discomfort wearing glasses--advice needed

I'm wondering if anyone can provide some suggestions on this.

I currently wear glasses and it has become an extreme nuisance because
I have to touch it many times each day.

The frames have a tendency to slowly slide down on my nose. I feel
comfortable with my glasses being exactly level with my eyes. So I end
up having to raise my frames about twice per hour. ( I tried adjusting
or bending some portions of the frame but that seems to be of a mild
help at most )

This has become an issue at work, too. I am frequently exposed to
blood and saliva. All too often, my glasses slide down bit by bit as
I'm working on procedures. As if from a reflex, with my bloody gloves,
I usually touch my frames and raise it back up. Towards the end of the
day, I end up throwing my glasses into the sink, with deep
frustration. And then I wash and cavicide it.

My problem doesn't end there. The frame parts that rest on my nose ( I
don't know the terminology ) always feels so oily no matter how I
clean them. There's also some dark mold? that appears to be growing
around it.

I even have an issue with the lenses on my glasses. It gets so dirty
frequently from myself having to frequently raise my glasses, the
dandruff from my hair, debris from wind outside, and proximity to the
oil from my face. I spend so much time in the day taking off my
glasses to clean them, but only to take it off later and re-clean
them. And even when I clean them, my vision through the lenses is so
foggy, as if I have cataracts. My vision, though blurred, feels a lot
clearer and comfortable when I don't have glasses on.

There are also so many scratches on my lenses when you shine them up
in light, which I suspect comes from all the cleaning I tried doing.

My best option would technically be breaking my glasses and going for
lasik. But I don't think lasik is mature enough of a technique yet. I
could go with contact lenses but I'm not permitted by my parents.

Any feedback on how I should be managing my glasses? Are there any
glasses/lenses in particular that I'm suitable for?

> I'm wondering if anyone can provide some suggestions on this.
>
> I currently wear glasses and it has become an extreme nuisance because
> I have to touch it many times each day.
>
> The frames have a tendency to slowly slide down on my nose. I feel
> comfortable with my glasses being exactly level with my eyes. So I end
> up having to raise my frames about twice per hour. ( I tried adjusting
> or bending some portions of the frame but that seems to be of a mild
> help at most )
>
> This has become an issue at work, too. I am frequently exposed to
> blood and saliva. All too often, my glasses slide down bit by bit as
> I'm working on procedures. As if from a reflex, with my bloody gloves,
> I usually touch my frames and raise it back up. Towards the end of the
> day, I end up throwing my glasses into the sink, with deep
> frustration. And then I wash and cavicide it.
>
> My problem doesn't end there. The frame parts that rest on my nose ( I
> don't know the terminology ) always feels so oily no matter how I
> clean them. There's also some dark mold? that appears to be growing
> around it.
>
> I even have an issue with the lenses on my glasses. It gets so dirty
> frequently from myself having to frequently raise my glasses, the
> dandruff from my hair, debris from wind outside, and proximity to the
> oil from my face. I spend so much time in the day taking off my
> glasses to clean them, but only to take it off later and re-clean
> them. And even when I clean them, my vision through the lenses is so
> foggy, as if I have cataracts. My vision, though blurred, feels a lot
> clearer and comfortable when I don't have glasses on.
>
> There are also so many scratches on my lenses when you shine them up
> in light, which I suspect comes from all the cleaning I tried doing.
>
> My best option would technically be breaking my glasses and going for
> lasik. But I don't think lasik is mature enough of a technique yet. I
> could go with contact lenses but I'm not permitted by my parents.
>
> Any feedback on how I should be managing my glasses? Are there any
> glasses/lenses in particular that I'm suitable for?
>

I solved the problem of glasses sliding down my face by getting "cable
temples". If your glasses have a wire frame you can take them to a shop and
have the plastic temple ends replaced with the type that wrap around the
ear. Make sure you get a snug fit and it completely eliminates the sliding
problem. The only downside is it makes it a little more difficult to put
them on and take them off, but I adapted pretty quickly.

Regarding cleaning the nose pieces, an old toothbrush + soap gets into the
tiny places pretty well.

If your lenses are scratched from improper cleaning all you can do is
replace them. Obviously, you have to find a way to clean the lenses that
doesn't scratch them and you should avoid touching the glasses when wearing
them (which is where the cable temples come in).

Contact lenses do away with all of the issues that you're having with
glasses and present you with different issues. By the way, why do you
parents care if you wear contacts?

Hi, Seagate.

Have we not met before somewhere? - I cannot seem to recall, but your
name sounds very familiar. Are you a pilot by any chance?

>This has become an issue at work, too. I am frequently exposed to
>blood and saliva.

Interesting, what is your profession?

And lastly, how old are you?

On Jun 10, 8:05 am, Revival <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, Seagate.
>
> Have we not met before somewhere? - I cannot seem to recall, but your
> name sounds very familiar. Are you a pilot by any chance?
>
> >This has become an issue at work, too. I am frequently exposed to
> >blood and saliva.
>
> Interesting, what is your profession?
>
> And lastly, how old are you?

Victek's advice sounds rock solid. I had cable temples on a pair of
glasses so that I could windsurf. They're nearly invisible and hold
quite well.

The only thing I could add is that ignoring this "Revival" character
can only help you.

Listening to him/her/it could hurt you.

On Jun 10, 8:27 am, Dave Bell <d...@TheSPAMFREEBells.net> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 8:05 am, Revival <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi, Seagate.
>
> >> Have we not met before somewhere? - I cannot seem to recall, but your
> >> name sounds very familiar. Are you a pilot by any chance?
>
> >>> This has become an issue at work, too. I am frequently exposed to
> >>> blood and saliva.
> >> Interesting, what is your profession?
>
> >> And lastly, how old are you?
>
> > Victek's advice sounds rock solid. I had cable temples on a pair of
> > glasses so that I could windsurf. They're nearly invisible and hold
> > quite well.
>
> > The only thing I could add is that ignoring this "Revival" character
> > can only help you.
>
> > Listening to him/her/it could hurt you.
>
> And again, with an unprovoked (by this post) ad hominem attack on
> Revival! What possible harm could come from those simple questions?!?
> You and your buddies just have to stick your nose in where it's
> completely unwarranted. If and when Revival suggests some quackish
> alternative to Seagate's glasses, then speak up, if you absolutely must
> see your flag waving. Otherwise, you are only adding to the noise.

Shh. I already told you--though I used more genteel phrasing the
first time--that I don't care what you have to say. Have you
forgotten so soon?

You may want to look up the meaning of "ad hominem." Until you do,
then let's move on, shall we?

>How old are you? If you have a full time job and are earning your own
>money, how can your parents prevent you from paying for your own
>contacts?

lol Judy, that's what I was wondering.

For an average paid dental surgeon, money shouldn't be a problem?

On Jun 10, 10:25 am, Dave Bell <d...@TheSPAMFREEBells.net> wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > Shh. I already told you--though I used more genteel phrasing the
> > first time--that I don't care what you have to say. Have you
> > forgotten so soon?
>
> Not forgotten at all. Just slightly stubborn, though obviously not as
> tenacious as you.

Different league.

> > You may want to look up the meaning of "ad hominem." Until you do,
> > then let's move on, shall we?
>
> Perhaps I'm stretching toe precise definition of *argumentum ad hominem*
> in this case; I do feel the spirit of the concept carries over, to
> attacking whatever a particular person has to say, regardless of the
> accuracy or relevance of his or her statements. A more correct form of
> argument would restrict your commentary to those cases where the poster
> is actually proposing something that - in your opinion - might be harmful.

It's actually quite effective to discredit the "person" by showing the
folly and ignorance that backs up their overall approach, and how
their basic belief system is that of faith and ignorance.

This being SCI.MED.vision, participants and lurkers should know who
applies science and medicine to their positions and who categorically
excludes them.

Though a stopped clock IS right twice a day (back in the days where
analog was in vogue), I don't believe people should rely on those odds
when trying to determine the time.

>It's actually quite effective to discredit the "person" by showing the
>folly and ignorance that backs up their overall approach, and how
>their basic belief system is that of faith and ignorance.

Hm.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see a decrease in posting by either Otis,
OR Revival for that matter.

According to your usual prattling, "there have been over a dozen
REPORTED cases of affected diplopia, *AND STILL COUNTING*!!".

Very effective indeed.

>It's actually quite effective to discredit the "person" by showing the
>folly and ignorance that backs up their overall approach, and how
>their basic belief system is that of faith and ignorance.

Hm.

Rather unfortunately, I have yet to see a decrease in posting by
either Otis, OR Revival for that matter. Darn.

According to my usual prattling, "there have been over a dozen
REPORTED cases of affected diplopia, *AND STILL COUNTING*!!".

[Very effective indeed.]

On Jun 10, 11:49 am, Neil Crooks <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >It's actually quite effective to discredit the "person" by showing the
> >folly and ignorance that backs up their overall approach, and how
> >their basic belief system is that of faith and ignorance.
>
> Hm.
>
> Rather unfortunately, I have yet to see a decrease in posting by
> either Otis, OR Revival for that matter. Darn.
>
> According to my usual prattling, "there have been over a dozen
> REPORTED cases of affected diplopia, *AND STILL COUNTING*!!".
>
> [Very effective indeed.]

Again, you extrapolate from small sample sizes to large populations.
Just because you've lasted around here for two weeks, facing very
worthwhile opprobrium, doesn't mean you have any staying power.

Otis does, but it's because he's mentally ill.