Proof that women's chests really are a man's 'first fixation'

[LMNO]

If you could please speak as a boob owner, do you ever feel there's a catch 22 here, that if you meet a guy who only looks you in the eye, you have the realization that he's trying really really hard not to look at your boobs?

[Jasper]

Having been informed of the tendency at a youngish age, I've trained myself out of the habit.  I check girls out, but I tend to do it on purpose.

[Luna]

If you could please speak as a boob owner, do you ever feel there's a catch 22 here, that if you meet a guy who only looks you in the eye, you have the realization that he's trying really really hard not to look at your boobs?

Occasionally, but not often.  If a guy just STARES at my eyes, that's a little creepy, yes, but I don't tend to think of my boobs as irresistible attention grabbers.

[Requia ☣]

My question, of course, is...

Who the fuck pays to have people research this shit?  Seriously?  I want the research grant to study whether or not water is wet.

They've also studied how people react to studies that investigate what people assume is common sense.

They found that regardless of whether common sense was confirmed or disconfirmed, people said, "well of course, that's obvious."

Just saying.

Yeah, well.  Could be just me... but there are men I've had conversations with who have never actually met my eyes, so...

This research is about what happens in the first .2 seconds of a meeting, not the length of the conversation.  While you might think its safe to assume that experience in one area can predict results in a closely related area, *not* testing things like this is how we ended up with Freudians.

I'd like to see the actual study though (fucking Mail can't be bothered to mention the researchers names).  This is old news to me at least, if its a recent study chances are they had some other objective in mind, and the repetition was incidental.

[Luna]

My question, of course, is...

Who the fuck pays to have people research this shit?  Seriously?  I want the research grant to study whether or not water is wet.

They've also studied how people react to studies that investigate what people assume is common sense.

They found that regardless of whether common sense was confirmed or disconfirmed, people said, "well of course, that's obvious."

Just saying.

Yeah, well.  Could be just me... but there are men I've had conversations with who have never actually met my eyes, so...

This research is about what happens in the first .2 seconds of a meeting, not the length of the conversation.  While you might think its safe to assume that experience in one area can predict results in a closely related area, *not* testing things like this is how we ended up with Freudians.

I'd like to see the actual study though (fucking Mail can't be bothered to mention the researchers names).  This is old news to me at least, if its a recent study chances are they had some other objective in mind, and the repetition was incidental.

Not even a meeting, they used pictures.  Study was crap across the board, really.

[Laughin Jude]

Most studies are crap.

Just as studying theology turned me into an atheist, studying psychology, sociology and their attendant research methodologies has left me with a deep mistrust of any and all "studies" about widespread human behaviors.

Then it only gets worse when some English major from a tabloid tries to interpret the results for the public in a way that gives them a nifty headline.

[Requia ☣]

My question, of course, is...

Who the fuck pays to have people research this shit?  Seriously?  I want the research grant to study whether or not water is wet.

They've also studied how people react to studies that investigate what people assume is common sense.

They found that regardless of whether common sense was confirmed or disconfirmed, people said, "well of course, that's obvious."

Just saying.

Yeah, well.  Could be just me... but there are men I've had conversations with who have never actually met my eyes, so...

This research is about what happens in the first .2 seconds of a meeting, not the length of the conversation.  While you might think its safe to assume that experience in one area can predict results in a closely related area, *not* testing things like this is how we ended up with Freudians.

I'd like to see the actual study though (fucking Mail can't be bothered to mention the researchers names).  This is old news to me at least, if its a recent study chances are they had some other objective in mind, and the repetition was incidental.

Not even a meeting, they used pictures.  Study was crap across the board, really.

How would you know?  All that we have is what the fucking mail said.  We don't even know what the study was actually about.

[Laughin Jude]

Most studies are crap.

Just as studying theology turned me into an atheist, studying psychology, sociology and their attendant research methodologies has left me with a deep mistrust of any and all "studies" about widespread human behaviors.

Then it only gets worse when some English major from a tabloid tries to interpret the results for the public in a way that gives them a nifty headline.

Also,

[Luna]

How would you know?  All that we have is what the fucking mail said.  We don't even know what the study was actually about.

Says so in the article...

Subjects tested by researchers from New Zealand's University of Wellington were presented with six images of the same woman, digitally altered to increase or decrease the size of her bust, waist and hips.

The scientists recorded which areas men looked at first, the number of times they looked, and how long their gaze lasted, using cameras and mirrors to measure tiny eye movements.

The study concluded: 'Eighty per cent of first fixations were on the breasts and midriff. Men spent consistently more time looking at the breasts and also made significantly more fixations upon them than other regions.'

[Requia ☣]

How would you know?  All that we have is what the fucking mail said.  We don't even know what the study was actually about.

Says so in the article...

Subjects tested by researchers from New Zealand's University of Wellington were presented with six images of the same woman, digitally altered to increase or decrease the size of her bust, waist and hips.

The scientists recorded which areas men looked at first, the number of times they looked, and how long their gaze lasted, using cameras and mirrors to measure tiny eye movements.

The study concluded: 'Eighty per cent of first fixations were on the breasts and midriff. Men spent consistently more time looking at the breasts and also made significantly more fixations upon them than other regions.'

I was referring to the bit about the study being crap, not the bit about them being images.

[Requia ☣]

Also, I can *guarantee* the reporters never read the study (I've talked to reporters about this, most of them don't even realize there's a paper to read, they just go by what the English majors in the university PR department wrote), so what the article says isn't terribly useful.

[Luna]

I was referring to the bit about the study being crap, not the bit about them being images.

Ah.  My own snap judgment, based on the theory that people will look at a picture differently than they'll look at a woman who's within slapping range.

[Requia ☣]

Not necessarily, especially since this is in the first .2 seconds (IE, before there's any chance to take action to avoid getting slapped).  But if the study is properly done it'll either have a citation on a study that's checked the difference, or it'll point out that the difference is unknown.

Also, found the abstract:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169468

Study was about how mens eye movements varied with different breast characteristics.  For a shocker, men *don't* stare more at pictures of larger breasts (in the first .2 seconds).

[Luna]

I'd found that one, but wasn't sure it was the study they were talking about.  That one seems to be comparing preference for types of breasts.

[LMNO]

Any study on how long a guy will look at a girl's ass as she walks the other way?



Quick answer: until they turn around.