For those who know what I'm talking about: Ha! It's science, bitch.
Oh - what's that you're thinking? Who's that hot guy? Why is he relevant? Well, he doesn't exist! (Read the bloody article.) He's a computer generated, supersymmetrical phantom. And it's been scientifically demonstrated that he'd be better at giving you an orgasm than somebody very similar but with an asymmetrical flaw. I rest my remarkably well-proportioned case.
10 comments:
Well, I believce this article is fundamentally flawed because of the fact that the female orgasm is a myth.
That's not what your mom said last night, Conor.
Well obviously she was lying.
As she does when she tells you its the best she's ever had.
Or that she likes you, or that your good-looking.
I meant that's not what she said to you. When you were having disgusting incestuous sex.
...On reflection, that comment may be a little harsh. I mean, even if I personally find incest unappealing, does that give me the right to make those kinds of value judgements on someone else's sexual inclinations? I mean, by that logic, those people who are disgusted by the thought of gay sex have every right to propound my sexual activities as inherently disgusting. Of course, it could be the case that every sentence proferred is purely opinion - in which case my judgement above implicitly reads, "...having [what is in my opinion] disgusting incestuous sex." But this removes our ability to make any objective statement of any kind. Each statement must be evaluated in its context, and this is, probably, in practice, how communication works in any case; it's just unfortunate that so much ambiguity is possible, especially when dealing with such a possibly sensitive topic as sexual inclinations. Of course, I'm not disbarring people from holding opinions which are contrary to my own morality or aesthetics (for example, the value judgement that gay sex is disgusting), but presenting them as fact is the problematic aspect to all this. But then that brings us to the issue of what fact is in any case, and whether we can come to an objective standard of truth. I think we can, and I have a truly marvellous proof of this proposition which this comment is too small to contain.
Eoin, sometimes you just need to fuck off.
Eh, guys - this is not a discussion forum. It's my blog. Kindly discuss quite how brilliant my posts are, or fuck off to boards.ie.
Back on topic, I dont find that guy attractive. he has a FAT face and Bad hair. He is OK looking, but I wouldn't stop on the street to look at him and as you all know it doesn't take a lot for me to stop on the street and look at someone attractive. Maybe I prefer asymmetry and I suppose that explains Ross.....
Ronan: 7 comments on a blog post imply [at least to the casual reader] that you have a slavishly attentive audience, who are only too willing to heap praise upon your erudition and insight.
And besides, why not let discussion occur when and where it arises, rather than attempting to deport it to a specific arena?
Jason: I wonder if the same "rules of attraction" apply to gay males? I'm not so certain. Besides, psychological studies such as these are rarely totally relevant in a day-to-day context -- attraction is simply too multifaceted and whimsical.
Conor and Silkinator: thanks for the lulz.
Looking more closely at the picture I think I'd have sex with him, but he'd need a beard, and well, I'd probably tie him up and just do unspeakable things.
And he'd love it.
What did he say about my ma?
Post a Comment