Someday it'll come along
A thought to blog
And I'll write nice and long
This thought to blog
And when it comes my way
I'll take a note down right away
As usual, I think of plenty to write about, but then I get caught up in nothingness, or I reconsider the topic because of the had-to-be-there humor, or I forget, or I make a random note, like "restless genital syndrome," that I later come across and can't remember what I wanted to say about it.
The www.restlessgenitalsyndrome.com website -- which *must* be legitimate and accurate if it has that url -- says that this syndrome has only been reported in women. I believe this. Others may want to argue that it's ridiculous to think that men can't have restless genital syndrome, too. Bullhonky! They absolutely have restless genitals. It's not a syndrome. It's being male.
::tangential warning about Wikipedia::
I'm already confused about this restless genital syndrome thing, so I probably shouldn't have clicked on the Wikipedia link.
Wikipedia's content is ridiculous. Who's writing this crap?
Wikipedia compares restless genital syndrome to priapism (that >4-hour erection for which men are warned to seek medical treatment lest they lose the ability to have an erection ever again). Restless genital syndrome (and no, I'm not going to use an acronym because I happen to enjoy writing it out) is not considered a threat to healthy and continued sexual activity. How could the two be related?
Investigating further, the Wikipedia page for priapism refers to clitoral erections. I don't believe "clitoral erection" is a legitimate medical term. Engorgement, yes, but "erect" suggests a bigger capability or usefulness. You'd never hear a woman talking about pitching a panty tent. I'm just saying.
::tangent to make superfluous complaint about spelling::
It's not "clitoras," so why isn't it "clitoril"? I have to look this up EVERY TIME.
::end tangent to make superfluous complaint about spelling::
I attempted to research the legitimacy of clitoral erections further with Google. I can't be convinced when the first five hits contain one of two YouTube videos (albeit an extremely scientific-looking animated video), Wikipedia's page on clitoral erection, a message board post, and two very NSFW sites. (To note, the sixth hit is Erect clitoris's Facebook page, which 79 people currently like.) I also can't be convinced if asking Alaskanmama, a nursing student with a much better understanding of medical terminology than I, made her laugh. Then again, I have to wonder if her description of the clitoris as "the regressed head of our neverpenis" is legitimate either. Maybe they haven't covered female genitalia yet. Maybe she's twelve regardless.
It would appear that the online medical community at least does not recognize clitoral erection as a thing. Let's move on. Here are those videos, in case you are curious.
WARNING: The following videos are very unsexy, but there will be related videos suggested after that are NSFW. They are totally useless in comparing an erect clitoris to a non-erect clitoris unless one opens two browser windows to show them side-by-side. (No, I did not try that.)
Clitoris - erect state
Clitoris - non erect state
Wikipedia also said that vibrations from mobile phones can aggravate restless genital syndrome. I can't believe Wikipedia allows such bunk to be published. Specifics! Where exactly is that phone being carried? Is there a special application? And what kind of phone is it? Does it come with a rabbit?
Don't trust that Wikipedia. It looks like a bunch of numbnuts are maintaining it. bah dum pum
::end tangential warning about Wikipedia::
Somewhere in the midst of ranting about Wikipedia, I remembered why I made the initial note in my list of blog topics in the first place. A while back I was looking up information on restless leg syndrome, which sometimes plagues me, and saw the reference for restless genital syndrome. When Arnold Swarshitimahavetolookthatupnowtoogger's shenanigans were in the news, I thought that his genitals must be restless. A silly thought, in retrospect. Certainly not worthy of a whole blog post.