Men’s Prayers Finally Answered And Every Man’s Dream Come True

Men’s prayers finally answered.

Scientists are developing a pill which could boost women’s libido and reduce their appetite.

The hormone-releasing pill has so far only been given to female monkeys and shrews who displayed more mating behaviour and ate less.

The team from the Medical Research Council’s Human Reproduction Unit in Edinburgh believe a human version could be available within a decade.

But a psychologist said low-libido was usually caused by relationship issues.

Up to 40% of women are thought to experience a lack of sex drive at some point in their lives.

‘Rump presentation’

The Edinburgh team, led by Professor Robert Millar, have been looking at the properties Type 2 Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone.

When it was given to monkeys, they displayed mating behaviour such as tongue-flicking and eyebrow-raising to the males, while female shrews displayed their feelings via “rump presentation and tail wagging”.

When couples come to me and they are not having sex, the last thing they want to do is examine their relationship Lesley Perman-Kerr, psychologist

But the animals also ate around a third less food than they normally would.

Professor Millar hopes to achieve a similar rise in libido and fall in appetite in a pill for women.

He told the Scotland on Sunday newspaper: “This hormone is distributed in the brain in areas that we suspect affect reproductive behaviour.

“It is considered a major pharmaceutical endeavour to address the area of libido.

“So the next stage is to produce a drug that simulates the actions of this hormone.

“It is most likely that we will do it in partnership with a pharmaceutical firm. It could be available to women within the next 10 years.”

He said it may also be possible to develop a pill which worked for men, but he has so far not carried out any tests on male animals.

But psychologist Lesley Perman-Kerr said relationship problems usually had a psychological, rather than a biological, basis.

“Some women have problems specific to libido.

“But often if they go off sex, it’s more to do with their relationship than their level of libido.

“When couples come to me and they are not having sex, the last thing they want to do is examine their relationship.

“They want to believe that it’s nothing to do with their relationship.”

Religion, Politics, SC&A And The BBC

Later today, SC&A will participate on the BBC World Service program, World Have Your Say. The program is unique in that the content is dictated by listeners (the Program can be heard here).

The principal topic of today’s show will revolve around the goings on in Turkey and the ‘mass demonstrations over the weekend to protest at the prospect of presidential candidate Abdullah Gul getting the job. They’ve talked of preserving ‘the inseparable principles of democracy and secularism”. Abdullah Gul is Muslim and the AK party he represents has close ties with Islam.’

From there, the discussion will expand into a general discussion of religion and politics.

We are republishing our post of 26 January, 2007, that caught the BBC’s attention.

What is about about religion that scares so many people? The vast majority of people who express their faith, do so quietly and usually within a community of like minded believers. They, like most Americans, hold the concept of ‘live and let live,’ dear. Most Americans do not impose their belief on others nor do they support those who do.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a deliberate attempt to lump all believers together, regardless of their affiliation. We talk about the ‘moderate’ right, or the ‘moderate’ left, but when we talk about religious people the word ‘moderate’ is never spoken or implied. Religious people, it is assumed, are, well, religious. Enough said.

Religious people, as we noted, are for the most part, perfectly happy to live life in happy obscurity. Unfortunately, all too often religious people are dragged into political debate, or they are excluded from political debate, simply because they are religious. Faith seems to infuriate some people. The faiths, beliefs and believers that are shared and so familiar to most Americans are often subject to fierce criticism, ridicule and even vicious attack.

Of course, not all not all faiths are treated in the same way. Religious beliefs that are out of the mainstream of those that originate in far away places, or beliefs that are to be regarded as suggestive only, are fine.

Why is there such a disparity in how adherents to different faiths are treated?

The answer lies in the kind of demands and expectations our faith, beliefs and fellow believers make upon us . Real faith demands morality, not just from the individual, but from an entire community as well. Faith demands sacrifice. Friday, Saturday or Sunday prayer instead of Friday, Saturday or Sunday sports or shopping. Real faith demands that charity, given on a regular basis, without the need to be prodded by guilt or by images of disaster.

Religions are not measured by what they destroy, but rather, by what they build. Religions are not measured by how many they kill in God’s name, but rather by how many they save in God’s name. Religions are not measured by who they hate in God’s name, but rather, they are measured by how many they extend their arms in acceptance, in His name.

Those non believers or those who claim to be believers, who profess hatred toward God or others in His name, reject the notion that there is something more important than the self. They reject the notions of responsibilities, accountability and a living up to higher expectations. They reject the notion of a higher self with moral obligations. They want to be free of obligation and expectation.

The confrontation between believers and non believers is really a battle for the soul. That battle is not so much about belief in God as it is about the human conscience. There are plenty of non believers that believe that we are more than just animals, concerned only with our own pleasure and needs and thus understand the significance of human responsibility and accountability.

In fact, the battle for the soul of an individual or a nation is a battle that scares a lot of people, because if there is even the possibility of a soul, everything changes.

The atheist says, “I don’t believe in God.” In truth, people of faith don’t believe in the God the atheists reject, either.

Non believers cringe at the words ‘Fear of God‘ and other similar expressions. They only see fear as a negative expression- the fear of the powerful intimidating the weak. They rightly understand that ‘fear,’ as they understand it, is a negative expression. They use that expression, as a mantra- because without it, the argument weakens.

What many non believers do not admit is that fear is not always a negative human emotion. Often, fear can be a positive expression. For example, when an athlete faces his opponent or a when a public speaker first faces an audience, the nervous fears they experiences can lead to heightened awareness. All his or her senses are at a heightened level. Any and all of the skills and capabilities they have worked so hard to achieve, can be called upon in an instant. In fact, every one of us knows the kind of fear that can brings out the best in us.

The right expression and description of a believer’s relationship with God is ‘Awe.’ When we stand and behold the magnificence of nature, we are in awe. When we gaze upon an artist’s work that talks to us, we are in awe. There is music, sounds created out of thin air, that make us cry or can evoke memories, for decades. That too, inspires awe.

In fact, the awe we experience is a manifestation of human dignity. We see and understand ourselves to be a part of a greater scheme. We understand ourselves to be a part of the masterpiece that is Creation. We- each of us, have a starring role in the play of life- Creation. It is an unfolding drama, comedy and musical- with our best efforts and intentions a part of the script. We are not meant to ad lib our way through life. We are obligated and meant to make Creation an even more magnificent expression that It is, and we each of us have lead role in doing just that.

It is clear that when standing in Awe of God, we recognize what the gift of life means.

When we acknowledge the gift of life, we acknowledge that we have a purpose. We may not understand or even clearly understand our purpose, but we don’t have to, any more than we have to clearly understand nuclear physics or organic chemistry. We know they are there and they impact our lives. That is enough.

It is man’s objective to seek- it is a natural instinct. It is what we look for that to a very large extent, defines us. It is our charge to discover and celebrate, not our basest selves, but rather, that part of us that is as majestic as anything in nature or art. We are charged to take center stage in God’s creation. We seek the majesty that is in each of us- we seek to know our own soul.

It is not easy. It is not easy at all. We must acknowledge that even if we are to take center stage, we share that stage with everyone else- and sometimes, that may go against our very nature. It is then that we must put in that performance of a lifetime. Like the athletes that play beyond their capabilities in that last game, we must reach inside to our souls, to pull from within the very best of ourselves, especially when it seems the odds are stacked against us.

Sometimes, center stage can be a very scary place- and that is why so many people fear having a soul.

All gardens need tending. If we can remove the weeds in life- those things that restrain, contain us and hinder our growth, we will grow. When we refuse distort the reality we know exists so that our selfish needs are sated, and when we choose to remove the doubts and fears that hold us back, we will thrive.

We may indeed, be small in the eyes of history and Creation. That doesn’t mean we can’t be great.

‘Good Little Nazis’

Rosa Brooks of the Los Angeles Times and poster child for irrelevant leftist drivel masquerading as informed ‘thought,’ has left yet another stain on paper.

In 9/11 was bad, but…, she posits the notion that ‘The attacks were appalling, but they don’t pose the threat politicians make them out to be.‘ That’s right. In BrooksWorld, the events of 9/11 were a distraction, with political overtones.

Brooks goes on:

Every year, we also lose millions of Americans to preventable accidents and disease. We’re more likely to die on the road than as a result of Al Qaeda’s machinations. Annually, we lose some 43,000 people to auto accidents. For the grieving families, that’s 43,000 deaths too many. But, although we surely could reduce auto fatalities if we chose to make it our top national priority, the Bush administration has yet to announce a “War on Highway Deaths.”

Why wasn’t a War on Highway Deaths a priority of the Clinton Administration?

If terror isn’t such a big deal, why did Bill Clinton work so hard to kill Osama bin Laden? Why expend American energies on such an irrelevant concern? Why was Richard Clarke so critical of the CIA efforts to kill Bin Laden, if he wasn’t such a threat?

Clarke was insistent that Clinton had

put in place the plans and programs that allowed America to respond to the big attacks when they did come, sweeping away the political barriers to action.

Is it possible that terrorism on our shores might be a bit more important than Rosa Brooks says it is?

In BrooksWorld, deceit is the order of the day- responding to terror on our shores, she says, is a political expression.

After 9/11, the Republican line was that all future terror attacks on U.S. soil must be prevented at any cost.

If terror weren’t such a big deal, why is Hillary Clinton defending her husband’s record on terror

I think my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take these attacks

The former president won’t even hear of anyone criticizing his administration for being soft on terror. The former president said he

“left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy” for the Bush administration.

The former president also insisted that he came close to killing bin Laden and noted that his administration took the threat of terrorism more seriously than the Bush administration did before the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Shouldn’t that admission be enough to taint the Clinton administration forever in BrooksWorld?

Does Rosa Brooks believe that there is an ‘appropriate’ body count type benchmark that must be reached before we take terror on our shores seriously?

This morning, Dr Sanity has posted The Postmodern Psychological Landscape And The Battle Between Guilt And Shame, one the best pieces on the post modernism and leftist ideology you will read this year. She discusses multiculturalism, moral equivalence and cultural relativism, that Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole that is the entry portal to BrooksWorld. In discussing the terror mindset and the western response of which Rosa Brooks is so dismissive, Dr Sanity’s insights are hard to ignore- unless of course, you live in BrooksWorld.

…this toxic interaction will not produce peace in our time; but, on the contrary will inevitably lead to more war and even more death and destruction than is now able to be imagined. Because, these Islamic fanatics–who do not let reason or life interfere with their jihad; who abide by no treaties, follow no rules, and scorn the very values upon which western civilization is founded will not be appeased and will use the postmodern lunacy very well to their advantage against us.

We could have lived with them they did not insist that we must submit, become what they are, or die. But they have defined the groundrules (or the non-rules) of this conflict; and eventually, we will have to meet them at their level–or they will win. They have set the psychological landscape of this war, and the political left in our own country and around the world has done all it possibly can to ensure that those committed to our destruction have the advantage and that we must operate under a vicious, self-imposed handicap.

Rosa Brooks has a clear agenda, one that desperately must deny and obfuscate reality. This denial would be irrelevant and comical, if the stakes weren’t so high. Brooks isn’t satisfied in putting her own future on the line, as is her right. She is insisting that we all follow suit. She wants us to be exactly what she is- ‘good little Nazi,’ following ‘ideological orders.’

In The Apes In Tuxedos And Hypocrites At The LA Times, we noted how truth and reality are toxic in BrooksWorld. We concluded by noting that

Until such time as Ms Brooks and her ilk take the initiative and reclaim the kind journalism that is not so beholden to an ideology, or a committed to an agenda at the cost of truth, journalists will remain marginalized and not trusted, as polls continue to show.

They will remain apes in tuxedos.

And goose stepping, like all good little leftists.

By the way, Rosa, the ‘appalling’ but not so bad terror attacks cost us plenty, as a nation and society. Of course that doesn’t matter in BrooksWorld- and never will.