Apparently it’s quite easy to restore a woman’s libido:
Zaps to the ankle may boost a woman’s libido more than foreplay: sending electrical signals from the foot to the base of the spine can cause arouse in less than 30 minutes
Knowing that my Loyal Readers are often of a DIY disposition, however, I would caution y’all before you try this on your girlfriends / wives / FWBs with your own equipment, such as this:
The effect on yer beloved may be a little more, ummm extreme than you may have been expecting.
Don’t ask me how I know this.
For my Lady Readers: don’t even go there.
And a final thought: 30 minutes? If you can’t get yer old lady started with 30 minutes of traditional foreplay, you either need to update your technique or else check her pulse.
Oh good grief, here we come again:
Sex is best in your SIXTIES: Survey finds 66-year-olds are the most satisfied in bed – and sex therapists say it makes sense
The eighth annual Singles in America survey was taken by more than 5,000 single people in the US.
It found single women are having the best sex at 66 years old and men at 64.
Sex therapist Dr Madeleine Castellanos said lovemaking is more fulfilling for single men and women in their 60s because they are experienced, they know what they want and are free to explore the dimensions of their sexuality.
While many think younger people have a better time knocking boots, the recent survey revealed it actually gets better with age.
In fact, a study published by National Commission on Aging found women, in particular, said sex in their 70s was at least as satisfying or more satisfying physically than it was in their 40s.
As someone who’s in his sixties, I’ll let you know as soon as it happens. (Actually, that’s a lie: I never talk about my sex life, such as it is, because I can’t imagine anything more boring.) I would imagine, however, that having a little knee-trembler with any of the following sexagenarians might be quite fun:
…and finally, Kim Cattrall:
Swinging sixties, indeed. And if none of the above caused at least some parts of your body to tingle, you’re in deep trouble, buddy, regardless of your age.
Oh, and just to be inclusive, a token trio of sexagenarian men for my Lady Readers:
…and Kevin Costner:
Or did I get this last lot wrong, Ladies? (I have no idea what men are attractive to women, unless I know the size of their bank balances. Then, I’m infallible.)
Looks like Formula One is joining the Pussification Parade:
Walk-on grid girls were axed from Formula One today as the motorsport followed the move within darts to get rid of glamour women. F1 bosses said they will no longer use grid girls from this current season which starts in Australia in two months’ time because it is not in keeping with their ‘brand values’.
Formula One’s “brand values”, you assholes, are money, money and money. And seeing as you’ve already eliminated tobacco sponsorship, why stop there? How about booze? (Oh wait… Williams-Martini would have to go too.)
As a Formula One fan of well over half a century, I hope you all go broke, you pandering fuckwits.
And speaking of money, girls like these will now be out of a job:
First they made the engines quieter (too quiet), now they’re getting rid of the grid girls. Without noise and scenery, what’s left is watching a group of multimillionaire drivers in cars owned by billionaires as they parade quietly around a circuit where the ticket price starts at $100.
What’s left for a man to watch? NASCAR? (Note the comments under this one…)
It’s enough to make a man reach for a drink at 6am… or has that been banned too?
Ripped from the headlines comes this beauty:
Ron Jeremy is BANNED from porn awards in Las Vegas amid sexual assault allegations
Wait a minute… in an industry which is the very manifestation of sexual exploitation of women, one of its leading performers is being castigated for groping?
No wonder The Onion is going out of business.
An aside: shows you how out of touch I am. I’m in Vegas right now, and never knew there was a porn convention going on. And in case you’re wondering: I’m sticking to the gun thing at SHOT.
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.