|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 11, 2014 23:38:50 GMT
Something just occured to me about the bigger boobs experiment. Is there a chance that the men we saw in the clips were looking at Kari like they were, not simply because they were mesmerized by big boobies, but because they were repeat customers from the previous two days and were wondering how they got that big that fast?
And touching on the subject of repeat customers, seeing as being a Mythbuster often means getting good at something new in a fairly short amount of time, is there a chance that some of those repeat customers were simply leaving larger tips because they were impressed at her rate of improvement from day to day?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 12, 2014 5:01:32 GMT
Something just occured to me about the bigger boobs experiment. Is there a chance that the men we saw in the clips were looking at Kari like they were, not simply because they were mesmerized by big boobies, but because they were repeat customers from the previous two days and were wondering how they got that big that fast? And touching on the subject of repeat customers, seeing as being a Mythbuster often means getting good at something new in a fairly short amount of time, is there a chance that some of those repeat customers were simply leaving larger tips because they were impressed at her rate of improvement from day to day? there's always the chance of things like that skewing the results - but it sounded like this isn't Kari's first experience serving coffee.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 12, 2014 6:58:58 GMT
Something just occured to me about the bigger boobs experiment. Is there a chance that the men we saw in the clips were looking at Kari like they were, not simply because they were mesmerized by big boobies, but because they were repeat customers from the previous two days and were wondering how they got that big that fast? And touching on the subject of repeat customers, seeing as being a Mythbuster often means getting good at something new in a fairly short amount of time, is there a chance that some of those repeat customers were simply leaving larger tips because they were impressed at her rate of improvement from day to day? there's always the chance of things like that skewing the results - but it sounded like this isn't Kari's first experience serving coffee. It may not have been her first experience serving coffee, but it was surely her first experience with that specific coffee shop. Even if you work at a Starbucks, move to a different city and start working at a different Starbucks, there's bound to be things that are different. At the very least they don't keep all their stuff in the exact same place as your previous employer did, so there's somewhat of a learning curve for the first few days, no matter how experienced you are. Depending on how similar the two places are, both in terms of the physical environment of the shop and the work culture, it may take you anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to maybe even a month or so to get past that learning curve, but it's there.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 14, 2014 8:49:16 GMT
Are you attracted to this person.... Now the answer you gave, after five mins talking to them, is it the same?...
If they then get anonymous, and TRULY anonymous on answers, how much more truthful will people answer.
The most astounding "Oh, so you CAN say that" answer I ever heard, "Yes, maybe she is attractive, but not to me...." When pushed, the final answer was his wife was MORE attractive, and probably listening, as thats her talking to her friend at the bar?.... But the original "truth" but not interested thing stuck. With slight questionable on the truth It was one of them times, a friend had been sent as "Wingman" duty to tap up a guy she thought she liked, and the fried was doing duty not taking a no for an answer....
To be honest, I was glad I was unavailable.... his wife's friend at the bar was my wife.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 14, 2014 13:57:17 GMT
Are you attracted to this person.... Now the answer you gave, after five mins talking to them, is it the same?... If they then get anonymous, and TRULY anonymous on answers, how much more truthful will people answer. The most astounding "Oh, so you CAN say that" answer I ever heard, "Yes, maybe she is attractive, but not to me...." When pushed, the final answer was his wife was MORE attractive, and probably listening, as thats her talking to her friend at the bar?.... But the original "truth" but not interested thing stuck. With slight questionable on the truth It was one of them times, a friend had been sent as "Wingman" duty to tap up a guy she thought she liked, and the fried was doing duty not taking a no for an answer.... To be honest, I was glad I was unavailable.... his wife's friend at the bar was my wife. you're going to have to chart that out - I'm having trouble figuring out who was who in your scenario. as for definitions of attractive, I occasionally use the term "decorative" as in Pam Anderson is decorative. but I don't find her attractive.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 14, 2014 15:35:25 GMT
How about testing boob size vs facial attractiveness? Are men able to overlook lack of boobage if a female has a really attractive face? And, vice versa, will larger boobs override a not particularly attractive face?
I agree with TLW's assessment of Pam Anderson. She's decorative, but overdone and her face is reflective of years of "hard living".
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 14, 2014 15:45:03 GMT
How about testing boob size vs facial attractiveness? Are men able to overlook lack of boobage if a female has a really attractive face? And, vice versa, will larger boobs override a not particularly attractive face? I agree with TLW's assessment of Pam Anderson. She's decorative, but overdone and her face is reflective of years of "hard living". it depends on the particular male. I have seen evidence it works in both directions.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 14, 2014 19:03:11 GMT
How about testing boob size vs facial attractiveness? Are men able to overlook lack of boobage if a female has a really attractive face? And, vice versa, will larger boobs override a not particularly attractive face? I agree with TLW's assessment of Pam Anderson. She's decorative, but overdone and her face is reflective of years of "hard living". it depends on the particular male. I have seen evidence it works in both directions. I'm with you on this one. I'd personally take a pretty face with not much chest to mention* over a huge chest and a trainwreck for a face, but I've seen it done the other way around. I've seen that done by women too, where the kicker for them wasn't boobs, of course, but muscles. Some women are overly focused on the "chiseled sculpture of a man" look and will go for that over a handsome face and even personality, kindness or intelligence, just like some men will go for all body but no brains or personality to speak of. I think it depends on how you look at the other gender in general. What your "purpose" for them is. Do you see them as purely sexual creatures or as accessories to boost your ego, or do you want an actual partner? I know I look at different things depending on whether I'm just in the mood to "look at something pretty" or I'm looking for an actual partner. The ones who really got me hooked, weren't always the prettiest ones in the bunch, but the ones I could make a real connection with. Those are the ones I can fall in love with, almost regardless of looks. I may find the "model types" pretty, but these are the women I find truly beautiful and at first glance, the difference between them is all in the eyes and the smile, not the body. * To be honest, boob size doesn't really matter to me. I am and always have been more of a butt guy Don't get me wrong, though. I notice a good looking pair as much as the next guy, but if there's no discernable bump between where her back ends and her legs begin, I'm moving on
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 14, 2014 20:52:06 GMT
Another thing not taken into consideration was preference for how proportioned the body was ("36-24-36, only is she's 5-3"...Sir Mixalot "Baby Got Back") Some guys prefer women who are top heavy while some like Ozirus might prefer a little 'junk in the trunk'. Which are guys more attracted to: pear-shaped vs. hourglass vs. ...? Does the proportionality of a woman effect how attractive a woman is?
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 14, 2014 21:02:03 GMT
Another thing not taken into consideration was preference for how proportioned the body was ("36-24-36, only is she's 5-3"...Sir Mixalot "Baby Got Back") Some guys prefer women who are top heavy while some like Ozirus might prefer a little 'junk in the trunk'. Which are guys more attracted to: pear-shaped vs. hourglass vs. ...? Does the proportionality of a woman effect how attractive a woman is? There was actually a myth floating around a couple years ago that butt men were more intelligent than boob men. The explanation, apparently, was that men who were more attracted to wide hips and a little junk in the trunk than a large chest were instinctively more focused on procreation than recreation, if you can put it that way
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 15, 2014 3:54:57 GMT
There was actually a myth floating around a couple years ago that butt men were more intelligent than boob men. The explanation, apparently, was that men who were more attracted to wide hips and a little junk in the trunk than a large chest were instinctively more focused on procreation than recreation, if you can put it that way There's a third group that neither of us has mentioned yet: Leg men. I wonder what research says about their intelligence and focus...
|
|
|
Post by craighudson on Aug 15, 2014 8:22:14 GMT
Are they just repressed butt men?
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 15, 2014 8:38:24 GMT
This is getting wildly off where I am able to agree to anything stated..... The idea that one persons ability to go for a certain type makes them more intelligent?.... Awae' hame............
TBH, Attractiveness to me is a complete package. Supermodels are not. They are just walking clothes hangers with an almost instant ability to be a right cow. I also find those engrossed in their ability to look good missing certain human abilities to be nice. Please note the lack of sexism in the above... the Male counterpart of the Female is just as equally entitled to be a {female canine}.
So saying all that, I must therefore state that the person I would say is attractive to me, must also have humanity, be able to assist with no fear of getting dirty, not be overly consumed by looks, and not be completely hoodwinked by every silly article that gets published in those stupid magazines. Looks are looks. First impressions are often slightly wrong... so I discount them.
This doesnt mean I will walk away from an otherwise "10", it just means I will reserve judgement until I find what type of person they are
So I just discounted my self from being able to pick a stunner from a line-up?... Good. That isnt how I work.
However, there is a myth that I would like to see tested.....
Beauty is only skin deep. Fugly is to the bone.
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Aug 15, 2014 13:25:14 GMT
T...... However, there is a myth that I would like to see tested..... Beauty is only skin deep. Fugly is to the bone. What method would you propose to test that?
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 15, 2014 13:34:49 GMT
T...... However, there is a myth that I would like to see tested..... Beauty is only skin deep. Fugly is to the bone. What method would you propose to test that? A written or verbal personality test? Give them 'what would you do...' scenarios?
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Aug 15, 2014 14:08:30 GMT
Not sure it relates exactly to the 'myth' SD proposes, but it does fit with the theme of the conversations thus far.. A test to determine what's more attractive, face/boobs/package.
Have a test group of men look at pictures of women without their head and grade attractiveness Same group of men now grade the attractiveness of the same women, but only headshots (obviously they wouldn't know they were the same women) 3rd test would be same women this time with body and head....
you could have a set number of women that are in all 3 sets of pictures to use for the actual results, and the others could be a a mix.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 15, 2014 14:15:07 GMT
Not sure it relates exactly to the 'myth' SD proposes, but it does fit with the theme of the conversations thus far.. A test to determine what's more attractive, face/boobs/package. Have a test group of men look at pictures of women without their head and grade attractiveness Same group of men now grade the attractiveness of the same women, but only headshots (obviously they wouldn't know they were the same women) 3rd test would be same women this time with body and head.... you could have a set number of women that are in all 3 sets of pictures to use for the actual results, and the others could be a a mix. I like that. I think the results would be quite interesting. I could envision that there would be very little correlation of the results for attractiveness in all three stages of the test.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 15, 2014 20:20:37 GMT
A test to determine what's more attractive, face/boobs/package. I prefer my women with no 'package', thank you!
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 15, 2014 20:23:44 GMT
A test to determine what's more attractive, face/boobs/package. I prefer my women with no 'package', thank you! Wouldn't a woman with a package be better than a woman with baggage? Let's not get into the ones with issues...
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 15, 2014 20:26:25 GMT
I prefer my women with no 'package', thank you! Wouldn't a woman with a package be better than a woman with baggage? Let's not get into the ones with issues... Are you not getting what I'm referring to as a 'package', or are you seriously less repulsed by a woman with a willy than a woman with a dark background?
|
|