Saturday, February 28, 2004|
Women are a lot more complicated than men, says Pfizer in what could be termed the understatement of the very young century. Basically, the article explains why Viagra doesn't work as well for women as it does for me. I know this comes as a complete shock to the gentle reader but apparently, "men and women have a fundamentally different relationship between arousal and desire." The article goes on to say that men get aroused and want to have sex when viewing pictures of naked women while for women, desire depends on a bunch of different things. Is this really news? Did Pfizer really think that by giving women Viagra, they'd suddenly turn into sex-crazed maniacs? Obviously, the research team at Pfizer is predominantly, if not totally, male. Evolutionary biology teaches us that males want to have sex with as many females as possible if they can get away with it. This is because if they manage to impregnate all those females, their genes have a better chance of making it into the next generation. So if you see a bunch of naked women and you are male, of course your arousal turns into desire which turns into a masturbation fest. But if you're a woman, arousal and desire are divorced because you have to gauge how likely it is that a given man will not only impregnate you but also care for your child and barring that, give your child good enough genes that they can make it on their own. In a male, if the body is willing, the mind almost always is too because he's driven to procreate with as many females as possible, generally speaking. However in a female, just because the body is willing doesn't mean the mind is if she deems the possible mates as unworthy. That's why it shouldn't be much of a shock that giving Viagra to women generally doesn't mean they want to have more sex. Sex for women frequently has a strong connection with the mental, whereas sex for men can be divorced from the mental. That's why the term "Coyote Ugly" has such resonance with men. Do research into affecting brain chemistry and you have a better chance of finding a drug that makes women want you. The holy grail for research scientists. |
|
Civil liberties take another hit in Ashcroft's America. I can't imagine that the Supreme Court wouldn't overturn the lower court's ruling on having to provide identification at all times. If I'm out running, I don't carry ID and shouldn't be required to. If you go for a walk around the neighborhood, you shouldn't be required to carry ID. This seems to be a true overreach of the powers of law enforcement in a democracy. But this is what is truly scary in the argument above:
How can someone call themselves a conservative yet favor cards with retina scans and electronic fingerprints? This is very frightening if the case stands. Via BitchGirls. 4:56:19 PM  What do you think? [] trackback []
|
|
Bin Laden on the run reports the VOA. If we do catch him sooner rather than later, this will be great news. Of course, there will still be loonies on the Left who scream conspiracy, but they'll be few and far between. 4:39:29 PM What do you think? [] trackback []
|
Last update: 7/14/2004; 8:01:27 AM .
