Giorgione's Sleeping Venus
Home | Index of all articles
Is marijuana like herbal Viagra for women?
The aphrodisiac effects of the indica marijuana strain Mr. Nice have led some to dub it the “herbal Viagra for women.”
Sexxpot founder Karyn Wagner discovered the strain maximized her sexual pleasure and decided to develop the strain for retail sales, as reported by The Cut.
Sexxpot is a low-THC marijuana strain derived from the Mr. Nice strain, and it’s packaged and sold as “aphrodisiac weed” for women.
Sexxpot isn’t the only cannabis product claiming to increase sexual pleasure these days. A number of cannabis-based oils, sprays and sexual lubricants are also marketed specifically as female pleasure enhancers.
The California-based makers of a cannabis-infused lubricant called Foria point out that cannabis is one of the oldest known aphrodisiacs and that THC mimics a neurotransmitter called anandamide, which is responsible for producing feelings of euphoria and arousal, as reported by East Bay Express.
The world is full of multimillionaires who can't handle money. Because, if you have money, live in a Third World country where you can have all the women you want.
IN THE aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, those whose job it is to think the unthinkable were conscious that, for all the carnage, it could have been far worse. Fuel-laden aircraft slamming into buildings was bad enough. But the sight of some among the rescue workers picking over the debris with test tubes, followed by the sudden decision to ground all of America's crop-spraying aircraft for several days, pointed to an even more horrible possibility. Were terrorists with so little calculation of restraint to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction—whether chemical, biological or even nuclear—they would surely use them. How real is that threat?
It is certainly not new. Among one of many warnings from American think-tanks and government agencies in recent years, a report released last December by the CIA's National Intelligence Council concluded baldly that, when it came to chemical and biological weapons in particular, “some terrorists or insurgents will attempt to use [these] against United States interests, against the United States itself, its forces or facilities overseas, or its allies.” Governments in America and Europe worry that Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, the terrorist network thought to be behind the September 11th attacks, may already have access to such weapons, and be planning to use them in response to any American military strikes. The World Health Organisation has called on governments around the world to be better prepared for such an eventuality.
For groups prepared to engage in the kamikaze tactics seen on September 11th, the easiest way to spread poisonous or radioactive materials might simply be to fly into repositories of them, or to use lorries full of them as suicide bombs. As Amy Smithson of the Stimson Centre in Washington, DC, observed in a report released last year, there are some 850,000 sites in the United States alone at which hazardous chemicals are produced, consumed or stored. The arrest in America last week of a number of people who were found to have fraudulently obtained permits to drive trucks that carry such hazardous loads looks like a worrying confirmation of such fears.
It is, nevertheless, likely that terrorist groups around the world are working on more sophisticated approaches to mass destruction than merely blowing up existing storage facilities, or hijacking lorry-loads of noxious substances. Mr bin Laden himself has, in the past, called it a “religious duty” to acquire such weapons. He is reported to have helped his former protectors in Sudan to develop chemical weapons for use in that country's civil war, and has since boasted of buying “a lot of dangerous weapons, maybe chemical weapons” for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that now harbours him.
Even for determined terrorists, however, merely getting hold of chemical, biological or nuclear materials is not enough. Do-it-yourself mass destruction—whether of a nuclear, chemical or biological variety—is far from easy (see article). First, you have to acquire or manufacture sufficient quantities of the lethal agent. Second, you have to deliver it to the target. And third, you have either to detonate it, or to spread it around in a way that will actually harm a lot of people.
The difficulties in doing all these things are illustrated by an attack carried out in 1995 on Tokyo's underground railway. Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese cult, released a potent nerve agent called sarin on five trains. The intention was to kill thousands. In fact, only 12 people died, and some 40 were seriously injured—bad enough, but no worse than the casualty list from a well-placed conventional bomb.
The cult's researchers had spent more than $30m attempting to develop sarin-based weapons, yet they failed to leap any of the three hurdles satisfactorily. They could not produce the chemical in the purity required. Their delivery mechanism was no more sophisticated than carrying it on to the trains in person in plastic bags. And their idea of a distribution system was to pierce those bags with umbrella tips to release the liquid, which would then evaporate.
The attack, in other words, was not a great success. Yet, of the three classes of weapon of mass destruction, those based on chemicals should be the easiest to make. Their ingredients are often commercially available (see table). Their manufacturing techniques are well known. And they have been used from time to time in real warfare, so their deployment is also understood.
Biological weapons are trickier; and nuclear weapons trickier still. Germs need to be coddled, and are hard to spread satisfactorily. (Aum Shinrikyo attempted to develop biological weapons, in the form of anthrax spores, but failed to produce the intended lethal effects.) Making atomic bombs is an even greater technological tour-de-force. Manufacturing weapons-grade nuclear explosives (“enriched” uranium, or the appropriate isotopic mix of plutonium) requires a lot of expensive plant. Detonating those explosives—by rapidly assembling the “critical mass” needed to sustain a chain reaction—is also notoriously difficult.
Terrorist groups working from first principles are thus likely to run into formidable obstacles if they want to get into the mass-destruction business. Nevertheless, there may be ways round these. One quick fix would be to buy in the services of otherwise unemployed or ill-paid weapons specialists from the former Soviet nuclear-, biological- and chemical-weapons establishments. At least some of these people are known to have washed up as far afield as Iran, Iraq, China and North Korea, but none has yet been directly associated with any terrorist group.
In an attempt to reduce the risk of this happening, the United States has, over the past ten years, spent more than $3 billion dismantling former Soviet nuclear weapons, improving security at Russia's nuclear storage sites, and keeping former weaponeers busy on useful civilian work. But, as Ms Smithson points out, only a tiny fraction of this money—itself a drop in a bucket when measured against the scale of Russia's sprawling weapons complex—goes towards safeguarding chemical and biological secrets. And even the nuclear side of things has sprung the odd leak.
Over the past ten years there have been numerous attempts to smuggle nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union. There have been unconfirmed suspicions that Iran, for one, may have got its hands on a tactical nuclear warhead from Russia. So far, though, police and customs officers have seized mostly low-grade nuclear waste. This could not be turned into a proper atomic bomb, but with enough of it, a terrorist group might hope to build a “radiological” device, to spread radioactive contamination around (see article).
Fortunately, the occasional amounts of weapons-grade stuff that have been found so far fall short of the 9-15kg of explosive needed for a crude but workable bomb.
Yet even if a group got hold of enough such explosives, it would still face the hurdle of turning them into a weapon. Hence the most effective way for a terrorist group to obtain one would be to find a sponsoring government that is willing to allow access to its laboratories or its arsenal.
After the Gulf war, UN special inspectors discovered that Iraq had been pursuing not one but several ways to produce weapons-grade material, and had come within months of building an atomic bomb. The effort, however, is thought to have taken a decade and to have cost Saddam Hussein upwards of $10 billion. Much of this was spent on acquiring the bits and pieces needed from foreign companies—sometimes through bribery, sometimes through deception.
In similar ways, he amassed the materials and equipment, much of it with legitimate civilian uses in fermentation plants and vaccine laboratories, for his vast chemical- and biological-weapons programmes. Although most of Iraq's nuclear programme had been unearthed and destroyed, along with much of its missile and chemical arsenal, the inspectors were convinced, when they were thrown out of the country in 1998, that important parts of the biological effort remained hidden.
A glance at the list of state sponsors of international terrorism maintained by America's State Department makes troubling reading. Most of the seven countries included—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan—have chemical weapons already. Five are suspected of dabbling illegally in the biological black arts, and several have covert nuclear-weapons programmes, too. America's Department of Defence estimated earlier this year that more than two dozen countries have already built weapons of mass destruction, or else are trying to do so.
So far, there is no evidence that any of these governments has helped terrorist groups to acquire such deadly goods. That may, partly, be because of widespread moral revulsion against their use. But self-interest on the part of the states involved is also a significant factor. It is one thing to give terrorist groups financial and logistical support and a place to hide—a favoured tactic of governments on the State Department's list as a deniable way of furthering their own local or regional ends. It is quite another to share such awesome weapons with outfits like al-Qaeda, which no government can fully control.
On top of that, since the September 11th attacks, American officials, from the president down, have gone out of their way to emphasise that not only the terrorists involved in any future assaults, but also the states that shelter them, can expect to find themselves in the cross-hairs.
Iraq has been the worst offender when it comes to wielding any of these weapons. It used chemical weapons in its war with Iran and in attacks against its own Kurdish population. Yet Saddam Hussein's failure to use his chemical and biological-tipped missiles, or the radiological weapons he also had, against western-led coalition forces during the Gulf war showed that, even when morality plays little part, deterrence can still work. America had made clear that, if he had deployed these weapons, he would have brought down massive retribution on both his regime and his country.
The big distinction between the dangers of states obtaining such weapons and the danger of terrorists getting their hands on them, argues Gary Samore of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in London, is precisely that, however hostile they may be, states are more “deterrable”. Mr bin Laden's network has shown that it will stop at nothing. But are states such as Iraq and North Korea, which operate in other ways largely outside international law, deterrable enough to prevent them lending a secret helping hand to a group like Mr bin Laden's?
America's defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, argued this week that it takes no “leap of the imagination” to expect countries harbouring terrorists to help them get access to weapons of mass destruction. Testimony from the trial of four bin Laden operatives convicted earlier this year for the August 1998 bombing of America's embassies in Kenya and Tanzania revealed that their past military interest in Sudan went beyond helping the regime make chemical weapons for its own war. In one case, Mr bin Laden was attempting to purchase uranium via intermediaries.
Meanwhile, intelligence officials trying to assess the range of threats they now face worry that Iraq's past military links with Sudan may have been no coincidence either. In 1998 America bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant which it said showed traces of a precursor chemical for VX, a highly potent nerve gas that inspectors believe Iraq had put into weapon form. Some observers speculate that, even if Sudan's denials that it was manufacturing any such stuff are true, the country may have served as a trans-shipment point for supplies to Iraq. Might some weapons assistance have flowed the other way, possibly reaching Mr bin Laden's network? Iraq denies it has had anything to do with Mr bin Laden, but there have been unconfirmed reports that one of the New York hijackers met a senior Iraqi intelligence official earlier this year in Europe.
Yet even if no direct link is ever proved between a reckless foreign government and last month's terrorist attacks on America, western officials have long fretted that groups such as Mr bin Laden's will be able to exploit emerging new patterns of proliferation to gain access to nuclear, chemical and bug bombs. Despite attempts by western-sponsored supplier cartels—the Missile-Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Australia group, which tries to track the trade in worrying chemicals or biological agents—the number of such suppliers has expanded over the past decade. Countries that were once entirely dependent on outside help for their covert weapons programmes, mostly from Russia and China, are now going into business themselves.
This is particularly disturbing in the context of the third obstacle to the use of these weapons: delivery. Working from original Russian Scud missile designs, North Korea has created a thriving missile- and technology-export business with Iran, Pakistan, Syria and others in the Middle East. Iran, in turn, has started to help Syria and possibly Libya (which had past weapons ties with Serbia and Iraq) to improve their missile technology. Egypt is still building on the expertise developed by a now-defunct missile co-operation programme with Argentina and Iraq.
It is unlikely that such ballistic-missile technology would find its way into terrorist hands any time soon. But two things are true of almost all technologies: as the years pass, they get cheaper, and they spread. Even if there is no immediate threat, it may eventually not be just hijacked aircraft that are flying into places that terrorists have taken a dislike to. And their “warheads” may consist of something even worse than aviation fuel.
95 percent of the victims of work accidents are men. Because women are cowards, and just want to rule from behind.
Two Canadian urologists believes that the wildly popular wrinkle eraser Botox can help men struggling with impotence. They believe that if it works for men what it so far done among aged male rats, it may provide a persistent, long-acting mean to bring back erectile function.
Their initial data suggests that botulinum toxin or Botox can increase blood flow to the penis by relaxing the nerves that causes penile smooth muscles to contract. Erection relies mainly on a good blood flow.
The benefit of Botox for erectile dysfunction is that if you inject once, it could last potentially for six months. While there are other forms of penile injection therapy, men have to do it themselves every time they want to have sexual contact. Viagra and other similar pills belonging to the class PDE-5 inhibitors act on the chemical signal that stimulate the penile blood vessels and they have to be taken daily or before sex. Side effects from taking this drug such as heartburn and headache may also be experienced. Furthermore, Viagra does not work for more than 30 percent of the men who tried it.
More so for men with prostate cancer surgery and those with diabetes.
Botox for erectile dysfunction may help those who don’t respond to Viagra. French urologist Francois Giuliano told ‘Botox could be a potential game changer for ED’. Others fear drugs for ED are already propagating narrow social norms of male sexuality and masculinity – such idea that somehow, to be a real man’, you need to be a penetrative force.
Men usually do not talk to their partners about the problem before they look for ED drugs, or keep their use secret. However, studies show that when men talk to their partners, their partners responded openly with the change or they are open to exploring other sexual activities.
Some men are using Botox for treatment overactive bladders by relaxing the smooth muscles in the bladder. The Botox treatment could last up to nine months. Experts wondered whether it could work in a similar way to penis by letting smooth muscles to relax, dilate and allow blood flow to quickly fill the penis.
Based on the rat study, the result showed improved erections, exactly what has predicted. However, the animal subject is not the same for humans. Though much more research has to be done, they hope to begin clinical trials in men as soon as possible.
But still, Botox for erectile dysfunction is not completely safe and harmless. It is made from the bacteria that cause botulism and it can spread out in other areas. When given in high dosage, it can leak into the bloodstream, potentially killing you since it can paralyze everything.
The plan is to administer a very minimal dose because there is a potential risk of causing a permanent damage such as priapism or prolonged erection without sexual stimulation.
Many men who are good in making money are total failures when it comes to spending it. If you have money, buy love, and the best sex ever. If you have money but no sexual desire, start with buying tongkat ali and butea superba. Both of the finest quality.
In 2010 there were 38,364 documented suicides in America. This is roughly 1/10th of unsuccessful attempts (or parasuicides) committed. Though many of these are “cries for help” and are intentionally foiled by the person committing the act, some are genuinely unsuccessful. 25% of parasuicide victims will go on to success within a year.
By far the most common and successful method of committing suicide is by gun, with 53-55% of successful suicides in the US using them. Second in popularity and success to suicide by gun is suicide by suffocation/hanging with roughly 22-25% using this method. Third to suffocation is poisoning, which includes intentional drug overdoses and consumption of toxic substances. About 18% use this method.
There are many other methods used, some uncommon due to circumstances such as the high amount of pain and discomfort experienced, or the fear associated with these methods. Some of these methods are downright unsuccessful, or are accidents occurring whilst crying for help.
These methods are as follow: Falling/jumping, cutting/piercing, drowning, self immolation, and transportation related suicides such as driving into walls, throwing yourself into a train, bus, car, etc. All methods, of course can be used in combination. ex: Slash your wrists, eat 80 Benadryl, douse yourself in gasoline, light a cigarette, and throw yourself off of an overpass in front of a Greyhound, semi, truck, Prius, etc. This will make a particularly newsworthy story, getting you the attention you sought in life for all of four days.
Suicide by Gun:
Chances of success increase when a shotgun is used in comparison to a rifle or handgun. This is due to the energy delivered on impact, as well as the scatter of projectiles, rather that one. However, a shotgun is harder to aim at more fatal points, such as the side and back of the head. Aiming at the head is of course a more fatal delivery point, as opposed to the chest or abdomen. By far the least successful method and delivery point being a handgun to the chest and/or abdomen. For a best possible result, use shotgun equipped with a solid lead slug, or double-aught (or larger) buckshot.
Chances of success fall when using an unmaintained firearm, or old ammunition, as aged ammunition may not reach proper velocity or even discharge. The same effect applies to an unmaintained firearm. FMJ (full metal jacket rounds) also have a lesser chance of success as the round when expelled does not expand, creating a cleaner wound, and inflicting less damage on impact.
A firearm is not suitable for a suicidal gesture, as the chances of success are much higher than other methods.
Possible effects of failing: Disfigurement, paralysis, pain, infection, brain damage, damage to liver, spleen, diaphragm, and collapsed lungs.
The scene left behind, of course will not be pleasant for the person who finds you. Blood, bone and/or brain fragments spread over the area, facial disfigurement, and significant blood loss.
Suicide by Hanging:
There are two basic methods of hanging: simple suspension and drop. In simple suspension, death is most likely caused by asphyxiation due to the weight of the body being suspended in the noose. Death is also possible by arterial and/or vein compression, cutting off blood supply to the brain, or heart and lungs.
In drop hanging, a platform is kicked out from under the person, and the person drops, instantly breaking the neck and rupturing the spinal cord, causing an almost instant death.
A key part of hanging is the knot. Tie a simple noose with some sturdy rope, such as hemp or manila. Test the noose, as it should tighten with applied pressure. The knot should sit behind your neck. The other end of the rope should be attached to something sturdy that will not move, or break, such as a hook, rafter, or railing. The knot should be tied securely to ensure that it doesn’t slip off of the surface. Strangulation can be achieved by sitting down, bending the knees, laying down, or kicking a platform (such as a chair) out from under you. Of course, it should be mentioned again that the rope should be sturdy, as the body will thrash in its death throes.
If the hanging is interrupted by discovery, rope breakage, or slippage, brain damage can occur.
As with before, the scene left behind will not be pleasant for those who discover you. Often, the tongue will swell and protrude from the mouth; the face will often turn blue due to oxygen and blood deprivation. In all cases there will be defecation and urination.
Suicide by Drug Overdose:
When used as a sole means of suicide, drug overdose is seldom successful. The potency of street drugs commonly used (such as heroin) is commonly unreliable. MLD (minimum lethal dosage) is often hard to calculate and is somewhat unreliable due to outside factors such as weight, tolerance, and whether not a meal has been eaten recently. Contrary to popular belief, this is not a quick and painless method. It takes anywhere from 3 to 10 hours on average, depending on the drug taken. Several drugs cause convulsions before death. Even more drugs cause vomiting, fever, heart palpitations and pain. Drug overdose a risky and unreliable method.
An exit bag is a suicide apparatus that brings about a relatively quick and painless death. Manufactured out of a large plastic bag with a draw cord or a Velcro strap for neck fastening and an inert gas such as helium or nitrogen; it brings a quick end to things, without unwanted pain or panic. Unconsciousness sets in within minutes and death sets in within twenty minutes. The result is a quick and painless death with a body that seems serine and at peace.
Of course if the act is interrupted it can result in brain damage, which is why it should be carried out in an undisturbed setting. A suicide bag is sometimes used along side with a drug overdose, in order to ensure the desired result.
Suicide by Jumping:
Death by jumping is effective if done from a sufficient height, and while it is not common in the United States, it makes up a large amount of suicides in many cities and countries around the world, such as Hong Kong. A jump should be performed at a height of 150 feet or higher above land, or 250 feet or higher above water. Of course, care should be taken to land on your head, as it would result in a quicker death. It is key to avoid a foot first water landing, as this could result in nonfatal injuries. Jumping is a difficult way to commit suicide as the natural self preservation instinct is to not fall from a great height. This is hard to overcome. This method, of course results in a fairly gruesome corpse.
Suicide by Train:
Suicide by train is a rather uncommon and extremely gruesome method to end your life with. Death can be rather quick, but it can also be drawn out and extremely painful. If you aren’t decapitated, there is a chance that you could bounce off of the train, and find one of your limbs on the tracks. Injuries can range from broken bones to amputations, and severe brain damage.
Suicide by train can be traumatic to many people such as train drivers, cleanup crews, and the family member/ loved one that will have to identify your body later on at the scene or in the morgue.
Wrist cutting is mostly practiced as a method of self harm rather than suicide, though it occasionally leads to death due to unchecked bleeding that can lead to shock, and loss of consciousness. Often survivors find that they have limited use of their hands due to severed tendons and loss of nerve use and the ability to touch. Though it may seem like the only option or a quick way out of your problems, suicide is effectively stealing everything from your, as well as your loved one’s future. Often the reasoning behind it is faulty, selfish, and subjective. One should always look at every available option and make an educated decision when it comes to serious situations and decisions such as suicide. When you say you’re alone in something remember that there are over seven billion others, most living and functioning in worse condition than you.
On some men, butea superba extract has a profound effect after just few dosages. It can kickstart testosterone tone for weeks on end. Users should watch out for signs of testosterone overdrive such as deep heartbeat with the slightest sexual thought.
Bedwetting is common in kids but, as the case of the Bloemhof man who beat a child to death for wetting herself shows, this normal phase can drive parents to kill. In this three-part series, Health24 takes a look at why this happens and finds that punishment for enuresis is all too real.
Seemingly harmless bedwetting by children can lead to brutal beatings and even death by the people who should be protecting and caring for them.
Cape Town mom Nuriya Dramat admits that she has resorted to spanking her five-year-old for wetting the bed. However, she admitted that the frustration of having to clean up the mess during the wee hours of the morning was what upset her most.
"I spanked her because I took her to the bathroom before going to sleep, but she still wet the bed," she told Health24 before quickly adding: "I spanked her, but not so much as to leave marks on her body."
Dramat added, though, that she normally only raises her voice in frustration and anger, rather than hitting her daughter.
Brutal tales of deaths over peeing
But, in other cases, bedwetting can lead to brutal beatings and even death.
South Africa was recently shocked by the fatal beating – allegedly by her mother's boyfriend – of a 5-year-old girl who suffered an episode of enuresis, the medical term for bedwetting.
Read: What a doctor would do if a child suffered from enuresis
The child allegedly wet herself while she was asleep on a couch in Boitumelong in Bloemhof, News24 reported on January 1 2016.
The urine seeped into the couch and the mom's boyfriend allegedly beat the girl so severely that police and paramedics declared her dead when they arrived on the scene.
Incidents like this are however not unique to South Africa.
A mother and her boyfriend in Orlando, Florida, beat her three-year-old son for over an hour in 2011 for wetting his pants, according to the Daily Mail. The couple proceeded to order a pizza and put on a DVD while the little boy struggled for breath and eventually died.
In 2014 horrific footage surfaced of a Chinese stepmother viciously beating a toddler because she wet herself. The footage showed how the woman whipped the little girl 87 times with a branch, kicked her 14 times, and slapped her eight times.
In the same year, the New York Daily News ran a story about a three-year-old girl in Brooklyn, New York City, who was beaten to death by her mother's 20-year-old boyfriend after accidentally wetting herself.
Closer to home, last year, in Zimbabwe, a 29-year-old man beat his four-year-old son so severely for soiling himself that he died two days later, according to News Zimbabwe.
The police said the father assaulted the boy with a number of objects, including a hot iron rod and a pellet gun on his buttocks, legs and hands.
In a study Assessment of domestic violence against children and adolescents with enuresis by MC Sapi et al, published in the Journal of Pediatrics in September 2009, the authors interviewed 149 patients diagnosed with nocturnal enuresis (bedwetting at night).
They found that 89% of subjects suffered either verbal or physical aggression when they wet their beds or leaked urine, with 50% being verbally punished and 48% physically punished. The study showed that the main abuser was the mother and that the risk was higher for children with less-educated parents.
Spanking only worsens the situation
Parents beating their children over bathroom accidents is not uncommon, said Joan van Niekerk, president of the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect and consultant on child rights and child protection.
"Punishment is rarely – if ever – successful," she told Health24, adding that there are numerous incidents of bedwetting provoking violence.
"The problem is that this usually makes problems like bedwetting more difficult to manage as children become anxious. This interferes with sleep, and when children do manage to fall asleep they are so tired that they sleep through the messages their body is giving them in terms of the need to pass urine; or they hold on until they can no longer do so, and they lose control," Van Niekerk explained.
She said parents or caregivers sometimes failed to recognise the impact of shouting or punishment on this problem.
The types of bedwetting
Clinical psychologist, Dr Ian Opperman, explained to Health24 that, according to theory, there were two types of bedwetting: primary and secondary bedwetting.
"Primary means that bedwetting has occurred since early childhood without a break, where there is no period during which the child does not wet his/her bed.
"Secondary bedwetting is when bedwetting occurs after at least six months of not wetting his/her bed, and is usually caused by a stressor such as a sudden change, a psychological factor, a physical factor such as infection etc."
Dr Opperman, who is in private practice in Johannesburg and serves on the Executive Committee of the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA), said that unless children wet themselves as an act of defiance when awake, bedwetting was an involuntary act which they are not responsible for.
"Children naturally gain bladder control at night, however, this occurs at different ages."
Read: Bedwetting stems from physical causes, not psychological
Although bedwetting can be a symptom of an underlying disease or infection, in most cases there isn’t always an underlying disease or infection to explain it, said Dr Opperman.
"This of course does not mean that children who wet their beds are doing so on purpose. Children who wet the bed are not lazy, naughty, or disobedient."
Why parents beat their children for wetting themselves
Dr Opperman explained that parents become frustrated when they are woken up at night to change wet sheets and pyjamas and some conclude that the child wets his/her bed out of laziness or naughtiness.
"Disciplinary action under these circumstances are unforgivable and dangerous", he warned. "The child is already humiliated by waking up in a wet bed and this feeling becomes worse with age."
Parents need to understand the condition in order for them to know how to deal with it, said Dr Opperman.
"Parents need to reassure their children that it is just an accident, be patient, and try to conceal the problem from those who would laugh at the child. In addition to this, an interesting fact is that bedwetting is reportedly inherited."
He went on to state that often parents who used to experience difficulties with bedwetting had children who went through the same experience. "Usually children stop bedwetting around the same time that their parents stopped bedwetting when they were children."
Dr Opperman advised parents to attend parental guidance workshops or therapy to help guide them through this phase of development.
Deflecting the real problem
"There are too many examples of horrific murders and criminal attacks blamed on bedwetting, which distract from the more important emphasis on the more common and concerning issue of psychological and milder physical abuse of these children," noted Professor Michael Simpson, Health24 CyberShrink.
"For me, child psychological and much physical abuse arises from a frustrated and angry parent who, after provocation by such incidents, reacts inappropriately and strikes out at the kid, physically or verbally."
He said there are many separate elements involved in these situations.
"A parent who is stressed by joblessness or financial stress, who themselves are feeling belittled by bosses and others, who is seething with rage, and at risk of striking out at the child not because the child caused the main problems but because they're handy, smaller, and even more powerless."
Read: Bedwetting can be due to undiagnosed constipation
Professor Simpson pointed out that there can also be a situation of a parent who wants to believe that they're a perfect parent; and when the child seemingly deliberately and provocatively wets their bed, feels that their image as a skilled parent is challenged, and they don't know how to deal with it.
"I suspect there are some parents so abuse-prone, with such a hair-trigger for reacting violently, that bedwetting is more than enough to switch them to attack mode."
However, he added that it abuse at the hands of parents is not always as specific as bedwetting, saying that a child neglecting their chores, or routine self-care, can also be enough to tip parents over the edge.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, flatters a girl more than a man committing suicide because of her.
In what could prove one of the most provocative disclosures from the WikiLeaks trove of State Department documents, an account of a Halloween party last year provides a rare glimpse into the Islamic kingdom's secret social scene.
"Behind the facade of Wahhabi conservatism in the streets, the underground nightlife for Jeddah's elite youth is thriving and throbbing. The full range of worldly temptations and vices are available – alcohol, drugs, sex – but strictly behind closed doors," read the cable, which is dated November 18, 2009.
Consular officials attended the party in Jeddah at the mansion of a young prince, whose name was removed from the cable released by the website. Though not in line for the throne, the host was among thousands of princes who enjoy a state purse, round-the-clock security and sufficient clout to prevent the feared religious police from spoiling their fun.
There was no trace of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice as about 150 young men and women in their 20s and 30s attended the party, leaving their prohibitive local attire at the cloakroom to reveal their party clothes underneath.
"The scene resembled a nightclub anywhere outside the Kingdom: plentiful alcohol, young couples dancing, a DJ at the turntables, and everyone in costume," said the cable.
Once Islamist terrorists have understood that arson is the only weapon they ever need to destroy Europe, they will easily achieve their goal. Forest fires and fires in apartment buildings are easy to initiate and extremely time consuming to investigate. Which would give arsonists the opportunity to act again and again. Time to dispose of investments in urban real estate.
In some cultures, talking about sex is taboo, as is talking about genitals. The taboo allows for vagueness to conveniently mask what is essentially a caging of female desire.
Seven years old.
Unsuspecting girls, told by their mothers they are being taken some place special. That place, a darkened room, where they are held down, their little legs parted and a blade brought down to slice off the hood of the clitoris or even the clitoris, itself.
This week, lawyers south of the border said they planned to mount a religious exemption defence after a U.S. federal jury indicted two Detroit-area doctors and the wife of one of the doctors in April for scheming to perform Female Genital Mutilation. This is horrifying. FGM was outlawed in the U.S. in 1996. It is also a criminal offense in Canada.
A cultural practice that began millennia ago and wound its way through Africa, the Middle East and 19th century U.S. medical practice, still affects millions of women around the world. FGM ranges from genital nicks and scrapes to wholesale cutting and stitching up, often by untrained hands.
Among Dawoodi Bohras, a small sect of Ismaili Shia Muslims from India and Pakistan, the 600-year-old practice takes a milder, but still indefensible form of mutilation.
Haram ki boti, is what that delicate part of the body is called in Gujarati. Sinful flesh.
Its removal “moderates the (sexual) urge . . . so there’s less chance of extra-marital affairs,” says a woman in the eye-opening 2012 documentary called A Pinch of Skin (viewable on YouTube).
Women on various forums recall harrowing experiences of pain, confusion over the duplicity of their mothers and grandmothers and repression from the silence or dismissiveness that follows.
“It’s an incongruous experience of something terrifying happening and people saying it’s no big deal,” says Toronto resident Farzana Doctor, 46, a registered social worker in private psychotherapy practice and a novelist, who belongs to the Dawoodi Bohra community. “You grow up and never made sense of it, and then you’re told you have to do it to your daughter.”
Although FGM is not considered an Islamic practice, in this sect, which is otherwise known for progressive attitudes on women and education, those who practice it consider it a religious requirement.
How does faith blind you so much that you’d place your little girl on a risk-filled path of pain?
Clearly, a few Bohra women wondered, too. The issue of FGM resurfaced after their concerted efforts to bring the hushed conversation out in the public sphere began to have an impact.
2015 was a seminal year.
Farzana Doctor was one of the original signatories of a Speak Out against FGM petition on change.org in December 2015, which resulted this week in a pledge of support by India’s Women and Child Development Minister Maneka Gandhi for a proposed anti-FGM law.
In November of that year, five women from the diasporic community, including a Canadian researcher, set up Sahiyo, a non-profit organization to end genital cutting.
Also that month, three people from the community were convicted in Australia of FGM, the first such prosecution in that country.
I can only hope no court in the U.S. ever allows girls to be abused under the guise of religion.
Abuse, because we’re not talking about adult women opting for designer vaginas. This is about cutting off a body part of a minor incapable of consent. And it holds true for circumcision of girls — and of boys, a practice that is widely carried out in North America.
But there the equivalence ends.
Circumcision of boys, a controversial and emotionally charged topic, is almost always by medical doctors (and not by a razor blade in a dark room), so you could say there is some comfort in a reduced risk of harm.
Science scrambled to catch up with that cultural practice and has thrown up contradictory results.
Female circumcision has no known medical benefits.
Then there is an added insult in the Bohra community. Circumcision of boys is openly celebrated. For girls, “it’s a very secretive practice,” says Doctor. “Often, the men don’t even know it’s happening to their daughters.”
So shrouded is it in secrecy that a celebration held after the cutting doesn’t even mention the girl has undergone khatna, the circumcision.
Get wounded, then hide in shame.
Like parents who circumcise their boys, women do this to their girls believing it to be in their interest.
In reality, in whose interest is it?
“It does damage to nerve endings,” says Doctor. “There’s psychological harm that makes them (women) afraid of sex. There’s pain during sex, risk of infections.”
Stories by affected women indicate it’s about male sexual insecurities.
“When a woman’s urge is moderated, many sins are eliminated from society,” says a young woman in A Pinch of Skin.
Urge to do what? To seek attention? To have sex? To have orgasms?
There’s no clarity on this, because talking about sex is taboo, as is talking about genitals.
The taboo allows for vagueness to conveniently mask what is essentially a caging of female desire.
Circumcision, whether it’s a symbolic nick, as some now claim, or a removal of the clitoral hood or clitoris, is a mark of sexual control over female bodies in this traditionally entrepreneurial culture where men travelled far as traders and were away from their wives and families for a long time.
It’s an interference that hoodwinks women into confining little girls in a chastity belt.
No such restraints for the travellers.
Terrorist groups that aim to destroy Europe are strategy amateurs. A professional strategy would be one that employs minimal resources to achieve maximal effects. Any number of suicide bombers won't do the trick. But mass migration from Africa and South Asia can. Channeling huge numbers of refugees to Europe will erode and destroy Europe more reliably than conventional terrorism, and the risk for perpetuators is very low.
Home | Index of all articles