Blogcritics: Comments on The Geometry of Fertility

Comment by Erik Holland

Thu, 3 Nov 2005 20:26:58 EST

Although I am late in replying, I have reproduced the main data from the paper by Jasienska et al. here; scroll down for the data on the page linked to. Related to this study, those interested in how sex hormones subtly shape physical appearance can find some detailed information here.

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 14 May 2004 21:12:09 EDT

Both. LOL! I never wanted large breasts. Some women pay thousands to get them. And, Mother Nature just up and imposes them on me. Too bad they are not transferable. Sorry about the double post. The server said it was stuck.

Comment by bhw

Fri, 14 May 2004 20:59:39 EDT

Your protruberances or the men?

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 14 May 2004 20:57:45 EDT

I've also noticed that women's bodies can change over time. I had 'barely a B' until I was 30 or so. (Even wore a bra named that.) Then, I sprang noticeable protuberances. They are irritating, ruining the lines of my blouses and dresses, and forcing mismatches when I buy separates. And, too many men look at my chest instead of my face. I wish they would go away.

Comment by bhw

Fri, 14 May 2004 20:54:53 EDT

LOL!

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 14 May 2004 20:54:27 EDT

I also notice that women's bodies can change over time. I had 'barely a B' until I was 30 or so. (Even wore a bra named that.) Then, I sprang noticeable protuberances. They are irritating, ruining the lines of my blouses and dresses, and forcing mismatches when I buy separates. I wish they would go away.

Comment by sheri

Fri, 14 May 2004 20:49:51 EDT

And the question is.....how tall is RJ Elliot.

Comment by bhw

Fri, 14 May 2004 20:34:04 EDT

Also, from the article: Why a woman's shape should reflect her hormone levels is not yet clear. Did the article's author ever consider that it's the other way around, that it's the hormone levels that reflect -- a.k.a. result in -- the shape? Duh. And I breastfed both of my children for a year. With my itty-bitty-titty-committee breasts. Everything I have ever read about breastfeeding says that there is NO correlation between breast size and the ability to supply milk. Another duh.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Fri, 14 May 2004 20:33:48 EDT

BHW: I suggest you do some research. Tall men tend to have larger "things" than short men. This is a fact. What's your beef? Are you a shortie? ;-P

Comment by bhw

Fri, 14 May 2004 20:26:40 EDT

They are also more likely to carry "good" genes, have an adequate quantity of testosterone, and be hung like rhinos. Is this the empirical evidence of which you speak?

Comment by RJ Elliott

Fri, 14 May 2004 20:20:52 EDT

BHW: Do you understand that empirical evidence is generally viewed as more worthy of serious debate than anecdotal evidence?

Comment by bhw

Fri, 14 May 2004 20:13:47 EDT

RJ, I'm a-scared of whoever taught you biology. For every sweeping generalization, there are, of course, always exceptions. I am a human stick figure with small mammalian protruberances, and yet it took me a total of three months to conceive both of my children. Fertile I am!

Comment by RJ Elliott

Fri, 14 May 2004 17:40:15 EDT

And they tend to be confident, tall, and thin. ;-]

Comment by duane

Fri, 14 May 2004 17:36:35 EDT

Who got more pussy in high school... The guys in rock bands. Heh.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Fri, 14 May 2004 17:32:01 EDT

"Another might be to put the boot on the other foot, and ask whether men with beer guts are less potent than their hunkier fellows." Clearly this is the case. "Hunky" types are more likely to have higher levels of testosterone than "Chunky" types. More testosterone = a greater chance of both wanting to engage in intercourse and being able to do so. Our society is still bound by the rules of the caveman. Tall, strong men are better able to fend off predators and other potential males, and are thus more likely to be able to provide safety and comfort for their female mates. They are also more likely to carry "good" genes, have an adequate quantity of testosterone, and be hung like rhinos. Short, flabby men are less likely to be able to fend of predators and other males, and are less likely to be carrying "good" genes and have high levels of testosterone. And penis size is (in general) directly correlated to the size (i.e. height) of the male... No wonder women tend to seek out tall, muscular, confident men. And shun short, flabby, and weak men. (For those who dispute this basic fact of life: Who got more pussy in high school: The Computer Club and Band members, or the Basketball and Football teams?)