ISIS Beheading Executions & Praising Of Nice Terror
Home | Index of articles
Botox Could Be the New Penis Wonder Drug
As long as guys are cool with having a needle stuck in their junk.
Most people think of Botox as a cosmetic drug that does just one thing—it temporarily reduces the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles on the face by paralyzing the underlying muscles. As it turns out, Botox can do so much more: In recent years, doctors have found that it can be useful for treating a wide range of medical conditions, including chronic migraine headaches, an overactive bladder, excessive sweating, and even crossed eyes.
But that's not all. Botox, it turns out, also has the potential to help men who have concerns about the appearance and function of their penises. Here are three surprising things Botox can do down there.
It can increase flaccid penis size.
A recent survey of more than 4,000 US men found that guys' biggest complaint about their genitals was the length of their flaccid (non-erect) penises. More than one-quarter of respondents wanted theirs to be longer.
For a man who wishes he was more of a "shower," there aren't a whole lot of options on the market, short of expensive and risky surgical procedures and stretching devices that need to be worn several hours per day for months on end. Botox, however, could change that.
In a 2009 study, researchers used Botox to try and help guys who had a "hyperactive retraction reflex." In other words, these were men who experienced a lot more "shrinkage" (in the words of George Costanza) than others. Doctors made four injections around the base of the penis, with the goal of paralyzing the muscles responsible for the shrinkage reflex, known as the tunica dartos. And it worked.
Average flaccid size was about half an inch larger after the injections, and the guys didn't shrink as much in response to cold temperature. Most participants were happy with the outcome. However, it's important to note that erect size didn't change, and the effects were temporary—they lasted up to six months. So this isn't a one-shot deal—it's something you'd need to do at least a couple of times per year, just like if you were treating forehead wrinkles.
It might help guys last longer in bed.
Premature ejaculation is the most common sexual problem reported by men. There are tons of treatments out there for it already, including "delay sprays," Kegel exercises, and behavioral methods like the stop-start technique, but Botox might be another viable option in the near future.
In a 2014 study, researchers injected Botox into the bulbospongious muscle of male rats. This muscle sits at the base of the penis (see here) and is involved in ejaculation. Using Botox to paralyze this muscle can make sex last longer: For rats that received a placebo shot, their average time to ejaculation was six and a half minutes, compared to ten minutes for those that got a full dose of the drug.
There's a clinical trial underway right now to see if it works just as well in humans. We should know the results later this year, which will also tell us whether or not repeat doses are required, or if a single treatment might be enough for guys to learn more ejaculatory control.
It could help treat erectile dysfunction, too.
A new paper published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine argues that Botox could be a "game changer" when it comes to treating erectile dysfunction (ED). The thought here is that Botox could be used to paralyze the smooth muscles inside the erectile chambers of the penis. By relaxing these muscles, blood should be able to flow into the penis more easily.
A small study conducted in Egypt that was reported last year provided some initial support for this idea: Men with ED who received a Botox injection demonstrated improvements in penile blood flow. One patient, however, experienced priapism afterward—a prolonged erection that wouldn't go away on its own. This tells us that dosage is going to be very important: Too much muscle relaxation isn't a good thing.
Larger clinical trials should be underway soon, but in the meantime, it's important to highlight that any effects are going to be temporary and that once the Botox wears off, erectile difficulties will return because those muscles will start contracting and impeding blood flow again. Although it's not a permanent fix, Botox could be more appealing to some guys than Viagra due to convenience: Rather than popping a pill every time they want to have sex, they could just get a couple of shots per year.
While scientists will undoubtedly continue to explore these and other effects of Botox on the penis, this doesn't necessarily mean patient demand will follow. Indeed, we don't know yet how many men are actually going to take advantage of these discoveries in the future. After all, if you want to experience any of the benefits of "bonetox," you have to be cool with someone sticking a needle in your junk.
Why America Cares About Chemical Weapons
On April 6, Donald Trump initiated his first war, by launching dozens of cruise missiles against the Syrian regime, following its use of chemical weapons. U.S. officials have offered a variety of motives for the use of force—but many of them aren’t compelling. First of all, there’s the need to defend American credibility when opponents cross a red line. This may help to explain why the United States launched cruise missiles, but not why the red line was originally drawn around the use of chemical weapons. In addition, Trump claimed that Syria had “violated its obligations” under the Chemical Weapons Convention. But he’s shown little interest before in the value of global legal structures. Trump also said the attack might kick start a peace process: “I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria.” But the American strike has only widened divisions with Russia and Iran.
Perhaps the most powerful argument for the attack is the unique horror of chemical weapons. Trump claimed that chemical weapons are “very barbaric” particularly when employed against a “child of God.” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer suggested that a chemical strike is the worst possible act of war: “You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons.” (Given the employment of gas chambers in the Holocaust, Spicer later apologized for a misplaced analogy.)
But are chemical weapons really uniquely horrific? Using sarin nerve gas against innocent civilians is undoubtedly evil. But chemical weapons are not exceptionally terrible in the scale of suffering. In Syria, for every civilian murdered in a chemical attack, hundreds have been killed by conventional means. Neither are chemical weapons uniquely brutal in the manner of death. Asphyxiation by gas is truly horrifying—as is being lacerated by shells or tortured to death in Bashar al-Assad’s gulag archipelago.
The focus on the means of killing, rather than the amount of killing, can seem arbitrary. During the Rwandan genocide in 1994, Hutu militias killed 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus with machetes and small arms. Let’s imagine that the militias followed this up by murdering a further 80 Tutsis in a chemical weapons attack. It would be absurd if the international community ignored the genocide, and then intervened after the chemical strike.
The core underlying reason for the U.S. air strike is rarely if ever discussed in public: upholding the norm against chemical weapons gives the United States a strategic edge, by helping the U.S. military win wars.
U.S. officials want to keep warfare limited to a traditional model where one army fights another army on a clear battlefield, and everyone wears uniforms. The reason is that the United States will almost always emerge victorious. Ask Mexico, the Confederacy, Spain, Germany, Japan, Grenada, Panama, or Iraq, what it’s like to fight a straight up conventional war against the U.S. military. Today, Washington is pouring billions of dollars into big-ticket hardware like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which further entrenches America’s advantage in conventional fighting.
The United States has an interest in shaping global norms so that tactics and technologies that fit the traditional model are viewed as “good war” or morally acceptable. This includes bombing, shelling, and shooting. Just last week, the United States dropped “the mother of all bombs,” or the 21,000-pound Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, on an ISIS position in Afghanistan.
At first glance, drones might seem like a morally dubious technology. Hundreds of civilians have died as a result of U.S. drone strikes around the world. Insurgent groups like Hezbollah have begun to use primitive drones. Terrorists could easily employ drones to deliver bombs. One might think that Western countries would push for some kind of international convention to prohibit or limit their use. But the U.S. military finds drones extremely useful. And so, there’s barely a squeak from official Washington about the ethics of flying robots of death.
By contrast, other tactics and technologies that deviate from the conventional war template are treated as “bad war” or illegitimate. This includes anything that might level the playing field or give weaker actors a fighting chance, like terrorism or insurgency.
Which brings us to chemical weapons. The United States has an interest in preventing the use of chemical weapons. The U.S. military doesn’t need these tools in the same way it needs drones. Chemical weapons would complicate life in wartime for American soldiers, who would have to carry protective gear. Chemical weapons also have an undoubted psychological impact that terrorists and rogue states could utilize.
Therefore, the United States and other powerful actors cultivate the image of chemical weapons as the epitome of barbarism. Boosting the perceived evil, chemical weapons are lumped in with nuclear and biological weapons in the famed “weapons of mass destruction” category—even though nuclear weapons are vastly more dangerous.
A good test of whether the chemical weapons taboo is really about ethics or interests is to ask how the United States would respond if an ally used these weapons. Fortunately—or unfortunately—such a test exists. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Saddam Hussein was viewed as a secular sentinel holding back radical theocratic Iran. When Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, killing 6,800 civilians, the United States barely even protested. Washington knew that Saddam was to blame, but U.S. diplomats were nevertheless instructed to say that Iran was partly responsible. Washington pushed a UN Security Council resolution that muddied the waters by calling on both Iraq and Iran “to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons.”
Sometimes, the United States moves tactics from the bad war box to the good war box. Traditionally, the assassination of foreign leaders was held to be morally reprehensible. In 1938, the British military attaché in Berlin suggested assassinating Adolf Hitler to avert a European war, but London rejected the plot as “unsportsmanlike.” In the 1970s, President Gerald Ford issued an executive order renouncing assassination.
The norm against assassination doesn’t make a lot of inherent sense. If you can invade another country and destroy its military, why can’t you kill the enemy leader and perhaps avoid a war entirely? In a detailed study of the norm against assassination, Ward Thomas found that the taboo emerged in the 17th century because it served the interests of powerful countries by placing their leaders off-limits from personal attack.
It is the secret dream of every Swedish or German woman to marry a black men, or at least have sex with a black man. Every smart young African man should migrate to Europe. Free money, nice house, good sex!
ways to make your woman scream your name in bed
It doesn’t matter if you’re hitting the rights spots or not – if you last only 30 seconds there’s no way your partner is going to have orgasms. simple and short..This article will tell you of the super effective method to bring your partner to orgasm, and 1 super effective method to make yourself last longer in bed. Click Here now for the gist.
Talking about giving your woman Massive Orgasm In Bed, do you know that female orgasm will never be possible if you the man don’t Last Long in bed?
If you ever desire happiness in your Home and bedroom, you must look for a solution to your 1 min in bed problem, If you are not lasting 25+ Min in bed already, Chances are that your dear wife or girlfriend is having an affair outside with probably your gate man who can satisfy her in Bed.
Here is why, studies has shown than 87% of Women require at least 20 Min of active intense Sexual performance to be able to climax. While most men Ejaculate within 1 to 2 Min.
Stop Dreaming And Face the reality…
Your Dream of making your wife, girlfriend remain glued to you will never be possible if you refuse to work on your sex life.
Woman are one of the funniest creature I have ever encountered. At first, they will pretend and Make it look as if your bedroom performance doesn’t matter and letter on, when its time for the game, you will seen her positioning herself to receive your D!CK
Women and Sex are a huge part of my life and therefore — I take a massive interest in FEMALE SEXUALITY. In fact, I teach men how to SEXUALLY SATISFY their women..
Women Love Good Sex! Not just any type of sex, but good sex – the type that makes them scream your name with pleasure as they get intense orgasms. The Only Guaranteed Way Of Giving them Good Sex is to Last At least 20Min During Sex. See How If You dont last long, then you are on your own.
Stop giving your woman reasons to cheat, stop making her cry when you are not around, stop giving her half baked sex. Take control of your bedroom.
Home | Index of articles