#1 Dating Site for Successful Singles and Admirers
Millionaire Blogs > Orlando__'s blogs > Big Boobs Predict Male Sexist Pig
Big Boobs Predict Male Sexist Pig Sort by:
Author
Orlando__
Certified Millionaire
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 128
Posted on Sun, May 19, 2013 18:04

Professors Swami and Tovee just published a study on the size of women's breasts and men being sexist.   Men who liked more bustier women tended to be more sexist. Here's what they did and found.

 

The study of 361 white British men, were asked to view five 3D renderings of women. The pictures were identical except for the breast sizes. Using eye-tracking, the professors found most men spent time looking at the woman's breasts.  No news there.  A total of 32.7% preferred the middle bosomed women, 24.4% preferred the large-breasted women, and 19.1% preferred the big boobs gals. (Note: cup size was not provided).

Participants then completed a survey about their attitudes towards women. The survey assessed general attitudes, hostility and benevolent sexism.


"Men who more strongly endorsed benevolently sexist attitudes toward women, who more strongly objectified women, and who were more hostile toward women idealized a large female breast size," the researchers concluded.

In short, if you like big boobs you are a sexist pig.... well, according to the research of course.

 

Source: Swami, V., & Tovée, M. J. (2013). Men’s oppressive beliefs predict their breast size preferences in women. Archives of sexual behavior, 1-9.



**My top strength is"learning." So, my blogs are learning-focused. ~Orlando

Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    1 up Bookmark and Share
Orlando__
Certified Millionaire
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 128
Posted on Fri, May 24, 2013 08:26

 Hola Liv....

 

This is the 2nd time I posted a response.  I'm not sure why it didn't work the first time.  Anyway, to answer your question, the authors used a computer simulation that went from flat chested to "very large breasts."  I used the term big boobs as a creative license.  Since the purpose of the study was to assess breast size and male sexism, there were no significant findings (sexism) with small breasted women.  So, the authors focused on the large size breasts.  Yes, it does add up to 100% but researchers have the option to omitting non-significant findings.  Hope this helps answer your question.  Cheers...



**My top strength is"learning." So, my blogs are learning-focused. ~Orlando

Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Curious2078
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 2545
Posted on Wed, May 22, 2013 16:38

Quoting Livnlov:

Orlando, 

 

I will give this a try, knowing that you may choose to completely ignore me as usual.

 

I find this study rather interesting, however I am a little confused about something: What is the difference between 'big boobs gals' (19.1% [preferred] and 'large-breasted women' [24.4% preferred]? Aren't those kind of one and the same or similar thing? One would have expected small breasted, middle bossom, and large breasted/big boobs gals, but whilst the large and medium sizes are represented here, the small breasted category doesn't appear to have been featured at all, or am I getting something completely wrong here?

 

It would be nice to know how the men reacted to the small breasted specimen.

 

Finally, Orlando, you probably won't like my attention to detail however......isn't your Maths [or the researchers' Maths] a little lacking or out of sync here?

 

The sum total of 32.7, 24.4 and 19.1 = 76.2.

 

This simply means that:

32.7+24.4+19.1 = 76.2

361 men surveyed = 100% sample size

100% (total sample size) - 76.2% (reported results above)

= 23.8% (an ignored large percentage)

 

By all standard, 23.8% is too whopping a segment to be ignored and still expect the reported results to be accepted as accurate.

 

 

Simply put 361 x 23.8% = 85.9 men completely ignored.

 

This large scope of descrepancy is simply to enormous to be ignored; this therefore cast serious questions as to the validity and more importantly the accuracy of the entire study.

 

In my humble opinion as a scientist, on a purely scientific and empirical basis besides the obvious the common sense parameters, this study as you have reported here is highly substandard.

 

Liv.



Hi, Liv.  Love the new pic.

 

And I adore your analysis re this blog.  Very smart indeed.

 

LOLOLOLOL.

 

Let's see what Orlando has to say about what you've said.  I'm definitely looking forward to that.



Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
BeWell
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 317
Posted on Mon, May 20, 2013 12:45

Oh no! Maybe I should have a breast reduction..... ;-D............... BeWell



BeWell and wishing you only the best ! ..................;-D

Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Livnlov
Available only
to logged in members

total posts: 719
Posted on Mon, May 20, 2013 02:29

Orlando, 

 

I will give this a try, knowing that you may choose to completely ignore me as usual.

 

I find this study rather interesting, however I am a little confused about something: What is the difference between 'big boobs gals' (19.1% [preferred] and 'large-breasted women' [24.4% preferred]? Aren't those kind of one and the same or similar thing? One would have expected small breasted, middle bossom, and large breasted/big boobs gals, but whilst the large and medium sizes are represented here, the small breasted category doesn't appear to have been featured at all, or am I getting something completely wrong here?

 

It would be nice to know how the men reacted to the small breasted specimen.

 

Finally, Orlando, you probably won't like my attention to detail however......isn't your Maths [or the researchers' Maths] a little lacking or out of sync here?

 

The sum total of 32.7, 24.4 and 19.1 = 76.2.

 

This simply means that:

32.7+24.4+19.1 = 76.2

361 men surveyed = 100% sample size

100% (total sample size) - 76.2% (reported results above)

= 23.8% (an ignored large percentage)

 

By all standard, 23.8% is too whopping a segment to be ignored and still expect the reported results to be accepted as accurate.

 

 

Simply put 361 x 23.8% = 85.9 men completely ignored.

 

This large scope of descrepancy is simply to enormous to be ignored; this therefore cast serious questions as to the validity and more importantly the accuracy of the entire study.

 

In my humble opinion as a scientist, on a purely scientific and empirical basis besides the obvious the common sense parameters, this study as you have reported here is highly substandard.

 

Liv.



Reply / add comments   Quote   Report abuse    0 up Bookmark and Share
Follow - Email me when people comment