As a 21-year-old collegiate athlete, I was overcome with a sudden debilitating pain. Eight months of this pain and over a hundred doctors' appointments could not fix my problem. My issue was not uncommon, as it was due to chronic testicular pain. My experience was so terrible that I want to make sure what happened to me never happens to another person. It is unacceptable that fifty percent of chronic testicular pain cases are idiopathic. This is because conventional diagnostic and treatment protocols for men experiencing testicular pain are insufficient. Because the literature does not consider the body as a whole, testicular pain is diagnosed as idiopathic once trauma and torsion, tumors and cancer, infection, and sexually transmitted diseases are ruled out. This gap in the literature overlooks the links between biomechanical dysfunctions of the pelvic floor and testicular pain. Furthermore, recently proposed treatment algorithms do not consider the pelvic floor and are vague in their approach to treating and diagnosing testicular pain. If up to fifty percent of testicular pain cases are deemed to be idiopathic, then a more holistic approach must be utilized. This paper proposes a method to holistically evaluate patients with testicular pain and how to more efficiently diagnose the source of their pain. This paper will also coincide with my personal case study of idiopathic testicular pain.

As a form of bodily modification, female circumcision has generated unprecedented debates across the medical community, social sciences disciplines, governmental
on-governmental agencies and activists and others. The various terminologies used to refer to it attest to differences in knowledge systems, perceptions, and lived experiences emerging from divergent cultures and ideologies. In the last two decades, these debates have evolved from a local matter to a global health concern and human rights issue, coinciding with the largest influx of African refugees to the Western nations. Various forms of female circumcision are reported in 28 countries in the African Continent; Somalia has one of the highest prevalence of female circumcision and the most severe type. The practice is antithetical to Western values and poses an ideological challenge to the construction of the normal body, its bodily processes and its existential being-in-the-world. From the global health perspectives, female circumcision is deemed to be a health hazard--especially during childbirth--though the scientific evidence is inconclusive from studies conducted in post-migration. Yet, Somali refugee women have higher childbearing disparities in host nations, including the U.S. They are also perceived as difficult patients and resistant to obstetrics interventions. Although their FGC status and "cultural" differences are often cited, there is a lack of adequate explanations as to why and how these factors shape patient-provider interactions and affect outcomes. The objectives of this dissertation study are to quantitatively and qualitatively explore these questions within and between Somali refugee women and their healthcare providers in Arizona. Two theoretical frameworks and methods--culture consensus and embodiment-- are applied to identify variations in childbearing knowledge and to explore how the cultural phenomenon of circumcision is subjectively and intersubjectively embodied in the context of childbearing. Culture consensus questionnaire (N=174) and ethnographic interviews (N=40) using phenomenology approach were conducted. Analyses suggest cross-cultural disagreement hinged on: faith in science versus God, pregnancy/childbirth interventions, language challenges, and control-resistance issues; intra-cultural disagreement underscores that Somalis are not culturally homogenous group. Preconceptions of female circumcision body as a cultural phenomenon has different and conflicting meanings that may adversely impact patient-provider interactions and outcomes.