FIRST, get a clue, THEN pontificate!

This week’s post deals with two matters. The first one is serious and calls to mind the manner in which the clueless deal with a concept called RARITY, especially as it applies to disease. The second one involves a bit of comedy as it deals with “OLD COOTS” and their sex drives.

I’m a numbers type. As a scientist, it’s in my blood; I spent my entire career developing the “numbers.” It does not matter what it is, if you know how often something CAN happen over a specified period and how often it HAS happened, you can figure the odds, chances, and probabilities of anything happening.

From this perspective, we can arrive at an objective evaluation of how common or rare it is that something might happen to us. But we have to keep things in proper perspective. Here’s an example.

I have a family member who was born with Williams Syndrome. Now, this isn’t a lesson on Williams Syndrome. So if you’re interested, click the link and read about it.

“Rare” is a term used to describe clinical realities. It’s based on a simple mathematical relationship between the number of cases that CAN occur and the number of cases that HAVE occurred.

And assuming no increase in the base number of cases, applying the 1-in-10,000 chances of worldwide occurrence to population figures for the year ending 2012, we can “run the numbers” using nothing more expensive than a $15 handheld calculator.

The numbers are emotionlessly clinical. For the year 2012, there were 711,400 cases worldwide, about 32,000 cases in the United States, and about 94 cases right here in good old Delaware.

But for those who have to face it every day of their lives, the rarity of the matter is no comfort at all. Their concern isn’t clinical; it’s personally gut-wrenching; and without health insurance, it’s financially devastating!

So before growing hordes of mindless pontificators attempt to make the masses feel better about themselves, they need to keep another scientific term in mind: RELATIVITY.

But now it’s time to get to those “old coots” and their sex life escapades. And for the record, even though I’m in my 70s, I don’t count myself as an old coot because I follow the rule that “old coots” are people who are 15-years older than I am.

But, on the other hand, I never discount the fact that young people look at things a bit differently.

Like it or not, the average 15-year-old may well assume that 30-year-olds are almost DEAD! And for the typical 20-year-old, the thought of people in their 40s and 50s having sex raises a huge “EWWWWW!”

For these folks, the thought of people in their 60s, 70s, and 80’s engaging in sexual intercourse is enough to reduce them to a blanket-sucking fetal position.

But like it or not, you young people need to accept the fact that SOME old fogies are still screwing like it’s going out of style. But take heart, not all of them are doing the dirty.

When it comes to a sex drive, I can’t speak to the female genre of the species because I’m not a woman. I simply don’t have a clue. But I can add a bit of insight relative to the other genre of our species.

On average, as men zoom across the southern border of the mid-seventies on their way to “Eightiesville,” some of them are destined to feel carnally disenfranchised while others are not.

Some men, especially the older ones, are still going to “WANT TO,” but because of myriad health issues, they “WON’T BE ABLE TO,” even with massive doses of Viagra.

Their sex lives will have become akin to trying to shoot pool with a piece of rope. Frustration is not an adequate description for how they feel; Dante’s lowest circle of hell is a far more appropriate description.

However, other older men—healthy or otherwise—will have fared much better. They’ll still be “ABLE TO” but “WON’T WANT TO!” Their “pool cues” will still be working very well; it’s just that they’ll no longer want to shoot “pool.”

It raises “Nah, let’s watch TV” to a whole new level. TRUE independence? You young snots have NO idea!

This entry was posted in Commentary, Family, Society, Statistics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.