MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

24 September 2007

Aren't we women lucky? A scientist has decreed what perfect breasts look like, and we should probably all start striving for this new ideal. I sure hope your nipples are pointed slightly skyward. This is SCIENCE, people.
Patrick Mallucci spent many hours poring over photos of topless models in lads magazines and tabloid newspapers to formulate his theory

And as soon as we can unstick the pages enough to read his report, we'll all be deeply edified, I'm sure.
posted by Miko 24 September | 21:44
Worst: fake. Best: real.

Now that that's sorted out, I'm off to the Middle East.
posted by bmarkey 24 September | 21:48
Yeah, the cosmetic surgeon's research doesn't seem particularly scientific. He hasn't heard of photoshop I assume.
posted by danostuporstar 24 September | 21:50
But it's true that you breasted types are pretty lucky...I'd never leave the house, etc.
posted by danostuporstar 24 September | 21:52
Hm. I've reviewed the data (lots and lots of data), and I've come to the following conclusion: Jumblies are good; but surgically enhanced jumblies aren't quite as good as the ones that Mother Nature, in all her jumbly-making glory, makes herself.

Just to be sure, I'll go review some more data. You can never be too careful about things like this. Science demands it.

*favorites Miko's comment*
posted by Joe Invisible 24 September | 21:53
If only this post had been posted right after dg's "How cute are these?" post.
posted by ooga_booga 24 September | 21:54
Hah. But it is right after the *burp* post, which is even better when you think about what breasts are _really_ for.
posted by iconomy 24 September | 21:58
Joe Invisible, did you know that reviewing too much data can make you go blind? Don't say I didn't warn you.
posted by iconomy 24 September | 21:59
Hah. But it is right after the *burp* post, which is even better when you think about what breasts are _really_ for.


Keeping crumbs from falling in your lap?

No, don't get up. I'll show myself out.
posted by bmarkey 24 September | 22:04
The worst breasts were those on Posh? I don't thing this guy spent all that much time on research despite his claims. That or his internet feed is seriously broken.
posted by Mitheral 24 September | 22:15
The photographic evidence submitted does not support the claim.
posted by kirkaracha 24 September | 22:20
iconomy, maybe so, but once the sense of sight is gone, the other senses--like taste and touch--become even sharper to make up for the loss. So it's all good!
posted by Joe Invisible 24 September | 22:27
I think they both look a bit fake.

Worst: fake. Best: real.
For me (and bmarkey, apparently) it really is as simple as that.

poring over photos of topless models in lads magazines and tabloid newspapers
and where did he find any real boobs using those sources?

Conclusion: this guy is full of shit.
posted by dg 24 September | 23:01
no one has said it?

this thread is worthless w/o pictures.
posted by shane 24 September | 23:04
I wish I could find the recent front page post made here about junk science studies and they come to be. This is a prime example.
posted by arse_hat 24 September | 23:37
arse_hat: is this the thread you mean?
posted by bmarkey 25 September | 00:34
It was just around that time bmarkey. It showed how seeding a few thousand dollars and the promise of a name in the press could get a science type person to do some dumbass study.
posted by arse_hat 25 September | 00:43
No, no, no! A junk science study would be about the perfect trunk!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 25 September | 00:54
OH IRFH!
posted by arse_hat 25 September | 00:56
Was it Ben Goldacre's Bad Science article (Guardian version, metachat)
posted by TheophileEscargot 25 September | 01:00
Yes. Bless you, and your camels, TheophileEscargot.
posted by arse_hat 25 September | 01:04
A scientist has decreed that the perfect feet on women are no more than three to four inches long with broken, deformed toes, severely ingrown toenails (with accompanying loss of digits optional - or maybe not), and severely atrophied muscles. Neo-footbinding begins... NOW!
posted by taz 25 September | 03:13
I'm sorry, who has the best breasts? Clearly this man has never met the glory that is Specklet...and her breasts.

I had a lot of indignant 'what a load of crap' stuff to add, but it's all been said better already. Also, the men of MeCha rock.
posted by elizard 25 September | 03:27
I had a beautiful friend who wanted implants. She'd go on and on about it, about how much better she'd thought she'd look and feel. She also never missed a session at the gym and spent a lot of time and money shopping. Meanwhile, she was in her late thirties, she hated her job in insurance, didn't know what she wanted to do, wasn't qualified to do much else, was in a dreadful relationship, needed a lot of counselling, and had no real savings. I wonder if a lot of women who get implants devote a lion's share of their resources to their appearance while neglecting matters that, in the long run, will matter so much more.
posted by Orange Swan 25 September | 07:03
Upturned nipples?
Lower half bigger than upper half?

I'm sure that having objective scientific criteria for breast evaluation will be a help and a comfort to 27 year old Isabelle Caro, who now has provably beautiful breasts.
posted by paulsc 25 September | 07:26
It's Scientifically Proven.

It's a Known Fact.

posted by jason's_planet 25 September | 12:10
I wish mine were a little ... perkier. But I wouldn't resort to surgery.

A friend of mine, a woman in her 50s and vain as fuck, recently downsized her house to release equity so she could have various bits of surgery done, including a breast lift.

One of her passions in life was running. She ran competitively in veterans races, was president of her running club, ran whenever she could, in her lunch hour, early morning, she ran ran ran.

But after having her breasts lifted she's been told she can't run any more, not even if she wears the most rigid squashy sports bra, because it'll just cause her tits to droop again. Which they will anyway, eventually, over time.

What a price to pay for vanity.

posted by essexjan 25 September | 12:24
Thanks, EJ, now I have a great reason to not run. I'm saving the gals.
posted by theora55 25 September | 17:06
*burp* || Halo 3 is indeed better than when your wife got pregnant.

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN