Bagging baggers - more on an old old subject
Whatever the merits of spending the night on Munros (TAC24 p19, TAC25 pp18-19), I feel the following proposal ought to be given careful consideration: Sex on Munros (having it off, scoring, bonking, any of the many euphemisms for copulating; pick your own.) [No, that's a euphemism for the berries, not sex - Ed.]
This is not a flippant suggestion, but a sincere attempt to temper the current mania (personia?) for list-ticking. If qualifying for having "done" a Munro means having had to "do it", the physical effort involved will cut down on the number attempted in any period (of time). This will slow the record-breakers down, and ought to keep Hamish Brown's safe for a long time. Martin Moran's is likely to become impossible of repetition.
Like most things to do with hills nowadays, I suppose there ought to be a few rules (so that we can get into fearsome arguments, of course). I don't know if the MCofS are qualified to oversee any such rules; I have it on good authority (a guy in the Clachaig) that the sexual habits of the BMC preclude them from any hand, act, or part in such an activity.
So, a few suggestions:
- Activity to take place within say 100m vertical and/or horizontal distance from the recognised summit. This should provide sufficient privacy for most summits, though The Ben and one or two others could pose problems.
- To ensure fairness, activity must be on a one-to-one basis; eg no club meets without an equal mix of parties.
- Parties must be acquainted with each other before activity begins, ie no "hill-hookers". (This lessens my chances, for a start; there's altruism for you.)
- Sexual orientation is a matter only for the parties concerned, as is religious or political affiliation, dietary preference, or any other of the boring things that some people seem to find so important.
Some ramifications are:
- Spouses / partners / special friends will be in much greater demand on the hill. No more driving round to the next glen / parking space / pub.
- Future record attempts / claims will be treated with scornful remarks regarding capabilities / visual attractiveness of putative partner(s). That's not my recommendation; it's an observation of the sceptical society in which we live. (Surely "in which we live in"? - Ed.)
Probably the point with the most potential for causing disagreement is the usual male custom of exaggerating anything of a sexual nature. If we accept the findings of the acknowledged experts in this field (women), then the true success rate (score rate?) will be equal to, or less than, 25% of the rate claimed. That ought to be good for a few punch-ups in the back bar at the Kingshouse.
So, what's it to be? Munro-banging for the great unwashed? Secret tick-lists, in case the quare one finds out? Another book from Bonington? Yet another book from Dave Hewitt?
Ed. - The 100m vertical/horizontal criterion also fits well with the current accuracy of GPS gizmos, allowing for hi-tech bonkbagging in thick mist. During a recent TAC outing, Grant Hutchison never stopped fiddling with his.
TAC 26 Index