You're looking at a figure from a groundbreaking scientific paper published in European Urology by Dr. Ahmed Shafik of the Cairo University in Egypt. In the 1993 paper, Dr. Shafik explored the effect of wearing different types of underpants on the sexual activities of rats. He dressed 75 rats in a) 100% polyester, b) 50/50 polyester/cotton, c) 100% cotton and d) 100% wool underpants for one year.
What did Dr. Shafik find? Rats that wore 100% polyester pants had significantly less sex than those wearing underwear made from other fabric (he blamed it on the "electrostatic field" effect of polyester!)
What? Don't believe me? Here's the abstract from European Urology 1993; 24: 375-380:
The effect of wearing different types of textiles on sexual activity was studied in 75 rats which were divided into five equal groups: four test groups and one control. Each of the four test groups were dressed in one type of textile pants made of either 100% polyester, 50/50% polyester/cotton mix, 100% cotton or 100% wool. Sexual behavior was assessed before and after 6 and 12 months of wearing the pants and 6 months after their removal. The rate of intromission to mounting (IIM) was determined. The electrostatic potentials generated on penis and scrotum were also measured by electrostatic kilovoltmeter. At 6 and 12 months of wearing the polyester and polyester-cotton mix pants, the I/M ratio was significantly reduced compared to the pre-test levels and the controls (p < 0.0001). The reduction was more manifest in the polyester than in the polyester-cotton mix group, and at the 12th month than at the 6th month of examination. The I/M ratio of the cotton and wool groups showed insignificant changes (p > 0.05) at the 6th month of the study and a significant increase at the 12th month (p < 0.01). Six months after removal of the pants, the I/M ratio returned to the pre-test levels (p > 0.05) in the four groups. The polyester-containing pants generated electrostatic potentials while the other textiles did not. These potentials seem to induce "electrostatic fields" in the intrapenile structures, which could explain the decrease in the rats' sexual activity.
The figure above, titled "The underpant worn by the rat," is made famous by Mary Roach's new book about the science of sex called "Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex." NPR has a really neat excerpt about the paper:
Dr. Ahmed Shafik wears three-piece suits with gold watch fobs and a diamond stick pin in the lapel. His glasses are the thick, black rectangular style of the Nasser era. He owns a Cairo hospital and lives in a mansion with marble walls. He was nominated for a Nobel Prize. I don't care about any of this. Shafik won my heart by publishing a paper in European Urology in which he investigated the effects of polyester on sexual activity. Ahmed Shafik dressed lab rats in polyester pants.
There were seventy-five rats. They wore their pants for one year. Shafik found that over time the ones dressed in polyester or poly-cotton blend had sex significantly less often than the rats whose slacks were cotton or wool. (Shafik thinks the reason is that polyester sets up troublesome electrostatic fields in and around the genitals. Having seen an illustration of a rat wearing the pants, I would say there's an equal possibility that it's simply harder to get a date when you dress funny.)
Dr. Shafik published five studies on the effects of wearing polyester, and then moved on to something else. If you print out a list of Shafik's journal articles—and you will need a roll of butcher paper, because there are 1,016 so far—it is hard to say what his specialty is. He has wandered through urology, andrology, sexology, proctology. If you ask him what he is, what he writes under "Occupation" on his tax form, he will smile broadly and exclaim, "I am Ahmed Shafik!"
Dressing rats in underpants is not the only good thing Dr. Shafik has done: he has invented not one, but three new methods for male contraception (one of them caught my eye: testicular suspension - i.e. putting one's balls in a sling!)
There's scientific research and then there's scientific research. I hereby nominate Dr. Shafik for Neatorama's Most Awesome Scientist of the Year Award!
Links: NPR article | Dr. Ahmed Shafik's website - via Black is the New Black
Comments (9)
To answer some questions: There was a hole for the penis to go through so they could still try to get it on. ditto for a crap hole. When the underpants were too soiled they were changed for a fresh pair.
Really really really weird. I wonder if anyone working on it thought to themselves "Hey, I'm up to my ass in debt so I could have a PHd... and this is what I'm doing??"
WHY?
But a great documentary on this subject is called 'My Kid Could Paint That'. It follows a four year old abstract 'genius' painter and his oddly enough painter father...as well as the rest of the family. The young girl leaps to international attention in the art world very very quickly. There are plenty of twists that I won't give away, but in the end it's a really great examination of what exactly is great art.
It looks like the "artist" took a can and crumpled it up. Why it's worth so much is beyond me. I suppose it represents beauty to someone, but that someone isn't me. Any idea how big these things are? There's no clue to their scale.
I looked through the linked slideshow, and the painting by Jean-Michel Basquiat, “Untitled (Boxer)” looks like something my 9-year-old doodled on the back of a church bulletin during a sermon.
Another documentary that covers this topic is Orson Welles' "F for Fake".
Well, this is like saying that anyone can do a great movie.
When people go to an art exhibition and see awful pieces of "art" like these ones, they just usually say :"well, I don't know art, I don't know if it is good or bad". Mistake ! If you can tell a good movie from a bad one, or a good novel from a good one, then you can say if what you are watching in a gallery is good or it is not.
Very few people are able to create art. And when they do, you can really see. Just have a look at what Banksy is doing. It makes you think, it makes a statement.
The only statement these sculptures are making is : "there's something going really wrong here"
It's surprising to me that car-compactor operators all over the USA don't cash-in and start selling fakes of this sort of "art".
It's just like some twit randomly sloshing paint onto a canvas and the way art dealers & critics practically having a brain hemorrhage thinking up words to praise it with and (of course) inflate it's resale value.
[snicker]
Things like this remind me of the emperor's new clothes.
...'subjective' as in P.T.Barnum saying,'theres a sucker born every minute."
How do you determine the value of the Google Ads sold on the Neatorama site? How do advertisers determine if their ad design is worth paying the designer for? Is that the same scale you use for assessing whether an experience is compelling, or whether an art object generates worthwhile social experiences?
How many "outraged" readers who cry "fraud" ever express an opinion or create something that is not already safely accepted as mainstream or "valid" in their circles? Of those that get that far, how many of them step-up and put themselves out there and take a risk - in a public way - that invites public scrutiny and judgment?
"What a piece of junk!"
I have no opinion on the piece commented on here. Without seeing it in person, its dimensions, the materials its made of - how can you make a valuation of it?
I concur that art is subjective. Absolutely, 100% subjective. But badmouthing something just because you don't understand it makes you sound like a hater.
1) often, not just "artists" make art...
if artists are phony, and we get away with selling work for outrageous sums i can only assume this:
-your house is ugly
-your car is hideous
-if you have tattoos, those are unfathomable pieces of crap
-your furniture is hideous
there are so many other examples. hell, if you have a lawn then it is ugly. landscaping, architecture, design, body art, all of these are pieces of crap because artists are phony.
2) yes, buying art can be expensive but you also have to factor in: supplies (which believe me are not cheap) the man hours put into it, the concept of the idea, the cost for electricity/gas (such as in ceramics or glass blowing), the cost of equipment, etc. there have been many times in my life where i've lived off of peanut butter sandwiches and water in order to save money for more supplies. and if no one bought one of those pieces, my pride wasn't hurt... just my checkbook. most people that wish to become artists, never make that money back.
everyone is an artists in their own right... of course, no one can understand all the different nuances of them... for example, arranging flowers or landscaping. i honestly don't understand the difference in the flowers or grass etc... but that doesn't mean i can't appreciate that someone put their time and money into that project. i respect them for wanting to make the world more beautiful.
so please, don't judge artists. i get tired of people assuming that since i'm an artist, i'm some sort of dirty worthless hippie who just can't hold down a job. i go to school full time, i work, i pay my bills, i don't do drugs. this is just how i wish to spend my life.
if you don't like something, we'll listen to your criticism. but make sure its more than just "thats ugly/crap" or "my kid could do it". EXPLAIN why you don't like it. we're living our lives as we dreamed. and please don't repress your child's artistic talents.