[mamabadger]

I'm absolutely delighted at some of the responses here, like:<br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Charmie981</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">It sounds like a thinly veiled attempt to indoctrinate young women into the medical model of care.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
I also agree with Minky about treating teenaged boys the same way. Men would never put up with it, and medicine would never dream of asking them to. Girls and women are pushed to ignore or suppress their natural distaste and dread of pelvic exams, especially by male gynecologists, becuase it's so essential that doctors regularly rummage around in there to make sure everything's still in order.<br><br>
We really need to question the whole premise that women need to be constantly monitored by medical professionals because their defective bodies are like time bombs that could blow up on them at any moment. It keeps us ignorant and fearful, and is at the root of, among other things, the huge C-section rate.<br><br>
Some posters might be interested in checking out a Yahoo discussion board called Women Against Stirrups.

 

[minkajane]

I was thinking.<br><br>
This whole attitude may have something to do with circumcision. Both male and female circ would popular around the turn of the century. As female circ declined, annual pelvic exams became the norm.<br><br>
Could it be that the male body is seen as being problem-free because all that troublesome "excess" skin has been removed? Since the woman's body has not been "improved" by medical science, it is prone to all kinds of problems and must be carefully monitored at all times.<br><br>
Does this make sense to anyone?

 

[huggerwocky]

She can have a talk with someone at planet parenthood or a midwife but not a doctor. They are not trained to handle them sensitively I believe.<br><br>
Doctors are for when you're sick IMO.

 

[tireesix]

Well over here in the uk, where there is little male circumcision, women are still treated like that......<br><br>
I went to the Docs to get some thrush treatment, he wanted to do an exam jusyt to make sure what I was saying was right. I said no to the exam and had to walk out without medication.<br><br>
Funny thing is, I am prone to thrush and everyone knows it...... What woman doesn't recognise thrush, you don''t have to be a doctor pmsl.....<br><br>
I found someone else to prescribe for me without the supposedley necessary exam.<br><br>
So no, I don't think it has anything to do with circumsision, I think it has more to do with us supposedly being the weaker sex, incubators etc.<br><br>
ETA..... It has always been men who have wanted to examine me to check I have thrush, women Docs just hand me a prescription.

 

[Minky]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>minkajane</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I was thinking.<br><br>
This whole attitude may have something to do with circumcision. Both male and female circ would popular around the turn of the century. As female circ declined, annual pelvic exams became the norm.<br><br>
Could it be that the male body is seen as being problem-free because all that troublesome "excess" skin has been removed? Since the woman's body has not been "improved" by medical science, it is prone to all kinds of problems and must be carefully monitored at all times.<br><br>
Does this make sense to anyone?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Makes absolute sense to me, I'm going to add that to my anti gynecological repitoire!<br><br>
I'll agree with women who say that getting pap smears and invasive exams probably detects some illnesses early. I'll also agree that there are probably some benefits to circumcision. But it should be up to the owner of the reproductive organ's, not parents or doctors, whether they think those preventative benefits are worth the pain and in the case of circ, the permanant damage to the reproductive organ.

 

[Minky]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>tireesix</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Well over here in the uk, where there is little male circumcision, women are still treated like that......<br><br>
I went to the Docs to get some thrush treatment, he wanted to do an exam jusyt to make sure what I was saying was right. I said no to the exam and had to walk out without medication.<br><br>
Funny thing is, I am prone to thrush and everyone knows it...... What woman doesn't recognise thrush, you don''t have to be a doctor pmsl.....<br><br>
I found someone else to prescribe for me without the supposedley necessary exam.<br><br>
So no, I don't think it has anything to do with circumsision, I think it has more to do with us supposedly being the weaker sex, incubators etc.<br><br>
ETA..... It has always been men who have wanted to examine me to check I have thrush, women Docs just hand me a prescription.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
This was where my hatred of gynecologists started, my Mom was prone to thrush and I remember her crying becos she had to have frequent exams even tho it was clear to the stupid doctor that she was just prone to it. Thank god the meds are OTC in this country now. I feel bad for you all over in Britain if your still having to go thru your doctor.

 

[Minky]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Heather_in_LasVega</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I have mixed feeling about the posts here. I have a wonderful relationship with my mother, who explained and provided books about my body when I hit puberty early (first period at 10). My GP did ask at my next physical if I had any questions. But I don't remember getting a PAP until my first visit to Planned Parenthood to get BC in high school.<br><br>
While I agree that without sexual activity the *need* for testing decreases, I am a big supporter of preventative cancer screening. My mother is a 7 time cancer survivor and at 26 I had my first pre-cancerous tumor removed (it was the size of a golf ball). So as odd as it may sound, I am passing on almost all testing for this pregnancy, planning a home birth with a CPM etc. But after this little one is born I will return to my gynecological oncologist for my yearly PAP, ultrasound, and uterine biopsy.<br><br>
I don't fear my annual testing (I don't exactly look forward to it either!) - perhaps it is because I was raised with the view that there are things you *do* go to a doctor for. I had a wonderful OB/GYN for years, she was gentle in her exams, explained everything, and was very open to non traditional options. I never felt violated, instead I felt I had a wonderful resource should I need her.<br><br>
I hope we find cures for all cancers within our daughters lifetimes, but until we do screeing is our best option for increased survival rates. To find a practicioner that will be a resource for young women and supplement what their parents have taught them, I, personally think is a good thing. Too many women ingore the early warning signs of both uterine and ovarian cancer that by the time they do go in the cancer has grown to a more advanced stage, making treatment more difficult, if not impossible.<br><br>
I suppose I have an odd view on this one, but hey I also get a camera up my butt every year, and have them smoosh my boobs too! To me a small price to pay to catch a cancer early when it is treatable, then to die a slow painful death.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Ok but you have chosen what to do with your own body. You weren't coerced into it by a doctor dangling the carrot of birth control before you and saying "If you don't get the exam, you can't go on the pill," though one has nothing to do with the other.<br><br>
I respect your choice to have preventative medical tests.<br><br>
I just want the medical establishment to respect my choice not to!

 

[myhoneyswife]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Minky</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I'll also agree that there are probably some benefits to circumcision.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Yup, I'm guessing that if we removed 1 of our daughter's ovaries at birth, she'd be less likely to get ovarian cancer. Or if we removed the ovaries and uterus, then she'd never get ovarian, utreine, cervical, or breast cancer (because she'd never go through puberty). We've gotta draw the line somewhere! That's the argument that I use with the 'Christian' people that all are all over arguing that there have been 'scientific' studies that show that it's healthier to be circed... and modern circ is NOTHING like Biblical circ anyway, and we're not doing either.<br><br>
(not that this was on topic)<br><br>
Anyway, the circ-gynocological corolation is pretty intresting, never thought about it. I don't understand why they are so stinkin eger to get their hands in your pants. I suppose mostly to show dominance.

 

[bradleybirth2mom]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Pandora114</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Umm...<br><br>
That's a PARENTS Job to discuss with their teen daughter...Not a medical professional.<br><br>
If you have a great relationship with your teen, then talk to them about it. It would be traumatising for a young girl to be dragged to a Dr told to disrobe and all that good stuff.<br><br>
Heck it would be embarrasing even if she were taken to a midwife for this...</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
But it might be helpful to get a pap smear by 15---and it should be by a woman so the girl isn't weirded out. I know of some girls that got cancer before 20, so it may be useful in some cases,

 

[~member~]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>bradleybirth2mom</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">But it might be helpful to get a pap smear by 15---and it should be by a woman so the girl isn't weirded out. I know of some girls that got cancer before 20, so it may be useful in some cases,</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Pap smears can cause permanant damage and put you at increased risk of infection.<br>
Why do they have blood tests for males, but not females?<br>
Why continue using faulty, unsafe tests on females?

 

[bradleybirth2mom]



That's the argument that I use with the 'Christian' people that all are all over arguing that there have been 'scientific' studies that show that it's healthier to be circed... and modern circ is NOTHING like Biblical circ anyway, and we're not doing either.<br>
QUOTE]<br><br>
Be nice, there are some of us Christians reading these posts and helping others out, too. I had to have my son circed b/c his foreskin was deformed and would cause him embarrassment upon reaching adolescence. It had little dog-eared flaps b/c it was cleft in the middle. His urethra was also really tiny and when he peed w/his diaper off, it traveled about 6 feet! It was really hard to have it done, but we felt it was best.<br><br>
I am curious to know what the difference is in circumcision methods regarding biblical versus modern---do you mean that it is done at birth and not at the traditional 7 days postpartum? I might be interested in better ways to do it. My son's had to be done at 6 months by a urologist surgeon out b/c of the anesthesia to put him under. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad"> I really didn't want it, but we had no choice for health reasons---all the more disappointing for me since I had worked hard to have a drug-free hospital birth.

 

[bradleybirth2mom]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>MamaInTheBoonies</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Pap smears can cause permanant damage and put you at increased risk of infection.<br>
Why do they have blood tests for males, but not females?<br>
Why continue using faulty, unsafe tests on females?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
The CA125 blood test is supposed to help identify early ovarian cancer, but it has not been proven to be very accurate. I have not done much research on other blood tests, so if you come across more, send me a private or public reply. I hate Pap smears as much as the rest of us, but I think if I have a daughter I will take her to a midwife and do one around 15 since reproductive cancer runs in our family.

 

[myhoneyswife]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>bradleybirth2mom</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;"><br>
Be nice, there are some of us Christians reading these posts and helping others out, too.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
LOL, I'm a Christian. I just get irritated with other Christians saying that there is evidence supporting that boys should be circed in the hospital at birth. I believe Jesus came to fulfill that law, and we are circumciseded in the heart.<br><br>
Regarding Biblical circumcision, I'm pretty sure it's not removing the whole foreskin, but rather nicking off just enough to spill blood to show a covanent between God and man, I do not see anywhere in the Bible where it says to remove the whole foreskin, it just talks about spilling blood (I'll look up verses when I get time). Jewish moyhls (sp?) only nick, from what I've heard. If I wanted to circ my child out of obedience to God, I would go to a moyhl to do it, as they are doing it as part of a faith, not part of a hospital procedure.<br><br>
And the 8th day thing would ensure that there was no need for Vitamin K, as the body would be just fine to clot on it's own then, how I believe God designed us <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile"><br><br>
I have no problem with people who are doing circ because they feel that God is calling them to, I have a problem with people who don't do it on the 8th day, etc, have it done by a doctor and not as a religious process, but then say it's Biblical.<br><br>
If you're doing it because there was a problem with the foreskin, then that is a totally different case.<br><br>
And LOL, I've changed circed babies' diapers who sprayed a good 6 feet also...<br><br>
(and before I get flamed- <b>we are NOT circing</b>)<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile"><br>
Caa

 

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

At 15 if I had to have a pap it prolly would have scared me mentally for life as it was the one at 21 about did me in. There is no way I would even consider having my dd go in for one. Unless she was having symptoms of something not being right. Call me weird but the only person that should be messing around down there before a girl is sexually active is herself. I know that my thinking is more off because of my experiances but that is a very private part and it should be treated as such.

 

[mamabadger]

I've been hearing a lot about a new self-administered pap test. So far it seems to be as accurate as doctor-administered tests. I'd love to see something like this made widely available.<br><br>
I think there's a lot of history behind gyn care that we need to look at more critically. Doctors first got involved in obstetrics by pushing midwives out of the business, often through slandering them disgracefully. They could only get women to accept male attendants at birth by convincing them that 'sensible' women suppressed their natural modesty or negative feelings about a strange man handling their private parts. Maybe it's time we stopped suppressing our feelings in this regard. They're perfectly normal. Medicine needs to accept them and find a way to work around them, IMO.

 

[tireesix]

<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/clap.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="clap"><br><br>
ruddy good post!!!!

 

[~member~]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>bradleybirth2mom</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">The CA125 blood test is supposed to help identify early ovarian cancer, but it has not been proven to be very accurate. I have not done much research on other blood tests, so if you come across more, send me a private or public reply. I hate Pap smears as much as the rest of us, but I think if I have a daughter I will take her to a midwife and do one around 15 since reproductive cancer runs in our family.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
If you use google, you can find the tests they use in Australia and other developed countries.

 

[Heather_in_LasVega]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>MamaInTheBoonies</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Did you know that since the increase in mass vaccination, the number one cause of death in the United States in cancer?<br><br>
I am not going to teach my children how to ask for tests, but i will teach them how to stay away from cancer causing toxins, eat healthy, etc. Basically, how to avoid getting cancer.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
Gosh so nice to know my mother could have avoided cancer is she had just "lived right" - I'll have to let her know getting cancer was her fault! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/angry.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="angry"> How amazingly insensitive of you. I hate to point it out to you but avoiding toxins, and eating healthy will not guarantee a cancer free life. Many things cause cell mutations (ie cancer), yes toxins are one of them but not the only one. For my mother and I it is genetic, a syndrome call Muir Torre, or Lynch Syndrome II, or HNPCC - it causes microsatelite instablilities that lead to malignant growths. So unless you are now going to tell me that eating right will alter my genetic structure I think I'll stick to the tests.<br><br><br>
And before I comment on the first issue I will say I am still researching the VAX issues - and plan to at least delay/selective (just not sure which I will decline, possibly all). But attempting to link vacinations to increase in cancer just because both have occured during the same generations is a bit of a stretch. You have to admit that the lifestyle of the "normal" american during that same time has changed significantly and many factors; either acting alone or in concert with each other, could be responsible for that increase. The statement implies that if you don't vax you won't get cancer - I have yet to see a scientific study that backs such a claim up - can you provide one?

 

[~member~]

<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Heather_in_LasVega</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I hate to point it out to you but avoiding toxins, and eating healthy will not guarantee a cancer free life.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
But avoiding carcinogenic chemicals will keep that risk low, especially if it is genetic.<br><br>
I was never vax'd and have had skin cancer and uterine cancer. I never got treated by Western medicine, and am cancer-free.<br>
Western medicine has not been around very long.<br><br>
You can choose to be upset or you can choose to open your mind and see that there are other possibilities.<br><br>
Alcohol is a known teratogen and has been shown to cause increased throat cancers in moderate drinkers.

 

[lorijds]

I'm not sure you can say that mass vaccinations cause cancer, or can even be implicated. Well, you can say it, but there are simply so many other factors involved, I'm not sure how you can ever actually prove a correlation. Cancer is primarily a disease of the elderly. If you eradicated cancer completely, you would extend the average lifespan by less than two years. When mass vaccinations began, it was at the same time that additional life prolonging advances were occuring--antibiotics, better and less invasive surgeries, better diagnostics (blood tests, improved microscopes, development of the use of x-rays and the like), improved medical procedures (IVs, oxygen, etc), improved access to care. All of these things have prolonged the lifespan, enabling more of us to live long enough to develop cancer.<br><br>
Not that controllable things like diet, exercise, and environment don't affect your chances of cancer--of course they do. And it's great to teach your children to be so proactive and respectful of their bodies. But you can't guarantee that they will be healthy because of these things. That is one reason why I think routine care is a good thing for my family.