Comments on: Guess My IQ – Based on My Bra Size*

By: wumples

wumples — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:14:41 +0000

Can I just jump on this bandwagon you’ve got going here? Because this was the most well-thought out piece on boobies and their irrelevancy to our brains I may have ever read.
I am SHORT. And I have huge boobs. They do not make clothes that fit me or are flattering for me that DON’T show off my boobs. Just doesn’t happen. And however “stupid” they might make me look, damnit, I can have my boobies AND read Shakespeare and talk about quantum mechanics too.
The body is just a cutely decorated wrapper, hiding inside of it something infinitely more interesting (and tasty!). I’m sad to hear about Bill Prady, I rather liked him until I heard that remark!

By: dustbury.com

dustbury.com — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:35:31 +0000

Notes from behind the balcony

Some of us, apparently, are easily distracted:
I often dress in a cleavage displaying manner, for two reasons: 1) I have a great rack and 2) I look like an apple on sticks if I do not define my bustline. I do not mind when men (AND WOMEN!) look at my …

By: dustbury.com

dustbury.com — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:35:30 +0000

Notes from behind the balcony

By: Gringo

Gringo — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:58:54 +0000

Just stumbled upon your blog but am enjoying the posts and your writing. Course the irony isn’t lost on me that I’m initially saying so via a comment to a post re: boobs!
But I’d like to back up and start from it’s begining. Thanks for taking the time to write, am enjoying.

By: Big Geek

Big Geek — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:58:59 +0000

I just re-read the post and noticed a tiny little factoid that I missed the first time around. OH K?

By: Big Geek

Big Geek — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:45:46 +0000

oh I almost forgot.. I dropped about 15 IQ points by picture three I mean DDD

By: Big Geek

Big Geek — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:42:16 +0000

Very interesting post. Part of what Masala Skeptic said is true people are more or less trained to evaluate what they see or hear and categorize it as one thing or another. I propose its a hangover from LONG ago possibly reptilian brain work but most animals look at the world through evaluating eyes. Is this going to eat me, yes no. Can I eat that, yes no. can I F+@& that yes no. So yes if you dont know a person and you just met them and they have not had an opportunity to speak all you have is what you see. If that is “an amazing rack” well that certainly makes for a lasting impression and falls directly in to the can I F+@% that category. Next I would say that men don’t get angry so much about the look but don’t touch policy. That is sort of unusual in my experience. They typical policy is DO NOT even think of looking. I will slap your face off your head if I catch your eyes below my nose. Women don’t want to be “desired” only for their physical attributes. Its my impression that when women dress provocatively they are not dressing to attract men so much as to compete with other women. Much like a muscle flexing or biggest dick/fastest car thing with guys. Fastest car doesn’t necessarily do it for women but guys think a fast/Muscle car is a chick magnet. I don’t think so much. Its usually the opposite… what ‘short’ coming he making up for with that car sort of thinking.
All that to say this I think you are pretty unique in your understanding of the reaction you are going to get and your ability to deal with guys who trip over themselves and land face first in your cleavage. Most woman are not so aware or so… ummm… generous.
this little bit of ranting is just my opinion no scientific any thing about it.

By: isrw

isrw — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:31:20 +0000

“Hostility from men regarding provocative dress”? Isn’t the recrimination here largely taking the form of strained interactions between various women correspondents of yours? The first “inappropriate dress” stone was thrown by whom, again? Carrie and Barbara are presumably women’s names, and “SkepChic” strikes me as having a certain gender represented well among its membership…. The male examples you provide include one of the creators of The Big Bang Theory — the shallowness and horribly intrusive laugh track of which should clue us all in to the kind of humor on offer from that particular talking head. (The same guys produced Two and a Half Men. Bleck.)
But anyway: Anger over being able to look but not touch? You suggested that. Not to speak for other men, but that isn’t really ringing any bells for me. Neither I, your oh-so-well-adjusted comment filler outer, nor any of my less well-adjusted male acquaintances strike me as feeling this posited anger in a way I recognize. There are certainly some inappropriate and even asinine men in my circle of acquaintances, but they don’t seem to feel that specific way. The slower ones are hapless with women. The angrier ones, mostly, resent feeling inferior to everyone, women included– so they’re angry about that. They’re just sad and small.
But it’s not seeing your cleavage.
Speaking of which: With respect to your pictures: given that all of them are pictures of your chest, I’m not sure what “distracting” would look like, exactly. There’s nothing else to look at. It’s a little like this post, which describes your fabulous rack at length but doesn’t directly describe the content or even the tone of the skeptics’ meeting. I don’t have the context — for the meeting or the little sweet freckle in that third image.

By: SkepticalCowboy

SkepticalCowboy — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:57:45 +0000

Well said Masala Skeptic. I would like to add that looks are a form of communication as we are all saying here. With communication there is another half and that is the listening/interpreting side. As I strive to be aware of my presentation I also strive to be aware of my listening and interpretation side of communication. One area I think a lot people could improve on, myself included. Our presentation side seems to be very egocentric and we forget about listening.
As you stated it seems to be a snap judgment/emotional reaction. The emotional reactions are natural and we shouldn’t stop them but we should be critical of them. Snap judgments are a claim with very poor evidence.

By: Masala Skeptic

Masala Skeptic — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:18:28 +0000

This conversation has gone round and round on Skepchick and other sites and I think it’s a really interesting one. Here’s the conclusion I’ve come to:
Maybe people shouldn’t judge others based on first impressions. However, the fact is, they do. We have socially defined norms that exist in various settings. As we culturally become more casual (women wearing pants is no longer a scandal), the socially defined norms will change.
However, like it or not, they exist.
Now, on the other side, you can wear whatever you want, But the fact is, no matter whether you’re dressed in a bikini or a burqua, people are going to get an impression of you based on your attire. That’s the fact of the matter. That impression may be positive or negative, based on the individual’s social and cultural viewpoint. For example, ‘she’s wearing a burqua so she must be Muslim, oppressed and stupid because she lets a male-dominated religion take over her life and her sexuality.’
The point is, you have to be a) aware of the image you present b) be comfortable with it and c) be aware that it may be misrepresented by someone who has a different viewpoint or perspective. And hopefully, at a place like TAM, you can have a reasonable conversation about it and both people can come out of it more educated and reasonable.