| Saturday, September 12, 2009 | ||
| 115 Years of Solitude | ||
There is an old joke that says that abstainers don't live longer, their lives just feel longer. And yet, once again, we are being told a tale of someone who lived incredibly long and claims their sex life (or rather sexless life) to be their secret weapon of longevity.  Well, I already told you some time ago about the 105 year old virgin. Well, she isn't 105 anymore, but she's most likely still a virgin. Oh, but I do digress. My Blog heroine of the day has, sadly, just died. Admittedly, she is not a virgin, she had one daughter who did not survive into adulthood. Until yesterday, Gertrude Baines held the title of the world's oldest living person. She was 115. Baines' reasons for reaching that unripe old age were many. Her nutrition obviously wasn't great, she lived on bacon and fried chicken, but then she never smoked or drank alcohol. She didn't have children or grandchildren to keep her occupied and she had been retired for half her life. So what could it be? Gertrude claims to have never fooled around. Translation: the only man that got her excited over the last 90 or so years was Barack Obama. Not sure if he made her ovaries wiggle but he got her moving to the voting booth. Funny how the world's oldest people are always women who have long, long outlived the men in their lives, or otherwise never had a man. I'm not willing to make any claims that sex ages you, but trying to put a positive spin on it, let's just summarize that its a nice way for the singles among us to feel better about life. Hey, its not for the singles who are gettin' lots of it; we're talking about the folks who are in a serious drought, those who can't remember the wet season, as it were. And that goes for a whole lot of couples too. Maybe we should aim for a compromise: living to 100 and having the years filled with sex. Anyone? |
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Thursday, September 03, 2009 | ||
| Stimulating Sex | ||
Sex educator, Sari Locker did an illuminating interview on Fox News this week where she argued that there is certainly public health value to the dozen or so sexual health studies being funded by the US government's stimulus funds. As she spoke her piece, Fox's so-called journalist fished out all the cliches he could recycle from the last anti-sex piece, to make his point that his tax dollars shouldn't be wasted on Democrats' cheap thrills.  His demeanor divulged that just because he was reporting on this subject, doesn't mean he had to read the fine print in the news brief; by that I mean whatever words came after “sex” in the title: details like... (sex)ually transmitted diseases and (sex)ual health of minority populations. All that sex talk is just smut, and perhaps the government should be stimulating research in Abstinence Education? Oh, hang on, the last government did that and the outcome was, awkwardly, that the funds were very poorly spent. And then there was the need to fund social security for the teen mothers who couldn't get an abortion after their sex education failed them. Messy. The question I have to the guys at Fox and other uptight church groups: why do you think that the choices that teens and at-risk groups make about their sexual behaviour is less deserving of government attention that, say, heart disease? Don't you realize that most of the causes of heart disease – smoking, unhealthy diet, obesity, lack of exercise – are behavioural choices? Maybe you can make being unhealthy and unfit into a political offense like you've made contraception and abortion! I guess it doesn't say in the bible “thou shalt not buy Marlboro's, not even the Lights” or “Thy cholesterol is sinful”. There is, though, something in the New Testament about gluttony. Obviously, it isn't as important as the (usually applicable) commandment to never, ever, ever fornicate. |
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|