Sherlock speaks

When I originally saw this article, entitled “Healthy living ‘can add 14 years,’” I snorted my oatmeal. Come on, 14 years? That’s so incredibly arbitrary. So I assumed it was something about how if you happen to already be thin and you happen to be able to afford good health care and you happen to have the leisure time and disposable income to buy and prepare whole foods and spend hours in the gym, you will add a predetermined packet of time onto your life. Another article treating the human body as a predictable system whose functioning can be described with formulae, like “3500 calories equals a pound.”

Turns out, now that I read it, that it’s kind of the opposite of that. I’ll let the BBC explain:

Taking exercise, not drinking too much alcohol, eating enough fruit and vegetables and not smoking can add up to 14 years to your life, a study says.

Research involving 20,000 people over a decade found those who failed on all criteria were four times more likely to have died than those who succeeded.

The findings held true regardless of how overweight or poor they were.

Did you just have to back up and read that again? It’s no illusion: the claim is that these four factors help extend lifespan regardless of size. That they contributed to health at, if you will, every size. The study doesn’t seem to have looked at general healthiness — whether or not people were likely to feel awesome throughout their increased lifespans. But the “fat will kill youuuuuu” wail seems to come with an official asterisk now: “unless of course you are active and eat nutritive foods, behaviors that we associate with thin people, so we assume you don’t.”

Well, no shit, Sherlock. We know this; we kind of write a blog about it. Y’all know this. Still, I’m thrilled to see Health at Every Size getting some media facetime. I would have loved more discussion of how difficult it can be to achieve these four factors if you’re low-income and, to a lesser extent, if you’re fat — it’s all very well to say “get enough exercise and eat enough fruits and veg,” but if you can’t afford produce or gyms give you panic attacks or you have a condition that makes you unable to exercise and also makes you fat, it’s not so easy. But just having it out there — the idea that healthy things just might be healthy for all people — is huge. It means that thin people don’t have a monopoly on health, and it means that fat people don’t have an obligation to work harder. It’s major.

And it gets better. Real easy to say “get enough exercise” if you’re flush with leisure time and can spend hours working out, right? Check it:

This last category was defined as either having a sedentary occupation and taking half an hour of exercise a day, or simply having a non-sedentary job like a nurse or plumber.

That’s right, half an hour a day — less than most people think they need to be fit! — or a non-sedentary occupation. Turns out that the energy you expend and the muscle you build on the job actually counts as energy expenditure and muscle building. They don’t take it away from you when you punch out.

But here’s the part that’s really golden. Observe the graph the BBC provides of the study data. (Please be aware that this is almost certainly an idealized version of the data — it never looks this good. It’s not an accurate depiction of the data collected, but an approximation that presents the gist of the conclusion graphically.)

Do you see what I’m looking at? The people with four points (which is to say, they didn’t smoke, got enough vitamins, were not sedentary, and drank only in moderation — no more than seven glasses of wine a week!) clearly have the best outcomes. But they’re followed by the people who got three out of four, and then by the people who got two, and so forth.

Again, no shit, if you’ve been thinking this way for a while. If four things are healthy, presumably three of the four are also healthy — basic logic. But if you do think of the human body as a machine described by formulae, as most of the population does if you judge by the “calories in < calories out” crowd, you’re highly susceptible to the idea that there is a set of processes that are required for optimal functioning, and that those processes and those processes alone will make your machine run smoothly. A car won’t go if you put it in drive and start the motor but don’t have gas in it. Pressing “ctrl-alt” won’t bring up your task manager. So why would it make sense to imagine that you could be healthy with anything less than being thin AND eating well AND cardio AND weight training AND regular checkups AND not smoking AND teetotalling AND wheatgrass juice? (You’d think there would be some kind of segfault when people realize that “eating well,” if you accept all available information, ought to mean “not eating fat AND not eating carbs.” Somehow they seem to be able to choose in that situation, usually by totally ridiculing the other position.) I mean, I’m clearly exaggerating, but only barely. This is where we get the “everyone’s an expert” phenomenon, which in its more ludicrous incarnations will involve someone sincerely insisting that you can only lose weight if you also only eat carbs after protein, or eat 1913 calories a day, or only do low reps with high weight or high reps with low weight, or drink apple cider vinegar, or eat cantaloupe before every meal. (I swear I am still not making the last one up.) Sometimes, instead of assuming everything is additive, they’ll throw some things out — yes, you’ll lose weight and live forever if you eat celery and do 100 reps on the lat pull, but NOT if you then RUIN it by eating peanuts. Same deal, though: people want a formula for health, beauty, and immortality. Hell, even this article is presented as “do these four things and live fourteen more years.”

Thankfully, however, it turns out that humans aren’t completely mechanistic. That means that if you have chronic pain and can’t manage half an hour of exercise a day, it’s still good for you to eat fruits and vegetables. It’s even probably good for you to do, say, half an hour of exercise every other day, or half an hour a week. If you’re allergic to most kinds of fruit, it’s still good for you not to smoke. If you’re powerfully addicted to nicotine and not ready to kick it, that doesn’t mean you can’t improve your health through moderate activity. And so forth. There are factors, but there’s no formula. You don’t doom yourself by skipping a step.

And that, my friends, is a fucking radical idea. No shit.

57 thoughts on “Sherlock speaks

  1. This is fantastic. We need all the ammunition we can get.

    Now, if only Gordon Brown was paying attention. He’s planning on having the NHS cut off all people with BMI > 30 (in addition to smokers and “heavy drinkers,” whatever that means) from all nonemergency care, in order to “save money.”

    IOW, they’ll drag you off to the ER if you’re having a heart attack or a stroke, but if you’re feeling a bit out of breath or weak a few months before that, you won’t get any care that might prevent a heart attack or stroke. And if you’re on the borderline of “obesity” and you’re an alcoholic or a smoker, there’s no point in quitting since if you get fat from giving up the cigarettes or drinks, they’re not going to treat you anyway.

    So basically, they plan on having 100% of the people pay taxes for health care but maybe 50% of the people (or less, with rationing for the elderly?) having access to it. WTF??

  2. Meowser, yikes! That can’t possibly succeed, can it?

    I’m getting pretty sick of the equation between “mandated weight loss” and “preventive care” in the States, but it beats cutting off fatties’ access to actual preventive care.

  3. Meowser, yikes! That can’t possibly succeed, can it?

    Shit, I hope not. I was thinking some of your British readers, who know more about how NHS regulations are set than I do, can tell us: Can the P.M. unilaterally set these regulations for the entire country, does it vary by region, does it have to be voted on in some way?

  4. Meowser: do you have any kind of link for that? I mean that’s appalling. It would be appalling and ludicrous if they set it at BMI 40 but it’s completely *ridiculous* at BMI 30. I can’t believe it’s possibly true.

  5. FJ–sorry to hear about the snorting of oatmeal. That must have hurt ;)

    Thanks for drawing attention to this article, I’ll be distributing it widely!

  6. If Gordon Brown does succeed in this Draconian horror, he’s pretty much killed any chances of reelection because the number of people who drink, smoke, or have BMIs of 30+ make up a huge voting block. Just wait until people who presume they’re just “a little chunky” and a moderate drinkers find themselves redlined because they have a drink a day and are, in fact “overweight” by some bullshit standard. I bet Brown himself is ineligible for NHS by his own stupid rule.

  7. That’s an awesome graph, FJ, but I would also like to draw everyone’s attention to the y-axis (the up and down line–since we’re mostly women here our little girl brains might asplode, and damnit I was gonna link to that post a while back about women not being able to think clearly but this blog has gotten to be, well, fat, and I just can’t work all of its magnificence in a few minutes). Ahem. Anyway, notice how the lowest number is still only 70% survival–not zero, the way it ought to be in order to visually demonstrate the true effect. So realize that even the “failures”–those who drink, smoke, lie around all day, and eat baby donuts–are only dying off at a rate of 70% rather than 100% over a 14-year period. And people who engaged in all four healthy behaviors still dropped out at a rate of 5%. So, yeah, kind of sucks to die, but what this chart isn’t saying is “IF YOU DON’T GET RIGHT WITH GOD YOU’LL DIIIIIIIIIE IN FOURTEEN SHORT YEARS!” Which is good to know.

  8. Fillyjonk – wonderful post as always!

    Meowser – I checked out that NHS scare after I read it on Junkfoodscience….I understand why the first article written may have caused confusion, but it looks to have been cleared up pretty fast. The article following the one I ‘m assuming that she’s working from blatantly states that there will be NO PENALTY for people with “unhealthy lifestyles”

    Here are some links to the BBC discussing it.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7166429.stm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7167093.stm

    Or at least addresses…I don’t computeriness very well. :)

  9. Now, if only Gordon Brown was paying attention. He’s planning on having the NHS cut off all people with BMI > 30 (in addition to smokers and “heavy drinkers,” whatever that means) from all nonemergency care, in order to “save money.”

    Meowser, where’d it say that? I understood he was talking about making weight loss, giving up smoking etc. conditions of treatment, but I hadn’t seen it in that much detail.

    Leaving aside the whole argument about BMI being a pile of dingo’s kidneys, the big question is, how do they define non-emergency care? I can see them attributing everything to ‘possibly’ being caused by being a fat fatty. Do fat kids still get vaccinated? Do fat women still get Pap smears? What about free eye tests – not free anymore if you’re fat enough to ‘possibly’ be giving yourself type-II glaucoma? Do I still get my beta-blockers for anxiety? (My heart is fine. My doctor says so. The palpitations must be anxiety, because he can’t find anything else wrong with me. My doctor is, I hope, one of many who’d defy the NHS if this lunacy ever became official.)

    More importantly, how many fat people does it take to overthrow a goverment? (That’s a real question, not some kind of trollish lightbulb-changing-type joke.)

    On the veggies-and-exercise thing, disappointing – but totally expected – to see the ‘and whether you’re fat or thin makes no difference!’ clause whisked over in passing. Still, it’s nice to know that trying to be healthy is actually an OK thing to do. It’s perfectionism (of one kind or another, including caloric perfectionism, which is ghastly) that makes people give up 99% of the tasks they set themselves at this time of year, I think.

  10. Thanks Meowser. It seems it’s not necessarily a cut off at BMI 30 that will be used, and perhaps some constraints will apply only to the “very obese” whatever they mean like that. It seems the Torygraph has an article from after GB’s letter to the NHS:

    here

    It still sounds pretty rubbish though.

  11. When I lived in London I had a boyfriend who needed some serious work done on his teeth, but the NHS would not even consider his treatment until he had quit smoking for 6 months (and after that it took him almost two years of waiting between endless scheduled appointments before he was actually treated). I wonder if somewhere in the dim corridors of government, some policy wonk figured out that the only way to make the NHS even close to viable was to cut off half the people it serves but to sell that policy through “concern for people’s health.” George Orwell must be having a good laugh in heaven.

  12. It’s true, the links I saw don’t mention a cutoff at BMI 30, but when they say “obese” people, I assume that is what they mean. For all I know, though, they could be cutting it off even lower than that.

  13. I know little about so I just don’t get why the NHS is in such a crisis. In Canada we have “socialized” health care and despite must right-wing blathering, I never had to wait for any service and there was no rationing. The service was at least as high-quality as I now get in the U.S. with my godawful co-pays. I had problems getting specialists when I lived in a town the size of a postage stamp, but that would happen in any really small community.

    So what’s the problem?

  14. I like this study. One thing I’m a bit confused about: I thought it implied that drinking moderately was better than not drinking at all. I re-read the article and it’s not really clear:

    “consuming between one and 14 units of alcohol per week (the equivalent of between half a glass and seven glasses of wine)”

    “drinking alcohol in moderation”

    That would match up with the supposed health benefits of red wine. I’m not going to start drinking more because of it though, because my body really doesn’t like alcohol.

  15. Yup, Art3mis, the study proceeded from the idea that moderate alcohol is better for your heart than no alcohol. I think you have the green light to substitute very dark chocolate, though. :)

  16. Thanks for posting about this article! I read about it on Big Fat Deal earlier this week, and I am still thrilled with the article’s findings, especially since they prove that my New Year’s resolution of hitting the gym a few times a week and eating more vegetables (combined with no desire for weight loss and a refusal to weigh myself) are good choices. I already don’t smoke, and I drink occasionally, so it looks like I am about 3 1/2 for 4!

    If only my fat-hating family would listen when I tell them things like this!

  17. My worry is that people who are firmly in the diet mindset – basically the rest of the US – will read this and think “see? If fatties actually had those four healthy behaviors, it would make them live longer AND MAKE THEM THIN! I was right!”

    Because healthy behaviors always lead to weight loss, of course.

  18. I read that earlier this week and have been smiling ever since.

    I didn’t learn “healthy behaviors” until I was 29 years old and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Yeah, so, I was the heaviest I’d ever been, but I was eating crap/consuming too much alcohol/being as sedentary as I’d been at 22 and much too thin.

    My endocrinologist is freaking awesome, focusing on what really matters – exercise, healthy eating, blood sugar control – not really on weight. It’s not until I started reading SP that I realized that. I think it’s becoming ever so slightly more common for docs to agree with those principles, too, in treating type 2.

  19. Phledge said:

    this chart isn’t saying is “IF YOU DON’T GET RIGHT WITH GOD YOU’LL DIIIIIIIIIE IN FOURTEEN SHORT YEARS!” Which is good to know.

    Exactly. And it has blasted out of the water the idea that being fat is worse than drinking, smoking and being sedentary all at once.

    As an aside, I’ve often observed that the people who smoke most and party hardest (excessive drinking and recreational drugs) will often be the people who obsess over food, as if by eating ‘clean’ and being thin they are somehow, overall, living a heathly lifestyle. ie. like sinning all week and confessing one’s sins in church on Sunday so you go to Heaven.

  20. “yes, you’ll lose weight and live forever if you eat celery and do 100 reps on the lat pull, but NOT if you then RUIN it by eating peanuts”

    …or drinking 2% milk…”

    (I love you, Shapely Prose!)

  21. You’d think there would be some kind of segfault when people realize that “eating well,” if you accept all available information, ought to mean “not eating fat AND not eating carbs.” Somehow they seem to be able to choose in that situation, usually by totally ridiculing the other position.

    :lol: But isn’t that the very cornerstone of the celery and air diet, FJ?

  22. I prefer the 20 Oreo and Gallon of whole milk 3Xs a day diet… after all, isn’t that what we all eat anyhow? Lord knows we would never even dream of going anywhere near a vegetable unless it was chocolate-covered! So, why wouldn’t it be news to these people who beat the “Get Thin Now!” Bible over our heads every day to be shocked to hear that we FAT PEOPLE actually live long, full, and healthy lives?

  23. Sniper, the crisis in the NHS? It’s called “consultants’ and Great Ideas such as “let’s go to electronic records keeping without asking anybody if that’s a good idea or if it’ll work” coupled with “let’s hire more consultants because this electronic records keeping thing is turning out to be more difficult than we thought and hey, what do you mean we need to buy expensive new computers that the software will fit on and then train people to use them?” amongst many, many, many other things.

    And yet, it’s still better than what we have in the US, gods help us.

  24. Thank you, Orodemniades, I thought it might be something like that.

    In the U.S., I’ve had to fight insurance companies over some really, really stupid issues and I have been ultimately proven right every time. I seriously wonder how much health care money goes to people who job it is to deny health care.

  25. My favorite health insurance line? “All covered services are medically necessary, but not all medically necessary services are covered.” WTF? Yes, I figure it’s acceptable to not pay for something if I don’t need it (which is another bag of chips, lemme tell ya), but is it really honestly truly not okay to pay for something if I DO need it? Who died and made you God, fuckers? I give you money so when shit goes down you will help me, and this is the aid I get?

    I’m anti-insurance in a way that knows no bounds, in case that didn’t shine through.

  26. Thanks, Callicebus. The way it’s stated there it doesn’t sound quite as bad, but as it was initially reported it sounded like the government was sanctioning medical facilities to turn down people for treatment based on their weight and “habits” (addictions). I’m willing to wait and see how it shakes out, but it bears keeping an eye on, I think. Maybe a study like this will help nudge them in the right direction. I hope so.

  27. Actually, I could get behind the rockmelon plan (which is what we call cantaloupe).

    I wonder if the headlines will change as the MSM twists this somehow into Obesity!Crisis!! rhetoric. I spotted this one today (emphasis is mine):

    Women who were heavy, older, married, highly educated, did not use any method of birth control or had a partner with had erectile difficulties were all more likely than women who did not report these factors to say their level of sexual desire was “often much lower” than they would like.

    Women were also more likely to report infrequent orgasms if they were heavier, were more educated, had partners with erectile difficulties, or were on the birth control pill, or used condoms or the withdrawal method of birth control.

    Are we going have a Smart!Chicks!Crisis!!1! now?

  28. Lord knows we would never even dream of going anywhere near a vegetable unless it was chocolate-covered!

    Ick. Jan, did you ever hear (perhaps it was just in the UK) how a few years ago they brought out chocolate flavored frozen broccoli? Apparently the aim was to get kids eating it. It died a death because apparently it just tasted totally disgusting, Definitely prefer mine au naturel.

  29. It would be even more useful if they did more than throw together some half-assed speculations & correlations. If it sounds too good to be true, it IS too good to be true. There really is little we can do to add to our natural life expectancy. The not smoking is the only one & perhaps, regarding drinking, not being an alcoholic, is about all that has any real, solid, reliable evidence behind a belief in an impact on life expectancy. IF I live to be a ripe old age, it will perhaps owe something to the fact that I neither drink nor smoke (though I guess some would want to say that not drinking at all shortens life a bit, but you can take that up with the Mormons), but mostly I will owe it to a lot of relatives who have lived into their 80′s & 90′s & a couple beyond 100.

    As we may recall, when an centenarian is interviewed, he or she never has any great secret of life, never has any particular ‘healthy’ eating habits (in fact, most of them seem to like bacon & eggs every morning & an amazing number of the quotes I have heard/seen listed such things as KFC & Big Macs as favorites foods &, for some reason, a lot of very old people love Twinkies. Maine has a high percentage of smokers relative to the population (& a large percentage of fat people, too, they have run some PSA’s about that over the past few years, about “Maine’s weight problem”) & we have a poor economy, with many people struggling mightily to ‘get by’ (I am sure paying for all those damn cigarettes doesn’t help), but we also have a large percentage of old people, & one particular small fishing island where probably virtually everyone is related, where there is plenty of smoking & some casual drinking, & a lot of people living well beyond the national average. As one humorist pointed out, these irascible, independent old people are as hardy & long-lived as they have always claimed the yogurt-eaters in the Georgian mountains in Russia are.

    I have three brothers who are all a lot older than I am (since women tend to outlive men by 7-8 years, they are doing well to all still be alive.) The oldest, at 75, is the only one who inherited our father’s naturally thin genes, & thinks he is a superior being & the rest are slobs. The middle brother is turning 72 in February, has always been at least chunky, smoked heavily for years, is a social drinker, & now, over the past 10-15 years at least, his weight, at 5″7″, has ranged from 240-260 or so. Unfortunately, he is well brainwashed by the culture & believes his weight is killing him & that weight loss is “always a good thing.”

    The youngest, if he continues to survive another ten years or more, may well confound all the experts. He is nearly 69 & has been an alcoholic since he was 15. Not a day passes when his liver is not pickled in alcohol. A doctor told him when he was 27 that if he didn’t stop drinking, he would be dead in 5 years. Well, it’s the longest 5 years in history. He is about 270 pounds at 5’11″, eats a generally high fat diet, few green vegetables, doesn’t smoke, & thinks exercise is walking from the house to the car & back. However, defying all expectations, he is still alive & still working fulltime drilling water wells. For that, I can only point to genes & all our long-lived relatives, such as a mother who beat all odds of poverty, alcoholism & inherited kidney disease to reach 85 & a grandmother who made it to 90.

    It would be lovely if we do could more of this or less of that & control how long we lived, though it would be an onerous responsibility. However, for a lot of people such as my brother, it is very fortunate that things are not that clearcut.

    BTW, Emerald is it your chocolate or your broccoli you prefer au naturel? :-) I personally would say both, though I like the chocolate a lot more than I do the broccoli. It isn’t bad with cheese sauce, though.

  30. Well, I meant the broccoli, Patsy, but now you mention it, I’m thinking broccoli-flavored chocolate wouldn’t taste too hot either! (I’ve had some great chocolate with chillies in, though. Ummm.)

  31. “As an aside, I’ve often observed that the people who smoke most and party hardest (excessive drinking and recreational drugs) will often be the people who obsess over food, as if by eating ‘clean’ and being thin they are somehow, overall, living a heathly lifestyle. ie. like sinning all week and confessing one’s sins in church on Sunday so you go to Heaven.”

    I have a friend who has been a yoga nut for years; goes to the gym religiously; cooks only fresh organic whole foods – yet told me he “insists” on recreational drugs when going out for an evening. I don’t know if it’s the guilt factor or what but society does seem to have adopted a Catholic confessional mindset when it comes to its excesses. It doesn’t matter how much coke you toot; booze you quaff, or colleagues with dodgy sexual histories you shag in the stationery cupboard at the annual office Christmas bash … just as long as you are perceived to be concerned with your “health”. And, if you can’t actually be thin, then repeatedly and loudly lamenting your fatness and/or weakness for the Demon Cake shows you at least aspire to be on the straight and narrow – ergo you are a good and moral person. It would be laughable if so many people didn’t fall for it.

  32. I didn’t mean to imply that we do, FJ. Nor do I claim to be a paragon of virtue. But I do think there is a prevailing culture that says, whatever your weakness, (for want of a better term), as long as you’re seen to be making up for it by flapping about your weight and food intake, any possible impact on health born of boozing, drug taking etc can safely be ignored. Because nothing is as intrinsically bad for your health as being fat and nothing is more of an affront to decency than someone who refuses to publicly atone for being so. We currently have a huge problem with drink, drug and gang culture in the UK and the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe. I find it immeasurably depressing that, in this climate, being fat is perceived as the height of immorality.

  33. Aack! Sorry, FJ! Me being oversensitive. (Somebody once accused me of being “morally upright” and made it sound like the worst insult in the world!)

  34. Woman, you are a Gold Star Shapeling. When I disagree with you, I’m not going to let you know by being snippy.

  35. I agree with your observations, buffpuff. I have noticed when watching tv cooking shows that, IF they cook something rich, they feel the need to point out how ‘sinful’ it is &/or that they are only going to eat a little bit or once in awhile as a special treat, that this is something they want to eat when they are being ‘bad’. And I am SOOO damned tired of Rachael Ray yapping about food being ‘figure friendly’ or saying that she has made up this menu to take the place of takeout food, so that you can eat it without feeling ‘guilty.’ I do not feel guilty about one damn thing I ever eat, & chocolate, as far as I am concerned, is a necessary food group all by itself. I am also inordinately fond of potato chips.

    We do have a big problem in Maine with alcoholism & domestic violence & poverty & a growing one with drugs, it seems, & much more crime than when I was young. Except for the few extremely religious fundamentalist types I meet, I haven’t known too many Calvinists, though. And, yes, I have personal issues with people misusing alcohol or drugs, &, having lost a beloved sister to lung cancer after she smoked three packs a day for 50 years (the upside there being that her doctor told her she extended her life probably 4 or 5 years by being fat), I am pretty strong anti-smoking, I admit. I may be a bit straight, but I acknowledge my own issues from my own very abusive, chaotic past & admit that many people, in particular a lot of you who are about half my age, my see me as too straight. However, since I am closer to an atheist than anything else, I am hardly a Calvinist. As I have mentioned in other topics, I am if anything a libertarian, as I genuinely believe that we have every right to own our bodies & live in them as we please, as long as we do not hurt others & permit them the same rights. Which means that, while I think smoking is one of the worst things people can do to their health, I will sure as hell fight for your right to smoke if that is your choice, provided you are willing to speak up for my right to occasionally have chips & chocolate for lunch & still maybe live to be 100…just to spite the bastards!

  36. Pingback: Can mothers love their fat daughters? « Femmeknitzi

  37. When I was at my thinnest, I smoked my head off, drank a ton and ate garbage. Now I’m at my largest and I’m the healthiest I’ve been in my life. Still drink tho, but most weeks it’s in moderation. Anyway, what I’m saying is: duh.

  38. oh and I NEVER worked out. I could barely even make it up a flight of stairs without losing my breath. But hey, I fit into my skinny jeans so it was okay!
    Now I yoga and run and swim and such. It’s beautiful to wake up in the morning and not feel like a hot pile of dog crap.

  39. OK, I’m remembering now how at my (almost) thinnest I used to survive whole days at college on black coffee and unlimited quantities of chocolate HobNobs. Not unpleasant, but definitely not a balanced diet. My landlady’s words to my dad when he picked me up were ‘Please, for God’s sake teach her to cook!’ Those were the days…not.

  40. I hate to go on a tangent, but from what lauredhel posted (emphasis mine)

    Women were also more likely to report infrequent orgasms if they were heavier, were more educated, had partners with erectile difficulties, or were on the birth control pill, or used condoms or the withdrawal method of birth control.

    Otherwise known as the three most common methods of birth control. How long until some wingnut claims this as proof that women are naturally only entitled to orgasms if they’re trying to have babies all the time?

  41. (Somebody once accused me of being “morally upright” and made it sound like the worst insult in the world!)

    Ha! And that, Buffpuff, is WHY you are a Gold Star Shapeling!

Comments are closed.