Some wood, please


Both muscles and I are hardcore fans of science. All forms of it: be it amateur, self-indulgent, experienced or even nasty. So while we applaud the noble nobel and watch in amazement at the Ig-Nobels, we do ponder at the efforts of several who startle us with their sheer genius. Take this for example, a comprehensive study on fellatio prolonging copulation time in fruit bats. Needless to say, I did not feel the excitation to read further, despite the free-full-text exposure made by both PLOS-One and PubMedCentral (you should try out their new Pubreader btw – its really good).

But something else aroused our curiosity today, and with dampened spirits, we got discussing about another article. It deals with the perception of male attractiveness by some women in Australia and the correlation to the size of  the penis. Yes, Penis. And this paper was in the PNAS, so don’t get confused between the two. So we had read the abstract, and it led to a rather long discussion. I now present on to you, the “full length” of it:

W: Oh and dude, I found an article which was fifty thousand times worse than the bat blowjob paper.

M: Really? What, bats in a devil’s three-way?

W: No, this one’s about a correation between penis size and male attractiveness. And here’s how did they did it: they simulated male manequins on computers using a 3d generation software, projected them on a wall, had women of various age groups rate the attractiveness, and then they correlated attractiveness to penis size.

M: So did they do a double blind?

W: No, but they published it here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/03/1219361110.

M: this got published in PNAS? 😮 They’re total d**ks. Oh wait… right!

M: Good by Japan… Hello Australia! (In line with our great appreciation of Japanese research to venture out into similar (what we feel) useless research)

W: Yes, there’s a stiff competition.

M: Yeah..and it gets harder every day! So  does the paper cum to a conclusion?

W: Yes, but sooner than later. Rather premature, I must admit!

W: Oh wait, they even have supplemental material.

M: So they were premature, even on supplements.

W: Yup, despite the supplements, I don’t think they penetrated deep enough into the subject.

M: Well I think they discussed it in length and must have wanted to put the whole thing behind. But putting it in PNAs is just blowing the whole thing out of proportion.

W: Now it seems more like they are soliciting the stuff to Canada. The author who came first in the paper has shifted across the globe.

M: Maybe he was looking for a better position. Or this wasnt really his thrust area.

W: I never thought P’NaS would get so desperate to put their stuff into any void space in research.

M: Yes this would probably help him to get on top of things now.

W: But looking at the paper, it seemed to me like the women were the ones on top.

M: That seems hard to swallow.

… and with that we ended our review of the links between Australian research, penis length (simulated) and their attractiveness to women.

P.S.: I recently upgraded to the google hangout experience on gmail. And it rather sucks when we need to copy conversations for recreational purposes such as this.

Advertisements
Tagged , , ,

One thought on “Some wood, please

  1. […] Which rises to great heights, and instantly excites anyone (that’s what she said). Take our previous post for example, where we elaborately discuss to what lengths research has gone. An important aspect to […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: