StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Wanderer wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: they thought the female orgasm was some kind of hysterical madness.

You mean to tell me they thought women got no pleasure from sex and it was abnormal if they did???

Physicians of the eras where "hysteria" was diagnosed stated that it was a result of sexual frustration in women. Hysteria was the 'disease,' orgasm actually was the cure. Only they didn't put it in so many words, because the purpose of sex was supposed to be one of procreation, and was verboten outside of marriage, as was self-stimulation (as the ideal woman wasn't supposed to find anything enjoyable about the sex act, and female eroticism was a big "No-no.)

In the Victorian era, where this sort of prudish attitude had become especially pronounced, 'hysteria' fell into the lap of medicine. Since the treatment wasn't liable to kill the patient, and treatment had to be regular (i.e. profitable,) doctors tended to shove a wide variety of minor female ailments into the umbrella of "hysteria."

Mind you, doctors did have better things to do than to manually masturbate women. Especially since, unsurprisingly, some had to be treated for hours. Which was why, in the 1870s, some bright soul thought to take some clockwork and assemble it into the first vibrators. And when the notion of electricity in the home became commonplace, the first popular electric home appliances were . . . vibrators (let's take this medical treatment and do it in the privacy of your own home!) Hence the thoroughly schizophrenic situation at the end of the 19th century, where one could buy a vibrator right out of the same Sears catalog one purchased kitchen appliances from . . . but couldn't directly articulate the fundamental reason one was buying it.

(Summarized from the Wiki article.)

I see this has devolved into variety garden rantings. Ah to have powers anywhere.

Off we go little topic

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Especially since, unsurprisingly, some had to be treated for hours. Which was why, in the 1870s, some bright soul thought to take some clockwork and assemble it into the first vibrators. And when the notion of electricity in the home became commonplace, the first popular electric home appliances were . . . vibrators (let's take this medical treatment and do it in the privacy of your own home!) Hence the thoroughly schizophrenic situation at the end of the 19th century, where one could buy a vibrator right out of the same Sears catalog one purchased kitchen appliances from . . . but couldn't directly articulate the fundamental reason one was buying it.

Alternately, it was possible to harness steam power to produce industrial-strength fucking machines, thus:

Simplicius wrote:Alternately, it was possible to harness steam power to produce industrial-strength fucking machines, thus:

If something goes wrong it could really burn your ass, literally.

It seemed more reasonable to split this topic off from the original one, rather than sending the whole thing to OT.

aerius wrote:

Simplicius wrote:Alternately, it was possible to harness steam power to produce industrial-strength fucking machines, thus:

If something goes wrong it could really burn your ass, literally.

I think the bigger concern is that the dildo is doing its magic, and then it acquires a horizontal velocity when the thing blows.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

aerius wrote:

Simplicius wrote:Alternately, it was possible to harness steam power to produce industrial-strength fucking machines, thus:

If something goes wrong it could really burn your ass, literally.

I think the bigger concern is that the dildo is doing its magic, and then it acquires a horizontal velocity when the thing blows.

There's no reason why the dildo would launch forward if the boiler blew. The biggest concern would be the boiler exploding or leaking a jet of steam in that case.

Darth Wong wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:

aerius wrote: If something goes wrong it could really burn your ass, literally.

I think the bigger concern is that the dildo is doing its magic, and then it acquires a horizontal velocity when the thing blows.

There's no reason why the dildo would launch forward if the boiler blew. The biggest concern would be the boiler exploding or leaking a jet of steam in that case.

Brings a whole new meaning to "hot and steamy action!".

According to the text on that poster the dildo is 26 feet long.

Junghalli wrote:According to the text on that poster the dildo is 26 feet long.

I believe that is a caption for something else, given that the steam dildo predates Phyllis Schlafly by the better part of a century, and that the steam dildo was very obviously installed and completed whereas the 26-foot mystery erection was apparently not.

Wouldn't it be pretty simple to armor the boiler in such a way that it would always blow away from the user? Like, just put a half inch steel plate with a hole just big enough for the dildo's shaft.

Bubble Boy wrote:Brings a whole new meaning to "hot and steamy action!".

Let off some steam, Bennett.

Goddamn, this makes clockwork and steampunk awesome! I shall definitely be putting this in some fiction I will write in the future!

She is hysterical!

Quick, my good sir, bring the contraption! As a physician, I am obliged to administer her treatment!

*adjusts monocle*

I say, good show old chap!

Ah, female hysteria. Reminds me of the old wandering womb diagnosis.

Desdinova wrote:Ah, female hysteria. Reminds me of the old wandering womb diagnosis.

Got to admit that female hysteria was a step up from: The devil has possessed her.

I would just like to say, that this topic is hilarious.

Mind you, doctors did have better things to do than to manually masturbate women. Especially since, unsurprisingly, some had to be treated for hours.

Annnnnnd for that reason they also used midwives.

Desdinova wrote:Ah, female hysteria. Reminds me of the old wandering womb diagnosis.

Which is, of course, how the Hysterectomy operation got its name. "Female hysteria" was supposed to be centered in the womb so remove that and all is well..........

Stuart wrote:
Which is, of course, how the Hysterectomy operation got its name. "Female hysteria" was supposed to be centered in the womb so remove that and all is well..........

Interesting. Of course half a century or so later, over twice the number of women as men were on the recieving end of the latest surgical cure for such things (despite being less likely, on average, to be dangerous). It does seem that women frequently get the raw end of the deal in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.

According to the CDC, two thirds of the 600,000 hysterectomies done in the United States every year are unnecessary. Doctors are just finding excuses to bill insurance companies for an unnecessary procedure.

Link 1
Link 2

And here's a good one: a doctor unilaterally removed the wombs of many of his patients for no medical reason at all, and won't be charged:
Link

The medical profession has treated women like shit for a long time. Some 40% of unnecessary hysterectomies are done because of fibroids; imagine if your doctor told you that because you had a non-cancerous growth on one of your testicles, he would cut off your entire nutsack. Or better yet, imagine if a doctor had cut off the nutsacks of more than a dozen men for no medical reason at all, and was not charged with anything.

Hmmm... it would be relevant to point out that my mom is a pathologist in the local hospital and I've helped her transcribe her notes while she dissects removed uteruses (sp?), amongst other things. The hospital keeps them in formalin-filled ice cream containers.

Eh, because they had bumpy things on them. Benign, for the most part, I think. I should go ask her.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Hmmm... it would be relevant to point out that my mom is a pathologist in the local hospital and I've helped her transcribe her notes while she dissects removed uteruses (sp?), amongst other things. The hospital keeps them in formalin-filled ice cream containers.

Eh, because they had bumpy things on them. Benign, for the most part, I think. I should go ask her.

Usually cysts and fibroids. My wife had ovarian cysts when she was in university. They prescribed some drugs and the cysts shrunk and eventually went away. Ripping out her uterus and ovaries would have also solved the problem, but as I said, it's like cutting off your entire nutsack because there's a non-cancerous lump on the side. Men would never have tolerated such a cavalier attitude toward such a momentous removal of equipment.

My mother had her hysterectomy before she turned 40. I've been advised a hysterectomy is a possible option if the fibroid I'm dealing with gets bigger.

Yes, if it gets bigger than 15mm, they're talking hysterectomy.

LadyTevar wrote:My mother had her hysterectomy before she turned 40. I've been advised a hysterectomy is a possible option if the fibroid I'm dealing with gets bigger.

Yes, if it gets bigger than 15mm, they're talking hysterectomy.

Have you seen this article from obgyn.net? Not to play home doctor with Google, but these aren't quacks; they're real doctors too, and since they're specializing in the subject, they're probably more current than whatever doctors you're seeing. They're saying that fibroid size alone is no reason for a hysterectomy, and that's old-fashioned thinking.

It's particularly disturbing when I notice that my mom dissects these things on a regular and routine basis. As routine as appendixes and such.

If the same amount of testicles were getting loaded into formalin-filled ice cream containers, I'd be curled up and weeping in existential dread as I clutch my jewels.

(Mom's never mentioned dissecting man-bits, oddly enough. She would if she did. Like how she dissected that fetus inside a fetus and talked about it to us over dinner.)

I mean, the sheer amount of women who've had their uteruses removed...

ughh... at least your nutsack doesn't leave a hole when its removed (well except in your heart). What the hell happens if you get an operation like that, does everything kind-of ...squeeze together... and fill up the void where one of your internal organs used to be?

The original topic/ title was much less disturbing.

frogcurry wrote:ughh... at least your nutsack doesn't leave a hole when its removed (well except in your heart). What the hell happens if you get an operation like that, does everything kind-of ...squeeze together... and fill up the void where one of your internal organs used to be?

Good question. I don't know.
It sits on top of the intestines, and there's really no other organs in the same place to move about. Since they have to cut muscle and tendons to remove it, I'm sure there's some things that get out of place as you're healing...


Although I hear now there's a way to have it removed without cutting the abdominal wall, by pulling it out of the vagina.