#3. "Would You Go to Bed With Me?"
Everyone knows that there are differences between men and women that go way beyond the bits we use to make babies, and we've explained before that some gender stereotypes are actually true. In 1978, one stereotype that inexplicably needed careful investigation is the one where men are all unstoppable sex fiends who will sleep with anything that remains motionless for long enough, whereas women are more deliberate and selective in choosing partners.
Along those lines, psychology professor Russell Clark and his students set out to determine if men and women differed in their responses to offers of sex. The experiment involved 48 students approaching people around campus that they would definitely be comfortable depantsing (the paper is very clear on this point). The student would then say, "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive."
"Thanks, but I really think of you more as a friend ..."
The Perverted Bit:
This incredibly subtle pick-up line was followed by some variation of suggestive request, ranging from asking for a date to simply asking, "Would you go to bed with me?" (The line "My van is soundproof" was removed from the study after early results proved unsatisfactory.) If the subject refused whatever offer was made, the student made a note of the response and then revealed the study and thanked the subject for their participation.
That's if the subject said no.
If the subject said yes, the end result was ostensibly the same -- make a note, reveal the study and thank the person for participating. This was less of a problem for the male students in the study (according to the results, not one female they approached said yes to the offer of sex), but for the women, this is somewhat of an issue. Now, we're not fuck scientists (yet), but it doesn't take a boner genius to see why sending off women to demand sex from college-aged men might be the worst idea, especially when the women have to follow it up with "No, haha, it's uh, I'm just doing some science, never mind." Suddenly they found themselves trying to babble out an explanation of the study to a strange man and hoping they didn't just toss gasoline into a rape engine.
"It's a hybrid rape engine. Gets 40 rape miles per gallon of rape gas."
In fact, one editor suggested in his rejection to publish the study that Clark add in how many of the female participants got raped before telling him to send it to Penthouse Forum.
#2. Robert Dickinson and His Test Tubes
For anyone who may have forgotten their high school sex ed classes, most of the relevant baby-making equipment that women have is inside their bodies. So while everyone can draw a pretty accurate dick from the age of 10, vaginas are somewhat more of a problem. Not for Robert Dickinson, an anatomist and gynecologist who worked in the early 20th century. He was a bold soul, not one to shy away from a vagina, and came up with some unique methods for seeing what he needed to see to accurately detail the female reproductive anatomy.
Although studying cadavers was the obvious solution, Dickinson considered them less useful for his purposes, as he wanted to observe healthy vaginas in good working order. So he would get living subjects and tell them he wished to examine their vaginas, presumably while wearing every doctor-related item he could think of to demonstrate his legitimacy, including but not limited to wearing his Ph.D. around his neck like Flava Flav.
"I graduated magna cum laude, and received the most 'Yeah, boy!'s in my class."
The Perverted Bit:
After sufficiently gaining the trust of his female subjects, Dickinson would then stick glass test tubes into their bajingas. He inserted his test tube repeatedly at various angles, shining a light down it and making notes and sketches of what he saw. He was pretty inclusive in his research, observing and drawing a range of vaginas, from those of virgins to those of women participating in "vigorous and varied coitus," a phrase which here means "busted."
To see how the internal female anatomy responded to intercourse, he got his female subjects aroused (sometimes using a vibrator), then pointed emphatically at his Ph.D. necklace before proceeding to essentially have sex with them using the test tube.
This is considered science.
"And that is how test tube babies are made."
#1. Plastic Surgeons Find an Excuse to Look at Lots of Butts
Plastic surgeons need to know what to aim for when they're slicing people up, and sometimes it isn't as obvious as removing 100 pounds of fat or injecting 100 pounds of boob. Sometimes, minutely specific modifications have to be made for a patient to achieve that perfect (if scar addled) body. Along those lines, it makes sense that plastic surgeons need some idea of what an awesome butt looks like, and don't always necessarily have access to the film library of Jean-Claude Van Damme or that shot from the Entrapment trailer when Catherine Zeta Jones' ass cheeks are being attacked by lasers. Research needs to be done.
The Brando and Streep of ass acting.
The Perverted Bit:
Evidently they needed a lot of research.
For a paper headed "What Makes Buttocks Beautiful?" scientists looked at a cornucopia of ladies' butts. As in 2,400 of them. The idea was to create the perfect visual reference guide for ass-filleting plastic surgeons, providing the cosmetic surgery profession with an exhaustive booty library. Dozens, if not hundreds, of examples seems completely reasonable.
Two and a half thousand seems a bit excessive. Especially when you consider that only 1,320 of the photos were actually used to write the paper. That's a lot of surplus ass (surplass?). Apparently that still wasn't enough examples, though, because the researchers called in 132 real-life women to take their butt measurements. Presumably Sir Mix-A-Lot was an adjunct on this study.
"Oh, I see you brought your Ph.D., too!"
If you're pressed for time and just looking for a quick fix, then check out The 10 Bases of Sex Metaphors.
And stop by LinkSTORM to see our experiment with iguanas and canola oil.
Do you have an idea in mind that would make a great article? Then sign up for our writers workshop! Do you possess expert skills in image creation and manipulation? Mediocre? Even rudimentary? Are you frightened by MS Paint and simply have a funny idea? You can create an infographic and you could be on the front page of Cracked.com tomorrow!