Sexual Side Effects

Okay, so if the title wasn’t clue enough, let me spell it out here. I’m going to be talking about sex, and how it fits into my life with the new medication. Which of course will require discussing how it fit in my life before. Not in a titillating way, but I’m not one to play coy language games and beat around the bush for the sake of sensitive sensibilities either. So if either the topics, or the combination of topics bothers or upsets you in any way, I’d suggest bailing right now. Like don’t even finish this paragraph, just leave. Cause while I’m more than happy to expand upon anything I’ve written here… If even after I’ve spent like… 100+ words warding you off, you read this and get cranky… I’m just going to mock you for it. Heads up. ;P Mostly, I’m writing this in part to vent some of my frustrations through a “Creative” outlet, and in part to try and provide insight into what “Sexual Side Effects” may actually look like when brought up as a side effect. A lot of times I’ve seen folks assume (For Men obviously, as that is the only perspective I can offer) that it means it’s harder to become aroused, and as a result, erect. But while that may be the case in some instances, that is not what I’ve experienced.

So, with that out of the way, let’s get to the subject in hand… well err… maybe at hand… *ahem*… it’s far too early in this for easy sex jokes. More seriously, to begin the contextualization, I’ll start out by stating that I’ve always had a rather healthy sexual appetite. That said, I’ve not had too much opportunity to discuss the subject of sex with most folks in my life (Puritan societal influence baked into our culture and all), nor have I gone out of my way to hide from it or avoid talking about it when the subject does come up either. Despite that, I hold the view that a more comfortable relationship with sex (And the conversations therein), would do our society wonders. Cause our current fetishization of the human body leads to all kinds of bizarre social behaviors (Folks freaking out about breast feeding in public, awkwardness when personal care tasks become necessary in a social situation, concerns about multi-gendered restrooms, etc.) due to folks not having a clear idea where the line between the body, and “The Sex” lies. You get questions like, Is it sexual if I see a woman’s breast? Is it sexual if I pass a stall where someone is using the restroom? and other ridiculousness. Not to mention that it breeds a weird kind of pseudo eroticism as advertisers and etc. try and play with this fetishism, because there are an incredible number of people out there for whom all their sexual experience is shaped by a few hours at school (Maybe… depending on where / when they grew up) and the media. And goodness forbid they ask anyone questions about any of it. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, women tend to bear the brunt of this fetishization but… I digress… all that’s a post for another day. Suffice it to say I’m very comfortable with both my desire for sex, and the conversations surrounding that desire.

Now, I’ve written before about my general world view. And having just very lightly established my thoughts about and relationship with sex, I will add that due to the limited range of stimuli I tend to… acknowledge? Sexual stimulation has always been a notably poignant experience compared to the general thrumm of life. It should come as no surprise then, that I am intimately familiar with all the sensations surrounding both my general state of arousal, and the entire series of elevations leading up to a potential climax. Whether alone or with a partner, I’ve come to (With extensive practice) know at precisely what level of sensation my arousal process shifts through the stages of pleasure. I contextualize this specifically because with this medication (And the medication I was on some time in the past before the stuff that caused last month’s shenanigans), the last few tiers of elevation are simply cut off. It’s as if the arousal process is muted, and the climax (If there is one), not only occurs at a perceived lower level, but is also Far less elevated itself. So even at climax, the entire experience results in less pleasure than simply moving up the stages of arousal provided before.

So what does this mean in practice? It means that while my actual desire to engage in sexual activity has not been muted even a little, the result of acting upon that desire is not only less satisfying, but also more difficult, and in whole, more frustrating that simply not acting upon it was before. Meaning an aspect of my life that had always provided both enjoyment, and measurable pleasure, has now been brought down to the same general buzz that the rest of my life hides beneath. Sure, it’s not the end of the world. And theoretically the medicine might at some point raise the level of that buzz overall… But for now, it is just one more streetlight burned out on the sidewalk of my life, and it was already hard enough to see the road ahead.

‘Pro Thought’

So I was introduced to a thread on the Planned Parenthood Facebook Page where the conversation made every effort to avoid the question being asked by a chorus of “My Body, My Choice!” posts that neatly skirted the conversation the original poster intended. Baffled by this behavior (Though sadly not Surprised), I decided to see if I was correctly reading what was being posted by composing and ‘Epic Length’ summary of the conversation followed by some data on the subject. As I spent so much time on it, I figured I’d post it here for preservations sake.

Okay, so let me see if I understand this conversation correctly. There’s a lot of sideways talking, and quite a few assumptions being pulled out of the air. Perhaps I’m missing something. Here’s what I’ve seen so far.

Conrad starts the conversation asking about the implications of disability selective abortion on the future of disability treatments and rights. Sophie makes an apparently flippant remark bringing the idea of a defense based on a ‘Sense of Communal Identity’ (Her Idea, not represented anywhere thus far) into the discussion in an attempt to dismiss it, and then (Ashamed? Deleting your post says something about your confidence in your words…) decides to delete it while claiming to have done no such thing in a follow up response leaving Conrad’s response as evidence of her prior post. A response where he emphasizes that going down this road results in the casual elimination of a large segment of society, and pointing out that he lives in said segment.

In her follow up post the idea presented is that women should be able to perform the biological act of reproduction in such a manner as to produce a child, while maintaining the right to choose whether or not to murder the natural product of such coupling. She then insinuates that this should be done in that face of Conrad’s ‘Personal Preferences’, and alluded to the fact that she was somehow taking the high ground by talking to him as a person… [This does not address the Initial Post]

Kiel kicks in that killing people based on personal preference is wrong. Sharon M brings religion into the discussion by arguing for a faith based recess to educate oneself on a common word (Making her the first to bring religion into this debate). Sharon F brings up the point that choosing to perform the biological act of reproduction in a manner that would produce a child with ‘her body’ does not rob her of the right to murder that child before it fully develops. She then proceeds to insult Kiel for his viewpoint, quickly devolving to name calling and making assumptions about his person that are nowhere evidenced in his post (Along the way she is now the second person to bring religion into this conversation). After this she proceeds to start imagining things about both Kiel and Conrad, before devolving further into a rant about archaic systems that nobody has even begun to allude to. She then announces the century, and comments on the state of modern society insinuating as she does that these novel observations. [None of this addresses the Initial Post Either] (*A*)

Jessie states that if you aren’t likely to get pregnant, nor likely to be killed, then you should not concern yourself with the murders that others do. She then goes into a discussion about her personal strife before ending by advocating for the partnership of ‘Pro-Life’ women. Sharon F shares her sympathies for Jessie’s Strife and Jessie responds again on this tangent. [Still not addressing the Initial Post]

Conrad confess a disappointment in the level of discussion thus far exhibited by the Sharon(s) and points out that they have made huge leaps in their assumptions about his and Kiel’s characters. In an attempt to emphasize his initial point that has thus far been unaddressed, he adds that killing the majority of children with disabilities reduces the push for research on said disabilities and further ostracizes the remaining children not killed. Pleading for the right of children with disabilities to live while alluding to the decision to terminate said children being based on a perceived imperfection, he offers adoption as an alternative for parents unwilling to care for the life that they willingly came together to create (We’re not discussing rape victims as they account for less than 2% of abortion, thus making them the exception, and exceptions do not a rule make. That is a separate discussion that we can have in an appropriate thread). [An attempt at returning to the content of the Original Post]

Jessie comments that it would be difficult for her to raise a child with disabilities, adding that there are a number of said children in foster care. Conrad expresses an appreciation for her compassionate heart, but asks her not to erroneously associate having a disability with suffering, as while there may be overlap, one does not beget the other. Kiel kips in to say that not giving birth should not preclude him from discussing the preservation of life. [The Original Post is still unaddressed]

Jessie acknowledges Conrad’s points about the effect killing off the majority of the population with disabilities would have, but insists that ‘even that’ should not limit a woman’s right to choose whether or not to kill her unborn child. She then registers her support for women who do not make the choice to kill their children with genetic disabilities. After this she shares that she considers ‘her’ life to involve suffering, and informs Kiel that not being able to get pregnant precludes him (And apparently biologically incapable women, and elderly women under this logic) from discussing the preservation of life. She encourages him to ‘have sex with Pro-Life Women’ to prevent a coupling that may result in a woman wishing to kill her unborn child. She also encourages conversation about the potential result of a biological act performed in such a manner as to produce a child before engaging in said act (I couldn’t agree more!) and advises abstaining if both parties are not prepared for the result of said act (*Applause* Sound Advice). [On the topic: ‘Yeah, that sucks’.]

Kiel expresses a kinship with Conrad, and offers encouragement voicing the support of females from ‘his neck of the woods’. He then professes a commitment to protecting the lives of unborn children, emphasizing the need to keep children with disabilities from being particularly targeted. Sharon F begins talking about ‘her body’ and professes a disdain for adoption. She then begins a dissension covering the extremes of childbirth (Attempting to use an exception to make a rule…) and emphasizing the potential result of making the decision to have sex in a manner that would produce a child on a woman’s life (Key Here See *A* Below).  She then returns to name calling and attempts to place archaic views into the mouths of Conrad and Kiel (That have shown up nowhere in this conversation beyond her) before announcing that she discusses her medical decisions with her physician (Good Idea!) alluding once again that this is a novel idea. After this she spouts out un-cited statistics and announces that she does not wish to contribute to those statistics… [She has very soundly avoided the Original Topic]

Conrad expresses his point in relation to Jessie’s acknowledgement emphasizing that in the majority of disability selective abortions, the mother chooses to kill her child solely due to the disability, and not due to lack of interest in having a child. He again advocates adoption. He offers sympathy to her suffering but restates that having a disability does not mean you are suffering, and he speaks from personal experience. He adds that as the father was a part of the decision to perform the biological act that results in the creation of a child that would have been impossible without his contribution, he ‘is’ in fact entitled to an opinion. [An Attempt to steer back on topic while addressing a few points that rose outside of it.]

Sophie returns to question Conrad’s understanding of the words he has typed, and again tries to force an opinion not his own onto him. She expresses support for woman’s ‘right’ to choose whether or not to kill her child. Conrad reminds Sharon F what the topic is due to her response having nothing to do with it. Sophie acknowledges that adoption exists, and states her disagreement with a father’s opinion having an impact on the decisions of the woman that chose to perform a biological act that produces children in a fashion that would result in a child with him. She acknowledges that pregnancy provides the support of a new life, and speculates on a future with artificial means to support a new life. [Only covers secondary topics]

Jessie expresses a questionably biased opinion on the desires of parents approaching the adoption system for children before stating that because life may be more difficult for a child who is unable to walk, they should be killed instead. She also states that a father should be allowed to talk, but not have any impact. Sharon F kips in by stating that a woman should be able to choose whether or not to kill her child, disability or no. Jessie quickly adds that while she has no objections to the adoption system, she opposes legislation to prevent or restrict a woman’s ability to choose whether or not to kill her child. Sophie (In an assumed continuation of Sharon F’s earlier attempt at using and exception to make a point) informs Kiel that not allowing a woman the option to kill unwanted children is choosing the life of the child over the life of the mother. [Still ignoring the topic, but at least ‘On Conversation’… Sort of…] (*A*)

Sharon M insists that a woman have the choice to kill her child. Sharon F Follows by exhibiting a gross lack of understanding human biology (Let me help you out. An Egg becomes an Embryo ‘After’ the sperm joins with it. Before that, it is merely a ‘potential’ child, also known as an egg. The beginning of independent life hasn’t started yet. So yes, the ‘Eureka!’ Moment does in fact occur after the ‘Foreign Cells’ enter the body…) that is likely due to *A*, while claiming this post as a ‘source’ of mockery… After this Sophie discusses the uterus as if there are ‘Property Rights’ attached to it and Sharon M questions the pre sex discussions of adults (Me too!), though she indicates that a man’s input stops there. [Wandering the Weeds]

Dustin enters the scene addressing the fact that there are opinions being forced onto Conrad that he did not express for himself. He then calls Sharon(s?) out for violently avoiding the topic, providing weak argument based on the recitation of her belief, and being aggressively demeaning while enforcing the fact that (Hey!) there ‘was’ a point to Conrad’s Original Post. He then tactfully adds that you can have a conversation with someone you disagree with in a respectful and charitable manner. Sharon M retorts that she has not brought up religion and emphasizes (IN CAPS, SO YOU KNOW IT’S IMPORTANT!) that women should have the right to decide to kill their unborn children, regardless of their reasons. [Acknowledges the initial post!]

Kristine shows up to thank Dustin for his comment, and identifies her liberal / feminist political leaning. She then acknowledges that Conrad’s original post is more than can be addressed with a simple “my body, my choice” statement. She asks about the rights of divergent groups, and also identifies her standing in the “Disability Community”. Kristine then follows up agreeing that having a disability does not create suffering, and expresses an appreciation for the diversity that disability brings. She then wonders about what will be done to keep the children with disabilities from being ostracized in the future. She (Adequately) summarizes the opinions being expressed as “So What?” and feels insulted by the idea that ‘this’ is a win for Womanhood. As an aside, she notes that she’s not offering a solution but merely echoing the Original Post, and wonders along the same lines while taking a neutral stance. [Summarizes and continues to ask about the Original Post]

Sharon F is back in action, name calling and all, while accusing ‘others’ of trolling… Speculating on Conrad’s unstated political leanings, she acknowledges that her contributions are not civil (Or Constructive), and attempts to reinforce the idea that a woman’s ‘right’ to choose whether or not to kill her unborn child is a ‘Civil Right’. She admits that she is willing to disregard, in fact ‘loathe’, any concerns that infringe on those purported rights. Sharon M contributes a few expletives of her own in relation to the conversation. Sharon F claims association with the “Christian Left”, but expresses disregard for “Religious Dogmas”… [More aimless ranting]

Sophie attempts to pull a portion of a comment made by Conrad out of context and use it to force an opinion on him. Jessie acknowledges the ‘So What’ viewpoint and reemphasizes the fact that a woman should have the right to kill her unborn child regardless of the reason. [Does not ‘actually’ address the original topic.]

Kayla arrives to express a confused seeming contradiction being expressed by Conrad. She implies that the fact that he has both stated that killing children with genetic disabilities will prevent the research into disabilities that will potentially find a ‘cure’, and also that a forced reduction will deal a severe blow to the social regard for persons with disabilities somehow indicates that he’s split between curing disabilities and continuing to provide for the community. (If the culture is creating an environment where people are through research and other means able to live more full lives… then the culture by that same regard is preventing the disability community from being disadvantaged. It’s by creating a culture where disabilities are the ‘Exception’ to a ‘Normal’ birth that should be terminated that this social devastation is likely to occur.) She further states a support for the community of people with disabilities, but implies that preventing (Killing, in the context of this discussion) and curing disabilities are equally viable options, and as a result of combing these two unrelated ideas suggests that there would be a negative effect on the disability community regardless of which is chosen. Finally she makes the error of associating Conrad’s Comments with the comments of others by indicating that his goal is the preservation of a community and in this, attempts to put a woman’s ability to choose whether or not to kill her unborn child against the expense of said community. [A very poignant attempt at continuing the conversation and it’s even mostly On Topic!]

Sharon F states that ‘she’ was the likely target of Dustin’s previous comments and acknowledges a disregard for opinions that differ from hers. She then reemphasizes her opinion that other communities, and in fact everyone, doesn’t matter if she doesn’t retain the ability to choose whether or not to kill her unborn child. Andrew shows up to wish he was dead, and Sharon chimes her support for Sharon F. Sharon F then makes an attempt at ‘respectful charity’ where she compares policies to encourage safer health practices and potential accountability to sex selective abortion in foreign countries. She then cites several one off extremist viewpoints (Exception Etc….) and references a law that doesn’t target legally obtained abortions as if it somehow defends her point. After this she states an opinion that women are under assault due to their reproductive abilities. Finally, she thanks Andrew for his death wish. Andrew follows up by describing his disability. [Not ‘On Topic’ but at least some of it is a rough continuation of ideas presented]

Sharon F thanks Kayla for her post and then with her now expected name calling indicates that she thinks those with opinions that differ from hers are no longer continuing the conversation. Conrad expresses some sympathy for Andrew’s feelings of lack of personal worth (Feelings that a society that stigmatizes disabilities would only further…) and acknowledges once again that as hard as having a disability is, it doesn’t make death a better alternative. Sophie follows up by asking Conrad to address Kayla’s previous post, to which Conrad agrees once he is finished with work. [Not on topic, but on Conversation… sort of…]

Conrad then attempts to clear up confusion by pointing out the misunderstanding in Kayla’s post. He states that research does not damage the disability rights community as the communities purpose (In ‘his opinion’) is to support people with disabilities because it needs to. If somehow every disability ever had a cure, the movement would be unnecessary. This contrasts with simply killing off people with disabilities until there are very few left. He then asks for clearer questions if anything isn’t understood, after which he attempts once more to move past the “My Body, My Choice” being shouted, and back to the original question about preventing a negative societal impact created by disability selective abortion. He then poses a question about the testing itself. [An attempt at Clarity, and a return to the Original Topic]

Sophie retorts with the obvious and ‘easy’ answer. Just cure all genetic defects (Now why didn’t anyone even ‘consider’ such an option!?). She then reiterates that women should have the right to kill their unborn children regardless of the outcome, and points out that testing for genetic defects isn’t forced. Sharon F chimes in by showing a lack of understanding the ‘Royal We’ followed by a gross misinterpretation of the question posed. She answers her own question (With a failed reference to Gattaca… or maybe not if the intent was support…) and through that tangled mess she patronizingly states that if anyone dislikes the idea that a woman can kill her unborn child, that’s just too bad. [I don’t even know…]

Jessie answers with a confused definition of eugenics (Which by its nature cannot be ‘Accidental’) and asks if the goal is keep women who have made the choice to perform the biological act that produces children from then deciding to kill those unborn children. [On Topic, and then poses ‘The Big Question’ which isn’t on Topic]

Conrad thanks everyone for their perspectives (On and off topic as many were) and based on the conversation concludes that there is no ‘Pro-Choice’ position that takes into consideration the impact disability selective abortion would have on the disability community at large. He clarifies that eugenics cannot be accidental and that both that and the idea of ‘breeding out’ is a nice way of saying killing off. He then makes a historical allusion to the dangers of choosing which lives are more valuable than others on a large scale. [End Attempt at getting the conversation back on Topic]

James shows up to point out how people have been reacting strongly to things that have nothing to do with the original question before asking one of his own. He wonders at why Conrad believes disability selective abortion would affect ‘common’ genetic disabilities (Using Spina Bifidia as an example) in the same way it has affected Down Syndrome by claiming that he imagines cognitive genetic disorders and physical genetic disorders would likely be treated differently. Andrew pops in with a bizarre statement encouraging Conrad to somehow create a situation where he was married to a woman that he should then force to have children with disabilities… [On Topic! And a real attempt at engaging in ‘On Topic’ Discussion!]

Conrad cites research that does not conclusively show that Spina Bifida is facing the same percentage of abortions, but does adequately indicate a high percentage that is ‘estimated’ at 50%. He then reiterates that his question is ‘What is being done to prevent it’ and lays the burden of proof that it won’t occur on those that wish to create an environment where the problem would arise. [Still on Topic… A Record for this thread]

Andrew is confused by the discussion and asks Conrad to expend his personal money for families who have not decided to kill their unborn children. Conrad points out that his last comment was to James, and Andrew exhibits more confusion about the subject being discussed. Conrad informs Andrew that there is actually a system in place to assist parents who have children with disabilities, and points out that there is an option available to provide for children with disabilities when the parents are unwilling to without killing them. [Back to the weeds…]

—————–(A Divider that is Still within the post)

Did I miss something or am I on the right track? Do you feel that I’m ‘Mis-Representing’ your opinion? Do tell, please. I did make a few basic assumptions, and those are as follows.

We are all adults here so I decided not to dance around the subject, nor to mince words. I expanded the traditionally used ‘sex’ into ‘The Biological Act that Produces Children’, and where appropriate identified situations where a woman has willingly chosen to have intercourse in such a manner that a child would result. There’s an alarming misconception that seems to be growing where sex is just a thing that people do to pleasure themselves and or each other. No, ‘that’ is masturbation, and an entirely different conversation. As the two are so culturally confused, I decided not to use the word sex to prevent any confusion here.

I am also assuming that we all understand where babies come from, and are not under some kind of misguided impression that a child is magicked into a woman’s womb at X Months. Just in case the short version is that when a future mommy and daddy (Or male and female or whatever titles you wish to use) decide it’s time to put his penis into her vagina while stimulating the penis to the point of ejaculation without taking any measures to prevent the beginning of a new life, the male’s sperm will potentially unite with the female’s egg and the process that results in an independent life has begun. From this stage forward, unless some form of intervention (Natural or External) occurs a new human will eventually emerge from the future mother.

Now onto the concept of abortion, please look it up in the dictionary if the idea confuses you. Independent life has begun to form and abortion ends that, unless you would like to argue that eggs are not composed of living tissue. So from even before the sperm meets the egg the egg is ‘living’, just not independently, and biologically will be naturally terminated by the body during menstration, or will begin developing into an independent entity after joining with the sperm. Abortion enters into this process by ‘terminating the pregnancy’ thus killing the developing child so that the natural (And presumably willingly begun, again the 2% of abortions that are the result of rape are outside the context of this discussion as it’s foolhardy to define a broad regulation based on an exception to the norm. Rather define policy for the exception specifically) process does not conclude. The developing Child’s ability to self-identify, or even provide for itself, does not change its status as a living (If not at whatever point is chosen ‘Independent’) entity. To say that you can ‘kill’ a plant, but try and argue that you are not ‘killing’ a developing person calls serious questions onto one’s worldview.

So now we’re all on the same page hopefully. Adults can choose to have sex, choose to do it in such a way that a child is the result, and by the arguments being presented here, the female (And not the male) now should have the ‘right’ to choose to kill that child before it is born. This power over the life beginning in her womb allows a woman the opportunity to have sex with a male partner without the natural result of said intercourse thus giving women everywhere the right to masturbate in the same manner that some men do! Awesome!

(*A*) As to this annotation, it’s interesting to note how those who favor abortion are using a military psychological trick to encourage more people to adopt their viewpoint. Quite a bit of effort has gone into ‘Dehumanizing’ developing children. From outright claiming that they aren’t ‘yet’ alive (Living Babies are Magicked in Later Dontcha Know…), to carefully using ‘other’ words (Though accurate in some cases) to describe both the child and the process itself (‘Terminate the Pregnancy’ over ‘Kill the Developing Child’ and attempting to make a distinction between children and fetuses among other things) in a conscious effort to remove those discussing, and listening in on, the process from the natural associations. This is widely successful in times of war (‘The Enemy Combatant’, ‘The Targets’, among other colorful nicknames) to allow soldiers not to contemplate the lives that they are taking by their actions, so why ‘not’ use it when encouraging people to kill their developing children as well?

Now that that’s clear, none of this has anything to do with the question posed. The question asked what was being done to prevent disability selective abortion from having a catastrophic effect on the future of people with disabilities. This encompasses not only those who are still born with disabilities that are not aborted, but also those who, as has even been brought up in this conversation, develop a disability through some external force. I do not propose an answer as not only do I not have any insight, but I would begin the conversation even further back by asking what is being done to ensure that well-meaning adults are making informed decisions that do not result in a situation where they are confronted with the desire to kill a developing child in the first place. And that is most definitely outside the scope of this conversation.

——(That was the end of the Post)

  Yeah… I might need a new hobby… >,>

[UPDATE: The  conversation ‘Almost’ picked back up, and I later threw this out…]

Holy Cow! Sharon F Aside, this is as cognizant as this conversation has been for a little bit now! Thanks Justin for starting that.

  On topic… here’s where almost every one of your arguments (Those of you making this argument) fall apart. You are talking as if some ‘Higher Power’ has dropped this child into your body… but exceptions aside, the only way to get pregnant, is to choose to. So your arguments boil down to, “I’m allowed to create a new life, and then murder it, and nobody can tell me otherwise!” Under this logic, our parents should be able to kill us if they then decide we’ve not grown into the children they’d hoped for. Why not?

  Under the guise of claiming some kind personal right, you are directly affecting someone else’s life. Someone who you are actively claiming no respect for. What makes you think ‘your’ life matters more? The simple fact that you’ve been alive longer? So then you do believe our elderly get to make the same judgement calls about your life?

  And for the love of whatever source of logic compels you Sophie, please stop mis-categorizing Conrad’s initial query. He has said nothing about children with disabilities being born solely to bolster the numbers of the disability community. He has asked that for those who are behind the idea of genetic testing and subsequent abortions based on the presence of a genetic disability, what do ‘you’ (Those of you in support of this) propose to keep this from having a dramatically negative impact on the disability community at large. If this question is beyond your ability to answer you can admit as much, that’s fine. But trying to change it into a different question altogether ensures that your answer is irrelevant to the current conversation. Perhaps you’ve genuinely misunderstood the question, even though it has been reiterated a number of times. If so, please look again at what is being asked.