Join the Science! Travel the world, meet exotic people, ask them to rate schematic drawings of lady-lumps according to attractiveness and apparent age!
There cannot be many cultures left in the world where evo-psych researchers have
not descended with their schematic drawings of breast ptosis, in their search for fertility-driven cross-cultural universals,
asking questions of the local males like "How attractive do you rate this schematic outline?" and "What is the age of this schematic outline?" Part of their motivation is the chance to use the word "perky" in scholastic writing -- an opportunity which otherwise too seldom arises.*
It is very confusing for those of us who laboured under the impression that Ptosis was a minor pharaoh of the 28
th Dynasty. Anyway, it transpires that there are not one but
two schematic-outline scales of breast non-perk -- both modified from Regnault's 1976 classification -- because "Bristol Scale"
was already taken.
FIGURE 1 The six stages of breast ptosis
based on Kirwan’s classification (2002)
But here at
Riddled Research Institute and Sheep-drench Emporium we do not condemn or criticise this evo-psych line of study, for it increases demand for the
Riddled Antigravity Ptosis-Reversing Rotary Rejuvenator.
We must warn readers away from the McGravitas Gravity-reversing Magnet -- in a purely disinterested fashion -- for it is untested speculative technology, with side-effects that are known to range from Coxcombitude to Pert Foolishness.
Oddly enough, if you travel the world and meet exotic people and ask them to rate schematic drawings of increasingly pendulous
scrotums according to attractiveness and age, they look at you like you're a perverted freak, is this justice?
IS IT BOG-ROLL.
* 'Perky' peaked in about 2006. Before that was a prevous Perky peak in 1948, with 'perky' drooping and sagging through the 1960s and 1970s, no-one knows why.
There cannot be many cultures left in the world where evo-psych researchers have not descended with their schematic drawings of breast ptosis, in their search for fertility-driven cross-cultural universals, asking questions of the local males like "How attractive do you rate this schematic outline?" and "What is the age of this schematic outline?" Part of their motivation is the chance to use the word "perky" in scholastic writing -- an opportunity which otherwise too seldom arises.*
6 comments:
If we all stood on our heads, they could sell us hand-shoes.
Handschuhe?
The great thing about "breast shape" as an area for evo-psych researchers is that whatever patterns of preference they find, they can always construct a Just-So story that reduces attractiveness to child-bearing potential. If males find pert breasts most attractive, OK, that's because the pertness is a sign of youth... therefore the owner of the breasts will have more years of potential child-bearing ahead. If the drooping versions are more appealing, OK, that works too, because the loss of elasticity is a sign of one or more previous pregnancies, therefore the owner of the breasts has demonstrated her fecundity.
Evo-psychologists prefer research projects where they can be sure of coming up with a evo-psych prediction that matches the actual observations.
Reminds me of obligatory Fugs ref.
I was intrigued to learn from the relevant literature that "parity" is a factor in the attractiveness of breasts. Closer inspection revealed that the authors were using "parity" in the special biological sense of "number of viable-term pregnancies" (nulliparity, primiparity, multiparity) rather than the proper maths sense of "odd or even number".
That also puts the term triple negative breast cancer in a different light - no one wants three positively cancerous breasts. Though the odd extra boob could be a problem in times gone by.
"One is too few and three is too many", as the saying goes about pints of Gleamhound's Old Scythe-sharpener.
Post a Comment