Friday, March 22, 2013

Pondering deep questions that are obvious to everyone but scientists looking for government grants.

Apparently there is "an obesity epidemic in this country that seems to be disproportionately affecting women of minority sexual orientation," which is a delicate way of saying most lesbians are overweight and scientists just can't figure out why. Of course, this pressing question must be delved into, regardless of budgetary issues or fiscal insolvency because...well...because. QUICK! Someone get these scientists some MONEY!

Three-quarters of lesbians in the U.S. are obese, according to details of a new study, which has been given a grant of $1.5million to find out why.

This needs to be studied why? Seriously? All of western civilization is rocketing over the cliff of fiscal insanity, and yet, the proclivity towards weight gain in women of minority sexual orientation is vitally important and must. be. studied. This is not like understanding the significance of the God Particle or deciphering the language found in our DNA. This is fretting over -- to the tune of $1.5 million dollars -- the reason why women who aren't interested in being attractive to men are disproportionately fat. Duh. Little secret....
When you aren't even interested in "the perfect guy,"
you can just dig in!

The research, which will also focus on why gay females have obesity issues and not gay males, is described as of 'high public-health significance'.

High public-health significance. To whom? Honestly, I think I should submit a proposal for a $2 million dollar study to learn why men watch porn. Pay me and I'll explain it all. There will be graphs. And charts. No pictures, though.

Men are significantly more visual than women. Therefore, now stay with me on this, kittens, either gender -- male or female -- interested in attracting visual males  -- will NECESSARILY be more concerned with looking attractive. This isn't hard, kittens.

Researchers said that there has been almost no work done on this social phenomenon.

No kidding. This is not a "phenomenon." Merriam-Webster defines phenomenon as:
c : a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation 

Scientific interest? It is not even a curiosity. Here's another little fact that you can pay me for elucidating. Men are more motivated by the sex drive than women. Women are more interested in being emotionally connected to their partners. That's why  among homosexual men, being attractive and forming relationships around sex are primary motives. Among homosexual women, reading bad poetry and eating chocolate cake together are more engaging activities. This results in the infamous Lesbian Bed Death. Who can stay interested when your partner reads you this:


I'd like to make a YOU turn
Onto the highway that leads to
You being with me.
And once I get on that highway
I'll never look for an off ramp,
But I will slow down for the construction
Of a lasting relationship.
And I'll pay the tolls.
As long as those tolls aren't you telling me that
You don't love me the way I love you.
You, you, you, you,
I love you, and without you,
My soul would wilt like a flower in winter.
Water me.
Water me or I will die.
Shut up! Shut UP or I will die.

I need to get funding to do a study studying studies. Someone has to compile the data on just how much money can be pissed away by stupid "scientific" studies funded by politically motivated committees. Yeah. I could do that.


  1. I suspect that a lot of those stupid studies are because you have to be published to get tenure, no matter how good you are at teaching. Some universities make their librarians publish. So you get exciting articles on browsing habits which tell us that if people are not looking for something specific, they are more likely to check out books shelved between waist and eye level, than those nearer the floor or the ceiling.

    Something which the merchandisers have known for centuries.

    But it got a 10 page write up in a professional journal, and some poor sod got tenure.

    And some of us other poor sods got to read it. Sigh.

    1. Illuminating! I had no idea that tenure was behind the idiocy of studies telling us what we all know from common sense.

      After we shoot all the lawyers, let's move on to the tenured professors.

    2. You shouldn't have to go after the professors, just the idiots in admin who think professors need to publish to be able to teach undergraduates.

      Though my favorite professorial head-hunting story is from the University of Iowa School of Music. We had five voice profs, soprano, mezzo, alto, tenor, and bass. Our tenor left for Baylor, and so they put out an ad for a replacement. HR was very upset that no women applied. 8P

  2. Well duh. Obviously it's because the rest of society is insufficiently tolerant and accepting. Where do I tell them to send the check? I can add a few curlicues if that's not long enough, but that's what the report's going to boil down to.

    Oh and "women of minority sexual orientation"? We need a study to determine the cause of and cure for this sort of verbal diarrhea. Sadly, all too many social scientists suffer from this crippling affliction.

    1. "women of minority sexual orientation"

      Wasn't that precious?

      I took one semester of sociology when in college and could barely keep my gag reflex from choking me to death during the entire semester.

    2. Out of context, all types of things cross my mind before lesbianism. I'd think: "Do they have to be pointed in a certain direction?" or "Do they like midgets?"

      I think you're a good candidate for any research you determine is important. Of course, my opinion doesn't mean shit, so I'm not much help.

  3. I had to read that phrase a couple of times. I've written bad prose professionally for 30 years now. I would never have come up with that one. I stand in awe.

    1. "minority sexual orientation"

      That was effing brilliant. When I read that, I had to post on this. I was laughing my stupid head off.

  4. Huh. These 'studies' - pick your agenda and make a study to fit.

    1. And if you don't have an agenda, just pick something stupid and get money to collect data. The best thing about most studies is that you don't even have to come to any conclusions because of your data. Just come up with numbers that define something. And collect your check.

  5. No, the question should be, are they fat because they are lesbians, or lesbians because they are fat?

    Guys who aren't drunk don't normally go after the fat chicks. But insecure females with daddy issues looking for emotional validation? They be all OVER those rolls of sweet, delicious co-dependence.

    1. So it's a chicken or egg thing? I do think that the inability to relate in an intimate and meaningful way with the opposite sex changes a great deal about a person, not just their weight. That's just a reflection of bigger issues.