There is little difference in people, but that little difference makes a big difference. The little difference is attitude. The big difference is whether it is positive or negative.
Many is a believe that men love bitches? But what would a woman choose to be in the weird entity of attraction?
Showing posts with label Cool. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cool. Show all posts
Thursday, 5 July 2012
Thursday, 31 May 2012
THE G-SPOT AND IT'S SPOTLESS BLISS
By now you've no doubt heard that a surgeon in Florida, Dr. Adam Ostrzenski, has claimed to have found the first anatomical evidence of the controversial G-spot. In a study published online in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, Dr. Ostrzenski details his finding of the disputed female pleasure zone deep inside the front vaginal wall of a recently deceased 83-year-old Polish woman.
But while Ostrzenski's study has given rise to loud cheers of "Finally!" in some quarters, others have taken a more skeptical view of his findings. A commentary on the study by three sexual health experts (including Dr. Beverly Whipple, co-author of the groundbreaking 1982 book The G Spot and Other Recent Discoveries About Human Sexuality) also published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine is pretty scathing in its critique.
"We submit that the author's claim to have discovered 'the' G-spot does not fulfill the most fundamental scientific criteria," the experts write. They go on to say that Ostrzenski is lacking the evidence to prove his claim and that "In the absence of such evidence, it is not valid for the author to claim more than that he has identified a possible anatomic constituent of whatever is 'the G-spot' — a still scientifically unresolved issue."
So what's the deal here? Is this the classic case of a man claiming he's found a woman's G-spot, only to be told, "That's not it!" The truth appears to be, well, confusing.
A Narrow View of Sexual Pleasure?
The commentators in The Journal of Sexual Medicine appear to be willing to grant Ostrzenski that the structure he is calling the G-spot is possibly something significant. But they also say his reducing the G-spot to one discrete anatomical structure "betrays the rich complexity of what others have appreciated and characterized as the G-spot — a variable anatomical and functional zone of erotogenic complexity, not a single structural entity." In essense, they're saying what he may have found is just a part of the G-spot, but not its entirety.
The commentators' wariness about narrowly defining zones of female sexual pleasure is echoed in a blog post about Ostrzenski's study on Kinsey Confidential, the sexual health and information website of the famed Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. In the post, doctoral candidate Kristen Mark warns against "hype around the existence of the G-spot as the central pleasure point," saying such focus could result in an increase in dodgy, and dangerous, medical procedures claiming to enhance women's G-spot function. Mark also makes the very reasonable sounding point that instead of researchers desperately trying to hit the G-spot, "more emphasis should be placed on the diversity found in women's sexual pleasure and directed away from one anatomical structure being responsible for pleasure."
Still, given the decades-long debate on the G-spot, and the fact that several sexual health experts (including our own Dr. Laura Berman), not to mention women the world over, swear it exists, it seems unlikely the search will stop anytime soon.
But while Ostrzenski's study has given rise to loud cheers of "Finally!" in some quarters, others have taken a more skeptical view of his findings. A commentary on the study by three sexual health experts (including Dr. Beverly Whipple, co-author of the groundbreaking 1982 book The G Spot and Other Recent Discoveries About Human Sexuality) also published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine is pretty scathing in its critique.
"We submit that the author's claim to have discovered 'the' G-spot does not fulfill the most fundamental scientific criteria," the experts write. They go on to say that Ostrzenski is lacking the evidence to prove his claim and that "In the absence of such evidence, it is not valid for the author to claim more than that he has identified a possible anatomic constituent of whatever is 'the G-spot' — a still scientifically unresolved issue."
So what's the deal here? Is this the classic case of a man claiming he's found a woman's G-spot, only to be told, "That's not it!" The truth appears to be, well, confusing.
A Narrow View of Sexual Pleasure?
The commentators in The Journal of Sexual Medicine appear to be willing to grant Ostrzenski that the structure he is calling the G-spot is possibly something significant. But they also say his reducing the G-spot to one discrete anatomical structure "betrays the rich complexity of what others have appreciated and characterized as the G-spot — a variable anatomical and functional zone of erotogenic complexity, not a single structural entity." In essense, they're saying what he may have found is just a part of the G-spot, but not its entirety.
The commentators' wariness about narrowly defining zones of female sexual pleasure is echoed in a blog post about Ostrzenski's study on Kinsey Confidential, the sexual health and information website of the famed Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. In the post, doctoral candidate Kristen Mark warns against "hype around the existence of the G-spot as the central pleasure point," saying such focus could result in an increase in dodgy, and dangerous, medical procedures claiming to enhance women's G-spot function. Mark also makes the very reasonable sounding point that instead of researchers desperately trying to hit the G-spot, "more emphasis should be placed on the diversity found in women's sexual pleasure and directed away from one anatomical structure being responsible for pleasure."
Still, given the decades-long debate on the G-spot, and the fact that several sexual health experts (including our own Dr. Laura Berman), not to mention women the world over, swear it exists, it seems unlikely the search will stop anytime soon.
Thursday, 17 May 2012
Probiotics May Help Prevent Some Diarrhea
Many types of bacteria and yeast normally live on our skin, in our intestines and on other body surfaces. They're known as our "normal flora."
When there's a balance in the normal flora, these bacteria do not invade beneath the surface they live on. They do not disrupt our normal body functions. And they do not make or give off toxic substances that could harm us.
We take antibiotics to kill the bacteria that are causing an infection. But the antibiotics also kill these "good" bacteria, too. This upsets the natural environment in the intestines. The result is often loose, watery stools. This is called antibiotic-associated diarrhea.
Most often, the symptoms start on the last day or two of treatment or shortly after the antibiotics are gone. The diarrhea is usually mild. There may be two to four loose stools per day for a couple of days. In most cases, it gets better quickly without treatment.
Some people get very ill from antibiotic-associated diarrhea. The most severe form, called Clostridium difficile (C. diff) colitis, can be life-threatening.
Probiotics have been widely promoted as a way to keep your body in balance. Probiotics contain bacteria found in the healthy normal flora of the gut. They are sold in the form of pills, yogurts and other preparations. The idea behind probiotics is to increase the populations of bacteria that seem to be present in good health.
There's no good evidence that probiotics are useful in otherwise healthy people. But prior medical studies have suggested they work in some conditions, such as:
Treating C. diff colitis that keeps coming back, or doesn't go away, even with repeated courses of other treatments
Helping prevent further problems caused by pancreatitis
Decreasing repeated vaginal yeast infections
Probiotics also appear to decrease the risk of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Researchers reviewed 82 clinical trials that were relevant to this question. The studies had to meet well defined criteria. According to the analysis, people who took a probiotic with an antibiotic had a 42% lower risk of diarrhea.
What Changes Can I Make Now?
The results of this study sound impressive. But I won't be advising probiotics every time I write a prescription for an antibiotic. Probiotics are generally considered safe. But the authors of this article note that side effects or adverse reactions are still possible. And most often antibiotic-associated diarrhea causes mild symptoms that go away quickly.
I likely will advise that some people take a probiotic along with an antibiotic. But I must admit that there is not yet clear evidence for my personal advice. People who might benefit from a probiotic include:
People who have had antibiotic-associated diarrhea in the past. This is especially true for those who have had C. diff infection.
People receiving a prolonged course of antibiotics, more than 10 days. Note: This is very arbitrary and not based on data. Other doctors might prescribe if antibiotics are used more than 5 days.
People who have switched from one antibiotic to a different one within a relatively short period of time.
The researchers were not able to answer these important questions:
Which probiotics work best in preventing and treating antibiotic-associated diarrhea?
Which specific antibiotics are more likely to cause diarrhea?
The best way to keep your normal flora in balance is to take antibiotics only when you need them.
What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?
Most antibiotic-associated diarrhea is a mild nuisance. But C. diff colitis can be deadly. C. diff is best prevented by limiting the use of antibiotics and preventing the spread of the infection in hospitals and nursing homes. The contact precautions used include private rooms, strict hand washing, gloves and gowns.
We don't know whether a probiotic prescribed on the first day of antibiotic treatment will decrease the rising number of C. diff cases. This question needs further study.
When there's a balance in the normal flora, these bacteria do not invade beneath the surface they live on. They do not disrupt our normal body functions. And they do not make or give off toxic substances that could harm us.
We take antibiotics to kill the bacteria that are causing an infection. But the antibiotics also kill these "good" bacteria, too. This upsets the natural environment in the intestines. The result is often loose, watery stools. This is called antibiotic-associated diarrhea.
Most often, the symptoms start on the last day or two of treatment or shortly after the antibiotics are gone. The diarrhea is usually mild. There may be two to four loose stools per day for a couple of days. In most cases, it gets better quickly without treatment.
Some people get very ill from antibiotic-associated diarrhea. The most severe form, called Clostridium difficile (C. diff) colitis, can be life-threatening.
Probiotics have been widely promoted as a way to keep your body in balance. Probiotics contain bacteria found in the healthy normal flora of the gut. They are sold in the form of pills, yogurts and other preparations. The idea behind probiotics is to increase the populations of bacteria that seem to be present in good health.
There's no good evidence that probiotics are useful in otherwise healthy people. But prior medical studies have suggested they work in some conditions, such as:
Treating C. diff colitis that keeps coming back, or doesn't go away, even with repeated courses of other treatments
Helping prevent further problems caused by pancreatitis
Decreasing repeated vaginal yeast infections
Probiotics also appear to decrease the risk of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Researchers reviewed 82 clinical trials that were relevant to this question. The studies had to meet well defined criteria. According to the analysis, people who took a probiotic with an antibiotic had a 42% lower risk of diarrhea.
What Changes Can I Make Now?
The results of this study sound impressive. But I won't be advising probiotics every time I write a prescription for an antibiotic. Probiotics are generally considered safe. But the authors of this article note that side effects or adverse reactions are still possible. And most often antibiotic-associated diarrhea causes mild symptoms that go away quickly.
I likely will advise that some people take a probiotic along with an antibiotic. But I must admit that there is not yet clear evidence for my personal advice. People who might benefit from a probiotic include:
People who have had antibiotic-associated diarrhea in the past. This is especially true for those who have had C. diff infection.
People receiving a prolonged course of antibiotics, more than 10 days. Note: This is very arbitrary and not based on data. Other doctors might prescribe if antibiotics are used more than 5 days.
People who have switched from one antibiotic to a different one within a relatively short period of time.
The researchers were not able to answer these important questions:
Which probiotics work best in preventing and treating antibiotic-associated diarrhea?
Which specific antibiotics are more likely to cause diarrhea?
The best way to keep your normal flora in balance is to take antibiotics only when you need them.
What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?
Most antibiotic-associated diarrhea is a mild nuisance. But C. diff colitis can be deadly. C. diff is best prevented by limiting the use of antibiotics and preventing the spread of the infection in hospitals and nursing homes. The contact precautions used include private rooms, strict hand washing, gloves and gowns.
We don't know whether a probiotic prescribed on the first day of antibiotic treatment will decrease the rising number of C. diff cases. This question needs further study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)