![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by kid47 on July 28, 2005, at 14:41:09
I'm going to RAMBLE here for a while and probably state the obvious about some things. I used to think I really understood women and their needs/wants, both physical and emotional. In reality I didn't have a clue. Over the last few years I have begun to replace my ignorance with what I hope are some legitimate revelations about the feminine genders desires and sex in general, although I assure you I won't be able to clearly articulate these discoveries. I think somebody once said, or maybe I just made this up (not sure) that a woman must first open her heart to really enjoy intimate physical contact (sex) where as sex for a man is a necessary step to open his heart. If there is any truth to this, I think it might make sex for a woman a much riskier venture than for a man. I feel that when sex works well it can connect two people at a level that neither could of imagined. When sex doesn't work, it can be one of the most destructive forces a relatonship can (or can't ) endure. Granted, problems with sex are often an indicator of other serious issues, but IMO, sex, of and by itself, can have a tremendous influence on things . Most of my relationships were "instigated" by a furious sexual encounter that would either evolve into something more, or just last a weekend. I think though, this approach often side tracked a more natural progression. Being the rocket scientist type, I finally figured out that it is a whole lot better idea (sometimes anyway) to actually find out about a persons values, interests, politics, income (just kidding) and general compatibility before persuing a more intimate level of involvement. For a guy who grew up in the 70's, when sex was considered a sport, this was quite a discovery. Knowing you are able to communicate with someone in a meaningful way, before being in a situation where you may need to be discussing the sometimes very delicate issue of sex, might be useful information to have. I know...I know..duh...but some of us are slow learners. There are so many deep, dark, scary thngs that can manifest themselves from what is potentially one of the greatest expressions of caring, closeness and just plain fun things we can do. When people talk about "power", "control", "using it as a weapon", "withholding" in a discussion about sex, it gives you some indication of how destructive intimate physical contact might be. The incomprehensible pain and suffering that an astonishing number of people (mostly women) chronically contend with due to sexual abuse is an unfortunate indicator of the frightening force and negative energy and impact the physical act can have. I no longer have a flip, cavalier attitude about sex. I try and treat the whole subject a little more thoughtfully and with a little more respect for its importance in the scheme of things. Oh yeah, occasionally I'l say things like "I need to get laid" and to some degree that is probably accurate, but I might also just need to know that someone feels there is something special or meaningful about me.(other than my mom...Ok calm down all you Freudians) As usual, I have used waaaay too many words with little meaning. How do you deal with a complex mixture of passion, esteem, deep emotions, physical pleasure, and the baggage it can dredge up? Hopefully the very insightful peole who frequent these boards can put a good spin on this drivel and make it seem like I'm actually saying something.
Well thank God for Ernest Hemingway...I should have written this...except for a lack of ability and insight and a meanigful concise grasp of language and communication, I could have. It does connect with me at a core level on how the physical and emotional aspects of sex should mingle:
"Afterward we will be as one animal of the forest
and be so close that neither one can tell
that one of us is one and not the other.
Can you not feel my heart be your heart?
Sorry. I'm all over the map! I guess i can just blame it on the medspeace
kid
Posted by Susan47 on July 28, 2005, at 23:36:19
In reply to Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring), posted by kid47 on July 28, 2005, at 14:41:09
Hmm, well you might also find something special and meaningful about a woman and Then pursue her in a meaningful way, and I'll bet she will find those things about you that you wish to be discovered as being special and meaningful ...
How's that for using your own words on you? Hah. I know, now I've rambled too .. but you know, you have to give before you can take. And you have to know that you have something meaningful and special to offer, something that will outlast the physical, or perhaps be a forerunner to it ....
Posted by alexandra_k on July 30, 2005, at 22:35:21
In reply to Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring), posted by kid47 on July 28, 2005, at 14:41:09
That wasn't a ramble at all, that was really interesting :-)
I think it is really very complicated... It is interesting to hear other peoples thoughts on it. I'm still trying to work out a lot of that myself. Oh yes, I understand sex as a sport. Not like hunting... But a recreational activity. I mean, it can be FUN. It can make you feel GOOD. It can give you some EXERCISE.
It can leave you feeling used and dirty.
And that... For me... Was the problem. So now I have to go with the meaningful relationship thing now and forgo the sport too.
sigh.
I wonder about this a lot...
Whether it is so very different for guys and girls. I'm not sure whether it is or not. But I do think that in general it seems to be.
How much of that is all mixed up in gender roles.
Environment. Double standards. How much females just need to be liberated from the shame and guilt and all that crap around being exclusive so the guy doesn't have to worry about whos children he is raising... ;-)
How much is innate or whatever. How much it just is different. And men and woman really do have different aims and needs and so on.Its confusing.
Posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 18:38:48
In reply to Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring), posted by kid47 on July 28, 2005, at 14:41:09
I'm not so sure that men and women are very different. People say that women need to understand how men NEED sex. But I think women need sex too; we're just not allowed (by social convention) to admit it openly. Similarly, men need love; love is not just for women!
I think there are different kinds of things. Sex can be a sport. And sex can be part of love. I do think sex can be more intimate and more fulfilling when it's part of love, although it can be very physically fulfilling when it's a sport. But there's an emotional satisfaction that both men and women experience when sex is an expression of love.
But of course, even when sex is part of love, it can be approached in a way that's not terribly serious. And even when it's just a casual encounter it can feel profoundly spiritual.
As you say, it's a complex mixture of passion, deep emotions, physical pleasure and baggage. That's what makes it so worthwhile!
Tamar
Posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 19:09:46
In reply to Re: Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring) » kid47, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 18:38:48
> I'm not so sure that men and women are very different. People say that women need to understand how men NEED sex. But I think women need sex too; we're just not allowed (by social convention) to admit it openly. Similarly, men need love; love is not just for women!
>
> I think there are different kinds of things. Sex can be a sport. And sex can be part of love. I do think sex can be more intimate and more fulfilling when it's part of love, although it can be very physically fulfilling when it's a sport. But there's an emotional satisfaction that both men and women experience when sex is an expression of love.
>
> But of course, even when sex is part of love, it can be approached in a way that's not terribly serious. And even when it's just a casual encounter it can feel profoundly spiritual.
>
> As you say, it's a complex mixture of passion, deep emotions, physical pleasure and baggage. That's what makes it so worthwhile!Amen!
But do you ever wonder...
About how for guys the aim is for the guy to have the big o.
It is perceived as a big problem if a guy is having trouble with that.
If a girl is having trouble with that thats just like 'oh well, you and however many % of other women out there...'And the guys aim is taken to be the crucial one. The important one. The 'proper function'. It takes precedence over the girls...
And maybe the different needs
(that can conflict)
Create an inbalance right there...I also think about...
How many women talk about feeling dirty. used. Yeah, I've heard guys talk about that a bit on this board (interesting...) but in general that seems to be a girl thing. why is that? innate tendancies, or social???
I think... That our bodies are different. Innate difference. As I heard somewhere... Girls are more like slow cookers and guys are more like gas. And so what that means... Is that in order for BOTH to have a good time the guy actually has to hold off on his urges a little. But many don't... Because the whole point is for the guy to have an o.And so because of these differences...
Its too easy for a girl to end up feeling like her needs preferences etc have just been fairly much disregarded in order for the guy to do what the guy needs to do...And isn't that the point?
Posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 19:22:05
In reply to Re: Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring) » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 19:09:46
not that all people are like this...
but that it seems to be fairly much the attitude of society in general
and it might account for how come girls tend to have more messed up feelings around this
and about how it can be so much to do with self respect for girlsand how (as a general tendancy) that isn't so much the case for guys.
i dunno...
Posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 22:57:13
In reply to Re: Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring) » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 19:09:46
> But do you ever wonder...
> About how for guys the aim is for the guy to have the big o.
> It is perceived as a big problem if a guy is having trouble with that.
> If a girl is having trouble with that thats just like 'oh well, you and however many % of other women out there...'I think that’s true. And I think the problem is that when people talk about sex they mean the thing that happens when a man puts his penis inside a woman and thrusts till he comes, as if the woman were a mere receptacle. (I could get into theological history at this point, but I’m too tired…)
> And the guys aim is taken to be the crucial one. The important one. The 'proper function'. It takes precedence over the girls...
OK, I do think there’s a theological/historical point to be made. In the history of western culture, sex was perceived as sinful. It was permissible only for procreation. Therefore the man had to ejaculate; without ejaculation, procreation wasn’t possible and sex without the possibility of procreation was considered unnatural. But the sexual pleasure involved was the means by which Original Sin was transmitted. A woman’s pleasure was unnecessary for procreation and therefore of no use in sexual activity. And although those ideas are no longer current in western culture, I think they have informed the way in which our attitudes to sexual behaviour have developed.
> And maybe the different needs
> (that can conflict)
> Create an inbalance right there...
>
> I also think about...
> How many women talk about feeling dirty. used. Yeah, I've heard guys talk about that a bit on this board (interesting...) but in general that seems to be a girl thing. why is that? innate tendancies, or social???I think it’s a cultural thing. In gay and lesbian relationships people can feel dirty and used. I think it’s more likely that people will feel dirty during/after sex if they feel they are dirty or unnatural to begin with (of course I am not saying that homosexuality is unnatural, but that sometimes people are brought up believing that it is unnatural).
I know my point of view is a wee bit feminist, but I do think that women’s bodies are not really considered normal. An example is the difficulty diagnosing heart attack in female patients. The research was done on male patients and the symptoms that doctors looked for were those symptoms most people can identify: pain in chest and left arm etc. But in women the symptoms are often different. Many women present with symptoms akin to indigestion and are not considered to be having heart attacks. As a result more women than men are likely to die of heart attacks and men tend to get quicker treatment and therefore recover better than women. It’s changing now, happily, but that situation was true for a long time. Men’s bodies were normalised and people who didn’t have the normal symptoms missed out, even if their symptoms were normal for women. I think in general male is ‘normal’ and female is not.
> I think... That our bodies are different. Innate difference. As I heard somewhere... Girls are more like slow cookers and guys are more like gas. And so what that means... Is that in order for BOTH to have a good time the guy actually has to hold off on his urges a little. But many don't... Because the whole point is for the guy to have an o.
Again, I think it’s partly cultural. The thing about a guy holding off his urges a little makes sense if the couple are having sex according to Bill Clinton’s definition. But if instead we think of sex as something broader than mere penetration I don’t think that time is really a factor. If both partners aim to please each other in various ways before penetration begins (or without penetration at all), there’s not necessarily any need for the guy to hold off.
> And so because of these differences...
> Its too easy for a girl to end up feeling like her needs preferences etc have just been fairly much disregarded in order for the guy to do what the guy needs to do...Well, if he’s not a very imaginative lover, that would be true!
I think there’s a powerful myth that sex is all about penetration (which is embarrassingly heteronormative, but I’ll save my lesbian rant for another time). Like you say, the ‘proper function’. It seems unfortunate to me that people think of sex in that way. I hate the word ‘foreplay’ because it seems to suggest that it’s an hoop through which to jump before you get the real thing. In Italian the word for foreplay is preliminari (the preliminaries)!
Oops, I’ve gone off on a rant again. I’d better go to bed. By myself, sadly.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 23:36:31
In reply to Re: Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring) » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 22:57:13
> > But do you ever wonder...
> > About how for guys the aim is for the guy to have the big o.
> And I think the problem is that when people talk about sex they mean the thing that happens when a man puts his penis inside a woman and thrusts till he comes, as if the woman were a mere receptacle.Yes, that was what I was getting at. I just didn't want to have to say it ;-)
> > And the guys aim is taken to be the crucial one. The important one. The 'proper function'. It takes precedence over the girls...
> OK, I do think there’s a theological/historical point to be made. In the history of western culture, sex was perceived as sinful. It was permissible only for procreation. Therefore the man had to ejaculate; without ejaculation, procreation wasn’t possible and sex without the possibility of procreation was considered unnatural. But the sexual pleasure involved was the means by which Original Sin was transmitted. A woman’s pleasure was unnecessary for procreation and therefore of no use in sexual activity. And although those ideas are no longer current in western culture, I think they have informed the way in which our attitudes to sexual behaviour have developed.Thats really interesting. I haven't really thought about that before. It would account for why women are more likely to feel that their sexual urges / desires are 'unnatural' or 'evil' or 'unhealthy' or whatever. Sometimes the reasons aren't so prevalent but the attitudes remain...
I think in terms of evolution / biology too... The notion of a 'proper function'. Sex has been passed down through the generations because procreation was successful. You can get rid of everything to do with sex and so long as that thing that you wrote about so articulately happens then that gets passed down to another generation...
>In gay and lesbian relationships people can feel dirty and used.Yes. I hear you.
>I think it’s more likely that people will feel dirty during/after sex if they feel they are dirty or unnatural to begin with (of course I am not saying that homosexuality is unnatural, but that sometimes people are brought up believing that it is unnatural).
Yes, that seems right. But then I think there is a little more to it as well... I don't think there is anything unnatural or dirty or shameful about my desires. Really. But I have felt used after sexual encounters. Mostly when things go along the lines of what you outlined...
> I know my point of view is a wee bit feminist,I'll try not to hold that against you LOL!
> but I do think that women’s bodies are not really considered normal. An example is the difficulty diagnosing heart attack in female patients. The research was done on male patients and the symptoms that doctors looked for were those symptoms most people can identify: pain in chest and left arm etc. But in women the symptoms are often different. Many women present with symptoms akin to indigestion and are not considered to be having heart attacks. As a result more women than men are likely to die of heart attacks and men tend to get quicker treatment and therefore recover better than women. It’s changing now, happily, but that situation was true for a long time. Men’s bodies were normalised and people who didn’t have the normal symptoms missed out, even if their symptoms were normal for women. I think in general male is ‘normal’ and female is not.
Yeah. Freud comes in here too... Males are the standard for the species. Females are males who have to discover they are already castrated :-( So female anatomy is considered to be the lack of a penis. And female sexuality is about a woman feeling literally 'incomplete' without a penis inside of her, because the vagina is considered to be just an empty space.
> The thing about a guy holding off his urges a little makes sense if the couple are having sex according to Bill Clinton’s definition.Yup. Thats what I meant.
>But if instead we think of sex as something broader than mere penetration I don’t think that time is really a factor. If both partners aim to please each other in various ways before penetration begins (or without penetration at all), there’s not necessarily any need for the guy to hold off.
I agree. I just wonder whether most people tend to think of sex along the lines of the 'Bill Clinton' definition... LOL! Is that really what that was about! I didn't know that!
> > And so because of these differences...
> > Its too easy for a girl to end up feeling like her needs preferences etc have just been fairly much disregarded in order for the guy to do what the guy needs to do...
> Well, if he’s not a very imaginative lover, that would be true!Yeah... Still thinking along the lines of what you were saying before...
> I think there’s a powerful myth that sex is all about penetration (which is embarrassingly heteronormative, but I’ll save my lesbian rant for another time). Like you say, the ‘proper function’. It seems unfortunate to me that people think of sex in that way. I hate the word ‘foreplay’ because it seems to suggest that it’s an hoop through which to jump before you get the real thing. In Italian the word for foreplay is preliminari (the preliminaries)!yes yes yes.
:-)
> Oops, I’ve gone off on a rant again. I’d better go to bed. By myself, sadly.:-(
me too...
Posted by Declan on August 1, 2005, at 15:51:48
In reply to Re: Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring), posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 19:22:05
Because sexual desire is a rupture in the normal world, the person who is on the receiving end of the desire is going to be seen ambivalently when the desire has passed. This can be a man of course in male male sex, and even perhaps in female male sex. We seem to be a bit iffy about the one (who might be said to be) on the receiving end.
Do you think that's it?
Declan
Posted by caraher on August 2, 2005, at 14:34:24
In reply to Re: Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring) » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 22:57:13
> if instead we think of sex as something broader than mere penetration I don’t think that time is really a factor. If both partners aim to please each other in various ways before penetration begins (or without penetration at all), there’s not necessarily any need for the guy to hold off.
...
I hate the word ‘foreplay’ because it seems to suggest that it’s an hoop through which to jump before you get the real thing.That's a really beautiful way of looking at things... that while there are discrete physiological events such as ejaculations, penetration and orgasms these all occur within a broader context that perhaps is better viewed as a whole. That broader perspective helps a lot in dealing with the inevitable "disappointments" that occur from time to time in a sexual relationship.
Though I have to say that I do "hold off" because I know my wife very much does enjoy penetration. Which doesn't contradict what you're saying, of course... but I guess is the complementary position (it's OK if he doesn't "hold off" and it's also OK to do so because on the whole it results in a more satisfying sexual relationship).
Posted by alexandra_k on August 2, 2005, at 18:19:33
In reply to Re: Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring), posted by caraher on August 2, 2005, at 14:34:24
I think... That maybe for females having an orgasm does kind of require a surrendering.
To start to feel... merged. Or something like that. And then to go with that, or embrace it, or something... But then the going with it / embracing it isn't wholly volountary.
And whether you are able to do that or not probably has a great deal to do with feeling safe. Because you are giving yourself so completely to someone else.
And I think that maybe... Because our bodies ARE different... And because the natural course of things for guys IS faster than for girls (which makes evolutionary sense with respect to impregnating BEFORE the girl has had enough) then guys actually do have to put the girl first in order for her to get there...
And it can be so painful when guys just don't seem to care. Don't seem to care about that. About the girl. They don't seem to want that. What she can offer.
But I think that when the girl really does feel safe and cared about in general... Then encounters can sometimes be more guy oriented and its okay because she knows that he really does care about her as well.
Sometimes the boundary of what does and does not feel okay can change a bit depending on what things are mostly like...
Never say never I suppose...
And maybe thats why it seems like such a violation when the most intimate acts are performed for $$$ for the camera. So completely divorced from the context in which they can be beautiful.
I dunno.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 2, 2005, at 20:17:53
In reply to Re: Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring), posted by alexandra_k on August 2, 2005, at 18:19:33
And I should have probably phrased all of that as 'I' statements rather than general claims about 'the way things are'... but this can be an awkward thing to talk about...
Posted by kid47 on August 3, 2005, at 14:15:43
In reply to Re: Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring) » kid47, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 18:38:48
lotsa great insight and info...Does crazy breed intelligence or does intelligence breed crazy (and I say that in the nicest sense.) I wish I had people like you all to hang out with in real life.
It was mentioned here the possibility that women *need* sex as much as men. I guess we could get into the whole thing about sex drive, testosterone, etc. and the primal motivation to mate, but I wonder if there isn't a more refined drive that has to do with gender defined ability to communicate.....I know this sounds sexist, but I have always felt that women are waaay better communicators than men. This obvious stereotype might have basis in fact. I think that's why I have been inclined to have more female friends than males. I just find them a heck of a lot more interesting. I believe that because men are possibly more limited in there available communication skills, that sex becomes important as a primary way to connect with someone they are drawn to. It is sometimes the most direct route for a man to express that he finds someone desirable and he feels emotionally attracted to them. Women seem to be able to communicate this on so many different and more subliminal levels. Sex, for them, may be a culmination of expression that reflects these different levels. A females sex drive might actually be tempered by the fact that the emotional component of sex can be in part satisfied through other methods of communication......lord knows I'm just guessing here. Maybe a poor analogy should involve food. If all your life the only thing you ate were meat and potatoes (this of course is code for sex), whenever you were hungry you'd rustle up a T-bone and spuds ....but, If you were wired, for whatever reason, with the knowledge that there is other stuff to eat (no double entedre intended) you would be inclined to satisfy hunger maybe with some green beans and ice cream while on some occasions you might be in the mood for the meat and potatoes.(I should stop now...I don't think I even understand what I just wrote)
anyway..... Of course this tirade assumes sex in a best case scenario....intimate physical contact can also be a reflection of what is destructive within ourselves, and can be a very negative event.
I am seeing my pdoc next week.....I will obviously be discussing some sort of modification to my meds :)
peace
kid
Posted by Damos on August 3, 2005, at 17:21:44
In reply to Somebody stop me...PLEASE!!, posted by kid47 on August 3, 2005, at 14:15:43
Kid, I was with you right up until you passed up the steak for green beans - I mean really.
Mate keep this kinda stuff up and you'll have to change your tag to Yoda or OBE-1.
I do think you might just be on to something though.
Posted by Tamar on August 4, 2005, at 6:38:38
In reply to Somebody stop me...PLEASE!!, posted by kid47 on August 3, 2005, at 14:15:43
> lotsa great insight and info...Does crazy breed intelligence or does intelligence breed crazy (and I say that in the nicest sense.) I wish I had people like you all to hang out with in real life.
>
> It was mentioned here the possibility that women *need* sex as much as men. I guess we could get into the whole thing about sex drive, testosterone, etc. and the primal motivation to mate, but I wonder if there isn't a more refined drive that has to do with gender defined ability to communicate.....I know this sounds sexist, but I have always felt that women are waaay better communicators than men. This obvious stereotype might have basis in fact. I think that's why I have been inclined to have more female friends than males. I just find them a heck of a lot more interesting. I believe that because men are possibly more limited in there available communication skills, that sex becomes important as a primary way to connect with someone they are drawn to. It is sometimes the most direct route for a man to express that he finds someone desirable and he feels emotionally attracted to them.Y…e…s… And there are reasons why we have stereotypes. But I think women as well as men like to connect sexually in order to express emotional closeness. Or maybe I’m abnormal…
> Women seem to be able to communicate this on so many different and more subliminal levels. Sex, for them, may be a culmination of expression that reflects these different levels. A females sex drive might actually be tempered by the fact that the emotional component of sex can be in part satisfied through other methods of communication......lord knows I'm just guessing here.
It doesn’t work that way for me. Goodness knows I enjoy an emotional connection as much as the next woman, but it’s not a substitute for sex.
> Maybe a poor analogy should involve food.
Ah, food as a metaphor for sex. It’s always apt.
> If all your life the only thing you ate were meat and potatoes (this of course is code for sex), whenever you were hungry you'd rustle up a T-bone and spuds ....but, If you were wired, for whatever reason, with the knowledge that there is other stuff to eat (no double entedre intended) you would be inclined to satisfy hunger maybe with some green beans and ice cream while on some occasions you might be in the mood for the meat and potatoes.(I should stop now...I don't think I even understand what I just wrote)
Can’t you sometimes have the T-bone with the green beans? (That’s how I like it… I’m just talking food here, though…)
> I am seeing my pdoc next week.....I will obviously be discussing some sort of modification to my meds :)
Awww! I like you as you are!
Tamar
Posted by Tamar on August 4, 2005, at 6:39:56
In reply to Re: Somebody stop me...PLEASE!! » kid47, posted by Damos on August 3, 2005, at 17:21:44
> Kid, I was with you right up until you passed up the steak for green beans - I mean really.
Damos, I howled with laughter at this! People around me are seriously alarmed!
Tamar
Posted by kid47 on August 8, 2005, at 15:20:50
In reply to Re: Somebody stop me...PLEASE!! » kid47, posted by Damos on August 3, 2005, at 17:21:44
> Kid, I was with you right up until you passed up the steak for green beans - I mean really.<
In reality, I don't think I would very often pass up a steak dinner....baked potato(e)....but instead of green beans, I would prefer steamed broccolli with lemon pepper!!...and a big salad.... oh, of course a robust red vin!! Are we talking food or sex?...is there really a difference?
> Mate keep this kinda stuff up and you'll have to change your tag to Yoda or OBE-1.<
I don't think I have quite reached the level of evolvement as those characters. Afterall.....I still equate sex with food!
> I do think you might just be on to something though.<I seriously doubt it. =0/ It would be a first for me!!
Peace out
kid
Posted by kid47 on August 8, 2005, at 15:25:26
In reply to Re: Somebody stop me...PLEASE!!, posted by kid47 on August 8, 2005, at 15:20:50
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Relationships | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.