And so it begins… the pussification of Harry.
Prince Harry will not be taking part in the traditional royal Boxing Day shoot because he doesn’t want to upset his fiancee Meghan Markle. The 33-year-old was just 12 when he took part in his first festive shoot but has pulled out because Miss Markle is a keen animal rights campaigner. Miss Markle, 36, doesn’t like hunting and Prince Harry is said to have shocked gamekeepers at Sandringham after he informed them he won’t be there on December 26.
Couple of points need to be made, here.
I have it on good authority that Harry is an excellent shot, and as the article indicates, he’s been doing this for two decades — i.e. most of his life. Why should he care what this totty thinks about hunting? He’s a bloody royal, FFS, and she’s the one who gets the most out of their upcoming nuptials. Hell, he can get pretty much any woman he wants — and better-looking than her, for sure. (He certainly has in the past; here’s Cressida Bonas, for one.)
So why he has to accommodate this Markle woman’s silly nonsense is beyond me.
She’s a “part-time vegan” and an animal-rights activist, according to reports. Oh, isn’t that special. Well, he’s a member of a royal family, a decorated war veteran and a keen birdshooter, which I think is a lot more special than some two-a-penny divorced actress.
I never cared about this relationship one way or the other, because it’s none of my business and celebrity stuff bores me to tears. But I get truly irritated when a woman comes into a family with traditional values — and it’s hard to think of a family with more traditional values than Harry’s lot — and wants to make everyone change around her. Arrogant bint.
I always used to think that the penchant for royals to marry other royals (or at least nobility) was silly. But the more I see of it, the more I think it makes sense: the odds are always better if you marry into your own class. No good is going to come of this marriage; you heard it here first.
So not only can sex make you blind, the Daily Mail reports, it can make you deaf as well — or worse:
[B]lindness isn’t the only terrible injury Cupid can inflict. The medical world has recorded a catalogue of romance-related catastrophes that can leave ardent lovers deaf, paralysed, clinically depressed — or even dead.
My favorite of all the woes listed in the article is “lover’s knee”.
Arthritis specialist Dr Robert S. Pinals, of Rutgers University in the U.S., was searching desperately for a cause when he asked his patient about her bedroom habits. ‘Always on my knees,’ she replied.
The patient and her partner had first tried the position a year previously and liked it so much they subsequently indulged ‘several times a day… often on a hard surface,’ reported Dr Pinals.
‘Abandonment of this position was recommended. With some reluctance the patient agreed,’ he reports. ‘Two months later, she said the knee pain had almost completely disappeared.’
I once suffered from massive rug burns after a romp on a bearskin rug, and when we transferred our activities to the bed, the next morning the sheets looked as though I’d slaughtered a small animal in there. [Pro tip: doing it on a bear skin is one of those things, like beach sex, where the concept is far more romantic than the reality. Bear fur is coarse and scratchy. Stick to cotton sheets.]
Of course, sometimes rug burns are a necessary evil:
Of course, that’s not a politically-correct image these days, is it? (Which is why I posted it, duh.)
“OMG, so I went to this like, artist’s place ’cause he said he was, like, looking for a model and he was offering like, serious cash. So I get there and he says I have to pose like, nude OMG, but he says he saw my nude pic on the Internet because that bastard ex-bf of mine, like, took those nudies of me with his iPhone? and this artist is all like, it’s Art, not just a boob pic, you know? And he offers me like, double the money and I’ve got these student loans? so I think WTF and I strip off. He starts painting me, and then he’s, like, all OMG you’re so beautiful and he starts looking at me LIKE THAT and I’m just about to get up and leave when he, like starts kissing me and I’m like ewww ewww ewww because he’s like, older than my Dad, you know? I was so grossed out, it was like, sexual harassment? but he gave me $500 for the session so I guess it’s like, okay?”
“OMG that’s exactly what happened to me? only I didn’t go nude and the artist was like kinda sexy, like Brad Pitt kinda, so I didn’t mind too much? Just promise me you won’t like, tell my bf, kay?”
So maybe yer Mom wasn’t so wrong when she told you that if you touched yourself, you’d go blind. Although in this case, it wasn’t wanking, but shagging:
A man had to go to hospital after becoming blind in one eye when he orgasmed too hard during sex, research has revealed.
According to a paper in the British Medical Journal the ‘29-year-old man presented to the emergency eye clinic reporting an obstruction in the central vision of his left eye, which he had noticed on waking that morning’.
Doctors guessed that the man performed a Valsalva maneuveur, in other words the tensing of abdominal muscles, straining and holding your breath, in which air is forced against a closed windpipe and pressure increases in the chest.
This pressure resulted in the popping of blood vessel in the eye of the unfortunate man after an episode of ‘vigorous sexual intercourse’, doctors concluded after speaking to him, the study said.
‘The diagnosis was unclear and the patient was asked to return for follow-up three days later.
‘At this visit, he saw a different clinician who asked direct questions about the patient’s sexual activity.
‘The patient then reported an episode of vigorous sexual intercourse on the evening preceding the onset of symptoms. This directed history led to the diagnosis of postcoital valsalva retinopathy. Valsalva retinopathy is managed conservatively and is a self-resolving condition with an excellent prognosis.’
In other words, relax and enjoy your problem. But that wasn’t the only interesting thing about this episode.
Haematologists have also found Valsalva manoeuvre can also produce memory loss.
The intense pressure in the brain’s blood vessels resulted in temporary lack of blood flow to the central part of the brain, which in turn, resulted in amnesia, a 1998 study found.
The Valsalva manoeuvre is thought to cause global amnesia in one person in 10,000 and in one reported case, the manoeuvre lead to a ruptured blood vessel in a patient’s neck.
This may be why you can’t remember her name the next morning, but good luck telling her it’s Valsalva; she’ll probably retort that you didn’t use any lube. You bastard.
Women seem to have no sense of humor about this kind of thing.
Afterthought: When did “orgasm” become a verb? Or did I just miss the memo (again)?
It occurs to me that of late I may have been giving women a hard time on this here website, and I’ve also been discussing various examples of female pulchritude in my usual drooling Male Bastard fashion, so my Lady Readers may be getting a little ticked off.
Here then, in the interests of balance, is something for said Lady Readers:
I have no idea who he is (British, to judge from the label — “What label?” I hear you ask), so go ahead and just look at him like a sex object.
I owe you all one.
Comments, on this post, are restricted to the Ladies.
Ripped from the headlines:
“When does the meter stop ticking?” asks millionaire
The money allowed [his ex-wife] to buy a £2million home in Cheshire… and a holiday villa in Mallorca and she also gets £175,000-a-year personal maintenance for life.
One would think this harpy would be satisfied with this generous settlement; but noooo:
Mrs Waggott however claims she did not get enough from the financial package and wants her yearly payments increased by £23,000.
Her lawyer James Turner QC argued that she is entitled to an ongoing share of her husband’s earnings, as she helped him build his career by supporting him and the family on the home front.
He told the court the question of whether she is in financial ‘need’ is irrelevant, and urged the judges to concentrate instead on the issue of ‘fairness.’ He said: ‘A wife in her position, who has supported the husband through the early stages of a career during a 21-year relationship, should be entitled to a share of the fruits of that career, irrespective of ‘need’ in the conventional sense.
And this, m’lud, is why most people want to see lawyers flayed and crucified. Ditto greedy and rapacious gold-digging ex-wives.