My Shortest Written Opinion Ever

This could quite possibly be the shortest commentary that I have ever had on just about anything. AND the most remarkable part about it is that I think I have a point of view that's kind of hard to disagree with. Then again, I think that about a lot of things. What do I know? Now, mind you, I didn't read this entire article. I came up with my opinion based solely on the title. I realize that I'm giving a lot of credence to the person who wrote the title and I'm really hoping that it's accurate. If it's not accurate, I might have to rethink my position, but I don't think that it would alter it by much.

Here we go...Over there at the Huffington Post is an article with the following title: "Sex With Animals Can Lead To Penis Cancer: Study".

My response to the aforementioned study? Good.

The end.

Sphere: Related Content

Another Useless Study

I know that I'm always saying that we're doomed. It's only because we are. Do you need another example of how I know that to be true? Because I have one. And I'm going to share.

The Post-Gazette.com has an article which goes over a study by some sort of think tank called Rand Corp. Their study found "...that couples who scored well on a short test of math skills accumulated more wealth by middle age than couples who scored poorly." It goes on to say that "...when both spouses correctly answered three math questions, family wealth averaged $1.7 million. That compared with $200,000 for households where neither spouse answered any question correctly." Wow. 200 grand when you don't get anything right? That really doesn't seem like such a horrible consolation prize, does it?

No, not at all. Which is kind of why this study is seeming a) ridiculous, and b) useless. But if there's a shred of reality to it, we're doomed. Even if there isn't a shred of reality to it, just that we're being subjected to it as if it is fact is rather dooming. But at this point of the article, I'm still fairly intrigued and wondering about the type of questions which will determine future wealth. Naturally, I was also wondering how I would fare with the questions. I stopped wondering after I read them and instead began wondering how a dog would fare, as I can't imagine a human being who is capable of earning $200,000 at the very least not being able to answer these questions.

Seriously, if these are the determining factors of wealth, then something has gone seriously wrong in this country. But maybe you should decide. Question One: If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease? Uh, really? That's the sort of question that, if I can noodle it through, is indicative of my ability to earn money? Even more extraordinary is that that's the sort of question that would be indicative of my ability to do math. Come on! What is that? Fourth grade level? Third?

Maybe they get harder as we continue. Let's look at the second question: If five people all have the winning numbers in the lottery, and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get? Hmm. No. No, I don't see these getting harder. I sort of see them getting a little easier. And I definitely see myself getting more annoyed with this study. (Seriously, how do I get a job at a think tank? Wait. First let me ask: Is it really a tank? Because I don't know if I'd like that very much. I'd like all of the thinking, but the thought of being in a tank all day is a bit off-putting.)

The last question (did I mention it was a really short quiz?) reads as follows: Let's say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10 percent interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years? Oh, for cryin' out loud. Are you kidding me?! First of all, what sort of savings account is going to earn 10 percent interest per year? None! There isn't one! Not a single one! I mean, really, the lottery question was pretty far-fetched. I'd have to believe that if I held a winning lottery number, I'd be able to figure out EXACTLY what my share was in a split-second after learning that I had won. That's a no-brainer. But this question is just completely baseless. Why not make it more realistic? I guess because then it might actually be somewhat relevant? Nah, that can't be it. The whole idea of this study having any relevance at all is completely preposterous.

See? We're doomed. Is anyone paying any attention to stuff like this? God, I hope not. What a waste of time. But seriously, how do I get a cush gig with a think tank? Anyone? Anyone?

Sphere: Related Content

Can't We Work Through This Rationally?

I've had it with all of this talk about whether or not people who are gay should be allowed to openly serve in the military. Do you want to know why this topic now only serves to irritate and annoy me whenever it is brought up? It's because no one is using any factual basis for their opinions at all and the whole debate is solely based on what people feel would be best.

I'm not going to pretend that I know what would be best in this situation. Do I think it would be great if folks who were gay were allowed to serve in the military openly? Sure, but only under one condition. That condition being that it won't lessen the chances of success for any given task and/or mission that the troops are on. Now, you might be asking yourself, "How could it possibly be a detriment for folks who are openly gay to serve in the military?" To which I would answer, "I don't know." But that's what my answer would be. Other people, those who are running their lives based solely on what they feel, might answer, "It's a ridiculous policy! It should immediately cease and desist! Gays should be out and about in the military because it's the right thing!" OK, OK. Hold on a minute there, cowboy.

I don't know anything about the military other than they keep me and my country safe. Oh, and I also know that they can kick some serious ass. That's what I want my military to be. If the safety of myself and my country means that those who are gay cannot serve openly in the military, then so be it. However, if that is, in fact, the case, I'd like it to be backed up by some sort of facts based on some sort of comprehensive study which is conducted by folks who know what they're dealing with military-wise.

Is that so much to ask? Look, that's all I want. I want some sort of factual basis which determines it to be perfectly OK to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and that the result isn't a compromised military. That's all. Do you think that devising policy based upon how you feel instead of based upon some sort of facts or investigation is really the way to go? I can't imagine that it is. Yet, if you'll look around at a lot of the fiscal problems that many states and the entire country are in the throes of, you'll start seeing a trend in the number of "feel good" programs that require a great deal of money. Are they necessary programs? Are they effective programs? Are they being implemented correctly? Who knows? All a lot of folks know is that it makes them feel good that those sort of programs are in place. And it's caused me to lose my WTL (will to live) on occasion.

Just wait for the study, folks. If you're so confident (even though you have no basis to base your confidence on) that it's just fine for gays to serve openly in the military, then what is the harm in waiting for this huge, comprehensive study that the Pentagon is conducting to wrap up? Seriously, do you really want to risk the safety of the troops that protect you just because you're all thumbs up for diversity? I can't imagine that people would, but yet, they do.

I'm going to need a prescription for some Xanax soon. I'm just saying

Sphere: Related Content

Thank You, Captain Obvious

Where do I sign up to get a job that studies the completely obvious? I know that such jobs exist. In fact, I'm positive of it after reading in Psychology Today that a one Nicolas Guéguen did a study "...on the likelihood of a female hitchhiker being picked up, by either a male or female driver, as a function of her breast size." Sooooo...let me get this straight. He wanted to know if a hitchhiking woman had larger breasts, would it increase the chances that she would be offered a ride? Really? There needs to be a study for this? Can't we all just agree on some things without the study?

The author of the article at Psychology Today is a one Gad Saad (pronounce that however you'd like). Mr. Saad muses about Mr. Guéguen that he "...could not help but notice that he possesses a talent for conducting naturalistic experiments about issues that many people have wondered about and yet few (if any) have tested." Really? Do you really think that many people have wondered whether or not chicks with large hoots get preferential treatment? Or do you think that many people already know that chicks with large hoots get preferential treatment? Can't we just agree that some things don't need to be proven, that they're just intrinsically known and we're all good with that?

The guy, Mr. Guéguen actually did a little test where "...an average looking female confederate" with either A cup, B cup or C cup sized breasticles "...stood at the side of a road and actually hitch hiked (i.e., put out her thumb as cars whizzed by)". Someone counted how many guys and how many girls drove by and also counted how many guys and how many girls stopped to pick this chick up. (They make of point of telling us that the "female confederate" did not actually get in any of the cars. I wish that would have made a point of telling us why she is called the "female confederate" instead.)

Now, this may shock you to learn that more men stopped to pick up the chick with bigger breasts. This is summarized in Mr. Saad's article as "If a woman has large breasts, men are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior." You think?! Are you freaking kidding me? How about next time, instead of sending some chick out on the side of the road and having her thumb rides, what say you just ask guys what they would do? "Excuse me, sir? If you saw this woman hitchhiking (show picture of voluptuous female, preferably Pam Anderson because, well, who doesn't like Pam Anderson?), would you give her a ride?" Then give the man a tissue to wipe the drool coming out of his mouth. Repeat as needed. (I realize that "as needed" makes it sound as if it is necessary to ask someone else to see if this is, in fact, an actual phenomenon. You and I both know that it's not. You and I both think that this study was about as stupid as it can get in the first place. Then again, some guy managed to figure out how to study how women's breasts cause different reactions in society. OK, that guy might be a genius, but this study certainly is not.)

And just in case you were wondering, here is the picture that Psychology Today included along with their article. You know, just in case you were unfamiliar with the concept of a fairly attractive, large breasted woman. Behold!

Good Lord....

Sphere: Related Content

Quails, Cocaine and Sex

Our tax dollars are hard at work, aren't they? Don't we have faith and confidence in the government to use our money wisely? To use our money in a productive fashion? To use our money to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of the Japanese quail? Wait. What now?

Correct. According to something called CNS NEWS, "The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $181,406 this year to a researcher at the University of Kentucky to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of Japanese quail." Um, how...how much? One hundred and eighty one grand? To give coke to birds? Are you dry shaving me? Whose idea was this? Were they on the aforementioned cocaine at the time that this idea cropped up? WTH?

According to the article, there have been previous studies done on just this sort of thing. So if you're upset about your tax money being used to give cocaine to Asian aviary creatures, it's not the first time that it has happened, so just calm down. It's not like it's new or anything. Now, the other studies did end up showing that "...prior repeated exposure to cocaine enhances sexual motivation and behavior.” Why, yes. Yes it does. Do these researchers never go to the movies? People on cocaine like to fornicate like crazed bunnies.

It also says that "The goal of the proposed experiments is to utilize an animal model whose sexual behavior system has been well-studied, Japanese quail.” Uh, couldn't you just study the sexual behavior system of a frat boy or something? A lonely businessman? Porn stars? I find it difficult to believe that the Japanese quail is a good representation of humans. Have you seen a quail lately? Unless you're an FLDS woman, there does not seem to be a lot of similarities.

When asked how something like this could be justified, a one Don Rabolvsky who is a NIH spokeshole explained that "...the research has value because many cases of HIV/AIDS are spread through drug-related sexual behavior." Uh-huh. Sooooo...where do the birds come in? That's hard to say. He continued with "Human behavior accounts for almost 40 percent of the risk associated with preventable premature deaths in the United States,” Rabolvsky said in an e-mail. “Health-injuring behaviors such as smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and drug abuse, as well as inactivity and poor diet are known to contribute to many common diseases and adverse health conditions.” That doesn't really seem to address the cocaine or the bird sex very much, though.

I looked on the webpage of the researcher, a one Dr. Chana Atkins. Here is just a portion of what was listed under "Research" and "Goals": " ...in humans, there appears to be some relationship between drug taking behavior and risky sexual behavior". Appears to be? Appears to be?! Look, this person is a doctor, so I'm assuming that they went to college. But how could one go to college and not KNOW that drug taking behavior is DIRECTLY linked to risky sexual behavior?! APPEARS?! Good Lord, man. Of course there's a relationship between the two. When was the last time you got laid, anyway?

And here's my favorite part of this inexplicable study. "Japanese quail are “ideal” animals to use....because the “birds readily engage in reproductive behavior in the laboratory.” You know, birds aren't the only creature that will readily engage in reproductive behavior. And it certainly doesn't have to be in just a laboratory! I'll readily engage in reproductive behavior right now! You don't need no stinkin' quails!

I am left with more questions than I am answers with this one. But I did find out why they're using the Japanese quail. One word: Variety. That's right. They were just trying to shake things up a little bit in the ol' lab there, as the website reads: "...quail provide a convenient and interesting alternative to standard laboratory rats and pigeons.” I can think of a heck of a lot more animals that would have been more interesting than freaking quail. Elephants, perhaps. Maybe the narwhal. What about a bald eagle? (There have to be ways around all of that protected species stuff, right?) Ever consider kangaroos? Walk around the zoo sometime and see how many people are clamoring to see the quail exhibit and then tell me that this was a good choice.

Sphere: Related Content

Useless Lists Five Years Later

Not only do I have yet another example of craptastic reporting, but this time it's accompanied by additional craptastic reporting which only serves to EXPAND on the original report of crap. And I'm a little surprised by this one. I can't quite figure out the appeal which caused multiple news outlet sources to run with it. Maybe because it's quirky. (Actually, it doesn't matter what it is because it's crap. Quirky, quirky crap.)

The story starts out like this: "Generic website (because they made me take down their link because their story sucks) has compiled a list of the 10 most dangerous foods to eat while driving. The site notes that eating distracts you from driving and that distracted drivers are one of the leading causes of accidents." First of all, what am I? Four? Eating distracts you. Distracted drivers crash. Therefore, eating is a distraction. You will crash. Morons.

But here's the odd part:  That list was originally posted in 2004! What the hell? FIVE years later and someone finally reads it and thinks, "Hey! Eating is a distraction. I should let everyone know this. But I won't let them know that it was written five years ago!" I'm so confused.

The article even cites a 2001 study that Exxon did. I don't know about you, but I prefer any study that has to do with human behavior to be relatively recent. Eight years ago is not relatively recent. Do I behave the same way that I did eight years ago? Not so much. (I'm a little more shout-y these days.) Anything that is citing 8 year old research I'm going to question. But that's just because I'm not a member of the mainstream media, which sort of explains why they didn't question anything.

Seriously.

US News and World Report, UPI.com (with their "100 years of journalistic excellence". An interesting claim for a dot-com.), the Chicago Tribune, and the list goes on and on. Not ONE of them mentions that the list was compiled FIVE years ago. Nope. They're all just churning it out like it's brand new.
And almost every article on this particular five year old topic (including the original one over at Insurance.com!) misstates the findings of some study that was done. The study says that "80 percent of...rear-end crashes...and 42% of near-crashes" are due to distracted driving. Eating while driving is considered a distraction. Therefore, the conclusion that these morons came to is that 80 percent of crashes are due to eating while driving. In fact, over at the New York Daily News, they went with the headline "Eating while driving causes 80% of all car accidents, study shows". Good Lord, you'd have to be an English language learner on your first day over there at the News in order to come up with that headline.

Now while the Insurance.com article doesn't come right out and state that incorrect conclusion, the whole article is centered around food and eating while driving, leading one to assume that's the connection. Why the need to lead folks astray for this particular issue, I have no idea. I can't even fathom one. Well, I can't even fathom one OTHER THAN idiocy. But as long as I'm on the subject of the 10 Most Dangerous Foods to Eat While Driving, let's look at their list of those 10 foods that will kill you in your car.

Number one is coffee. You know, because it's hot and it can spill and burn your grundle. No one likes a burnt grundle on their morning commute. Or anytime, really. But coffee? VERY dangerous to drive with. Then the list starts to get a little wacky.

Hot soup. What the hell? Who is eating soup whilst they're driving? Are we talking broth here? If we are, then let me amend that to: Who is drinking broth whilst they're driving? Chicken Soup for the Distracted Driver's Soul? I don't get it. (What if they mean udon noodle soup? Folks with a steaming hot bowl and a pair of chopsticks just barreling down the freeway at 80mph. That's not distracted driving, that's asinine.)

Tacos. Insurance.com says that "Any food that can disassemble itself will leave your car looking like a salad bar." I'll concur.

Chili Dogs and burgers. Anything with the greasy, slop factor can be a distraction. One bite and everything just ends up coming out the other end (which is actually the case anatomically with a lot of fast food).

Barbecued food. This has been altered in other articles to read "Ribs and wings". Who is driving along with a rack of ribs on the dash? But here's their rationale: "The sauce may be great, but if you have to lick your fingers, the sauce will end up on whatever you touch – and that wheel will be tough to grip." Yeah, you know what else makes the wheel tough to grip? Eating ribs! Usually those take TWO hands!

Fried chicken. Really? You folks just can't wait until you get that bucket from the Kentucky Colonel home,eh? You have to dive right in while you're stopped at that light? When do you squeeze in the corn on the cob and the baked beans? Metering ramps? Toll plazas?

Jelly donuts. Sure, I suppose the center could squirt out, but only if you were eating a jelly donut that wasn't one of the crappy ones that are being sold everywhere lately. There's barely a spit of goo in the middle of them and they're FAR from messy. I'm not saying it's OK to eat one while you're driving, I'm just saying that it's not like eating those ribs or anything.

Soft drinks. They say that they can spill (true) and that sometimes the carbonated fizz can go in our noses. Wow. These folks must try to anticipate every aspect of every potential disaster out there and then over-prepare for it. Me? I'm OK with the "fizz risk". I'll chance it. I'm crazy like that.

Chocolate. Because it's melt-y.

WHO is eating this stuff in their car? Coffee and soda are about the only legitimate ones on there. Well, the dogs, burgers and tacos are definitely all items that are eaten in the car by many drivers. But give me a break with the soup and the ribs! Those are not vehicle fare! If they're going to include those, then there's definitely a few that they left off of their list. Allow me..

Spaghetti and meatballs! Garlic bread on the side, optional.

Cracked crab/lobster. You'll have to crack it yourself, but you could probably just put it underneath the gas pedal and then step on it to crack them open. Use your drink holder as a container for melted butter and then dunk it in there.

Peel and eat shrimp. Use another cup holder for the cocktail sauce. Arrange the lemon wedges on top of your steering wheel for easy access.

Freshly sliced watermelon. Don't slice this ahead of time. Slice it in your car, on the dashboard. If you're doing this while stopped at a light, be friendly and offer some to the drivers in the lanes next to you.

Fondue! A nice big boiling pot of cheese or hot oil, various skewers with which to spear the cubed bread and assorted meats and you've got yourself a disaster that's just waiting in the wings. Fondue while driving WILL distract you.

Well? Five years after the fact, do you feel safer now? I can't really say that I do. I'm a little bit more irritated, I'm slightly more amused, but safer? Not so much.

Sphere: Related Content

A Stint With Some Lint

I need to spend some time on oddities in other countries because quite frankly, if I keep focusing on the blatant idiocy over here in the US, I'm going to lose what small shred of hope that I have left. And there are odd individuals in other countries. Hoo-boy, are there ever! Let's go to Vienna to learn about one of them.

Meet Dr. Georg Steinhauser. Dr. Steinhauser is a researcher at the Vienna University of Technology, located appropriately in Vienna. Vienna is a good place to be for Dr. Steinhauser. After all, Freud was from Vienna. It's like the birthplace of psychoanalysis. I imagine the place is just swimming with psychoanalysts. And I'd like a team of those very psychoanalysts to tell me why it is that Dr. Steinhauser has spent the last three years researching what type of body hair it is that traps pieces of lint in one's navel, aka the belly button. Wait. What?

Three years. Three years studying and researching belly button lint. What the hell is wrong this man? He's a scientist, he's a DOCTOR for cryin' out loud! (Even though he looks like he's 12.) It's not easy to become any sort of doctor and being a scientist is no exception. Why on earth would you spend the time that it takes to become a doctor and then use the knowledge that you've gained and the training that you've had and spend your time pulling out belly button fluff? It seems odd, as I can pull out belly button lint without being a doctor! So I don't know why someone would, but I do know that he did.

According to the folks over there at The Telegraph (who have just been putting out fascinating stories lately, so thanks, Telegraph guys!), Dr. Steinhauser, "...made his discovery after studying 503 pieces of fluff from his own belly button." He also asked his friends, family and co-workers about their own belly button lint. (I imagine that's the sort of thing you only get to do once, as once you've asked anyone about their belly button lint, it's highly probable that they're not going to want to talk to you ever again.) OK, I really hate to ask this, but what constitutes "a piece" of fluff? I mean, if there are two pieces in there and they're pulled out and meld into one, is that still two? Or what if there is only one in there and it breaks on the way out, then what? One or two? I imagine it's questions like these that keep Dr. Steinhauser awake at night. (Me, not so much.)

He did a chemical analysis on the fluff (because that's what scientists are supposed to do! Chemical analysis! But not on belly button lint!) and what he found will shock you. Or it won't. (You could still be in awe that someone has actually taken time to do this. I'm still a bit stunned myself.) He found that the lint wasn't just "...made up of only cotton from clothing." ::::gasp!:::: That's right! He found that there "...were also flecks of dead skin, fat, sweat and dust." (Was this news to the man? Was he thinking, "If it only were not for the lint, it would just be PRISTINE in there! Damn the lint! Damn ALL the lint to hell!")

His findings were published in the Medical Hypotheses journal. How this qualifies as a "medical" anything is beyond me. He wrote that it's the "...scaly structure of the hair" which "enhances the 'abrasion of minuscule fibres from the shirt' and directs the lint towards the belly button." Basically, the hair acts like velcro. He also said he learned that "Abdominal hair often seems to grow in concentric circles around the navel." Concentric circles. Uh-huh. OK, well, good to know. That will help me...when? In case I'm ever on Jeopardy! one day? ("I'll take things only I know for $1000, please, Alex.)

So if you have a concentrically hairy stomach, you're going to have a linty navel. Sure you can shave your abdomen hair if you're really shooting for a "fluff-free navel", but that will only work until the hair grows back. (Again, something that I probably could have told you through casual reasoning and without a Ph.D.) He also mentioned that new clothes "can shed up to one thousandth of their weight to the belly button every year."So if your favorite sweatshirt seems to be getting smaller over the years, it might not be because you're getting fatter! It might be because it has just shed itself off and into your belly button, making the shirt seem smaller and you seem larger. So check there first before heading off to Jenny Craig or over to Kirstie Alley's house.

And although Dr. Steinhauser is a scientist, there are (sadly) apparently others who may not be scientists (and who could tell in this instance?) but who are also fascinated by the lint within one's navel. Take a one Australian bloke Graham Barker for instance. His belly button lint is usually red even though he rarely wears red clothing. (EWW! Do I have to guess why it's red?! I'm not gonna!) Graham is so fascinated with the fluffy stuff within his navel that he "...has been collecting his own navel fluff in jars every day since 1984." Um...1984? WTF? "The achievement has won him a place in the Guinness Book of Records for the world's largest collection of navel lint."

Was there a big field of competitors for that distinction? I don't think there was. And I don't know that I consider something a "world record" when it's extremely likely that you're the only one in the world who does that particular something on purpose! That doesn't necessarily mean that you're worthy of holding a "world record" as much as you are worthy of earning the distinction of someone who clearly needs therapy.

This isn't the only research project that Dr. Steinhauser has immersed himself in. Yes, there are others. Others that are equally fascinating! He did a year long study on how the abrasion of wedding rings causes trace particles of the gold to flake off. He conducted that study by weighing his own wedding ring once a week during the first year of his marriage. He now weighs the ring once every six months and says that he will publish a life long study at the end of his scientific career which he will call "the work of his married lifetime." (By the way, over that year, his ring became 6.15mg lighter than it was when he first started weighing it. He used that figure and applied it to the number of married couples in Vienna and calculated that "2.2 kg of 18-carat gold" were lost every year to abrasion. Ok then.)

He has also studied the amounts of barium and strontium in the snow before and after fireworks were set off and determined that since the barium levels were almost 500 times higher after the fireworks than before the fireworks and that high barium levels can really aggravate a person's asthma, that those with asthma should stay away from fireworks celebrations.

Dr. Steinhauser seems like a smart guy, but I fear he's just a bit too eccentric to be able to put his brilliant mind toward some sort of really important research. What's next for this guy? Which mushroom variety is toenail fungus the most similar to? How often to humans grow new nose hair? Is there a constant butt-crack length to butt-cheek width ratio? You never know. And you don't need to know! But if you ever do need to know, Dr. Steinhauser is your go-to guy for sure.

(Final Side Note: Good Lord, yes, there's more. :::sigh::: While scouring the Internet for pictures for this post, I ran across documentation of the pastime of the one aforementioned Graham Barker, collector of the navel lint. And I thought it just wouldn't be right to leave that stuff out, so here you go. Graham had a blog called My Navel. The site is still up, but it appears he has stopped updating it. There are several close up pictures of the lint he has removed from his navel. There is even a ruler in the photos so you can have some sort of a scale in your head as to the lint's actual size.

There is also the almost obligatory GrahamParker.com. There you can find links to other webpages of his as well as download his CV.

And Graham seems to have another site/blog entitled "Graham's Paddock". This has several subsections, not all of which are about the lint. It also seems to be current and up-to-date. There is more belly button lint documentation there, including photos of the lint stored in jars and separated by decade. There are also recipes for his favorite salads and soups. Go figure.)

Sphere: Related Content

For That, I'll Skip Breakfast

I'm happy to announce that I'll be able to squeeze in one more "scientific study" before the year is over. Yipee! (Does the fact that I have "scientific study" in quotes give you any idea as to how scientific I deem it to be? Not very, that is correct.)

Perhaps the folks over there at Reuters actually found this "study" and it's "findings" to be newsworthy. Or maybe it was a slow news day. This is going to be one of the few, very few, times that I'm really hoping it was due to a slow news day. Otherwise, look forward to similar "studies" in the future with similar interpretations. (Translation: Crap.)

What we have from a government-backed Japanese medical researcher is that "Teens who skip breakfast as middle school students tend to have sex at an earlier age than those who start the day with a proper meal." Sooooooo.....yeah. We're blaming it on breakfast now? I've blamed having sex on a lot of things before. Alcohol, stupidity (usually induced by alcohol), loneliness (usually induced by alcohol), extreme horniness (usually induced by alcohol). So, basically, just alcohol. (OK, so my list isn't vast. It's a list!) But I've never blamed having sex on not having breakfast when I was in 8th grade. Or 7th. Or any grade, really. That's because it sounds ridiculous! (I prefer to blame having sex on things that make more sense. Like the alcohol reasoning. Now that's a sound excuse for just about anything right there.)

According to the study, "The average age of first-time sex for those who said they ate breakfast every day as a middle school student was 19.4, while for those who skipped breakfast, the average age was 17.5." Aw, this gets worse as I go along. 17.5?? Years old? Now they're blaming not having breakfast 4 to 5 years before someone managed to get someone else in the sack for all of the sack getting in the first place? Am I the only one who thinks they're stretching it just a tad here? I didn't think so.

"The fact that people can't eat breakfast may show something about their family environment," said a Japanese scientist who could not be any more vague with that statement. "Before blaming individuals for having sex at an early age, it may be necessary to look into the sort of homes they are from." Right. The sort of homes. OK. So, we're looking for what? Breakfast-less-ness? And lots of sex? (Alright, this is starting to get silly.)

I could see it maybe if they wanted to draw the conclusion that people were having sex for the first time at a younger age because they were doing that instead of having breakfast. I could buy that explanation. Barely. But I'd still buy it. (I'd skip a meal for sex. Hell, I'd fast on every day that ends in "y" for sex.) But this is saying that they're still not having sex until years after they've missed breakfast and quite frankly, if you're hanging onto this "not getting breakfast" thing for years, you should probably stop having sex and go find yourself a good therapist or a mental institution to check yourself into.

The survey "...also showed the average age of first-time sex was lower for those who found their mother annoying." Now there you go! That's some science I get fully back! Doing anything in spite of an annoying mother? SURE! I'm not saying that I believe people are thinking, "Man! I can't believe she grounded me for that! It was nothing! What a bitch! I'm going to show her! In a few years, I'm going to have sex! Just wait! You'll SEE!" No, that's not it. I'm just all for blaming mothers for anything. It's easier and believable in a lot of cases. (Disclaimer: There are a couple of exceptions to the blanket statement I just made about mothers. You guys know who you are. And one of them is not my mother.)

The scientist who, in the future, may be looking for different sources for research funds, said that, “Those unhappy with their parents — such as for not preparing breakfast — may tend to find a way to release their frustration by having sex." Again, I ask the question, "YEARS later?" You know what I do when I don't have breakfast prepared for me? I don't wait 4-5 years and then have sex with someone for the first time. No, I make my own damn breakfast!

Also noted was that, "If children don’t feel comfortable in their family environment, they tend to go out.” Go out...and....have sex? Well, yes! I don't know that the "family environment" is really the most "comfortable" place for anyone to be having sex! I'm glad they DO leave! I would hope that they would want to! And if they didn't, I sure as hell would ask them to!

If it wasn't for the delayed reaction time between not having breakfast and having sex for the first time, I might buy into the notion that there is something that is missing in the home environment that manifests itself without a morning Pop-Tart and leads to trampiness. But that 4-5 year window really isn't bolstering that theory very much. And actually, I'm a little surprised that they're complaining (if they are actually "complaining". It's kind of hard to tell what they're doing; other than just making stuff up) that the average age that someone first has sex over there is 17.5 years old. Seventeen and a half? I can't imagine that in the US it would be higher than that. (Have you seen how girls are dressing in the US? It's like the entire population of Whorevania exploded and made its way across the country.) Back to the survey questions, Japanese scientist guys! You have to come up with something else that you've derived from your data because this missing-breakfast-makes-you-have-sex-thing isn't quite cutting it. (Hey....does skipping breakfast make you have sex? If that's the case, I'm denouncing breakfast forever! Bring on the sex!)

Sphere: Related Content