Boobs are awesome. But why?

One day while lying in bed with some nude nubile nannies, I was asked the following question: "Why do guys like boobs so much?" I opened my mouth to speak and found I had no answer. This bevy of beautiful babes had stumped me. What is it about breasts that are so enticing? I decided to launch a straight-up sexy assault to find out. And yes, part of the reason I'm writing this is to post several pictures of ladies' puppy-pillows. Is that a slang-term for breasts? I'll be honest, I'm a little out of the loop on colloquialisms these days.

These don't look like breasts at all...

In order to begin my research I decided to head to Facebook to find out what the common people thought. Because I'm so popular and have millions upon millions of friends and admirers I decided to post the following as a status update via Twitter:

Research Question: why do most men seem to love boobs? Leave your answers/theories/anecdotes in the comments below please...

Most of my friends and admirers must have been busy that day, as I received only three responses. The first response was as follows: "Because they don't have their own. Greedy bastards."

Fair enough. The second response said, "Ask anthony.. Ugh". Anthony, as any loyal reader of this blog knows, is my co-author. Apparently I'm writing this in vain because Anthony already knows the answer. And whomever he's shared this answer with was disgusted by it. However, Anthony rarely knows what he's talking about so I am going to trudge forth with this study anyway.

The final response was this: "Because they are awesome?" This is also the only response from a male. Note the question mark at the end of what should have been the statement. For one, I believe that is indicative of why I only received three responses; As much as men love soft cannons, they're afraid and unsure of them at the same time.

Google image search is really letting me down today...

I stuck with Facebook for one last try as I saw a good friend of mine on Facebook chat and remembered that I had to talk to her about her birthday goings on that day, but also she has breasts. I asked her as scientifically as I could about them and their almost magnetic properties, and she said, "Because they (guys) don't have them." Ah... confirming what an earlier poster said. Playing devil's advocate I asked about fat guys. They have boobs, don't they? "Fat men don't have perky breasts. And it's different on females... They're a completely different shape." Touche my friend. She continued, "Women love breasts too... It's a fact actually. They are just fun to play with." True! Very true! They are fun to play with. I got hung up on this fact while she continued, "I also think it has to do with your attachment to them from childbirth bla bla bla." At this point I was still thinking about how much fun boobs are to play with and signed off.

After some more, uh... research, on a few websites that shall remain anonymous at this point, I found that some of the claims being made by the commoners on Facebook had some validity to them. That is, if you hate peer-reviewed articles. It seems that most scientists focus their energies elsewhere, and not on finding out why fatty bulls-eyes are so intoxicating.

At least that has a woman in the picture...

Instead of respectable, peer-reviewed articles, I decided to settle on more-or-less the first two sites with answers Google gave me. The first one, authored by some dude named Josh Johnson, basically restates the things those Facebookers said. When confronted with the question that stumped me, Josh is ready with a retort, "Actually, the answer to this question is almost unbelievably simple; We like them because they are there, and we don't have them."

As much as I thought Occam's design was the bomb diggity, that might be simplifying the matter a bit too much. What else you got, Josh? "It's hardwired into our brains as infants, men and women alike, that breasts are an important part of our survival. Most of us lived off the damned things at one point in our life, so it's only understandable that we carry a certain fondness for them as grow older."

Well... that was much better actually. However, I can't help but think there's more to it than the facts that evolutionarily we're hardwired to love fleshy balloons and we don't have them. Just those two things don't seem to explain the downright obsessiveness that men, and even our culture, has with them.

THESE ARE FLESHY BALLOONS?! THESE?! OH GOD WHY?!

Moving to a possibly more reputable website, but probably not, I checked out something that was authored by Askmen.com. They break down their reasons quite well, actually. One of the first points that are made is some subconscious psychological reasoning that doesn't have to do with Oedipus. "Breasts hint at a woman's ability to nurture and sustain life. They also point to a woman's capacity to breed, as they signal the onset of puberty." Very true. Despite what my asshole friends like to joke around about, men aren't attracted to pre-pubescent girls. Darwin was even a firm believer in this line of thought, or so I've heard. I mean, it seems like something he would agree with. He loved titties.

The article goes on to state that, biologically, men know that breasts are sensitive and can turn a woman on. "Any good lover knows that a woman's breasts are closely connected to her libidinal zone." I once read in Playboy (yes, I got Playboy for the articles, despite popular belief) that a very small percentage of women can orgasm just from playing with her nipples in the right way. This proves nothing, but sometimes I like to tell anecdotal stories with only tenuous connections to whatever the conversation is about.

Finally, the article argues that men are stimulated visually, while women tend to be stimulated more intellectually. While I don't wholly believe in this statement, their next statement I can agree with: "It's hardly surprising then that breasts, raised and perky as they often are, receive our obsessive attention. After all, apart from genitalia, breasts are a woman's most well-defined physical feature." Basically, boobs stand out. The more they stand out, the more attention men are likely to lavish on a particularly well-bosomed lady.

So there you have it, men like breasts for a variety of reasons. Breasts represent many things to a man, whether that be some unconscious safety-net for the warmth and security of a mother's bosom (not to mention the nutrition), or the fact that they're different from what men are naturally equipped with, or as a sign of fertility, or because they're fun to play with, or simply because on most women breasts stand out, men just kinda like them.

And that, ladies, will never change. Viva la Boobies!

Oh sonofabitch.

My Adventures in Time Travel III: My Time With Lincoln and Darwin

Now that we've covered how the time machine mentioned in the heading to this blog works (kind of), and how we avoid the paradoxes that seem to naturally occur with such a thing as traveling through time (sorta), I feel it is my duty to share with you my most recent adventure through time. Seeing as how I am one of the most important living beings ever by the time my life is up - trust me on that - I decided to go visit two other extremely important historical figures that I also happen to share a birthday with. On February 12th I decided to take a trip back in time to visit Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin.

Preparing to go back in time can be kind of a hassle. Much like taking a long vacation, you must pack accordingly. I grabbed my suitcase and loaded up on my leather pants and silver jackets (because that's what they believed people in the future would be wearing and I didn't want to blow their minds too much), grabbed my toothbrush (but forgot my damn toothpaste - and apparently you can't buy any in the mid-1800's; there were only "tooth powders" that seemed kind of unhealthy), charged up my Blackberry and iPod (in case I had some downtime), made sure my audio recorder worked (so I could have an accurate transcript for you, my dear readers) and sat down to choose a date.

In my 3 1/2 minutes of research I learned that Lincoln and Darwin never met, and were in fact barely aware of each others existences. This would simply not do. I photoshopped some fake invitations to a "World Leadership Conference featuring All the Great Leaders of Science, Politics, and Miscellaneous Things", and packed them away with my iPod. The date would be February 16th, 1861 in Buffalo, New York (my hometown, coincidentally enough). Lincoln would already be staying there on his way to accept the presidency so it would make it that much easier. Darwin wouldn't have shit going on, so he would make it as well. Plus, it was around our birthday. Perfect...

I hopped in my time machine and set the date. I decided it would be a good idea to just time travel my way right to Darwin's residence about a month before the date of the "conference" to drop off the invitation. That would give him enough time to show up. So I did just that and then time traveled to Buffalo.

I appeared in the back alley of the American Hotel on Main St. on Valentines Day, 1861. I reached in my pocket for money to get a room and realized I only had $5 bills. I'm not completely sure, but I had a sneaking suspicion that Lincoln didn't have his picture on American money yet. That would give me away as a time traveler, and I ran the risk of being hung as a witch. Thinking quickly, I realized that I'm an expert in 19th century security systems (there not really being any) and could just break into the hotel, kill one of the inhabitants of a room, and steal his identity. I did just that, and ended up finding myself as Hernando Escobar-Gonzalez, a wealthy merchant from... somewhere.

Hernando was a good man. Until I murdered him and stole his identity.

With the pieces now in place, all I had to do was wait. I stalked around the hotel for those two days, wearing Hernando's ill-fitting clothes and pretending I knew whatever language it was he spoke. Spanish? French? Russian? I couldn't figure it out, and soon had ended up killing in cold blood anyone who seemed like they might have known who he was.

Finally, on the morning of February 16th, 1861, Lincoln walked in with his security. He got a room on a floor and headed up. I thought it best to wait for Darwin. He arrived not long after Lincoln, and I felt the nervous gas of a brilliant plan coming together. I stopped at my room to use the bathroom, and then waited for them to knock on the door for the "conference". I had put 7 p.m. Eastern Time on the invitations, and at around 6:30 p.m. both showed up. I answered the door, turned on my audio recorder, and had the following conversation:

Craig?: First off, let me just say happy belated birthdays.

Lincoln and Darwin: Thank you.

Craig?: So... Mr. President, Mr. Darwin, welcome to the "World Leaders Association Conference for Stuff".

Lincoln: I was under the assumption that this was called the "World Leadership Conference featuring All the Great Leaders of Science, Politics, and Miscellaneous Things".

Craig?: Um... it goes by many names. Regardless, welcome.

Darwin: I'm sorry good sir, but I must ask: What are you wearing?

I was waiting for this question and took it as an opportunity to allow them in on my secret: I am a time traveler.

Craig?: Ah! Excellent question Mr. Darwin! I can see why many worship you and your ideas almost religiously where I come from!

Darwin: And where is that?

Craig?: Well, I come from Buffalo, New York.

Lincoln: We're in Buffalo.

Craig?: Yeah, I know. Let me finish. I'm from Buffalo, New York in the year 2010.

At this point there was a long, awkward silence. Darwin and Lincoln both looked at one another, looked at me, and then just sat. I waited for one of them to say something, but neither seemed capable of digesting the insanely awesome information I had just given them.

Craig?: 2010. You guys caught that, right? I'm from the future.

The Future, as they thought it would look like. Probably.

Again, there was a silence. Darwin stood up and started making his way toward the door.

Craig?: Where are you going?

Darwin: I'm leaving. This is clearly some kind of a joke.

Craig?: But don't you want to know what the future is like? The three of us are the most important figures in World History! At least that's how it is in the year 2162.

Lincoln: I thought you said you were from 2010?

Craig?: I also said I was a time traveler. I'm here now, aren't I? Stop cherry-picking things to call me on.

I heard my door slam and realized that Darwin had gone. My hopes dashed, I thought I would make due with Lincoln. I turned around to find him standing, his 6'3 frame fairly imposing.

Craig?: Well Mr. President, I guess it's just you and I.

Lincoln: My sincerest apologies boy, but I have much more worthwhile things to do with my time.

I stepped in front of him.

Craig?: I don't think so, Mr. President. The 3 people who read my blog in my present, before I'm practically the savior of mankind, want to know what you were really like. Who the man behind the myth really -

At that point Lincoln grabbed me and put me in an arm-bar. The most intense pain I've ever felt shot through my body and I lost control of my bowels. This was the worst possible scenario that could have happened. I passed out from the pain and awoke to find myself in jail. I jimmied the lock (they were pretty simple back then) and escaped to find my time machine. Upon securing it again - murdering several guards in the process - I returned to 2010.

And now here I am, ashamed and beaten for my journalistic failure. However, I hope that my few moments with Lincoln and Darwin gave you a sense of who they were as men, and not as giants of history. I also hope that any time travelers reading this prepare better than I did.

I know I learned that lesson.

My Adventures in Time Travel II: The Paradoxes

We'll See About That

Welcome to the middle section of my highly acclaimed trilogy on time travel! How do I know it's highly acclaimed when I've only written two of the three? Think about it, silly. (I'm a time traveler.)

Last post I discussed how time travel might (or might not) be possible (for someone other than me, who doesn't already have an awesome, quite functional, time machine). This article is about the paradoxes involved in time traveling. Or, rather, some of them. There's quite a few depending on which avenue of time travel you wish to explore. And most have existential and historical ramifications that can change who you are at the most fundamental levels one can think of.

Here is a good primer on some of the paradoxes one might be confronted with. Of the ones mentioned there, perhaps the most famous paradox is the grandfather paradox. The grandfather paradox states that if you were to go back in time and murder your own grandfather, would you still exist? Logically, why you would want to do this is beyond me, but I'll buy into the initial premise.

As outlined in Michio Kakus book, Physics of the Impossible, there are a few possible solutions to this problem. If you don't believe in free will, but rather some sort of destiny, then whatever happens in the past is the way it was meant to happen. This would also hold true for what happens in the future. This is a closed time loop. Whatever happened, happened. If you go into the past to change it, that means you were already there trying to change it and everything is going according to plan. Whose plan? I don't know, someones somewhere. Possibly the man?

Oh God I Hope This is The Man

There is also the idea that there is some natural law that would prevent you from ever altering the timeline in that fashion. If you were to point a gun at your grandfather, state you were going to kill him, underline the reasons for why you felt it necessary to kill him - perhaps he told one too many stories of this time a guy claiming to be from the future tried to kill him - and then tried pulling the trigger, something would happen.

The gun would jam. You'd have a crisis of conscience. Your grandmother hits you in the head from behind with a shovel. Your grandfather is actually Ozymandias from Watchmen and he catches your bullet before beating the snot out of you. Point being, some natural occurrence prevents the death of your grandfather from happening, and nothing major changes. This still allows for the fact that you have free will, as it only states that the past cannot change. For example, you may in you heart of hearts wish to fly, and you should be able to because of your free will, but you can't because of gravity.

The solution to almost any paradox is likely to be alternate universes. If you were to pull the trigger and shoot your grandfather dead, it wouldn't matter in your universe because it never happened there. You simply traveled along a different timeline where your grandfather did get murdered by your evil doppleganger.

How Do You Fight Yourself?!

This would ostensibly happen every time you traveled to the past or future to change something. However, the biggest flaw I see in this theory is that it's not actually time travel. It's simply going to a parallel universe where things have changed only slightly. Unless, because of your dicking around in the past changing things, you created a new universe with just your actions. But how would that work? Considering what a universe physically is (lots and lots of energy and a tiny bit of matter), how could one persons actions create an alternate timeline where things were the same up until the moment they changed them, and dramatically different thereafter? Seems to raise more questions than it answers if you ask me. This is one of the major issues with time travel my esteemed colleague, Anthony, has. We've spent countless hours in our smoking room drinking whisky discussing how it could be possible that our matter is transfered to a time before our matter existed. Or, how the matter of anything in the past can still exist if it's in the present.

Imagine this situation: You want to go into the past to stop your best friend from contracting herpes from this girl he met at a club one night. Now, let's ignore the impossibility (in my experience) of a girl actually being at a club for something other than dancing. You head back in time and see your best friend - but how? How could he exist in the past if he is still existing in the future? I proposed a few solutions that I admittedly pulled out of my ass. Obviously I went to the alternate universe theories first, Anthony countered with the fact they're parallel and therefore running on the same timeline as our universe. I was skeptical of this stance, but whatever. I also proposed that time is constantly repeating itself, somewhere and somehow. Kinda weak, that one. I moved on to the fact that matter has always been around in some form or another, since the big bang. I brought up wormholes, and the curvature of spacetime. I said, relighting my corncob pipe, which had gone out in our breathless debating, that perhaps because of this curvature, there is only a displacement of matter. I asked him to picture how a tornado tube works; The water in the top half of the tube can only go to the bottom half if there is a displacement of air. That's why it works, and that's why time travel works! Anthony took a long, pensive sip of his whisky, sent our servant to the kitchen for a fake steak dinner (he's a vegetarian), and wondered how there can be a displacement of matter in that way. I countered that it probably has something to do with quantum entanglement and I conceded that I did not know. My, what a tangled web of intrigue these paradoxes weave!

The April, 1976 issue of American Philosophical Quarterly tackled some of these same issues, to a less humorous effect. The author, David Lewis immediately throws away the alternate universe theory. What he does distinguish between, instead of a multiverse, is a difference between what he calls "external time" and "personal time". External time, in the way he describes it, is time as we know it. It's whatever is happening in the present. Personal time is whatever is happening for the individual in their present. Even if their present happens to be someone else's (even their own) past. It can be equated with biological time, but it does seem to encompass more than that. This would make it possible for things to be happening along different planes of time, but it still glosses over the fact that our matter would still be existing and interacting in two places at once. However, Mr. Lewis does insinuate that perhaps it's not the same matter that is interacting. Do our atoms change into something else over time, as we grow older in our personal time? This seems a likely answer, as people do biologically and, dare I say, atomically change over time.

So what is the grand answer to the question of paradoxes? I don't know, what do I look like? Bill Nye the Science Guy? Jeez, leave me alone.

Be sure to tune in soon for the exciting conclusion to this three-part series on time travel!

My Adventures in Time Travel I: Introduction/An Explanation

I Only Watched The First 3 Minutes

Almost everyday I'm bombarded with emails asking me about our heading, because it seems most people don't read past that. Most are a lot like this email from reader n00b$f8: "i notised that u say u guys have a time machine. 1st off, tiem machines rnt possible. 2ndly even if they were u coulnd't use one because of the paridoxes involved. i saw in that movie butterfly effect how badly you can screw up the past if you mess with it!!!11!!"

Usually my response goes something like this:

"Dear n00b$f8,

Thank you for reading our blog! It's so nice to see that the youth of the great undeveloped nations of the world (judging by your somewhat tenuous grasp of the English language) has an interest in what we're writing about! Now, on to what you said in your email.

While I can see why you would think that time travel isn't possible, as it seems counter-intuitive to how we perceive time and the natural world (as Newton thought, progress only ever moves forward through time in a straight line, right?). However, because we live in a spatial universe where time is interwoven into that fabric, certain physical laws can be bent. But, as you'll see if you come back and read my blog post on this very subject, there are problems with that if you believe at all in free will.

As far as your other comment goes, I would first like to point out that Ashton Kutcher is not a good actor. I would also like to say that the paradoxes are avoidable, if they exist at all. Check back sometime to see why.

Thanks again for your time,

Craig?"

So here it is, my explanation of how our time machine works. Later this week, just in case there are some non-believers out there (like I would ever lie to you, my dear reader), I will post the meticulously recorded transcript of one of my time-traveling misadventures in honor of the greatest day in the history of the world, February 12th. Now, on to how our time machine works.

There are a lot of different theories about time travel, and how it can possibly be achieved. Most have to do with Einstein's Theories of General and Special Relativity. Special Relativity details how the speed of light is constant for all observers, because nothing can travel faster. What this has to do with time travel is simple, and it's called time dilation. Time dilation is similar to the story of The Tortoise and the Hare, except it's nothing like that at all. Supposing I'm traveling close to the speed of light (as I'm wont to do), and you're not, you will age quicker than I will. This has already been done with astronauts in orbit, who age nanoseconds less than people on Earth. So, if you can travel at or close to the speed of light for an extended period of time, when you slow down the Earth will have progressed past you and you'll be in the future. There is also a theory that says if you can travel past the speed of light, you may be able to go into the past. Almost like in Richard Donner's original Superman, when Superman finds out that he couldn't save Lois Lane in time and he freaks out and decides that he'll break every known law of physics and turn the Earth's rotation around in the vague hopes that maybe he'll reverse time and have a second chance at saving her which - thanks to the fact that it's only a movie - totally works and he totally saves her and totally ends up with the girl eventually, maybe, I've never actually seen it.

The Best Picture of Superman I Could Find

Of course, traveling anywhere near the speed of light with current technology isn't possible, let alone surpassing lightspeed in order to travel into the past. It also defies the laws of physics, as in order to travel past the speed of light one would need to have infinite mass. We know that kinetic energy is converted to mass thanks to E=mc2. To have infinite mass (and also apparently stop in time) just doesn't make sense according to Einstein, so we'll have to count that one out. Not to mention that method requires a lot of waiting. I'm not interested in that. So what other options do I have?

There is the other theory of relativity, the less fancy sounding General Theory of Relativity. This basically states that mass displaces spacetime, which is in itself a cause of gravity. If the gravity is strong enough, it may warp spacetime enough that you can travel through time (remember earlier how I mentioned that spacetime is like a fabric, all interwoven and shit? Well it can also bend like a fabric). Black holes are massive enough to do this. However, black holes are also massive enough to tear you apart atom by atom. That, to me anyhow, just doesn't sound too pleasant. Not to mention the fact I couldn't afford the bus ticket to get there.

A similar idea to traveling through a black hole is to go through a wormhole. What's the difference you ask? Well, according to Michio Kaku's book Physics of the Impossible, black holes are "non-transversable wormholes" while a wormhole is, in fact, a "transversable wormhole". What this means is that black holes are a one way trip (because they destroy you at their event horizons) while wormholes in the sense time travelers like myself discuss them are not. The trick to using wormholes (besides generating one) and surviving the event horizon of one is a little something called negative energy. This is not the same as antimatter, as it doesn't destroy any matter it comes into contact with but, rather, repels it. Which is why it would be so perfect to get through the event horizon of a wormhole.

So what's the issue with this theory? A few things, but mostly the insane amount of energy it would need to work. At least the equivalence of the energy that wants to tear you apart. Even if you were able to harness that energy, there would be enough radiation generated by the wormhole to kill you instantly if it were stable enough to stay open at all. These are a lot of variables for me to be worrying about as I have my sexy adventures through time.

And yet, I do have sexy adventures through time. All because of the time machine that n00b$f8 mentioned in his email, and we've written about in our heading to our blog. But how does it work? Well allow me to ask you this, n00b$f8 and others like him/her/it, do you know how your iPod works? Or do you just use it, thankful that it does work? Because I've never read the users manual to my Time Machine either.

Our Time Machine Looks Like Santa's Sleigh

Check back soon for Part II: The Paradoxes and next week for Part III: My Time with Lincoln and Darwin!