Tuesday, May 12, 2015

The Vulvodynia Enigma

Saw this intriguing article the other day.  An article that popped up on my Google News homepage.

An article about an enigma.  An enigma not all that uncommon apparently. An enigma worth brief examination on this Adult Blog.  Worth examining because it relate to my previous posts.  And because this enigma is growing in recognition (not just Sex and The City). 

Yet here is what makes it an enigma.  According to that medical article, it is the realization of extreme pain without being harmed in the least.   It is a sensitivity without a sensibility. An ache without an ailment.

And in light of recent research, we see that this ache has been granted a technical name.  As alluded to, this ache is now called Vulvodynia- to properly differentiate this from a headache.

Now, as a result of this genital ache, sexual relations will take a beating.  Because for whatever reason, Vulvodynia feels like the taking of a beating.  Feels like being torn apart during intercourse- although no tearing occurs.  

An aversion to intercourse understandably develops, and fundamental relations are torn apart.

Fundamental since "intercourse" is the original definition of Marriage.
Is what the "becoming of One Flesh" (Gen. 2:24) historically means.
And as we have historically discovered, it takes the "becoming of One Flesh" to make another flesh become.

Yet this is a very specific becoming that our society now takes pride in minimizing.  That takes pride in diminishing marriage to a general coming with either sex.  With any number of partners. 
Re-defining this very specific fleshly union, to a non-specific partnership.  Re-defining that glorious act of marriage to a less than glorious emission.

But anyways, that enigmatic article is a renewed call for women to 'Go get help'. To climb out of their 'neurological error in sensory translation'.  To climb out of their 'painful hole', to put it bluntly. As if they need to be told.

Yet that's a surprisingly noble call from the Globe and Mail to the globe, actually.  In a sense, its a call for women to be faithful to that historic marriage vow.

A call to a specific act that endears them most closely to their spouse.
A call for them 'to love and to cherish' such intercourse with their spouse.
A call for them to enjoy that very specific 'having and holding' that they committed themselves to.
And to enjoy this having and holding 'till death do us part'.

But not to be sexist, this post also applies to men.  Applies to men failing in their conjugal duties as well.  Men who are averse to intercourse.  Sinning against their wives.

In that regard, I heard something similar from a middle-aged client of mine the other day.  In a loose-lipped moment, he insisted that 'penetration was way over-rated in a marriage'.

He insisted that marriage could go on 'reasonably well without penetration'.  And that his marriage was living proof.  Insisting that his current marriage was going reasonably well... with a 'more understanding wife'.

He candidly claims that he 'cannot get it in' due to a chronic case of Candida.  A chronic case that his wife also has. Yet she is 'blonde with big hooters and adept with her mouth', so it doesn't matter all that much to him.  And at least he's not alone in his predicament.

So they are struggling through their chronic cases, as well as counselling others. And I admire them for their compassion, although I find it misguided.

And I find their homeopathy misguided.  It doesn't seem to be working for them.  As the article in question suggests, I think they need to get serious.  I think they need a real doctor.

But that begs the question, 'Why get serious when your desire is scuttled'? Why get serious when you are both effectively 'eunuchs'?  Why get serious when your vow seems more like a curse?

Anyways, lets move on to the simpler task of categorizing this enigma.  Categories that I tried to define in my previous posts-

So, from my previous posts, may this crippled couple be loosely categorized as 'eunuchs' or as 'frigid'?  Yes.
But may this couple be more accurately categorized as 'physically' or 'psychologically' incapable of being faithful to their marriage vows?  No.  

They are both 'physically' capable of intercourse, yet their ability is somewhat compromised.
They may even want to have intercourse to some degree, but their want is seriously impaired.

I'm inclined to agree with that medical article.  That 'their bodies are not-all-that weak... but that their spirits are less-than willing'.