Don Juan Wears Accuvues — Dorothy Parker Aphorism Now Scientific Fact
	found on New Scientist written by smokeymischief, edited by Humberto (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Wed 2 Oct 3:06pm
		"Research on short-sighted students in a nightclub has found that swapping glasses for contact lenses makes people more successful with the opposite sex," writes smokeymischief. "Now, if I have this right, people that wear glasses are less likely to get, well, laid? I always thought, for guys anyways, it took a little charm, self - confidence and good looks, but I guess you are screwed if you have glasses!" Most people who swapped to contact lenses reported increased self-confidence, while 75 per cent of those who swapped to glasses reported feeling less confident. And "feelings of enhanced 'pulling power' and improved self-confidence among contact lens wearers were translated into tangible results on the night," says June McNicholas, a researcher. "I'm not quite sure what 'pulling power' would be, talking to girls? But I'm guessing it's something folks with glasses don't get to do very much. What do you think, a bunch of hooey? I never had a problem and I've had glasses for years. Would I get lucky more often if I switched to contacts?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 68 commentsbest: 12 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

2.  Heisenberg Strikes Again   by Anonymous Idiot       at Wed 2 Oct 3:26pm score of 1 clever     "However, the eight monitors were not able to corroborate all reported behaviours. 'If I was going to publish this research, I'd want to do it again with a few more observers,' says McNicholas." With eight nerds in lab coats holding clip-boards following everybody around, I'm surprised that any of the experimental subjects even got to first base.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: Heisenberg Strikes Again   by stankow       at Wed 2 Oct 3:51pm score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 2     "Never mind them -- they're researching the mating habits of the overly endowed millionaire." "It's part of a reality show. Do you want millions of people to see you as the girl with no sense of humor?" "They're my theme music. I'm very into Thomas Dolby." "Eight guys in white coats? What eight guys in white coats? Maybe you need to lie down. I suggest my apartment."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  In my experience   by My name is Mudd       at Wed 2 Oct 3:43pm score of 4.5 funny     I had the best results when the women were unable to correct their vision at all. Short then is the time which every man lives, and small is the nook of the Earth wherein he dwells.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Huh.   by Whelp       at Wed 2 Oct 3:51pm score of 4 compelling     How odd. I've had a thing for women wearing glasses ever since I was five years old. The Baroness, from the GI Joe cartoon, was the ideal fantasy female in the mind of five-year old Whelp. Upon reflection, I realize that she still is. SHE wore glasses. Beautiful. Brilliant. Well financed. Utterly evil. Who could ask for anything more? Do you want the mustache on, or off? Too bad!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Re: Huh.   by mightygodking       at Wed 2 Oct 4:06pm score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 5     Well, you could ask for the good Baroness who was in that episode where the Joes traveled to the alternate world where COBRA won and the Joes were all dead and - I'll just shut up now. --chdb It's not just a government any more!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  Fool!   by Whelp       at Wed 2 Oct 4:14pm score of 3 funny   in reply to comment 6     Why, exactly, would I want the GOOD version? In the end, she'd only break my heart, free the hero from my dungeon, disrupt my plans for world domination, and ride off into the sunset with the aforementioned hero while my moon base is destroyed in a massive explosion. I'll take my Baroness EVIL, thanks. Do you want the mustache on, or off? Too bad!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: Huh.   by Hollow.9       at Fri 4 Oct 4:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     That's so cool! I forgot until you reminded me, but she was the perfect fantasy female for a little boy! .o0 heroin is my anti-drug 0o.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Pointless   by tylerh       at Wed 2 Oct 4:18pm score of 2 compelling     Disclosure: when young and seeking, I was a total failure at the nightclub pickup scene. There is far less to this result than meets the eye. The criterion for success was increasing acceptability at a night club. The finding was that appearing more like a cultural ideal increased success. DUH. In the the noisy, loud, often smoky, and frequently drunk/torque milieu of night club, what other criterion other than visual appearance can people use to sort through all the strangers? What's more interesting is why people consider this a useful criterion for success. If one wants commitmentless sex, escorts can be purchased (leased?) for what a night on the town costs, and less than a good set of contact lenses. But I can't think of a single successful relationship amongst my peers that started in nightclub -- although I can think of plenty that were furthered there. Courage   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

53.  Re: Pointless   by Bearpaw       at Thu 3 Oct 9:29am score of 1.5 novel   in reply to comment 8     But I can't think of a single successful relationship amongst my peers that started in nightclub -- although I can think of plenty that were furthered there. Likewise. Certainly none of my successful relationships were. This study seems biased to the point of irrelevance by the self-selecting nature of where it took place. Also, I think it's relevant that contacts affected -- possibly temporarily -- the confidence of the subjects. Well, of course people with more confidence will likely have more "tangible results" [cough] in a context like that. On the other hand, even if the glasses themselves do have some affect, it strikes me as a useful filter. I sure as hell wouldn't want to hook up with someone shallow enough to be put off by a pair of glasses. Not even for a one-nighter. Proud member of the reality-based minority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  a self-esteem thing   by dswensen       at Wed 2 Oct 4:33pm score of 2 interesting     There is definitely a stigma to glasses. I've had very thick glasses since I was very young -- my vision is so bad I'll have to get laser surgery first if I ever want to have contact lenses (lest the custom-made lenses cost me $800 a year to maintain). So I fielded a lot of comments about "coke bottles," and took my share of being called "four-eyes" as well as the many variations on "nerd" when I was a kid. The fact that my family could only afford the very cheap glasses, with the lenses that would constantly pop out, didn't help. (In eighth grade, I once sneezed particularly hard and sent the left lens of my glasses flying across the room. Even my teacher turned to laugh at me.) Though this is all water under the proverbial bridge, I do still think about getting contacts, because the glasses sometimes hinder my self-esteem to this day, whether I consider myself too adult and together to admit it or not. Did having glasses ever prevent me from asking a girl out? Not directly -- but the self-esteem fallout has almost certainly been a factor. My current glasses don't bother me as much, but that's because they're super-thin Kazuo Kawasakis, rimless with titanium frames, and they're much less visible -- not because they're particularly stylish (even though they are, and for the price, better be). It doesn't help that "wearing glasses" is almost always shorthand for "brainy but asexual" in television and movies. You'll never see a non-nerdy leading man with glasses. Even Clark Kent has to take them off to become a hero and get anything done. But that's another issue. And anyway, I have a perfectly lovely girlfriend who thinks the glasses make me look dignified -- so sometimes the nerds win, after all.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by ms_sue_collins       at Wed 2 Oct 4:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     You'll never see a non-nerdy leading man with glasses. Not true. In fact, I just saw an interview with a bespectacled James Spader, and he looked even more creepily sexy than ever. It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by dswensen       at Wed 2 Oct 5:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     Yes, but has he worn the glasses in any of his movies? That's really more what I mean. "Stargate" doesn't count; he was the nerdy braniac in that one.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by ms_sue_collins       at Wed 2 Oct 5:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Yes, but has he worn the glasses in any of his movies? That's really more what I mean. I honestly don't know. But I know my reaction, which would have been the same seeing him in any of his movies. But don't listen to me. I've been told I'm weird for being attracted to balding men. One serious note: this fluff stuff does nothing to elucidate the complicated subject of sexual attraction and belongs more in Cosmo than any quasi-scientific journal. But it was all worth it just for smokeymischief's great line: ...I guess you are screwed if you have glasses!" It's a dog's life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by sammy baby       at Thu 3 Oct 7:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     He's the nerdy brainiac, but he's also the only character who gets some, if memory serves. Not that I'm really arguing here. - in my plastic heart, forever, for art: what kind of lover am I? (e. mckeown)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Superheroes with glasses   by elforman       at Wed 2 Oct 5:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     Please, don't forget, oh, what's his name? D'OH! It's the superhero who wears glasses whose name I can't remember from the time when Bart and Milhouse ran the comic book shop and Milhouse bought 500 copies of a new comic book featuring the superhero who wore glasses. I can't even find it with Google! D'oh! D'oh! D'oh! But I hope this makes you feel better.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Superheroes with glasses   by scantysandwiches       at Wed 2 Oct 8:16pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 17     Biclops!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Superheroes with glasses   by elforman       at Wed 2 Oct 9:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     Thank you! I was not going to let myself go to sleep tonight until I found out that important trivia. I found the episode, "Worst Episode Ever" but none of the dozens of episode summaries I found deigned to list "Biclops" by name. I will sleep well now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by Thalia       at Wed 2 Oct 6:08pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 9     Somebody very strange -- well, someone selling glasses -- actually created a list of movies with leading men & women in glasses. (warning: semi-annoying link... click the Back browser button after it pops back to the original screen for the listing.) Of course, the classic leading lady in glasses was Marilyn Monroe in "How To Marry a Millionaire" where she finds out that she's still attractive wearing glasses. So don't give up. Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Hey, the Fonz wore glasses! ... once   by Miguel Agullo       at Thu 3 Oct 5:03am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 9     You'll never see a non-nerdy leading man with glasses The Fonz had to wear glasses (and didn't want to at first) in "A Sight for Sore Eyes", "Happy days" episode 62, first aired in 1976. Imagine in you were in a wheelchair - how many leading men in wheelchairs?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Hey, the Fonz wore glasses! ... once   by dswensen       at Thu 3 Oct 9:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 27     No, and I've never seen any leading men with their hearts on the outside, or with elephantitis of the testicles, or with leprosy, either. I'm not sure what your point is. I wasn't attempting to paint people with glasses as an oppressed minority, or get in a contest of "who's more under-represented in the mainstream media." Simply pointing out that in movies and on TV, glasses is shorthand for brainy and sexually unappealing, which I think is true no matter how many people out there have more significant problems than nearsightedness.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  I never saw ...   by Miguel Agullo       at Thu 3 Oct 11:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 52     ... Woody Allen without beauties around him. Hey, he looks like a nerd. But who's looking at him?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  good eye   by dswensen       at Thu 3 Oct 12:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 57     I'll give you Woody Allen. Good point. But he IS the exception rather than the rule.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by perrin       at Thu 3 Oct 6:04am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 9     No leading men with glasses? Mostly true, yeah. But, also, glass lenses tend to catch light and reflect things when photographed. So, from what I'm told, when people wear glasses in movies, they're frequently just empty, lensless frames. So if the actor can't wear his normal glasses anyway, he might as well wear contacts. And if he's wearing contacts, why go through the trouble of putting empty frames on him? Could be a factor, maybe. "How very strange that would feel, to be so well understood."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by callmejay       at Thu 3 Oct 8:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     If you can afford it, you might want to at least try the contacts for a year or so. Self-esteem is a valuable thing. :) I've loved mine for years, though I probably don't spend more than a couple hundred a year on them. When was the last time you looked into it? There are more options now, and maybe it's cheaper. One last idea--I bet an optometrist (or acuvue or whoever) will give you a free trial. The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity. -- Yeats, "The Second Coming"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by swalve       at Thu 3 Oct 9:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 41     And once you get started, you can buy boxes of disposable lenses on the internet real cheap. Or convince a relative to become an eye doctor and get them for cost. I've needed vision correction since 4th grade. I was allowed to get contact lenses around 7th or 8th grade, and I was hooked. I have a fairly strong correcton (-6.5), and wearing glasses causes all kinds of distortions, prism effects and everything is tiny - it's even worse with these newer thin style lenses. The first time I put contacts on it was euphoric- I once again had peripheral vision, clarity and 'bigness'. Everyone should try them simply for the improved vision. Perhaps that accounts for some of this phenomenon? "If silence is golden, you couldn't raise a dime!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by dswensen       at Thu 3 Oct 9:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 41     I tried just a couple months ago, with the very hope that technology had changed. My vision is too bad. I cannot buy contact lenses off the shelf, period -- much less the disposable kind. I would have to get custom lenses made at great expense. And I did ask -- there is no free trial for the kind I need. I will either have to pay for laser surgery and then get contacts (because, hooray for me, my eyes will start to deteriorate again a few months after surgery) or just suck it up. Thanks for the suggestion, though.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by 4d3r37h       at Thu 3 Oct 10:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 48     Another reason contacts improve self-esteem: everything looks bigger! Well, at least to me it does...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by bigeyes       at Thu 3 Oct 10:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     oh man, do I sympathize. I am not a candidate for the laser surgery because my eyes continue to get worse every year. even the "thinner" thick lenses I have are coke bottle thickness, and I once crawled around on the floor for about 45 minutes trying to find my glasses when I dropped them. I LOOOOVE my contacts, but even with them, the best they can correct me to is about 20/25 or 20/30. One of my buds once commented how can you have such big eyes, but they don't work?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: a self-esteem thing   by severian       at Fri 4 Oct 6:47pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 9     Actually, Tom Cruise in the first Mission Impossible wore glasses. I remember because I walked out of that movie and told my friends to mark the day that a superhero hunk wore glasses and knew how to work a computer. He actually used an apple laptop, whereas in most movies, the hero has his (spectacled) nerdy buddy or co-worker do the actual computer work. I speculated that this turn of events was because nerds who could program computers all of a sudden were becoming millionaires and thus were now considered sexy...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Cause... effect...   by Thalia       at Wed 2 Oct 4:34pm score of 2 helpful     Let's see. Not wearing glasses increased people's self-confidence. It also increased their likelihood of getting laid, or "pulling power" whatever that means. Here's the reality. Women are more attracted to guys with self-confidence. Whether or not the guy wears glasses is completely irrelevant. If the guy wearing glasses feels like a dork, he acts like one. When the changes to contacts, he feels self-confident, and acts it. And a woman will pick a guy with self-confidence every time... Thalia Judeo-Christianity: just like regular Christianity, only insincerely 5% more inclusive! -- MC Nally   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Correct.   by MAYORBOB       at Wed 2 Oct 5:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Because the secret to success in just about anything lies between your ears and not necessarily on the glasses you wear or the amount of hair on top of your head or the clothes you wear. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  You mean to say ...   by Miguel Agullo       at Thu 3 Oct 5:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     ... that the stories of the world's most famous neurotic are all BS? Bummer!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  It's scientific, isn't it?   by lemming357       at Thu 3 Oct 6:11pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Not every time. You see, I too have a girlfriend. 'opinions are like assholes: everybody has one and they all stink.'   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  What is pulling power?   by Squeaky wheel       at Fri 4 Oct 5:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Fellow Americans, Several of you have alluded to the phrase "pulling power," foreign on this side of the pond. Please allow me to define it: it simply means your ability to pick someone up. If you're out on the town and lookin' for love, Brits might say you're "on the pull." If you got a phone number or even brought someone back to your flat, you might tell your friends the next day that you "pulled." An American equivalent might be "scored," however "pulling" means different things to different people, so for some it's a simple connection, phone number swap or snog (make-out session); for others it might be sex or at least an adult "slumber party." As for the rest of Thalia's comments, I agree wholeheartedly. Several years ago, I dated a (Brit) man who is legally blind from a birth defect that forces him to hold a book six inches from his face to read it. He wears impossibly thick specs. It wasn't his average looks or his intellect and charm that prompted me to ask him out (since I'd barely spoken with him, I didn't know whether he was smart or charming). It was all about his self-confidence. to expose your ass on paper terrifies some... and well it should   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Why I feel like a dork when I wear glasses   by SteamboatDreamboat       at Fri 4 Oct 6:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     My peripheral vision isn't as good. I get blind sided more often. "When life hands you lemons, make coffee... and then you'll have the desire to make lemonade." --Jon Friedman   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  bogus science   by johndan       at Wed 2 Oct 4:40pm score of 2.5 funny     As the researchers themselves point out, "this preliminary study is not sufficiently rigorous for scientific publication." In addition to the fact that the researchers could not corroborate the subjects' experiences, The groups were self-selecting, and who's to say what each person's rationale for making that decision was? The researchers haven't demonstrated any cause and effect, but that doesn't stop them from saying they have ("eyeware choice may have a significant impact on how attractive a person looks and feels")--it could just as reasonably be the other way around. The research design undoubtedly affected the outcome--how would you feel if a research scientist took you to a bar and gave you "strict insructions to 'pull'"? This may just be a mis-representation in the story, but if the groups were split before they went into the bar, subjects would probably be able to predict the hypothesis and might have changed their behavior. In other words, if you know they're trying to examine the link between glasses and sexual success, you can probably guess that they think the two will be inversely related. You might try really hard to disprove that by scoring even if you wore glasses--so hard you end up looking like a dork. So, yeah, this isn't rigorous enough for a scientific publication. But that didn't stop the researchers from publicizing it, know that it'd likely be picked up and reported like it was scientific research. That didn't stop the people at NewScientist.com ("The World's No. 1 Science & Technology News Service").   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Re: bogus science   by Blue Dot       at Wed 2 Oct 5:05pm score of 0.5 incoherent   in reply to comment 11     Ah, come on. This isn't an article about quark confinement. Besides, this is a sociological study, and therefore it isn't science anyway.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: bogus science   by haiyan       at Thu 3 Oct 8:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Yes, another example of fluff news generated by dubious resarch. Rather undermines the fact that legitimate, rigorous research can make for interesting stories also. Also, hitting a range of nightclubs patronized by various sub-cultures may have balanced out the results. I suspect walking into a crowd of hipster kids with big, thick-framed glasses is a major advantage.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: bogus science   by Bearpaw       at Thu 3 Oct 9:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     As the researchers themselves point out, "this preliminary study is not sufficiently rigorous for scientific publication." It's not even sufficiently rigorous for a preliminary study. It's a PR stunt. Maybe they're trolling for funding from people who make contacts. Proud member of the reality-based minority.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  comic book fans have known this for years   by SteamboatDreamboat       at Wed 2 Oct 4:40pm score of 3.5 clever     Clark Kent = goober. Superman = man of steel. Which one did Lois Lane want to sleep with first? "When life hands you lemons, make coffee... and then you'll have the desire to make lemonade." --Jon Friedman   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  Re: comic book fans have known this for years   by hob_gad       at Thu 3 Oct 7:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     I'll say this because I was/am a comic book fan. We comic book fans are goobers. We root for the goober. Some comic book publishers (who only want to increase circulation) are not above giving the goobers what they want. Comic books, especially superhero comic books, have a long history of playing to wish-fulfillment fantasies. Take Lois' mojo for Clark for what it is... a dork's fantasy. Take this article for what it is... pseudo-science mascarading as scientific research. I grew up in '80s America. That's why I have that Nietzschean blackness that I can access so well. - John Cusak   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: comic book fans have known this for years   by SteamboatDreamboat       at Thu 3 Oct 7:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 34     Heh. I love asking open questions like that. Especially when someone chooses the wrong answer. "When life hands you lemons, make coffee... and then you'll have the desire to make lemonade." --Jon Friedman   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  I'd like to see more science of this sort   by ratnerstar       at Wed 2 Oct 6:15pm score of 2 funny     It's so rare to find scientists addressing the problems that truly affect the lives of people like me. Much more research needs to be done in the "why women avoid ratnerstar" and "how to get laid without actually acquiring money or a positive self image" areas. Specifically, I'd like to know whether women find men with high karma more attractive. And does it matter if it's from plastic or slashdot? There is no.sig, only Zool....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  for me...   by f1055man       at Wed 2 Oct 6:23pm score of 2.5 funny     I've found its the exact opposite. Perhaps its because with my glasses i have a narrower field of vision and have less to complicate things. Or maybe its that I can almost hide behind my glasses. I remember in an english class we all had to teach a viewpoint on art and we were encouraged to play the part. I got the Marxist perspective. I found it considerably easier to teach the class hiding behind one of those fake glasses and nose Groucho Marx getups. Of course it probably didnt help my grade. My teacher's comment, "wrong Marx". f1055man   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  Re: for me...   by MandaX       at Thu 3 Oct 7:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     My teacher's comment, "wrong Marx". What, he wanted you to do Zeppo instead? I think we're going crazy, things don't even faze me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: for me...   by swalve       at Thu 3 Oct 9:05am score of 1   in reply to comment 37     Excellent choice in Zeppo. Most people would have gone with a Groucho or Harpo. "If silence is golden, you couldn't raise a dime!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Re: for me...   by Tessera       at Fri 4 Oct 9:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     Philistines!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  Chicks with glasses   by snwodttam       at Wed 2 Oct 7:17pm score of 1.5 witty     Screw this study. I dig chick with glasses. They pull me just fine. Now, whether or not they want me pulled is another question :) These things happen to other people   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  hmmmm....   by Damacles       at Wed 2 Oct 7:41pm score of 1.5 funny     I always thought my prescription nose glasses with the mustache attached had nothing to do with me not getting laid. Maybe, there's hope, then again maybe its my inordinately large head.... Damacles   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  re: Don Juan Wears Accuvues - Dorothy Parker Aphor   by lordsatan       at Wed 2 Oct 9:09pm score of 1.5 clever     obviously no emo kids were present for this study   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Re: Don Juan Wears Accuvues - Dorothy Parker Aphor   by toothless joe       at Thu 3 Oct 7:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     obviously no emo kids were present for this study Nah, they were all at home weeping quietly to themselves. And re: this study: Wear your contacts when you're trying to pick up girls at the club and wear your glasses when you're trying to pick them up at the ungodly bookstore coffeeshop hybrid. It's not that complex... » born » tagged » tattooed » pacified »   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  glasses can be attractive   by evie       at Thu 3 Oct 6:56am score of 1.5 astute     Lets face it, an attractive, confident person in glasses is still an attractive confident person. If you aren't too unattractive, and contacts make you more confident, then of course contacts will increase your likelihood of getting some. I wear glasses and have never had a problem from lack of interest (in fact it can be the other way around). I also have been attracted to men and women who are wearing glasses. I'd suggest the study wasn't conducted with a representative sample group. I will add, that I tend to wear contacts when I go out these days (last 8months or so). I have started to find glasses wearing to be annoying - they keep smudging, they slip down your nose, if you run/jump around a lot they move, and light reflects off them weirdly. Have I noticed any difference in attentiveness between my glasses and contact wearing days - no. Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  seeing clearly   by timnet       at Thu 3 Oct 7:31am score of 1     I didn't have glasses growing up, as apparently my vision stayed good for the first 25 or so years of my life. I've since had to acquiesce to vision weaknesses (i.e. get glasses), although I mainly wear them for driving or situations where I have to see things like notes on a blackboard, etc. That said, women who know me say I look good in glasses the first time they see me sporting specs. It may be my imagination, but people seem to treat me as if I'm more intelligent when wearing them. I've actually had people mistake me for a professor, which is just plain bizarre. So, no, I don't see anything wrong with wearing glasses. "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  Dorothy Parker Aphorism?   by petiex       at Thu 3 Oct 7:38am score of 1.5 funny     That would be, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." In my personal longitudinal study on a sample group of one, I found that wearing contacts resulted in frequent displays of the subject fishing around in his eye socket to retrieve a displaced lens and rolling his eyes back in his head to the same end, as well as increased lachrymal activity, occular blood vessel exposure, and utterances of execration against said correctional devices. The syndrome is yet unnamed, but "Chick Magnet Syndrome" somehow does not suggest itself. "Astute and Helpful Bear." - Owl   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

38.  Nobody noticed...   by jedrek       at Thu 3 Oct 8:03am score of 1.5 compelling     I'm 25 years old, been wearing glasses for the past 13. Three months ago I switched to contact lenses, soft, one month dealies. Of the 100-200 friends, family and acquaintances I met with since that time two people noticed that I wasn't wearing glasses. And these were people that hadn't seen me for a couple of months previous to my switch. I think what the study noted was a change in confidence, not a change in appearance. You stop fidgeting with your glasses, you stop thinking you look different. Most adults don't really care if someone else wears glasses, but it's a stigma that you remember from gradeschool, 'four eyes', 'nerd', etc. It's simple: Confident people are more attractive. Most people think they look better without glasses, so they're more confident and more attractive. p.rawda   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  Further proof...   by jimray       at Thu 3 Oct 8:04am score of 1     ...that evolution has no bearing on the human race. We've been creating our own evolutionary direction since the stone age. In a perfect evolutionary setting, there would be no need for glasses, because people wouldn't mate with folks that couldn't see two feet in front of 'em. Now we have contacts and laser eye surgery, which only complicates the task! The bad vision genes are still there to pass on to your unsuspecting children, you're dooming humanity to perpetual myopia! And the fact that I, too, dig chicks with glasses (especially the geeky, web grrl square kind. I'm a sucker for those) certainly doesn't help matters. What's next--blondes going extinct? "You're not thinking, you're just being logical" Bohr to Einstein during a debate on quantum mechanics   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

60.  Re: Further proof...   by Xiamin       at Thu 3 Oct 3:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 39     In a perfect evolutionary setting, there would be no need for glasses, because people wouldn't mate with folks that couldn't see two feet in front of 'em. Leaving aside the meaninglessness of 'perfect evolutionary setting' (evolution is not a process that produces 'perfect', but a process that produces 'good enough'), over the course of millions of years, maybe. Somehow poor vision didn't get bred out before the invention of glasses though. Compared to the scale of evolution, humanity has had vision correction for less than a blink of the eye, and yet, I can't read more than a few feet ahead of me without my glasses. Then again, cursed evolution left me unable to run as fast as the average person (asthma). 'Did you come here alone?' 'No, I came with my bicycle.'   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: Further proof...   by evie       at Fri 4 Oct 6:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 60     Added to the fact that we are a species whom vision is not a major need for survival. In fact, in terms of the senses, we are a really lousy species. We do not excel at any. We are a successful generalist species. On a daily basis, how many people do you come across that prove evolution doesn't produce perfection? Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  Other Problems   by crowley       at Thu 3 Oct 8:08am score of 1     You can also fall asleep with them in, and if one falls out, you end up with a very odd facial expression. But if someone's that shallow to be attracted to you only because you're not wearing glasses, it's not worth it. You can play someone to tell you that you're sexy. You just have to pay extra for them to mean it. Something tells me my karma won't be changing soon.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

42.  'New Scientist,' huh?   by MandaX       at Thu 3 Oct 8:13am score of 1     Their articles must be written by the kind of "new scientist" who doesn't grasp the scientific method. The biggest (and most ironic) problem with this research is that it can't be blinded. The researchers know who is in each group, because you can't hide whether someone's wearing glasses or contacts. So to have "independent observers" confirming the supposed success of contact lens wearers may merely play into the widespread cultural bias against glasses. If they at all believe contact wearers will be more successful, their observations will reflect that. Even if the contacts-vs.-glasses effect actually exists somehow, there's no reason why it should necessarily be linked to self-confidence or what have you. First, during flirting, people communicate a great deal via eye contact. If glasses happen to obscure the eye contact, there's a physical reason that your success with the opposite sex will be reduced beyond "glasses make you feel dorky." Second, being that I'm a wearer of both glasses and contact lenses at different times, I say from experience that I can't see as well in glasses as in contacts, particularly in the dark. I might well feel uncomfortable in a dimly-lit social setting because of this, but not because I believe everyone thinks I'm a big nerd when I wear glasses. But then again, I'm not unbiased either. I've always had a huge thing for guys with glasses. I think my first fictional-character crush was Egon Spengler in "Ghostbusters." Truly, that's why everyone should think I'm a big nerd. I think we're going crazy, things don't even faze me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  WRONG!   by sulli       at Thu 3 Oct 8:22am score of 1     Spectacles are fucking sexy. Believe me, I know. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

44.  The Power to Pull   by Brown25       at Thu 3 Oct 8:26am score of 1     "I'm not quite sure what 'pulling power' would be In case it's not contextually obvious by now, pulling is a British term for picking people up. It's not uncommon to see bartenders with shirts that use the double meaning of pulling (pints and girls) in amusing phrases.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  Actually, it's usually the wrong glasses   by EamPeB       at Thu 3 Oct 8:37am score of 1     Most people buy one pair, and replace them when they break, those of us who have worn glasses for any length of time, can look back at a photo from 20 years ago and ask "what was I thinking?"   If you have more than one pair they become part of the outfit, the cool retro ones, the serious business ones, the suit pair, the jeans pair, the shades etc.   One advantage to glasses is that you can take them off, this always makes you look a little vulnerable, it gives the message that there's nothing else in the room worth looking at plus it gives you something to do with your hands i.e. excellent flirting prop.     And should you 'pull' you don't have to have all that paraphernalia with you.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

51.  Re: Actually, it's usually the wrong glasses   by swalve       at Thu 3 Oct 9:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 45     Plus, how you remove you glasses can indicate your level of aggravation with the situation. When I take the glasses off, it usually means "I can't even stand to look at you people any more." "If silence is golden, you couldn't raise a dime!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

46.  My own experiments.   by Anonymous Idiot       at Thu 3 Oct 8:43am score of 0.5     I've often wondered what exactly the major difference between guys who could "score" in bars and guys who couldn't. What I did was go to the same bar on the same night after changing my appearance. I went with glasses,without glasses, with longish hair, with shaved head, with chunky horn-rimmed type glasses,with trendy glasses. I also found other guys with similar backgrounds, one with glasses, one without.   I think the only real difference I experienced was initialy approaching women. I did not use any specific lines or openers in either case, I just made a general comment about the bar as in "pretty crowded tonight". Without glasses I seemed to get a more enthusiastic response, with glasses I tended to get a "polite non-interest" type response.   Once I had their attention I moved on to specific questions about mens appearance. The only negative I encountered was a group of women who all agreed that beards made men look old. Many of the women I asked said that glasses made men look more inteligent or more distinguished. Trendy type glasses won out of the horn-rimmed type, one woman said "You would be hot if you weren't wearing those glasses" another said "I want to give you a makeover and start with those glasses"   All in all I think that glasses in and of themselves do not make that much of a differnece in womens reactions.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

59.  glasses keep you from getting laid?   by treehorn       at Thu 3 Oct 1:40pm score of 1     If you think wearing glasses, or being beanpole-skinny, or having greasy unkempt hair, or grubby too-small clothes, keeps people from hooking up in bars; try visiting any bar where people in rock bands hang out. You may reconsider this "pulling power" vs. glasses thesis when some garage rocker leaves with your girl.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

61.  glasses v. contacts   by greta       at Thu 3 Oct 4:15pm score of 1.5 compelling     It's so true. I was an ugly duckling with glasses in Junior High. In high school and with contact lenses I was nominated for Homecoming Queen. True, I was nominated by the Chess Club, but... Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, I'm a dumbass   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

65.  Misread the headline   by veschke       at Fri 4 Oct 6:32am score of 1     And apparently I'm the only person who on a first skim thought it was talking about Don Johnson. I wear glasses, don't go to nightclubs, am happily married to a man who also wears glasses, and agree with the late Mike Royko that touching your actual eyeball is a totally unnatural thing to do. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

66.  Hmmm....   by CAronen       at Fri 4 Oct 12:08pm score of 1     This would explain a lot... NO MORE GLASSES FOR ME!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

73.  Another advantage   by smackspice       at Sat 5 Oct 9:05am score of 1     It was posted above: One advantage to glasses is that you can take them off, this always makes you look a little vulnerable A friend of mine once said that glasses are sexy because they're one more article to be removed. I've yet to test his theory. You can't be a non-conformist if you don't drink coffee. - Trey Parker   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]