|
June 08, 2007
Elementary alimentary anatomy
While it is not my point here to debate anyone's religious or political views on homosexuality, I think the anatomical opinions of Dr. James Holsinger are creating a bit of medical confusion. From the WSJ, here's James Taranto: These are Holsinger's two main claims:Not to pick nits, but I'm not sure that he stated the obvious at all.The first of these is obvious to all human beings and probably most lower mammals as well. The second is obvious to anyone who has occasion to think about the subject. (To those readers who would rather not, our apologies.) I'll start with the definition: alimentary canalOral sex is very common, is widely believed to be less risky than vaginal sex, and while it is certainly less risky than anal sex, the report Taranto discusses does not mention oral sex, but merely compares and contrasts the risks of anal intercourse with the risks of vaginal intercourse. While it is true that anal intercourse involves the alimentary canal and vaginal intercourse does not, I think it is inaccurate to characterize "erotic activity that involves the alimentary tract" as being anal intercourse. (All the more so when it is considered that the vast majority of sex acts involving the alimentary tract involve heterosexual oral intercourse.) Had Taranto contrasted "erotic activity that involves the anus" with "erotic activity that involves the vagina" I could see his point. But to the extent that he (and Dr. Holsinger's report, on which he relies) imply that the alimentary tract is a synonym for the anus, they are misusing medical terminology. None of this is to suggest that oral sex is safe, of course. But it is alimentary. Sigh. I just realized that I forgot something which might be relevant. While it's been a long time now, there was once a presidential pronouncement that oral sex is not sex. But will this assist with the alimentary tract analysis? Am I supposed to care? posted by Eric on 06.08.07 at 04:42 PM
Comments
So this shines new light on the relationship between Holmes and Watson. Maybe Holmes was saying "Alimentary my dear Watson". (as a reward for a case well solved, Dr. Watson would 'attend' to Holmes' needs?) (the complexity of the case solved would determine whether input or output ends were involved) XWL · June 9, 2007 01:50 PM Yet another WSJ article that, like its immigration editorials, would be greatly clarified by the use of the word "buttfucking." Stand-Up Minuteman · June 9, 2007 02:34 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
June 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2007
May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
death of a dog
Elementary alimentary anatomy Bush spokesman finally faces pressing issues nuts, mutts, and lost castles some things are inevitable Bad boys and bureaucrats. A deadly duo? Climate Change Porn Climate: The Astrology Model No Guns = More Crime! a nap in my lap beats a null poll
Links
Site Credits
|
|
What irks me even more is the use of the word 'erotic'. This is hardly a medical term, and 'sexual' would work just as well in the same place. It may have been meant as a euphemism (much like 'alimentary' as a euphemism for 'anal'), but in the end I think it makes it sound even dirtier.