Saturday, March 29, 2008 6:21:55 AM
it is insultive to the scientific community for that show to call itself a 'science` show. it fails in so many areas of scientific experimentation it is not funny; failing: -to even remotely isolate variables, -basic rigor, -testing all possibilities (which was the problem in this case)
only one aspect of health (excersizing heart rate) was tested here, whereas in the (probably misquoted) part of the report that the presenter mentions, it says that it can PROLONG a man`s life, equivalent to that of 30 minutes of excersize. the only real way to test this is via collection of data from lifetimes and drawing statistical relationships between the variables and the life span to draw a conclusion.
the health benefits are far more likely to be due to either better circulation (tee hee) or more balanced hormone levels.
trust me, it takes more than the sort of p!ss poor testing that brainiac puts on to get something into the New England Journal, so that standard cant dis
"Breasts are just 'bags of fat and tissue` pretty much that are meant to nurture a newborn. That`s it."
If that were just "it", then how do you explain male interest? We`re more than just bags of fat and tissue, even if that`s largely what we`re made of. Attraction to breasts is part of what helps the species continue--if, as babies, we weren`t interested in breasts, it would be hard to feed a baby. There are plenty of related reasons why males are more interested in breasts than women. Over-excitement by breasts is a different issue--commercialization can make people like just about anything more than is healthy, beyond a normal liking.