Charles Gifford wrote:

> "Bob" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Frogleg wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:43:56 -0500, Bob > wrote:
>>>
>>>>ASmith1946 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Like so many other foods, oysters are supposedly aphrodesiacs
>>>>>
>>>>>Is this a 20th century invention or historically were oysters
>> considered aphrodesiacs? Does this go back to the humoral system of medicine?
>>>>
>>>>It goes back to the appearance of so many bivalves, mussels being the
>>>>most obvious. They resemble labia with a small protrusion peeking out
>>>>from between the "lips."
>>>
>>>So why isn't a banana considered an aphrodesiac? :-)
>>
>>You don't have a VHS or DVD player, do you?
>
> I must admit Bob, that you have lost me here. What are you talking about?

<LOL> Sorry for the obscurity. It was a far-fetched reference to the
fact that there are various movies available for purchase and rental
that, in fact, feature bananas and other unlikely items in connection
with, shall we say, human sexuality. They're typically distinguishable
by the cheesy 70's light jazz backgrounds with occasional moans and
other "organic" sounds.

Or so I've been told. No, seriously...

Bob

> Charlie

>
>>>Modern food science tells us that certain aphrodesiac foods are simply
>>>good nutrition -- I think it's zinc for oysters.
>>
>>Presumably to galvanize one to action.
>>
>>>OTOH, chocolate *does* seem to have an endorphin effect.
>>
>>It's the mouthfeel...
>>
>>>Still, "candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker."
>>
>>Been my experience.
>>
>>Pastorio