I saw this this morning--the only explanation I can think of is that he's trying to prove that he's not a sexist fuck. Or maybe he wasn't even serious in the first place.
And that "speeches" link troubles me. I have to do a shitload of public speaking in the next few weeks, and 8-ball says "outlook not so good."
7: hmm, maybe. Or, don't Catholics believe that sex is only for the purpose of procreation? So, since his wife is too old to procreate, wouldn't it be sinful for them to have sex?
I can't believe I'm the only defender of the faith here. Old married Catholics are indeed permitted to have sex, ugly as that image might be to contemplate.
I was just throwing that out there; it would be hilarious if politicians routinely got quizzed about their preferred form of birth control, though.
Berlusconi's promise is probably more a silly display of machismo: my virility is such that if I don't channel it into extensive fucking, my subliminated energy will defeat all my foes!!!1!!
Nice try, Weiner, but I'm actually speaking about an entirely different matter, one which has no bearing on anything besides the regard in which I hold myself.
In promising "complete sexual abstinence," is he employing an expansive, non-Clintonian definition of sex? And what about masturbation? Would whatever his vow of abstinence proves about his dedication to public service be undone if he masturbates?
Apart from being generally stupid, Berlusconi's vow (if he also refrains from masturbation) may well be medically stupid. Frequent ejaculation is supposed to decrease one's risk of prostate cancer (see, e.g., controversial "Doonesbury" cartoon around a year ago). Also, I have no idea if this is true, but when I read Dr. David R. Reuben's "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask" about 35 years ago, he claimed that if a guy over 40 didn't have sex/masturbate for a long period of time, he might lose the ability to do so. These days, that might be overcome by Viagra, but still I wouldn't want to chance it.
At first glance, it sounds like lunacy, but on further reflection, somehow, it makes sense to me. But that implies that part of the effect might not come from just the sexual aspect (and likely orgasm, I would imagine), but the aerobic activity attendant, which is not as present in "other forms of sex".
on further reflection, somehow, it makes sense to me. But that implies that part of the effect might not come from just the sexual aspect (and likely orgasm, I would imagine), but the aerobic activity attendant, which is not as present in "other forms of sex".
True, but the amount of aerobic activity isn't necessarily the same for the, um, penetrator and penetratee. Of course, it depends what position you're doing it in and so forth.
Hmm... If it's the aerobics, seems like we need some kind of double-blind "sex vs. jumping jacks" trial. I know which group I want to be in.
Also:
... it was possible the calming effect was linked to the stimulation of a wide variety of nerves which takes place during heterosexual intercourse, but not other forms of sex.
Heterosexual but not homosexual intercourse? Now I'm even more confused. Anyone subscribe to New Scientist magazine?
Hmm. Wouldn't a "double-blind" test involve the participants not knowing which group they had been placed in? Wouldn't they be able to figure it out pretty quick?
27 -- No Unfogged thread could be complete without a RealDoll(tm) reference!
(Actually it might be worthwhile positing a latter-day Godwin's rule, that as an Unfogged thread grows longer, the probability of its including a RealDoll(tm) reference approaches 1.)
The article seems to equate "penetrative intercourse" with "heterosexual intercourse," which is confusing. Are both terms supposed to refer to your classic P/V sex? Anal intercourse is also "penetrative," surely, and "heterosexual" if a man and woman do it. The writer was probably trying not to be too graphic, but maybe should have used "coitus" instead -- not that anyone ever actually uses that word IRL ("Hey baby, want to have coitus tonight?").
But where I knew what coitus was, I had to look up cephalalgia. I should have caught it from Frederick's reference to acetylsalicylic acid, but I had skincare on my brain and was thinking of salicylic acid, the acne treatment/ exfoliant.
I confess I did, too. The "cephal" (head) part I could figure out, but I was confused by the "algia." I'm not sure why it's not "cephalalgesia," by analogy to "analgesia" (an (without) + algesia (pain)).
His clownishness does have the advantage that it obscures what a nasty little shit he is.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:26 PM
The link in "this" is not worksafe.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:27 PM
Oh, right. Warning added.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:28 PM
Hmm... should we ask Ogged? Oh drat, he's already gone.
[Too soon?]
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:29 PM
I saw this this morning--the only explanation I can think of is that he's trying to prove that he's not a sexist fuck. Or maybe he wasn't even serious in the first place.
And that "speeches" link troubles me. I have to do a shitload of public speaking in the next few weeks, and 8-ball says "outlook not so good."
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:37 PM
He's a clown, is all. He always makes a fool of himself. I guess the Italians consider it folksy (the ones who don't despise him).
Best mommyblog anecdote ever?
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:46 PM
Is the assumption that he usually wears a condom, which would not be so pro-family?
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:48 PM
7: hmm, maybe. Or, don't Catholics believe that sex is only for the purpose of procreation? So, since his wife is too old to procreate, wouldn't it be sinful for them to have sex?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:49 PM
In other news, Ogged is poised to become the new Prime Minister of Italy.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:53 PM
9: Are Mexicans allowed to do that?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:54 PM
I can't believe I'm the only defender of the faith here. Old married Catholics are indeed permitted to have sex, ugly as that image might be to contemplate.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:55 PM
Apo, your black magic only works on the rookie.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:56 PM
I was just throwing that out there; it would be hilarious if politicians routinely got quizzed about their preferred form of birth control, though.
Berlusconi's promise is probably more a silly display of machismo: my virility is such that if I don't channel it into extensive fucking, my subliminated energy will defeat all my foes!!!1!!
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 3:57 PM
I suspect that the point is that he's invoking some kind of Catholic association between chastity and dedication to a higher cause.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 4:09 PM
5: Kotsko, this is a noble cause. Do your duty.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 4:24 PM
Nice try, Weiner, but I'm actually speaking about an entirely different matter, one which has no bearing on anything besides the regard in which I hold myself.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 4:30 PM
Boy, it really is true what they say about Italians, isn't it?
Posted by neil | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 5:49 PM
What? That they speak Italian?
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 6:24 PM
In promising "complete sexual abstinence," is he employing an expansive, non-Clintonian definition of sex? And what about masturbation? Would whatever his vow of abstinence proves about his dedication to public service be undone if he masturbates?
Apart from being generally stupid, Berlusconi's vow (if he also refrains from masturbation) may well be medically stupid. Frequent ejaculation is supposed to decrease one's risk of prostate cancer (see, e.g., controversial "Doonesbury" cartoon around a year ago). Also, I have no idea if this is true, but when I read Dr. David R. Reuben's "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask" about 35 years ago, he claimed that if a guy over 40 didn't have sex/masturbate for a long period of time, he might lose the ability to do so. These days, that might be overcome by Viagra, but still I wouldn't want to chance it.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 9:07 PM
The tradeoff bothers a lot of people, prostate cancer vs. hairy palms.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-30-06 9:25 PM
From the second article:
However, only penetrative intercourse did the trick - other forms of sex had no impact on stress levels at all.
Is it just me, or does this sound like lunacy to the rest of you?
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 6:37 AM
At first glance, it sounds like lunacy, but on further reflection, somehow, it makes sense to me. But that implies that part of the effect might not come from just the sexual aspect (and likely orgasm, I would imagine), but the aerobic activity attendant, which is not as present in "other forms of sex".
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 6:43 AM
on further reflection, somehow, it makes sense to me. But that implies that part of the effect might not come from just the sexual aspect (and likely orgasm, I would imagine), but the aerobic activity attendant, which is not as present in "other forms of sex".
True, but the amount of aerobic activity isn't necessarily the same for the, um, penetrator and penetratee. Of course, it depends what position you're doing it in and so forth.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 12:27 PM
However, only penetrative intercourse did the trick - other forms of sex had no impact on stress levels at all.
it just me, or does this sound like lunacy to the rest of you?
Speaking as one who has, um, TiVo issues, this does not sound like lunacy at all.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 12:45 PM
Hmm... If it's the aerobics, seems like we need some kind of double-blind "sex vs. jumping jacks" trial. I know which group I want to be in.
Also:
... it was possible the calming effect was linked to the stimulation of a wide variety of nerves which takes place during heterosexual intercourse, but not other forms of sex.
Heterosexual but not homosexual intercourse? Now I'm even more confused. Anyone subscribe to New Scientist magazine?
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 1:24 PM
Hmm. Wouldn't a "double-blind" test involve the participants not knowing which group they had been placed in? Wouldn't they be able to figure it out pretty quick?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 1:30 PM
Depends on what they use as a placebo.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 1:43 PM
27 -- No Unfogged thread could be complete without a RealDoll(tm) reference!
(Actually it might be worthwhile positing a latter-day Godwin's rule, that as an Unfogged thread grows longer, the probability of its including a RealDoll(tm) reference approaches 1.)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 1:45 PM
I think you mean a Real Doll™ reference.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 1:53 PM
Yeah one of those would count too.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 1:56 PM
Forgive the showing off of my newfound html knowledge. I'm like a kindergartener who's oh-so-proud that he colored inside the lines.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 1:56 PM
Hey no need to apologize dude -- Unfogged is all about being able to color inside the lines.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 1:57 PM
The article seems to equate "penetrative intercourse" with "heterosexual intercourse," which is confusing. Are both terms supposed to refer to your classic P/V sex? Anal intercourse is also "penetrative," surely, and "heterosexual" if a man and woman do it. The writer was probably trying not to be too graphic, but maybe should have used "coitus" instead -- not that anyone ever actually uses that word IRL ("Hey baby, want to have coitus tonight?").
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 2:02 PM
Hey baby, want to have coitus tonight?
Not tonight. I have cephalalgia.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 2:11 PM
Not tonight. I have cephalalgia.
Can't you take some acetylsalicylic acid, dammit?
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 3:25 PM
But where I knew what coitus was, I had to look up cephalalgia. I should have caught it from Frederick's reference to acetylsalicylic acid, but I had skincare on my brain and was thinking of salicylic acid, the acne treatment/ exfoliant.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 3:52 PM
I had to look up cephalalgia.
I confess I did, too. The "cephal" (head) part I could figure out, but I was confused by the "algia." I'm not sure why it's not "cephalalgesia," by analogy to "analgesia" (an (without) + algesia (pain)).
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-31-06 4:08 PM
More here.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 02-12-06 10:55 AM