Gagging On It. Scientists Who Love Female Submissives

The sweet smell of submission, euh science.

"Rescue yourself" [from the evil scientist.]" Don't wait for Prince Charming to [remove your gag and] kiss you", Keira Knightly says.

Yes, it's science time again. From the producers, ahum researchers, who brought you the instant classic "Empathy in female submissive BDSM practitioners", comes a new study. This one is so impressive it's open access. Just read that title:

"Embodiment and Humiliation Moderation of Neural Responses to Others' Suffering in Female Submissive BDSM Practitioners"

Don't fall for my sarcasm, open access means no grown-up science journal is interested. Makes sense because experts in the field basically think it's crap. They phrased it slightly different, but that's how they explain it to you and me.

Give a girl a gag and something in her brain happens that otherwise wouldn't occur. Probably. Neurodoctor and pseudonymous science blogger Neurosceptic explains how "the ball gag design is essentially a sexed-up version of the famous “pen-in-the-mouth” psychology experiments."

For me, that's all I need to know. There is far better fake science out there. What about "Newer Tools to Fight Inter-Galactic Parasites and Their Transmissibility in Zyrgion Simulation?" Now that's real hardcore pseudo science. In this paper, leading scientist Beth Smith lays out research describing a new method to fight those terrible parasites that live by implanting false memories in their hosts. OK, if you're thinking Rick and Morty now, congratulations, you're right.

Even funnier is an article in the New York Times about three scientists who managed to get a number of completely made-up scientific papers published. To ordinary people it shows there is something wrong in the land of the learned. Academics, however, are divided. While some applaud the hoaxers' actions, others scream bloody murder, protesting "this is unethical." You would too if your [fake] job is on the line.

Happy gag.

Always eager to serve, I've condensed the New York Times article into a quick 'n' easy intelligence test.

Question 1:
You are the editor of Cogent Social Science. Without having read it, would you accept a paper called: "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct?" YES/NO?

Question 2:
Is it wise to pay for a study on why men like Hooters (an adult "theme" restaurant :) if the explanation is right in front of you? YES/NO?

Question 3:

Happy gag? Probably.

If you do believe there is a simple explanation for the previous question, read these difficult [scientific] words: “thematic analysis of table dialogue (in breastaurants).” Money wise spent? Before you answer, also take the following into consideration. The paper identifies themes of “sexual objectification, sexual conquest, male control of women, masculine toughness, and (as a minor theme) rationalizations for why men frequent breastaurants.” I'll ask you again, is it money well spent? YES/NO?

Question 4:
The writing in a quality science paper must be impossible to understand. Example: “human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity” at dog parks in Portland, Ore. YES/NO?

If you answered yes more than zero times, congratulations, you have a bright future in pseudo-science ahead of you. The rest of us meanwhile can't stop wondering why researchers Siyang Luo and Xiao Zhang are drooling over the combination of self-inflicted humiliation and scientific research. Oh boy, did I just discover a new fetish?


---

Bonus

• Some extra, highly relevant research material because gags are cool. Sorry, I mean science is.