Normally, I find myself on the side of science when it comes to most debates. I not only believe global warming is real and the result of human activity, for instance, but I even know the names and corporate titles of a few of the humans directly involved. Sure, there are downsides. I always have to take people’s word for it that Jesus is appearing to them on their toast or their dog’s asses, and maybe watching “Finding Bigfoot” would be more fulfilling if I thought it was a show about something other than lonely men spending time between Comic-Cons outdoors.
When it comes to the delicate subject of bicycles and genitalia, though, I can’t help but find myself at odds with the pocket protector crowd. First, there was the widespread panic among every supersized, red-blooded American male with an old Huffy hanging unused in his garage that any means of conveyance that didn’t involve fossil fuel was going to render his penis slightly more useless than it was already, and now it’s the ladies’ turn. The New York Times is citing a study of 48 frequent cyclists conducted at Yale in 2006 that found the female cyclists have “less genital sensation” than a control group of female runners.
In the latest study, the Yale researchers tried to determine whether there are specific factors that influence soreness and numbness among female riders. Forty-eight women took part in the study, each a consistent rider who cycled a minimum of 10 miles a week, but typically much more.
The women took their personal bikes and saddles into the lab. The researchers mounted the bikes on a stationary machine, and had the riders position their seats and handlebars according to their preference. As the women pedaled, they reported whether they felt soreness, numbness or tingling as a result of sitting on the bike seat, and a device was used to measure sensation in the pelvic floor.”
I trust scientists and all, but I do think a follow-up study that measures the effect of “a device used to measure sensation in the pelvic floor” on a woman’s overall well-being might be in order.
While I don’t doubt there’s a correlation between sitting on a bike for hours and “environmental changes,” what concerns me is that an uneducated public traditionally uses this as yet another excuse not to ride a bike more often. And that’s infuriating. Of the many things affecting women’s sexual health and overall well-being right now (Rick Santorum, men who watched “Jersey Shore,” etc.), riding a bike can’t even be seriously included in the same list. Seems I’m not alone in questioning the overall usefulness of the article, though at least the world of science has given saddle manufacturers their next marketing campaign.
I’m the textbook definition of “biased” here, but given the overall physical, mental, and emotional health of women who ride bicycles versus women who, say, immediately eat a Big Mac any time the genital-despoiling urge to ride a bike pops into their heads, I’m betting the bicycle riders are healthier and more satisfied overall people.
You know what is dangerous about bicycles, though? Evading the police on them. I have no idea if this is possible or real, but, seriously, is there any way European cyclists don’t embarrass home-grown American attempts at cycling stupidity?
Maybe cycling sometimes impedes blood flow to the head.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.