Very often, in science, experiments have been performed with the intention of disproving a theory and the result has been the very opposite of the intention. (See my recent post in the Cosmic Compass blog: Praying For Yesterday)
Recently, I’ve been conducting my own experiment into the impact on a relationship of doing more housework.
There’s been a lot of talk recently about the erotic effect, on a woman, of a man with a vacuum cleaner. This isn’t with reference to it being used as some sort of adult toy but simply as a means of removing dust ie the purpose for which it was intended.
The theory is that a man doing the vacuuming affects a woman in such a way that she becomes erotically attracted to him.
I must point out, at this juncture, that the males of most mammalian species are particularly unsuited for physical activity as a result of their physiology.
Being male means they have certain highly sensitive appendages which need to be protected. As you know these are located in a place which inherently precludes any physical activity which involves any form of moving from one place to another. Thus, the best way to protect these is for the male to remain seated on a soft surface while his requirements are provided to him.
Vigorous physical activity like contact sport or sitting on a ride-on lawnmower is clearly a high risk activity for a male and hence should be the responsibility of the female of the species. I strongly suspect that the fact these tend to be male activities is the result of a subversive campaign that has been run by women for thousands of years with the intention of keeping men controlled. This is similar to the clearly absurd idea, that women wearing high healed shoes has been a result of men attempting to control women (an objective of which they have clearly failed completely).
Also, it’s very important that these male appendages be maintained at a suitable temperature. Apparently, sperm is very temperature sensitive to over heating.
Thus, the most appropriate position for a male is seated on a soft surface with a cold beer.
You would expect that, since this position is specifically designed to protect the male’s reproductive apparatus, it should have a sexually arousing effect on the female of the species. For some strange reason it doesn’t seem to.
Returning to my experiment. For the past few weeks I have taken on the responsibility of vacuum cleaning the house. My expectation, given the absurd proposal mentioned above, about the erotic effect this should have was that there would be no discernible difference in the quality or quantity of sexual activity with my partner.
I regret to inform you that my experiment seems to have failed.
There has been a marked change in the above – the details of which are not relevant to the design outcome of this experiment and so I won’t go into them here.
Also, for the scientifically minded this experiment has been carried out without statistical analysis nor a control study. And so, while there is little empirical evidence the anecdotal evidence is strong.
All I can say, at this point, is: while attempting to disprove the contention that having the man doing the housework is sexually arousing for the woman I appear to have reinforced this original theory rather than disprove it.
Now, what other theories can I disprove?
(BTW This should probably have been posted on April 1st)