|
|
|
Yes because half of them actually refrained for five years. This study is pretty pointless
|
I always knew being a pervert paid off
|
Effectively it says anything that makes your heart possibly speed up for a bit every day (excercise would be best) increases heart health, the breast thing is probably just done to get attention to their "study".
|
Belgium6771 Posts
|
On March 07 2011 05:46 Xeofreestyler wrote:
SCIENCE BE PRAISED!
Amen my brother, amen.
In all seriousness this is one of the funniest things I've heard all day. The breast thing that is. lol
|
Does it work with manboobs?
|
|
|
|
|
Instinctively, I knew.
Non-believer, be gone!
|
This is a premature April fools' joke right? All three sentences of that article are written like they're for nothing more than comedic effect.
I want to believe this is real so bad though.
|
I'll be sure to show this to my wife.
"But sweetie, I'm only doing it for my heart! Now, take that shirt off."
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
|
so the meme "tits or gtfo" can now be used as a medical excuse for sexual harassment?
|
And how exactly did they reliably make SURE that TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MEN did NOT stare at breasts for FIVE years?
I am not refuting their claim, I am simply throwing their test in the garbage bin.
Edit: Also, my gf changes in my room often, so I'm covered in case this IS true.
|
|
|
I do one step better than stare! I'm gonna be in awesome health for the rest of my life! Now I don't feel so bad for eating all those twinkies.
|
Why would anyone volunteer to be in the group that does not look for 5 years?
|
i remember some other article like this from years back.
|
damn you, edit your post already and pretend you didnt find that 
|
Finally we have an excuse!
"Stop staring you creep!"
"Excuse me ma'am, im just increasing my heart health"
|
On March 07 2011 05:46 Xeofreestyler wrote:
SCIENCE BE PRAISED!
that didn't seem scientific at all...or maybe you're being ironic?
|
someone beat me
anyways
pretty pointless and poor accurate study.
|
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I love fail science like this.
|
It shocks me more that a man is able to not see a breast in 5 years....Oh someone already disproved this article. What a troll -.-.
|
seen studies like this before.
technically not baseless, as long as something is arousing.
breasts just happen to be accepted as an automatic stimulant.
the study can also be repeated with butts, or what have you so long as among the cohort that gets to ogle them they are all accepted to be excited by it, then its fine. It just acts in accordance to a daily increase of heart rate due to arousal. Likewise, analogous studies to this have been done with minute physical exercise and other forms of stimulants that have lead to the same conclusion.
dont get all the "fail science" stuff flying around =\
|
Thank you for quoting the source.
Since FOX has no credibility we can safely ignore this post, saving everyone a lot of time.
|
What kind of idiot would participate in a study that told him not to look at breasts for five years?
I mean hypothetically, since this is obviously not real
|
If it involves payment, then everyone would agree.
It's not like the scientists would follow them around all day long every day for 5 years... or would they 
|
Technically this can be validated. Why? Happiness. I didn't read the particulars for this experiment, but I've found that all of these ones don't account for the simple factor of general happiness. Just like laughter really is good for you, being generally happy makes you healthier. If half of a group is trying to actively stop ogling and the other is free to do it and even encouraged, who do you think is naturally happier? Any type of restraint on your part is just that little bit more stress or whatever.
So, to conclude: probably true but the title and general conclusion is disingenuous. Mis-attribution of cause.
|
United States4126 Posts
Thanks for improving my life in more ways than one, science
|
does it matter if they're real breasts or in a pornography? Cause if the answer is no than I have the healthiest heart on earth.
|
I love the video that accompanies the article.
|
Who agreed to "refrain from staring" for 5 years?
Torture, my friends
|
On March 07 2011 05:53 Latham wrote:
so the meme "tits or gtfo" can now be used as a medical excuse for sexual harassment?
Indeed. Well played, sir.
|
That why im so healty ! Now I understand
|
|
|
so does this mean that the more "liberal" we are with our clothing, our hearts will enable us to live longer?
just another factor in increasing avg. life i guess...
|
Fuck yeah, science! True or not, I believe it...
On March 07 2011 05:53 DarkGeneral wrote:
And how exactly did they reliably make SURE that TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MEN did NOT stare at breasts for FIVE years?
I am not refuting their claim, I am simply throwing their test in the garbage bin.
Maybe the control group was gay? Seems like the only possibility.
|
I can't wait till someone gets charged with manslaughter or something because they didn't let a man look at their tits and he died of some sickness because of this study.
On a more serious note. The study is complete crap because there is no way of knowing if the men did or did not look at women's breasts.
|
That guy could have been gay....There is NO WAY i can't look at those perky boobies for 5 years man
|
On March 07 2011 05:53 Latham wrote:
so the meme "tits or gtfo" can now be used as a medical excuse for sexual harassment?
Hahaha that's probably the funniest thing to come out of this
|
Gay men probably see more breasts than the average straight man, since women are more comfortable around them.
|
My heart is gunna last a long time then!
|
Don't need science to prove this.
Everytime I see breasts I feel a bit chipper :3
|
I'd better stare at more breasts since it seems that with my hearth being healthier, my house should be warmer and my food should be cooked faster.
|
On March 07 2011 15:46 JasperGrimm wrote:
Gay men probably see more breasts than the average straight man, since women are more comfortable around them.
doubt that (the more comment) however, i agree with the comfortable comment, as the homosexual male (general statement) isn't a lot more feminine than the heterosexual male (general). Men and women tend to be more comfortable with people of the same sex (or gender, i forget) where gays typically fall into the feminine category
|
|
|
Is this excluded to women or can looking at men's breasts have the same effect?
Interesting nonetheless, going to start staring at breasts more.
|
buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulllllllllllllllshit
edit: No evidence put forward besides a little bit of a health benefit? Exercising would be a greater benefit.
|
On March 07 2011 06:06 Chef wrote:What kind of idiot would participate in a study that told him not to look at breasts for five years? I mean hypothetically, since this is obviously not real
hahaha you're right.
ESPORTS and SCIENCE to the rescue!
|
I now know what I'm going to be forging with my prescription pads now.
|
United States17042 Posts
just renamed the thread, hope that's okay
|
decent so know when they like what are you doing you can be like I'm increasing my health 
|
This has to be the most ridiculous study I have ever heard about. Well good excuse as any to stare at boobs.
|
Correlation does not imply causation.
That being said, I always was a "breast" guy. I guess I was always subconsciously concerned for my health?
|
hmmm Well at this rate I'll live to be a hundred
|
Posting in an epic thread.
|
United States1219 Posts
On March 07 2011 06:02 ProjectVirtue wrote:
seen studies like this before.
technically not baseless, as long as something is arousing.
breasts just happen to be accepted as an automatic stimulant.
the study can also be repeated with butts, or what have you so long as among the cohort that gets to ogle them they are all accepted to be excited by it, then its fine. It just acts in accordance to a daily increase of heart rate due to arousal. Likewise, analogous studies to this have been done with minute physical exercise and other forms of stimulants that have lead to the same conclusion.
dont get all the "fail science" stuff flying around =\
Threads like this are great for determining who actually reads the threads and who just skims the OP and jumps straight on the "Post" button. Did you not see gogogadetflow's post on the first page?
If that's not enough, here is a search for "Karen Weatherby" on the website of the New England Journal of Medicine. And here she is under Google Scholar, which contains two actual returns! Unfortunately both of them discuss the study as a well-known hoax, one of them containing this gem:
There was no such a medical research study. Dr Weatherby did not exist. None of us
would take such a report seriously and some of us would trash it as a dirty joke.
Similarly, we do not take seriously this kind of misinformation as in seen in some
advertisements on how to lose weight, how to combat hair loss, and how magical
certain medical programs or policies are.
So... yeah. I don't know what studies you've heard of that are similar to this. But this is not just "fail science," it's "totally fabricated for the lols" science.
|
lol like we horny bastards care about our heart ...
we would still do it even if it killed us right?
|
Next thing you know they'll be telling us that looking at more than just the breasts will improve our health, and then it will be actual intimacy, and pretty soon it will be "have sex, live long and prosper" and we'll have a black vulcan from Star Trek giving the Shocker.
|
it'd be nice to see the actual data because 500 is a pretty small sample size
I'm no statistics major but this just seems like an awful experiment / fake
"don't look at boobs for five years lol"
"ok lol"
|
On March 07 2011 16:16 Dimagus wrote:
Next thing you know they'll be telling us that looking at more than just the breasts will improve our health, and then it will be actual intimacy, and pretty soon it will be "have sex, live long and prosper" and we'll have a black vulcan from Star Trek giving the Shocker.
can it start now? lolol
|
On March 07 2011 05:42 G3CKO wrote:
Five-hundred men participated in the German study. Half were told to refrain from looking at breasts for five years, the other half were told to ogle them daily.
The study found the men who stared at breasts more often showed lower rates of heart problems, a lower resting heart rate and lower blood pressure.
The authors of the study recommend that men stare at breasts for 10 minutes a day.
In Bold: Both are such improbable absurd impossibilities, it's what gave it away to me as just a troll.
|
yea 500 is a very small sample size for a legitimate scientific research
|
So who is the person who proposed this research topic?
|
This explains how Charlie Sheen is still alive.
|
If this isn't complete bullshit....
lol don't need to conduct research to know this is true. Besides the test is insanely stupid. there are many other variables that could contribute to the results like the fact that people knowing that they arnt allowed to look at breasts is probably bad for your heart. Also the fact that no man would go 5 years without looking at breasts..
|
Ya, the sample size is a bit small.
I propose that we here at TL ogle breasts daily and then in 5 years we all post on whether or not we feel any healthier. That way we can actually help science instead of just criticizing.
|
The next time a girl chides you for staring at her boobs, simply tell her its for the greater good.
Does this also mean female nurses and doctors should go topless if they are working near patients with heart related problems?
|
Better do it.
You know, just in case.
I mean, it can't hurt right?
*scuffle scuffle thud*
Ow! My nose!
|
Fear not, all of us oglers shall have big strong heart like big ox and live many long prosperous lives
|
This thread is missing pictures of breasts, which is detrimental to our collective health.
|
On March 07 2011 16:30 DrivE wrote:
So who is the person who proposed this research topic?
A clever guy, for sure.
|
next time some girl say stop looking at my bewbs i just tell her but its healthy for me and she can blame science for that
|
On March 07 2011 05:48 Chairman Ray wrote:
Does it work with manboobs?
I hope so, I can't always get access to the internet.
|
"refrained from staring at breasts for 5 years"
I bet thats a rule for korean pro gamers too
|
this would be a good fun fact for the other thread i guess
may it be correct or not, i guess there are lots of people willing to try
|
My teenage years have finally benefited me.
|
while i am in no way ruling out the possibility (you never know, the stress of not being allowed or thinking you shouldn't look at boobs when you may really want to may actually contribute in some way) i do think this is probably wrong. it's like trying to call an event that we haven't bothered trying to figure out the science and mechanics of properly as an act of god.
however, that being said i'm going to milk this for what it's worth. 
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I remember a few years back I read about a study where a female researcher claimed that fellatio lowered the risks of breast cancer.
She went on to encourage all women to do it at least once a day iirc.
One of the most beneficial researches for man(kind?).
Source: http://www.murdzplace.com/CNN.htm
|
On March 07 2011 17:50 Souma wrote:I remember a few years back I read about a study where a female researcher claimed that fellatio lowered the risks of breast cancer. She went on to encourage all women to do it at least once a day iirc. One of the most beneficial researches for man(kind?). Source: http://www.murdzplace.com/CNN.htm
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/fellatio.asp
False.
Believe me, I hate being the one to post this. 
|
On March 07 2011 05:45 DyNastY8185 wrote:
I always knew being a pervert paid off
:D:D
|
If staring at breast was a sport I would be a world champion.
|
Marshall Islands3404 Posts
lame i hate boobs.
ass is where its at.
|
If I had a penny for every time I looked at someone's breasts, I would be a billionaire...lawl.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Yeah I actually didn't believe it. =P
Just thought it was silly.
|
jesus, this is like that sperm swallowing for women decreases the risk of breast cancer
|
United States1219 Posts
On March 07 2011 18:06 Licmyobelisk wrote:
jesus, this is like that sperm swallowing for women decreases the risk of breast cancer
Oh my god you people are killing me. Now you're not even reading the same page that you're posting on. I mean I know the opportunity to talk about breasts is exciting and all, but come on!
|
On March 07 2011 18:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2011 18:06 Licmyobelisk wrote:
jesus, this is like that sperm swallowing for women decreases the risk of breast cancer
Oh my god you people are killing me. Now you're not even reading the same page that you're posting on. I mean I know the opportunity to talk about breasts is exciting and all, but come on!
I think this has to be some clever trolling by now.
|
United States1219 Posts
On March 07 2011 18:21 Sokalo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2011 18:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:On March 07 2011 18:06 Licmyobelisk wrote:
jesus, this is like that sperm swallowing for women decreases the risk of breast cancer
Oh my god you people are killing me. Now you're not even reading the same page that you're posting on. I mean I know the opportunity to talk about breasts is exciting and all, but come on! I think this has to be some clever trolling by now.
Man, I hope you're right. Even if it means that I fell for it, I hope you're right.
|
I feel sorry for 250 of those men.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
i thoguht it said STARING AT BEASTS
![[image loading]](http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/tbr/img/10800.jpg)
|
United States10328 Posts
On March 07 2011 18:37 alffla wrote:i thoguht it said STARING AT BEASTS
LOL
|
lol...
correlation isn't causation ...
|
wait...
I remember something like this 3 years ago being debunked in brainiac.
I think the results were that 30 mins of aerobics is about 10x more effective.
|
On March 07 2011 18:04 Brees wrote:
lame i hate boobs.
ass is where its at.
disagree with first statement.
strongly agree with the second.
|
10 minutes a day? what if it's like 40mins to 2hours a day? like really just 10minutes?
|
I will definitely be making full use of giving myself a good heart
|
On March 07 2011 17:50 Souma wrote:I remember a few years back I read about a study where a female researcher claimed that fellatio lowered the risks of breast cancer. She went on to encourage all women to do it at least once a day iirc. One of the most beneficial researches for man(kind?). Source: http://www.murdzplace.com/CNN.htm
haha nice parody
|
|
|
seems fake but what do I know. How controlled were the experiments? How could they have possibly monitored people for 5 years in the real world? I just don't see how this test is conclusive but it's pretty funny.
|
It's healthy to crave boobies!
|
I assume this is because your heart rate is supposed to go up. Personally I can't say my heart rate changes much of looking at say.. a picture of two boobs.
It wouldn't surprise me if masturbating is 100 times more effective, and sex would be like 500 times more effective.. Even taking a giant crap would probably be better exercice.
It kinda feels like an excuse for fat people to skip exercising and download pr0n instead lol :'(
|
On March 07 2011 19:39 Euronyme wrote:
I assume this is because your heart rate is supposed to go up. Personally I can't say my heart rate changes much of looking at say.. a picture of two boobs.
It wouldn't surprise me if masturbating is 100 times more effective, and sex would be like 500 times more effective.. Even taking a giant crap would probably be better exercice.
It kinda feels like an excuse for fat people to skip exercising and download pr0n instead lol :'(
Yeah it'd be because of the heart rate going up. But even a 20-year-old would need like 150bpm for it to be useful, and it's need to be like 30 minutes in a row.... If you see breasts daily that's not going to happen <_< Might happen once after not having seen any for like 5 years and even then it won't last 30 mins.
Fake imo.
|
On March 07 2011 19:59 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2011 19:39 Euronyme wrote:
I assume this is because your heart rate is supposed to go up. Personally I can't say my heart rate changes much of looking at say.. a picture of two boobs.
It wouldn't surprise me if masturbating is 100 times more effective, and sex would be like 500 times more effective.. Even taking a giant crap would probably be better exercice.
It kinda feels like an excuse for fat people to skip exercising and download pr0n instead lol :'( Yeah it'd be because of the heart rate going up. But even a 20-year-old would need like 150bpm for it to be useful, and it's need to be like 30 minutes in a row.... If you see breasts daily that's not going to happen <_< Might happen once after not having seen any for like 5 years and even then it won't last 30 mins. Fake imo.
hint: check the source, don even need to go in that webpage, just look at the link
but whatever, now at least its justifiable for men to "Stare" at bewbies now!
|
I want to see the original paper that states this result.
|
I don't think the looking at breasts part have any effect, but the restraint on the individual to not look at breasts have a negative effect. If you are a guy who likes looking at breasts and get lumped in the restraint group, forcing yourself to look away even though you want to for five years is probably pretty bad.
|
On March 07 2011 16:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 07 2011 06:02 ProjectVirtue wrote:
seen studies like this before.
technically not baseless, as long as something is arousing.
breasts just happen to be accepted as an automatic stimulant.
the study can also be repeated with butts, or what have you so long as among the cohort that gets to ogle them they are all accepted to be excited by it, then its fine. It just acts in accordance to a daily increase of heart rate due to arousal. Likewise, analogous studies to this have been done with minute physical exercise and other forms of stimulants that have lead to the same conclusion.
dont get all the "fail science" stuff flying around =\ Threads like this are great for determining who actually reads the threads and who just skims the OP and jumps straight on the "Post" button. Did you not see gogogadetflow's post on the first page? If that's not enough, here is a search for "Karen Weatherby" on the website of the New England Journal of Medicine. And here she is under Google Scholar, which contains two actual returns! Unfortunately both of them discuss the study as a well-known hoax, one of them containing this gem: There was no such a medical research study. Dr Weatherby did not exist. None of us
would take such a report seriously and some of us would trash it as a dirty joke.
Similarly, we do not take seriously this kind of misinformation as in seen in some
advertisements on how to lose weight, how to combat hair loss, and how magical
certain medical programs or policies are. So... yeah. I don't know what studies you've heard of that are similar to this. But this is not just "fail science," it's "totally fabricated for the lols" science.
Now I don't think anyone here is arguing with the accuracy of the Snopes verdict, but the actual hoax they were referring to happened in 1999. That's over a decade ago. Really, what that sketches me out about the whole "myfox sez I should look at moar boobs" thing is the fact that the OP article doesn't actually quote any study, or mention any scientists by name; simply mentioning that it's a "German study" conducted over 5 years doesn't exactly maximize credibility. That and, as was previously mentioned, the study fails to qualify as a true experiment and has no claim on establishing causality.
|
Shut up, and watch breasts, ty.
=D
|
Err is this the same as FOX News? What kinds of news is this?
But nevertheless hahahahahahahaha this is all so funny especially the video... what a joke
|
I was expecting this to be some science news from The Onion.
|
I cant stand stupid statistics like this. 500 people is not nearly enough for a proper sample population.
there is no way 250 guys stopped looking at boobs for 5 FULL years. NO way jose.
|
On March 07 2011 22:50 Marcus420 wrote:
I cant stand stupid statistics like this. 500 people is not nearly enough for a proper sample population.
there is no way 250 guys stopped looking at boobs for 5 FULL years. NO way jose.
That sample size is used in MANY types of pooling.
You're right about the latter part though. I doubt they lasted a full 5 minutes.
|
Those male porn stars must be really happy.
and also explains why females have longer lifespans.
|
|
|
On March 07 2011 15:46 JasperGrimm wrote:
Gay men probably see more breasts than the average straight man, since women are more comfortable around them.
Thats not always true, andddd when they see/feel them, they don't get the same satisfaction as straight guys do
|
Good to know i'm leading a healthy life style :D
|
Also why are you guys fighting against the study, just go with it! LOL
|
Next time my girlfriend catches me Im just going to tell her its because my family has a history of heart problems. YES!
|
So, it doesn't help women at all?
Hahahah.
|
On March 08 2011 03:10 Flik wrote:
Next time my girlfriend catches me Im just going to tell her its because my family has a history of heart problems. YES!
If shes your gf why would she care if you were looking at them, ahha i guess some girls are different then
|
On March 08 2011 03:20 Lanaia wrote:
So, it doesn't help women at all?
Hahahah.
It does, it helps their self esteem when we look at them =D
|
On March 08 2011 04:07 MetalMarine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 03:20 Lanaia wrote:
So, it doesn't help women at all?
Hahahah.
It does, it helps their self esteem when we look at them =D
What about women who unintentionally stare at their own breasts?
|
I approve of this as I did longterm studies on the subject.
|
Women Physicists Outraged! "Quit changing the quantum state of my breasts."
Science!
|
On March 08 2011 04:10 Lanaia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2011 04:07 MetalMarine wrote:On March 08 2011 03:20 Lanaia wrote:
So, it doesn't help women at all?
Hahahah.
It does, it helps their self esteem when we look at them =D What about women who unintentionally stare at their own breasts?
Then the universe should blow up because that is awesome
|
Like 10 minutes straight? Or is this over a whole day.
|
I am going to have to do my own research. I am not sure I agree with some of the findings here...
Its going to be a good few months
|
New study proves that murdering people increases heart health
Ten thousand men participated in the German study. Half were the prisoners who managed to get away with murder for at least one years, and the other half were prisoners who were arrested for minor crimes.
The study found the men who murdered someone and managed to keep in concealed for a while more often showed lower rates of heart problems, a lower resting heart rate and lower blood pressure.
"There are studies showing that increasing your heart rate may benefit heart health," head researcher Reinhard states, "murdering people is the most excellent way to do this as it provides the ever-lasting reason for individual to be afraid and nervous in fear of being caught. Another benefit of this method is that once you have murdered someone you don't have to do it ever again, contrary to other activities which increase heart rate has to be performed daily to have some semblance of effect."
Besides sneaky homicide, the authors of the study also recommends intentionally trapping yourself bare-handed in uninhabited wilderness, joining an terrorist group, and bringing forth an Armageddon to create heart-healthy environment.
|
"Baby, my heart is achin' ! Only your sweet rack can ease my pain.
Please...
....save my lifffffffe...."
:D What girl could say no....? /puzzled
|
Well I guess my heart is pretty set then.
If only...
|
Haha well of course, it helps your excercise etc. so ofc you'll have less heart problems.
|
I'll be starring at breasts at least 30 minutes a day regardless of this "science" thank you very much.
|
United States1219 Posts
On March 07 2011 21:51 mormonaculous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2011 16:14 HULKAMANIA wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 07 2011 06:02 ProjectVirtue wrote:
seen studies like this before.
technically not baseless, as long as something is arousing.
breasts just happen to be accepted as an automatic stimulant.
the study can also be repeated with butts, or what have you so long as among the cohort that gets to ogle them they are all accepted to be excited by it, then its fine. It just acts in accordance to a daily increase of heart rate due to arousal. Likewise, analogous studies to this have been done with minute physical exercise and other forms of stimulants that have lead to the same conclusion.
dont get all the "fail science" stuff flying around =\ Threads like this are great for determining who actually reads the threads and who just skims the OP and jumps straight on the "Post" button. Did you not see gogogadetflow's post on the first page? If that's not enough, here is a search for "Karen Weatherby" on the website of the New England Journal of Medicine. And here she is under Google Scholar, which contains two actual returns! Unfortunately both of them discuss the study as a well-known hoax, one of them containing this gem: There was no such a medical research study. Dr Weatherby did not exist. None of us
would take such a report seriously and some of us would trash it as a dirty joke.
Similarly, we do not take seriously this kind of misinformation as in seen in some
advertisements on how to lose weight, how to combat hair loss, and how magical
certain medical programs or policies are. So... yeah. I don't know what studies you've heard of that are similar to this. But this is not just "fail science," it's "totally fabricated for the lols" science. Now I don't think anyone here is arguing with the accuracy of the Snopes verdict, but the actual hoax they were referring to happened in 1999. That's over a decade ago. Really, what that sketches me out about the whole "myfox sez I should look at moar boobs" thing is the fact that the OP article doesn't actually quote any study, or mention any scientists by name; simply mentioning that it's a "German study" conducted over 5 years doesn't exactly maximize credibility. That and, as was previously mentioned, the study fails to qualify as a true experiment and has no claim on establishing causality.
?
The article in the snopes link and the article in the OP both reference the same fictional study. There are not two different 5-year German studies, one real and one made-up, about breast-staring that both use 500 men split into 2 groups and both prescribe ogling breasts for 10 minutes a day. A lot of hoaxes last a long time, some more than a decade.
It's not a matter of evaluating the credibility of the study. There was no study. It's a matter of reading the thread and finding out that snopes mentioned this hoax over ten years ago, and then everyone having a good laugh that some news outlet still reported on it last Friday.
EDIT: and it's also a matter of congratulating Lexpar on his devotion to the cause.
|
EX-COMMUNICATE THE NON-BELIEVER!!!
|
|
|
I think the results of this study are factual and trustworthy
now gonna take a cold 
|
eh heh heh now I have a excuse :D
|
im so confused but im okay with this
|
My favorite thing about breasts is nipples.
How about you guys?
|
On March 07 2011 05:47 Incursus wrote:In all seriousness this is one of the funniest things I've heard all day. The breast thing that is. lol
rofl! i know i totally L-O-L'ed when i saw that word too! how'd he not get banned 4 posting that??
|
So men have an excuse to stare. But what about women? They need healthy hearts too.
|
rising heartbeats ist just like training your heart.
community should pay women equal to their breast size because of health ensureing issues.
also teens should learn how to encourage, concerning breast size, because, it is beeing a very worthful part of the community showing a detail of breast. self respect and worth to community by cleavage, how much humbling would be devastated. future agenda?
|
On March 08 2011 10:37 Lexpar wrote:
My favorite thing about breasts is nipples.
How about you guys?
Ya but they have to be perfect. I hate when the nip is huge. Plus the breast has to be perky. No nip looks good on a saggy breast.
|
Gotta be kidding me, they need a study to prove this? Honestly.
|
the ones told to refrain for 5 years were gay, scientists are not stupid guys!!@@
|
C'mon guys, don't say that you're going to start doing it for your health, we all know you did it prior to the news
|
On March 08 2011 11:29 Touch wrote:
Gotta be kidding me, they need a study to prove this? Honestly.
Hey, it is not about prove, it is about the benefit of knowledge. hm?
|
|
|
This is so dumb.. I can't even find words to describe it
Completely fake or reworded by the news reporter to attract viewers.
|
lol who cares if its fake or real, its funny just go with it
|
If anything, this just adds to our arsenal of pick-up lines.
|
As if you needed an excuse...
|
There is nothing dumb about breasts proto.
|
Why is this still open? If it's not true.... I don't understand the point....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/6016013/Its-about-to-get-Scientific-up-in-this-bitch.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Serious-SpongeBob)
