Is Sex Necessary?
2003-10-12 01:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipshttp://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html
Your Health
Is Sex Necessary?
Alan Farnham
Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip. There's no evidence it sharpens your competitive edge. The best that modern science can say for sexual abstinence is that it's harmless when practiced in moderation. Having regular and enthusiastic sex, by contrast, confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. (This assumes that you are engaging in sex without contracting a sexually transmitted disease.)
In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards. Other studies (some rigorous, some less so) purport to show that having sex even a few times a week has an associative or causal relationship with the following:
- Improved sense of smell: After sex, production of the hormone prolactin surges. This in turn causes stem cells in the brain to develop new neurons in the brain's olfactory bulb, its smell center.
- Reduced risk of heart disease: In a 2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above, researchers focused on cardiovascular health. Their finding? That by having sex three or more times a week, men reduced their risk of heart attack or stroke by half. In reporting these results, the co-author of the study, Shah Ebrahim, Ph.D., displayed the well-loved British gift for understatement: "The relationship found between frequency of sexual intercourse and mortality is of considerable public interest."
- Weight loss, overall fitness: Sex, if nothing else, is exercise. A vigorous bout burns some 200 calories--about the same as running 15 minutes on a treadmill or playing a spirited game of squash. The pulse rate, in a person aroused, rises from about 70 beats per minute to 150, the same as that of an athlete putting forth maximum effort. British researchers have determined that the equivalent of six Big Macs can be worked off by having sex three times a week for a year. Muscular contractions during intercourse work the pelvis, thighs, buttocks, arms, neck and thorax. Sex also boosts production of testosterone, which leads to stronger bones and muscles. Men's Health magazine has gone so far as to call the bed the single greatest piece of exercise equipment ever invented.
- Reduced depression: Such was the implication of a 2002 study of 293 women. American psychologist Gordon Gallup reported that sexually active participants whose male partners did not use condoms were less subject to depression than those whose partners did. One theory of causality: Prostoglandin, a hormone found only in semen, may be absorbed in the female genital tract, thus modulating female hormones.
- Pain-relief: Immediately before orgasm, levels of the hormone oxytocin surge to five times their normal level. This in turn releases endorphins, which alleviate the pain of everything from headache to arthritis to even migraine. In women, sex also prompts production of estrogen, which can reduce the pain of PMS.
- Less-frequent colds and flu: Wilkes University in Pennsylvania says individuals who have sex once or twice a week show 30% higher levels of an antibody called immunoglobulin A, which is known to boost the immune system.
- Better bladder control: Heard of Kegel exercises? You do them, whether you know it or not, every time you stem your flow of urine. The same set of muscles is worked during sex.
- Better teeth: Seminal plasma contains zinc, calcium and other minerals shown to retard tooth decay. Since this is a family Web site, we will omit discussion of the mineral delivery system. Suffice it to say that it could be a far richer, more complex and more satisfying experience than squeezing a tube of Crest--even Tartar Control Crest. Researchers have noted, parenthetically, that sexual etiquette usually demands the brushing of one's teeth before and/or after intimacy, which, by itself, would help promote better oral hygiene.
- A happier prostate? Some urologists believe they see a relationship between infrequency of ejaculation and cancer of the prostate. The causal argument goes like this: To produce seminal fluid, the prostate and the seminal vesicles take such substances from the blood as zinc, citric acid and potassium, then concentrate them up to 600 times. Any carcinogens present in the blood likewise would be concentrated. Rather than have concentrated carcinogens hanging around causing trouble, it's better to evict them. Regular old sex could do the job. But if the flushing of the prostate were your only objective, masturbation might be a better way to go, especially for the non-monogamous male. Having sex with multiple partners can, all by itself, raise a man's risk of cancer by up to 40%. That's because he runs an increased risk of contracting sexual infections. So, if you want the all the purported benefits of flushing with none of the attendant risk, go digital. A study recently published by the British Journal of Urology International asserts that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.
While possession of a robust appetite for sex--and the physical ability to gratify it--may not always be the cynosure of perfect health, a reluctance to engage can be a sign that something is seriously on the fritz, especially where the culprit is an infirm erection.
Dr. J. Francois Eid, a urologist with Weill Medical College of Cornell University and New York Presbyterian Hospital, observes that erectile dysfunction is extension of vascular system. A lethargic member may be telling you that you have diseased blood vessels elsewhere in your body. "It could be a first sign of hypertension or diabetes or increased cholesterol levels. It's a red flag that you should see your doctor." Treatment and exercise, says Dr. Eid, can have things looking up again: "Men who exercise and have a good heart and low heart rate, and who are cardio-fit, have firmer erections. There very definitely is a relationship."
But is there such a thing as too much sex?
The answer, in purely physiological terms, is this: If you're female, probably not. If you're male? You betcha.
Dr. Claire Bailey of the University of Bristol says there is little or no risk of a woman's overdosing on sex. In fact, she says, regular sessions can not only firm a woman's tummy and buttocks but also improve her posture.
Dr. George Winch Jr., an obstetrician/gynecologist in Elko, Nev., concurs. If a woman is pre-menopausal and otherwise healthy, says Dr. Winch, her having an extraordinary amount of intercourse ought not to pose a problem. "I don't think women can have too much intercourse," he says, "so long as no sexually transmitted disease is introduced and there's not an inadvertent pregnancy. Sometimes you can have a lubrication problem. If you have that, there can be vaginal excoriation--vaginal scrape."
Women who abstain from sex run some risks. In postmenopausal women, these include vaginal atrophy. Dr. Winch has a middle-aged patient of whom he says: "She hasn't had intercourse in three years. Just isn't interested. The opening of her vagina is narrowing from disuse. It's a condition that can lead to dysparenia, or pain associated with intercourse. I told her, 'Look, you'd better buy a vibrator or you're going to lose function there.'"
As for men, urologist Eid says it's definitely possible to get too much of a good thing, now that drugs such as Viagra and Levitra have given men far more staying power than may actually be good for them.
The penis, says Eid, is wonderfully resilient. But everything has its limits. Penile tissues, if given too roistering or prolonged a pummeling, can sustain damage. In cases you'd just as soon not hear about, permanent damage.
"Yes," says Dr. Eid, "It is possible for a young man who is very forceful and who likes rough sex, to damage his erectile tissue." The drugs increase rigidity; moreover, they make it possible for a man to have second and third orgasms without having to wait out intermission.
"I see it in pro football players," says Eid. "They use Viagra because they're so sexually active. What they demand of their body is unreasonable. It's part of playing football: you play through the pain." This type of guy doesn't listen to his body. He takes a shot of cortisone, and keeps on going. And they have sex in similar fashion."
There's a reason the penis, in its natural state, undergoes a period of flaccidity: That's when it takes a breather. The blood within it is replenished with oxygen. "During an erection," explains Eid, "very little blood flows to the penis. During thrusting, pressure can go as high as 200 mil of water. Zero blood flows into penis at that time." To absorb oxygen, the tissue must become relaxed. "If you do not allow the penis to rest, then the muscle tissue does not get enough oxygen. The individual gets prolonged erections, gets decreased oxygen to tissue, and could potentially suffer priapism." (We recommend you get a medical encyclopedia and look it up.) "The muscle becomes so engorged, it's painful. Pressure inside starts to increase. Cells start dying. More pressure and less blood flow. Eventually the muscle dies. Then there's scarring. That's why it's considered an emergency."
Your Health
Is Sex Necessary?
Alan Farnham
Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip. There's no evidence it sharpens your competitive edge. The best that modern science can say for sexual abstinence is that it's harmless when practiced in moderation. Having regular and enthusiastic sex, by contrast, confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. (This assumes that you are engaging in sex without contracting a sexually transmitted disease.)
In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards. Other studies (some rigorous, some less so) purport to show that having sex even a few times a week has an associative or causal relationship with the following:
- Improved sense of smell: After sex, production of the hormone prolactin surges. This in turn causes stem cells in the brain to develop new neurons in the brain's olfactory bulb, its smell center.
- Reduced risk of heart disease: In a 2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above, researchers focused on cardiovascular health. Their finding? That by having sex three or more times a week, men reduced their risk of heart attack or stroke by half. In reporting these results, the co-author of the study, Shah Ebrahim, Ph.D., displayed the well-loved British gift for understatement: "The relationship found between frequency of sexual intercourse and mortality is of considerable public interest."
- Weight loss, overall fitness: Sex, if nothing else, is exercise. A vigorous bout burns some 200 calories--about the same as running 15 minutes on a treadmill or playing a spirited game of squash. The pulse rate, in a person aroused, rises from about 70 beats per minute to 150, the same as that of an athlete putting forth maximum effort. British researchers have determined that the equivalent of six Big Macs can be worked off by having sex three times a week for a year. Muscular contractions during intercourse work the pelvis, thighs, buttocks, arms, neck and thorax. Sex also boosts production of testosterone, which leads to stronger bones and muscles. Men's Health magazine has gone so far as to call the bed the single greatest piece of exercise equipment ever invented.
- Reduced depression: Such was the implication of a 2002 study of 293 women. American psychologist Gordon Gallup reported that sexually active participants whose male partners did not use condoms were less subject to depression than those whose partners did. One theory of causality: Prostoglandin, a hormone found only in semen, may be absorbed in the female genital tract, thus modulating female hormones.
- Pain-relief: Immediately before orgasm, levels of the hormone oxytocin surge to five times their normal level. This in turn releases endorphins, which alleviate the pain of everything from headache to arthritis to even migraine. In women, sex also prompts production of estrogen, which can reduce the pain of PMS.
- Less-frequent colds and flu: Wilkes University in Pennsylvania says individuals who have sex once or twice a week show 30% higher levels of an antibody called immunoglobulin A, which is known to boost the immune system.
- Better bladder control: Heard of Kegel exercises? You do them, whether you know it or not, every time you stem your flow of urine. The same set of muscles is worked during sex.
- Better teeth: Seminal plasma contains zinc, calcium and other minerals shown to retard tooth decay. Since this is a family Web site, we will omit discussion of the mineral delivery system. Suffice it to say that it could be a far richer, more complex and more satisfying experience than squeezing a tube of Crest--even Tartar Control Crest. Researchers have noted, parenthetically, that sexual etiquette usually demands the brushing of one's teeth before and/or after intimacy, which, by itself, would help promote better oral hygiene.
- A happier prostate? Some urologists believe they see a relationship between infrequency of ejaculation and cancer of the prostate. The causal argument goes like this: To produce seminal fluid, the prostate and the seminal vesicles take such substances from the blood as zinc, citric acid and potassium, then concentrate them up to 600 times. Any carcinogens present in the blood likewise would be concentrated. Rather than have concentrated carcinogens hanging around causing trouble, it's better to evict them. Regular old sex could do the job. But if the flushing of the prostate were your only objective, masturbation might be a better way to go, especially for the non-monogamous male. Having sex with multiple partners can, all by itself, raise a man's risk of cancer by up to 40%. That's because he runs an increased risk of contracting sexual infections. So, if you want the all the purported benefits of flushing with none of the attendant risk, go digital. A study recently published by the British Journal of Urology International asserts that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.
While possession of a robust appetite for sex--and the physical ability to gratify it--may not always be the cynosure of perfect health, a reluctance to engage can be a sign that something is seriously on the fritz, especially where the culprit is an infirm erection.
Dr. J. Francois Eid, a urologist with Weill Medical College of Cornell University and New York Presbyterian Hospital, observes that erectile dysfunction is extension of vascular system. A lethargic member may be telling you that you have diseased blood vessels elsewhere in your body. "It could be a first sign of hypertension or diabetes or increased cholesterol levels. It's a red flag that you should see your doctor." Treatment and exercise, says Dr. Eid, can have things looking up again: "Men who exercise and have a good heart and low heart rate, and who are cardio-fit, have firmer erections. There very definitely is a relationship."
But is there such a thing as too much sex?
The answer, in purely physiological terms, is this: If you're female, probably not. If you're male? You betcha.
Dr. Claire Bailey of the University of Bristol says there is little or no risk of a woman's overdosing on sex. In fact, she says, regular sessions can not only firm a woman's tummy and buttocks but also improve her posture.
Dr. George Winch Jr., an obstetrician/gynecologist in Elko, Nev., concurs. If a woman is pre-menopausal and otherwise healthy, says Dr. Winch, her having an extraordinary amount of intercourse ought not to pose a problem. "I don't think women can have too much intercourse," he says, "so long as no sexually transmitted disease is introduced and there's not an inadvertent pregnancy. Sometimes you can have a lubrication problem. If you have that, there can be vaginal excoriation--vaginal scrape."
Women who abstain from sex run some risks. In postmenopausal women, these include vaginal atrophy. Dr. Winch has a middle-aged patient of whom he says: "She hasn't had intercourse in three years. Just isn't interested. The opening of her vagina is narrowing from disuse. It's a condition that can lead to dysparenia, or pain associated with intercourse. I told her, 'Look, you'd better buy a vibrator or you're going to lose function there.'"
As for men, urologist Eid says it's definitely possible to get too much of a good thing, now that drugs such as Viagra and Levitra have given men far more staying power than may actually be good for them.
The penis, says Eid, is wonderfully resilient. But everything has its limits. Penile tissues, if given too roistering or prolonged a pummeling, can sustain damage. In cases you'd just as soon not hear about, permanent damage.
"Yes," says Dr. Eid, "It is possible for a young man who is very forceful and who likes rough sex, to damage his erectile tissue." The drugs increase rigidity; moreover, they make it possible for a man to have second and third orgasms without having to wait out intermission.
"I see it in pro football players," says Eid. "They use Viagra because they're so sexually active. What they demand of their body is unreasonable. It's part of playing football: you play through the pain." This type of guy doesn't listen to his body. He takes a shot of cortisone, and keeps on going. And they have sex in similar fashion."
There's a reason the penis, in its natural state, undergoes a period of flaccidity: That's when it takes a breather. The blood within it is replenished with oxygen. "During an erection," explains Eid, "very little blood flows to the penis. During thrusting, pressure can go as high as 200 mil of water. Zero blood flows into penis at that time." To absorb oxygen, the tissue must become relaxed. "If you do not allow the penis to rest, then the muscle tissue does not get enough oxygen. The individual gets prolonged erections, gets decreased oxygen to tissue, and could potentially suffer priapism." (We recommend you get a medical encyclopedia and look it up.) "The muscle becomes so engorged, it's painful. Pressure inside starts to increase. Cells start dying. More pressure and less blood flow. Eventually the muscle dies. Then there's scarring. That's why it's considered an emergency."
If I argued like a liberal....
Date: 2003-10-11 11:16 pm (UTC)But dude, on Seinfeld that one time, George like totally stopped having sex and became like a total genius and stuff. It was really cool and funny and dude I love Seinfeld it's the greatest show ever and Bush is Hitler and corporations rape the masses and(trails off into incoherent ramblings)
Re: If I argued like a liberal....
Date: 2004-03-12 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 03:22 am (UTC)I told her, 'Look, you'd better buy a vibrator or you're going to lose function there.'"
but if it is, this man deserves a medal.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 04:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 06:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 12:14 pm (UTC)Intelligent guys don't? I'd say *emotionally mature* guys don't tend to *decieve* women into sleeping with them, but even they may or may not persue aggressively - that's more a function of extroversion/introversion and self-esteem, neither of which are strictly positively correlated with intelligence or emotional maturity.
no subject
no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 04:36 pm (UTC)no subject
2. They don't have to come on to anyone to be a womanizer -- the women come on to them. Besides, they know they're almost guaranteed acceptance of their overtures. Side from that, how many women did each of them -ize?
3. It has nothing to do with morals (or even ethics), and everything to do with tending to be more thoughtful (in the sense of thinking a lot, not of thinking well) rather than blindly following the gonads around.
4. You have a somewhat different definition of intelligence than I have, I would guess, based on some of those examples.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 05:03 pm (UTC)Feynman talked about an entire period in his life when he spent a lot of time trying to figure women out to convince himself he could get women to sleep with him just by knowing how they tick (he describes this in his autobiography). Bill Clinton's exploits are pretty well known - as are his techniques: he actively tried to seduce women, not just wait for them to fall in his lap, even to the point of going after them harder if they did turn down his initial overtures. Ditto for JFK. RFK I only have heard anecdotes about, and haven't read any biographies of him.
Following your gonads around can be done by anyone, regardless of intelligence - the dumb do it blindly, and the smart know they're doing it, but choose to do it anyways, and use their intelligence as a means to that end.
And given any measure of intelligence, Bill Clinton and Richard Feynman are obviously (Rhodes scholar and Nobel Laureate) pretty far up there in intelligence, same with JFK - and again, I don't know too much about RFK.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 05:45 pm (UTC)In my experience, and based on what I've read, seen, and so on, the higher the intelligence the less the guy tends to spend his every waking minute chasing tail. Thus, I used the word "tend". You can naysay that all you like, and we'll still disagree. There aren't any (credible, at least) statistics out there to say one way or another who is right.
Ultimately, however, as I said, we obviously have very different ideas about how intelligence is measured. I've known summa cum laude graduates of ivy league schools who couldn't form an original thought or follow through on a conversation about ethics or physics with me, and I've known people that barely made it through high school who could very easily be the next crop of Nobel laureates. Academic achievement a public figure status are no measure of intelligence in my book. If they are, that means that Bush is probably about thirty points higher on the IQ scale than Gore.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 05:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 06:46 pm (UTC)Have you ever known a Rhodes Scholar? This isn't "my daddy got me into Harvard, and I was one of the 80% of graudates from said school who graduate magna cum laude". A total of 32 people from this *entire country* each year get Rhodes scholarships. Its not "memorize A,B,C to pass your GRE test", and just "work really hard".
From my experience, age and maturity have orders of magnitude more to do with whether you spend huge amounts of time chasing tail or not. Maybe your idea of "intelligence" has too large a component of what most people would call "wisdom"
But I still say that I don't think you know whether we'd disagree on who measures as "intelligent" - I've lived with an entire household of ivy-league graduates, and I am well aware of how stupid they can be (case in point: ivy-league mechanical engineering grad and I were watching Demolition Man, and we both laughed out loud at seeing Sly crash up through the ground in an elevator from the buried-underground city. Mr. Mechanical Engineer says, "What the hell? How'd the elevator go through the ground, the cables couldn't pull it up once it smashed through its roof!". To which I slowly asked, "Well... couldn't it have been a hydraulic elevator?", "Huh? There's no such thing as that!"...).
But this doesn't mean that there isn't a fairly high correlation between intelligence and graduating summa cum laude from an ivy league school (although determination and discipline are probably even more highly correlated with that).
I'll just take your comment about knowing folks who "could easily be the next crop of Nobel Laureates" as mere hyperbole and not attempt to question it further (although I'll point out quickly that at least for the physics nobel, I've heard first hand that it can come down to just as much "hard work and luck", and not so much "being a genius" as becoming president [well, it wasn't compared to becoming president, but extrapolating from it being described as luck at being in the right place at the right time with some good intuition and a lot of hard work seems pretty reasonable]).
no subject
You're right about hyperbole. The use of "could easily" was a trifle sloppy on my part. Aside from that (and the fact that I enjoy a one-degree separation from a Nobel prize winner from last year, which doesn't reflect on me at all but is kinda nifty), I only brought it up because of your mention that one of your examples was a Nobel laureate.
I don't think that my ideas of native intelligence have much to do with wisdom, but they do have a lot to do with the idea of what capacity someone has of being able to understand and assimilate new concepts.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 07:50 pm (UTC)You must not meet very many "intelligent" people then... people with 165+ IQ's are few and far between. You're right here - I'd probably say that I don't restrict my qualifications of intelligent on the fourth standard deviation, or else who would I call "really intelligent", "brilliant", and "genius"? And how to distinguish between someone who's 140 IQ from 120? Call them "not so smart" and "stupid", leaving who knows what adjectives for people within 1 std. dev. from average...
I enjoy a one-degree separation from a Nobel prize winner from last year
Heh... then we're about tied - since it's been a while since I've had any contact with Laureates (all in physics), but I've met 6, and actually known (albeit only casually) three of those.
they do have a lot to do with the idea of what capacity someone has of being able to understand and assimilate new concepts
That's about how I see it to, but I tend to add on bonuses for perceptiveness, speed of wit, and creativity - it's not all about just ability to learn, or else your definition of intelligence *would* be very highly correlated to academic achievement: people whose primary ability is to "understand and assimilate new concepts [quickly]" thrive in, and are often attracted to, academia.
no subject
Based on IQ scores, I apparently rate in the 98th percentile (the Mensa standards are somewhere in the range of fifteen points below my own score, I think), and I tend to assume "normal" status for people that are intelligent enough to keep up with me in conversation. I also tend to think of people that are about at my level as "reasonably intelligent" and people that are significantly higher on the scale than me as "Woah, frightening." That, of course, is all based on snap-judgment impressions. When I stop to think about it, I begin to realize that I insulate myself within a social circle of above-average individuals, which badly skews my knee-jerk judgments.
I'd say you're "ahead" of me on the Nobel laureate hobnobbing scale, if we're comparing notes. That's a heckuva lineup.
I generally categorize perceptiveness, wit, and creativity separately from intelligence (thus the difference in terms), though it seems that those three characteristics are common symptoms/side-effects of intelligence (in my experience). As for intelligence enjoying a high degree of correlation with academic achievement: It doesn't happen as much as you might expect, I think. Then again, maybe I just know a lot of underachievers. Like attracts like, I suppose, though I often blame my own lack of academic advancement after high school on a (joking) reduction in IQ caused by exposure to the military. On the other hand, I do love inhabiting the halls of academia. I just haven't finished a degree yet, despite my advancing age.
note: Going back over the text of this reply, I sound like a pompous ass. Please forgive the latent (Ha! Right!) arrogance.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 09:02 pm (UTC)Given this updated information, I guess I should backtrack a little, and say that I partly agree with you - I'd say that the adjective I'd use for someone at about 130 IQ would be "reasonably intelligent". I somehow mixed up a factor of two in going from "IQ scores have a std. dev. of 16 IQ points" to where 98th percentile is - I thought you'd need to go two more 16 point jumps to get to 98th percentile, up at 164 or so (I'd like to claim it's the inverse correlation between exposure to advanced mathematics and ability to crunch numbers, but it's probably more likely just evidence of how careless I can be with said numbers).
As for correlations between intelligence and general success of any kind (specifically income, job status, and education status), I've read (but for all my googling, I can't find the study right now) that there's actually a peak - they are positively correlated from low intelligence through about the 98th percentile, after which the correlation drops and eventually becomes negative. The theory is that the really really intelligent people get bored with all of the tasks that they'd have to accomplish to acheive the most in the way of the above indicators, and realize that they can skirt by doing relatively well while doing practically no work at all.
no subject
I'd forgotten it was that low. On second thought, I'm not sure I'm within fifteen points of it. I might be, though. I don't remember the exact numbers on the official score I've got that I was comparing to their standards, and didn't remember the exact numbers for the Mensa requirements.
If you find that study, I'd love to see it. That kinda sounds like it defines my life.
Is your "pbrane" LJ username a joke on string theory terminology? If so, I love the humor. If not, I'm curious about the source of the name.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 10:06 pm (UTC)Yep. Its funny, but I'm so conditioned to hear the word said that I automatically assume that spelling, and meaning, so while other people I know from online contexts call out to me from across a room with "hey *giggle* pea-brain!", I just turn my head and am like, "Yeah?" - and am kinda confused at the *giggle*. Heh.
no subject
The "pbrane" reference would certainly be a little more socially unwieldy, though, I'd think.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 10:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 08:18 pm (UTC)So That's My Problem!
Date: 2003-10-12 04:14 pm (UTC)Re: So That's My Problem!
no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 06:10 pm (UTC)O.K., so orc's are out. What's your perspective on bookish trolls?
no subject
Date: 2003-10-12 06:54 pm (UTC)Re: So That's My Problem!
Date: 2003-10-12 06:51 pm (UTC)I think something fun and exciting could be arranged. Like to travel? I’m off to Puerto Vallarta end of next month?
no subject
Date: 2003-10-13 08:33 am (UTC)--Casey Stengel