Women Infertility Treatment & Pregnancy Guide

New research suggests that the radiation given out by mobile phones reduces ***** count by up to 30%.

A lot of concerns have been expressed by some male members of the public about the implications of prolonged cell phone exposure to male ***** cells. Considering the possible hazards, several considerations were taken into account.

Researchers of Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University Ohio evoked, that prolonged cell phone use may damage ***** in male users.

Subsequently, the findings were presented at the American Society of Reproductive Medicine conference in New Orleans. The findings were actually based on a study of 361 men attending the clinic for infertility tests. The men were divided into four groups: One group with no cell phone usage; one group that used cell phones less than two hours a day; a group who were exposed for two to four hours a day and a group with more than four hours a day of cell phone usage.

The men who used their cell phones in excess of four hours showed a 30 % drop in ***** motility and viability when compared to the men who did not use cell phones. Thus, the ***** count, quality, and shape were also reduced with each level of increased phone usage.

According to Dr. Ashok Agarwal, “There was a significant decrease in the most important measures of ***** health and that should definitely be reflected in a decrease in fertility which is seen worldwide”. Mobiles could have a devastating effect on fertility but it still has to be proven, he stressed.

In addition, he suggested that cell phones might be harming the DNA of the phone users, disrupting their testosterone-producing cells, or shrinking the tubules that create *****. He noted that the small study did not prove that male fertility was affected by cell phone use, thus he suggested that further investigation is necessary.

On the other hand, scientists who have heard the results requested that factors such as age, weight, smoking, stress and sedentary occupations should be considered.

Alan Pacey, Senior lecturer in Andrology at Sheffield University, U.K said “If you’re using your phone for four hours a day, then it is out of your pocket”. Thus, the question would be how is it that testicular damage is supposed to occur? If you are holding it up to your head to speak, it makes no sense it is having a direct effect on your testes”, he stressed. He added that people who use a phone for four hours a day spend more time sitting, which could mean there is a heat issue. It could be that they are more stressed, or more sedentary. Thus, he pointed out that those factors seem to be better explanations than a phone causing the damage at such a great distance.

Furthermore, Alasdair Philips, director of the consumer pressure group Powerwatch added, “Sperm is very temperature sensitive as shown by many studies, and a short-term rise in temperature could be responsible. He theorized that mobile phones may only heat the groin area when men are doing things like sending text messages while the cell phone is in their lap.

All these new researches were taken into consideration however, the final point is though scientists say that cellular phones can be linked to male infertility, further research has to be conducted to confirm the findings and establish how exactly ***** production is affected by radiation given out by mobile phones.

Why is “unconventional” eroticism looked down upon? Why do most people simply dismiss the view that it is possible for a person to be loyally happy with another of the same gender? Well, I am of the view that one may live happily ever after with another of the same gender.

The term ‘gay’ in common parlance is used to refer to homosexuals of both genders, in this article too, it has been used in a general manner. Homosexuality is about much more than secrets and sex, it is also about happiness, preference and living and making lives together. Today, with a rising *** population in India we really need to re-think the legal structure in this realm. The contention is not as simple as merely accepting *** unions, but also giving such a union some sort of a legal ratification. We know that if a male desires to be with a female, there are no legal restrictions imposed against their marital union, then why should a male who would rather be with another male be denied of such rights? The Preamble as prefixed before the Constitution of India shouts out “Liberty of thought, expression , belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity..”. What is the “expression”, which is being talked of? Is love not a form of expression? Where is the “equality”, if *** men and women are being denied of their rights? Antagonists of *** marriages say that they want to shield the society from becoming morally unravelled. However, I firmly believe that it is purely founded on chauvinism and prejudice, which is certainly neither moral nor what this country stands for. ” Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity for all” means that everyone should be treated equally. The same “immoral” argument was also used to defy inter-racial marriages. But things have changed; so much so that such marriages are looked up to. It shows that with time, an orthodox society does rip off the straight jacket it has been wearing for aeons. In fact, a large section of the legal fraternity feels that it is the democratic right of people to choose their partners and the state should not interfere. In Baehr v. Lewin, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Hawaii, it was held that, failure to grant marriage licences to same *** couples was *** discrimination. In a research by the Yale historian John Boswell in the book, ‘Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe’, explores the historical background of ********** marriages. His studies exposed that ********** marriage rites have been legally sanctioned and religiously upheld for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures. What is important is that the social acceptance of same-gender relationships did not gain widespread condemnation until the 13th century, when religious orders stepped in and declared them immoral (Dorrell & Legal Marriage Court Cases, 1994,1996). This proves again the play of an unreasonable religious sect, which got things done its own way, instead of looking at the sentiments and desires of people. So there should technically be no legal censure.

We no longer live in a world where a marital union is merely a portal for procreation of children; conversely I would submit that a marital union symbolises life long companionship and not procreation of children. In this relationship that is initiated from a desire to simply be with someone, does it really matter if both the ends are the same? Really, NOT. My argument is that had reproduction been the sole purpose of marriages, then in the same list of “Those people who shan’t be granted marital rights are…” way too many people would be included, not solely the ***. Those women who have reached menopause and are biologically incapable of conceiving, too shouldn’t be allowed to get married. There are numerous old single men and women who probably never got married or were divorced or are widowers ( or widows as the case may be) who marry only for companionship. Perhaps, out of the fear of dying alone, they get into a relationship. They don’t procreate. So then if we do live in a country whose foundation is based on equality and if our government isn’t a hypocrite, then either these old people too should be stopped from getting married or the *** community should be treated with respect and equality and be given the right to marry whomever.

If we scan through the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, we’d find a provision for nullity of a marriage on grounds of impotency, section 12 1(a), but there are no laws that would lead to dissolution of a marriage on grounds of infertility or sterility. Infertile couples have no children, yet their marriage remains intact. If the elderly and the sterile cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can ******* or *** couples be denied the right for the same reason. All these queries tantamount to one question, why are then same *** unions prohibited? Analysing this situation in the light of the “Lex of the Land”, I would say that the legislature has already shown enough hypocrisy by inserting various terms in the Constitution and not really abiding by it, the least they can do now is scrap the only section – Section 377, Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter, referred as the ‘Act’ ] – that goes against the foundation of such a union. Even if this section is not scrapped, it should not negate homosexuality. It should be used against man and beast not man and man. We all have read in our history books that we were a part of a society, where a black could not legally marry a white, a Kshatriya could not marry a Shudra, but laws were changed, echoing equality, so as to incorporate the possibility of such a matrimony.

Law is logic, and under all circumstances it should reflect the need of the contemporary world. As anything, law too becomes redundant with time and it needs to be moulded to suit the need of the hour. *** matrimony finds itself placed awkwardly in a combat zone, where the liberals meet head on with the conservatives. The adversaries of the liberal view attack such a union by saying that this form of a union is grossly immoral and shatters religious fundamentals. To this view, I would pose a question, in India where marriage is a sacrament and is supposed to bring two people together for eternity and where the mere thought of separation would be a sin, how then under such circumstances have the laws of divorce emerged? Because it was realised by some pragmatic people that a simple sacrament may not lead to a harmonious relationship; lo and behold we have the laws of divorce. So this so-called in-perpetuity pious relationship could be murdered with a lethal injection called ‘divorce’. When such a provision was accepted as a part of the laws of this bucolic and traditional land then why can’t laws be instituted for allowing same-sex marriages?

The creators of the common law system, which we follow, have themselves included provisions that ratify same *** unions. Such unions have not been named as marriage but have been treated as a civil union. The Civil Partnership Act, 2004, is in its last stage before becoming a part of the law of the land. Under this act, Civil partnerships are available only to same-sex couples. These couples may register their partnership without making it mandatory for them to live together forever. There is a standard procedure for dissolving such partnerships too. Partnerships will entitle same-sex couples to avail assorted rights, such as property rights as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one’s partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, and visiting rights in hospitals.

The Common law system of the United Kingdom, which all its erstwhile colonies follow till date, needs to be given a face lift. The Section 377 of the Act, the heading of which itself is absurd, begins as “Whoever voluntarily has carnal *********** against the order of nature w
ith any man, woman or animal…”. I would like to expand on the italicised words. Natural would mean, of nature and unnatural would be against nature. It has been proved on more than one occasions that many species of the animal kingdom display acts of homosexuality, then how can we humans yet another specie and a part of this animal kingdom reject the idea of ********** behaviour. As proved by James Owen from the National Geographic, animals including beetles, sheep, dolphins, orangutans exhibit great ‘love’ for the same gender. Such ‘love’ in homosapien sense would literally mean ***. Therefore, in my opinion, rejecting such a view is unnatural and an absolute insult to mother nature. A prudent perusal of the explanation to the section purports that the section does not cover within its ambit, sexual *********** between two women. This would simply mean that two women connubially cohabiting cannot be against public policy. Therefore there actually is nothing in the Indian law to prevent two women from being bond in holy matrimony. The ambiguity reflected in this section and the section itself has been thoroughly criticised by human rights activists as it goes against the rights of an adult to freely spend his or her life with the person he or she desires. *** couples are deprived of significant rights when they are not allowed to marry, and this results in injustices. The arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriages do not merit the legal support of the state, since the state’s job is not to promote popular morality or opinion, but the rights of its citizens. The aim of our government, right from its commencement, has been to preserve of the rights of its citizens. The government simply needs to protect the rights of “We, the people..”, including those who are ***. It must not support the illogical bigotry of the population, as it is quite evidently doing in this case. It is vital to take into account the desire of gays and lesbians, to allow them to enter into relationships with people they love and also have their relationships approved by family, friends and most importantly the law.

Marriage is society’s most basic institution. To veto a group of people from marrying would be deprivation. Not so long ago in America, a wedding between a black and a white was illicit, and no one could claim that this was a trivial disenfranchisement… well we no longer live in that society, then why should we stop the entry of something which is proven natural. I firmly believe recognising *** marriages will alleviate the invisibility and illicitness of *** relationships, which has been the norm so far.

Laws need to be upgraded in light of the dynamism of the world. If laws were not amended, then the widows in our country would still be burnt alive along with their dead husbands. Had the Hindu Marriage Act not been passed in 1955, unhappy Hindu couples would be forced to live together, which is a mental and physical torture. Hindu Laws, which have been based on religious scriptures and are essentially sacramental in nature, did break out of their rigid framework and hug the laws of divorce. This simply proves that even though certain laws may be initiated on the foundations of religion, it cannot survive in such an ever changing world without being altered a propos the needs of the contemporary world. Water which is constantly flowing and the quantity of which is continuously increasing cannot be withheld forever in a small container such as a bowl. Along with the increasing quantity of water it is essential that the container be changed to a bigger one, instead of making an attempt to clog the flow of water. Water is the metaphor used for people and container or the bowl is an allegory for the Laws, Customs, Society etc. All I am trying to say is that, with the rising number of Gays and ******** it would not be wise to suppress them. Such would be a despicably despotic measure. And our history books would vouch that tyrannical and thoughtless rules based on the whims and fancies of a specific group do not work for long, instead, those oppressed need to be given a forum or platform where they can raise their voices and be heard.

Already treat here of experiments and observations that suggest the possibility of pheromones in humans

Pheromones are substances produced by certain animals such as insects and some mammals, able to influence the behavior of other individuals of the same species. Are subtle means of communication?

That article said, among other things, that women living or working together tend to manifest their menstrual cycles synchronize. This incidentally one of the first indications of the existence of human pheromones in our species, The researchers cited confirmed this phenomenon and showed that body odors, including the axillaries, really affect the menstrual cycles.

These researchers have gone further and said that male odors are capable of maintaining women’s health, especially with regard to the reproductive system. They found that women who have relation with men at least once a week, show a greater likelihood of having normal menstrual cycles, less likely to have problems of infertility and more lenient that those relations have kept spinster or rare or sporadic .

Finally, it appears that the male odor, or the presence of man, is very important for maintaining the health of women. Cutler believes that the doctor that the use of cosmetics based on essence of male odors may change, and very, well-being of women. Exist, however, patent applications for products of this kind. The problem is not yet isolated or identified the 200 and all components of male and female odors.

In one of many experiences, axillaries secretions collected from seven men and women to examine the possible effects of pheromones. The volunteers used pads in the armpits for 18 to 27 hours per week for 3 months. The “male essence” was mixed with alcohol and applied to the upper lip of six women with menstrual cycles anomalous and unrelated to any man at this time. The cycles of these women agreed to all the 29.5 days. This is not the case with the control group, if women who had irregular cycles and have applications in the lip, the only alcohol (no “essence”).

In similar experiment performed with female substance applied to ten women are noted for their impressive synchronization menstrual cycles, which were not observed in the control group.

The effects of the implementation of axillaries essence are similar to those of regular relations, but naturally the weakest. The effects of relational health in women have shown that the presence of humans is necessary, but does not require the presence of relational ***********. The regular relation alleviates the effects of infertility, regularizing the menstrual cycles.

Doctor today exposure to pheromone is the essence of relation. “If it is, to say and many cosmetics, lotions and things like that are used to beautify a woman and supposedly make it more attractive? They are not preventing or hindering the reception of male relational pheromones? We create with these things, a type of artificial relation attraction? That will tell us the future, when the market creams and lotions made with essence of axilla male or female?

There now undertake similar studies on the effects of pheromones, axillary and others, on female health and general man.

Men’s fashion has really taken off these days. Take the case of the underwear, the most intimate piece of clothing on a man. This “last line of defense” for men has undergone a fashion revolution. You now have designer briefs and boxer shorts. But what are the differences and why the fuss over them?

The main difference between briefs and boxers is in the size and fit. Briefs are smaller and fit perfectly to the body of most men. Boxers, on the other, are more airy and cooler when used. Of course, different people prefer choices. Some men prefer briefs because these are sexieror more traditional. Others prefer boxer shorts for more comfort and freeom of movement.

When it comes to increasing a man’s fertility, the debate rages on what’s a better choice : the brief or the boxer? This article takes a look at the argument from both sides and see what is the best choice for you.

According to the “pro boxers” group, tight briefs generate a lot of heat. And heat can cause infertility in men because it kills ***** cells. That is why a lot of brief users have shifted to boxers. Another reason is that briefs restrict movement of the *****. It is thought that constant movement by the ***** will help in stimulation and ********. Moreover, blood will flow more freely which is good for the *****.

On the “pro brief” group are brief manufacturers, among others. This group insists that such claims are unfounded as proven by some studies showing no significant difference in the use of briefs and boxer shorts to man’s fertility level. The crucial factor is the extra heat supposedly generated by wearing a brief so that was the basis of the studies.

According to an un-named study, a rise in testicular temperature can cause ***** sterilization since a lot of heat will destroy some of the ***** cells. This will cause a man to be infertile. In one experiment, men were asked to wear briefs and boxer shorts. The observed factor was the degree of the heat in the testes when using a brief vs using a boxer short.

Surprisingly, the results suggested that the claim on briefs causing heat (and thus affecting make fertility) is purely speculation.

Apparently, a pair of briefs do not generate enough heat to disturb the balance in men’s reproductive organs. There was no significant increase in the temperature of the testes after using a pair of brief when compared to after using a pair of boxer short. Also, men who use a brief do not experience any decrease in fertility rate. Therefore, it is said that the advice given to men to use boxer shorts instead of briefs is scientifically and medically baseless.

The studies clearly indicated that a man’s fertility is not an issue with briefs and boxer shorts. In other words, you can continue to wear anything you want, a brief or a boxer short, there is no difference when it comes to male fertility. Choose the one you feel most comfortable with or the one you like best.

Don’t worry about briefs and boxers affecting your fertility because it is a myth.