Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!newstop!male!warpten!harryu From: harryu@warpten.Central.Sun.COM (Harry Ugol) Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage Subject: Re: sounds and shocks Message-ID: <1079@male.EBay.Sun.COM> Date: 19 Jan 90 18:58:11 GMT References: <959@n7kbt.WA.COM> <1072@male.EBay.Sun.COM> <9734@hoptoad.uucp> Sender: news@male.EBay.Sun.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. Lines: 136 In article <9734@hoptoad.uucp> flash@hoptoad.UUCP (Flash Gordon MD) writes: >In article <1072@male.EBay.Sun.COM> harryu@warpten.Central.Sun.COM (Harry Ugol) writes: >>I was hoping someone with more experience with sounds would post a >>followup to this set of questions, but apparently no such luck. This >>is as much as I know. > >PLAY IT SAFE AND DON'T PLAY WITH THEM!!!!!!!!!! I can't warn you >strongly enough about the dangers of inserting objects up the urethra >with strict surgical aseptic technique and a thorough knowledge of >urological technique. > [btw, I assume you meant to say "without", not "with" --hbu] >>>I'd especially like to know about safety aspects- How deep can you safely go >>>with them? Is there any danger of probing delicate internal structures that >>>aren't designed to be probed? Does anyone out there have direct experience >>>with them? >>> >> >>I don't, although I'd very much like to. I suspect the answer to >>these questions is there's minimal danger if you take it slow and >>careful > >WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! >i apologize for all the upper-case letters and exclamation marks, but i >can't emphasize this point enough: DON'T PLAY WITH SOUNDS!!!!! it's >easy to do permanent damage, as well as causing a urinary tract infection >that could easily lead to kidney infections, which may be fatal, or cause >kidney failure, requiring a kidney transplant (if you're lucky) or the >need for permanent hemodialysis treatments. > >here's more info on sounds: in all the hospitals i've worked at, NOBODY >uses sounds except the urologists. OTHER DOCTORS WON'T TOUCH 'EM - THE >RISKS ARE TOO GREAT!!! > >the wife of a medical student in my class DIED after having a routine >bladder catheterization, supposedly done in a sterile manner. this, >despite hospitalization and many different i.v. antibiotics to attempt >to cure the kidney infection she got. > >hey, be careful out there. . . . > Y'know, I've seen this kind of response before, and I've seen other responses before, and I'm getting just a little peeved at seeing them again and again. I've seen these arguments in discussions of fisting, suffocation, sounds... and the silly thing is that, basically, all the arguments come down to one of two positions. Either: Playing with is dangerous. There are well-documented cases of disastrous consequences. Only trained experts should be doing this. DON'T TRY IT!!!! or: Playing with is dangerous. That means you need to be careful, be shown what's involved by someone who knows what thay're doing, and never relax your guard when you're playing like this. Will a meta-discussion perhaps help? Given that the arguments' conclusions are mutually exclusive, I suspect either that certain input data are inaccurate or that there are unspoken attitudes influencing the conclusions. Some speculations: Is it possible that the proponents of the it's-OK argument are ignoring relevant data because they want to have a good time, and that the possibility of disastrous consequences really is high enough to be a significant threat? By the same token, is it possible that these techniques really cannot be taught except by professionals in a professional setting? Is it possible that the proponents of the don't-do-it argument are seizing upon a few spectacular cases, and that the actual risk is much lower than that portrayed? Is it also possible that these people would automatically argue against any risky activity simply because an element of risk, however slight, exists? As I said, basically what I'm questioning is the completeness of the input data and the biases of the people drawing conclusions from those data. Personally I think the probable answer to all my questions is "yes" (I have a low opinion of human competence, by and large). For example, I can well believe that someone who wants to play with sounds would ignore or belittle all stories of disastrous consequences. I can also believe that a doctor, whose mission in life is to combat human suffering whenever he finds it, would ignore everything *but* the disastrous consequences (and Dr. Gordon, please don't undercut your credibility by arguing that sounds are only used in hospitals by specialists and therefore they are dangerous - the cynics in your audience are well aware of the existence of malpractice suits, and of the steps that are taken to prevent them. Btw, the SM people in your audience are also well aware that sterile technique must be used for invasive procedures, and of how to do that - sterile technique is no great mystery; hundreds of thousands of less-than-totally-competent hospital staff have been trained to use it). I'd like to ask anyone who wants to respond, preferably some people with strong views on both sides of the fence, a couple of questions: 1) Are you sure of your data? In other words, for a risky activity, do you have enough sample cases to draw statistically significant conclusions? If you're familiar with the disaster cases, are you also familiar with the everything-went-fine cases? And vice versa? I'd be especially interested to hear answers to this question in the realm of fisting, where I do have enough data of my own to be statistically significant, and can perhaps judge others' credibility by the answers they give. 2) What are your own motivations and standards regarding activities which have both an element of risk and high quality-of-life returns? Be honest with yourself; how do you feel about driving a car? About eating in a restaurant that allows cigarette smoking, even if you don't smoke (i.e. what about slipstream smoke)? About safe sex? I don't mean specific techniques, especially as regards safe sex; I mean how much danger are you willing to put up with, and what is the quality-of-life point past which the cost of safe behavior is too high, and why. Of course, when push comes to shove (so to speak :-) I'll examine my alternatives and make my own decisions. Low opinions of human competence notwithstanding, however, I'd prefer to have the benefit of some *reliable* arguments when those times come. Harry Ugol UUCP: {backbone}!sun!warpten!harryu ARPA: harryu@Ebay.sun.com "Rivendell household rule #4: Nothing exceeds like excess."