Little Mr. Mahatma liked the last John Stossel book.

The world must be coming to an end.

Posted by: Attila at 04:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm so ashamed.

Posted by: Attila at 04:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

that an Oldsmobile can be a kind of quagmire, too. He's got a point—at least with respect to Senator Kennedy.

Posted by: Attila at 02:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . with his own take on the Iraqi elections, and the discomfort they are giving the MSM.

Posted by: Attila at 05:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . are going great so far, depite the one explosion in Baghdad. Turnout is good, with the possible exception of Sunnis, who can go fly a kite for all I care perhaps can be included in the new government through appointed positions. Of course, I'm sure you've all heard the quotes about how "sure we're scared, but what else is new? We lived under Saddam for decades. We've been scared all our lives."

People are doing extraordinary things to vote.

Dean has a a roundup of roundups.

UPDATE: Jeff Percifield has his own roundup, of quotes from the Iraqis themselves.

Posted by: Attila at 04:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Martha Brockenbrough, writing for MSN "Encarta," discusses the sub-culture of twin-dom, and the possibility that calling the Olsen twins fraternals is really some sort of publicity stunt, given that they are dead-ringers for one another.

After all, plenty of identical twins write with different hands. (In fact, though Brokenbrough doesn't cover this ground I wonder if the Olsens could be identical twins who formed later: apparently, the later the egg/pre-embroyo splits, the more the identicals will have in common. If it happens very late [yet not late enough that they are conjoined and therefore "Siamese" twins], one often gets "mirror image" twins, who share DNA but have organs on complementary sides.)

On the other hand, I certainly knew one set of twins who were technically fraternals, yet hard to tell apart. Heck—sometimes that happens with siblings who are close in age and share all the same features.

The two twins I know best, Professor Purkinje's boy-girl fraternals, don't even necessarily look like they're the same ethnicity. (This was the case between my two-year-older brother and I; he shows all the Creek Indian genes, and any black ones we've got lying around in the bloodline: dark skin, dark curly hair, high cheekbones. Other than my full lips and our both being smart Alecks we have nothing in common physically at all.) The professor's kids are an amazingly beautiful dark-haired girl and a light-haired boy who looks a little Celtic for my money. People will be mistaking him for a gentile, left and right.

I still want to adopt twins. But the odds are not in my favor. Not at all. Or a redhead. Or redheaded twins. If we got redheaded twins I'd start getting up every morning and going to mass during the week. At 7:30 a.m, which is like the rest of you doing it at 3:00 in the morning.

Did you know that every now and again a set of identical twins marries another set of identical twins, and that in each household the nieces and nephews are genentically equivalent their own kids? (I'll have to use that in a murder mystery someday.)

As for the Olsen twins, Wikipedia has an entry on them that includes a chart explaining all their differences—subtle to the outsider, presumably glaring to those who know them.

To me, though, the mystery is how the dynamic works among groups of triplets. I've been told that the most common configuration is "a pair and a spare." If you're the fraternal twin, and the two other triplets are identicals, do you feel perpetually left out? How does that alter the family dynamic?

Professor Purkinje tells me to give up on the romantic assumption that all twins play nicely together and entertain each other, making them "easier" to raise than singletons. After all, sometimes the twins are fraternal boys who fight a lot.

So there's that.

UPDATE: The good professor informs me that if we adopt twins—redheads or not—I'll be getting up by 7:30 anyway, but it won't be to go to mass. However, he's not the least bit clear on why I'd do such a thing.

Perhaps he thinks I'll be so excited to have babies in the house that I'll be blogging more than ever. That's certainly possible, but I should imagine I'll do that at night.

Hm. Very mysterious.

Posted by: Attila at 04:28 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 3 kb.

Discusses our lives as conservatives, and how some of us must pretend not to be quite so super-rich:

One of the great secrets of being a conservative is that you only pretend to pay taxes. We let the liberals do all the heavy lifting. After all, they're the ones who support useless tax-funded social services and redistribution of wealth. Might as well be their wealth.

Looks like I will owe a whopping $5.40 -- that is if I canÂ’t manage to conceal my Halliburton dividends and all the 6 figure checks the Bush Administration paid me to pimp their agenda.

Otherwise itÂ’s a fat, fat refund check. All of which will be spent on war, my weather machine, and shiny pebbles to throw at the homeless intellectuals.

Of course in order to reduce my taxes I had to buy another Hummer. But the ash tray in the old one was full, so it seemed like the practical thing to do.

I can't help but think she's making a mistake, what with the Hummer and the shiny pebbles—but no diamond earrings. But, hey: it's her refund check.

A special "thank you" to the White House for all the little presents they've sent me over the years. (Pssst: they shouldn't look like pictures of Laura and George on the White House Lawn. They should look more like checks, with lots of zeros in them. There's a good lad, Karl.)

Posted by: Attila at 11:42 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 1 kb.

Over coffee with a friend this afternoon I remarked that there was a local support group forming for adults with ADD.

"I mean, I know we joke about our attention spans, but do you think that might be it? I mean, is it possible that I really do officially have Attention Deficit Disorder?"

Pause.

"You have something," he replied.

This particular time, I didn't tell him to fuck himself, but I'm sure it was understood. And I'm sure that if he got that message through the ether he realized I meant it in the kindest possible way.

Posted by: Attila at 06:43 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hi. I don't know how serious these last two posts are, but I'm being serious. My sister (age 32) took medication for depression for some years, but it didn't do the trick. Then some doctor or another diagnosed her with adult ADD, and prescribed amphetamines. (No, it's not a joke. Amphetamines (not methamphetamines) are recommended for adult ADD.) She took (is taking) the amphetamines, her depression is unnoticeable any more, and her ADD is also gone. And, she lost weight. Just a thought.

Posted by: jb at January 29, 2005 07:41 PM (Dr6qO)

2 Wellbutrin? Ritalin? I'm leery about amphetamines, since I have sleep issues, and am convinced that what I realllllllyy need—just like the Ramones—is to be sedated. But I'll check into it; thanks.

Posted by: Attila Girl at January 29, 2005 11:55 PM (RjyQ5)

3 Tried melatonin for sleep? One 3 mg time release melatonin, and I'm down for the count. L-Tryptophan is back on the market too, I recently learned. It makes a great sleep aid, though I find that melatonin seems to be quicker acting and quicker to wear off, come morning. (L-Tryptophan converts to melatonin and/or serotonin in the brain.) L-Tryptophan works well against depression for some people. I don't know what it would do to ADD.

Posted by: Desert Cat at January 30, 2005 12:47 AM (c8BHE)

4 Men are not the most perceptive. I find that I have to be told to fuck off. Amphetamines? I think I might have ADD myself.

Posted by: Pile On® at January 30, 2005 07:51 AM (Y/BZf)

5 I'd already flipped him off at least once within the same two-hour span, and I'm trying to work on my hostility issues. Feel yourself coming down with ADD, huh? Maybe you just have that 24-hour kind.

Posted by: Attila Girl at January 30, 2005 01:40 PM (RjyQ5)

6 Hmm, had to really think about what to say. Tell you what: I want to buy you your favorite ice cream. I'll do whatever to get LMA to smile

Posted by: William Teach at February 01, 2005 03:56 PM (HxpPK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've been depressed for two years, but this last month has been one of the worst in a long time.

I'm thinking of taking up smoking.

But I'd have to either allow my drapes to get all smokey, or go outdoors where, let's face it, it's just freezing cold. And by that I mean, it's 60 degrees fahrenheit.

Of course, if I continue to be this depressed for much longer, I'll be able to fit into those hip-hugger jeans hanging in the back of my closet. I mean, I won't be willing to go anywhere in them, but they'll fit.

And won't that be nice? I can lounge around in my skinny jeans, avoiding responsibility and trying to remember how to smoke without coughing.

It occurs to me that I'd make a superb 13-year-old girl. Except, you know, for the lines around my eyes.

Well, I finally found someone to turn me upside down,
And nail my feet up where my head should be.
If they had a King of Fools then I could wear that crown,
And you can all die laughing because I'll wear it proudly.

Posted by: Attila at 06:00 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

1 My entire family shares certain hereditary health problems: rheumatoid arthritis, impingement syndrome (shoulder tendons), allergies, hypothyroid, extremely high arches in our feet. And depression. 1) Please do NOT, NOT, NOT take up smoking. Besides all the obvious reasons - you already have some repiratory issues from allergies; it's ridiculously expensive; it's stinky and dirty and greasy smoke clings to that nice house you like to keep clean; etc. etc. - the biochemical changes from numerous active ingredients in tobacco will actually INCREASE your depression. This is DUMB. Don't let your inner libertarian suffer the insult of handing someone else power and control over you. Do that right thing and keep on taking responsibility for your own actions. Addiction also depresses you situationally: it sucks to realize you're any kind of addict. It means you voluntarily gave up a certain control over yourself to people that work hard to make sure you're addicted. This makes them huge shitloads of money. These people fit my definition of "evil" to a T. 2) Chronic depression is just a chemical imbalance, a health problem like any other. GET IT TREATED. I hate to say this to a Californian, but take the damn pills. Prozac, whatever, sometimes you & the doc have to experiment to get it right. You have far more to fear from the illness than the cure. If nothing else please just give it a try. Yes a "natural" solution like talk therapy is better in some ways but it takes far longer. Don't waste another 2 years in and out of the cycles of depression. Take the pills now to get it under control, and you can do the talk therapy over time, and quit the pills when you're ready. 3) Adult symptoms of depression usually don't include "anger." For men especially, but also for women, I think this is an unrecognized and important symptom. If you feel you've had both depression and anger issues in these 2 years, treating your depression can do wonders for anger too. 4) This disease has a high mortality rate. GET IT TREATED. Out here in the blogosphere, we love you and need you and want you to stick around. Don't let us down by succumbing even a little bit to this illness. Not even the little bit of, say, deciding not to do a post here and there. Every time you do that, you're depriving your loyal readers of our required dosage of high quality, highly entertaining posts by Little Miss Attila. 5) Say you keep talking and wondering and don't decide to take action instead? I will personally come all the way out there, hunt you down, and smack you upside the head. Just because my legs don't work good doesn't mean I'm weak. I'm solid as a rock and can still pick up my husband. I have gravity on my side, while you are dwindling down to a little bitty wisp. I'm also at least an inch taller than you. So I don't care how many black belts you have, I can take your scrawny ass down in a heartbeat. Then I'll have no patience left as I haul you down the street by your little ear, looking for the first shingle on a door that says "Psych" something, and may throw you through that door and accidentally lock you in with some pervert. k

Posted by: k at January 29, 2005 11:56 PM (6krEN)

2 That was hilarious; I'll be the husbands would want to watch that little show. I'll talk to someone. Swear.

Posted by: Attila Girl at January 30, 2005 12:05 AM (RjyQ5)

3 Good girl! (carrot vs. stick) We don't want those husbands selling ringside tickets and laying off bets with Izzy the Bookie. We'd never hear the end of it. When you're 90 and power-knitting and I'm 94 and bricklaying we'd have to spend our golden years enduring a couple wrinkly old farts going, heh heh heh, ven vas dat day dose vives vere out dere...and Izzy vas...and...Yup! that was something. You still gettin' royalties off that one? better than Social Security any day huh? k

Posted by: k at January 30, 2005 03:13 AM (6krEN)

4 Attila the Hub used to joke about setting me against other men's wives and winning bets with me, but I do not think he had you in mind when he would make that joke.

Posted by: Attila Girl at January 30, 2005 03:37 AM (RjyQ5)

5 BTW, I can't imagine taking up smoking, given the hold it's had over my spouse, and how difficult it's been for him to stay completely off 'em (he's been mostly clean for two years, and tested clean when we got our life insurance exams--but it's been very tough).

Posted by: Attila Girl at January 30, 2005 03:40 AM (RjyQ5)

6 Phew! that's good. You've mentioned it before so I wasn't quite sure if you were joking. Remembering how it was for me to quit the second time still makes my blood run cold. Of course, the Attila hub has seen me unload semi-trucks, so he should know better. OTOH you didn't say which way he was betting on you - win or lose?? k

Posted by: k at January 30, 2005 04:49 AM (6krEN)

7 Against ordinary mortals, win (the "small but scrappy" thing). Against you, I'm sure I'd lose

Posted by: Attila Girl at January 30, 2005 01:43 PM (RjyQ5)

8 The Attila Hub is a sensible man. Never fear! I shall only use my powers for good. If I am forced to beat you to a pulp, it's only for your own good.

Posted by: k at January 30, 2005 07:25 PM (6krEN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . gives us the Viagra Diaries.

Posted by: Attila at 03:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

The votes are cast, and here are the top picks:

Council Winners:

Wallo World blog gives us "A Childlike Fantasy," which riffs on the promise—and perils—of the President's inaugural speech.

There must be an honorable mention for Little Red Blog's "Pogrom," which makes some important points about anti-Semitism today; sometimes it's in the air we breathe. Oxygen, please.

Non-Council Winner:

CavalierÂ’s Guardian Watchblog writes about "ZarqawiÂ’s War on Democracy," which allowed a sliver of hope to creep back into my soul. If information "wants to be free," how much more, intrinsically, do people?

The complete list of Council Winners is available at the home turf of The Watcher Himself.

Posted by: Attila at 02:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

C'est moi, Baby:

I am a



Which America Hating Minority Are You?


Take More Robert & Tim Quizzes

Watch Robert & Tim Cartoons

I haven't done one of these silly quizzes in a good long time . . .

Posted by: Attila at 02:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . updates us on his life, which has been interesting in a low-key sort of way. He quickly sums up the political realm:

George W. Bush started his second term in office on Thursday, and contrary to the doomsaying of what feels like about half the Internet, the Earth continued to revolve around the sun. Flying space dragons did not burn our cities to the ground. Secret police did not emerge from the shadows to drag our grandmothers off to prison. The Constitution did not burst into flames. Gravity continued to hold stuff down, and egg creams continued to be delicious. So we really dodged a bullet there. Or something.

Dan Rather is still on television Â… I assume. I haven't actually tuned in to any CBS news show since September. I think I'm probably not alone in that, either.

There's gonna be an election in Iraq next week. Rock on. In related news, the President thinks we need to invest $80 billion more in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not crazy about that, but better to spend money rebuilding Iraq now than to have to spend money bulldozing collapsed buildings and burying American dead later.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi went on record to say that he thinks democracy is "the big American lie" and that anybody who votes is an apostate. He said, "We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it." Who did he think he was going to impress with this? "Freedom bad! Me hate freedom!" Z-Man needs to fire his PR firm immediately.

Yup.

Posted by: Attila at 12:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

In the course of my extensive research into the culture of West Wing fandom, I dropped by the bulletin board for that show over at Television Without Pity, where I immediately noticed the deleterious effects of Televisions Dweebishness on the human brain.

It's just nauseating: they have, like, their own little language. Really. Little "in" terms that only they recognize. Outsiders are expected to . . . I dunno. Read a whole bunch of their postings and sort of pick up on it gradually. I just couldn't get it out of my mind that these television nerds are building an entire subculture around TV!

From the Site's FAQ:

• Anvil/anvilicious: Used to indicate obvious or heavy-handed writing that has no regard for the viewer's intelligence, thus bludgeoning them over the head with parallels, et al. in the manner of Wile E. Coyote and his Acme Brand anvils.

• HoYay: Short for "homoeroticism, yay!" A celebration of textual and subtextual homoeroticism.

• Mary Sue: A character who's just a little too perfect to be believed.

• Ship/shipper: "Ship" is short for "relationship." If you are an X and Y "shipper," that's short for "relationshipper." That is, you want those two characters to be together.

• TPTB: "The Powers That Be." Generally designates writers and producers.

Can you believe these losers? Can't they get, like, a real hobby or something?

Posted by: Attila at 11:19 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

. . . reprints—and places into context—a classic piece by Smash, the Indepundit.

Posted by: Attila at 09:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . for CPAC 2005, the conservative convention to be held in the Ronald Reagan building (in Washington, D.C.) in late February. Instead, they are inviting some of the more obvious candidates, like James Joyner, Kevin Aylward, LaShawn Barber, and . . . Ana Marie Cox?

WTF? She's not even a conservative. I mean, what does Wonkette have that I don't have? I guess that would be: delicate Irish good looks, an actual readership, and a 55-gallon drum of KY jelly.

Fine. I had better things to do that weekend anyway. In fact, some of my friends may just get a cabin in the woods, and we could be playing in the snow like the SoCal boys and girls we'll always be at heart.

Posted by: Attila at 02:09 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 133 words, total size 1 kb.

1 “I mean, what does Wonkette have that I don't have?” Interns.  ;-)

Posted by: Watcher at January 27, 2005 02:28 PM (mLuhB)

2 I can send u the KY, will that get you started?

Posted by: jeff at January 27, 2005 05:53 PM (Pp88j)

3 The best "lube" would be Wonkette's Conde Nast-financed stipend. Once we've got that covered, we can move on to the niceties. Liquid Silk. The 8.45-oz size, in the pump dispenser. Thanks.

Posted by: Attila Girl at January 27, 2005 09:44 PM (RjyQ5)

4 If that's what passes for "delicate Irish good looks" these days, I weep for the Emerald Isle. I mean, she wouldn't put the hogs off their feed or anything, but I'm not exactly filing her phys away in my Spank Bank™, you know?

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at January 28, 2005 12:26 AM (UAuME)

5 I do think she's a pretty woman, and I believe a detect a little Celtic in her appearance. That's all.

Posted by: Attila Girl at January 28, 2005 02:17 AM (RjyQ5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities has a roundoup of "Desperate Liberals," including Nan, Hill, Barb . . . and a few others.

Go go go.

(I think he's made a vow never to use a picture of the real Barbra Streisand, but always to stick with female impersonators. Which works, of course.)

Posted by: Attila at 12:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . has been transforming itself for a year and a half into something other than simply a panagyric to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It started last year, when two episodes featured the G.O.P. Speaker of the House as a fill-in for the President, whose daughter had been kidnapped and who felt he couldn't do his job.

That marked the beginning of the change. After that, I began watching The West Wing because it seemed to me when the show's ratings took a nosedive its producers finally realized a lot of the country (oddly enough) doesn't live in L.A. (which is just as well; traffic is awful here as it is). After that, the Republicans were no longer the enemy on the show: politics as usual was the enemy. Special interests were the enemy. Calcified thinking was the enemy.

Now, with Martin Sheen's contract nearly up, the next election in the West Wing parallel universe is going to take place a year early. Theoretically, the existing Vice President (whom few viewers take seriously) has a lock on the Democratic nomination, but there is at least one wild card candidate: Congressman Matt Santos, played by Jimmy Smits. A prominent White House staffer, Josh Lyman, is pushing hard to make him viable.

And then, there is the Republican senator, Arnold Vinick, played in a delicious role reversal by Alan Alda. There is the cognitive dissonance of hearing Alda denounce government spending, but it works. He's the GOP opposition here, and his views are delivered with respect.

There's also the ongoing sexual tension between Lyman and his former assistant, Donna Moss, who now works for the Vice President's campaign. Last night's installment had them staying in the same hotel, in rooms across the hall from each other. At one point Lyman crosses into the hall, raises his hand to knock on Moss's door, and thinks better of it. He goes back to his room alone, and the audience is left to wonder another week if those two will ever get together.

The episode ended with the renegade Latino congressman and the equally iconoclastic GOP senator sitting down in a hotel coffee shop to chat, and agreeing on a surprising number of things.

And the big question is, which of these two men will be elected President of the United States in the NBC parallel universe?

Some of the show's most avid fans see a split ticket in the future, but I can't imagine the show's producers would cross party lines and have one of these guys actually run with the other: the West Wing universe does, after all, need to parallel this one to some degree. What I can see is Alan Alda playing a Republican president in the show's next incarnation, with the Jimmy Smits character as his Secretary of Education.

I think it's going to play out something like that, and the transformation is meaningful because it represents NBC's ability to break out of its politically insular world, and admit that there are some good ideas to be found on the right.

It's time to give these people another chance; check it out.

Posted by: Attila at 12:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.

May have a few tantalizing leads on the identity of the mysterious EWP.

Turns out she may be a female after all. Though maybe not elderly.

And Ed Wonk also claims to know; the plot thickens . . . It turns out we might be able to find out for less thatn the price of a 2004 pickup truck.

Posted by: Attila at 01:37 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Turns out there's a huge controversey about it. I just mentioned it in the context of someone I was going out with when I was just out of college, and suddenly the "pro-morning sex" people were lining up against the "anti-morning sex" people. I was fascinated, since I hadn't realized any females at all fell into that first group.

Questions:

1) [for women] How long does it take you to switch gears to get interested in sex in the morning? Is coffee/tea required? Do you need to shower, or at least brush your teeth?

2) [for men] Is sex in the morning the whole . . . gamut, or is it just taking care of your own side of things? That is, if you have sex in the morning can you really get the woman all the way to the Shining City on the Pillow? How? [I'm sure there's a way to be delicate about this.] Or is it just understood that this one is for you, and you'll do something nice for her later on?

3) [for women] If there's been some policy misunderstanding and you wake up in the middle of a congress, what's the etiquette?--"Um, you seem to have your dick in me"? Is there a tactful way to say "no" at that point?

4) [for women] Are you ever tempted to wake the man up for sex, say in the middle of the night? Ever do anything about it?

Posted by: Attila at 01:06 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 1 kb.

1 3 questions for women and 1 for men. I feel neglected (j/k). I prefer sex in the morning. I'm rested, usually not in pain or have a headache (etc.), and am ready to go. I'm also an early riser so morning sex rarely happens for me. Can I make my wife have an orgasm? Certainly. It involves the same things as non-morning sex. Fingers, tongue, and the tallywacker are all involved at one time or another and I'm usually not able to get off unless the wife does first (unless I've just come home from a long deployment or something; then chances are her hair gets messy).

Posted by: Chris Short at January 26, 2005 02:00 AM (pfkIQ)

2 Sex in the morning is the best time. My wife agrees and is actually more adamant about that than I am. To anser your "man-only" question: - yes she gets to the "shining city on the pillow"; I am as aroused by this as much as for myself (and no I am not lying). I would note to those trying for kids, your male counterpart's sperm count is generally at its highest in the morning, or so my wife and her friends have read.

Posted by: bluedog at January 26, 2005 07:14 AM (78gIR)

3 Once there's a kid in the house and parental careers happening, preference bows to scheduling and opportunity. Ahh, for the days when there were ooptions.

Posted by: everysandwich at January 26, 2005 11:05 AM (3UaXN)

4 Tongue in Cheek: Morning Sex? You can do that? 1) It usually takes the wife several hours before she's willing. 2) And if she's not willing, there really is very little point. It is absolutely not just one sided. To me morning sex is one of the best ways to start the day, but sex shouldn't be just about one person, so it doesn't happen very often. As for... ahem... activities, it depends more on mood than time of day. 4) Tongue back in cheek: Oh how I wish.

Posted by: Masked Menace© at January 26, 2005 01:51 PM (ISV0b)

5 Delicately ... Lets see.... OK, I got it. That wasn't a railroad whistle you heard.

Posted by: Ironcross11 at January 26, 2005 04:01 PM (31TVU)

6 I would prefer sex in the evening--I just figure it's more relaxed, with no time pressures to jump up and scurry about getting ready for the day, and allows for that delicious afterglow to be savored. But Daisycat is rarely interested in the evening--practically never. She definitely prefers the morning. I am a night owl, and leave about an hour after her in the morning. She occasionally has to wake me up so we can fit it in before work. As for question 2, of course. It wouldn't be sex without her side of things coming to fruition. I'm with bluedog on this topic (I can actually feel hers myself sometimes). How? Well without turning this into a sex-ed class, let's just say it usually involves an implement that requires batteries. Sometimes not, but she prefers the "implement"--in combination with various of my appendages of course. Regarding question 4, if I'm a little slow in waking up, she knows from experience that if she get's busy next to me with the "implement" anyway, then that will rouse me right up with a turgid member ready to go. Prediction: this is going to be one humdiger of a thread again.

Posted by: Desert Cat at January 26, 2005 04:17 PM (0DDAz)

7 1) Sex? Morning? You are kidding, right? 3)Haven't ever had that problem in the morning. 4)Middle of the night is a different time zone. Yes. Yes. (Also see #3... don't consider that a problem in the middle of the night, I consider it a benefit.) Defining terms: Middle of the night is whenever I don't have to wake up. Things done in my sleep can be fun. Morning is when I have to get up and do things. (I worked graveyard shift for a number of years so my definition of 'morning' had to change a bit.)

Posted by: Kathy K at January 26, 2005 05:35 PM (KEyce)

8 Oh, graveyard shift. That was perfect for me. I miss it.

Posted by: Attila Girl at January 26, 2005 05:57 PM (RjyQ5)

9 Once you have three kids and all those responsiblities, evenings are rushed or late or both. Mornings are always best because both parties are usually rested. I suppose it helps that I work from home and so does my wife.

Posted by: King of Fools at January 27, 2005 10:38 AM (ktIW6)

10 I wonder how much of my uptightness about morning sex has to do with a conviction that I can't be sexual until I'm fully awake. Theoretically, I should find it easier to get into the right frame of mind, rather than more difficult. But there is the fact that for females sexual excitement and sleep are discrete states. I mean, I can have sexy dreams, but I can't actually have sex in my sleep. I think this makes a difference. YMMV. And of course I'm hugely concerned about how clean I am first thing in the morning. I worry about everything from the stubble on my legs to "how funky am I down there?" When I was in my twenties I had a boyfriend who wanted morning sex a lot. I told him it was possible, if he'd just bring me some tea in bed. What I meant, of course, was "bring me some tea, and let's talk and cuddle, and I'll probably get into the mood." What he did was bring me tea and without even getting in bed again just sit there and stare at me, waiting for me to magically wake up and get horny. Naturally, it never happened. Not once. It was as if bringing the tea was like putting the dollar into the Coke machine: he had paid the money, and he was waiting for the sex to be dispensed.

Posted by: Attila Girl at January 27, 2005 12:42 PM (RjyQ5)

11 Oh boy, sex is my FAVORITE subject! Thank you Miss Attila! 1) I am Not. A. Morning. Person. I need an hour and a half every day to wake up, my espresso-shower-toothbrush time. And I want to be really awake for such an interesting thing. But by then the inspiration can disappear. BUT! my husband needs wake up time too. How much? An hour and a half!!! Isn't that nice? Having the initial urge myself is very rare but it has happened. Weird. But such a happy thing, any morning funkiness got speedily fixed or gladly overlooked by both sides. 3) Excuse me here, gentlemen; present company is clearly excepted. Some women are spared the experiences that make a "policy misunderstanding" so very hurtful. But waking up in the middle of a congress means there was no consent. Tact and etiquette are no longer required. Now that I'm truly grown up, if it ever happened again it would bring out my inner Warrior Princess. It should. If it had when I was young and so scared, my sweet and innocent husband would be spared from comforting his wife over damage caused by some jerk. 4) Yes. (And how I do it is fine by him; I asked him early on in the light of day.) Since sex is (and should always be) nice, but waking someone up is not, this is a problem. So I throw all my directness out the window and bring out the feminine wiles. This means various delicate snuggling and spooning techniques, little innocent tossings and turnings. If he wakes up he's almost always interested by then, and often thinks it was his idea. Look, oh boy she's actually awake! gee, how'd that happen?! (hee hee!) When it doesn't work, I bow out, left to my own devices. Which can wake him up right there if I'm not careful.

Posted by: k at January 27, 2005 05:13 PM (+7VNs)

12 You mean there's a time that's not good for sex?

Posted by: Attila (Pillage Idiot) at January 27, 2005 08:23 PM (I4eb5)

13 "I can't be sexual until I'm fully awake...for females sexual excitement and sleep are discrete states...I can't actually have sex in my sleep." You know, I never thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right. Guys can have an orgasm in their sleep, but I've never even heard of a woman doing so. k

Posted by: k at January 27, 2005 08:26 PM (6krEN)

14 Like many other commenters have said, once you have kids, you no longer have the luxury of deciding between morning and night sex. You have to take it when you can get it and hope you don't hear the baby(s) in the monitor in the middle of things. Q#2 - Personally, whether it's morning or night sex, it's always about her. She goes first unless I'm late for work or there's some other time constraint that forces a "quickie". Q#4 - I used to instigate middle of the night - wake up for sex style activity, but even when I want to these days, I usually let her sleep as sleep has gotten to be a valuable commodity. Tragic, I know.

Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at January 28, 2005 11:19 AM (WsZ4F)

Hide Comments | Add Comment