I manage a program that assists scholars in certain areas in the publication of their research, so of course I understand the difference between theoretical and applied, etc. But sometimes even I am baffled at what will manage to land a grant.
The Daily Mail (which I suspect is, in fact, the source of this stunning discovery--I know they have underground labs where they breed scientists whose work is entirely focused on women's "bits") reported this last year, and I happened to stumble upon it today:
"Petite, leggy women with big busts are the most sexually attractive, study reveals".
In the course of the article, they remind dilligent readers that an earlier study had determined that symmetry in the face is a key to attractiveness. Well, thank my sweet Saviour that someone determined that--I just couldn't figure out why my girlfriends who look like they stepped out of Picasso's "Weeping Woman" had such a bloody hard time getting dates.
On the upside, I am short and, er, generously-endowed in the chestal area. But "leggy"? Forget it, mate. So from now on I'm participating in all social events either a) sitting down, with my lower half tucked under a table, or b) wearing flared skirts with crinolines and a pair of stiletto heels.
Now, give me the address of the institution that made this research possible. I have an acute need to apply for money for my stunning new study, "Sky: Blue".
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Eden Simone
fingerlakeswanderer
Rutilus Extraho
Owl_Says_Who
Verbal Remedy AKA Denise
Bob Eckstein
Salon.com
Comments
really do it for me...
but!
that is only when i am in an "imaginal" mode...
in my normal everyday mode,
legginess is great, i will give you a "pass"...
tits are paramount, up to a point...
not too much, too soon, please!
a 38 in my face will do well..
small-bonedness is very well...
all that lushness in a small boned form
is well
taken
So, the true story is more complex than the Daily Mail's summary. It also seems to have been published in mid 2008, so this isn't exactly breaking news.
One should never underemphasize the importance of going back to primary sources. And further:
"He concludes: “It seems that because bodily asymmetries are too subtle to be seen with the naked eye, evolution has instead engineered more conspicuous signals and displays, such as broad shoulders, curvy waist lines or smooth dance moves to indicate mate quality.”
So, because symmetry can't be seen with the NAKED eye, but can be seen by the 3D imaging scanner, the male, unconsciously looking for a proxy for genotypical perfection prior to mating, uses proxies like smooth moves on the dance floor?
All I can say is that this raises far, far more questions than it answers. One being, of course, who funds this type of research, since I have some theories that I would love to test. It involves an index I refer to the sluttishness index which includes complex linear combinations of submissive gestures and numerous other factors.
Of course, the SI would require naked females and naked eyes and a great deal of laboratory work with a 3D scanner and rectal probes &c. Although I tend to think that a simple proxy of simply stating, "yes, fuck me" would have proven an evolutionarily shortcut for the mathematically challenged males who may not have even made it to the dance floor.
So, yes.
fouette?
kick a ballet leg back?
okay.
The fund was a grant.
It's from a sex gamut.
O, six year old gave it.
`
boys show chest hair.
boys wear tutu skirts.
child gets gravely ills.
`
ask the war hustlers?
ask DOD Don Gates?
ask Donald Duck, oy?
Nick, I noted that this was from 2008, and frankly, I can't imagine that it constituted "breaking news" even then. And, yes, the actual research is bound to have been a good deal more in-depth than the Mail presents it here--after all, their specialty is taking anything remotely connected to sex or misery and giving it a headline that, at times, has literally nothing to do with anything presented in the article or the article's source. At base, however, it seems that the essence of what's presented here is, uh, unsurprising. I shall thus stick to my sitting-down strategy until such time as I can grow my legs a bit longer.
And I, for one, would love to be a lesbian. All my lesbian friends have fabulous lives. Alas, none of them has given me the slightest bit of hope that I might be converted. I must say their lack of evangelical zeal has been rather a disappointment to me. I genuinely expected more sympathy. Sigh.
says science?
Science needs to go back, oh, 300 yrs or so...
and it will find an equally compelling result
at absolute odds to this 21st century study...
the majority of men are lookers, visual types...
what they like to look at varies over the ages,
and always will...
and then there are the true sexual princes
who love the gal for the gal
and then the body, whatever
contingent shape it sports, becomes
precious and erotic...
that
is the way it is with we men...we have our surface
(culturally-derived) preferences, for a short time...
the time it takes to look a gal up and down and all around....
but we are not so silly as to be
wed to what our ocular preferences are..unless we are
surface dwellers..
all of them i've met are succesful,
not only materially but spiritually....