Ideas drive elections -- at least big elections like the one we’ve had this year.

You wouldn’t automatically know that from following the campaign’s course. Questions about inflammatory former pastors, lobbyists-turned-campaign-managers, verbal gaffes on the campaign trail and ads that stretch or break the truth often dominate news coverage and commentary. This is the eighth presidential campaign I’ve covered, and after each one I’m all too aware of the daily push-and-pull that shapes, and sometimes devalues, our political coverage.

When the nation faces perilous times, however, Americans look for innovative thinking and fresh approaches, and they manage to sift through the rest. That was true in 1980, when the nation was rocked by the Iranian hostage crisis and a stagnated economy. Then, voters elected challenger Ronald Reagan despite Democratic efforts to paint him as an aging former actor who was too conservative to be president. It was true in 1992, when many voters feared the American dream was slipping away amid globalization and the remnants of a recession. Challenger Bill Clinton won despite Republican efforts to portray him as the failed governor of a small state who was prone to bad behavior.

An anonymous and old piece of conventional wisdom states: “If your wife is old and your member exhausted, resort to the humble onion.” How convenient it would be if a simple onion could save a blighted bed session. Edibles such as onions are referred to as aphrodisiacs, which are substances that increase sexual desire or potency through ingestion due to physiological and psychogenic effects.

Aphrodisiacs are naturally occurring, which means that substances created in a laboratory, like Viagra, are not considered aphrodisiacs.1 However, to date, there are no scientifically proven aphrodisiacs. While this may seem like a dead end, I have decided to look more closely and research the reasoning behind this determination. Does the scientific rejection mean that aphrodisiacs do not exist, or is there a fault in the research method?

I have found that aphrodisiacs have been culturally created over history and their functioning is largely dependent upon the influence and interconnectedness of the body, mind and environment. Furthermore, aphrodisiacs reveal the mistake of science in treating the body mechanically.

First, it is important to explain the purpose and history of aphrodisiacs. Aphrodisiacs were initially intended to seduce people into producing more offspring and to increase sexual pleasure and stamina.2 The earliest known aphrodisiac recipe was written by the Egyptians in 1700 BC and involved leaves of Christ’s Thorn, thorny acacia, and honey to, “cool the vessel, to stiffen the softness.”3 In Mesopotamia, cuneiform writing was discovered that related to an effective inebriating beverage that was used as an aphrodisiac in rituals.4 Additionally, in ancient China, the use of ginseng wine as an aphrodisiac was written on Oracle Bones.5 Thus, aphrodisiacs are not a newly discovered phenomenon, but rather, one that has existed since the beginning of recorded time.

Laws Defining Aphrodisiacs

Currently, many Americans automatically associate Muslims with terrorism. Conversely, many Muslims think negatively of the United States because much of Western ‘modernization’ includes secular tenets, which run contrary to the universal appeal of Islam. In an attempt to ameliorate the lack of understanding on both sides of this debate between Islamic ideology and Western philosophy, a series of interviews with Muslim students on the Rice University campus were conducted, with the objective of ascertaining whether living and learning in a center for Western thought had any impact on their interpretations of Qur’anic verses.

It is important to consider the reasons behind this conflict in order to ascertain its scale. Many of the complaints about the West given by Muslims concern both the practices encouraged by modernization as well as its forceful application by the West. As Michael Palmer wrote in his new book, The Last Crusade: Americanism and the Islamic Reformation, “To Islamists, modernization is secularism and Westernization, and as such it represents yet another set of foreign and un-Islamic concepts foisted on the ummah, or the Islamic ‘nation.’”1 Another possible reason for the negative Islamic sentiment towards modernization can be found in the holistic nature of Islam itself. Islam, if practiced correctly, has roots in all aspects of human life, including religion, politics, law, and the military. Palmer states: