THE UNKINDEST CUT ?
By William H. Beauman
Delivered to The
Chicago Literary Club
March 31, 1997

Some of you may remember my first Club paper, almost exactly eleven years ago, "Qin and Qing," which were the names of the first and last imperial Chinese dynasties. I attempted to analyze the extreme selflessness aspect of the "Oriental character" which expresses itself in terms of subjugation of personal needs to the needs of the society, as exemplified by the younger archaeologists who survived the "Cultural Revolution:" their elders had all been murdered by anti-intellectual political goons led by the "Gang of Four," and they could have had free rein with the nation's antiquities, but they didn't rush in, as I would have. Emperor Qin Shih Huang-ti, who united China, gave it his name, and formed the empire in 221 b.c.e., is probably their most important archaeological subject. The discovery and excavation of his magnificent army of terra-cotta warriors near the ancient capital of Xian was met with worldwide acclaim, and I naturally expected that excavation of Qin's tomb would follow immediately, since its location and contents were already known, but no. The young Chinese archaeologists were all away, engaged in advanced studies in Europe and America. They would begin only when they thought they were ready to undertake China's most important dig, and not before. Such discipline amazed me, and that essay explored its source.

One of the little "factoids" that emerged during my review of Chinese history was that three times, in three different dynasties, the palace eunuchs gained such power and influence that they essentially ran the empire. That intrigued me--I wondered how they could muster the drive and strength of character to engineer a coup and maintain such complete control over so many people who had much more power than they. I mean, we castrate animals to make them more docile, in addition to making them sterile. How could an "altered" man compete with others who were "whole?" Well, the answer to that turned out to be trivial, and I am embarrassed by my naivete, but that was the jumping-off point for this paper. Also, it seemed reasonable to question, at least rhetorically, how really bad this "unkindest cut" (apologies to Shakespeare) really was, considering the heights they were able to reach; hence the question mark in the title.

But first, let's explore the "unkindest" nature of castration. Sexual performance is arguably the single most important aspect of life to a man. Freud taught that sex is the most important human drive, and I believe men feel its tension more than women do. Male sexual violence is fairly common, but female rapists are virtually unheard-of. Women can fake total involvement or participate half-heartedly, but men cannot. Men must "perform," and any slight problem instantly becomes obvious. The male erection, so strong and satisfying at times, can at other times be unbelievably distant and delicate. Chronic impotence drives more men to suicide than any other cause. Near the end of his life, after marrying his beautiful, blonde nurse fifty years his junior, Groucho Marx was reported to lament, "I'd give it all back for one more erection!" Some years ago, The Chicago Tribune carried the results of a survey of men's worst fears, and they found that most men would rather die a lingering, painful death from cancer than suffer a permanent loss of virility. (Interestingly, the item topping the list--the thing most terrifying to men--was public speaking. They would sooner face death or impotence than a sea of expectant faces! But that's a topic for another time.)

I was also naive about the physiology. Most people assume that castration precludes erections and climaxes, but that is not true. If the operation is done to boys before puberty, their genitals do not grow to adult size, but the hydraulics still work. And grown men captured as prisoners of war and given the choice of castration or decapitation sometimes retained much of their sexual ability. It does take testosterone to generate a response just by looking and thinking about sex, but even eunuchs can produce an erection by touch. Those enormous harem guards in ancient China and Persia made famous by Hollywood were very real, and many of them were anything but chaste. They were expected to entertain the lesser concubines whom the master visited only seldom, just to maintain harmony in the household, and there are tales of fabulous sexual exploits by them. Their masters didn't care about chastity--that came with the later religions. Their only interest was in paternity: they didn't want any bastard children around to compromise the order of succession to the throne.

So, how did the Chinese eunuchs (and the others) gain their power? Not by force, but by guile. Duh! My own stupidity reminds me of the asylum inmates advising the motorist how to deal with the loss of the lug nuts while changing a tire: use one from each of the other three wheels. When the motorist showed amazement at their cleverness, they retorted, "Hey, we're just crazy, not stupid!" The fact is, whatever castration may or may not do to the psyche, there is no reason to expect any effect on intelligence, the ability to plot and keep secrets, any tendencies toward greed, envy and nastiness, or a lack of conscience. Perhaps they wouldn't challenge an opponent openly, but they were perfectly capable of poisoning him or stabbing him in the back later. And actually, it wasn't very difficult. Their masters became so soft and corrupt that the eunuchs were able to manipulate them easily. They merely filled a power vacuum.

And then there's Farinelli! Centuries later, in modern times, an Italian castrato soprano so captivated the court in Madrid that he was, for all practical purposes, King of Spain for nearly 20 years. He was born Carlo Broschi in 1705 to a prosperous, musical family in Naples. It was the practice of prominent families then to "give" a child to The Church--as a priest or nun, or, if fortune smiled especially, a castrato. It became obvious at an early age that young Carlo had the makings of a fabulous soprano, and he was clipped at the height of his powers. His voice grew stronger with his body, and he took the name of the Farina family that became his patrons when he made his debut at age 15. He had intelligence, perfect pitch, a beautiful and powerful voice, and a profound theatrical sense that made his singing irresistible. A colleague wrote of him in London in 1734, after a series of concerts in which he so shamelessly augmented the scores of operas with extra swoops and trills that Handel refused to write any more until he was gone:

"I must have you know--for it deserves to be known--that Farinelli was a
revelation to me, for I realized that till I had heard him I had heard only a
small part of what human song can achieve, whereas I now conceive that
I have heard all there is to know."

In 1737 he was summoned to Madrid by Queen Elisabeth Farnese, wife of Philip V, who suffered from chronic depression and insomnia. Farinelli's singing roused him almost immediately, effecting a more or less permanent "cure," so long as the music continued. Farinelli joined the court, and within just a few months he began to take on more duties. In addition to various musical projects, he managed the royal stables, he imported comestibles, he undertook major engineering programs. Later, he suggested new taxes, and eventually began to receive foreign dignitaries and make foreign policy. Soon he became the one who managed the affairs of state. When Philip finally died he was succeeded by his son, Ferdinand VI, who was very nearly a mental defective, interested only in music and hunting, so Farinelli's good fortune held until Ferdinand died in 1759. (Philip was the first Bourbon King of Spain, and it seems they were as inbred and defective as the Hapsburgs.) He was succeeded by Charles III, who finally got rid of Farinelli by awarding him a generous pension for life. He spent his last 20 years comfortably, if bored, in Bologna, receiving as visitors the likes of Mozart, Gluck, Casanova (imagine that!) and Emperor Franz Joseph II. So, just how unkind a cut was it for Farinelli?

Now let us move on to more immediate concerns. The Baby Boomers are aging, and suddenly the popular press is full of discussions of prostate cancer. It is apparently an unstable tissue, and it is said that every man would get prostate cancer if he lived long enough. The tissue is full of testosterone receptors, which is not surprising, but when activated, they seem to stimulate carcinogenesis. The prostate gland produces both the bulk of semen and the sensation of orgasm, so its loss impacts on sexuality almost as strongly as does loss of the external organs. Of course, there are other causes of impotence besides castration and prostate problems, but for our present purposes, we can consider prostate cancer a metaphor for castration. Indeed, castration is one of the last-ditch measures used to stop prostate cancer--either surgically or chemically. These days it is done with a pill, usually estradiol, as with young roosters. By that time death looms large, and the loss of sexuality must surely be a minor concern. But in earlier stages of the disease, preservation of virility and sensation are paramount, and physicians and surgeons are obliged to go to great lengths. Their success or failure in that respect determines what may be the most important aspect of the quality of the remaining life that can be realized. If they fail, men resort to a variety of mechanical or hydraulic/pneumatic devices that can be surgically implanted to produce an erection artificially. There are some wondrous contraptions, indeed, but my personal favorite is one that produces a permanent erection, as if possessed of an os penis, but pointed downward, toward the ground. When one wishes to use it for sex, it is necessary to (clink) cock it.

Of course, most of this is old news to women, who have been submitting to breast and pelvic operations for generations. (Prostate cancer has been around all this time, too, but it has not been an item of major concern until recently.) Interestingly, cancers of the breast and the pelvic organs are stimulated by estrogen, just as prostate cancer is stimulated by testosterone. We can consider these problems to be metaphors for castration, as well. Probably because most physicians have always been men, any damage or stress to women's psyches because of a mastectomy or hysterectomy has been systematically minimized. Women don't have to produce an erection and "perform," and silicone breast implants or external pads hide the damage, they say, so what's the problem? Women might retort that impotence is not discernible by outward appearance, either, so where's the difference? Last year I watched a breast reconstruction operation to correct an earlier radical mastectomy, televised on The Learning Channel. It was an amazing procedure, with tissues being transplanted from other areas of the body to fill in the gaps, requiring many grueling hours of surgery. Afterwards, there was an interview with a septuagenarian who had endured it, and I was astonished to hear her say that, even at her age, her improved self-image as a complete person with a full sexual identity was very important to her and that it had been worth all the expense, pain and inconvenience to have it done. Never mind that she was no longer sexually active; never mind that the final result was anything but beautiful without clothing; just having breasts and feeling whole again made all the difference. I guess my own maleness is responsible for my surprise; logically, her response should be the expected one.

Of course, there is no reversing a hysterectomy, and presumably, women have for many years been dealing quietly with an emotional injury equal to their physical maiming by these operations, which most men simply have not been able to appreciate until very recently. It is easy to understand feelings of great loss after a mastectomy, because everybody agrees that breasts are beautiful and desirable and should be preserved. It was also easy to minimize the emotional impact of the loss of something like a womb that is internal and hidden, until prostate cancer hit the front pages. Prostate cancer is the liberating factor, the equalizer of the genders for the nineties.

But let's move on: all these sexual maladies are beside the point--I am using castration as a metaphor for all profound losses, leading to the ultimate loss--the lost of vitality, itself--growing old and feeble, and finally dying. The first sign of the beginning of the end for most people is a slowing of the metabolism and a sudden, unexpected increase in weight in their forties. That sends many to the sweat palaces, where they drudge up endless stairs for what seems like hours, then to be informed by their exercise machine how many (few) calories they have burned, and a common food equivalent. At intervals throughout the day, the anguished cry, "A Triscuit?!" is heard above the groans and clanks, and all present share a moment of commonality.

Many people of both sexes are very serious about it, though. It's not just a matter of aging well; it is now recognized that a youthful bearing is crucial to success in business. Vigorous forty-somethings anxious not to show even the slightest chink are now slapping on two or three testosterone patches at once and gobbling fistfuls of steroids and vitamins just so they can dominate a handball game with a competitor after work. The androgen food supplement DHEA, dehydro-epi-androsterone, available without prescription, has become a runaway best-seller at drug stores, causing many endocrinologists to cringe. It's appropriate for a fifty-or sixty-year-old to take it if he feels his powers declining then, but only with the understanding that it may stimulate earlier progression of prostate cancer. For younger men it's not worth the extra risk. But two new findings suggest that androgen therapy (like DHEA) may not carry that risk after all.

The first is an explanation for a very unexpected and disturbing recent finding about the value of beta-carotene as an antioxidant in the prevention of breast cancer. beta-carotene is a "provitamin"--a precursor of Vitamin A, found especially in broccoli and other cruciferous vegetables. Administration of beta-carotene didn't help at all, and the cancers actually grew faster! When the results became evident, the test was stopped and the beta-carotene was quickly taken away. Then, another group found that the destruction of free radicals by antioxidants occurs as a cascade of reactions that requires Vitamin E, beta-carotene, and Vitamin C to be present simultaneously and to pass the poison from one to the next, as in a bucket brigade. The beta-carotene reaction is in the middle, and if Vitamin C is not there to do its part, oxidized beta-carotene remains, and it is even more damaging than the original free radical. (Free radicals are molecular fragments from violent reactions not mediated by enzymes, such as are produced by ionizing radiation or being attacked by another free radical. They contain an "unpaired electron" that is extremely reactive and capable of causing great destruction.) The research program that produced the strange beta-carotene results did not include extra Vitamin C and E, so the negative result is explained.

The other research result that offers hope to men fearing prostate cancer found that the carcinogenic damage is actually traceable to degraded (oxidized) estrogen. It seems that both sexes produce both hormones and their receptors in many tissues like breast and prostate tissue, but prostate tissue remains dormant and does not grow or make repairs for all of men's adult lives. It is fully alive and metabolically active, of course, but there is no cell division in which the chromosomes unravel and stretch out so the DNA can be duplicated. That is the main occasion on which damaged DNA can be repaired. New growth does not occur until old age when testosterone production begins to lag, but by that time free radicals from oxidized estrogen have produced half a century of damage, with no repairs having been done in all that time. These two findings suggest two prob-able benefits: DHEA is a testosterone precursor, so taking it as a food supplement in late middle age should bolster testosterone levels and thus delay or prevent the conversion of prostate tissue from dormancy to the proliferation that precedes carcinogenisis. Second, if Vitamins C and E and beta-carotene are taken regularly (along with the element selenium), perhaps the oxidative damage can prevented in the first place. Personally, whenever I can improve the quality of life now by taking a risk that has consequences that do not accrue until the end of life, I think that's a pretty good trade. I am now using DHEA and antioxidant food supplements every day.

Liposuction is much easier, and it is becoming quite common, in spite of the grossness of the procedure, itself. I've been dieting all my life, truly and literally, and this alternative is starting to look better and better to me. I even have a biochemist's rationalization for it: avoiding the metabolizing of all the toxins stored in fat. Have you ever noticed dead birds at the end of a long winter, even though it may not have been terribly cold? Some surely do starve and freeze, as is usually assumed for all, but in fact most are poisoned by the fat-soluble pesticides liberated rapidly into their system after their depot fat is mobilized. We live much longer than robins and store in our fat a bewildering catalog of synthetic pesticides, plasticizers, polymer monomers, solvents, drugs, paint fumes, carpet fumes, petroleum fumes, colorants, odorants, deodorants, refrigerants, elastomers, disinfectants, fire retardants...

And those are just the known, intended substances--there are even more unintentional byproducts that are completely unknown. For example, the EPA ruled that it's OK to consume fruit that has been sprayed with pesticide if enough time has elapsed for it to become degraded. That doesn't mean it has been removed or destroyed completely, but only that it has been changed so that the standard analysis no longer recognizes it and detects it. But the degradation product is still there, an undetected fragment, an unknown "trichloro-oh-my-gosh" that is completely ignored. Nowadays we expect the chemists at Dow and Monsanto to use modern research equipment that detects and reports everything in their samples whether they request that information or not, but 20-40 years ago when most of us were accumulating our load of toxins, mass spectrometers and two-dimensional chromatography did not exist. We have all been Guinea pigs. It is significant that the most toxic substance known, the "dioxin" known as TCDD, has never been produced intention-ally, has no uses, and exists only as an unintentional, and for many years, unknown byproduct of the manufacture and burning of many plastics and pesticides. Its "safe" level in foodstuffs is regulated to a few parts-per-quadrillion. So, if any of you are thinking about liposuction but are deterred by Puritan friends or family who say it's like cheating, the easy way out, you can tell them it's actually more dangerous and less healthful to do it with diet and exercise--don't they know that toxins mobilized from fat are the main reason people are so irritable and headachy when they're dieting? And they can take their holier-than-thou, no pain/no gain outlook elsewhere, thank you very much. Remember, Jim Fixx dropped dead while jogging, Adele Davis died of cancer, and Jacqueline Onassis said as she lay dying of lymphoma after a lifetime of control and restraint, "Why did I do all those push-ups?" Puritanism, like chastity, is its own punishment.

The next reminder of eventual senescence is usually the loss of elasticity in our connective tissues. Skin sags. Faces slump. Breasts droop. Bellies go to pot. I had an extended argument with my barber because my sideburns didn't end where they were supposed to. It turned out that the problem was with my daily shaving, not his monthly trim: although I do watch in the mirror, I discovered that I really shave in that region mostly by touch.--I run the shaver up my cheek to the notch in my jaw and stop when it feels like it always does. I finally realized that the problem is that my skin is sagging, and the place that "feels right" is no longer where it used to be on my face. My ears are falling!

And what's worse, they're not falling together. It is now impossible to fit my glasses level on my nose. The most colorful example of connective tissue fatigue I know is to be found in the Nepalese and Tibetan lore of the abominable snowmen. It was said that both sexes of Yeti sometimes sought mates near human settlements. If you were chased by a male, there was nothing you could do but pray--their enormous strides could overtake even the fastest runner. But if it was female, one could get away by running downhill--their breasts are so very pendulous and hang so low that they bounce off the knees and fly up into the faces of the poor creatures, causing confusion and slowing them down enough to allow an escape.

Fortunately, this aspect of getting old can be corrected or delayed very well with surgery. Face lifts are now very common in both men and women, and silicone implants will be back again when the courts finally throw out the junk science. Now, it is possible to get any part of the body sculptured precisely to order, for a price. Even liposuction had a major advance recently: fat cells can be disrupted and liquefied by ultrasonic energy, and the physician can simply pass the horn across the skin like a wand and collect the oil as it drips out, as if from a crankcase! I know a woman who has had three face lifts, lipo-sculpturing, breast augmentation, a tummy tuck, a butt tuck, and a chin tuck.. Did you know that Cher had lipo-sculpturing before making those exercise and artificial sweetener commercials? Bah! There's no honor any more. And, speaking of Hollywood, imagine blond action hunk, Nick Nolte: when he hit fifty, gravity tugged at him so strongly that he felt obliged to have a scrotum tuck. Poor dear. What a trial.

These may seem exaggerated responses to aging, but many silly people try to control all risks, presumably to live forever. It seems every major medical center now publishes a commercial newsletter for people who want to hear about every preliminary research result, before it has been confirmed or even discussed by the rest of the scientific community, in order to take immediate advantage and not waste even a single day to begin taking this or that obscure "vitamin" or trace nutrient. Some have even taken the extreme step of having themselves frozen so that they can be thawed out years later, when a cure for their condition has been developed. Unfortunately, we don't know how to freeze large bodies, and it is virtually certain that none of them can be revived. Thus, those people have effectively committed suicide just for a chance at more life than they're entitled to.

So, how much life are we entitled to? The standard three-score and ten? The standard 40 years of a few centuries ago? The theoretical 150 years that should be possible if everything is perfect (no defective genes, no incurable diseases, no dietary self-indulgence, no speeding trucks)? There is no entitlement; it's all in the luck of the draw. We can only do the best we can with what we're given, and the "gifts" are exceedingly unbalanced. Half of all human deaths on Earth each year are infants who die of diarrhea due to rotaviruses in the fetid fluid that passes for drinking water where they live. Think of it! Every "normal" death due to other diseases, accidents, famines, floods, murders, wars, etc. is paired with that of an infant in some third-world nation. With that kind of statistic, everyone who survives even to adolescence should feel lucky.

So, what's the answer? What is the ideal posture regarding life and death, senescence, and the quality of life? Can one steer a middle course between Dylan Thomas's "Rage, rage against the dying of the light!" and the Bach chorale, "Komm', Susser Tod" ("Come, Sweet Death)?" Is such a middle course desirable? Is life worth living without sex? Without mobility? Without love? Without freedom from pain? Without enough money to be comfortable? For all but the most hopelessly demoralized and cynical, the answer must be a rousing "Yes!" Freud was wrong: sex is important, but not that important. More than half of men over forty suffer from at least occasional impotence, and legions of people everywhere with the most appalling injuries, malformations, losses and limitations live their lives with quiet dignity and a good measure of satisfaction. I used to think I would rather be dead than impotent, blind, or a helpless paraplegic, but now I'm not so sure. The more life I have behind me, the more acceptable such maladies and even my eventual mortality seems. Only loss of the mind, itself would seem to justify losing the zest for life, and those poor souls would probably not have the gumption to do any-thing about it. Thus, in most societies, suicide is considered a crime, a sin, and a mental disorder.

But what if there were a real alternative to senescence? I have already alluded to the free radical/antioxidant theory of aging while discussing prostate and breast cancers; merely extend the idea to preventing all sorts of other tissue damage besides those that lead to cancer. Thus, habitual, life-long use of extra Vitamins A, C, and E, in addition to a good diet, exercise, sufficient sleep, etc., will prolong life. Other research is also showing that merely eating less--restricting total calories by at least one-third all your life--will extend life significantly (if you call that living). Organ transplants are becoming more available and successful, and that can add many years to many lives.

But there is another theory of aging, with a treatment that fascinates me. The theory is that our receptors become progressively clogged or fouled with trash, and if they could be cleaned out, we would be like young again. Receptors are large protein molecules with more than one "business end" that reside in biological membranes such as the plasma membrane that encloses every cell, the membranes of the nucleus and the mitochondria and other cellular structures, where chemical reactions occur. Each receptor molecule has a depression or cavity shaped exactly to accommodate its particular target compound. For example, there are receptors for the estrogen molecule in breast tissue. When an estrogen molecule is "received" by an estrogen receptor, its very presence--its chemical properties--cause the receptor molecule to change its shape or its chemistry so that another reaction nearby is influenced, promoting tissue growth in some way. There are thousands of types of receptors, each with its own unique geometry that is a mirror image of a unique target chemical. Unfortunately, the specificity is not perfect, and it is not difficult to find or produce other molecules that are sufficiently similar to the target molecule to be able to "confuse" the receptor. If the "wrong" kind of molecule gets into a receptor, two things may happen: first, the new molecule may not induce the receptor to do whatever it's supposed to do; and second, it may not come out again, so that that particular receptor may be "poisoned" for a long time. This is called "competitive inhibition," and many poisons work by that mechanism. This new theory posits that, over the years, odd bits of molecular fragments and other trash accidentally get lodged in receptors all over our bodies, gumming up the works and slowly eroding our general bio-chemical competence. The treatment would be some kind of electromagnetic wholebody induction, in a proton- or neutron-magnetic resonance scanner-like machine, in combination with an infusion of special solvents. It has been tried on aging rats, with some success, but truly aged rats quickly succumbed to kidney failure--they got clogged with debris. This was expected, but it was hoped the liver would clean the blood before the kidneys shut down. This does not sound like an insurmountable problem, and if such a treatment ever became available, that, ladies and gentlemen, would be a true Fountain of Youth. The prospect of really extended lifetimes seems almost within reach. What would we do with it?

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but a few points of wisdom have surfaced during this investigation:

1. Accept whatever physical gifts or torments fate brings, and make the best of it. It does no good to rail against God, and it only increases the pain. I salute all the accident victims and war veterans in their wheelchairs, the brave souls trying to communicate by typing with a stick held between their teeth, the blind, the deaf, the maimed who somehow keep going.

2. Be prepared to accept defeat. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again..." but then quit, and don't make a fool of yourself. This is probably the most difficult lesson I've ever had to deal with. Though unaccustomed to failure, I am not entirely unacquainted with it, and it is very hard for me to give up, turn around, and walk away from a mess, but sometimes all other alternatives are pure poison.

3. Take things one day at a time, as suggested in the punning title of Herman Lackner's wonderful 1990 paper, Day by De Senectute. Patience is surely near the top of the list of virtues, and fortunately, one of the things generally available in quantity during old age's time.

4. Maximize whatever gives you pleasure. Foremost among these should be romance and sex.. Even if you are limited in your ability to experience it yourself, giving such pleasure to someone else is almost as satisfying. Sex among older people is not talked about much, probably because people of that generation are more likely to be conservative and reticent, but also because most of us are uncomfortable thinking about our parents "doing it." Sometimes we are titillated by reports of roues in retirement homes, and a few years ago we were entertained by the story of an 89-year-old man who was treated with L-DOPA for Parkinson's disease and suddenly began demanding and receiving sexual gratification thrice daily. His nurses were very surprised; it had not been known that L-DOPA is an aphrodisiac. All that aside, sex in the later years is reported to be just as satisfying as it is during youth, only different. The pace is slower, and one may need to use "adjuvants" to make things easier--pillows and potions, perhaps an erection enhancer--and the final release is described in terms of a different modality of sensation, but it is still absolutely wonderful and definitely worth the effort. We in my family were all saddened by my mother's death at age 69, but some time later Father was introduced to a widow his age by church friends. And amaze, amaze, they started a romance and married a year later, both at age 72. My sister and I were delighted, and now we have another entire family line to get to know. But the point is, it was a sexual relationship, and everybody was pleased. They went dancing in the Italian neighborhood of south St. Louis every weekend, just like newlyweds fifty years younger than they. Father confided, "We spark each other!" and for the two good years he had with her, I'm sure they had a better sex life than I did. (Not that they'd have to go at it three times a day like L-DOPA-fiends to beat me--sometimes I think I should be in the Drones Club like Bertie Waster, but never mind..) Sex can and should be enjoyed as long as one has any mobility at all. It may be life's greatest single pleasure, it's good for us, and it's at least supposed to be free!

5. Try to preserve your sense of humor. Mortality is a serious matter, but it does no good to dwell on things. I have tried to lighten this discourse a bit here and there; I hope not exceeding the bounds of propriety, and I close with this piece of anonymous doggerel lifted from the Internet:

NOOKIE BLUES
My nookie days are over,
My pilot light is out.
What used to be my sex appeal
Has become my water spout.

Time was when, of its own accord,
From my trousers it would spring,
But now I've got a full-time job
Just to find the blasted thing.

It used to be embarrassing,
The way it would behave:
For every single morning
It would stand and watch me shave.

Now, as old age approaches,
It sure gives me the blues
To see it hang its little head
And watch me tie my shoes.

Return to PAPERS
Return to Main Menu