I have been a little remiss in attending to that section of my readership (aMToNW) who fall into the category “pervert” – those who come here, if you will, under the impression that because this blog is on the electric internet then it must be here to talk about sex. I am therefore pleased to pass on the following intelligence to those poor folk; maybe even Tom will be induced to comment.
I should point out that all is well with me. I am in no need of the following research. If it should ever arise that I find my interest flagging, as it were, I need only to listen to Marianne Faithful singing or imagine a Tom Graveney cover drive, and my ability to please the thousands of people who force themselves upon me on a regular basis is soon restored.
Anyway, to get to the point, my friends in the scientific community have decided that there are not enough openings, missus, at Cern to occupy them all, and so they have had to devise other pastimes in order to justify their title. What better, they asked themselves – they should have asked me and I would have given a better answer - subject for study is there than the good old penis and its different moods?
They have turned their attention to the issue of erectile dysfunction, what with viagra being so hard to come by, missus, and all. After all, I am down to about 40 emails a day offering me said substance at cheap prices.
It is my habit to link to sites on the electric internet from which I quote, but I do not feel that these people are worthy of attention. They say:
“The researchers treated 20 volunteers with an average age of 56 years old who had mild or moderate erectile dysfunction for roughly three years.
At each session, a device that resembles a computer mouse applied shockwaves at five different sites on their penises.”
Please note use of the word “roughly”. Hardly encouraging, is it? And which of you, after reading this, does not feel a slight compunction to wash your hands after touching your computer mouse. Further, why do they say ‘sites’ instead of ‘places’ or ‘positions’? To me the word ‘site’ implies a place of special interest. I confess to having no special interest in any particular area of penises. I would suggest that once you had established which end was which that you had pretty much discovered everything that you needed to know. Are these ‘sites’ designated by special symbols in medical textbooks? I really do not wish to know.
More importantly, I cannot discover what exactly constitutes a ‘shockwave’. I have not looked beyond the article, and, again, I really do not wish to know. Our scientist friends can only give meaningless comparisons (see my previous writings on ‘the size of a salad plate’ and ‘teaspoonfuls of semen’). Apparently, the pressure exerted is 20 times the air pressure in a bottle of champagne. You see how really useful that is? If there is one among you, and if there is please keep it to yourself, who has encapsulated his gonads in a bottle of champagne, then all you need to do is to imagine 20 times that pressure and you will know with what the subjects of this experiment had to cope. I confess to have never having drunk champagne. I now feel even less inclined to do so, as it appears that there are a significant number of my gender to whom this comparison will be meaningful.
At the other end, missus, of the spectrum we are told that it is less than the pressure exerted “by a woman in stiletto heels who weighs 132 lbs”. This, sadly, recalls a previous article, also featuring a deluded scientist, who banged on about stilettos. I can only conclude that there are some out there, and they may be reading this, who derive sexual gratification by enlisting the help of someone to dance on their tackle. Good for them, I say. However, I find that I am approaching the boundaries of credulity to picture their enquiring about the weight of the operator as she enthusiastically performed the can-can on their bludgeoned todger. Perhaps I lead too sheltered a life in North East Hampshire.
I knew that it would lead to this. From my first physics lesson with Mr Sutton – and I have no idea what he was trying to convey now any more than I did then – I predicted that my studies would be of no use. I stick by that assertion, and I have no more respect for these silly people and their research than I have for Saturday evening television programmes.