I cant get done before noon. Then I cook supper for the family and my husband watches TV while I do the dishes. After I get the children to bed, I set my hair and then I go to bed.'

'The problem is always being the children's mommy, or the minister's wife and never being myself.'

'A film made of any typical morning in my house would look like an old Marx Brothers' comedy. I wash the dishes, rush the older children off to school, dash out into the yard to cultivate the chrysanthemums, run back in to make a phone call about a committee meeting, help the youngest child to build a blockhouse, spend fifteen minutes skimming the newspapers so I can be well-informed, then scamper down to the washing machines where my thrice-weekly laundry includes enough clothes to keep a primitive village going for an entire year. By noon I'm ready for a padded cell. Very little of what I've done has been really necessary or important. Outside pressures lash me through the day. Yet I look upon myself as one of the more relaxed housewives in the neighborhood. Many of my friends are even more frantic. In the past sixty years we have come full circle and the American housewife is once again trapped in a squirrel cage. If the cage is now a modern plate-glass-and-broadloom ranch or a convenient modern apartment, the situation is no less painful than when her grandmother sat over an embroidery hoop in her gilt-and-plush parlor and muttered angrily about women's rights.'

The first two women never went to college. They live in developments in Levittown, New Jersey, and Tacoma, Washington, and were interviewed by a a team of sociologists studying workingmen's wives. The third, a minister's wife, wrote on the fifteenth reunion questionnaire of her college that she never had any career ambitions bu wishes now she had. The fourth, who has a Ph.D. in anthropology, is today a Nebraska housewife with three children. Their words seem to indicate that housewives of all educational levels suffer the same feeling of desperation.

The fact is that no one today is muttering angrily about 'women's rights,' even though more and more women have gone to college..."

*blink*

And that was written in 1963.

Still rings altogether TOO familiar almost half a century later.

Contemplating AOUM education in these Untied States

At its core, sexual education as we know it today is completely gender biased (Levine, 2003). Its fledgling roots date back to the monumental 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade. While the research guiding this is examination not specifically about abortion and privacy, the background of the fateful SCOTUS decision is examined, as its far-reaching implications are directly connected to [STDs] and [their] continuing spread. In a fuller context, the battle of sexual education was won by the far-right neoconservative christian coalitions - whose aims were specfically to end the two "moral scourges" of teen sex and abortion. Jeremiah Denton, the founder of the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), in 1981, proposed the idea of ending teen sexual activity through nothing short of propaganda. Gaining credence by attaining support from Orrin Hatch as a co-sponsor, the war to undo Roe v. Wade took on new proportions. Through pernicious means, these two founders - religious and political - created a wave that served to undermine and circumvent the national foundational principle of the Wall of Separation, employing tactics that American leadership excoriated in other totalitarian regimes in other parts of the world. Orwellian maneuvering was not beneath these practices, and during an era of rising media establishment, they were able to subvert majority opinion by way of mass marketing a singular idea in multiple forms, while simultaneously silencing the very word, "abortion" from being spoken in classrooms and even within popular culture (mainstream) media (Levine, 2003; Douglas & Michaels, 2005). Although the surface intentions were noble (reducing unplanned pregnancies and STDs), the more insidious messages were predominately aimed at women, since women are the half of the population that can become impregnated. Further, an arguable premise is more deeply ingrained than overturning Roe V. Wade - the desire to end altogether contraceptive measures. Based in both Catholic and Protestant traditions is the notion that the advent of the birth control pill was the "downfall of morality" in the United States - despite countering arguments that its advent served to level the proverbial playing field of the genders, creating gender equality on a sexual plane.

Ironically, the context of deBeauvoir's mentioning of the absence in literature of any specific point of origin of female oppression rings closely of the Eve v. Lilith arguments, which holds entrenched roots in Christian doctrine advocated by religious leaders who hold such sway in AOUM education legislation. The "sin" of Eve was not that she disobeyed, but that she gained knowledge from the "forbidden fruit", and then gave that knowledge to Adam. Further, as the story goes, they realized they were unclothed, and they hid in shame (Gen. 3). Like the biblical story notes, the Tree of Knowledge admonition from God was that were Eden's denizens to eat of the forbidden fruit, they would die, so goes the subject of sexual education today that is fear-based, using failure rates of contraception - up to and including death. This passage from Genesis is an epicentral belief of the biblical literalist neoconservative Christians who seek to be the driving force of sexual education - consigning all women not back to the romanticized reminiscences of a supposedly simpler time of the 1950s, but straight back to the Stone Age.