Sunday, 29 July 2012
Medi-e-Vil BiAs
I get very frustrated with people who want to spread fear and hatred, which is really all this could be described as trying to achieve:
Medical [e] Vilification and Bigotry in Australia (ala Medi-e-vil BiAs)
http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2012/07/29/medical-vilification-and-bigotry-in-australia/
The humorous side of it, however, is the degree of hypocrisy and lack self-awareness it demonstrates.
The blogger starts trying to paint any who disagree with her opinion as "bigots", offering the initial definition of "a bigot is anyone who is intolerant of those who hold differing opinions." Well it's a somewhat overly simplistic definition, used with bias to promote the blogger's own cause. Let's explore this a bit further...
The Mirriam Webster dictionary defines a bigot as:
A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who treats the members of a group ... with hatred or violence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
For some more context and depth, Wikipedia introduces bigotry as:
"'Bigotry' is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, personal habits, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
In the article, the blogger aims to prove the claim "So you could say that everyone who is a member of Stop the AVN – by definition – is a bigot.", and yet what the blog continues to present is a hateful diatribe based on the a group and members thereof, based purely on their beliefs or opinions solely because they dissent from the blogger's own.... hmm I believe that actually is the definition of bigotry.
Firstly, let's look at the origin of this claim. It is from the AVN- so the idea that some may oppose their stance would perhaps appear threatening, if they felt vulnerable to such criticisms. Humans in general do not like a difference of opinion- the challenge that they may not be 100% "correct" creates cognitive dissonance: a sense of unease or discomfort which may even be experienced physically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Secondly, as is much of the website, the article is presented with a slathering of martyrdom based on the claim that AVN are trying to achieve something laudable, and suffer greatly for their cause (if you consider a difference of opinion "suffering").
Then there is the selective representation of the case study "Bowditch compounded his shocking assaults against innocent supporters of the AVN as you can see below". In elementary school I think we all learned about character development in prose, or even inadvertently, through stories which describe the "wicked witch" vs the "charming prince" for example. It leads the readers' minds to side with the constructed protagonist. It's journalism ala Today Tonight.
To vilify: To make vicious and defamatory statements about.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vilification
I don't know Bowditch, and am not familiar with his personal or professional associations, or interaction history with the AVN, but can only assume that their past has not been amicable. The attribution of negative traits in any description of him or what intent his statements were made are an interesting demonstration of vilification, however.
Then there is the selection of tweets presented as follows:
"Innocent" AVN Supporter: Meanwhile you keep talking about dead babies and orgasms.
Bowditch: Why don't you just answer the question? How many does it take?
Followed by this interpretation of said tweets:
"So once again, he implies – to the mother of a vaccine-injured child – that she gets sexual pleasure from dead babies."
At this point I'm tempted to suggest a class in reading comprehension to the blog-writer. What I can see is mutual aggravation- baiting from both sides, and avoidance of the topic at hand, not one mercilessly attacking the innocent [unnecessarily emotive descriptive bias added for dramatic effect] other unprovoked. In this selection, at least, there was no such implication, and the insinuation makes as much sense as:
Q- Ask me if I'm an orange.
A- Are you calling me fat?
Once again, the Q implied that A has a dietary and weight issue and enjoys sexual activity with fresh produce.
I persevered, in the mistaken belief that there would be some sense, conclusion or at least a reasonable argument contained in the post, and was left wanting.
"I feel that people who cannot see what is inherently vile and disturbing about Bowditch’s rhetoric could be capable of anything."
I feel the same about the Catholic Church; that it is inherently vile and disturbing in its rhetoric. I also believe the behaviour of certain individuals who are members of this institution conduct acts which are reprehensible, for example, the systematic rape of children by some members of the clergy. Yet I don't assume this necessarily means every Catholic is vile or disturbing or insinuate that they must all condone such acts. To do so would be perceiving all Catholics to have the same characteristics, based solely on their membership of said group, and treating the members of that group with hatred and intolerance on that basis (refer above to definition of bigotry).
*End with staggeringly hypocritical statement *:
"Vilification and bigotry have no place in Australia."
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Fickle Fatness
This post is not to mock, poke fun at or flick with a wet towel, but to raise awareness and stimulate discussion about the problems with fat and obesity.
Over the last few hundred years, through medical science, improved nutrition and better living conditions, humans have increased their life expectancy. Now, for the first time in generations, Australians, and many people around the world, can expect to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents and we have our own behaviours to thank.
While there hasn't been a lot of attention on the potential adverse health effects of fatness until the last 10 years or so, I think ignorance can only go so far.
"[World's Fattest man] Mr Martin revealed how he started cutting back in September when he became bed-bound by two giant hernias which are the size of four bowling balls."(1)
That's when he decided to start cutting back... Were there really no clues before that? Trouble breathing; inability to fit in a chair? Needing other people to bathe you because you can't even reach all the parts of your own body due to no other reason than its sheer enormity?
A new advertising campaign has been launched in Western Australia to try and make people think about the effects of fat on their health: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-24/watch-the-livelighter-toxic-fat-ad/4149900
Amazingly, some have called this controversial, partly for fears it will encourage eating disorders (2). This seems somewhat incredulous to me, as the number of dangerously underweight people is far outweighed (no pun intended) by the numbers of obese people.
The reality is eating feels good. The person who said "nothing tastes as good as thin feels" was probably delirious from low blood sugar.
In modern Australia, nutritious foods such as fruit and vegetables are readily available and affordable to all. I have heard arguments to the contrary, but those proponents will often tout the affordability of fast food in the same breath. If a McDonalds meal is $7-10, and for the same price you can buy 1kg of apples, 1 kg of carrots and 1kg of broccoli- I refuse to believe that argument. The problem is the convenience and availability of high-calorie foods- to cook a nutritious meal takes some planning, time, effort and a limited amount of skill, whereas to visit a drive through window takes virtually none.
The effort part becomes more problematic with the resistance to exercising too. I am very guilty of this one- exercise is uncomfortable; it hurts; is inconvenient to fit in a schedule which holds other options like relaxing (or blogging?). Gyms, and exercising for the sake of exercising are new concepts too though- food used to require hunting, digging, walking, carrying, farming, grinding grain, slaughtering animals etc.- now a few clicks of a mouse will gave someone bring a 4000 calorie pizza to your front door in under an hour.
Fatness can even be partially determined before you're born- poor nutrition during pregnancy can lead to future obesity for the baby. (3)
Although born a healthy weight, and presumably well nourished, as an over fed child I developed plenty of fat cells. The number of fat cells you have as a child stays with you for life- you never lose them, even if you shrink their contents through diet and exercise- and it is more likely that you will always be fat. (4)
So why should we care?
For many, the concern is not their health or wellbeing as it's not immediately obvious to them- how they look is what affects them daily. This is reflected in shows like the Biggest Loser-Singles, which are are filled with people crying about how they can't get laid because they're obese (NB - Coming soon- Things that shit me: Vapid TV). While that's obviously an extreme example, the social acceptability, or lack thereof, of varying body shapes and sizes is a strong influence on many. While we often don't obtain what we perceive to be the "ideal" body, we feel guilty or bad about ourselves because of it and, ironically will often comfort-eat in compensation.
Those who are of a more socially acceptable size may not be aware of the health risks they run, potentially having visceral fat and being "thin-fat". (Don't know what this is? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QlBr41vLWI)
My father is a slim-looking person, weighing about 75 kgs at approx 180cms tall he has a recommended BMI (5). Yet he has type 2 diabetes- the likely cause of which is visceral fat. My mother's family are all overweight or obese, and have high cholesterol, high blood pressure and conditions like angina- caused by their fat. Although I may not look "fat" on the outside, either or both of these situations are my likely future, and a lack of awareness and action will all but guarantee it.
It's not a problem of weakness, an inability to resist food, only eating bad foods, lack of intelligence or any one factor. "If it were easy we wouldn't have about 300 million obese people in the world" (6).
1- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140307/Keith-Martin-Horrifying-life-worlds-fattest-man.html#ixzz21Wzq22qY 2- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-24/expert-backs-graphic-anti-obesity-ads/4150136
3-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7482-study-shows-why-poor-prenatal-nutrition-leads-to-obesity.html
4- http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/05/04/fat-cell-number-is-set-in-childhood-and-stays-constant-in-ad/
5- http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmi-m.htm
6- Globesity - Fat’s New Frontier http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2012/s3550234.htm
Over the last few hundred years, through medical science, improved nutrition and better living conditions, humans have increased their life expectancy. Now, for the first time in generations, Australians, and many people around the world, can expect to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents and we have our own behaviours to thank.
While there hasn't been a lot of attention on the potential adverse health effects of fatness until the last 10 years or so, I think ignorance can only go so far.
"[World's Fattest man] Mr Martin revealed how he started cutting back in September when he became bed-bound by two giant hernias which are the size of four bowling balls."(1)
That's when he decided to start cutting back... Were there really no clues before that? Trouble breathing; inability to fit in a chair? Needing other people to bathe you because you can't even reach all the parts of your own body due to no other reason than its sheer enormity?
A new advertising campaign has been launched in Western Australia to try and make people think about the effects of fat on their health: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-24/watch-the-livelighter-toxic-fat-ad/4149900
Amazingly, some have called this controversial, partly for fears it will encourage eating disorders (2). This seems somewhat incredulous to me, as the number of dangerously underweight people is far outweighed (no pun intended) by the numbers of obese people.
The reality is eating feels good. The person who said "nothing tastes as good as thin feels" was probably delirious from low blood sugar.
In modern Australia, nutritious foods such as fruit and vegetables are readily available and affordable to all. I have heard arguments to the contrary, but those proponents will often tout the affordability of fast food in the same breath. If a McDonalds meal is $7-10, and for the same price you can buy 1kg of apples, 1 kg of carrots and 1kg of broccoli- I refuse to believe that argument. The problem is the convenience and availability of high-calorie foods- to cook a nutritious meal takes some planning, time, effort and a limited amount of skill, whereas to visit a drive through window takes virtually none.
The effort part becomes more problematic with the resistance to exercising too. I am very guilty of this one- exercise is uncomfortable; it hurts; is inconvenient to fit in a schedule which holds other options like relaxing (or blogging?). Gyms, and exercising for the sake of exercising are new concepts too though- food used to require hunting, digging, walking, carrying, farming, grinding grain, slaughtering animals etc.- now a few clicks of a mouse will gave someone bring a 4000 calorie pizza to your front door in under an hour.
Fatness can even be partially determined before you're born- poor nutrition during pregnancy can lead to future obesity for the baby. (3)
Although born a healthy weight, and presumably well nourished, as an over fed child I developed plenty of fat cells. The number of fat cells you have as a child stays with you for life- you never lose them, even if you shrink their contents through diet and exercise- and it is more likely that you will always be fat. (4)
So why should we care?
For many, the concern is not their health or wellbeing as it's not immediately obvious to them- how they look is what affects them daily. This is reflected in shows like the Biggest Loser-Singles, which are are filled with people crying about how they can't get laid because they're obese (NB - Coming soon- Things that shit me: Vapid TV). While that's obviously an extreme example, the social acceptability, or lack thereof, of varying body shapes and sizes is a strong influence on many. While we often don't obtain what we perceive to be the "ideal" body, we feel guilty or bad about ourselves because of it and, ironically will often comfort-eat in compensation.
Those who are of a more socially acceptable size may not be aware of the health risks they run, potentially having visceral fat and being "thin-fat". (Don't know what this is? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QlBr41vLWI)
My father is a slim-looking person, weighing about 75 kgs at approx 180cms tall he has a recommended BMI (5). Yet he has type 2 diabetes- the likely cause of which is visceral fat. My mother's family are all overweight or obese, and have high cholesterol, high blood pressure and conditions like angina- caused by their fat. Although I may not look "fat" on the outside, either or both of these situations are my likely future, and a lack of awareness and action will all but guarantee it.
It's not a problem of weakness, an inability to resist food, only eating bad foods, lack of intelligence or any one factor. "If it were easy we wouldn't have about 300 million obese people in the world" (6).
1- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140307/Keith-Martin-Horrifying-life-worlds-fattest-man.html#ixzz21Wzq22qY 2- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-24/expert-backs-graphic-anti-obesity-ads/4150136
3-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7482-study-shows-why-poor-prenatal-nutrition-leads-to-obesity.html
4- http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/05/04/fat-cell-number-is-set-in-childhood-and-stays-constant-in-ad/
5- http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/bmi-m.htm
6- Globesity - Fat’s New Frontier http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2012/s3550234.htm
Sunday, 8 July 2012
Is Christianity Inherently Misogynistic?- Part 2
In this part, let's have a look at the value of women in the bible further.
According to the bible (King James) women are a spoil of war- in the same category of donkeys, material goods or other possessions:
"And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was 675,000 sheep, And 72,000 beeves, And 61,000 asses, And 32,000 persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him . . . of which the Lord's tribute was 32 persons. And Moses gave the tribute..." (Numbers 31:32-41)
Once again (as in part 1) we see that the only valuable women are virgins. The word "booty" has made a re-entry into popular discourse in recent years- I wonder if Beyonce would be so quick to promote her "Bootilicious"ness if she knew it was likening herself to being nothing more than something to barter with?
This is not the only time a woman is traded as a commodity in the bible:
". . . . And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; . . . And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed." (Judges 11:30-39). What better gift could you give someone, than your daughter? [note heavy sarcasm]
But if you happen to rape a virgin who was engaged to someone else, it seems this would ruin the value she had (and presumably what the family could gain from this commodity). So what's the solution for this- I know, she should be stoned to death!:
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of the city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
Was it that no one was around to witness the cries, or that she was gagged, beaten or unable to cry out for other reasons? Doesn't matter, she's ruined now, just kill her... unless.. she's not engaged, in which case she should be forced to marry her rapist, for the appropriate price the family can gain:
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Interesting too, in the purchase of a woman (if not just giving them away) is what could be seen as an equal value item:
"Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." (I Samuel 18:27).
Unless you run an eyelid transplant or skin grafting business, what the fuck would you want with 200 foreskins? 200 foreskins from the corpses of your enemies as well, rotting and fly-ridden no doubt. Are there any alternate references to a woman's worth? Of course- it's best to be clear, but in general, around half of what a man is worth:
"... And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female,then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels." (Leviticus 27:1-7)
If you are not worth 10 shekels or 200 foreskins though, and are an undesirable (I assume sexually active, or one with an opinion, are the huge crimes a woman would commit to fit in this category), then the bible says they should be publicly degraded and humiliated by being made to expose your genitals and having a skin condition inflicted as a punishment.
"Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover bare their secret parts." (Isaiah 3:16-17)
So in this part we've seen women traded as a possession, raped, killed for being raped, being worth half of what a man is or equivalent to a pile of rotting foreskins.
According to the bible (King James) women are a spoil of war- in the same category of donkeys, material goods or other possessions:
"And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was 675,000 sheep, And 72,000 beeves, And 61,000 asses, And 32,000 persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him . . . of which the Lord's tribute was 32 persons. And Moses gave the tribute..." (Numbers 31:32-41)
Once again (as in part 1) we see that the only valuable women are virgins. The word "booty" has made a re-entry into popular discourse in recent years- I wonder if Beyonce would be so quick to promote her "Bootilicious"ness if she knew it was likening herself to being nothing more than something to barter with?
This is not the only time a woman is traded as a commodity in the bible:
". . . . And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; . . . And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed." (Judges 11:30-39). What better gift could you give someone, than your daughter? [note heavy sarcasm]
But if you happen to rape a virgin who was engaged to someone else, it seems this would ruin the value she had (and presumably what the family could gain from this commodity). So what's the solution for this- I know, she should be stoned to death!:
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of the city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
Was it that no one was around to witness the cries, or that she was gagged, beaten or unable to cry out for other reasons? Doesn't matter, she's ruined now, just kill her... unless.. she's not engaged, in which case she should be forced to marry her rapist, for the appropriate price the family can gain:
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Interesting too, in the purchase of a woman (if not just giving them away) is what could be seen as an equal value item:
"Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife." (I Samuel 18:27).
Unless you run an eyelid transplant or skin grafting business, what the fuck would you want with 200 foreskins? 200 foreskins from the corpses of your enemies as well, rotting and fly-ridden no doubt. Are there any alternate references to a woman's worth? Of course- it's best to be clear, but in general, around half of what a man is worth:
"... And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female,then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels." (Leviticus 27:1-7)
If you are not worth 10 shekels or 200 foreskins though, and are an undesirable (I assume sexually active, or one with an opinion, are the huge crimes a woman would commit to fit in this category), then the bible says they should be publicly degraded and humiliated by being made to expose your genitals and having a skin condition inflicted as a punishment.
"Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover bare their secret parts." (Isaiah 3:16-17)
So in this part we've seen women traded as a possession, raped, killed for being raped, being worth half of what a man is or equivalent to a pile of rotting foreskins.
Thursday, 5 July 2012
Hollywood vs Real Life
A friend recently recommended a romantic comedy to me named "Love and Other Drugs". I'm not exactly a fan of chick flicks/ romcoms, but it was moderately entertaining. Jake Gyllenhaal's character is a pharmaceutical sales rep (hence why my friend thought I'd like it- as that was one of my many careers too) who falls in love with Anne Hathaway's character- a young artist with Parkinson's disease.
Synopsis: Boy falls for girl despite her imminent debilitating illness, considers ditching her when having some insight to what the potential future of a wheelchair bound partner in adult nappies is explained to him, but of course (as happens in Hollywood movies) he decides he loves her too much, gives up his career and everything else for love. The end. Awww...
Anne Hathaway's character does, however, try to warn him many times that getting into a relationship with her would be fraught with complications due to her illness, and this knowledge changed the way she approached things. This got me thinking more about my own situation and possible future.
A few weeks ago I passed the one year mark from when I found out I had a cancerous tumour (See post "Beating the Big C"). Several months and two operations later, an initial screen suggested it hadn't grown back at that point. Although somewhat reassuring, it was also too early to really be able to draw any conclusions about "recovery" from that.
Now, another 6 months down the track, I have another screening coming up to see if the tumour is gone or has returned. This one will be a fairly good indication of whether or not I will be able to at least keep my uterus for a few years and therefore have a chance to have children. The alternative, if it has grown back, is have a hysterectomy, or don't, and let the cancer kill me.
None of these are particularly appealing options, and the other side of these considerations is what happens with any potential partners.
Even in the best case scenario, that the tumour doesn't regrow, I still carry a high risk Papilloma virus strain which caused it, which could potentially be transferred to a partner and cause penile cancer (although yes, the probability is incredibly low, do you know many men who would put their hand up for that one? In the words of Dennis Leary [although he was referring to cocaine] "Take my penis awaaay!"). This also means that, even though I may be fine for a few more years, it could always eventually grow back.
If I can't have children:
- I wouldn't want to deny anyone the opportunity to have children, if that's something they wanted, by being with me.
- Ironic as it may sound, I'm also not sure I would want to be with someone who didn't want children, even if I couldn't have them. Perhaps it's the presumed lack of empathy there would be in the relationship.
- Having had a mental illness, and how rare it is in Australia anyway, I will never be eligible to adopt.
If the cancer will develop and make me sick/ die:
- It would be downright deceptive to not tell someone what you know your future will hold, knowing how that would also affect them.
- How could you possibly expect anyone to sign up to a future with someone that will be short, unpleasant and/or full of illness? I would say its an incredibly selfish expectation, and possibly delusional to believe that you're so wonderful that your personality alone would make up for everything else.
It's all well and good for Hollywood movies to slather on the cheesy everything-will-be-fine and love-overcomes-everything storylines, but its hardly realistic. I know some people do manage to overcome some incredibly difficult situations/ illnesses, and accept each other exactly as they are, but [especially for those of us who most definitely do not look like Anne Hathaway] I would wager that 99.9% of potential partners would run in the opposite direction at top speed before you could finish the sentence "I'm a barren source of penis-cancer with a slow, painful death in my future".
Synopsis: Boy falls for girl despite her imminent debilitating illness, considers ditching her when having some insight to what the potential future of a wheelchair bound partner in adult nappies is explained to him, but of course (as happens in Hollywood movies) he decides he loves her too much, gives up his career and everything else for love. The end. Awww...
Anne Hathaway's character does, however, try to warn him many times that getting into a relationship with her would be fraught with complications due to her illness, and this knowledge changed the way she approached things. This got me thinking more about my own situation and possible future.
A few weeks ago I passed the one year mark from when I found out I had a cancerous tumour (See post "Beating the Big C"). Several months and two operations later, an initial screen suggested it hadn't grown back at that point. Although somewhat reassuring, it was also too early to really be able to draw any conclusions about "recovery" from that.
Now, another 6 months down the track, I have another screening coming up to see if the tumour is gone or has returned. This one will be a fairly good indication of whether or not I will be able to at least keep my uterus for a few years and therefore have a chance to have children. The alternative, if it has grown back, is have a hysterectomy, or don't, and let the cancer kill me.
None of these are particularly appealing options, and the other side of these considerations is what happens with any potential partners.
Even in the best case scenario, that the tumour doesn't regrow, I still carry a high risk Papilloma virus strain which caused it, which could potentially be transferred to a partner and cause penile cancer (although yes, the probability is incredibly low, do you know many men who would put their hand up for that one? In the words of Dennis Leary [although he was referring to cocaine] "Take my penis awaaay!"). This also means that, even though I may be fine for a few more years, it could always eventually grow back.
If I can't have children:
- I wouldn't want to deny anyone the opportunity to have children, if that's something they wanted, by being with me.
- Ironic as it may sound, I'm also not sure I would want to be with someone who didn't want children, even if I couldn't have them. Perhaps it's the presumed lack of empathy there would be in the relationship.
- Having had a mental illness, and how rare it is in Australia anyway, I will never be eligible to adopt.
If the cancer will develop and make me sick/ die:
- It would be downright deceptive to not tell someone what you know your future will hold, knowing how that would also affect them.
- How could you possibly expect anyone to sign up to a future with someone that will be short, unpleasant and/or full of illness? I would say its an incredibly selfish expectation, and possibly delusional to believe that you're so wonderful that your personality alone would make up for everything else.
It's all well and good for Hollywood movies to slather on the cheesy everything-will-be-fine and love-overcomes-everything storylines, but its hardly realistic. I know some people do manage to overcome some incredibly difficult situations/ illnesses, and accept each other exactly as they are, but [especially for those of us who most definitely do not look like Anne Hathaway] I would wager that 99.9% of potential partners would run in the opposite direction at top speed before you could finish the sentence "I'm a barren source of penis-cancer with a slow, painful death in my future".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)