Mastectomy: Our society’s limited view of erotic zones has resulted in the oversymbolization of the female breast. Research indicates that the woman’s reaction to mastectomy, removal of the breast, relates not only to her own personal associations to her body, but to her perceptions of her partner’s views as well. While over half of women who have mastectomy report wanting information on the sexual impact of this operation, only four of sixty women mastectomy patients in a recent study received such information. One third of another group of mastectomy patients failed to resume sexual activity more than six months after being released from the hospital. This is the case in spite of the fact that yet another research project has indicated that more than half of the men and women in marriages in which the wife received a mastectomy reported an increased need for intimacy. Here are some guidelines to help with this problem.

1. The wife should not see the scar from surgery. She should be helped to see her whole body, including the surgical site, while still in the hospital and with the husband present. I have the husband and wife look directly at each other’s armpits. It tell them to stare at them and talk about what they feel. “It’s weird. I mean, it seems weird to look at just one part,” said one wife. That is just the point. If you look “at” the scar, that is all you will see. So look at each other, the entire body. Do it in private, but bask for more information from a nurse/oncology specialist after doing this or if you are unable to continue. I find the nurse/oncology specialists to be very helpful in these cases, good teachers and listeners and strong on empathy.

2. Change sides of the bed if necessary, so that the intact breast is first encountered when sexual contact is made. This change seems to help at first. After a time, it really won’t matter.

3. Either you will grow from this problem or the relationship will suffer. It’s up to you. Changing how you have sex does not mean diminishing it. Learning to include other areas of the body for sexual stimulation may enhance, not just’ ‘adjust,” the sexual relationship.

4. Depression is a natural part of living, too. Talking it out together or with someone else can help. And remember, depression is like everything else in life. It does not last forever. One wife reported, “The depression is not so bad if I don’t get too depressed about the depression.”

5. There is no need to “test” things by trying to get “right back to sex.” Being sick and in the hospital takes a lot out of a person besides money. Give yourselves time.

6. All sex does not have to be mutual sex. If one or the other partner wants sex, it is helpful to have some “special” experiences for one partner only. Try the “spa” experience I mentioned in Chapter Eight. Many of the mastectomy patients in my couples group found this helpful in learning to “re-accept” their body. Doctors don’t usually talk about such things because they were trained in the third perspective that all sex is mutual and culminates in intercourse. You know better now. Reopen your own sex clinic.

*276\97\8*

1.    Men are turned on erotically by a wider range of stimuli than

women.

FOURTH PERSPECTIVE: People are erotically responsive to wide and changing ranges of sexual stimuli, and love maps, not gender, determine such responsiveness.

2.    Men cannot control their ejaculation for long periods of time.

They must ejaculate to be “complete.”

FOURTH PERSPECTIVE: Ejaculation is a reflex, but it can be influenced through practice, awareness of body response, communication, and separation of ejaculation from the idea of release, completeness, or outlet.

3.    Intimate body contact is necessary for sex.

FOURTH PERSPECTIVE: Sexual communication can take place on many different levels, including levels that are not always measurable by our present instruments.

4.    Variety in sex partners is one of the strongest of sexual aphrodisiacs.

FOURTH PERSPECTIVE: Sameness, familiarity, predictability, knowing, and comfort are more important to sexual intensity and fulfillment than newness and variety.

5.    Erection of the clitoris and penis is necessary for sex.

FOURTH PERSPECTIVE: There is no need for erection of the clitoris or penis in order to achieve sexual fulfillment. Such erections are reflexive and not necessarily indicators of arousal.

6.    Sexual response is a cycle, one phase following and building

upon the other, followed by a complete reversal of this cycle.

FOURTH PERSPECTIVE: Sexual response is a system, and does not have to follow a step-by-step, orderly process. Changing back and forth to various phases of response and experience is possible.

7.    Sex energy builds up and then it must be released, followed by

rest.

FOURTH PERSPECTIVE: The energy of sexual intimacy is as much mental and spiritual as it is physical. It does not have to build, but can be maintained at a chosen level. Rest is not necessary after sexual intimacy. In fact, sexual interaction may be invigorating.

The erect penis in a receptive vagina for a long time, but not too long, continues to be the sexual standard. Erection, lubrication, reception, insertion, contraction is the cycle. As I looked at these factors, I learned that absolutely none of them were based on anything but assumption and that if we change our assumptions, a new model of sexual response results. Chapters Six and Seven will detail the sexual response of men and women. I present here the’ ‘Fourth-perspective sexual response model” that results when we change our assumptions about sex to include a systems, intimacy view.

*103\97\8*

People who control the chemical industry – the largest business on this planet – are in a very special business position: on one hand they invent, manufacture and recommend food additives, artificial sweeteners, food extracts, food processing, plastics, cleaning agents, solvents, pollute our environment etc., and on the other hand, they benefit greatly from our bad health by selling us drugs. This state of affairs offers a unique opportunity for corruption. Such corruption could be very difficult to detect, especially if there is a long delay between consumption of food additives or living in polluted environment and related health effects (20 years for example) and if there are many possible diseases (due to the varying proportion of additives and pollutants taken by each person).Medical Business educates the population, that the only one way to cure diseases is to use drugs (and surgery in extreme cases). We are told, that drugs are supposed to do the healing, and if one drug does not help, we should try another. We are made to believe, that for each disease there should be a different “cure” in the form of a drug. The single most important document in any modern medical practice becomes a prescription. Have you ever left a doctor’s surgery without one ? We are told that we are not in any way responsible for our diseases. They “just come with age” or “they are result of an infection”, or “there are aggressive bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms trying to kill us” and everybody around is getting sick anyway, so we are not alone in our suffering. Therefore, we should accept our sickness together with the drug treatment and pay for it too. Doctors are paid in accordance with the number of patients they attended without regard to the results they produce (the cure rate). This encourages doctors to work in a hurry to attend as many patients as possible. Doctors who successfully cure patients using their own observation, talent and reasoning and who do not strictly follow the prevailing medical doctrine, not only risk to be criticised by orthodox practitioners, but also risk losing their “license” to practice, even if ALL their patients are grateful for helping them.The above facts suggest the conclusion, that progress in the medical sciences is limited to the areas of study of diseases and to the development of drugs, extracts, hormones, etc. to “cure” these diseases and/or provide some relief. It was therefore convenient for medicine to adopt the so-called “bacteria theory of disease”. Briefly speaking, this theory, introduced by Pasteur, states that each disease is “caused” by the corresponding “bug” – a bacterium. This theory has gained universal public and scientific acceptance. According to the theory, killing bacteria by newly found chemicals, antibiotics, enzymes etc. should be the ultimate function of medicine.

*2\96\8*