Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    EEEWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
    
    What sort of "sex crimes"???
    
    D!

    To paraphrase some of the comments in the book, he was "dilating"
    patients with his own "equipment". Under the pretext of enlarging small
    vaginal openings he was committing rape. His victims were estimated to
    be close to 2000 by some investigators. About 25 brought charges. He
    was found guilty on several counts. The list of crimes include many
    other perpetrated against small children.

Do you mean to tell me that 2000 women out there actually let a doctor have sex
with them under the "pretext" that he was enlarging a small vaginal opening????

Don't women realize this is NUTS!!!!????????

I certainly hope I've educated my children enough that nothing like that would
happen to them.  Sometimes I wonder why we teach people that doctors are like
Gods and can do anything they want to your body.

AAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

    re.2
    
    What exactly was his "own equipment"?
    
                                      L.J.
    

    
    Good God. Just the idea that someone could be behaving like that
    makes me feel ill. 
    
    It reminds me of something I read around "I'm OK, You're OK"
    theory. Apparently there are various people - usually "professionals"
    such as doctors or lawyers - that many of the population put in
    the "You're OK, I'm not OK" bracket. That is, they give up their
    personal power and their right to criticise around these people.
    They assume that, because they're "professionals", they know
    what they're doing and what they're doing is unilaterally RIGHT.
    
    Abuse of that power is so manipulative it's nauseating.
    
    'gail

    I doubt they enjoyed it any more than the several hundred women a faith
    healer told that it would help their loved ones get well if he had
    intercourse with them ("sharing the spirit" indeed!).
    
    It's an abuse of their power, and an abuse of their patients/clients. 
    Bleah!
    
    -Jody

    This discussion is going in the wrong direction. None of the women
    quoted in the book by Jack Olsen ever mentioned any feelings of
    enjoyment of the doctor's "examinations". Several of them experienced
    profound feelings of humiliation and rage later, primarily due to their
    own passivity (and incredulousness!!!) during the attack. Many of them
    suffered after effects which negatively influenced their attitude
    towards men later. Loss of trust is a severe trauma.
    
    My purpose for bringing up the subject is to know if this happens in
    other states and cities. The book's city was in Oregon, I think, and
    the fact that the community was deeply religious (Mormon) had a lot to
    do with the 20 years of impunity. No one wanted to even discuss it.

    re .9, did this doctor actually have intercourse with these women, or
    did he do something to them with his hand or some implement of some
    sort?  
    
    I find it difficult to believe that so many women would just lay there
    and let a doctor have intercourse with them!!  It would seem to me that
    at some point a woman would get up and say, Hey, what the heck's going
    on here! or something.
    
    On the other hand, if he were doing something weird with his hand or a
    gadget of some kind, they might think that it was part of the exam,
    until they really thought about it afterwards or talked with other
    women.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I find it difficult to believe as well, until I imagine my mother in a
    situation "like that".  My mother leaves herself outside the door when
    she walks in to see a doctor.  When she's in a doctor's office, she may
    as well be two years old; the doctor knows all, sees all, will tell
    all that she should know, and it never even enters into her head that
    she could ask a question.  It's incredible.  My mother's 75 years old
    and has had some serious medical problems over the past few years; when
    I've talked to her about these problems, and have asked what the doctor 
    said, or asked why this procedure, or that drug, she has no clue.  When
    I suggest that she _can_ ask questions, she says "Oh, I know, I guess I 
    should" but she doesn't.  I can easily imagine my mother on the table, 
    thinking something was "funny" but not speaking up, then realizing what
    was happening and being paralyzed by her realization, and then not telling 
    a soul about it.  
    
    CQ

<< Note 868.10 by GLITER::STHILAIRE "Food, Shelter & Diamonds" >
<
<    re .9, did this doctor actually have intercourse with these women, or
<    did he do something to them with his hand or some implement of some
<    sort?  

    Yes, yes, and yes to all questions posed.  There have been several
    cases around the country.  The one I remember the best was in NY.
    
<    I find it difficult to believe that so many women would just lay there
<    and let a doctor have intercourse with them!!  It would seem to me that
<    at some point a woman would get up and say, Hey, what the heck's going
<    on here! or something.

    According to the reports most were in a total state of shock, as in
    total disbelief.  This is the classic form of abuse where the implied
    trust of a doctor, someone who is supposed to be ethical and above
    this is totaly broken.  There were some that realized what was
    happening and brought it to a halt but the trust was gone.  Reports
    have many of the victims as to frightend to tell as they felt they
    wouldn't be believed.  I'd guess that the doctor(hopefully in prison)
    took advantage of people that were ashamed or otherwise ignorant 
    about their bodies.
    
    Lorna, I'm not picking on you really.  Do try to imagine what those
    women might have felt and their backgrounds.  To me these abusers
    are opportunists that prey on women that are not educated about their	
    body or because of background (ethnic, religious, other) can only feel
    shame or guilt for something they didn't want.  Myself I will not
    judge those women for the hell they've been subjected to.  The doctor
    however, I can't conceive a punishment adaquate enough.
    
    Peace,
    Allison

    
    About a year ago, there was an optometrist that was under investigation
    for "improprieties".  I was travelling a good bit at the time, so I don't
    remember if it was in Denver or Chicago. Anybody else remember this?
    
    Can you imagine?! I believe it was positioned as part of the treatment,
    too!
    
    Jamd

    
    This does happen.  About 5 years ago I heard that the doctor who was
    my gyn when I was in college had lost his license for "improprieties"
    with a number of his patients.  Fortunately he was too busy telling me
    about  his daughter who was my age to try to pull anything.
    
    This was the same gyn who, when I asked for a referrral to a specialist
    who could test me for exposure DES, agreed reluctantly in order to 
    "calm my maidenly fears".  ARRGGGGHHHH!
    
    clb

    re .12, I wasn't blaming the victim, and I definitely think the doctor
    in question is a sleazebag.  Not being able to *understand* why someone
    acts in a certain way is not the same as *blaming* them for the way
    they acted.  It's a shame that so many people are taught to view
    doctors as gods.  Personally, I distrust them all.
    
    Lorna
    

This is a reply from a noter who wishes to remain anonymous.

Bonnie

p.s. As I'm on sabatical from moderating right now, I'd like
to ask people to send anonymous mail to the other moderators
until mid September. I will be glad to continue to enter replies
from people whose anonymous notes I've already entered.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand the victims and their feelings all too well.  Here's why:

I was naive, a near-virgin, having just recently started having sex with 
my boy friend.  My emotions were all in turmoil, because my actions were 
entirely contrary to the morals I had been taught in a conservative 
religious home.  Regardless, I wanted to be sure that we did not conceive 
a baby neither one of us wanted at that time.  So I went to a doctor for my
first pelvic exam and to get a prescription for birth control pills.

The doctor asked me a lot of questions, all of which I answered truthfully.
I was a little uncomfortable about the personal nature of some of the
questions, but didn't question the doctor's right to ask them or my 
responsibility to answer.  I'd always been taught that doctors were the 
exception to the privacy/modesty rules we otherwise followed.

One of the questions was if I had experienced any pain during the
sex act.  I said yes.  He asked me how big my partner was, and I knew
he didn't mean how tall!  When I responded, the doctor said that my
vaginal opening was too small to accommodate a partner of that size
and that he would need to stretch it.

And he did.  He used a soda bottle.  His explanation for using that
particular implement was that it was something I would have readily
available to me to perform the stretching operation on myself if
necessary.

It hurt - a lot.  I still remember that pain clearly.  My cries were 
audible in the waiting room and the receptionist's station, I could 
tell when I left by the way women were looking at me and the sympathetic
comment made by the receptionist.

Maybe it was their sympathetic but unconcerned response that soothed
any fears I might have had that this procedure was not entirely normal.

Years later I began to wonder.  The base note has caused me to wonder
even more.

Was I abused by my doctor?  Or was this a normal procedure?  I honestly
don't know.

Anon.

Re: .16

You were abused.  A soda bottle is not a recognized medical instrument.
Period.  There are surgical procedures that can be performed to make
the opening of the vagina larger if necessary.  They involve the use
of a scalpel and anaesthetic, not a soda bottle without anaesthetic.

-d

    RE .16     Anon
    
                In for another moment...
    
           I called my wife about this and her response was not something
    printable...she's a nurse in obgyn.  A woman *NEVER* needs to be
    stretched at *ANY* time! Period.  Her opening might need to be enlarged
    but that is a surgical procedure and only done in rare cases or in
    childbirth.  Tearing is the worry with stretching, hence the reason why
    a woman is "cut" in childbirth.
    
    *back out...
    
    
    Dave

Sounds like abuse.  It is very, very seldom that there is a penis so
large or a vaginal open so small that it just doesn't work.

A woman does stretch with time and experience.  However, given that a vagina
is designed to pass a baby's head, it is unlikely that a penis would present
a problem.

Pain in intercourse is more often than not a result of nervousness on
the part of the woman such that she clenches her vaginal muscles, moving
too fast too early so that there is not enough lubrication, thrusting too
far so that the cervix is hit, or the angle of penetration not being
correct.  Any of these things can be fixed through advice and counselling,
and any doctor worth the weight of the paper his degree is printed on 
knows that.

A bottle is also dangerous, because 1) the openning can get stuck onto the
cervix, and 2) you shouldn't put glass into your vagina, because it could
break and that would be, well, bad.  Again, any doctor who knew which end
of his stethscope was up would know this.

D!

    .16
    
    >hugs to you<  Asking a question like the one you've asked the readers
    of this file, and finding the answer to be that what your doctor did to 
    you was to abuse you can't be an easy thing to read.  It *really* upset
    me to hear about your experience.  I wish there was something I could do
    to get that guy.  :-(  
    
    >more hugs<
    
    -jc

    There is a set of increasing larger balsa-type wood tools that
    a gyn would use to see where the pain level would begin (the
    procedure would be done with an office nurse in attendance).  It
    would start with the smallest and work up to where the discomfort
    level was felt.  This was the procedure used over 25 years ago and
    I don't know if this is still around.  I felt some discomfort after
    having my first child and felt that I might have been stitched 
    too tight!  I needed to have my fears allayed and this was done   
    using the above described method.  Alas, it was only my psychological
    aspect that was kicking in for getting back into "action" before the
    six weeks were up!  ;*)

    I am sorry to have to read that people in trusting areas sometimes 
    are there ONLY to get their jollies at other's expense.  It was also
    something else that the office staff didn't check up on things at 
    the sounds of your pain!  What a painful (both physical and emotional)
    experience you went through!

    justme....jacqui

    I just want to pipe up and say that it sounds like the bottle routine
    was NOT normal and may WELL have been abused, but you were NOT TO
    BLAME.
    
    Your TRUST was BETRAYED.  You are NOT guilty of ANYTHING, nor should
    you berate yourself as stupid for not knowing better.
    
    Please be aware that I am *sympathizing* when I say you were abused, I
    am not accusing, or calling names, or hanging a sign on you saying you
    are bad, or anything like that.  Please don't do any of these things
    yourself if you can help it, and if you can't help it, please get help
    so you don't feel guilt or badness or anything.
    
    I'm extrapolating here, I'm sure, but if anyone had this happen and
    feels they should have known better.....they shouldn't have.
    
    It's the doctor's responsibility, and their FAULT.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

    re .9
�                            The book's city was in Oregon, I think, and
�    the fact that the community was deeply religious (Mormon) [...]
    
    eh?  since when is Oregon Mormon?  Utah, yeah, but Oregon???

    
    Mormons don't live only in Utah!  There are large Mormon communities in
    many other places.  Missouri comes to mind.
    
    CQ

    re .3
    I don't mean to come off hostile or anything, but are you aware that
    one in four women and one in six men were sexually molested as
    children?  For how many centuries have WOMEN been blamed when they were
    raped?  Compassion for rape victims is a relatively new phenomenon in
    our society.  Also, if the studies prove true there are a heck of alot
    of women out there that are completely uneducated about their bodies
    and intimidated by doctors, particulary male doctors.  It has only been
    recently that children are being acknowledged as victims of child rape.
    And what about date rape?  How much credibility has a women had when
    this happens?  I personally know of an optomitrist in New Mexico who
    sexually assaulted his women patients for 20 years and never got more than
    a slap on the wrist.  Never went to prison, police never even arrested
    him!  And women had been complaining about him for 20 years.  Yes,
    women probably do realize that this is nuts, but the "system" hasn't
    worked for women until very recently.  I hope I didn't offend you, but
    you hit a nerve.
    
    Karen

    There was a male gynecologist in Massachusetts who was on trial and
    lost his license for a few years (and perhaps other penalties, I don't
    recall) for improprieties with his patients.  Quite a few women
    complained.  I have no idea if it took a number of complaints for
    something to be done.

    Psychiatrists also have been known to have sex with patients.  An abuse
    I find appalling. I also consider it rape because how can consent be 
    free and uncoerced in that situation? 

    It is my understanding that such unethical and illegal and immoral
    things happen between some doctors and patients occasionally. But that
    given the large numbers of doctors, it is not rare.

    Yet more reason for people to be educated about their bodies.

    My heart goes out to anyone who has been abused, especially sexually,
    by someone in power over them.

    
    Re .25
    
    "I don't mean to come off hostile or anything...."
    
    You do come off hostile. In bringing up this subject about a criminal
    doctor (who was sent to prison for a long time) it was not my intention
    to trigger men bashing. I strongly suspect that the "statistics" you so
    liberally quote have no basis on reality whatsoever. I've known many
    women intimately in my life and only once did I ever hear of a date
    rape. This in ten years of "dating". I've seen statistics from "Against
    Our Wills" to today's most strident lesbian militants articles such as
    Andrea Dworkin's and it seems to me that the proportion of rape
    statistics increases with anti-men militancy.
    

re: .27

�			I strongly suspect that the "statistics" you so
�    liberally quote have no basis on reality whatsoever. I've known many
�    women intimately in my life and only once did I ever hear of a date
�    rape

	Perhaps your friends have been lucky...

	... or perhaps they think you lack the sensitivity to be sympathetic
if they did tell you.

						--D

    Umm, I didn't see Karen's reply as men-bashing. Neither did she sound
    hostile to me.
    
    I have known quite a few women who have been raped and some of them
    don't admit it. They talk of it as an 'accident'. IMHO, Rape statistics
    does not increase with anti-men militancy, but with more women getting
    the courage to acknowledge what happenned.
    
    manisha

    Dear .27,
    
    Perhaps you should reread .25.  You speak of "male bashing", but Karen
    does NOT refer to men.  She speaks of the victims -- girls *and*
    boys -- not the gender of their molesters.  She spoke of doctors,
    and implied that she was *not* speaking only of men-doctors.  She
    described a situation *she* knew about, and this "criminal doctor"
    was NOT "sent to prison for a long time", although he had been
    complained about for TWENTY YEARS!
    
    I have seen her statistics elsewhere.  Your distaste for them does
    not make them false; too da%n many children *have* been molested.
    Also, I find your phrasing, "I strongly suspect that the "statistics"
    you so liberally quote have no basis on reality whatsoever."
    exceptionally distateful when her "liberal" use of statistics was
    solely "...one in four women and one in six men were sexually molested
    as children".
    
    						Ann B.

    Re. .28
    
    Why don't you tell us about your perception instead of questioning my
    sensitivity? Can't we discuss these difficult subjects without trying
    to gnarl at each other?

    re.27
    
    Gee, do you think that, maybe, the man who raped me did it because I
    came off as a strident, man-hating, lesbian, feminist?
    
    Strident and feminist I may be; but lesbian I'm not. And if he thought
    I hated him, why would he have shared a home with me? [he was many
    things, but I'd never have called him brain-dead].
    
    Is it really 'men-bashing' to be white-hot angry with _a_ man who rapes
    or _a_ man who assaults his patients or _a_ man who abuses his wife or
    child?
    
    From the responses you've received in this string, I would appear that
    the phenomena of doctors molesting patients is more commonplace than
    you had previously surmised.  Stating that doesn't equate to
    men-bashing.
    
      Annie
    

    
    I am so angry that I am paralyzed.  Right here at my desk.  At work.
    If I was outside and could find my voice, I would let loose with a 
    scream so loud that it would shake the sky and the ground and everything 
    else on earth.
    
    Time to take a walk.
    
    CQ

    
    
    Moderators:
    
    I think it would be HIGHLY ADVISEABLE to split  this into an SRO and FGD
    discussion.
    
    If people want to fight, argue, and harrass each other, they should be
    doing it in a FGD area where those of us that are sensitive to this
    discussion don't have to view it.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Kathy
    
    

   Dear Anon,
    
    Like Jody said in .22 I'll say too.  You were abused, the doctor
    inflicted unneeded pain upon you.  It's your choice to use the term
    victim for yourself.  To me your brave person who has been through
    a harrowing experience instigated by someone you should be able to
    trust and learn from, a doctor.  That betrayal was unspeakable and
    the doctor is the only one responsable.
    
    Peace,
    Allison

I would just like to remind everyone that this is a very sensitive
topic, especially for women who have been abused by doctors or other
trusted people in their lives, and request that people are careful 
not to tread on the experiences or feelings of others.

Please remember when discussing this that blaming the victim is
inappropriate.  Let's try to focus on what can be done to help the
victims and to prevent further abuse rather than fight about it
amongst ourselves.

D!, =wn= co-moderator

    Men and women, and certainly children, have been misled by
    authority figures.  One sad result is loss of trust.  Heartbreaking,
    that people abuse people.
    
    Yup, Utah.  Idaho is largely Mormon, too.  There are large communities 
    throughout the western US; we're growing world-wide as well.
    
    aq
    

    re .27
    I am sorry you see that I am "male-bashing".  And thanks to the others
    who supported me in that note.  I was merely stating well known facts. 
    I do volunteer work at a local sexual assault center for children and
    even though men are the largest percentage of offenders, women offend
    also.  There are children out there that were molested by their mothers
    and other close female family members.  If you would like to take this
    off line, I would be more than happy to supply sources of my "liberal"
    statistics to you.  Moderators, I will leave it up to you whether I
    should put that list in here.  
    
    Karen

    Karen,
    
    Perhaps you can continue this discussion of the sexual assualt of
    children, and the statistics related to it, in Note 55, which is
    about that subject.
    
    Thanks,
    D!

    Thanks for telling me about that note D.
    
    Karen

    I take great umbrage at the reply that suggested the stats were loose.
    Women (and other abuse victims) have great difficulty EVER speaking
    about the assualt/abuse.  
    
    My awareness has always been pretty high and I have long known that
    this is a more pervasive problem than it seems.  Recently I have begun
    to wonder if there is even one woman I know who has not been
    abused/raped.  AND I REALLY HATE THE PHRASE "DATE RAPE" because it
    seems to imply that it is somehow less than "real rape" which it is
    not.   RAPE IS RAPE!  My level of awareness has been raised
    significantly recently (yes I know this note started about Dr.s, but I
    really needed to find the right forum to share this and I don't think I
    can look any longer, this is killing me).
    
    My daughter was raped 2 weekends ago, it took her a full week to let me
    know and then I found out that she had been "date raped" before she
    came to live with me and NEVER dared tell her mother.  All I have been
    able to do so far is get her to see a Dr (our family physician is a
    woman).  I have almost no details and she will not talk.  She refuses
    to let the police get involved, says she did not know the men
    (apparently there were more than one and she was not th only one raped)
    and will not tell me where it happened (though I suspect it may have
    been at or near Hampton Beach, NH.
    
    She is in counseling for the abuse and rejection from her mother (which
    is how I found out, she told the counselor and let her tell me).  I
    want to cry, I want to kill.  I could use a hug.  
    
    Besides the fact that I already knew that about half the women I know
    well have been raped at least once, I am now hearing from the few women
    who I have been able to share this with, that they to have been raped. 
    WHAT THE H-LL IS THE MATTER WITHTHESE GUYS.  I am a guy, straight,
    etc,etc and I have never come close to rape, I cannot imagine doing it,
    it is the most revolting thing I can think of (and I have a very
    powerful imagination). 
    
    This note does not have a conclusion.  I am truly lost here.
    
    jimc
    

    Re: .41
    
    My heart goes out to you, Jim. I am the father of four daughters (and a
    son) and I also believe that it would take a miracle for any of them to
    tell me if anything happened to them even though I've always encouraged
    our communication at all levels. We cannot protect them after they
    learn to walk. We can't be there at all times. The only thing we can do
    is to teach them to be more perceptive about human nature and the many
    flavors in which it comes packaged. There will always be animals out
    there. Even karate is a level of protection which - in my opinion - is
    already too far downstream and can get you killed, too. We must teach
    them to be cautious because the idea is to not be with the wrong people at
    the wrong places. There's nothing we can do about the animals.
    
    The reason you cannot fantasize about rape is because real rape is
    ugly, violent, rage-laden. It has nothing to do with eroticism. It is a
    crime of violence just like murder or worse because the victim is later
    further victimized by the legal system, society, relatives, etc. 

    re .41, .42, but there is a difference between date rape and violent
    rape, don't you think?  I think what is called date rape is often
    caused by a combination of desire and misunderstanding, rather than
    violence.
    
    Not to minimize the horror of rape, but it occurs to me that outside of
    this file, I've never met anybody, in real life, who, to my knowledge,
    was ever raped.  I think that sometimes when some people express
    surprise and seeming disbelief at the numbers of women who are supposed
    to have been abused and/or raped, it's just because, for whatever
    reason, we honestly didn't realize so much of it was going on because
     we've been fortunate enough that it hasn't touched our lives.
    
    It is shocking, and just because I didn't realize how common it
    apparently is doesn't mean I don't think it's horrible.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I suggest that although the discussion of rape is pertinent in this
    topic, perhaps further discussion could continue in any of the
    following places:
    
    53 - rape and its side effects: comments and discussion
    596 - does unwanted sex equal rape?
    778 - victims of rape
    
    -Jody
    

    Re. .44
    
    Thank you, Jody. I agree. My main purpose when I started this topic was
    my desire to know more about possible abuses by doctors. I was appalled
    when I read the book, that something so sinister could have gone on for
    so many years simply because a) the doctor had an uncanny ability to
    choose his victims. b) The women were too shy or religious or
    concerned with their husbands reaction to tell. c) Authorities both in the
    medical profession and in the legal field looked the other way.
    
    Thank you for the reference to the other relevant Notes.
    

    
    I'm not surprised.  Maybe it's because I'm a woman, maybe it's because
    I'm almost 40 and -- I think -- I can remember that having a nurse in
    the examining room during a pelvic exam was a fairly new practice when
    I started going to the doctor to have that kind of exam (in 1970). 
    There are probably some other readers here who remember when this was
    not required.  I wonder what led to this requirement being instituted?
    (Is it a law?)   
    
    This topic must have been in the back of my mind because -- seemingly
    for no reason -- the other day, while going about my business, I 
    suddenly remembered that being in the examining room, on the table, 
    legs in the stirrups, waiting for the doctor to appear, was a very 
    frightening experience for me as a teenager.  There was a sinister 
    something in the air, and the presence of the nurse only emphasized 
    it.  WHY WAS THE NURSE NEEDED?  The message I got, without ever being
    told explicitly was: because men -- even doctors -- can't be trusted.
    
    I wasn't raped by my doctor, but he was not "proper" with me.  I went
    to him for a problem that was eventually diagnosed as stress-induced
    spastic colon.  I stopped going to him because he kept calling me back
    for internal exams, for reasons that made no sense to me (he didn't
    seem to be getting any closer to diagnosing the problem).  Sometimes 
    a nurse would not be in the room and he would make an excuse for this.  
    He took a long time probing.  It was when he started talking to me
    about nudism -- what did I think about it? -- that I really got the 
    creeps.
    
    CQ  

    When I was in college, I had the unpleasant experience of going to
    the Bill Baird clinic in Boston to be fitted for a diaphragm. The 
    pelvic examination was incredibly painful---and when I expressed
    this to the doctor, he said something like "grow up".
    
    I've never gone to a male gynecologist since that experience.
    I know that's probably damning a whole bunch of perfectly
    wonderful male physicians, but I feel vulnerable enough having a
    pelvic exam that I won't have a male gynecologist.

    
    At age 16, during my first pelvic exam, the nurse was trying
    to get my legs farther apart, and I was very tense, and she
    said to me, "Can't you just relax?  How do you even have sex
    if you can't spread your legs?"  I went numb and since then
    have had some real issues surrounding my yearly exams.  Now,
    I wouldn't hesitate to get dressed and take action because
    of her verbal impropriety, but at age 16, I was too shy and 
    inexperienced.
    
    Carla
    

    
    
    	re  having nurses present during exams by male gyns...at
    	my last appointment, with my female gyn, the nurse informed
    	me that she is now _required_ to ask me if I wanted her to 
    	be present during the exam. I thought that was interesting,
    	because my first reaction was `don't be silly! of course you
    	don't have to stay', but it really isn't silly, is it? 
                                     

    re .48, and, wasn't it stupid of her to think that just because a
    person can relax enough to have sex, in private, with someone they
    presumably find attractive, that they can relax up on one of those damn
    tables with a couple of strangers gawking at them?!!!  At least during
    sex everybody's naked.
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

    
    re: .49 I think a nurse has to be present during a pelvic exam regardless 
    of the sex of the doctor.  It's been so long since I've been to a woman 
    doctor, I don't remember if there was a nurse present or not...
    
    Carla's note.  How rude, vulgar, insensitive.  I'm sorry she said that to 
    you.
       

    Nope, I've been to a female gyn in recent years and we were alone.
    And it was fine.  I would never go to a male again.  They don't all go
    as far as rape, but most of them have no problem taking advantage of a
    little opportunity for a kick.  Think about it!  When sitting in the
    caf, men have no problem watching women.  They feel fine about it.  We
    all know most of them want to, and we have to be there, so... it's kind
    of tolerated.  Well, men doctors are no special breed of male.  Most of
    *them* have physical interest in women, too.  And eventually, their
    examining rooms become no more sacrosanct as far as respecting women's
    dignity, as the cafeteria is.  "She's there anyway, she's naked
    anyway", etc.  It's easy to rationalize.
    
    This culture tells men women are there for the taking and if a man is
    smooth enough or cagy enough, he can get lots and that will be to his
    credit.  Well, doctors don't come from some other planet!  It's not 
    difficult to understand that a man in any kind of authority position 
    over a woman, a boss, a doctor, a potential customer, often even just 
    a man since we're raised to think they're all our masters, is going to 
    be cognizant of the potential such an opportunity presents. 
    
    It's depressing to realize that in those many instances, whether or not a
    woman keeps her dignity is decided by his whim and his alone.  If a man 
    can't resist a little mental undressing in the caf, think about what 
    they must go through with a parade of meek, (cause we raise our
    daughters to be meek, polite and don't anger men - what a coincidence!), 
    naked women in their offices day after day.  Some do tend to drop their
    more "pushy" women patients because with most women needing regular visits, 
    they certainly can easily build an entire practice full of timid women and
    have a field day!  Yeast infections used to be their bread and butter. 
    A quick swab, a little fun, take her money, give her Monostat and
    she'll be back in about 3 weeks because it came right back.  Now,
    because malpractice has created a dearth of ob-gyns, they can no longer
    afford such a production line and we are finally allowed to buy our own
    damn Gyne-Lotrimin or Yeast Guard - something we should have been able
    to do all along.  But until they had to, they didn't want to give up
    their lucrative, easy and fun practices.  I know doctors.  I was
    pre-med for 3 years and spent 2 more in heart research.  In general,
    they are driven, highly competetive, egocentric and ambitious, (because
    that's what medical schools select for), and have far more interest in 
    status and making money than in healing or caring.  
    
    I'd bet like most men, nearly every doctor, nearly every day, engages in 
    what they consider to be a little harmless diversion.  Doctors simply have 
    the opportunity to be less harmless than others but they too can justify 
    it like the guy in the cafeteria.  
    
    Yes, Chris, that's exactly why the nurse is there.
    
    Sandy                    

    
    > re: .49 I think a nurse has to be present during a pelvic exam
    > regardless of the sex of the doctor.  
    
    I think so too.  I always had a nurse present and always had a male
    doctor, until this past October, when I went to the female dr. who had
    recently joined the office.  The nurse still came in during the exam.
    Interesting to me was that although she was still in there, I didn't
    feel her presence as much.  Maybe I didn't need to.  In past years, she
    had always been right there by the table, even offering to hold my hand
    once.  Maybe she could sense I was less tense this time, or maybe she
    just thought I was old enough to not be such a baby ;-), I don't know..
    but this time she stayed behind the doctor.  
    
    Phyllis
    
    

    
    Oopps - someone got in there ahead of me and it looks like it must just
    be a matter of physician's choice/preference.
    
    

    One other little bit about doctors.  In medical school, they are taught
    that all women are hysterical, their complaints imaginary and their
    diseases due to promiscuity.  Now add THAT to the cultural influences
    they grew up with and continue to live with.  Would YOU get naked alone 
    in a room with one of 'em?  Can you even expect a sympathetic ear and a 
    genuine search for a solution to your particular problem?
    
    I say no on both counts.
    
    Best "gyn" I ever had was at the clinic at U Mass, Amherst.  She was no
    official gyn, just trained.  But she was a woman and a genuinely caring
    one and I was totally unselfconscious as we got our business done with
    even a laugh or three.  SHE should be teaching at medical schools! 
    Highly competetive men may do well on tests, but...
    
    S.                                                 

    The doctor I go to is male and he's never had the nurse come into the
    room during an exam.  He's never tried anything either.  I guess I'm
    just lucky that I happened onto a decent one.  Of course, I hardly ever
    go to the doctor anyway.  Once every 3 or 4 years is plenty for me.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I assume that the nurse who must be present (by law?) must also
    be female?  Or not?  (It wasn't stated - that I saw).
    

    
    see also:
    
    womannotes-V2
    703 - male ob/gyn doctors - yay or nay
    
    -Jody
    

    I'm sorry, Sandy, but not all men are scum.  Nor are men the only ones
    who "check out" MOTAS.  I have to say I get really tired of hearing
    this.
    
    E Grace

    The last time I went to a male doctor, during my pelvic exam he
    left the room, with me still in the stirrups with all that
    "equipment" they use still inside me and left the door wide open...
    needless to say I had my open legs toward the open door...
    as other patients and nurses wandered by...
    
    I go the Women's Clinic for everything now.  All women doctors,
    all women nurses.  I have never had a problem there, they are always
    supportive and helpful no matter how small my complaint.
    
    with love,
    cheyenne
    
     

    I don't believe that the nurse present must be female, but for those
    who are borderline, the presence of a witness is usually sufficient to
    deter improper behavior.
    
    In the last few years, whenever I've had a male doctor do the exam,
    there has been a nurse or assistant in the room while I'm undressed. 
    Of the women doctors who did exams, the presence of a nurse has been
    50/50.  I find that I prefer to have the third party there, regardless. 
    Don't quite know why, yet.  And the most recent experience, with a
    female gyn, she expected me to get dressed (behind a privacy curtain
    which wasn't big enough for me to turn around in) while she was still
    in the examining room.  I won't do it again, as I found it very
    uncomfortable.
    
    Alison

    
    My doctor is a woman and during my exams there isn't a nurse
    present.  In Colorado, my doctor was male, and there *was* a
    nurse present during pelvic exams.
    
    Carla
    

time for a funny story.

I was at UMass Amherst too.  One of the times I went to the clinic there for
gyn stuff, I got this doc who was sooooo cute, a hippie, long black hair, beard,
blue eyes.  Distractingly cute.  So, we had our conversation in which he asks
all the standard doc-type questions, and I answered, and then it's time for the
exam.  He hands me some lengths of cloth, tells me to get undressed and in a
minute the nurse will come in and tell me how to put these on.  So, I get naked
and am standing there all alone in this room, turning the lengths of cloth this
way and that, trying to figure them out, and there's a knock on the door.  "Come
on in", I say, thinking that this is the nurse come to help with these
mysterious garmets.

But it was the doctor.

Well!  He was so embarrassed!  He blushed the deepest shade of pink, looked
everywhere else, mumbled something and bolted.  He was so embarrassed, it was
enough for both of us!  I smothered my laughter though.  Poor guy. I remember
him fondly.

I think that docs are used to seeing naked women, but only one part at a time.
To this doc, total nudity must have had a sexual context, and he must have
thought the nurse had been in already.  Boy was he startled!

The abusers ought to be shot.  But I can't tar all docs with that brush.

Sara

    Yes, Sara, I agree with you.  They train themselves to deal only with
    parts, hense the drapes, and a totally naked woman, drapeless, is a 
    different matter.  But your gyn was also young.  I suspect they get more 
    cynical, impatient and flippant with age.
    
    Sorry, E, I wasn't in any way saying all men are scum.  I get tired of
    defending that.  I was outlining the system through which doctors
    become doctors.  Of course there are those who respect people, some who
    even respect women and some of them even graduate from medical school, 
    too.  But that isn't a high priority in the medical school admissions 
    process.  *That* process selects on other qualities and when combined 
    with what they teach them when they get there, ("all women are
    hysterical", etc), and what their culture has already taught them, 
    and continues to teach them, produces the kind of doctors we have.  If 
    you think the "all women are hysterical" line was dreamed up by me, you're 
    wrong.  I quoted it verbatim from an article written by a group of medical 
    school graduates.
    
    So this in no way has anything to say about what "all men" are like or 
    even what *I* might think they are like - just about what kind get into 
    and succesfully out of medical school.  And that's a rather small per-
    centage of "all men".  We're talking about doctors and I was sticking to 
    that subset.
    
    Sandy           

    
    and not all male gynies are scum.  I don't think there's ever been
    anyone else in the room, wherther I had the male or female doctor 
    (and I'm not sure I'd want a whole dern crowd in that situation anyway!)  
    
    I think the best way to find a good gyn/ob is by reference.  IF anyone
    needs a good reference (in the Denver area) for a two female/1 male clinic,
    where all three are EXCEPTIONALLY caring, drop me a line.
    (mods, can I do that?)
                                                         
    Jamd

    Replies .52 and .55 by TALLIS::TORNELL are loaded with many broad-
    brush statements about male doctors and I'm not so sure that's
    at all fair to the male doctors who act professionally.
    
    For example, I doubt that the second sentence of .55, "In medical 
    school, they are taught that all women are hysterical, their
    complaints imaginary and their diseases due to promiscuity." is
    true.
    
    Can't we do without those kinds of sweeping generalizations?
    
                                      L.J.

  re: previous by (USWRSL::SHORTT_LA)
    
>    For example, I doubt that the second sentence of .55, "In medical 
>    school, they are taught that all women are hysterical, their
>    complaints imaginary and their diseases due to promiscuity." is
 >   true.

  Indeed, I can attest to the fact it isn't true. My brother, a doctor,
was taught no such thing.

  I fully expect TALLIS::TORNELL to claim he is the exception, rather
than the rule, as she is apt to do when she so magnificently paints
herself into a corner.

  And I wonder, too, what must the female doctors think when taught
this 'fact'? I suppose they just sit idly by, filing their nails,
while the male students whoop and holler like the animals they are.

  Patrick

I wonder if there's a time warp here?  Sandy, when did you see these practices?
Patrick, when did your brother go to medschool?

Our family doc when I was a kid was an allergist who practiced as a GP.  He
delivered all of my aunt's children (all 6 of 'em).  Along about her 4th she
started to buck the "knock-'em-out" standard practice.  The doc's reaction was,
why would you want to go through all that pain???  He retired in the late 60s.
I sincerely doubt that docs are trained to that mindset now!

Please remember folks, no person's experience is universally applicable.  When
people feel strongly about what's happened to *them*, their descriptions tend to
be strong also.

Sara

re: .65
>    I think the best way to find a good gyn/ob is by reference.  IF anyone
>    needs a good reference (in the Denver area) for a two female/1 male clinic,
>    where all three are EXCEPTIONALLY caring, drop me a line.
>    (mods, can I do that?)
    
    Yes, you can.  I recommend you put it in the "resources, title should
    state what kind" topic (topic 26, I think).  
    
    However, please do NOT put negative referrals in any Digital notesfile. 
    If you wish to express a negative viewpoint, state "I have had a
    negative experience with an ob/gyn I went to, if you would care to send
    me mail I will share it with you".
    
    
    -Jody
 

    Hey, I didn't create that "all women are hysterical" line, I told you,
    it was written by a group of medical school graduates.  Speak to them
    about it.  So in answer to the question of when we can escape these 
    broad generalizations, I guess the answer is never.  They're everywhere.  
    And you live with them every day without even realizing most of them.
    Sorry to quote one and remind y'all of that.  
    
    Sure medical school, like everything else, is changing, albeit
    slowly, like everything else.  Traditionally, the relatively few 
    female students *did* just kind of squirm and keep quiet.  They were 
    outnumbered, unwelcome and on "male turf".  I assume that change isn't 
    happening equally across to board to everything.  Perhaps someone knows 
    of a small pocket of sanity somewhere - but there still exist plenty of 
    pockets of tradition and you can bet it's most likely at the most 
    prestigious schools - where the most money is, the most power and the 
    tightest circles of "old guard" control.  But we're talking about doctors, 
    for the most part doctors in private practice, not med students.  And most 
    of *them* went to school when it wasn't the 90s or even the 80s.
    
    As for painting myself into a corner, hardly.  I'm not trying to convince
    anyone of anything therefore I can't possibly be cornered.  I really
    believe what I'm saying and will gladly tell you why I believe it,
    which is what I'm doing.  If that seems like "harping" on something,
    or expressing a general hatred of men, or a belief that they're scum or 
    something else equally ridiculous, maybe it would be better if I just 
    say what I feel with no substantiation - no glimpse into how I arrived at 
    that - no basis for discussion.  But something tells me that might not be 
    acceptable either.  Hmm.  
    
    Besides, even if I *did* hate men, (and I don't - I think they're
    great.  Up front, to the point, fun, can laugh at themselves, etc), so 
    what?  It doesn't prove that a group of medical school graduates did not 
    all agree in writing that students are taught some pretty misogynistic 
    stuff in medical schools.  And are you all really trying to insinuate you 
    don't hate anything or anyone yourselves?  I do understand the "blanding" 
    of America, but I personally just can't imagine a life without passion.  
    
    Although hate is of course a strong and generally irrevocable emotion, 
    destructive to both parties, and one that should be under control as much 
    as possible, it goes hand in hand with the ability to feel intense joy, 
    intense love, etc, emotions I *want* to feel.  A line in a poem I wrote 
    goes,  "He does not know that the depth of his hate and the depth of his 
    love are equally great".  That's not to say equally wonderful, or that 
    both should be given free reign - certainly hate shouldn't but perhaps 
    neither of them should.  Unbridled love has its drawbacks, too!  But in 
    any case, I don't hate men.  For heaven's sake.  If anything, it would be 
    bland, emotionless people without fire, passion or opinion who might be 
    distasteful to me.  Still wouldn't hate them tho.  I know how to feel
    it, but it's limited to individual people and personal situations - as it
    should be.  Excuse me, as *I believe* it should be.
    
    Sandy-who-loves-men-and-abhors-the-way-we-train-our-doctors-because-it-
    helps-insure-that-the-kind-of-doctor-in-the-basenote-will-exist-and-in-
    pretty-good-numbers-too.
    

    
    Notice also that Sandy said "doctors are trained to do x", but
    not that all doctors "learn to do x."
    
    I think that if I was in a place where I was taught to do something
    that was repugnant to me - to lie or cheat, for example, but I had
    to be there in order to get to the next step (a medical degree in this
    example), I may very well stay there and pretend to learn the lesson,
    but not really learn the lesson.
    

    Exactly.  Thanx, Ellen.  People do get blood in their eyes and have
    trouble reading, sometimes.
    
    These topics in womannotes or in any "social" notesfile aren't
    generally about arcane subjects - discussion kind of requires that the
    subjects be somewhat universal or at least common to a large number of
    people.  This topic is here and is backed up by women coming forward 
    with more stories.  How many more women are hesitant to reveal such an
    intimate anecdote?  Plenty more than are willing, I'm sure.  I know
    I've kept my experiences to myself, but I've had them, too!
    
    So there's more to this than just one or two women looking for a hug
    after one or two isolated incidents.  This is a *common* situation,
    whether it makes people uncomfortable or not!  I'm offering my reasons
    as to *why* I think it's so common, perhaps mistakenly believing that
    everyone already understands the pervasiveness of it.  Women and their
    lives are often so hush-hush.  I'll bet in a totally annonymous forum,
    you'd be shocked at the endless stories that would pour in.
    
    Of *course* there are good doctors.  If they were *all* scum, we
    wouldn't need a notesfile topic, the subject would be in the popular
    media from that angle and we'd be discussing the media coverage.  Right 
    now, it's in the media only as individual stories, isolated incidents 
    perpetrated by a few "sick" doctors.  Well I'm sorry, but it's my belief 
    that these doctors are NOT sick - that they are as mentally healthy as 
    anyone except for perhaps being a little more bold, (the medical school
    admission process traditionally selects for aggressiveness!!), than others 
    and having a lot more opportunity than others.  If you send a pack of 
    well-trained wolves to guard your sheep, perhaps one or two might kill a 
    few sheep.  Are they "bad" wolves?  They are *normal* wolves put in an
    abnormal situation!  Would you be willing to sacrifice a few sheep to 
    avoid "huring the feelings" of the "good" wolves?  Are you willing to take 
    a chance with your own dignity or that of your daughters in order to prove 
    that some men can be good doctors?  Why take the risk??  And it *is* a
    risk, despite the good doctors out there!
    
    Maybe people are thinking that I think men who desire women and who are 
    opportunistic about it are scum.  That's YOUR interpretation, not mine.
    I find them normal men, not scum at all.  But just like I wouldn't
    train a wolf to guard my sheep, *however* successful some may be, I 
    wouldn't attempt to train a man or accept such a trained man to attend to 
    the most intimate medical needs of myself or my daughters.  It simply 
    doesn't make sense and it's no *bad* reflection on men.  And if I stood 
    alone in thinking this, there never would have been the "female nurse in 
    the room" rule.  And for the record, it didn't have to be a nurse - just 
    female.  The receptionist would satisfy the rulemakers. (They *are*
    always female, aren't they!  ;>  )

    But apparently enough people, even some in decision making positions feel 
    as I do, but didn't want to take it as far as eliminating male gyns - 
    rather just forcing a "supervisor" to watch them.  Now why pay for 2 
    people?  Isn't that silly?  Why not just have these "supervisors", the 
    kinds of people that are most often trusted and trustworthy do the exams 
    themselves?  Isn't that much simpler?  Then this whole thing is eliminated.
    But I do have this "radical" thinking that women's fertility belongs with 
    women alone, anyway.  Because even in sheep's clothing, you always still 
    know the motivations of wolves and you *don't* know when or even if a 
    trained one will choose to act out.  I supose it was inauspicious to use 
    the wolf as a metaphor - but maybe not.  I'm not the only one who's made
    this association.  Wonder why.  The result of some other one or two
    arcane incidents perhaps?

    So maybe some other line of work would be much more suitable if so many
    male doctors are choosing to act out their *natural* desires, (albeit 
    in unnatural ways), that we have a problem of the magnitude we do.  Or
    we can change the way we raise men in the first place and the way we train 
    them to regard women.  Personally, I don't think the individual men 
    themselves constitute the real problem.  Send me to guard a warehouse 
    full of m&ms?  Dangerous!  Am *I* bad or are the people who sent me to 
    do the job and the people who store their m&ms there rather naive? 
    Should they be required to suffer through guards like me and take their
    losses to be PC and prove that good guards exist?  Let men be men and
    let me have all the m&ms I find.  Let it be!  Why fight it?
    
    Sandy
    

    re: .72 (Sandy)
      
          This is somewhat tangential and maybe a bit of a rathole, but
    the thought has come up for me and therefore I'd like to ask "If the
    doctor was a lesbian, would you still say the same things?  If the
    doctor were gay, would you still say the same things?  If the man
    has no sexual interest at all, would you still say the same things?"
    Please understand, I am not attempting to circumvent the issues 
    being discussed here, I am curious to know what the differences are,
    that's all.
    
    Thanks,
    Frederick
    

Oh heavens. Abuse is abuse regardless of who perpetrates it.


Liz

    Sandy,
    We all of us are occasionally tempted to do things that we know are,
    at least internally to us, morally objectionable.  To the extent to
    which we are "sick", we may act on those temptations.  Normal males
    would find the improprieties (that's too soft) discussed in this
    topic morally repugnant.  So the perpretrators of these immoralities
    are either abnormal or sick or both.  By saying that these men are
    normal healthy men you are taking the knife you normally have planted
    in our collective male breast and giving it a big twist.  
    - Vick
    

  I have never felt that Sandy planted a knife in my breast.  Perhaps
  a needle in my butt once or twice...but these have all been edifying
  experiences, and well worth the sting.

  Vick, I think your view of the male population is somewhat rose-colored;
  you seem to be projecting your own nice-guy-hood onto the entire
  population.  Remember that study a few years back that reported (and 
  I forget the exact numbers but perhaps our esteemed archivists can 
  provide a pointer to this discussion in past versions of =wn=) somewhere 
  between 33% and 50% of "normal" male college students would commit a rape 
  if they thought they could get away with it?

  And those were just the students who _admitted_ to such thinking.

  JP

    
    I doubt that 33% to 50% of college males think rape was morally
    okay.  I bet they would know and agree that if they did rape someone
    it would be a sign of sickness in themselves.  I think the "if you
    could get away with it" clause is stupid.  It implies you could also
    escape your conscious, escape your guilt, suffer no consequences
    of any kind.  So, for me that clause would also have to imply that
    the victim suffered no damage or pain, then or in the future.  It's
    almost like that clause wipes the morality right out of the picture.
    Most college kids have not discovered their own morality.  What were
    you like in college?  Surveys like that are really dumb.  To hold that
    kind of thing up as proof that men are pig-dogs is just silly.
    
    A couple of men have now (once here, and one in MENNOTES) intervened
    between Sandy and me, defending her from my charges of vituperation.
    Frankly, she seems in little need of being defended by anyone.  Perhaps
    if you read her notes carefully, intellectually, analyzing every
    detail, you might not be able to make a case for vituperation.  But I
    gotta go with my gut.  I'll call it as I feel it.
    
    - Vick
    
    
    

    another tangent...
    
    i prefer to have a woman ob/gyn because she knows the anatomy inside
    out, has experienced the same physical feelings etc.  Also, as a
    lesbian, i don't want any intimate physical contact with any man by
    choice (an emergency situation may elicit a different choice).  My
    doctor knows i am a lesbian, i'm comfortable, she's comfortable.
    
    for the men out there, would you prefer a male or female proctologist? 
    would you feel more comfortable discussing prostrate problems with
    someone who intrinsically understands you?  would a highly trained
    woman be ok?
    
    i don't mean to antagonize, just think about it, and then tell me.
    
    btw, i was molested by a male gp doctor when i was very young, i told
    my mom and she didn't believe me, she believed the almighty male doctor
    because doctors are authority figures and are always right.   i must
    have been making it up. and i was punished for telling lies.
    
    sue

  Vick,

  You are free to doubt whatever you want but that was the
  data as reported.  As to what I was like in college, I'd say
  there has never been a time in my life when I would have answered
  'yes' to that question, even with the "if you could get away with 
  it clause" in place.

  And I find it very difficult to believe that a person as reasonable
  as yourself would ever answer that question 'yes.'  Yet this large
  number of college students _did_ answer the question that way.  If
  you believe that "normal men" would never perpetrate the "improprieties" 
  (there's a candidate for euphemism of the year) described in this topic, 
  just because you would never do so, how do you account for the disparity 
  between your answer and the answers of those college students?

  JP

    Most college men, when asked if they would rape a woman if they could
    get away with it, said no.
    
    Most college men, when asked if they would force a woman to have sex
    with them if they could get away with it, said yes.
    
    Conclusion (by me): most men don't know what rape really is.  most men
    have been trained to think of "rape" as a bad thing, but as long as
    they think the *word* doesn't apply, most men *don't* have a moral
    aversion to forcing a woman into sex.
    
    D!

re: .78

Sue, one problem I see with choosing a female ob/gyn over a male one
based purely on their respective sexes is that, while you maintain that
a woman knows the anatomy inside and out, that assertion is not borne
up by fact.  I've known many women who had little or no idea how their
plumbing works.  In fact, because a man does not know from first-hand
experience what a woman's body is like and therefore can't take any of
it for granted, it stands to reason that at least some male ob/gyns
might study harder so that they could understand as well as possible.
Stipulated that this speculation is valid, it follows that a male
ob/gyn is statistically more likely than a female to have a really
thorough *medical* understanding.

As for choosing a proctologist - or any other doctor - based on hir
sex, I might have momentary embarrassment problems at the outset, but
once past that concern, I place more reliance in hir skill than in hir
possession (or not) of a y chromosome.

-d

    RE .81

    In respect to considering a male versus female proctologist, there
    is one consideration which might cause you to select a female
    practitioner by default (based on overall averages, ignoring
    individual variances).

    However, I'll insert a cautionary form feed here, so the curious
    have to do a bit more work...








    
    The overly sensitive have been warned...


    On *average*, I would expect female proctologists to have more
    slender fingers...




    

>    for the men out there, would you prefer a male or female proctologist? 
>    would you feel more comfortable discussing prostrate problems with
>    someone who intrinsically understands you?  would a highly trained
>    woman be ok?

 Frankly, not needing a proctologist in the first place is preferable. :-)

 Barring that, it really isn't that much more uncomfortable talking to a female
doctor (or nurse) about those special problems, nor is it really any worse
having an exam done by a woman. To the contrary, it is generally more 
comfortable when a woman gives a prostate exam, since women tend to have
fingers that are smaller in diameter. Both my (middle) brother and my father 
see a female gp, and she does their prostate exams. They agree that it is
less uncomfortable than when they saw a previous (male) doctor.

 This said, I don't have a problem with anyone whose comfort level differs from
mine such that they only feel comfortable with doctors of the same (or
different!) gender. In many cases, such as Sue's, there is a very compelling
reason why the person's comfort level is the way it is. I don't see how anyone
could or should begrudge anyone with a different comfort level.

 the Doctah

    re: having female proctologists.
    
    I would have no problem with this.  An expert is an expert, and I'm
    not modest in the medical setting.  However, I can certainly understand
    why a woman might want a female ob/gyn.  There is a difference, at least
    in vulnerability.  And a female ob/gyn would certainly seem less likely
    to engage in "improprieties" in the exam room.  I don't deny that.  My
    only argument in this topic has been that you cannot consider men who
    would do these things as being healthy, and probably not "normal".
    
    - Vick

    re: .80 (D!)
    
         "most men don't have a moral aversion to forcing sex..."
    
         I don't know about "most men," for I am only one, and my
    male friends are only a handful more, but based on my small sampling,
    I would find that erroneous.  I, for one, have never been able to
    *perform* with a woman who wasn't totally willing to participate with
    me.  I, for one, don't like the idea of women who feel obligated to
    having sex with me, let alone forcing myself upon them totally against
    their will.  Though it hasn't happened and is quite unlikely to in
    any future I can foresee, I could *imagine* being mad enough to want
    to punish someone that way...but even if I were to have done so, I
    would undoubtably feel very much ashamed and remorseful at the very
    least.  I would never see it as appropriate behavior, no matter how
    righteous I would work to make it.  
         There is a large problem, however, in the way our society has
    reared us.  Perhaps this isn't true everywhere else, and again I can
    only speak from my limited life, but it was generally "understood"
    by the boys I grew up around that girls would almost always resist.
    That (and since I grew up Catholic this was more so true) it was almost
    a moral responsibility for a girl to resist, *even though she "really
    wants it",* because then she wouldn't be "sinning."  It was, therefore,
    a boy's "duty" to persist, so that then the girl wouldn't be sinning
    if she "succumbed."
         Before you all jump at once...I want to make it clear that I
    reject those attitudes and beliefs.  THEY ARE INCORRECT AND HURTFUL.
    But I have come to reject far, far more, including not only Catholism,
    but all religions (although *not* spirituality) as well as most of
    what our society has taught us.  The point is that these things were
    taught, at least to some people (men.)  And many women believed it,
    too.  Now, as women are waking up, "wait a minute...!!" has rightfully
    been imposed.  But there are still the teaching and misconceptions to
    undo.  
         Most heterosexual men would enjoy to have sex with a woman who
    physically turns them on.  There is nothing at all unusual about this.
    But men can be taught to be appropriate about it.  And if you further
    ask, would men prefer a willing to an unwilling partner, given the 
    choice I cannot imagine any un-psychotic male desiring the latter.
    
    Frederick
    

    Re. .79
    
    Thank you, John for nominating my Choice (Improprieties) as candidate to
    euphemism of the year! It made my day even though I misspelled it in
    the title. 
    
    Seriously, now. The main topic is to confront the subject in the book
    with today's experiencies of women/girls going to get pelvic exams. I
    get the feeling that we are only scratching the surface here. My son in
    law is an OB/GYN and after we are through with this discussion I plan
    to prepare a short summary of conclusions based on everything said
    here, for his additional training because they don't teach them
    anything about this in school: how to be sensitive and kind to the
    patient, considerate and respectful of their need of privacy, etc.
    
    With respect to choice based on gender, sexual orientation of the
    patient, etc. I think some people have oversimplified things. Many
    times it depends on who is available in the area, how soon you can get
    an appointment, references by others (the best criteria in my opinion),
    etc. I agree that we should be more careful when it comes to "the
    plumbing" than, say, seeing a dermatologist for a wart but, in general,
    the sex of the physician should have nothing to do with the choice one
    makes. The sheep analogy was a little strong for me. It voids all good
    judgment and restraint. If men were like that no woman would ever be
    safe in an elevator full of men!

    Just a couple comments, then back to the topic:
    
    I prefer a female gyn.  Not because I view male doctors as potential
    rapists, but I'm more comfortable disrobing with a female...for me it
    removes any possibility of sexual overtones.  I don't feel that all
    male doctors are looking for jollies with female patients, but I guess,
    I view men in this instance as sexual creatures (even though I don't
    believe that they are viewing *me* sexually)-I guess it has more to do
    with, oh, I don't know, I just would find it embarrassing to go to a
    male gyn, but I do know that it is not fear that motivates me in this
    decision.  I've also had comments made to me "well, what if the doctor
    is a lesbian" (I'm straight), and my reaction is that it doesnt' matter
    because it's a professional medical procedure, with no sexual
    connotations.  I guess, it such a situation, I wouldn't view a woman,
    regardless of her orientation as a sexual creature, because as a woman,
    she understands how it feels to have such an examination (not something
    that's on my list of top ten favorite ways to spend an afternoon!). 
    Please, I hope our bi/gay/les readers/participants don't find my
    comment derogatory, for it is not meant as such.  I just thought it was
    interesting that the question had been brought up (by men and women).
    
    Back to the topic,  quite a while ago, 60 minutes ran a segment
    regarding a male doctor who performed "love" operations on women
    without their knowledge.  I cannot remember his name or where it
    occurred, but in some cases, this man took advantage of women
    immediately following childbirth and would do things such as
    repositioning the uterus, tightening the vagina, repositioning,
    removing or even exposing the clitoris, unbelievable horrible things, 
    WITHOUT THE CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF HIS VICTIMS.  In some cases, the
    surgery was perfomed with consent, generally involving patients who had
    admitted physical sexual problems.  His position was that women's
    bodies weren't created properly to enjoy sex.  His operation rectified
    that.  Well, not according to many of the women who now can't enjoy sex
    or other activities,, depending upon what he did.  I wish I could
    remember more details, but I was horrified to see it.  
    
    Christine

    I personally have always thought that OB/GYN work "belonged" in the
    female domain.  I have never understood why there was such a dearth of
    females in this obviously well suited medical area.  Having borne four
    children this experience has only served to confirm my belief.  While
    I've never been abused by any male doctor, including my male OB/GYN who
    delvivered my children, Childbirth et al is definately "woman's work". 
    I wished I'd had a female OB for this.
    
    But as for the abusiveness during exams, I don't doubt it happens.  You
    leave your modesty at the door when you go for a gynecological check
    up.  Lying flat on your back with a couple of plastic sheets to cover
    you isn't exactly conducive to playing coy.  On the other hand, I've
    often wondered how a doctor could possibley respond to female nudity
    after seeing nude females day in and day out, in all shapes and sizes,
    in various (UN)hiegienic conditions, grossly distorted in pregnancy,
    without developing a sort of numbness to female nudity?  Sort of like
    working in an ice cream stand all day for years to the point where you
    can't stand the idea of actually eating it?
    
    I think any male doctor with a sense of morals and ethics will not
    abuse his priveledge of trust from his clients.  There are the
    occasioanl sick ones who will.  It happens in every profession.
    

       >On the other hand, I've often wondered how a doctor could 
    	>possibley respond to female nudity after seeing nude 
    	>females day in and day out, in all shapes and sizes,
        >in various (UN)hiegienic conditions, grossly distorted in
    	>pregnancy, without developing a sort of numbness to female nudity?  
    
    This is exactly what an OB/GYN friend of my told me happens.  Female
    nudity, by itself, no longer did anything for him, sexually.  I think
    that would be the "normal" experience.  I think only a sick person 
    could long continue to find anything sexually interesting in the exam
    room.
    					- Vick

    
    re: .87 I wouldn't feel safe in an elevator full of men.
    
    CQ

.89                                   

>    I personally have always thought that OB/GYN work "belonged" in the
>    female domain.  I have never understood why there was such a dearth of
>    females in this obviously well suited medical area.  


Possibly because women were barred from studying *any* branch of medicine - 
or anything else on an advanced level - until quite recently in human 
history, and they're still catching up?

DB

> it was almost a moral responsibility for a girl to resist, *even though 
> she "really wants it",* because then she wouldn't be "sinning."  It was, 
> therefore, a boy's "duty" to persist...

Thank you, Fred.  You have just described for Vic how men and boys can and
do justify rape and how our religions and traditions are set up to set the 
stage for it easily happening.  Few think rape is great.  But the male is 
the one who gets to decide for himself whether or not it's rape and naturally, 
he's going to base it on what's best for *him*!  And as long as women are 
suspect when they name the experience rape, we as a culture are tacitly 
allowing men to decide.

>But there are still the teaching and misconceptions to undo.  

But now we get into the area of motivation.  Are boys and men *motivated* to 
learn?  Are they willing to hear that some of their sexual experiences were 
stolen and that they should not have had them?  Are they going to be willing 
to take a look at their attitudes, knowing that such an examination will 
most likely result in them realizing that perhaps they should have fewer
experiences than their well-cultivated MOs could otherwise bring them?  It
seems almost like a Saturday Nite Live skit to see some shark who's wrapped 
his date up in loaded questions, suble accusations, false pleas, etc, and
getting pretty close to scoring, turn to his conscience and say, "I can't do 
this to her - she's such a nice girl" and taking her home.

As a side note, bringing up females to feel *entitled* to saying yes
when they felt like it would eliminate this convoluted and self-serving
reasoning in men that often results in women's rapes and men's feelings
of innocence, confusion and possibly anger at women.  I've said this
before.  When women own the right to have sex, when they believe as deeply 
as a male does that sex is their right, when men believe that women who 
want sex will say so, their nos will be taken more seriously.  But as it 
stands now, even if a man and woman are full adults and he no longer believes 
she is required to be coy, he can, if he wants to, still act on that 
assumption and bully her - I mean "do his duty" and "persist".  And if a man 
is in an intimate situation with a woman he desires and he is ready for sex, 
might more than a few of them convince themselves in any way possible that 
what he's doing is right and that she will eventually acquiesce?

Was it you Vic who offered why you though a man might have more "medical
knowledge" than a female?  In that reply, comparison is made between
males who have been trained in medical school and women who haven't.  Not a 
good comparison.  You're comparing "women you know" with trained men.
Please understand that a woman and a man coming out of medical school have 
received the same training.  Beyond that, which one has the better "gut 
feel", something you've admitted is valid and worthy of respect? 

> But men can be taught to be appropriate about it.

By whom?  I hope the parents of this generation are teaching them because 
the parents who raised the males of my generation did a pretty poor job.

> And if you further ask, would men prefer a willing to an unwilling
> partner, given the choice I cannot imagine any un-psychotic male
> desiring the latter. 

Are you saying you never heard the joke, "even bad sex is better than no sex 
at all"?  Or perhaps you don't understand it.  And then there are men, more
than a few who actually *prefer* the unwilling.  At a lower volume, (where 
it also sometimes exists in women but virtually never to the point of 
cornering an unwilling male),  it translates to the love of illicit sex, 
the kind that goes cold once the couple gets married or once the cheating 
partners become divorced and can continue their affair out in the open.  
And you've also excluded the "conquest" mentality.  It's rampant in young 
men and only tapers a bit as they age.  They may act out less, but the 
mentality is still there and can easily be tweaked in certain situations -
like touching naked and nervous women all day long, women who have been
trained to believe you are an all-knowing demi-god.

And many men have sex with women who don't particularly interest them.  I 
doubt such men are going to take time to cultivate comfort, trust and intimacy 
in their partners.  Given all that, the male who is sensitive, who does not
pressure, who respects women and who's sexual behavior reflects that, is in
the minority.  And any woman with a little experience will tell you the
same.  Men generally don't see how other men are when they are alone with 
women.  Men are free to think about this academically, philosophically, 
theoretically, ideologically and personally.  But women are down there in 
the trenches.  We're *with* the guys alone at midnite.  And as with anything 
else, actions speak louder than words.

Sandy
    

    I was 'channel flipping' a few nights ago and came across a song on
    TNN with lyrics like this:
    
    	When I say 'no' I mean 'maybe' and when I say 'maybe' I  mean
    'yes'.
    
    This, perhaps typifies the notion expressed in .-1 of what "good" girls
    are supposed to say (and mean).
    
    I thought it was bloody awful.
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    It may be awful, but that's the way it's been and for the most part,
    continues to be.  Men of my generation still express a "protectiveness"
    of their daughters' sexuality that is not present for their sons - the
    seeds of the double standard.  They don't realize what they're setting
    their daughters up for and that they're concurrently training their sons 
    to take advantage, with impunity, of women who are trained the way they 
    are training their daughters.
    
    And some of their sons will be doctors and some of their daughters will
    be their patients...
    
    S. 

    No, it was not I who compared medical education men with that for 
    women.
    					- Vick

	>Men generally don't see how other men are when they are alone with 
	>women.  Men are free to think about this academically, philosophically
    
    But you, presumably see other women when they are alone with men?  You
    can speak for all women without being academic or philosophical?  So I
    shouldn't believe what my male friends tell me, but you can believe
    what your female friends tell you?  Oh, of course, I forgot, men are
    all lying insensitive scum.  Why should I believe any of them?  
    
>And many men have sex with women who don't particularly interest them.  
    
    And by the way, there are plenty of women who use men for sexual pleasure
    without having any interest in them.  Do I need to go into personal
    details (it's kind of painful), or wouldn't you believe me anyway?  
    
    					- Vick
    

    -vick
    
    women tend to tell stories to each other about this sort of thing..
    
    bonnie

    re:  Sandy
    
         I sincerely hope that you aren't living everything you're
    talking about.  What a negative reality you are creating for
    yourself! (in my opinion.)
         I, like Vick, can vouch for many women doing what you
    describe men doing.  It isn't all so black and white, Sandy.
    Women aren't all hapless and helpless.  Lots of them are highly
    skilled at manipulating to get whatever they want, including being
    "victimized by men."  How else would they survive in the world,
    especially since according to you, they've been so incredibly
    mistreated?  
         Once again, I can honestly say that it's time for women to
    take the power back that they rightfully and honestly hold...and
    for men to learn how to not misuse the power that is already
    acknowledged within them.
    
    Frederick
    

>    women tend to tell stories to each other about this sort of thing..
    
    
    Bonnie,
    	You're telling me women sit around and tell each other about how 
    crassly they treated some poor guy last week?  Are these confession type 
    things or do they giggle a lot about it?  Or are you telling me that
    because you've never heard them talking about doing that kind of thing to
    someone that therefore they must never have done it.  Well, I guess
    that's all I'm assuming about the guys I've talked to.  I don't see
    how female hearsay is any better than male hearsay.
    
    - Vick

    Vick,
    
    I interpreted Bonnie's comment:
    
    >>    women tend to tell stories to each other about this sort of thing..
    
    not to refer to the *last* paragraph of your reply .97:

>    And by the way, there are plenty of women who use men for sexual pleasure
>    without having any interest in them.

    but to mean that women talk about how men have treated them.
    And I suspect that that includes not only (from Sandy's .93)

>...the male who is sensitive, who does not pressure, who respects women and
>who's sexual behavior reflects that...

        but also

>...men, more than a few who actually *prefer* the unwilling.

Bob

    Re: Bonnie et Bob
    Oh, yeah, okay, just write that off to Friday brain burn-out.  :^)
    
    Re:  I've lost track of where we are and I don't really care
    
    I will make my point one more time:  Healthy, normal men would not
    commit rape (even if they thought they could "get away with it"), nor
    the other kinds of "improprieties" we are discussing here.  I don't
    see how anyone who claims that they would could say they like men,
    unless they see nothing wrong with rape.  Such a person may like this
    man or that man, but they don't "like men".
    							- Vick
    

    OK, Vick, we can go with you on that.  That just tells us that vast
    numbers of these men are not healthy or 'normal' by your definitions.
    Sandy wasn't calling them healthy, either.  But they exist in large
    enough numbers that its pretty clear that societal norms are producing
    them.
    
    DougO

    Bob
    
    you are correct in my reference. women *do* tell each other and
    in great detail how men treat them on dates.
    
    Bonnie

    re .102:

    Vick, I agree with you on your definitions of "healthy" and "normal"
    men, but I agree with DougO that they're not the _usual_ definitions.

    In fact, one of my associations with "healthy men" is the bit of
    cultural programming that says:  Normal, healthy, red-blooded men want
    sex whenever it's offered.

    Now, if the "offer" is in the mind of the beholder and _not_ of the
    supposed offerer, that sounds like a recipe for date rape, doesn't it?

    ---------

    Vick, You also say you don't see how anyone who claims that healthy,
    normal men would commit rape could also say they like men.

    Does this have anything to do with this topic?  I don't understand why
    "liking men" is a prerequisite to commenting on their propensity to
    steal sexual pleasure in inappropriate situations -- like the
    doctor-patient relationship.
    
    And even supposing it's relevant, why do you feel qualified to comment
    on whether someone else (male, female, or anonymous-in-notes) likes men
    or not?
    
    Bob

    I think a bunch of us still have our Maggie-generated stick-on labels
    from Friday night's party.  Please don't label us until those wear out,
    okay?
    
    :-)

    
    Since my arguments were all aimed at Sandy's claim that normal,
    healthy, males would rape a woman given the chance, and that at the
    same time that she liked men, I found it relevant to state that I 
    doubted that.  I'm reminded of the old cop-out "Why, some of my best friends
    are _____".
    
    Maybe I'm just totally sheltered in my existence, but I know lots of
    men, and there isn't one I can think of whom I would believe capable of
    that kind of mentality.  If the college survey is so reliable and
    indicates such terrible things about men, then where is the follow-up
    study of mature men?  Has there been one?  Was it not considered 
    important enough to find out if sick college students (and I claim that
    most of them just didn't know themselves very well) grow up to be
    sick adults?  I'm sure some do and some don't, but I'd like to know
    the numbers.
    
    >In fact, one of my associations with "healthy men" is the bit of
    >cultural programming that says:  Normal, healthy, red-blooded men want
    >sex whenever it's offered.
    
    I guess that's not the crowd I run in.  And I bet, Bob, that you would
    claim that you aren't that way either.  It's all those "other guys" who
    do these kinds of things.  Right?
    
    I surely do like women, but I don't feel I need to buy into the line
    that healthy, normal, member's of my own sex are little better than pond
    scum.  
    					- Vick

    Vick, I can state with some fair degree of certainty that there are at
    least some "normal, healthy" men who would rape a woman given the
    chance.  The trick is that, as someone pointed out quite a few replies
    back, they don't see what they're doing as rape.  And as long as that
    awful word doesn't appear to apply...  Ever herad of date rape, Vick?
    
    The following comes from a conversation I had with an old friend about
    a year ago.  She told me that she'd been dating a guy something like
    three years earlier, they liked each other quite a lot, but both agreed
    that sex just wasn't in the cards, at least not at that time.  But the
    first time the petting got heavy, she said, he came within a skosh of
    raping her - he wanted it, she wanted it, but she was afraid of it, and
    she had to yell, "No, please, no!" more than once.  If he'd done it, it
    would have been rape.  And I'll bet he would have gotten away with it,
    too.  My friend said she'd have dumped him like the proverbial hot
    potato, but she really didn't think she could have said anything about
    it to anyone.
    
    I know this woman well enough to believe her.
    
    -d

    But he didn't.  Can you imagine the confusion of this poor guy?  It was
    probably apparent to him as well that, as you say, both of them "wanted 
    it".  And this was exactly how I felt in the incident I reported.  She 
    couldn't seem to make up her mind and there was no up front agreement and 
    even if there had been, there is such a thing as changing one's mind.  In
    both my case and the case you quote the woman finally decided to say
    "NO" and the man stopped.  How can you use that guy as an example of
    normal healthy males being pond scum?  Seems like he acted very
    responsibly, or at least as responsibly as the woman.  If the woman had
    said nothing or done nothing to indicate, despite previous
    indications that she did "want it", that she afterall didn't "want it",
    then I'm a little pressed to understand how it's date rape, or, in
    fact, how you can accuse the male of rape any more than the woman.
    If she had been saying "Oh, yes, yes, please, yes!" would that have
    been date rape?  Where is the line?  
    						- Vick

    Vick,
    
    I think you missed the "more than once" phrase that described the
    woman's request that the man stop.  I.e., the idea is that he did
    not stop when he was first asked.  Or when he was asked the second
    time.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    Vick, please excuse me if I missed something, but I believe you're
    the one who started with the phrase "pond scum".  Sandy didn't use it.
    No one's calling anyone "pond scum" (except you).
    
    To me, this seemed to start off as a discussion of the cultural
    norms operating in our society and it's degenerated into a defense of
    some group of men (I'm not exactly sure who) against being labelled
    "pond scum" by somebody (again, I'm not sure by who).
    

    vick,
    
    in reading your replies, you seem to have ignored my story about my
    abuse at the hands of a doctor.  i was about 7 or 8 at the time and my
    genitals were fondled by the male doctor.  my mother had been present
    in the room but at some point she was asked to leave.  the incident
    then took place. 
    
    my mother believed then (and still does) that doctors know everything
    and are nearly gods.  she left me alone with a strange man (the first
    visit too).  when i told her about the incident, she didn't believe me,
    said i was making it up and took me back to the same doctor again
    whenever i was ill.  i was also punished for lying about the *alleged*
    incident and i won't tell you how i was punished here publicly because
    the memory still if very vivid in my mind.
    
    the points here are that ordinary everyday people are conditioned to
    believe that the doctor (male) knows everthing and is all powerful.  my
    mother never took me to a female doctor because they couldn't possibly
    know as much as a male doctor.  even when an innocent victim is abused,
    their word is not given as much weight as the educated, all-knowing
    doctor.
    
    maybe your life experiences were very different from other people's
    here in this file.  that doesn't make your experiences any more or less
    valid than any one else's.  so if someone is telling you about *their*
    experience, don't just dismiss it just because you haven't seen it that
    way.  listen to what people are telling you and learn from it.  because
    sometime in your life, you *will* come across someone who has had these
    types of experiences, and then it will be real to you.
    
    sue

    
    re:  pond scum
    I realize I started the phrase.  It seems actually too nice for a
    rapist.  And it seems someone was claiming that normal, healthy males
    were (at least would-be) rapists.  So I was using it as my own 
    short-hand.  
    
    re:  how many "no"'s
    It should only take one.  
    
    re:  degeneration
    Okay, I've made the point I wanted to make at least twice.  I'll quit.
    
    re:  Sue, your experience
    I believe I was saying how horrible and attrocious actions such as
    those committed by your doctor were, and therefore that I didn't think
    a normal, healthy person would have done such things.  Your doctor was
    one very sick person.  I don't think anything I said should be taken
    to imply that I don't believe you or don't feel very deeply for your
    suffering.  
    
    - Vick
    

Re: Pond scum

Vick,

Your comparisons are unfair to pond scum, which contain some very interesting 
life forms. 

I can't say the same for rapists.

Bruce

    
    
    errrrrrrr....actually, it was I who originally used the term scum.
    
    
    E Grace

In re: pond scum and the interesting life forms it contains, it occurs
that if a rapist is persistent enough he too may come to contain certain
interesting life forms.

The problem with this scientifically exciting and poetically fitting
possibility is that he may subsequently cause other people to contain
the same interesting life forms.  Especially, and *frighteningly*, if he
happens to be a doctor who "uses his own equipment."  This possibility,
when it first crossed my mind, caused my blood to curdle.  Talk about
the ultimate violation of trust...

-d

    E Grace,  Really?  Sorry!  I wasn't trying to plagiarize.  Honest!
    
    					:^)  - Vick

    I was just trying to ensure that blamed was placed where blame was due,
    Vick.
    
    E Grace

    
    Oh no!  I'm the one who "blamed" Vick for this.
    
    Sorry 'bout that, but I guess I'd just like to hear less about
    "pond scum" (unless someone starts a new topic to discuss the
    biological diversity and aspects of the "real" pond scum. (-: )
    

 Could we leave Bill Laimbeer (Detroit Pistons) out of this?

  Kath  ;^)

    The front page story in the Boston Herald this morning is about
    a gynecologist who was arrested for having sex with a prostitute.
    
    
    Bonnie

    Was it while he was working or while she was working?
    
    I would think the former would be generic to this discussion and
    the latter, a rathole.
    
    :-)
    
    ed

    While she was working, it just kind of 'struck' me given the
    discussion that has been going on here...
    
    BJ

    I don't think it's relevent.
    
    Gynecologists are allowed to have sex, too; obviously they aren't
    allowed to have sex with prostitutes (except in Nevada), but that is an
    entirely different subject.
    
    I think it is awfully insulting to the poor doc who got arrested with
    his pants down and money is his hands to suggest that that is
    equivalent to the violation of trust a doctor who has sex with a
    patient commits.  A total irrelevency and inappropriate as well.
    
    D!

    According to the Hearld, the prostitute claims she has aids.....
    
    
    REK

    Is that supposed to make it more relevent?
    
    D!

    I would think so....
    
    REK

    Why?
    
    E Grace

    I would think that his patients would like to know if he has/had
    aids.
    
    REK

    Why?
    
    E Grace

What a gynecologist does on hir own time is *hir* business.  If it has
a damaging effect on patients later, then it's their business.  At that
time it will become relevant to this string; but not before - unless, of
course, you (REK) can show that this same gynecologist has also been
having sex with his patients.

-d

    Re:131 Please tell that to the women in Florida that got aids
    from her dentist....
    
    REK

    The reason why I thought the news story was relevant, was that 
    it appeared to corroborate Sandy's image of the attitude of some
    doctors towards women.
    
    Bonnie

    I think the relevance, if any, is his attitude toward women which is
    implied by his going to a prostitute.  
    
    The relevance of whether or not he has contracted aids is twofold.  The
    first is if, as has been discussed here, he has actually violated the
    trust of any of his patients.  The second is the danger that an
    infected health care provide might be more likely to transmit HIV to
    the patients (remember the dentist in Florida?).
    
    When I heard that report, I too though about this particular note.  My
    reaction was "sounds like another male gyn sleeze".  Just my gut
    reaction.
    
    jimc

    Thanks JimC I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who
    saw it that way.
    
    Bonnie

    I'm sorry, but I don't see that his being a gynecologist and his going
    to a prostitute necessarily have anything to do with one another.  
    
    The whole point is gyn's who *abuse their power*.  It goes back to it
    not being about sex, but about power and abuse.
    
    As for AIDS.  *sigh*  There is still doubt about "the dentist in
    Florida".  Any gyn I've ever gone to has used gloves.  Do you really
    think they aren't going to protect *themselves* from contracting any
    diseases their patients may have?!  AIDS, as has been stated before
    (over and over and over) is a very difficult disease to "catch".  There
    are many many doctors who have it, and their patients don't seem to be
    dropping like flies!
    
    
    AND!!!!!
    
    This whole AIDS discussion has *nothing* to do with gyns who rape their
    patients orally, digitally, or penilely.
    
    E Grace

>    I'm sorry, but I don't see that his being a gynecologist and his going
>    to a prostitute necessarily have anything to do with one another.  
    
>   The whole point is gyn's who *abuse their power*.  It goes back to it
>   not being about sex, but about power and abuse.
    
    I couldn't agree more. If the man paying for a prosti is a doctor,
    priest, veterinary, hamburger-handler, etc. it shouldn't make any
    difference with regards to this particular conference. This is about
    OB/GYN who abuse their patients.
    
        
>    As for AIDS.  *sigh*  There is still doubt about "the dentist in
    Florida". 
    
>   This whole AIDS discussion has *nothing* to do with gyns who rape their
>   patients orally, digitally, or penilely.
 
    EXACTLY!!!
    

    re: .136 & .137
    
    	DITTO!
    

    For your amusement, I include here a response from Europe:
    
           <<< CHEFS::DISK$APPS2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]EURO_WOMAN.NOTE;2 >>>
                                -< Euro_Woman >-
================================================================================
Note 240.5          IMPROPRIETIES DURING GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMS              5 of 5
SUBURB::THOMASH "The Devon Dumpling"                 49 lines  26-JUN-1991 13:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Well, I was seen by a Gyny-whatsit whilst in the states, It was an
	halarious experience.

	I wait for ages listening to musac piped through the ceiling.

	I get shown to the doctors room, and he asked me to undress.

	The doctor looks horrified when I start to take my clothes off, and 
	hurredly points me down the corridor to a changing room.

	Now, I don't fancy walking back down the corridor nude, and can't find 
	a dressing gown, so I pop my head out, and the nurse says there is
	a "covering" in the room for me.
	
	Well, there was white paper in the corner, so I examine this more 
	carefully.
	There are two pieces of white circular paper with holes in the middle, 
	after more consultation with the nurse, I find that I am expected to put
	one piece around my waist, like a paper skirt, and the other around my 
	neck, like an extra-long ruff.

	Now, I have to walk along the corridor dressed like a white Christmas 
	tree!, and I'm bursting fit to bust my seams - a camera would have 
	provided laughs for years. The nurse accompanied me along the corridor,
	she had no idea why I was in fits.

	So, I now have to lay on my back, with my feet up in stirrups, whilst 
	the doctor tries to hide away from me under this skirt thingy, and the 
	nurse looks under too - just to check him out, I suppose.
	
	It's no good, the pain tells me he's doing a smear, I just wish I 
	could see what he was doing under my skirt, and I could take my feet out
	of the stirrups - kinky, or what?

	Then, the breast examination, now, this bloke doesn't even look at my 
	boobs, he feels them under the ruff - I still don't know how he could 
	do a good job, it's just as well they're big enough to find without a 
	light!

	I then get escorted back to the changing room to put my clothes back on.

	I still have no idea why they thought I was ashamed of my own body, and
	I wasn't allowed to see what was going on.

	An experience which was funny once, and I am glad I didn't have to 
	repeat.

	Heather