Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Women With Big Butts Are Smarter


Jangler

Recommended Posts

http://pocho.com/study-women-with-big-butts-are-the-smartest/

 

video in the link...

 

 

 

“Marie Curie, for example, had to back that ass up in the lab all the time — and look how brilliant she was!” remarked butt researcher Benedict Pollen. “This supports the long-rumored story that Albert Einstein himself wore baggy clothing to try to mask the fact that he had it going on.”

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWzlnYpLlgI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tumblr_kpowqoR2Wn1qzma4ho1_400.jpg

 

 

assuming we're defining big butts as overweight, western social standards of beauty mean that overweight women are not as biologically fit (the scientific term for guys wanting to bang them) as their slimmer counterparts. in formative years educationally  (mandated schooling as well as university) given the way social cliques work in symbiosis with social standards of attractiveness, i think you could posit that to a degree - a small one at least - attractive people tend to do more social things (which leaves less time for doing intellectual things) whereas "unattractive" people may spend less time socializing with peers (allowing more time for intellectual pursuits.)

 

i worry this comes across as a "fatty fatty no friends" chant when reality dictates that an innumerable amount of variables are at play in something like this that make a concrete-encased uniformity or a law-like generalization impossible to adequately propose. however i think there's a case to be made that in some cases, for some people, it serves as an explanation.

 

other possible factors:

 

1) smart people are more self-confident people and therefore are more comfortable with not adapting to arbitrary social standards of beauty

 

2) if someone's intelligence correlates directly to their profession, the way they spend their time may have an effect on physical condition. a brilliant astrophysicist spending 70 hours a week in a lab may simply not have the time to hit the gym, whereas a waitress of average intelligence may have extra time to pursue that physical standard.

 

etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Basically agree.  He is the one of that bunch that offers upgraded pass catching along with he is supposed to be kind of special.   Then you have the OL and the ideas that if they perform you can have JAG backs and still do well. So okay we could be fine.  But Brooks is important and to me that receiving element sets him apart.  So there sure is something riding on him.     What strikes me as incongruent is people over in Atlanta or those that follow them look at Penix with a third surgery and act like it is no big deal.      And we are on pins and needles over Brooks.  Either they should worry a lot more or we should worry a lot less.  
    • I usually go a game or two optimist over the consensus here but this is too early for me to say. I need to see some players on the field.  I am not feeling real optimistic though.  
    • Okay as a ‘take CJ’ fan I actually don’t obsess over CJ and Houston, contrary to the narrative.  But I thought I picked up some noise that his OL left a lot to be desired.    Not a single Beyce supporter would judge him harshly if he had a crappy OL. We all know that.    So be fair about it.  A QB needs to be protected.  Especially a guy that gets to his spot and wants to finish the play from there. Which CJ is.  
×
×
  • Create New...