Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
Sat Jan 9, 2016, 11:42 PM Jan 2016

Maybe Bernie's controversial views on cervical cancer caused Planned Parenthood to endorse Hillary? [View all]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bernie-sanders-once-blamed-cervical-cancer-on-a-lack-of-orgasms/

Bernie Sanders Once Blamed Cervical Cancer on a Lack of Orgasms

The New York Times ran a frontpage investigative report on Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders‘ early political history on July 4th. But buried in the piece is the bizarre fact that Sanders once questioned whether or not cancer– and cervical cancer in particular– was caused by a lack of orgasms.


<...>

"Mr. Sanders contributed only sporadically… He cited studies claiming that cancer could be caused by psychological factors such as unresolved hostility toward one’s mother, a tendency to bury aggression beneath a “facade of pleasantness” and having too few orgasms. “Sexual adjustment seemed to be very poor in those with cancer of the cervix,” he wrote, quoting a study in a journal called Psychosomatic Medicine.


This should go without saying, but there is no evidence that orgasms have anything to do with cancer or cervical cancer.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bernie-sanders-once-blamed-cervical-cancer-on-a-lack-of-orgasms/
80 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Great work gumshoe! morningfog Jan 2016 #1
I'm reminded EdwardBernays Jan 2016 #2
Two plus two is four. nt Cali_Democrat Jan 2016 #7
Cali for the love of Pete HerbChestnut Jan 2016 #16
Have you ever seen an article about Hillary being a Goldwater girl and Republican, Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #45
yep. n/t 2pooped2pop Jan 2016 #51
Do they actually support Hillary or just hate Bernie? morningfog Jan 2016 #60
Congrats on 500 posts! bigwillq Jan 2016 #29
She does seem to have little regard for brown children around the globe...nt artislife Jan 2016 #35
Sounds legit. I vaguely remember this. Thought it was odd. cheapdate Jan 2016 #3
Saw nothing about that here Autumn Jan 2016 #4
Thats disturbing. nt LexVegas Jan 2016 #5
Back for more with this canard? Ya'll seem desperate. Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #6
No emulatorloo Jan 2016 #8
Oh, you are such a delightful and generous person! sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #9
The only way to take pablum Art_from_Ark Jan 2016 #17
hmmm uponit7771 Jan 2016 #10
Oh, sorry dearrie, I forgot to ask sadoldgirl Jan 2016 #11
Trashed... litlbilly Jan 2016 #12
yep ... taking out the trash. then reading what quality is left. Hiraeth Jan 2016 #62
Me too:) litlbilly Jan 2016 #69
Probably not KingFlorez Jan 2016 #13
Connections, likely yes Paulie Jan 2016 #73
So if I read your outrage correctly catnhatnh Jan 2016 #14
Okay, so how long ago was Hillary Clinton (as an adolescent) a "Goldwater Girl"? George II Jan 2016 #19
How about a far more relevant question, like how long ago she backed "regime change" jeff47 Jan 2016 #36
Is that the topic we're discussing? The subject is Sanders' view of the cause of cervical cancer. George II Jan 2016 #38
It's as relevant as you bringing "Goldwater girl" to the thread. (nt) jeff47 Jan 2016 #40
How? Are you trying to goad me into a hide? George II Jan 2016 #41
Nope, that's your shtick. jeff47 Jan 2016 #42
. George II Jan 2016 #44
"Okay so how long ago was Hillary Clinton..." LOL! cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #53
How can the article Sanders wrote thirty years ago be debunked? Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #47
That's not all. He wrote some pretty flaky stuff. MADem Jan 2016 #59
This is hilarious. I laughed til I cried underthematrix Jan 2016 #15
Could have been a big factor, his abject lack of understanding of women's issues. George II Jan 2016 #18
Not content to be positive about the PP endorsement? nt geek tragedy Jan 2016 #20
how many decades ago was this? Douglas Carpenter Jan 2016 #21
1972 is the only year the NY Times article gives Eric J in MN Jan 2016 #25
so he wrote that admittedly strange article about 43-44 years ago? Douglas Carpenter Jan 2016 #27
Yes. NT Eric J in MN Jan 2016 #31
He also cited medical literature from the time. jeff47 Jan 2016 #37
My own mother (1924-2007) used to believe shit like that, so blamed herself for ... Hekate Jan 2016 #22
He did years ago. The OP didn't quite bring that up, since it would hurt her attack. (nt) jeff47 Jan 2016 #33
more likely the RW anti-Mrs. Clinton attacks mixed with years of Republican PP attacks. Sunlei Jan 2016 #23
Ah... he goes to the standard, blame the mom, too. Isn't that nifty. Give it up girls, mom's fault. seabeyond Jan 2016 #24
Or maybe you've scraped through the metal at the bottom of the barrel. pa28 Jan 2016 #26
Oh there is a whiff of desperation in the air, indeed... Purveyor Jan 2016 #28
The more they hit the volume at 11 the happier I get artislife Jan 2016 #39
May I have 10,000 marbles, please? bvf Jan 2016 #54
Hee! artislife Jan 2016 #55
Please post link to article Sanders referred to in Psychosomatic Medicine. /nt philly_bob Jan 2016 #30
Why would you expect there to be an online version of a medical article from the 70s? n/t winter is coming Jan 2016 #65
Foolishly, I thought that OP had some source. philly_bob Jan 2016 #75
THE MEME MUST NOT DIE!!!! jeff47 Jan 2016 #32
So, is the belief that chances of prostate cancer are reduced by daily orgasm silly, too? Triana Jan 2016 #34
lemme know if you ever get an answer. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #58
None yet . . . Triana Jan 2016 #74
The best thing about this OP? artislife Jan 2016 #43
2008 is NOT 2016, and Sanders is most definitely NOT Obama. George II Jan 2016 #46
But Hillary is still Hillary. artislife Jan 2016 #48
I doubt they made their decison because Sanders believed a New Age crackpot theory about cancer. Agnosticsherbet Jan 2016 #49
Or perhaps because someones daughter 840high Jan 2016 #56
LOL, did not get fitted for a tin foil hat this election. My oriniginal premise stands. nt Agnosticsherbet Jan 2016 #67
Well - she was hired. 840high Jan 2016 #71
The notion that could be the only possible reason is laugable. Agnosticsherbet Jan 2016 #72
why didn't you mention tht this article is 43-44 years old and he based Douglas Carpenter Jan 2016 #50
"cut it out" SoLeftIAmRight Jan 2016 #52
"there is no evidence that orgasms have anything to do with cancer" - ah, not entirely true. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #57
And maybe Debbie Wasserman Schultz advocating throwing medical marijuana users in prison Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #61
trash thread JI7 Jan 2016 #63
If PP believes that Bernie still believes that - then PP is not too bright, IMO. djean111 Jan 2016 #64
The decision by the leadership of PP was purly politically motivated and the good rhett o rick Jan 2016 #66
It sounds stupid now TexasBushwhacker Jan 2016 #68
Planned Parenthood wouldn't care about something so stupid n/t Enrique Jan 2016 #70
ah yes elana i am Jan 2016 #76
your desperation is more and more evident with every post. whether or not she gets the nomination bowens43 Jan 2016 #77
Did something really bad happen today to produce Warren Stupidity Jan 2016 #78
"HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN IS ***NOT*** NERVOUS, YOUSE GUYS!!!!" Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #79
My doctor told me much the same thing when I had cervical cancer. Although she libdem4life Jan 2016 #80
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Maybe Bernie's controvers...»Reply #0