|
Excerpt from Dallas Morning Times, Letters to Dr. Laura April 1, 2004 ...And a last interesting case for those male readers who are 'frustrated' with the quality or amount of sex in their long-term monogamous relationship. A man in North Dakota wrote a heartfelt plea for help. I cannot print the writerÂ’s entire letter in this space, but I have included a few excerpts for my readers' consideration. The writer, a man of twenty-five, has been married for six years with two young children. Sexual relations between himself and his wife have nearly ceased and, to use the writer's words, "...we sometimes go a whole month without sex, touching or fondling of any type. When we do have sex, it seems like a chore." The writer is considering a radical step, a bilateral orchidectomy, to reduce his considerable sex drive and therefore reduce the level of his frustration. Although this surgical solution might seem to be an easy step toward the goal, with all the benefits desired seemingly by the reader and his wife, it is a very serious decision that must be carefully considered by both partners in the relationship. I can tell from the letter that the writer is a highly sexed young male. For those of you out there that are like him, you should consider the surgery suggested by our writer's wife for the benefit of their marriage. It is a relatively minor surgery that is only slightly more complex than the standard no-scalpel vasectomy sought by so many males in our society. Consider that our writer already has two children. More importantly, neither partner in the marriage desires more children so continued virility is not a factor in this case. Therefore, removal of the reader's testicles will surely result in many desirable benefits including, sterilization, reduced sex drive, reduced aggressiveness, lower risk of prostate cancer, longer life in general, and a steadier demeanor. In the short space I've been allotted for this response, I'd like to primarily focus on two of the above benefits. Sterilization of the male is a simple and extremely effective birth control method. The method chosen in this case is more radical than a simple vasectomy, and is of course non-reversible, but will result in the same outcome. The wife will benefit from no longer taking the birth control pill that I'm guessing she is currently prescribed, or has been prescribed in the past. Second, the removal of the testicles will significantly reduce the chance of prostate cancer in the male. This benefit becomes glaringly important when, as the writer stated, all male members of the family past puberty have contracted prostate cancer, I would say that this surgery would be a key to his future. Let me close by saying that I deeply respect the writer's monogamous commitment and willingness to sacrifice part of his body and mind for the benefit of his relationship with his wife. I will be following the case closely, and would like to encourage my other readers to contribute to this discussion by mail and email at my normal address. |