vt2pearis5313's Xanga

At Least One Is Real (get the pun?)

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:47:33 GMT

Gracing the cover of Lonely Planet:

Featured on the Suze Orman show:

Swimming with whale sharks and hammerheads:

Are you a pescetarian?

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:36:03 GMT

Eric, a PhD candidate at UC San Francisco, is doing a dissertation project on why people choose pescetarian diets — and he needs your help! He is looking for about 40 people to interview about pescetarianism. (You do not have to be a pescetarian to participate).

Here’s what will happen if you decide to take part in the project:
- You will be interviewed for about one hour, either in person or over the phone. You will be asked questions about what you eat and how you chose your diet.
- None of your personal information will be used for the project; your participation will be completely anonymous.

If you’re interested in participating:
- Email Eric at pescetarians@gmail.com. He will provide you with more information.
- If you decide to participate, Eric will work with you to arrange the interview at a time and place convenient to you.

Thank you, and happy eating!

In Defense of Dating Preferences

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:42:32 GMT

I'll begin with a silly example. When you go to the ice cream shop, you see a varied assortment of flavors. You pick on a whim. Today you may want vanilla. Tomorrow you may want to try green tea. Or you may stick to your favorite usual, pistachio. Or maybe you prefer frozen yogurt, gelato, or kulfi to ice cream. Without fail, you always end up satisfying your craving with the most appetizing choice available to you, all without ever having to reflect on why you chose this flavor, what exactly you even like about this flavor, your history or pattern of choosing flavors, or how you'll be left with a bad aftertaste and maybe also a stomachache when you finish. Why didn't you choose that other flavor? Firstly, you can't have them all. Secondly, who cares when you love what you have? And thirdly, this is your choice for you, so you don't owe any justification to anyone.

The same can be said of dating preferences. You may be drawn to certain ethnicities, physical features, accents, cultures, personalities, and other qualities. You may like types that are comfortably familiar and safely inviting, or types that are intriguingly exotic and surprisingly challenging. What you find attractive may change over time as you mature and gain life experiences. More likely than not, you cannot control what you are attracted to, and you end up in relationships of mutual attraction. When this relationship is between two freely consenting adults, which is the majority of all cases, all is fine and dandy. It does not matter what anyone else thinks, because the relationship only involves these two individuals who are on equal footing. A problem only arises when at least one of them is either a child, coerced, unknowing, or otherwise incapable of being a full partner in the relationship. It's not a crime to feel an attraction for people who are underaged, submissive, ignorant, brainwashed, non-human, inanimate, or have some other quality that normal healthy people don't find attractive, so long as you do not act on those impulses when it involves preying on any other human being. You know right from wrong in these matters, and I trust you'll do what's right and cast no doubt on your harmless dating preferences.

Though you enjoy the freedom of having the right to pursue your own preferences and having the right to not pursue what you don't prefer, people tend to forget that other people also have these rights. I often hear rather negative comments about people who prefer Asians or Caucasians when they themselves are not, as well as negative comments about people who only date within their own ethnic group. I also hear comments that are prejudiced against certain races, ages, statures, body shapes, weights, disabilities, defects, disorders, and traits that primarily relate to appearance. I'm sure you've heard of jokes about people having yellow fever, being racist, having a foot fetish, or robbing the cradle. You might have even made such jokes yourself. But bear in mind that you are naturally a decent person, and decent people respect other people and their preferences, even when they don't agree with you. Their lives are none of your business the way your life is none of theirs. This respect can, however, be lost. People who prefer certain ethnic groups (such as yours) to which they do not belong, but who believe and force upon you that they are experts in your culture, and therefore you, are downright rude and insulting. They do not deserve your respect and they have only themselves to blame for eroding it. But many people who prefer certain ethnic groups to which they do not belong are simply interested to learn about the culture and/or are attracted by the exoticism and mean no disrespect.

To those who've been teased or criticized for their dating preferences, don't feel ashamed for whom you're dating or whom you're not dating, especially when you know deep down that you are right, and you are free to date as you please, for no one but yourself. Don't ever allow anyone to make you feel ashamed for not giving everyone who wants to date you a chance. You know they're just jealous of you. If you are guilted into doing what they want, and you date people regardless of your own preferences, you basically have no standards. That's even worse than having low standards--at least they have them! By dating beneath you, you sell yourself short and get no satisfaction in return, so what's the point? Everyone is out for themselves, so if you don't stand up for yourself, then no one will. Pleasing other people at your expense is the surest way to ruin your self-esteem, and we don't want that.

In fact, by ignoring your dating preferences for the sake of others who don't really care about you, you also add injury to insult because it's dangerous to accept anything that comes your way. Bad ice cream may make you feel a little fat afterward, but a bad date can ruin your life. If anyone shows red flags or raises your suspicions, or you have a bad feeling in your gut about them, they're not worth dating, and they probably aren't even worth befriending. You're much better off being alone than getting involved with an abuser, a psycho, or a stalker who won't leave until they've destroyed you. If you're unsure where to set your standards because you don't want them so low that you'll be settling for garbage or so high that you won't be able to find anyone, err on the side of setting your standards too high. You're better off being romantically lonely, but surrounded by friends and staying available to date when a good opportunity presents itself, than suffering a suffocating and depressing dating experience that leaves you feeling used, scarred, left with baggage, and pessimistic of ever dating or getting into another relationship ever again.

You have the right to have your own dating preferences. If you don't have them, you should, and you probably do but just don't realize it. Not all dating preferences are as superficial as the obvious ones I've mentioned. Exercise this right by pursuing your own dating preferences and respecting other people's dating preferences. You'll be happier, less stressed, and more confident, guaranteed!

Is Emotional or Physical Cheating Worse?

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:32:10 GMT

The radio posed this question this morning. Emotional cheating was defined as falling in love with someone else. Physical cheating was defined as having sex with someone else. Their informal poll of heterosexual people who called in resulted in women claiming emotional cheating as worse and men claiming physical cheating as worse.

In general, a woman values love and romance over sex (which may result from a man's undivided interest seeming rarer and thus more precious than his tendency to want to spread his seed, as well as her risk of nine months of pregnancy from each sexual engagement). In the front of her mind, she reasons that if her partner falls for another, it's unlikely for her to win his love back; whereas if he sleeps with another, it could have been just a lapse in judgment for physical temptation and nothing more. After all, men are more casual with sex than they are with love. His waning interest in her, however, is an irreversible trend.

For a man, the opposite appears true. He can forgive his woman for falling in love with another so long as she has not slept with the other man. Interestingly, this has less to do with her intentions toward him than his perception of her. Her celibacy is of paramount importance (perhaps because of social norms, as well as the fact that paternity is not as evident as maternity) and her apparent loss of it to another man is irreversible and thus unforgiveable.

This makes evolutionary sense. Historically, a woman required her man's long-term commitment to help feed and raise the offspring she has born, and a man required his woman's fidelity to guarantee that her offspring are of his paternity. Therefore, I feel that as a woman, I am expected to consider emotional cheating worse than physical cheating. However, I think this question poses an artificial dichotomy from which to chose that oversimplifies the underlying issue at hand. Personally I think what makes cheating worse has less to do with what type it is than what degree it is.

Consider this. Emotional cheating can range from developing a schoolgirl crush on someone famous, to falling in love with another person instead of, in addition to, or more than his/her partner, to even just showering more attention--even just platonic--on a friend than on his/her partner. Physical cheating can range from getting distracted by someone attractive passing by, to getting sexually aroused by someone else, to having sexual intercourse with someone other than his/her partner (we really should establish a gender-neutral, singular possessive pronoun, but I digress...). Lesser degrees of cheating may not even qualify as cheating at all; it could depend on the reasonableness of both partners and the circumstances they are in. The more jealous types will understandably have stricter standards that must be respected to maintain the relationship. The more trusting ones may not be as upset if they are given a good, believable reason and can still see a worthwhile future with their partner.

Relationships are based on mutual trust, honesty, and respect. Should I ever be cheated on (though let's hope this never happens), I shall not be happy that my partner loves someone else more than he loves me, but I can understand how that may be beyond his control. However, I do expect him to show me the decency of telling me immediately, so that we don't continue to live a lie, and so that I am released from a dead relationship and given a fair chance to find someone else to love who loves me back. In the end, it's not about being together forever, especially if it isn't working out. Rather, it is about being happy with yourself, with your life, and with those whom you decide to let into your life.

Dating Experience Is Overrated

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 02:58:21 GMT

Those who date a lot like to tout how much experience they've garnered and how much they've learned and grown. They believe they are ahead of the curve in the game of life, at least in the sphere of romantic relationships. This expertise can only be gained the hard way, so better sooner learned than later. How else would you know what you truly wanted, recognize it when you see it, and pursue and value it for what it is? From their perspective, those who haven't dated as much as they have--and especially those who haven't had a serious relationship or even dated at all--are way behind in the game, immature, and ill-equipped to handle what will come their way.

But from all the relationships I've seen (and I've seen quite a few outside my own), I've come to find that dating experience is overrated. There are many people --some past their 20th birthday--who've never been in a romantic relationship, either through their own choice or through the circumstances they've been dealt. And yet, I know they'd be great partners to whomever they choose to be with when they find them when they've decided they're ready. How do I know this? Because it's already happened to several people I know, who have never dated anyone but their first and only. Some became engaged to their first love shortly after their college graduation, and these truly are cute couples. They are happy and stable and young enough to plan their lives ahead together. The women aren't pressured by loudly ticking biological clocks, since they have a long time frame to get pregnant and they already have dedicated fathers-to-be, so they can plan parenthood responsibly after they've pursued their individual career goals and other lifelong dreams without feeling torn between prioritizing their families or themselves. The men have a reason to work hard, something to build on and toward, and no family obligations or responsibilities to hold them down, so they can simultaneously pursue their meaning of life, total happiness, and true fulfillment. Together they are virgins, unscathed by relationships that have failed in the past (and STD-free!) and hopeful for their future together.

You may tell me I'm being facetious and don't know what I'm talking about, because everyone's first love starts out blissfully ignorant, and only time will tell how it pans out. Even serial daters who've had many relationships have had to have had a first love. Nobody ever sees the end coming at the beginning of the relationship, or they'd have never entered into that relationship, or wouldn't even consider it a relationship to begin with. Relationships are tough and complicated, and nobody ever thinks they have it in them to cheat until they do. Even with experience, it's hard to tell whether the relationship will work, because you can never be 100% sure. But at least with experience, you are more aware of the pitfalls and complexities and are thus more knowledgeable in avoiding them and also more prepared to deal with them.

However, therein lies the answer. First relationships are very important and not to be taken lightly. If you can make your first relationship work, you are more likely to have subsequent relationships that also work. But if your first relationship fails, that's where your problems begin. For it is much easier to find fault than it is to find a perfect balance, and successful relationships are easier to attain through good partner selection than good compromising skills (in other words, it's easier to maintain what's good than to fix what's bad). This means successful relationships are often more a matter of judgment than experience. Some things simply can't be taught, so if you just don't get it, regardless how much you learn from every relationship, you'll never figure it all out. Take patience, understanding, kindness, and maturity for example. You don't get them solely through experience or over time; you have to also find them within yourself. Simply being a parent does not make you patient, understanding, kind, and mature, even if you improve in those respective areas because of it. Simply being a teacher does not make you a good teacher, no matter how long you've taught or how much you've learned and improved. Ultimately, if you aren't honest with yourself, aren't logical, aren't open to opposing perspectives, aren't able to tolerate what you cannot change, and aren't willing and able to learn and change what needs to be changed, you will never truly get it. Good judgment is a skill that not everyone has. Even so, that doesn't mean you can't nor shouldn't work on it to make yours better, and more dating experience alone just won't do it.

Moreover, with more dating experience comes a sharper awareness of relationship pitfalls that may in fact make you more susceptible to them. Let me show you how this works. Suppose I told you not to think about cocaine because it's bad for you, and you agree. How do you remember not to think about cocaine? By reminding yourself not to think about cocaine. But by doing so you just thought about cocaine. In the end, you can't get the thought of cocaine out of your mind. And even if you do somehow stop thinking about cocaine, once you so much as overhear the word cocaine in a conversation or a song, you will wonder why that sounds significant to you, and then you'll remember you weren't supposed to think about cocaine. So you try, and the cycle repeats, over and over again. Now instead of cocaine, imagine if the taboo topic was cheating. You were cheated on, you didn't see it coming, and you don't think you'll ever trust again. You can't tell me you wouldn't have been happier or even better off if you were never cheated on. Yes, it's partly what made you who you are today, but who cares who you are if you're wallowing in sadness or self-pity? Since you know you'll never really forget it (nor should you), you need to forgive your oversight and let it go so you can move on without letting that baggage drag you down. It may be hard, but it isn't impossible.

So where am I going with this? My point is that you shouldn't date just to learn the rules of dating, because dating experience is overrated. Every person is different, so what works with one doesn't necessarily translate to working on another. Take respect for example. Some girls like guys who ask her what she wants, because the guys are showing her respect by letting her voice her opinion and choose. On the other hand, some girls like guys who go ahead without consulting her, because the guys are showing her respect by demonstrating they already know her wishes. This is just a simple example; it gets way more complicated when you take into account the various kinds of situation and people. The girl may want the same guy to do both, and what he does may depend on what the choice is of. Or the girl may want one type of behavior from one guy and another type of behavior from another because it fits their styles better. So forget about learning the rules of the dating game or trying to get more dating experience. Instead, you should date to learn about the person you are dating and to see whether you suit each other. In the process you should also push your own boundaries to learn about yourself.

To those who haven't had a real relationship yet, stay true to yourself and don't fall for the hype and rush into one. To those who are in their first one, enjoy it and see where it takes you. You may learn a lot about who you really are and what you really want in the process. To those who've had a lot of experience, I hope you find love, trust, and inspiration again, but this time stronger and for keeps. Reversing the trend is far too rare and is something for which I'd like you to prove me wrong. To those who are fulfilled in their relationships, congratulations! Please tell us how you do it so that we may all learn from you and have hope. Lastly, to those who love their independence too much right now to want a real relationship, please don't lead other people on just to have fun with them, because they deserve to know and will respect you for being upfront about it. They may still date you if they don't mind, and it makes it less messy and much easier for you to end it when the time comes. With that said, good luck with your relationships and/or have fun dating!

Death May Be Bad, But Torture Is Downright Evil

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:03:43 GMT

Death is sad, but death is not necessarily bad. Death is simply the inevitable end of the cycle of life. There are many circumstances where it is much better to allow death to occur, such as naturally ripe old age, excrutiating pain with no end or cure in sight, terminal illness, the condition where the brain is dead (though the rest of the body is still functional), physician-assisted euthanasia, and dying in order to try to save another (which includes abortion to preserve the woman and her family's health), to name a few. However, I cannot say the same of torture. Torture is inherently bad, and dare I say it, downright evil. There is no circumstance where it is ever acceptable, as much as I want to cry "an eye for an eye" and torture the torturers to give them a taste of their own medicine.

And don't think waterboarding is acceptable just because it is politically expedient to keep the label of "torture" off. When asked whether waterboarding was torture, presidential hopeful Senator John McCain, who actually has firsthand knowledge of waterboarding, had said, "Sure. Yes. Without a doubt." When asked "So the United States has been torturing POWs?" McCain had responded, "Yes. Scott, we prosecuted Japanese war criminals after World War II. And one of the charges brought against them, for which they were convicted, was that they water-boarded Americans." We can't let something as seriously wrong as torture be a political instrument of hypocrisy, where when they torture us, it's criminalized as torture, but when we torture them, it's protected as a method of interrogation. Torture is torture. But I digress...

There are many people (not just hypocritical, conservative, U.S. government officials, but many people who are often under guises such as "pro-life") who believe the opposite, that death is inexcusable while torture is acceptable, but they are dead wrong. They fail to take into account the quality of living, which is often far more important than longevity, as there is no life if it is not worth living. They fail to respect the individual's right to pursue their own idea of freedom and happiness and to do so with dignity. They fail to appreciate that other people have as much a right to their beliefs as they do to their own. They fail to understand what it means to be alive and what it means to die. They fail to value those who are already living and instead misguidedly value those who are not even alive in any meaningful sense of the word. They unreasonably stick to fundamentalist ideas that do not speak to reason, that do not take into account the situation, that are usually outdated beliefs or the byproduct of overheld grudges at best. These are the people who will do things that are impractical, that are unsafe, that are ineffective, that are too costly, that don't make any sense. These are the people who refuse to learn and instead keep to their baser primal instincts of fear. These are the people who are most cruel, inhumane, unethical, and unnecessary to society. They are the instigators of war. We cannot be apathetic and let them bully the innocent and defenseless. As long as we permit anyone to inflict a torturous existence on another who wishes to die for good reason, we will never truly be a humane society. And to think, what does that say about us?!?

Run-ins with Pedophiles

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:17:13 GMT

These things have actually happened to me, and whenever I tell people, they always wonder why I didn't just freak out on the spot. Luckily I can't say these events have scarred me, but I am reminded of them every so often when I'm in certain situations.

Incident #1. The hand. When I was pretty young, maybe eight years old, we went on a family trip to another country. It was a hot day and we went to a local corner store or grocery market, probably to get a snack or just to get out of the sun for a bit. I perused the store but didn't find anything I wanted, so I headed outside while my parents were still in the store. Some guy walked toward me and out of nowhere stuck his hand down the back of my shirt. I don't know what he was doing because he had no reason to touch me, and there on bare skin of all places. It was pretty traumatic at the time because I was never touched by anyone except my mom. He continued on his way into the store and then my parents came out. I didn't have the good sense to cry, but I was upset and told my parents. They told me to let it go and basically dismissed my case. I think I got a mild rash where he laid his hand on my back, but it soon went away, and it was probably simply a psychosomatic effect. After that I lost all faith in my parents' ability to keep me safe.

Incident #2. At the movies. I went to the movies a lot in my early teens, usually going in a group with other people. One time I went alone and after the movie I decided to sneak into Minority Report. The movie had already started, so the lights were dim, and I couldn't see since I just walked in. I didn't want to bring any attention to myself, so I blindly just kept walking up to the last row to get a seat. There was just one guy in the middle of the row, so I sat down toward the end, probably in the third seat from the aisle. A few minutes later, the guy looks at me and scoots over into the seat next to me. I wasn't looking at him or wearing anything provacative (I had on an old, long-sleeved cotton shirt, long pants, and tennis shoes) so I didn't know why he moved next to me, especially since he was at least 30 years old. He then started making small talk. Have you seen this movie before? I didn't want to cause any trouble since I wasn't supposed to be sitting in this movie, so I just answered him, no. Then he started telling me what I missed in the movie, even though I didn't look interested. He started leaning in and then brushed my arm (I'm so thankful I was wearing a long-sleeved shirt so he wasn't touching my skin), saying, This feels nice, what is it made of, cashmere? That was all I could handle. I immediately got up and left the movie theater without saying a word, and didn't stop to relax until I was safely home behind locked doors.

Incident #3. On the bus. Being too old to ask my parents to take me everywhere and too young to drive, I often rode the bus. One weekend, like many weekends, I boarded a crowded bus on my way home. I ended up sitting in a front-facing two-seat bench, in the one by the window (it's like the airplane seats, where you're trapped between the aisle seat passenger and the window). I'm not the claustrophobic type, so it wasn't a problem, at least not initially. As the bus got emptier, to the point where there were probably 3-4 seats per person on the bus, most people had reseated themselves so that everyone could have more space. However, the guy next to me stayed put. Not a problem, I thought. But my seat was becoming uncomfortable. I readjusted myself, but it didn't help. I thought I was sitting on a bump, maybe from his jacket or something. But something wasn't right, the bump was soft, and moving around. It turns out he was feeling up my rear end! When I looked at him aghast and disgusted, he looked at me undisturbed as if nothing was going on and continued, getting even more into it. I'm not sure what's wrong with me, but I tend not to react hysterically when I don't know what's going on or happening to me. I just kept moving toward the window, but couldn't because the seats dipped in the middle. I didn't say anything. When my stop was close enough, I didn't want to ask him to move and I didn't want to walk past him anyway, so I climbed over my seat (more like leaped, thank goodness I was in my tennis shoes) onto the seats behind and jumped out the rear doors.

I think it might be experiences like these that make me so protective of anyone younger than me, not just people I know, not just children. It's so much easier for me to stand up for other people than for me to stand up for myself. These things should never happen to anyone. The scariest part is that much worse things happen all the time to people who can't do anything about it. What would you do if a pedophile did any of these things to you or someone you were with?

Changed Thoughts on Polygamy

Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:33:51 GMT

From reading Stolen Innocence, by Elissa Wall with Lisa Pulitzer, I've come to see polygamy in a new light.

Before, I have always been against polygamy because to me, it demeans women. I should clarify that although polygamy can include multiple wives or husbands, as it is defined as "the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, esp. wife, at one time," I have never come across a situation where there were multiple husbands to one wife. Either way, it makes no sense biologically, as our population is half male and half female. If some men were allowed multiple wives, or more than their fair share (please excuse my crude descriptions), what happens to all the other men who get none? (As it turns out, in the Mormon cult, men are much more likely to be excommunicated from the group, whereas women tend to be retained like property and punished in other ways.) And if only some women were allowed multiple husbands, it would be quite an inefficient way to grow, let alone sustain, the current population, given the nine-month long gestational period per pregnancy. These practices are also more susceptible to incest or inbreeding, especially among smaller communities, due to the increasing relatedness of people as a result of the decreasing biodiversity from the few fathers, which increases the risk of genetic defects. It's just hard to see any benefits of polygamy, especially in this day and age where women can live independently of families and even spouses and women can flourish as singles, even if they have children to support.

Of course, when I heard about how our country was cracking down on polygamous cults that forced child marriages (or condoned adult men raping 14-year-old girls) in news stories such as Warren Jeffs Trial Heads to Jury, and how most of the cult members were resisting our "help," my first thoughts were, how can we stop such tragedies if most of the victims didn't even consider themselves as victims? I found the answer by reading Elissa Wall's story. They didn't know they were victims because they didn't know there was any other way. They grew up behind closed doors and behind windows with the shades drawn, so they had no interaction with the rest of the world outside their cult. They grew up in polygamous households and were indoctrinated to believe this was not only normal but the only way to salvation. Their fathers and mothers loved them, there is no questioning that. So how was one to realize one was a victim unless one suffered a great injustice, often from the cult leadership, such as receiving severe punishment for simply questioning authority or being forced into a marriage he or she was against?

The answer: let them know the truth. Let them interact with people outside their cult and learn about how the rest of the world lives, where we are free to question authority and free to choose whom and how we marry, if at all. I understand that the well-meaning but often overeager and misguided media attention is scary, and that this culture shock cannot be easy to deal with. The victims' families are being torn apart, and their whole worlds are falling apart, and most of these people are women and children who have never been in a position to make such impacting decisions for themselves before. But a choice can only be a real choice when it's willingly chosen in an informed way from several viable options.

So what if the women were informed of the way we lived and that they had other options, but they still choose to stay with their husbands in a polygamous relationship, especially when children are involved? How can we respect that decision when it is against our own values of monogamy? This is a tough question, but I believe--and this is only my opinion, and you are free to make your own opinions--that we should let them. The women should be able to raise their children with their shared father. This isn't that different from living with extended family or with grandparents and other generations under one roof. After all, when you remove the cult leadership, the parents are good parents, aside from their prioritizing religion over the good of family members, which isn't so different from what many mainstream Christians do now anyway. However, they should raise their children under the condition of being integrated with the rest of society, so that their children can make their own informed decisions about marriage, be it monogamous, polygamous, heterosexual, homosexual, biological, adoptive, single-parent (such as through sperm donations), something else, or not at all. I think Elissa Wall's new husband Lamont (whom she chose to marry and loves dearly) put it best in saying he "doesn't judge polygamists for believing in plural marriage as part of their religion. What he does oppose, however, is forcing young girls into marriage. 'Where the problem comes in is when you're abusing and forcing girls that are definitely not old enough to make the choice for themselves into a plural relationship, and then you try to hide that relationship,' Lamont says," as quoted from Escaping Polygamy.

I don't expect you to readily adopt my opinion, but I do ask you to ponder what makes a marriage good or bad and what children need from their families to live happy, well-adjusted, fulfilling lives. After all, you only get to live one life (unless you believe in reincarnation or the afterlife, in which case, I hope they're good, too).

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:46:51 GMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=e2a33213be2b138d&ei=5087%0A

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe

By WALDO L. FIELDING, M.D.

June 3, 2008

Essay

With the Supreme Court becoming more conservative, many people who support women's right to choose an abortion fear that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that gave them that right, is in danger of being swept aside.

When such fears arise, we often hear about the pre-Roe "bad old days." Yet there are few physicians today who can relate to them from personal experience. I can.

I am a retired gynecologist, in my mid-80s. My early formal training in my specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to 1953, in two of the city's large municipal hospitals.

There I saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion that one could conjure, done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring. Yet the patient never told us who did the work, or where and under what conditions it was performed. She was in dire need of our help to complete the process or, as frequently was the case, to correct what damage might have been done.

The patient also did not explain why she had attempted the abortion, and we did not ask. This was a decision she made for herself, and the reasons were hers alone. Yet this much was clear: The woman had put herself at total risk, and literally did not know whether she would live or die.

This, too, was clear: Her desperate need to terminate a pregnancy was the driving force behind the selection of any method available.

The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous "coat hanger" — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth. In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in — perhaps the patient herself — found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it.

We did not have ultrasound, CT scans or any of the now accepted radiology techniques. The woman was placed under anesthesia, and as we removed the metal piece we held our breath, because we could not tell whether the hanger had gone through the uterus into the abdominal cavity. Fortunately, in the cases I saw, it had not.

However, not simply coat hangers were used.

Almost any implement you can imagine had been and was used to start an abortion — darning needles, crochet hooks, cut-glass salt shakers, soda bottles, sometimes intact, sometimes with the top broken off.

Another method that I did not encounter, but heard about from colleagues in other hospitals, was a soap solution forced through the cervical canal with a syringe. This could cause almost immediate death if a bubble in the solution entered a blood vessel and was transported to the heart.

The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion. It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.

It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.

Waldo L. Fielding was an obstetrician and gynecologist in Boston for 38 years. He is the author of "Pregnancy: The Best State of the Union" (Thomas Y. Crowell, 1971).

Candy

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:06:11 GMT

For those of you who haven't grown up with me, this is my favorite dolly Candy. She's yellow, made of cotton, and roughly 9.5 inches tall. I don't know why the manufacturer named her Candy, nor why they sewed that across the front of her dress, but that's her name. My mom bought her for me around 1989 at Walgreens for about $2.99 plus tax. They had identical Candy dolls in an assortment of colors such as yellow, pink, blue, and purple. My mom let my sister and me each choose a doll for ourselves, just for the heck of it, since they were on sale.

Now, my mom always buys two of everything for us, because she has to feel she's treating us both equally, and she's paranoid about us fighting, such as over toys (even though we almost never do). She also likes to label everything, from lunchboxes to underwear, with the almighty Sharpie or sewing needle with thread. She also likes getting things in different colors so we won't mix up our toys. Somehow my default color became yellow, and Gloria's, red/pink. Looking back, I guess naturally these identical dolls in various colors with labels built in appealed to her for more reasons than just low cost.

But regardless why she bought Candy for me, I was ecstatic, far more ecstatic than Gloria was, and far more ecstatic than any reasonable person could be. I don't even know why I loved her so much, but she was the perfect bedtime companion. I went to bed with her in my arms every night, and woke with her in a different place every morning. More often than not she fell out of my arms sometime during the night and ended up on my pillow, squished under my body, lost in the blankets, or even tumbled onto the floor. Every now and again I couldn't resist bringing her to preschool with me. My mom insisted I wash her a few times. She didn't like that Candy absorbed my tears when I cried, that Candy absorbed my snot when I caught a cold, and that Candy was taken out of the house and then right into bed again without a proper washing. After a few rounds with the light laundry that got bleached, I refused any subsequent washings for her. She doesn't deserve such rough treatment.

I remember taking Candy to school, perhaps in Second Grade, for show-and-tell. At the time, I knew it was a little silly, but I took advantage of it as an excuse to bring her to school with me. I went to a small Catholic school where we had to wear uniforms, so any chance to play was welcome. That was my last vivid memory of Candy during my school years. As school started taking over my life, she faded into the background, sitting like a prop at the edge of my bed.

It wasn't until I moved out that I thought of her again. I found her zip-locked in a clear plastic bag stored in the closet. I had put her there to protect her from getting lost, from fading, and from getting dusty. At first I resisted the urge to take her out because I wanted to keep her in pristine condition. Then every few days I would take her out for a few seconds to squeeze, smell, primp, and hug, and then return her to her baggy. Seconds turned to minutes, and minutes turned to hours, until it became clear to me that her baggy no longer served any purpose. Now Candy is back to sleeping on my bed. However, she rarely falls out of the bed now because I often place her under my pillow for safekeeping.

I like to impose her upon friends who visit me, and they are always very good at tolerating my behavior. I know nobody cares to meet her, but I can't help myself. I find it impossibly hard to suppress the urge to share her whenever I have the opportunity. Everybody should have a little Candy in their lives. I think she makes quite a lasting impression. Even people who haven't seen or even heard of her all these years still remember her and my attachment to her. I am aware it is borderline irrational to find so much enjoyment in such an old, tattered doll. But she's been with me for so long, through the good times and the bad, through the dark, cold, and lonely nights. She carries such fond memories of the simplicity of childhood. As much as I love getting fancy new things, there will never be anything that can hold a candle to Candy. As the saying goes, money can't buy happiness. Now, I wonder, what is your Candy?