First time visitor? Learn more.

Beer Goggle OOT

by coldwarrior ( 58 Comments › )
Filed under Food and Drink, OOT, Open thread at April 5th, 2012 - 9:00 pm

From our Kiwi Friends:

Beware beer goggles (especially if you’re a woman)

Beer goggles are more likely to fool women than men, according to a new study. Photo / Thinkstock

Expand

Beer goggles are more likely to fool women than men, according to a new study. Photo / Thinkstock

It is a phenomenon most often associated with the more than mildly inebriated male.

But it seems that it is in fact women who are more likely to be fooled by their ‘beer goggles’.

Scientists have worked out why members of the opposite sex can seem more attractive after a few drinks – and they found that women’s judgement was more greatly clouded by alcohol.

Researchers at London’s Roehampton University asked more than 100 men and women to rate pairs of faces.

Some did the tests while drinking a strong vodka and tonic. Others were given a similar-tasting non-alcoholic drink or orange squash.

One of the tests involved looking at faces and stating whether they thought each one was symmetrical or non-symmetrical.

Scientists have long known symmetry to be tied to attraction, with a face in which one half mirrors the other seen as a sign of good genes and good health.

The men and women given the vodka and tonic found it more difficult to work out if a face was symmetrical than those on soft drinks.

Researcher Lewis Halsey said: ‘People that had drink tended to be less good at noticing if a face was asymmetrical, they often saw it as being symmetrical when it was asymmetrical.’

And the women drinkers were particularly bad at the task, the journal Addiction reports.

Dr Halsey said: ‘What we have shown is that people’s ability to detect symmetry is part of the explanation for the beer goggle effect.

‘The consequences could be considerable. A lot of people say they met their partner when they were drunk. Are their marriages shorter or longer lasting? Does it change the nature of the relationship?’ The study is not the first to probe the beer goggles phenomenon.

A Bristol University study found people do appear more attractive to both sexes after they’ve had a drink – and it takes as little as a pint and a half of beer.

In some cases, the mere anticipation of alcohol may be enough to alter judgement.

A U.S. study showed that men rated pictures of women more highly after looking at alcohol-related words than phrases about coffee and soft drinks.

Researcher Professor Ronald Friedman said: ‘We propose to have found a case of automatic “beer goggling”.’

But other research has disputed the phenomenon, with a British study concluding that men find women no prettier after drinking.

The Leicester University researchers said: ‘There was no difference – the men were just as undiscerning as ever.’

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

58 Responses to “Beer Goggle OOT”
( jump to bottom )

  1. Brick
    1 | April 5, 2012 9:17 pm

    First!

    I’m much more attractive when everyone else around me is hammered.


  2. coldwarrior
    2 | April 5, 2012 9:40 pm

    teh beer goggle musta been how i landed mrs coldwarrior.


  3. mawskrat
    3 | April 5, 2012 9:51 pm

    yah think this guy may have a drinkin problem///

    Ohio man found guilty of 19th drunken driving charge


  4. coldwarrior
    4 | April 5, 2012 9:56 pm

    yeah man!


  5. coldwarrior
    5 | April 5, 2012 9:56 pm

    YOU BLOG

    RELAX!!!


  6. mawskrat
    6 | April 5, 2012 10:00 pm

    first time I drank Red Stripe was in 1984.
    bought some at a little market in Negril


  7. Dolphin
    7 | April 5, 2012 10:06 pm

    Hubby had a Blue Moon (I think) when we were in Key West last November.

    Don’t drink much beer any more. Still like the pony coronas with limes at times though.


  8. eaglesoars
    8 | April 5, 2012 10:09 pm

    what just happened with the DOJ’s response to Judge Smith’s order. Or have I missed something during the day (I’ve been busy in the yard)


  9. eaglesoars
    9 | April 5, 2012 10:11 pm

    Dolphin wrote:

    Hubby had a Blue Moon

    Did he put an orange in it? That’s really good stuff…for me anyway


  10. coldwarrior
    10 | April 5, 2012 10:13 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    what just happened with the DOJ’s response to Judge Smith’s order. Or have I missed something during the day (I’ve been busy in the yard)

    3 pages single spaced signed by holder,


  11. Philip_Daniel
    11 | April 5, 2012 10:13 pm


  12. eaglesoars
    12 | April 5, 2012 10:20 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    3 pages single spaced signed by holder,

    Greta is saying it’s 2 and a half pages -- but not important. I can’t find what it says.


  13. Brick
    13 | April 5, 2012 10:22 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    3 pages single spaced signed by holder,
    Greta is saying it’s 2 and a half pages – but not important. I can’t find what it says.

    Something along the lines of courts are to presume that laws passed are Constitutional.


  14. eaglesoars
    14 | April 5, 2012 10:24 pm

    @ Philip_Daniel:

    Oh my gracious. Thank you. Where on EARTH do you find this stuff?


  15. CynicalConservative
    15 | April 5, 2012 10:26 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    3 pages single spaced signed by holder,
    Greta is saying it’s 2 and a half pages – but not important. I can’t find what it says.

    Try here

    http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2012/04/05/justice-department-letter-to-5th-circuit-court-appeals/

    /lurk


  16. Dolphin
    16 | April 5, 2012 10:26 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    It did, now that you bring that up. It was from the tap and the glass did have a slice of orange on it.

    This was here http://www.sloppyjoes.com/

    I had a margarita for Jimmy!


  17. eaglesoars
    17 | April 5, 2012 10:31 pm

    @ CynicalConservative:

    thanks..reading
    Dolphin wrote:

    and the glass did have a slice of orange on it.

    one of the few things that cqn make me drink beer -- that is good stuff!


  18. 18 | April 5, 2012 10:31 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    what just happened with the DOJ’s response to Judge Smith’s order. Or have I missed something during the day (I’ve been busy in the yard)

    Erick Holder doubled down on insulting the Judicial System.


  19. Dolphin
    19 | April 5, 2012 10:35 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    Score “F” incomplete paper.

    I read the same from another website earlier today. Don’t remember where -- maybe drudge.


  20. eaglesoars
    20 | April 5, 2012 10:38 pm

    @ CynicalConservative:

    done reading thank you. Here it is:

    1. The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute.

    Holder caves.


  21. eaglesoars
    21 | April 5, 2012 10:40 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    eaglesoars wrote:
    what just happened with the DOJ’s response to Judge Smith’s order. Or have I missed something during the day (I’ve been busy in the yard)
    Erick Holder doubled down on insulting the Judicial System.

    How do you read that? I think he just caved completely. But I’m not a lawyer…


  22. 22 | April 5, 2012 10:41 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    @ CynicalConservative:
    done reading thank you. Here it is:
    1. The power of the courts to review the constitutionality of legislation is beyond dispute.
    Holder caves.

    Yes, but he managed to insult the judicial system while doing it.


  23. refugee000
    23 | April 5, 2012 10:44 pm

    I think I can hear al-chuki crying.

    No Islamophobic hate crime

    Documents Suggest Iraqi Woman’s Death Not A Hate Crime
    SAN DIEGO — Details in search warrants obtained by 10News’ media partner U-T San Diego show an Iraqi-American woman viciously beaten to death in her El Cajon home was apparently planning to divorce her husband and move to Texas, casting doubt on whether the slaying was a hate crime, as first suggested.

    …Records obtained at El Cajon Superior Court on Wednesday showed the victim’s plans to leave her husband and also revealed the teen was distraught over her pending arranged marriage to a cousin, U-T San Diego reported….


  24. coldwarrior
    24 | April 5, 2012 10:44 pm

    we just cooked a pound of bacon from the farm over a cherry wood fire…the wine pairing is killer.

    the less than over-hoped-vine-chewing brit ale is great as well

    :lol:

    :cool:


  25. 25 | April 5, 2012 10:44 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    eaglesoars wrote:
    what just happened with the DOJ’s response to Judge Smith’s order. Or have I missed something during the day (I’ve been busy in the yard)
    Erick Holder doubled down on insulting the Judicial System.
    How do you read that? I think he just caved completely. But I’m not a lawyer…

    Holder sends letter to Fifth Circuit: Courts are supposed to presume that laws are constitutional, you know

    They asked for three pages single-spaced. He gave them two and a half. Impeach.

    Seriously, though, given the immense interest in this story when it broke Tuesday, there was no way O wasn’t going to use the letter as an opportunity to plead his constitutional case on ObamaCare. The court wanted a statement of the DOJ’s position on judicial review but Holder naturally gave them a little more than that. First, the obligatory — and slightly peevish — acknowledgment that, yes, Marbury v. Madison is still good law:

    The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation…

    The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government’s brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief.

    Translation: The court should stop wasting time by demanding answers to questions that no one is asking, including the president. So much for judicial review. Then comes this part, which is aimed squarely at the Supreme Court and Anthony Kennedy:

    In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Com1 has stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.” United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346 U.S . 441 , 449 (1953); see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.” Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-22i, 346 U.S. at 449.

    In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803, 1820 (20 1 0) (“Respect for a coordinate branch of Govenm1ent forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”); Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. at314-15.


  26. 26 | April 5, 2012 10:56 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    So basically he conceded the Courts Authority, then turned right around and insulted the Court by telling the Court that while he admits that the Court has the authority to Rule on the Constitutionality of any Law, they never the less do not have the Authority to rule on the Constitutionality of Obamacare.


  27. eaglesoars
    27 | April 5, 2012 11:03 pm

    @ refugee000:

    Of course not. Either her husband or her son or both together killed her. That’s been obvious from the beginning.

    @ coldwarrior:

    I hate you. :lol:

    @ doriangrey:

    I’m not in the business of deciphering that. But I went back to the letter and I think you’re right. Here is the arrogance:

    The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionali y of federal legislation.

    If I don’t tell you to do it…..

    bed time. nite everyone


  28. 29 | April 5, 2012 11:09 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    @ doriangrey:

    I’m not in the business of deciphering that. But I went back to the letter and I think you’re right. Here is the arrogance:

    The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionali y of federal legislation.

    If I don’t tell you to do it…..

    This is the same asshole who wasn’t aware that his own Justice Department was supplying Guns to Mexican Drug Cartels and was responsible for killing two American Law Enforcement Officers and hundreds, perhaps even thousands of innocent Mexican Citizens.


  29. unclassifiable
    30 | April 5, 2012 11:11 pm

    The justices and their staff are going to spend more time reviewing this law than the reps from Holder and Obama’s own party.

    What a load.


  30. unclassifiable
    31 | April 5, 2012 11:14 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Now don’t go changing the subject.

    The question is not Holder’s competence but the fact that he channels the demigod’s wisdom so faithfully.

    I hope these fascist get the bitch-slapping of the millennium.


  31. 32 | April 5, 2012 11:17 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    Now don’t go changing the subject.
    The question is not Holder’s competence but the fact that he channels the demigod’s wisdom so faithfully.
    I hope these fascist get the bitch-slapping of the millennium.

    Oh, I suspect it is indeed coming. Not just with the ruling that Obamacare in Unconstitutional, but also with, if the rumors prove to be correct that Kagen informed the Whitehouse of the informal vote results, but also Kagens impeachment from the SCOTUS.


  32. yenta-fada
    33 | April 5, 2012 11:18 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Your interpretation is exactly what I took from Holder’s ‘homework’ excusing the President’s disrespect of the Supreme Court. I think the Judge who assigned the letter will see it clearly as the eff you that\
    it is.


  33. yenta-fada
    34 | April 5, 2012 11:28 pm

    MY DAD IS A DANCER

    One day a fourth-grade teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living.

    All the typical answers came up: fireman,mechanic, businessman, salesman… and so forth. However, lttle Justin was being uncharacteristically quiet, so when the teacher prodded him about his father, he replied, “My father’s an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes to music in front of other men and they put money in his underwear. Sometimes, if the offer is really good, he will go home with some guy and stay with him all night for money.”

    The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some exercises and took little Justin aside to ask him, “Is that really true about your father?” “No,” the boy said, “He works for the Democratic National Committee and is helping to get Obama re-elected, but it is just too embarrassing to say that in front of the other kids.”


  34. waldensianspirit
    35 | April 5, 2012 11:28 pm

    Don Cheadle rips NBC for Zimmerman 911 tape

    One of the few actors who can think for themselves


  35. coldwarrior
    36 | April 5, 2012 11:30 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:

    I hate you. :lol:

    cheers!


  36. 37 | April 5, 2012 11:35 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    eaglesoars wrote:
    @ coldwarrior:
    I hate you.
    cheers!

    Oh… there’s the wimpy beer drinker himself… :razz:


  37. unclassifiable
    38 | April 5, 2012 11:42 pm

    WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING COKE!


  38. unclassifiable
    39 | April 5, 2012 11:46 pm

    @ unclassifiable:

    OR BETTER YET!


  39. coldwarrior
    40 | April 6, 2012 12:04 am

    doriangrey wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    eaglesoars wrote:
    @ coldwarrior:
    I hate you.
    cheers!

    Oh… there’s the wimpy beer drinker himself…

    if i want to drink something that tastes all bitter i’ll go back to SA and have more ayawaska

    then i would go back to burning man


  40. coldwarrior
    41 | April 6, 2012 12:11 am

    doriangrey wrote:

    wimpy beer drinker

    and as a true hunky i will not drink a beer unless i have a shot with it.

    it was imperial and iron here traditionally in the steel city.

    i am happy with a shot of titos and a guinness


  41. coldwarrior
    42 | April 6, 2012 12:15 am

    i’m makin orderves outta some steak strips, sea weed salad, kalamata olives, and old I tie cheese. with some garlic olive oil and a nice red.


  42. coldwarrior
    43 | April 6, 2012 12:17 am


  43. coldwarrior
    44 | April 6, 2012 12:32 am

    SLICE!!!


  44. Poteen
    45 | April 6, 2012 12:32 am

    mawskrat wrote:

    yah think this guy may have a drinkin problem///
    Ohio man found guilty of 19th drunken driving charge

    Knew a guy some years back who had 15 arrests, 5 convictions over his life. No collisions, knew the cops by name, had a lawyer on retainer. Finally lost his drivers license permanently. Flew 727s for 6 more years until he retired.


  45. AZfederalist
    46 | April 6, 2012 12:35 am

    Beer goggles are more likely to fool women than men, according to a new study.

    I thought that Mythbusters did this a few years ago. Don’t remember what the result was.


  46. coldwarrior
    47 | April 6, 2012 12:37 am

    AZfederalist wrote:

    Beer goggles are more likely to fool women than men, according to a new study.
    I thought that Mythbusters did this a few years ago. Don’t remember what the result was.

    drunks in bars make bad decisions?


  47. AZfederalist
    48 | April 6, 2012 12:46 am

    yenta-fada wrote:

    @ doriangrey:

    Your interpretation is exactly what I took from Holder’s ‘homework’ excusing the President’s disrespect of the Supreme Court. I think the Judge who assigned the letter will see it clearly as the eff you that\
    it is.

    … and the hits keep coming. Seems someone started looking up the cases cited in the Holder letter. Something apparently isn’t working, the person at this site thinks these may be briefs and not court decisions, which might be consistent with the demand to show the government’s position on the assumption of constitutionality.

    Cite

    Comments


  48. Poteen
    49 | April 6, 2012 12:47 am

    AZfederalist wrote:

    I thought that Mythbusters did this a few years ago. Don’t remember what the result was.

    Higher incidence of profit for local motels.


  49. AZfederalist
    50 | April 6, 2012 12:52 am

    coldwarrior wrote:

    drunks in bars make bad decisions?

    Well, yeah, but they were trying to evaluate the beer goggles thing and compare men and women. Heineman and Savage drank with Carrie. At various times, they went through a group of pictures of the opposite sex and rated attractiveness. For a while, Carrie (the female) did exhibit beer goggles more than the guys because she was “feeling sorry” for some of the men in the pictures. IIRC, when she got more inebriated however, she became somewhat more vicious. However, it’s been several years since I saw the episode, so my memory might be faulty


  50. Canoe Convoy
    51 | April 6, 2012 1:27 am

    This is news? I guess it would be news to those who are arrogant enough to think that only one gender has beer goggles. Heh — Think again !!


  51. Alberta Oil Peon
    52 | April 6, 2012 3:08 am

    @ Bumr50:
    I ate at an Arby’s…once. Their so-called “roast beef” is some kind of pressed squeegee meat, steamed and sliced thinly. It simply does not have anything approaching the texture or flavor of even a mediocre roast of beef.


  52. 53 | April 6, 2012 4:44 am

    Alberta Oil Peon wrote:

    @ Bumr50:
    I ate at an Arby’s…once. Their so-called “roast beef” is some kind of pressed squeegee meat, steamed and sliced thinly. It simply does not have anything approaching the texture or flavor of even a mediocre roast of beef.

    Yeah, but at least the slices have an iridescent sheen…

    What’s up with that?


  53. mawskrat
    54 | April 6, 2012 7:59 am

    @ coldwarrior:

    drunks in bars make bad decisions?

    LOL,,,,went home with a ten and woke up with a two

    and Good Mornin All…..make it a great day!


  54. mawskrat
    55 | April 6, 2012 8:11 am

    so the convent where my wife works is cutting back on
    holiday pay. today is a paid holiday and she gets double
    time and a half for sunday but they cut out monday as
    a paid holiday…..times are tuff>LOL


  55. 56 | April 6, 2012 6:46 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    teh beer goggle musta been how i landed mrs coldwarrior.

    I don’t know what you look like, but somehow I doubt that this is the case. There’s a saying that “men love with their eyes, women love with their ears”. Looks are less important to women than communication skills.


  56. 57 | April 6, 2012 6:47 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    Alberta Oil Peon wrote:
    @ Bumr50:
    I ate at an Arby’s…once. Their so-called “roast beef” is some kind of pressed squeegee meat, steamed and sliced thinly. It simply does not have anything approaching the texture or flavor of even a mediocre roast of beef.
    Yeah, but at least the slices have an iridescent sheen…
    What’s up with that?

    I don’t know what they actually are, but I find the sandwiches quite edible with Arby’s “horsey sauce”. I consider them a source of not-too-expensive protein and iron.


  57. 58 | April 6, 2012 6:48 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    AZfederalist wrote:
    Beer goggles are more likely to fool women than men, according to a new study.
    I thought that Mythbusters did this a few years ago. Don’t remember what the result was.

    drunks in bars make bad decisions?

    Drunks anywhere make bad decisions.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David