Charlie Rose

Becky Knight  01/09/2008 09:16 AM Report

Charlie Rose is one of the few shows I tivo and watch regularly. I was excited to see a program on human sexuality, as it is the focus of my work as a sexuality educator and student of public health. I appreciated the discussion though I agree that I many important issues were not discussed. However, I am using the program in a professional meeting tomorrow to spark discussion. We have a group of sexual health professionals (physicians, nurses, physical therapists, counselors, sex therapists, birth educators, sexual health educators, etc) that meet monthly to dialogue about pertinent sexual topics. No program can cover every aspect of a topic - and as noted on the program, human sexuality is endlessly interesting and diverse. But hopefully, those of us working to educate and inspire others toward sexual health will use programs such as this to further motivate ourselves. If we had one hour to talk about sex, what would we say?

Judith Nemzer  12/23/2007 03:40 PM Report

thank you for a very interesting, timely show. As an older adult entering new relationships, I need to know that there are medical professionals who understand the wholeness of human beings, not just how to medicate a part of the body that's not working. Being able to question and discuss with a medical practitioner is very important to me. One who can discuss as well as adivse can truly help in sustaining or restoring health.

Si Lenzbegone  12/19/2007 03:51 PM Report

please ask Paul Nurse (since it's the year-end) to list his favorite -living scientist and -favorite scientists of history

(Walter Isaacson said: Bryan Greene)

also

I wish you would invite Chris Mooney author of Stormworld and The Republican War on Science which I am reporting on Sunday at the Science Book Club of the Cincinnati Public Library. I am surpoised how many scientists do not know of this author or his books. Sincerely happy new year & I wish I could learn how to press FOWARD to send you my Christmas/Newton/Mithras essay-card Si Lenzbegone

marla  12/14/2007 10:29 AM Report

I was encouraged to view this by a friend who knows how important sex has become to me. It was a significant reason why my almost 30 year marriage finally collapsed. Charlie, we already know from daily reporting on TV via commercials that pharmaceutical companies are glad that guys can't get it up. They're making a few billion off ED. Consider a program that offers a panel of everyday people talking about sex in the 50's & 60's and beyond. Culturally, here's what's going on at the grassroots level: the Age of Aquarius set got seduced by ambition. For many, making money and collecting accolades satisfied. Now they can't get none and their mates have jumped ship. All work and no play caused their equipment to rust. If you don't use it, you do lose it. Contrary to prevailing myths that men want it all the time, they don't and busy men really don't. Their most intimate affairs have been with money. Men will not talk about this because it flies in the face of what men want women to believe-that they're studs at every age. On this panel too should be a sexuality expert ready to deliver facts about the epidemic STD's among Boomers. Age of Aquarius men didn't wear condoms back in the day and they don't want to wear them now. The reason is simple-condoms compromise erections and too many men have enough trouble keeping it up. Another cultural phenom that's growing-younger men and middle age women. Since 1968's premiere of the Graduate, young men have been looking for Mrs. Robinson. In today's culture, many Mrs. Robinson's are out there newly divorced and looking for lust. Unlike our male contemoporaries, a middle age woman's parts work really well and without the worry of pregnancy, all hell does break loose and young men know it.

Offer this kind of show and bloggers won't be complaining about boring researchers presenting dry data.

For years, your show kept me company late at night when my Ex wouldn't.

Thank you.

Marla Miller

Editor-in-Chief

Location3Magazine,

www.location3online.com

Newport Coast, Ca.,

949.706-2070

http://marketingthemuse.blogspot.com.

X  12/03/2007 04:30 AM Report

A bunch of old people talking about sex. All young men and women should watch this video to thwart the curse of sexual instigation.

Rachel Dale, PhD  11/30/2007 11:53 AM Report

As a former public health media director, I sometimes cringe at Charlie's seeming fascination with biomedicine to the exclusion of health promotion. How refreshing to hear this discussion of sexuality address health promotion and biomedicine in a balanced way! While I (like Marc 11/21) might have found the Viagra references a tad annoying, I recognize the reality--that most Americans want a quick, external intervention to fix whatever ails them. The views of Julia Heimann and Anita Clayton provided outstanding balance from authoritative voices (and I ditto the enthusiastic praise of Sandra Kay). All the panelists' emphasis on obesity and other lifestyle factors, and the cautions about using testosterone therapy, made this an extremely informative and thought-provoking discussion. While I appreciate the comments regarding bias (focus on heterosexuality and male erectile function, excluding same-sex relationships and masturbation), on balance, kudos to Charlie and Paul Nurse for putting this panel together and giving these outstanding scientists a forum! Perhaps the lapses in this discussion are the foundation for a follow-up discussion, with the same rewarding balance of perspective as this one.

GQtaste  11/26/2007 11:33 PM Report

I too have never been bored watching Charlie. And I eagerly awaited this topic but it was boriing as hell! You guys missed such a great opportunity and you blew it! And this is coming from a huge Rose fan of the show.

as ever

GQtaste

Zarrafeh  11/26/2007 11:20 PM Report

I'm surprised that some simple and important issue slipped away in the discussion: the longevity of human life. At one point one speaker mentioned that from 18 to 59 we spend only 18 years in stable couples, and about 10 years alone and so on. Is it that our social model is still based on the era when average human life expectancy was around 40? I heard from some that the new higher life expectancy makes the couple life much longer and therefore increases the possibility of stress and difficulties, which ends up by the high rates of divorce. Or Am I completely off track?

sandra kay, ttgp  11/25/2007 11:31 AM Report

my THANK YOU to DR. JULIA HEIMAN:

posted this morning at

http://www.shesayswithasmile.blogspot.com

i watched, listened, alone at home, and then stood and gave you a standing ovation. i stood, tears falling down my cheeks, held my arms up to the heavens and repeated, "thank you! thank you!" several times. and i've gone back, played it over, wrote down your every word to charlie's question (thank you AGAIN comcast dvr).

but before i retype here, charlie's question and your remarkable answer, i want to share my experience with you. my experience as a trained volunteer for victim/survivors of sexual assault in my local tri-valley area of california. and worth noting, although quite predictible i'm certain, that i myself am a survivor.

of course i am deeply grateful this organization dedicated to helping survivors of sexual assault exists. of course! and of course i think they do a fantastic job with the services they provide. an outstanding body of people, yes, yes, all that is true

however.. during my 65 hours of training.... and let me say here, i am telling you how it FELT .. w/exaggeration to make a point, not exactly how it was, or how i was received, but this is how it felt:

each evening of class from the beginning, at some point, i would be the only one among our group to pose the question, "what do we understand about the men committing these crimes?"

and each week, it seemed that either everyone would stare at me with an entirely blank face, or on some occasions, even a little hostility: like, we are here for the victims, sandra, NOT to pay attention to the perpetrators! do you want to volunteer to help victims or go learn about the criminal -if you are here, it is to help the victim-

felt almost like a crime to pose this question, AND, if facial expressions were any indication, i was received as an annoyance. but to me, to understand the criminal IS TO HELP THE VICTIMS, and in a much larger way.. to PREVENT the crime, instead of always addressing the aftermath

still, and especially when we had the honor of guest speakers from various professional organizations, i was the only one.. never stopped asking. never stopped trying...

"excuse me, but what do we know about the perpetrators? their profiles? why these crimes are committed in the first place?"

and even from experienced professionals in various areas of law enforcement: we don't know. there is very little information; if any...

i've always had the feeling that's hogwash! you can't tell me the f.b.i. doesn't have a thorough report on the ins/outs, personality traits/characteristics, common denominators in behavior/social circumstances, etc. of the type of people who committ these crimes. i say they have lots of data, but it is not yet available to the general public, and even not yet available to the law enforcement professionals who could use this information to PREVENT rapes and other violent crimes.

i am grateful to be in a position to help victim survivors of rape and violent crimes. very grateful. but my heart will not be at rest until i know there are people actively working on LEARNING ABOUT/UNDERSTANDING the nature of the perpetrators. ONLY WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE can we PREVENT the crimes.

that seems so basic to me. but it is much harder to get this information than i ever realized. this may help explain why when i heard you say the words, i'm about to retype here

i stood. i cried. i clapped. i thanked the heavens for you Dr. Julie Heiman..

charlie rose: "what are you most curious about? what answer would you most like to find?"

Dr. Julia Heiman: " -answer may change in 6 months- but, most important thing to try and understand? i would say, as i look to the next 5-6 years, what i would do, another sexual health issue

is understanding sexual violence and coercion. really trying to understand it and then trying to prevent it. but i don't think we understand it enough to prevent it.

we have all sorts of treatments for people who've been victimized and survived that victimization on one level or another..."

charlie rose: "are you talking about mutilation or something different?"

Dr. Julia Heiman: "i'm talking about rape, sexual molestation, attacks about one's sexuality, attacks about one's gender orientation, all the things that go on about sexual violence in the u.s.

and world-wide. it's a world-wide problem and we're acting like it's just part of the culture, and we just have to accept it.

and i think, it may have changed, .. there are stats out that 20 - 25% of women in college, taking the women's point a moment, report -i don't mean to police, those are different kinds of stats -

an attempted or completed rape.

that really should be unimaginable and unacceptable.

what i often hear people say when that stat is quoted -that stat is hard to get right, because what are they really counting as rape and so on - but let's just say it's somewhere in the ballpark

what people often say is, "are they telling the truth?" you know, like, well, probably it's possible that some aren't

but what kind of a comeback is that for this problem?

a lot of dollars are spent on helping people after various acts of sexual aggression and coercion

but even subtle coercion or not so subtle coercion occurs when people have had too much to drink and so on

why don't we try to understand that a little bit, rather than just accept that as normal, sort of?

so i think if i could focus a bit -which i can't - on just one thing

i would hope we could make some progress in that area.

because i think it's important for men and women."

hallelujah and amen! me too! thank you! sign me up... i want to help...

with overflowing gratitude and love, ~sandra, ttgp

p.s. i had this vision after watching the show. 25% college women turning up in the health care clinic with broken wrists. 25% needing a cast, and then healing to 100% within 6 weeks...

this temporary physical injury would never be tolerated. someone would get at the CAUSE.. and right now! - those stats would reduce in no time

and yet 25% college women are raped.. a physical, spiritual, emotional, soul injury for which there is no cast. no 100% recovery. and the 90% potential recovery takes way, way, longer than 6 weeks..

and yet...

it makes no sense to me. no sense whatsoever, why we are not completely intolerant.

curious, determined to prevent, and completely, utterly, intolerant of this abhorrent crime and assault on fellow human beings. we should not ignore this domestic terrorism any more than we should ignore the ongoing international one.

we cannot afford to pretend all is right and good in our democratic nation. u.s. women are not nearly as free as they are made to believe or are protrayed.

Douglas G. Holbrook  11/23/2007 05:07 PM Report

Sirs,

I find your science & healthcare series very informative. However, in all media discussions about healthcare, there is little discussing the quality of nursing and hospital organization.

Dealing with different family members, particularly older ones, in various hospitals, I've discovered good nursing is sometimes more critical than having a good doctor. I find doctors collect the data (often from nurses), review and analyze it, and then make a decision of what to do. They then move on. It is up to the hospital and the nursing staff to actually implement the care. Nurses are often the eyes and ears for the doctors to make the decision.

What I'm seeing is a very serious breakdown in the care provided in hospitals. Nurses are viewed as a cost item, thus not treated well and are overworked. Doctors don't listen to nurses or ask for their obervations. The quality of staff hired declines. The patient ultimately is the one who pays for this collapse.

I have witnessed this at various reknowned hospitals in NYC with some of the best doctors in the world. Medication is forgotton. A patient doesn't eat and nobody does a thing about that. One elderly family member actually fell out of bed. Excercise (critical with the elderly) is not done. Patients aren't washed. It goes on and on. Yet no one talks about it.

We have a tsunami of boomers who are going to be using the hospitals in the next decades. The hospitals and the nursing staffs are not equipped to deal with this onslaught.

Nursing is looked upon a cost and labor issue.

And I'm not alone in this.

It would be good if one of your panels addressed nursing and hospital organization. We're closer to receiving "third world" healthcare than many suspect.

Sincerely,

Doug Holbrook

Mariah Britton  11/23/2007 12:49 PM Report

I thought the show was informative but as I watched I kept hoping that there would be more discussion regarding sexual orientation and developing healthy and supportive suggestions for parents of children who are not heterosexual.

Marc  11/21/2007 11:18 PM Report

The Pfizer-as-sponsor and multiple and overly obvious Viagra references were a little much, Charlie, and seemed close to contrived. I've come to expect much more. If I get the feeling that the sponsors are driving the conversation, that strikes at credibility. We can't afford that on PBS. We already have an FCC that's driving a more coporate media. We need a place where the credibility of the conversation is never an issue.

david london, Ph.D.  11/21/2007 05:41 PM Report

It was a well-intended show, but, as a psychologist, I was struck by an all-important missing element: The meaning that people attribute to sexuality and to their own sexual experiences.

For example: 2 people describe their lives as "happy" and "contented" though the sexual activity between them is limited or even nonexistent. Why? Perhaps because together they agree that sexual activity is not "meaningful" for them. Is this normal? Is it relevant to ask whether this is normal? The assessment of their experience is subjectively determined. Isn't that pretty universal?

In general, without a clear sense of what any experience means to an individual, there is no guiding "framework". Meaning determines behaviors, attitudes and expectations. And that holds true as well for the meaning one attributes to being part of a relationship or being single or whatever one construes as his/her "place" in their world of meaning.

So, another show that addresses human sexuality in the context of what meanings it holds for people would be a more "real world" event. Thank you.

SB  11/21/2007 03:58 PM Report

OK, let's try this:

Last night, I watched a Charlie Rose program on Human Sexuality. It was, mostly, boring. This was not, in fact, a program on Human Sexuality; it was a program on adult heterosexual intercourse and human male erectile dysfunction.

I'm seldom bored by Charlie Rose, even when I expect to be. This time, I didn't expect to be. But these doctors and researchers sat around the oak table and spoke in abstractions, in generalities.

There was no discussion of sexual orientation; no discussion of how/why it is that some have a high sex drive, and others do not. No doubting of the accepted view that erectile dysfunction and lack of desire is a problem -- an individual problem, now possibly treatable. No awareness, that I could discern, that it's possible that not everyone must be highly sexually active to be whole, to be happy. No suggestion that one might be highly sexually active, and happy, with oneself.

More here: http://www.sbpoet.com/2007/11/charlie-rose-a.html

Edward Eichel, LHD  11/21/2007 02:03 PM Report

THE PROBLEM IN SEXOLOGY:

Some of the comments reflect what Kinsey-team researcher Wardell B. Pomeroy in his Kinsey biography alluded to as "the Kinsey grand scheme" and the Kinsey "grand design." Kinsey determined that sexually liberated people would be bisexual; and, that children should get help from adults to develop their sexuality. He used data (Table 34, Male Report) from a pedophile that masturbated infants to support his biased theorizing.

THE SILVER BULLET IN SEX RESEARCH:

Breakthrough sex research on what the media termed "the new intercourse"--C.A.T. (the Coital Alignment Technique)--has resolved the 3 greatest sex problems: Premature ejaculation, lack of female do orgasm from intercourse, and loss of sexual desire. Kinsey disciples that dominate sexology are pretending the CAT research doesn't exist. A Google search on the term "coital alignment" indicates that the CAT is out of the bag.

Edward Eichel

Author

Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: the Indoctrination of a people (1990)

The Perfect Fit (1992)

Orgasm the Natural Way (video, 2001)

Edward Eichel, LHD  11/21/2007 02:02 PM Report

THE PROBLEM IN SEXOLOGY:

Some of the comments reflect what Kinsey-team researcher Wardell B. Pomeroy in his Kinsey biography alluded to as "the Kinsey grand scheme" and the Kinsey "grand design." Kinsey determined that sexually liberated people would be bisexual; and, that children should get help from adults to develop their sexuality. He used data (Table 34, Male Report) from a pedophile that masturbated infants to support his biased theorizing.

THE SILVER BULLET IN SEX RESEARCH:

Breakthrough sex research on what the media termed "the new intercourse"--C.A.T. (the Coital Alignment Technique)--has resolved the 3 greatest sex problems: Premature ejaculation, lack of female do orgasm from intercourse, and loss of sexual desire. Kinsey disciples that dominate sexology are pretending the CAT research doesn't exist. A Google search on the term "coital alignment" indicates that the CAT is out of the bag.

Edward Eichel

Author

Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: the Indoctrination of a people (1990)

The Perfect Fit (1992)

Orgasm the Natural Way (video, 2001)

George Sorell  11/21/2007 10:47 AM Report

On Tuesday, November 20, I saw and enjoyed the interesting panel discussion about human sexuality. It is understandable that the discussion focused on causes, preventions, testing and treatments. But one aspect of the issue was not discussed - predictability. For example, two individuals have very similar life styles, but many years later one suffers from a sexual dysfunction and the other does not. Without some way to seriously predict problems, people have to wait until the dysfunction occurs. Not good. Thank you for an enlightening show.

Jeff Stryker  11/21/2007 10:04 AM Report

They never mentioned homosexuality because Charlie Rose is a coward!

Lisa  11/21/2007 12:36 AM Report

I just finished watching this panel discussion on human sexuality, and though I found much of it quite interesting, I can't believe they talked about human sexuality for an hour without seriously mentioning homosexuality or any kind of sexual practices other than heterosexual intercourse. Studies of human sexuality are going nowhere if they can't manage to broaden the purview quite a bit.

The Compiler  11/20/2007 11:56 PM Report

I saw the WETA program and Charlie Rose Show on November 20, 2007, and wanted to contact Julia Heiman, a speaker on the panel that night, regarding the topic of Human Sexuality.

I have compiled lists of men who've been profiled on dontdatehimgirl.com (DDHG), since the site began, and have built several lists, after capturing the profiles from that site, so have gathered statistics, that Julie Heiman might want to see, and that might confirm her message on the Charlies Rose Show that night.

Please let me know her e-mail address, so that I may contact her.

Thank you,

"THE COMPILER", email: feathersfromphoenix@yahoo.com (B.A., Speech Communication, GMU, 1990, female in her fifties)