<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[shattersnipe: malcontent &amp; rainbows]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://fozmeadows.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[fozmeadows]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/author/fozmeadows/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[D&#8217;oh!]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>The following anecdote is, unfortunately, true.</p>
<p>Browsing weird news stories at work, I came across the following: apparently, <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/world/more-sex-wards-off-erection-trouble-in-older-men-study-20080709-3cbu.html">having more sex prevents erectile dysfunction in older men</a>. Me being me, I decided to forward the link to my husband, who works at a different organisation. Without really looking at what I was doing, I typed his name as the addressee in a new email, put &#8216;Good to know!&#8217; as my subject heading, copied the link across, and pressed send.</p>
<p>Several minutes later, I received a reply, <em>not</em> from my husband, but from a complete stranger in my own organisation with the same first name, wondering, not unreasonably, why I&#8217;d sent him the link, because  &#8211; and I quote &#8211; he&#8217;s &#8220;not that old&#8221;.</p>
<p>Well.</p>
<p>After explaining that my email wasn&#8217;t meant as a new kind of Viagra-spam or personal disparagement and (hopefully) making amends, I think I can call myself a wiser human being. Moral of the story: always check your send field.</p>
<p>Or, if you&#8217;re sending naughty articles, make sure the URL boasts a more innocent phraseology than <em>more-sex-wards-off-erection-trouble-in-older-men-study</em>.</p>
]]></html></oembed>