This semester I am taking a human sexuality class. I recently had to write a paper debunking the myths about aphrodisiacs and products to make your junk bigger. An Aphrodisiac is anything that makes you more attractive to other people and raise your libedo. I think it is amazing how gullible people can be. Most people don’t know that there are no actual known human aphrodisiacs. There are none people. Not oysters, not chocolate, and especially not wine. In fact, wine is considered an anaphrodisiac because it inhibits your sexual performance. So it boggles me how much money and attention these kinds of products get because no one bothers to actually do a little research to find out that aphrodisiacs do not exist for humans (there are some known for mice but I think that’s it). Now, on the flip side, the food we feed our dates may have a positive effect on sexual performance. But wait, didn’t I just say that there are no aphrodisiacs? Yes, I did. Well, because of the long-standing myths about aphrodisiacs, that there are possible placebo effects at work. This however, does not mean that the food itself is increasing sexual performance; it is a placebo affect. So spending extra money on oysters is just not necessary, not that any of us can really afford them anyway because we are college students.
I just read the article Scientist, Journalism, and the Meaning of Uncertainty, and from what I’ve read, I have come to the conclusion that it is very important to check your sources. It states in the reading that many journalists publish information which they might not know to be true. I do not think this is the worst thing in the world, but I do believe that their doubt should be completely visible in their work. They way people interpret work is so diverse, but the one thing I think we can all agree on is a statement that is just plain false or just plain true. And no one likes to be lied to. This does call to attention what is true and false and what is just unknown. In science, the majority is unknown and that does make it difficult for scientific journalism, but that does not mean journalists should present their work in a way that makes it seem like fact. If a journalist wants to portray the mixed positions on a topic, he/she should be clear in stating that there are many different views on topic X and these are a few. Not simply state something that may be false. This all goes back to my fundamental belief to question everything. You may be surprised with what you find.