Thanks for reading.
Ed
Send e-mail to it...@erols.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prostatitis Discussion
> [mailto:PROST...@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Dr. A.N.
> Feliciano
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 7:31 PM
> To: PROST...@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Question: DRE exam
>
>
> The symptoms mentioned below is common if the prostate and urinary tract
> are infected. A normal prostate when massage should not cause any pain or
> burning sensation.
>
> Dr. Antonio Novak Feliciano
> Visit my website
> http://web.idirect.com/~ino
> http://www.qinet.net.user/dr.anf/chronic.htm
>
> ----------
> > From: Chris T. <fon...@EROLS.COM>
> > To:
> > Subject: Question: DRE exam
> > Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 9:25 PM
> >
> > During my DRE exams, when my URO presses on my prostate, every time I
> > suffer a burning pain in the tip of the penis, which almost makes me
> > feel like I am going to have "an accident" right there on the floor of
> > his office. I understand that when the URO does this he is "draining"
> > the gland, but, medically, and biologically, what causes the pain in
> > the penis tip and subsequent feeling of almost immediate urination,
> > which takes all my strength to fight off ?
> >
>
If you have any questions for me, I'll be glad to answer.
Ed Boyd
In article <77oq5a$o8s$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>,
"Ed Mathews" <it...@erols.com> wrote:
> Where has there ever been a study of so called "normal" men volunteering to
> get their prostate massaged to see if it hurts?
>
> Thanks for reading.
> Ed
> Send e-mail to it...@erols.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prostatitis Discussion
> > [mailto:PROST...@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Dr. A.N.
> > Feliciano
> > Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 7:31 PM
> > To: PROST...@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Question: DRE exam
> >
> >
> > The symptoms mentioned below is common if the prostate and urinary tract
> > are infected. A normal prostate when massage should not cause any pain or
> > burning sensation.
> >
> > Dr. Antonio Novak Feliciano
> > Visit my website
> > http://web.idirect.com/~ino
> > http://www.qinet.net.user/dr.anf/chronic.htm
> >
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
thu...@earthlink.net wrote:
">"I can tell you that I massage many, many prostates, almost all of
which are
">"normal-sized and healthy. There is NO pain, at least not when I do
it. This is
">"not surprising, since
">" 1) the slow application of my lubricated, gloved thumb
does not stretch
">" the opening as much as the client routinely stretches
it when he
">" defecates, and
">" 2) the prostate itself, if healthy, does not
experience pain when
">" touched (if it did, defecation itself would be
painful).
">"
">"If you have any questions for me, I'll be glad to answer.
Father, I suppose it was inevitable that this issue would eventually be
aired, but I am a bit surprised that the querier would be a well-reared
man-of-the-frock such as you, Father. (I thought clerics were interested in
eschatology, not scatology - - did you enroll in the wrong class at
seminary?) The honest, but probably disappointing, answer to your question
is: No. In fact, the low adherence properties of the lubricant Surgilube
allow everything to stay exactly where it should be, which is fine with me.
All the best,
Thumber
I surely will regret it, but I do have to ask: How did it come to be that
you have massaged such a multitude of prostates? And, uh, is your choice
for user ID intended to provide us with a hint about your methods? Thumber?
Bruce
>I massage many, many prostates, almost all of which are normal-sized and
>healthy. There is NO pain, at least not when I do it. This is not
surprising,
>since 1) the slow application of my lubricated, gloved thumb does not
>stretch the opening as much as the client routinely stretches it when he
>defecates, and 2) the prostate itself, if healthy, does not experience
pain
> when touched (if it did, defecation would be
>painful). If you have any questions for me, I'll be glad to answer (either
>here or by e-mail).
>
Bruce - I realized about five years ago that I liked doing it, so I
advertised and have been doing so since. There have been so many because a
lot of males want it - all kinds of males. You asked about my user ID -
yeah, that's what I use, my thumb. That allows my first two fingers to
massage the perineum at the same time (a buddy calls it "bowling ball
technique"). That seems to increase the pleasure, especially since I apply
less force to the prostate than would be needed to express fluid. That's not
the aim here, since most of these prostates do not need to be "drained" of
any toxic substance.
This is, of course, not a medical procedure, and so I make no medical claims.
Even so, I am sometimes asked if what I do is good for the prostate. My answer
is always that I do not know, but privately I suspect that the stimulation and
increased blood flow in the area can only contribute to prostate health.
Ed
> I use, my thumb. That allows my first two fingers to
> massage the perineum at the same time .... That seems
> to increase the pleasure ....
After reading this, I really don't feel you have any place on this
newsgroup. This is a place for patients of a disease, not homosexuals
exercising their fetishes and fantasies. Look around Usenet - you will find
far better and more receptive groups for your 'thumb'.
Buddy, if you had taken the time to look, you would have noticed that my
first posting in this thread was in answer to Ed Mathews' question about
massaging a 'normal' prostate. The post that upset you was in response to
another question. If you are the defender of the NG's purity as a forum for
pathology, why didn't you nail Ed Mathews when he first brought up 'normal'
prostates? Or the subsequent questioner? Or any of the many other
contributors who bring up and discuss, often humorously, topics other than
pathology? Why hasn't anything else triggered your censorious name-calling?
Was it the word 'pleasure' that really set you off? Why not just read and
enjoy the posts that interest you and ignore the rest? ED
I have to disagree. This sounds like a homophobic response which adds no
value to the discussion. On the other hand, thumber was able to add value
by answering the original question quite definitively: prostate
massage of a healthy prostate is not painful, and in fact, some men even
find it pleasurable.
John
>I always thought a "phobia" was an irrational fear. I personally don't
>consider disgust at aberrant sexual practices to be an irrational
>fear. Others may, of course.
The very fact that you are monitoring this newsgroup makes me queasy.
> The post that upset you was in response to another
> question. If you are the defender of the NG's purity as
> a forum for pathology, why didn't you nail Ed Mathews
> when he first brought up 'normal' prostates?
Because his question had a medical intent. He is questioning the role and
value of massage in men with CP, buy wondering about the effect of massage
in those without CP. He didn't expect to be answered by a lurking voyeur
with sex on his mind.
> Or the subsequent questioner? Or any of the many other
> contributors who bring up and discuss, often humorously,
> topics other than pathology?
The only people who go off topic are the occasional posters who send us some
jokes to lighten the mood. Jokes are fine, but posts which hint at a sexual
aspect of prostate massage -- a subject many men are uneasy and unhappy
about anyway -- are thoroughly counter-productive and unwelcome. This is NOT
the place for that.
> Why hasn't anything else triggered your censorious
> name-calling?
Plenty of things provoke my bile, Nancy-boy. You should read the archives
;-)
> Was it the word 'pleasure' that really set you off?
Yes.
>In article <199901231624...@nym.alias.net>,
> rema...@funlaw.com wrote:
>> <thu...@earthlink.net> wrote...
>>
>> > I use, my thumb. That allows my first two fingers to
>> > massage the perineum at the same time .... That seems
>> > to increase the pleasure ....
>>
>> After reading this, I really don't feel you have any place on this
>> newsgroup. This is a place for patients of a disease, not homosexuals
>> exercising their fetishes and fantasies. Look around Usenet - you will find
>> far better and more receptive groups for your 'thumb'.
>
>I have to disagree. This sounds like a homophobic response which adds no
>value to the discussion. On the other hand, thumber was able to add value
>by answering the original question quite definitively: prostate
>massage of a healthy prostate is not painful, and in fact, some men even
>find it pleasurable.
>
>John
>I dont feel comfortable judging what
>consenting people do together behind closed doors either.
>
Why do people keep characterizing this as about homosexuality. Personally,
I would feel as weird or perhaps weirder (if not for all the same reasons)
if Thumber was female. I don't even know that it's even predominantly a sex
issue.
"Judging"? Me being someone who's prone to put a thumb up his own ass,
pants up, who am I to sit in judgment of a person who can convince someone
else to do the sitting and get paid in the process. I mean, this guy is a
regular Tom Sawyer, 90's style. But here, its not me who's going behind
Thumper's closed door; its him that's going behind mine, just maybe leaving
with a few more tidbits for the office Perrier bar.
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:34:14 -0600, "Doug Chism" <dch...@gte.net>
wrote:
>But to a homosexual these practices are not disgusting or aberrant, they are
>normal. Many cultures throughout history have considered homosexual contact
>normal ( including the romans who actually encouraged it to promote
>closeness in the warriors ranks - and they had the longest empire and the
>greatest army in recorded history ). In his mind the poster has a "phobia"
>and in your mind he does not. It all depends on the point of view. Although
>I would feel very uncomfortable getting a prostate massage by someone who
>derives sexual pleasure from it, I dont feel comfortable judging what
>consenting people do together behind closed doors either.
>
May I add that chronic prostatitis may have a normal size prostate and
painless during massage. A normal prostate will drain 2 to 4 EPS which is
usually watery. A Gram's stain of the EPS may show pus cells, which is an
indication of an inflammation or infection.
From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
-phobic: 1. having an aversion for. 2. lacking affinity for.
homophobe: one who hates or fears homosexuals.
The definition of "homophobic" as the word is commonly used is "having an
aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals". If homosexuality is disgusting
to you, you're homophobic.
Futhermore, you're assumption that homosexuality is "aberrant" is an
irrational one. By what rational basis do you draw that conclusion?
Be sure you use logic, and not your cultural upbringing, to answer that
question.
The only way I see to have a consistent definition of what is "normal"
sexuality would be to exclude any sex that is purely for pleasure, and
restrict "normal" sex to be for procreation only. Once you allow that sex
that is purely for pleasure can be normal, I think you will have a very hard
time making a purely rational argument that excludes any form of consensual
sex between adults.
I'm a straight (heterosexual) man living in San Francisco and have met many
gay men. Almost exclusively, gay men are fine, upstanding, decent people.
I am never disgusted by the gay men I meet. I am very disgusted when
irrational, bigoted, homophobic people feel compelled to pass judgement on and
harass other people just because of their sexual orientation.
First, if the massage of a healthy prostate is an impermissible topic and if
I am so insensitive for discussing it in this forum, why wasn't Ed Mathews
nailed by Bruce and his Me-Too Quartet when it was first brought up?
Similarly, why didn't the Me-Tooers go after Bruce when he asked on 1/22/99:
How did it come to be that you have massaged such a multitude of prostates?
And, uh, is your choice for user ID intended to provide us with a hint
about your methods? Thumber?
No one tried to exile either of them for their raising questions about
'normal' prostate massage, nor has anyone tried to banish Santasam for his
1/24/99 post that includes jokes about rampant adultery, bestiality, blacks
stealing televisions, Polish stupidity, tasting urine, masturbation, and
panties that stick to the wall after a good date. Santasam and his topics are
apparently welcome here (judging from Bruce and the Quartet's silence), but
the one thing that is too much for their sensibilities and must be silenced
is any discussion of the massage of a prostate BEFORE infection.
What to make of this transparently selective outrage? One post referred to
homophobia, while another said the concern was unrelated to homosexuality. I
have no idea. What I do know is that some of my clients are homosexual,
others are married and (apparently) heterosexual.
Finally, I am not here (as Bruce claims) for entertainment - prostatitis is a
concern of all men - and I feel nothing but respect for anyone dealing with
it. I do think the (possibly theraputic) massage of a healthy prostate,
whether pleasurable or not, is a legitimate related topic. If it is
pleasurable, that fact does not de-legitimize it. Who knows whether there are
health benefits from the massage of a prostate before there are problems? No
one knows, but it is NOT an unreasonable conjecture.
I will not initiate threads about this, since I am neither crusading nor
advertising, but I do feel free to respond to posts or to answer questions,
either here or by e-mail.
Ed Boyd
>> I always thought a "phobia" was an irrational fear. I personally don't
>> consider disgust at aberrant sexual practices to be an irrational
>> fear. Others may, of course.
>
> From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
>
> -phobic: 1. having an aversion for. 2. lacking affinity for.
> homophobe: one who hates or fears homosexuals.
"pho7bi7a" - noun - A persistent,
abnormal, or *irrational*
fear of a specific thing or
situation that compels one
to avoid the feared stimulus.
[From Late Latin -phobia, -phobia.]
The American Heritage. Dictionary of
the English Language, Third Edition
copyright ) 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
So phobia does and can mean irrational fear, and there is nothing irrational
about discouraging a cruising sodomite from 'queering' the waters in a
prostate disease newsgroup.
> The definition of "homophobic" as the word is
> commonly used is "having an aversion to
> homosexuality and homosexuals". If homosexuality
> is disgusting to you, you're homophobic.
I can't speak for the other posters, but I am not so much disgusted by
homosexuality as acutely aware of the unproductive and anomalous nature of
its presence here -- despite the protests of our resident homosexualists.
'Pink pride' and prostatitis are not a happy mixture. If you can't see why,
there's no point in arguing with you, and I shall have to fall back on the
old maxim:
'Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to
their level then beat you with experience'
> I'm a straight (heterosexual) man living in San
> Francisco
One of the few ;-)
> I am never disgusted by the gay men I meet. I am
> very disgusted when irrational, bigoted, homophobic
> people feel compelled to pass judgement on and
> harass other people just because of their sexual
> orientation.
No, I'm harassing thumbsucker because I am acutely and uncomfortably aware
why he is present on this newsgroup. He is not here for advice or help with
his (healthy) prostate. He is getting his rocks off by reading the graphic
descriptions many men give here of the sexual problems, their erections,
their ejaculations, their intimate sex lives with their wives. If enough men
became aware that their intimate revelations were being used as masturbatory
fodder by lurking anal fetishists, who probably found this newsgroup in the
first place by doing a Usenet search on the word "anus", the newsgroup would
dry up like a nun's twat.
Ed Boyd <thumber> wrote:
> nor has anyone tried to banish Santasam for his
> 1/24/99 post that includes jokes about rampant
> adultery, bestiality, blacks stealing televisions,
> Polish stupidity, tasting urine, masturbation, and
> panties that stick to the wall after a good date.
People have tried to ban Santasam in the past, with little success. At least
he does not try to imbue the subject of this newsgroup -- a painful and
debilitating disease -- with sexual overtones, as you egregiously did in
your post describing the pleasure you and your fellow sodomites get from
playing with each others' anal orifices.
> Finally, I am not here (as Bruce claims) for
> entertainment - prostatitis is a concern of all men
> - and I feel nothing but respect for anyone dealing with
> it.
I have little doubt as to why you are here. If, as you seem to claim, you
are offering men prostate massages, simply make an occasional short post to
that effect. Be sure to add that giving them the massage will get you
red-faced and turgid. I'm sure you'll get *lots* of takers ;-)
> I will not initiate threads about this, since I am neither
> crusading nor advertising
You are advertising, and you do garner a repulsive vicarious pleasure from
the topic this newsgroup covers.
------------------------------------------
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, 'cuz
you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
> May I add that chronic prostatitis may have
> a normal size prostate and painless during
> massage. A normal prostate will drain 2 to
> 4 EPS which is usually watery. A Gram's stain
> of the EPS may show pus cells, which is an
> indication of an inflammation or infection.
To say that an asymptomatic, normal-sized prostate which shows some
leukocytes on massage must have chronic prostatitis is absurd. Normal mens'
EPS shows these cells routinely, and it does not betoken CP -- unless you
believe *everyone* (male) has the disease.
Dr. A.N. Feliciano wrote in message ...
>May I add that chronic prostatitis may have a normal size prostate and
>painless during massage. A normal prostate will drain 2 to 4 EPS which is
>usually watery. A Gram's stain of the EPS may show pus cells, which is an
>indication of an inflammation or infection.
>
I went to my GP in 1991 with a slight buring at the end of urination. Just a
short, sharp pain. No other symptoms.
He gave me a VIGOROUS prostate massage, "checking for cancer" he said, and the
next day I was in agony. I could hardly walk. All my glands were swollen, pain
went down my legs like sciatica, appendicitis-type pain too, and I've had
prostatitis on and off since then.
The doctor said: "Gee, I'm sorry".
As one of the few people who've at least partly defended Thumber, I'd like to
comment that I am in total agreement with Ed. None of us know for certain
why Thumber reads the newsgroup. Perhaps it's for his sexual fantasies,
perhaps it's because, in a new-age-ish way he's just trying to educate himself
as much as he can to better serve the health goals of his clients. Personally,
I don't care why he reads the newsgroup, as long as he's respectful when
he posts. People who can't tolerate even the idea of lurkers being stimulated
by their comments here are being irrational. For all we know, there are dozens
of lurkers doing so. Does it really matter?
This is my last post on the topic.
John
BTW a mailing list is like a car pool, you can say who rides and who doesn't
but unless you are in a "moderated" newsgroup its like the bus, anyone can
ride. I see sci.med.prostate.prostatitis as a newsgroup. If you are
seeing it as a mailing list talk to your listmaster about censoring it.
As I see it this list should be restricted solely to:
People with prostatitis
People who may get prostatitis
People who have a relationship with someone in one of the above catagories.
We have had wives, daughters and cohabitators post here in the past
needing information and support.
We have had Nancy give us information on IC and lately have been finding
that IC may be a differential diagnosis for some of us.
Lurkers don't bother me; If I find someone I dislike I add them to a killfile
and then *they* *don't* *exist* to me anymore.
Some of the problem we are all experiencing is that people have been shy
about discussing this problem *in* *public*. Perhaps if we were willing
to shout it from the rooftops it would no longer be something to hide, and
it would not have a "sexual" connotation to people.
As far as "intruders" go; Thumber has been very considerate. Few posts,
always on topic, sharing information he? has when prompted. I don't
sit up nights worrying about why he does what he does anymore than I worry
about why a proctologist chose that speciality or if *my* doctor gets anything
out of what they do. That they do it in a professional manner is enough
for me.
Thomas
>In article <36aa742e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> DFBo...@att.net (D F Bonnett) wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:29:14 GMT, joh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <199901231624...@nym.alias.net>,
>> > rema...@funlaw.com wrote:
>> >> <thu...@earthlink.net> wrote...
>> >>
>> >> > I use, my thumb. That allows my first two fingers to
>> >> > massage the perineum at the same time .... That seems
>> >> > to increase the pleasure ....
>> >>
>> >> After reading this, I really don't feel you have any place on this
>> >> newsgroup. This is a place for patients of a disease, not homosexuals
>> >> exercising their fetishes and fantasies. Look around Usenet - you will find
>> >> far better and more receptive groups for your 'thumb'.
>> >
>> >I have to disagree. This sounds like a homophobic response which adds no
>> >value to the discussion. On the other hand, thumber was able to add value
>> >by answering the original question quite definitively: prostate
>> >massage of a healthy prostate is not painful, and in fact, some men even
>> >find it pleasurable.
>> >
>> >John
>>
>> I always thought a "phobia" was an irrational fear. I personally don't
>> consider disgust at aberrant sexual practices to be an irrational
>> fear. Others may, of course.
>
>From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
>
>-phobic: 1. having an aversion for. 2. lacking affinity for.
>homophobe: one who hates or fears homosexuals.
>
>The definition of "homophobic" as the word is commonly used is "having an
>aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals". If homosexuality is disgusting
>to you, you're homophobic.
>
>Futhermore, you're assumption that homosexuality is "aberrant" is an
>irrational one. By what rational basis do you draw that conclusion?
>Be sure you use logic, and not your cultural upbringing, to answer that
>question.
>
>The only way I see to have a consistent definition of what is "normal"
>sexuality would be to exclude any sex that is purely for pleasure, and
>restrict "normal" sex to be for procreation only. Once you allow that sex
>that is purely for pleasure can be normal, I think you will have a very hard
>time making a purely rational argument that excludes any form of consensual
>sex between adults.
>
>I'm a straight (heterosexual) man living in San Francisco and have met many
>gay men. Almost exclusively, gay men are fine, upstanding, decent people.
>I am never disgusted by the gay men I meet. I am very disgusted when
>irrational, bigoted, homophobic people feel compelled to pass judgement on and
>harass other people just because of their sexual orientation.
>
>John
>
>
First, let me state with all my heart that I don't give a rat's ass
what you think.
Second, you are taking this awfully personally for a "straight" male.
DFB
Just giving my opinion for what its worth, which seems like not much to you.
I merly wanted to remind people that what they think at this moment in time
is not neccesarilly the one absolute truth in life. Cultures, soceities,
empires, ect. come and go - and beliefs/morals change. Why not try to look
at the picture in a little broader scope instead of the " this is 1999 - and
this is how it is " mentality. How can we improve on ourselves, soceity,
medicine, and science if we are so concrete in our beliefs/morals, that we
can not accept other points of view as valid, albeit different from ours?
The reason that Christians and Jews dont kill each other ( in this country
anyhow ) is because many people have come to conclusion that even though the
religions are so different with respect to Christ, they realize that the
holy wars are over - that the bible was not written to provoke bloodshed. If
they can agree to disagree on such a fundamental part of their lives - their
spirituality, why do so many people have such a hard time with the whole
sexual issue? Recorded history allows up to learn from the past. Its too bad
that our soceity did not grow like our understanding of technology did.
>
>I don't consider it a fit subject for this group.
So you wrote this line just to get the last word in? I apologize for
lecturing, but I was baited with the first line in the message, and then
told to not respond in the last. If I lost anyone in my above message and
how it relates to my original response, or for any other reason want to
respond, and do not wish this thread to continue in this newsgroup I
encourage anyone to respond via email instead of this public forum.
To obtain prostatic fluid for diagnosis, the doctor's finger must be strong
enough to exert sufficient pressure on clogged prostatic ducts and many
have never developed this strength. Others are afraid to punch through the
prostate or damage the organ. (Excerpt from STD, your may have it but don't
know it, by A.N. Feliciano, 1993)
>But to a homosexual these practices are not disgusting or aberrant, they are
>normal. Many cultures throughout history have considered homosexual contact
>normal ( including the romans who actually encouraged it to promote
>closeness in the warriors ranks - and they had the longest empire and the
>greatest army in recorded history ).
With all due respect Doug; so what? This is 1999, and plenty of people
in Western Society - the vast majority I would submit - consider male
homosexual practices disgusting. It is a very small minority activity
anyway. The Romans have nothing to do with it, after all, they liked
eating larks tongues, sacrified animals to examine the entrails to see
the future, had a habit of crucifying large numbers of people, and
even believed in slavery.
>In his mind the poster has a "phobia"
>and in your mind he does not. It all depends on the point of view. Although
>I would feel very uncomfortable getting a prostate massage by someone who
>derives sexual pleasure from it, I dont feel comfortable judging what
>consenting people do together behind closed doors either.
I don't consider it a fit subject for this group.
>>I always thought a "phobia" was an irrational fear. I personally don't
>In article <36aa742e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> DFBo...@att.net (D F Bonnett) wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:29:14 GMT, joh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <199901231624...@nym.alias.net>,
>> > rema...@funlaw.com wrote:
>> >> <thu...@earthlink.net> wrote...
>> >>
>> >> > I use, my thumb. That allows my first two fingers to
>> >> > massage the perineum at the same time .... That seems
>> >> > to increase the pleasure ....
>> >>
>> >> After reading this, I really don't feel you have any place on this
>> >> newsgroup. This is a place for patients of a disease, not homosexuals
>> >> exercising their fetishes and fantasies. Look around Usenet - you will find
>> >> far better and more receptive groups for your 'thumb'.
>> >
>> >I have to disagree. This sounds like a homophobic response which adds no
>> >value to the discussion. On the other hand, thumber was able to add value
>> >by answering the original question quite definitively: prostate
>> >massage of a healthy prostate is not painful, and in fact, some men even
>> >find it pleasurable.
>> >
>> >John
>>
>> I always thought a "phobia" was an irrational fear. I personally don't
>> consider disgust at aberrant sexual practices to be an irrational
>> fear. Others may, of course.
>
>From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
>
>-phobic: 1. having an aversion for. 2. lacking affinity for.
>homophobe: one who hates or fears homosexuals.
>
>The definition of "homophobic" as the word is commonly used is "having an
>aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals". If homosexuality is disgusting
>to you, you're homophobic.
The activities are disgusting to the vast majority of people. Will you
say that homosexuals as Heterophobic? Or "Womanphobic"?
>
>Futhermore, you're assumption that homosexuality is "aberrant" is an
>irrational one. By what rational basis do you draw that conclusion?
>Be sure you use logic, and not your cultural upbringing, to answer that
>question.
How about the fact that it is only about 1% of the male population
that does it?
>
>The only way I see to have a consistent definition of what is "normal"
>sexuality would be to exclude any sex that is purely for pleasure, and
>restrict "normal" sex to be for procreation only.
Men's and women's bodies actually fit together rather well, and seem
designed to enjoy sex with each other - as a way of persuading
humanity to procreate. And the vst majority like it that way.
Once you allow that sex
>that is purely for pleasure can be normal, I think you will have a very hard
>time making a purely rational argument that excludes any form of consensual
>sex between adults.
There are people who get pleasure from sticking spanners in their
rectums - and even some who like to inflate them with compressed air.
This is done for pleasure, and with consent. Do you call it normal?
>
>I'm a straight (heterosexual) man living in San Francisco and have met many
>gay men. Almost exclusively, gay men are fine, upstanding, decent people.
Wow, I can't think of any other segment of society about which that
can be said!
>I am never disgusted by the gay men I meet.
I rarely am - except if they start to talk about their public lavatory
escapades - which is not often.
>I am very disgusted when
>irrational, bigoted, homophobic people feel compelled to pass judgement on and
>harass other people just because of their sexual orientation.
I am disgusted by political correctness making speeches in a health
group when a man only voiced his opinion that he found homosexual
practices disgusting. So do I, but I have nothing against homosexuals.
It is not "judgement passing" it is just a lack of desire to be
involved in such things.
>
>John
I have read your posts on this group and visited your web site. You seem to be
very knowledgable about this the subject of prostatitis. I had a bout with it
abour 5 years ago. After a long course of antibiotics, I was cured. (No more
pain at all, no frequent urges, etc.) My stream is not as strong as it could
be, but it has been consistant.
My concern is recently having blood in my semen. This occured on two
consecutive occaisions on two consecutive days (past 2 days). The reddish color
seemed to be evenly distributed throughout all of the semen. There were no
other symptoms whatsoever. I feel fine. This morning, out of concern, we tried
again, but it seemed to be clearing up.
I'm 36 years old, in good health, and monogamaus. I don't use drugs, and I'm on
no medications.
I'm concerned that this may be a serious condition and am a bit afraid to visit
the doctor. How concerned should I be????
Thank you for your help. Please E-mail me if you can.
Mike
Peace.
Chronic prostatitis may be cure with a prolonged course of antibiotics,
even without prostatic massage. However if a residual seminal vesiculitis
or semen infection persist, then bloody semen is often an indication of the
infection. A simple semen analysis should make the diagnosis, Cultures for
all possible uropathogen should be done. No growth in the culture does not
rule out any organism. We treat such patients with a course of a
combination of antibiotics based empirically and declare a cure by
laboratory means and not by disappearance of symptoms. This type of
treatment seldom exceeds 2 to 3 weeks.
Dr. Antonio Novak Feliciano
Visit my website
http://web.idirect.com/~ino
http://www.qinet.net.user/dr.anf/chronic.htm
----------
> From: mike r <mik...@IX.NETCOM.COM>
> To:
> Subject: Re: massaging a "normal" prostate
> Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 2:13 AM
Dr. Antonio Novak Feliciano
Visit my website
http://web.idirect.com/~ino
http://www.qinet.net.user/dr.anf/chronic.htm
----------
> From: Fergus McClelland <re...@PERDRIX.DEMON.CO.UK>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Way off topic response.
> Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 8:18 AM
>
> "Doug Chism" <dch...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> >Fergus McClelland wrote in message
<36b80623...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >>With all due respect Doug; so what?
> >
> >Just giving my opinion for what its worth, which seems like not much to
you.
> >I merly wanted to remind people that what they think at this moment in
time
> >is not neccesarilly the one absolute truth in life.
>
> Accepted.
>
> Its too bad
> >that our soceity did not grow like our understanding of technology did.
> >
> Also accepted.
>
> >>I don't consider it a fit subject for this group.
> >
> >So you wrote this line just to get the last word in?
>
> No, because I believe it to be true. The subject of this group is a
> difficult to treat illness of a sensitive nature, and embarrassing for
> some to openly discuss. All debates about homosexuality are best held
> in the appropriate fora. The original poster was, I feel, justified in
> voicing his opinion of the sexuality of maybe one per cent of the
> population - having been triggered by the comments of another man who
> disturbed him by discussing massaging healthy prostates. I didn't feel
> he deserved the lecture you gave him for what is, I submit, a normal
> and healthy response to a small but highly vocal minority's sexual
> activity. What the Romans, the Greeks and modern South American tribes
> get up to is just not relevant. He doesn't like it. You do. I don't,
> but don't take it personally. Surely there is no need to discuss it
> further? (And I am not trying to flame, there is enough of that goes
> on already).
>
> I apologize for
> >lecturing, but I was baited with the first line in the message, and then
> >told to not respond in the last. If I lost anyone in my above message
and
> >how it relates to my original response, or for any other reason want to
> >respond, and do not wish this thread to continue in this newsgroup I
> >encourage anyone to respond via email instead of this public forum.
>
> Good idea.
>
> My concern is recently having blood in my semen. ...I'm concerned that
this may be a serious condition and am a bit afraid to visit
> the doctor. How concerned should I be????
> People that benefited from the advise far out number
> those who are skeptics.
Benefit? What benefit? Your advice merely inculcates a
immovable belief that microbes are the cause of CP. Once
this belief gets a grip the patient, even if all his
cultures are negative, is likely to start years of
fruitless visits to urologists and take vast numbers of
medications -- all to no permanent effect.
In fact, although there are 1 or 2 people who have
posted here saying they were "cured" by your son, I
cannot find even one post from anyone saying they
were cured by you. I can, however, find almost 20
posts by men who went to your clinic and returned uncured.
So why don't you give up the BS, give up the forged posts,
and take up a productive retirement activity, like bowling?
>I am just writing this to clear up a few issues. One I never intended to
>debate any of these points in this forum, but there seemed to be a lot of
>"pile on" the homosexual community mentality going on which I felt was
>wrong.
It did not seem that way to me.
> Secondly I am not homosexual as you seem to have implied,
This I did not intend to imply.
>...I tend to stand up for issues
>that I believe in even if it is not the place or time to do so, and for this
>I apologize to the readers of this group.
I think we all tend to do that from time to time.:-)
> I was very close to dying in the
>past year and it changed my outlook on many things, being more vocal on
>issues was one of them.
Nothing wrong with that.
>
>Peace.
Agreed.
>
>rema...@funlaw.com wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>> Plenty of things provoke my bile, Nancy-boy. You should read the archives
>> ;-)
>
> [snip]
>
>
>What is "Nancy-boy?
Another name for a homosexual.