685. An Important Recognition Of A Real Problem But An Unjustified Restriction Of The Focus

685.  An Important Recognition Of A Real Problem But An Unjustified Restriction Of The Focus

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925132333.htm

"Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of minors are serious problems in the United States with long-term adverse consequences for children and society as a whole, and federal agencies should work with state and local partners to raise awareness of these issues and train professionals who work with youths to recognize and assist those who are victimized or at risk, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council.Minors who are prostituted or sexually exploited in other ways should be treated as victims rather than arrested and prosecuted as criminals, as they currently are in most states, the report says."

"Despite the hard work of prosecutors and law enforcement in many jurisdictions, individuals who sexually exploit children and adolescents largely escape accountability, the report says. All jurisdictions should review and strengthen laws that hold exploiters, traffickers, and solicitors accountable for their role. These laws should include a particular emphasis on deterring demand, both through prevention efforts and penalties for those who solicit sex with minors."

This is a tiny but important step in the right direction towards the full recognition of the damage done by all sexual abuse.   But it is an outrage to restrict the focus only upon children.   This implicitly conveys and enhances the dangerous attitude, that for women abuse were less harmful.  
Only the physiological difference between children and women is real.  Women are biologically suited for sexuality, while children are not yet.   Notwithstanding it is a disastrous fallacy to conclude, that a mere biological option were sufficient as a justification for the objectification of women.   This is the same as the fallacy of using the option, that a human body is eatable as the justification for practicing cannibalism.   A possibility due to a trait or an attribute does not constitute a fate, a destiny or a purpose.  

Abuse hurts, causes suffering, harm and longterm psychological damage, no matter the age of the victim. Due to the physiological differences, it is easy to acknowledge all sexual activities between adults and children as abuse.   But it is much more difficult, especially for men, to really distinguish between a woman's true and free choice and self-abuse.   Unfortunately, many men have a very blurred notion of the difference between a true personally beneficial choice and a mere apparent and alleged choice for what is hidden self-abuse.   There is a fundamental difference between a woman's choice for physical intimacy as a part of committed companionship and the self-abuse of those women, who are under the pressure of circumstances and/or already pre-damaged.     

A woman's participation in self-abuse does not make a man's taking advantage thereof less cruel and less abusive.   It is obvious, at least to decent men, that rape is an immediate trauma for the victim.   But the self-abuse of prostitutes is more like those behaviors, of which the detrimental effects are only accumulative and long-term and not immediately visible.  
Someone, who provides an addictive drug to someone else may only notice the immediate improved wellbeing and may even be reinforced by gratitude.  The long-term damage of many such events is not obvious, even though it can be known.  
The client of a prostitute also only notices the appreciation of the woman having earned needed money.  The long-term damage of her repeated self-abuse is not obvious to the client, who is in denial of being an abuser.   

Abuse is abuse, and self-abuse for hidden reasons does not justify abuse.         

Women need as much protection as do minors.   Men's superior physical strength and frequent social and financial power makes them as much a threat to women as to children, whenever men choose to abuse.

All abuse should be punished and prevented independent of the victim's age.  

592. Abhorring Strong Instincts Is Very Different From Hating Men

592.   Abhorring Strong Instincts Is Very Different From Hating Men

I have been criticized for hating men.   This is a complete misunderstanding.    I am only aware, how men's instincts cause serious damage to women and I consider women being harmed and abused as an outrage and not as the purpose of women's existence.  

There is something awfully wrong, where and when this is the case:

"One in five U.S women experiences a sexual assault in their lifetimes."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120911091102.htm

The source of this statement is not given.   The US are also only one example of a world wide problem.  I know of no country anywhere on this earth, where women are sufficiently protected.  Men harming women is so ubiquitous, that while it serves the survival of the species, it is clearly a biological flaw of men, when seen from the perspective of women's subjective experience as victims and not as wombs.   

    

But even if the number were exaggerated and not as many as one in five, any incidence of women being harmed by male urges for homeostation clearly indicates, that male sexuality is too often out of proportion of what would be beneficial for women.   The stronger men's instinctive needs for using women's bodies, the worse and more hazardous they are.   

Too many men are real threats to women.   But saying 'too many' is not the same as saying 'all'. 
Loathing, abhorring and despising those male instincts, which harm women, is very different from generally hating men for being men.   I do not define a man by masculinity as expressed by instincts, but by his chromosomes.   

I disagree with the fallacy, that masculinity were an indicator of the quality of a man.  Masculinity only indicates, how much a man is dangerous and a threat.   I refuse to consider being a dangerous threat as a quality.    

Some men are determined by their cognition.   They are decent, pleasant nice guys with an attractive personality, because they are monogamous, bonding, caring, reliable, trustworthy, responsible, considerate, rational, intellectual, emotional, moral.   In short, they are free from being robots programmed and driven by overwhelming and instinctive urges.   They are free to be cognitively true humans, not merely male animals of the species homo sapiens.  

I appreciate such cognitive nice guys very much.   They are rare and precious.   I am looking for one of them as my mindmate.   I am not worried, that my alleged hatred of men would deter or discourage any of them.     

Any man interpreting me as if hating men, is himself not suitable as a mindmate.  He is most probably himself someone, who confounds being a man with being driven by male instincts. Either the worst male instincts are a positive part of his own identity or he is at least misguided to strife to become like instinct driven role models.  Being misunderstood by such a man makes not difference to me, because I would not want him anyway. 
But my mindmate to be found will be intelligent enough to understand me and to identify with being cognitive.   Therefore he will spontaneously agree with my abhorrence of strong instincts, he will be pleased to read, that I appreciate him, because he is not driven by instincts.  

546. Kinsey Debunked

546.  Kinsey Debunked

The article presented in entry 545 led me to Reisman's web page.

I had always thought of Alfred Kinsey as of a serious scientist until I watched this documentary:   

Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles
A Yorkshire Television production by Tim Tate

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2009/03/watch_videos_on.html#tate

This documentation debunks Kinsey as scientifically a fraud and as having facilitated, promoted and encouraged the molestation of children.  
Evidence of him paying money to a father for taking notes and using a stop watch while abusing his own daughter is shown.   

520. An Irrational, Unjustified And Outrageous Distinction

520.   An Irrational, Unjustified And Outrageous Distinction

Under German law, being caught having child pornography on his computer usually suffices to send a man to jail.    But any man is legally free to consume as much pornography as pleases him, as long as the abused objects in the pictures are above a minimal age.  

The prohibition of child pornography is justified by its goal to prevent abuse.   Pornography has been produced by the abuse of real life children and there is the probability that consuming pornography is the first step of lowering the threshold towards subsequent real life abuse.      

This makes perfect sense.   But it makes just as much sense concerning grown up women.    Restricting this form of prevention to the protection of children cannot be rationally justified.   It is an absurd outrage to deny to women the same entitlement to be spared abuse by all possible methods of prevention, which are recognized as necessary for children.    

1.  Abuse is as bad for women as it is for children.

Any man of average physical strength has sufficient physical power to force the same amount of harm upon a woman of average strength as he has to force it upon children.    Women have no better chances to defend themselves against physical violence than have children.   Women are as much at the mercy of men's civilized self-control as are children.       

Any variety of real life abuse, no matter if rape, manipulation, taking advantages of someone's helpless and dependent situation or apparent self-objectification, is enabled by the abuser's mental process towards replacing inhibitions, self-control and restrictions by subjective justifications and excuses.  

The first step in this mental process is objectification.   (More about the perceptive objectification in entry 519.)    Objectification is an attitude concerning the essence and quality of other humans, which usually follows desensitization until the abuser's perception is distorted.   The abuser is void of the ability to perceive other humans as persons with human dignity, instead they are only perceived as objects, utilities, commodities.  

While some people objectify others due to some mental defect in their brain, like psychopathy, objectification is also the unavoidable result of desensitization and habituation.  This can happen both by the passive observation of role models abusing other human beings and by actively participating in and practicing abuse.    When women and children are objectified as existing for the purpose to be used sexually, pornography is one major source of this effect.  

There is always the hazard of objectification, because a body is perceived as a visible object, while the personality, the qualities of the mind are not directly visible.  Their discovery is only accessible indirectly by communication.    Therefore there is an unfortunate vicious circle.   Any attempt to communicate requires at least a minimal expectation of the other's ability to communicate as a person.   Nobody expects to communicate with an object.   Objectification precludes communication, while communication can reduce objectification.   Thus, once there is objectification, it reinforces itself further by the loss of any chance to rediscover the person hidden inside of what is perceived as an object.   

2.  No differences justify abusing women more than children.

Objectification includes the general fallacy of believing in and accepting, that the alleged purpose of the objectified person's existence is being used.   Whenever abuse of women becomes normal, common and regular behavior, some men are not even aware of the alternative of appreciating, noticing and recognizing women's mind and personality.  

This fatal process, that pornography leads first to desensitization and objectification and then to lowering the threshold towards real life abuse is the same, no matter if the degraded human being is a woman or a child.   Any distinction cannot be rationally justified.   Whenever men justify such a distinction, it is based upon a fallacy.

Male fallacy 1:  

When the victim is a woman, biologically her body is apt for male homeostation, while a child's is not.  This difference leads to the fatal fallacy, that abusing a woman's body as an object for sexual homeostation is often considered as less evil, less harmful and less traumatizing.    

The implicit implication of this fallacy is an outrage.   Those men, who objectify women by perceiving and believing, that women's ultimate purpose is to serve men's needs for homeostation, often also see nothing as really wrong in getting the fulfillment of this purpose by hook or by crook from reluctant and resistant women.    It is a monstrous fallacy to believe, that forcing women into their alleged natural purpose is more acceptable than forcing something upon a child, who is not considered to exist for the same purpose.      

Male fallacy 2. 

There is one difference between children and women:  Only women can be made to appear preempting male objectification by self-objectification, while children are usually accepted as being too young for consent.

The general male fallacy, that women exist for their homeostation is reinforced by the subsequent fallacy of believing in some women's apparent free choice of self-objectification.   Men often succeed to usurp control over resources for survival and they use this control to coerce women by dire necessity into submission to the objectification.   When hopelessness and resignation cause women to refrain from resistance to their fate, this is often mistaken as agreement.   This alleged choice of self-objectification facilitates the abuse and it allows men to condone and justify the objectification of women.    Manipulating women to comply by self-objectification is in reality a part of men's strategy and method to succeed in achieving the benefits of objectification with the least effort.

Male fallacy 3.

Some women are as much the unhappy victims of their instincts as are men, they too are feeling the urges of dishomeostasis.  This female dishomeostasis is the unfulfilled breeding instinct.    These women only appear superficially to cooperate with men's objectification by self-objectification.   It is men's fallacy to misinterpreted it as women's acceptance of existing to serve men.  In reality, these women's self-objectification is their method to restore homeostasis by becoming pregnant.   

Once they have reached their breeder's homeostation, they have no longer any reason to continue the self-objectification to men.   These men are dissatisfied when the women's breeding homeostation ends the men's recurrent sexual homeostation.  The women continue the self-objectification, but they shift the target away from the men and towards the slavery of raising the children. 

Objectification of people is not restricted to sexual abuse.   Whenever someone reduces his evaluation of a human being to the benefits and advantages to be derived from a utility, this is a form of objectification.    Whenever self-objectification blurs the awareness of both the abusers and of the victims for the true outrage, this perpetuates the abuse.  

When a person is forced by slavery to labor for the owner's profit, the objectification of slaves cannot be denied.    Therefore when and where slavery was abolished, it was done based upon the acceptance of the principle, that no human being exists for the purpose to be used for another person's economic benefits.   

It is time to abolish all sexual abuse too by this principle:

No human being, no matter if child or grown up woman, exists for the purpose to be used for men's homeostation. 

Apparent self-objectification is no ethical justification for the objectification of human beings.

 

A man, whose self-worth and self-esteem depends on his own correct and decent behavior only, refuses to participate in any objectification of women, even in spite of alleged and apparent female self-objectification.    Unfortunately, such men are a minority of men, they are the ethical quality elite.  

The majority of men are gullible and self-deceiving by willingly mistaking any appearance of women's self-objectification as sufficient justification for abusing women.   As long as they can maintain their false belief in female self-objectification, they allow themselves to feel decent and no jerks.  

They are oblivious of being jerks and abusers, when they objectify women directly as users of prostitute's bodies or indirectly by consuming the actors' images in pornography.  They really believe the absurd myth, that women prefer this form of earning an income over a decent job, where they could use their brain instead of their body.   It needs a lot of moronity in men to really believe such a myth.       

244. Halo-Effect of Male Doctors as Saints

Halo-Effect of Male Doctors as Saints

There are huge cultural differences between Germany and the USA concerning the cross gender choice of doctors.

I wrote entry 241 after googling 'male doctor female patient' and finding a lot of discussion in favor of accepting the female right to choose female doctors and nurses.   I found like minded people, who agree that forcing a male doctor on a woman is a form of sexual assault and that the woman has a right to be protected from forced intrusion into her intimate space.  

There is no such sensitivity in Germany, absolutely none.   Whenever I have dared to mention to any person, male or female, that I consider a male doctor forced upon me in a hospital as an outrage, I am considered and treated as if I were in some way mentally ill.  
For Germans of both genders, a woman feeling uncomfortable with a male doctor is like someone feeling uncomfortable getting cold and wet in the rain.    Rain and male doctors are considered unavoidable events of life.    Even the German feminist movement, who ardently fights for the right of abortion, against pornography and many important issues, is oblivious to this issue.   The most prominent feminists seem to consult male doctors without thinking twice about it. 

I made the same google search as above in German:  männlich Arzt weiblich Patientin. 

I perused the first 100 findings.   Some major topics:

1. Statistics about the number and specialties of female and male doctors.  
2. Different communication styles of female and male doctors
3. Male doctors may lack understanding for the female way of experiencing sexuality
4  Female doctors may be the better qualified doctors for selected illnesses
5  Female gynecologists can be more knowledgeable by knowing, what they are examining and more rough for the same reason
6  General behavioral differences between male and female doctors
7  Male doctors' ignorance of the needs of female patients

But there was absolutely nothing about the suffering of women forced under male intrusion into their intimate space.  

Cases of doctors drugging and abusing women are reported once in a while in the media.   Only a few days ago, there was a case in the newspaper of a male nurse aged 27 having abused 7 women between 72 and 98 over a time of several years, some of them demented or in a coma.
http://www.mt-online.de/lokales/regionales/4222217_Pfleger_missbraucht_aeltere_Patientinnen.html
In this article, it is reported that some people expressed strong outrage and shock.   But it all focuses only on the misconduct of this one individual nurse.   

"Weder seine Zeugnisse oder die Bewerbungsgespräche noch seine Arbeit hätten Zweifel an seinem verantwortungsvollen Umgang mit den Bewohnern erkennen lassen"  
Translated:  Neither his references, nor the job interviews nor the performance of his work have led to any doubts concerning his responsible interactions with the inpatients.

That one bad guy is considered as personally guilty.   There is not even a hint of the question, if forcing helpless old women, who cannot even protest, into the power of a male nurse is a wrong decision and should be reconsidered.  

Whenever children are concerned, either when directly abused by adults or when indirectly abused by paying for child pornography, there is an outcry about what to do.   Child pornography is illegal, and when a child is abused, all those, who have not prevented it, bosses of institutions, child protection authorities and others are also hold responsible.  
But as soon as a victim is an adult woman, nobody bothers really, who enables the abuse, who could have prevented it.   There is no responsibility ascribed to anybody except by the direct felon. 

When the bishop moves a pedophile priest to another job, where he can continue the abuse, everybody holds the bishop responsible.    When the manager of a nursing home orders female patients to be nursed by male nurses, nobody here in Germany holds him responsible. 


I have only one explanation.   Even 66 years after the overthrow of the nazi dictatorship, some of their mentality is still ruling the German culture in a subtle but very detrimental way.  
It is the submission to both the authorities and to the authority of dominant and high status men.   It is not so much an external but even worse, an intellectual and emotional submission.    People are brainwashed, that authorities are right as are all men with the authority given to them along with high status and a high position on a hierarchy.

In nazi times, women were supposed to produce as many children as possible and raise them.   Doctors were men, they were supposed to help deliver the children.    

Doctors in Germany are considered as gods in white and by halo effect also as saints.   One reason is the German university system.   University is tuition free for all, who have passed the high-school end examination called Abitur.   So there are by far more people wishing to study medicine, than there are places available.   Accepted are only those with the best marks.   That means, those, who are both, the most intelligent and the most conforming to the requirement of school.   They were the most submissive to their teachers, later on they want to experience the submission of others. They choose to become doctors for the high status and the high income.  But there is neither a selection nor a self-selection for emotional intelligence, ethical fitness or altruism.  

Confronted with doctors with high status, considered as a sort of saints, women brainwashed to accept subtle male domination as something to be taken for granted are too much in awe to even doubt their obligation to be sheep to the doctor's treatment, whatever it is.     

There is also the islam problem.   When in the 60s Germany brought in lots of foreign workers, who then stayed and immigrated, all nationalities integrated, except the Turks, whose islamic culture kept apart.   I dislike any religion, that allows polygamy and male domination over women, so I also dislike the islam.  
Yet islamic women in Germany are the only women, who refuse and resent to be treated and nursed by men.    Unfortunately, the same people, who treat me as deranged and prude, also deny, that the islamic women want to protect their dignity the same way as I do.    These desensitized Germans have the prejudice, that it is a part of the islamic women's repression and that they want female doctors only in obedience to religion and husbands and not by their own personal sensitivity to their dignity.  
This is very flawed logic.   An islamic woman wants a female doctor.   The islam is bad for women, ergo wanting a female doctor cannot be good for women, even for German women. 

My only good luck is, that I only live 25km from the dutch border.   If ever I need to, I know, where to go to the hospital.  

"Female patients have the right to refuse treatment by a male doctor. Only in emergency situations can a woman be forced to accept a male doctor."

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2007/12/women_can_refuse_to_see_a_male.php

243. Patients' Cross Gender Choice of Doctors and Nurses - 2

Patients' Cross Gender Choice of Doctors and Nurses - 2

This continues entries 241 and 242.
This is also a reply to Suzy's text, who has invited me to add my comment.
http://patientmodestysolutions.blogspot.com/2010/12/modesty-vs-moralsthe-hidden-battle.html

2.  Why do institutions ruthlessly force treatment and nursing by doctors and nurses of the opposite gender upon patients, even though they protest and resist?   

This concerns institutions like hospitals, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, forensic and psychiatric wards, in short all institutions, where people enter, because they have no choice to stay out, either by health issues or by being admitted by law. 

The principle of medical treatment is supposed to be:  primum non nocere.   That means, first of all, do no harm.  

It is by now general accepted science, that psychological factors have a very important part in helping or impeding the healing of any health issue.   
When a woman experiences the handling of her body by a male doctor or nurse as a sexual assault and she is powerless to refuse it and to protect herself, this does serious harm to her.   This may well make her more sick and impede her healing.    It is a violation of the primum non nocere rule. 


There are several factors to consider:

1.  Who has the power to decide the job organization, the institution governance, the rules, the choice to employ male or female nurses?
Who is responsible and accountable, when a male nurse washes a woman in spite of her protest?
Has he decided this himself, is the distribution of the work load decided by the workgroup or by the management and by dominating bosses?
Are there any rules to protect the women, but the staff ignores the rules and nobody enforces them?

Does a male nurse risk his job, if he refuses to wash a non-consenting woman?  

2.  For what reasons do people choose to become nurses, doctors, massagers and other jobs of directly handling human bodies?  
How much maturity and emotional intelligence was in that choice?

• Average:  It is just a well paid and secure job, there has been a role model in the family, or there is any other haphazard but neutral reason.   
• Dangerously immature and lacking emotional intelligence:  Some men are driven by their subconscious sexual wishes to choose a job, which gets their hands on women's bodies.
• Maturity and emotional intelligence:  They are caring persons with a lot of altruism and maybe political motivation.  They want a job, where they feel to do something good and not just be part of the capitalistic rat race.  

3.  Has the institution of their training and the institution of employing them screened for their motivation to keep the dangerous and immature men out?


Assuming for the following considerations, that the male nurse is a person with the motivation to give good care to the patients.  He sincerely wants to avoid harming.    What are the reasons, that he in spite of this does wash the woman, who experiences this as a sexual assault?

1.  The woman suffers but nobody knows it.

1.1.  The woman has been so brainwashed, that she is has begun to belief herself to be a ridiculous prude, whose feeling uncomfortable in this situation were her own flaw, and she does not dare to protest.    

1.2.  She is scared to be punished as a trouble maker.   

1.3.. She has been declared as seriously mentally disturbed, and her protest against being washed by a man is mistaken by insensitive promiscuous men as a part of her mental condition.   In the worst case, if she has the courage to struggle against the sexual assault, they may even force psychopharmaceuticals into her.

2.  The nurse is promiscuous with extrinsic morals only.   For a promiscuous person, sexuality between bodies is principally permissible and acceptable, no matter if it goes as far as copulating like alley dogs or if indulging in any form of allowing or enjoying sexual stimulation.   For a promiscuous male nurse, it is just of no importance, how much or how little washing a woman's body is a sexual activity.    

If he is not only promiscuous, but also immature, he projects his own promiscuity upon all other people.   He has no clue, that a woman, for whom monogamy is a core part of her personality, perceives any sexuality without a committed relationship as a harmful assault.    He is ignorant, how much he is harming her.  
He may well have the morals not to cheat and to respect other people's relationship, and such.  He may well consider himself as a moral man, but based on the assumption of universal promiscuity.    If he is part of a social group, where promiscuity, desensitization, oversexation (entry 237) have become the norm, he may never have a chance to learn, that a woman has her own dignity and that her basic human rights include her right to keep unrelated men away from her intimate space. 
Such a nurse may take the alleged sanity of promiscuity so much for granted, that he may indeed sincerely belief, that a woman's wish for modesty is a sign of mental disturbance.

Only a male nurse, who is monogamy and whose promiscuity-inhibition (entry 101 ) has never been destroyed, can have the intrinsic moral based upon his own values, that enables him to know the limits of morally justifiable intrusion into a woman's intimate space.   

There is the problem:   The woman in the situation of experiencing the male intrusion into her intimate space directly suffers harm from that nurse, but the true cause of the harm is the social norm of widespread promiscuity and oversexation in mainstream society, and the desensitization of those, who have the power to inflict harm on the minority of the sensitive and monogamous people.    

Promiscuity is a scourge of humanity, and the harm of promsicuous male nurses is just one more indication of this.  

242. Patients' Cross Gender Choice of Doctors and Nurses - 1

Patients' Cross Gender Choice of Doctors and Nurses - 1

This continues entry 241.    After writing it, I did some googling, and I discovered lots of discussions on the topic of the importance of the gender of the chosen doctor.   I was astonished and at first also a bit puzzled, how many people defend their cross gender choice.  

With full sensitivity and consciousness for the biological facts, it is obvious, that every intrusion into the intimate space of a person by another person of the opposite gender is connected with sexual instincts.    When the intrusion is forced upon the person, it can be called a sexual assault.   People, who do not experience or define this kind of contact as sexual, are desensitized or in denial.  
Logically, if women would be treated and nursed by women, and men by men, a lot of trouble and suffering from abuse could be avoided.    But in spite of this, this pattern is not the normal case. 

This leads to two questions:

• Why do patients sometimes consciously choose doctors and nurses of the opposite gender?
• Why do institutions ruthlessly force treatment and nursing by doctors and nurses of the opposite gender upon patients, even though they protest and resist?   

1.  Why do patients sometimes consciously choose doctors and nurses of the opposite gender?

The doctor treats patients as they come, he does not choose their gender, usually he does not have this option.    Only the patients sometimes have a choice.   In most cases, it is the power of the institution like the hospital or contracts with health insurances, that assign patients to cross gender doctors.   In a hospital, a female patient may protest to be treated by a male doctor, and he my even sympathize with her wish ready to comply, but he is forced to take her case by the rules of the institution. 
-When a female heterosexual doctor treats a female patient, and when a male heterosexual doctor treats a male patient, it can be expected, that the quality of the treatment depends on the qualification of the doctor, the personality and the actual condition of stress, fatigue and such.    Sexuality does not interfere.
- When a patient is neither objectively nor subjectively troubled by the doctor of the opposite gender, then they are mutually persons, who would not mate, even if they were the only persons on a deserted island, because there is no chemistry, not instinctive attraction at all.   In this case, sexuality may also not interfere.

 

When a patient chooses the doctor by gender, the choice is always based upon conscious or subconscious sexual reasons.  
-When a female patient chooses a female doctor and a male patient a male doctor, they do it consciously for the reason of decency and for being sensitive enough to entering a situation, that they personally would perceive as sexual.   They do not want any sexual attraction without a relationship.   If they have a partner, it is an act of respect for the partner to avoid all inappropriate sexual attraction, they are risking by the examination.
-When a female patient chooses a male doctor, because she feels, that he is especially kind, patiently listening, taking his time for her, this is an expression of subconscious attraction converted into behavior, that is on the conscious level experienced as pleasant.   Assuming that neither the doctor nor the patient would even consider cheating on their respective partners, this does not exclude, that somewhere in the subconscious the doctor imagines a date with the attractive woman.   Maybe the woman is married to a man, who has a low status job earning little money and she subconsciously enjoys the attention of a man of high social status.  

-Some men are no only homophobic, but panicking about ever being either mistaken for gay or discovering any sign of being gay in themselves, it would cause them too much shame.   They are phobic to experience unwanted reactions if consulting a male urologist.   They prefer a female doctor.   Whatever reactions they show and cannot control, gives them a double set of feelings, superficial embarrassment covering the feeling of expressing the masculinity as subjectively for them it should be.   -Female patients are brainwashed to accept a male doctor and the presence of a chaperon as enough protection.   It does protect them from active abuse, but it does not at all diminish the instinctive urges of the male doctor, making him perceive her not as a person entrusted him to cure, but as a potential prey temporarily out of his reach.   

The second question will be answered in another entry.

241. Homage to Medical Patient Modesty

Homage to Medical Patient Modesty

Wow, I just discovered this web page.  
http://www.patientmodesty.org
So much progress seems to come from the USA, this is another example.   I can only dream of an organization like this in Germany.   

Luckily enough, I am healthy at 61, but how much longer I can stay clear of hospitals, I cannot know.   Whenever I mention to anybody, that I am more apprehensive of the ordeal of the sexual assault of being treated and nursed by men against my will than about getting sick, I am ridiculed as a prude.  

But being prude comes from prudence, and  

"Prudence is the characteristic of exercising sound judgment in practical affairs."
"It is often associated with wisdom, insight, and knowledge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence

Finally, and for the first time in my life, I found likeminded people and even an organization, who back up my own perception and my own insights.    
I am sick and tired of being considered as the aberrant one in a pseudo-progressive and pseudo-liberated society, where mistreating and humiliating women is a social norm.   

Here are some examples:
http://www.patientmodesty.org/Case.aspx?GID=1

My reasons for prudence had started with my more intuitive perception of all the more scientific insights that I gained later by learning a lot about evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology.   

I have very good reasons for my prudence:

The necessity of desensitization and denial to enable life in a crowded society does only cover the social and the personal space, but it does not include the intimate space.     Unrelated people can interact and fulfil all requirement of every day life without any intrusion into each other's intimate space.  
As a consequence of the spiral of desensitization and oversexation, as described in entry 237, society has given up the protection of the intimate space in a way, that cannot be rationally justified or warranted at all.   

Based on my understanding of evolutionary biology and psychology, I claim:

1. Nakedness inside the social, personal and intimate space is principally sexual, both as the reason for the display and the reception of the display by the instincts.
2. Touch by a person of the opposite gender of the naked body is principally sexual.   (I am not talking about handshakes etc.)  
3. When people consciously do not experience nakedness and touch as sexual, either on the perceiving or the initiating end, it is a result of psychological dynamics and social norms.    It is an individual disposition, that cannot be generalized by projection upon others. 
4. When two persons agree on defining an interaction involving nakedness and touch of the naked body as not sexual, it is their freedom of choice.   Not experiencing nakedness and heterosexual touch as sexual does not give anybody the right to define it as not sexual for others.  
5. When a woman experiences an interaction involving looking at and touching her naked body as sexual, her subjective experience counts and has to be respected, no matter how the man defines or experiences it and no matter, for what purpose he does it.  

It is a basic human right:
"to be free and protected from unwanted sexuality"
http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201010/2192565871.html  
That includes a woman's right to restrict, to whom she displays and whom she allows to touch her naked body.   It is her basic human right to restrict these sexual activities to a partner, whom she has chosen, and refuse them to and by any other man.
Touching and undressing a woman against her will is by law considered as the crime of sexual assault, when it is committed by an individual.   

But here in Germany, the same crime is committed on women every day with the consent of the law, social norms and many insensitive and ignorant people.    These completely irrational norms sort men into categories or harmless or harmful, which cannot be in any way justified as rationally.    Biologically, every man is an animal with instincts, no matter his training and professional career.   

Example:   A pair of identical male twins.   One is a warden in a prison, the other a male nurse.  
Every visitor to the prison has to accept being checked for not smuggling in anything.    But a woman has the legal right to only be examined by a female prison employee.   The male warden of the twins is not allowed to do it.  
But when the same woman has an accident and is brought into the hospital, without even being asked for her consent, the twin brother, the male nurse has his hands and eyes all over her naked body.  
The general justification of this is the firm belief, that by habituation and desensitization, for male doctors and nurses, handling a patients body is indeed not different from handling a pig's body or a wooden statue.   But for the woman, it is a sexual assault  without her consent and a violation of her basic human rights.

But the situation is much worse than that a woman is only being handled as if she were an object lacking dignity.  
The social norm forcing women into the hands of male doctors and nurses is based upon the wrong assumption, that indeed the woman's body is always experienced just as a piece of wood by the handling man.   This is a myth. 

The web and the newspapers are full with reports of sexual abuse by male doctors and male nurses.   

Some sources:

http://www.sexualmisconductbydoctors.com/index.aspx

"The database contained 728 sex-related orders taken against 542 physicians between 1981 and 1994 and 321 additional orders taken in 1995 and 1996. From 1989 to 1996, the number of physicians disciplined in each year increased from 42 in 1989 to 147 in 1996,"

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/279/23/1883.full

"In California, there were disciplinary actions against 2,309 doctors, including 57 for sexual abuse of or sexual misconduct with a patient."
"According to a survey reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 10% of psychiatrists admitted to having sexual relations with their patients. In a July 1997 report, published by the Public Citizen Health Research Group, 28% of psychiatrists were disciplined for sex-related offenses"
"The number of all doctors disciplined for sexual misconduct doubled from 1990 to 1994. Of the total disciplinary actions taken against doctors, 5.1% were for sexual abuse of patients or other sexual misconduct."

http://www.rapetraumaservices.org/settings.html

"...reported elder abuse cases ....  Three percent involve sexual abuse. "

http://www.brentadams.com/library/nursing-home-abuse-statistics-elder-care-neglect-stats.cfm

Sexual abuse of patients is far from an exceptional event, it is an frequent occurrence.  Unfortunately, it is more logical, that it happens than not.   When a male doctor or nurse has his hands on a naked female body, the instinctive urges get triggered in him just as in any other man.  
The doctors and nurses are the direct criminals, as far as they have chosen a profession, that needs more self-control and responsibility than they have.  
When someone leaves meat on the table, and the cat eats it, who is to blame?   The cat for following the instinct to eat, or the one, who puts the meat in the cats reach?
When someone forces a woman against her will naked under the hands of a man and she gets abused, who is to blame?   The man for not controlling his instincts, or all those people, who coerced the woman into the situation?
If a woman asks in a hospital to be treated and nursed by women, but it is denied, and she then suffers abuse, those, who have made and enforced the rules are as guilty as the perpetrators.   When men cannot control their instincts, then women need to be protected from getting under their power.  

The cases of abuse are a clear indication, that nobody can ever guaranty to a woman, that a doctor patient relationship will not become a sexual relationship for him.  The whole myth of the doctor patient relationship as never sexual is the common justification to force women into the hands of male doctors.    Forcing women into a situation, that they experience as a sexual assault, based upon a myth is an outrage.  


The tragedy in our modern society is the denial and ignorance of the power of the instincts and of their real danger to women.    A woman like me, who is fully conscious and sensitive to the fact, that a male doctor is always a hazard of abuse, is ridiculed as a prude.   Being desensitized and in denial in an oversexed world is the social norm and forced upon those, who know better.  

Without reducing or excusing the perpetrator's guilt, those women, who think to be modern and no prudes and who therefore choose to consult a male doctor, bring the getting drugged and abused upon themselves by their own ignorance.    But the male domination of society is responsible for this ignorance.   It is male domination over the forming of rules, laws and norms of society, that has caused this disrespect for women's intimate space and the brainwashing of so many women to participate in this themselves.     

As long as desensitized and stupid women choose to consult male doctors, they unfortunately not only enable and perpetuate the abuse by those doctors for themselves, but also for those women, who know better, but have no choice.      

Women could have a lot of power.   If every woman would only consult female doctors, then the male doctors would be left to treat the men.   If enough women would demand it, there would be the all female treatment and nursing for women in the hospitals and nursing homes.