I didn't find time to read the papers until I got into bed last night (the Sage was still splashing happily in the bath, I put the paper down as soon as he came to bed, for he is not a man to ignore) and the tone of this article on the third page irritated me somewhat.
Would you mind awfully going to the link and reading it before the rest of this, so that your mind is not sullied by my reaction but you have your own?
Did you notice how many time the word 'claims' or 'claimed' was used? Three times in successive paragraphs, which was then emphasised a few lines later by ' claims ... boasting or wishful thinking'. Even though the research methods are quoted as "well-accepted as being valid". If they are valid, why does the journalist make it so clear he does not believe them?
Mind you, Island Monkey has already made it quite clear, regarding an unrelated article, that he doesn't think much of this particular sub-editor.
Do you remember the book Love in the Time of Cholera (not any of you young'uns, it must have been written nearly twenty years ago)? Frankly, it was a bit rubbish, but it bowled a lot of people over at the time. It was considered to be daring, magical, wonderful - basically because it was written by a foreigner (a bit of positive prejudice on the part of the right-on sort) who wrote of love including sexual intercourse, by Jiminy, between quite old people.
Why are people so incredulous? If I were old I'd feel quite insulted.
Update - I looked up the editor responsible for the piece. I think, maybe, he is not one of the fortunate over-sixties still to have a sex life. Whether the item was written by him or by a younger person, it does not come over as written or edited by someone with first-hand experience of the matter.
And the disappointing news - Bella is not expecting puppies after all. We're all very sad. We'll have to wait a little longer for an addition to the family.