The Straight Dope 06/17/2005

The Straight Dope -- By Cecil Adams
http://www.straightdope.com

You are subscribed as: [[email protected]]

To unsubscribe CLICK on the URL below this line:
mailto:[email protected]
If you can't "click" above, then send a blank email to:
[email protected]
____________________________________________
THE STRAIGHT DOPE 06/17/2005

Dear Cecil:

In the column in your online archive about why the
missionary position is called that [The Straight Dope,
Why is the "missionary position" called that? August 21,
1992] you repeat the myth that the term missionary
position was coined by unidentified natives as a reaction
to shocked missionaries' proselytization against
unorthodox sexual positions. To your credit, you mention
that there is no hard evidence supporting this assertion.
However, Robert J. Priest (yes, the coincidence is
amusing) in his article "Missionary Positions: Christian,
Modernist, Post-Modernist" (Current Anthropology,
February 2001) carefully picks this story apart. [Lengthy
explanation omitted because I'm about to go through it
below. --C.A.] Priest even cites the Straight Dope as one
of the many sources perpetuating the missionary position
story. Anyway, this is my contribution to the fighting of
ignorance. --Zoinks, via the Straight Dope Message
Board

~~~~~~
Looking for the perfect gift for that wedding, birthday,
or bar mitzvah? Straight Dope books are the very thing! 
See http://www.straightdope.com/store.html
~~~~~~

Cecil replies:

Now, Zoinks. I didn't just "repeat the myth." I told the
story, then remarked, "That's the legend, at least. It
may not be true." As it turns out, my caution was amply
justified. Thanks to you and Robert Priest, we now appear
to have the full story on missionary position.

Although European and Euro-descended Christian
missionaries have been propagating the faith in far
corners of the world for cent uries, the phrase
missionary position, meaning the
partners-facing/man-on-top posture for heterosexual
intercourse, was at one point thought to have first
surfaced only in the late 1960s. This timing suggested to
a lot of people, me included, that the standard
explanation of the phrase's provenance in terms of actual
prissy missionaries was dubious. I speculated that the
phrase was the work of 60s rads poking fun at uptight
religious types.

That guess wasn't entirely off the mark . . .

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050617.html

STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC #1 - 12/12/1986

Dear Straight Dope:

Why is it that the sound of fingernails scraping a
chalkboard is so godawful annoying? --Andy L., Syracuse,
New York  

Cecil replies:  

In these days when so many scientists are panting after
research grants from Star Wars, Andy, it's good to know 
here are still a few people around who know what's really 
important. People like Lynn Halpern, Randy Blake, and 
Jim Hillenbrand of Northwestern University, for example. 
These daring pioneers of science recently conducted an
investigation into the "psychoacoustics of a chilling sound"--
in laymen's terms, why the sound of fingernails scraping a
chalkboard is so godawful annoying. What's more,
according to their scientific paper on the subject, the
work was "supported" by the National Science Foundation.
Cecil immediately jumped to the conclusion that not only
were Halpern et al studying blackboard scraping, they had
gotten the government to pay for it, which would put them
in the running for research scam of the year.
Unfortunately, further inquiry reveals that this was not
exactly what happened. The National Science Foundation
grant actually paid for some equipment Blake was using
for more, ahem, "serious" research, which he was then
able to put to disreputable ends. This does not make as
good a story, I suppose, but it shows spunk all the same.
Good work, gang. 

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_317b.html

STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC #2 - 09/14/1984

Dear Cecil: 

Why are women athletes always flat-chested? It's easy to
understand that being stacked might not be too helpful in
many Olympics-type sports, but how do those gals get rid
of 'em? Do they strap themselves down, like Julie Andrews
did in Victor/Victoria? Can you shrink them through diet
and exercise? Or are they such a disadvantage that
competition selects against them? Is it impossible to
excel in such events as track and field and gymnastics if
you are well-endowed? When this first occurred to me, I
naturally assumed that good grillework was just not part
of the well-toned athletic female body. However, this
past summer I have put this notion to the empirical test,
and I don't think it holds up, if you'll pardon the
expression.  So I turn to you, wise one. What gives? And
WHY WAS THERE NO OFFICIAL SUPPORT- GARMENT MANUFACTURER
FOR THE OLYMPICS? --Leg Man, Chicago  

Cecil replies: 

Cool your jets, Jasper. As I'm sure you can appreciate,
it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer to a
question like this. Partly that's because Uncle Cecil has
an aversion to getting punched out by female track stars,
and partly because the U.S. Olympic Committee's records
on chest size are woefully inadequate. However, trainers
and coaches confirm that women athletes do tend to be on
the small-breasted side, particularly long-distance
runners. 

A number of reasons for this have been suggested.
According to a report by Dr. Christine Haycock, a trauma
surgeon and associate professor of surgery at the New
Jersey College of Medicine, "a trainer who has worked
more than 10 years with track-and-field athletes noted
that he has seen only one or two girls with large breasts
in sports, and this tends to confirm that the discomfort
of running without adequate breast support has kept many
potential athletes from competing." As it happens, Cecil
has a well-endowed woman friend who ran in a marathon,
and pursuant thereto did training runs of as much as 14
miles a day. These often left her with a ghastly
collection of abrasions where her bra rubbed. It seems
safe to say, therefore, that the low incidence of
big-breastedness among runners is to some extent a matter
of self-selection. 

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_319.html

____________________________________________
Here's how you can get your OWN FREE Subscription:
Send a blank mailto:[email protected]
____________________________________________
Copyright 1995 - 2005 Chicago Reader, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
You may forward this document by email ONLY if you
include the entire document INCLUDING the information
at the bottom of this publication
____________________________________________
Visit our good friends at Joke A Day
http://www.jokeaday.com
They're kind enough to mail THE STRAIGHT DOPE for us.
Join the World's Largest Daily Humor List and receive
daily laughs in your email by sending mailto:[email protected]