QUIET, bespectacled female librarians really do go like a bloody train, it was confirmed last night.
According to researchers at the Institute for Studies, the tweed skirts and sensible glasses of intelligent, bookish women are nothing more than a flimsy facade concealing a smouldering volcano of hot, undiluted filth.
Professor Henry Brubaker said: “We have finally confirmed that women who look as if butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths could actually suck a tangerine through a keyhole.
“While a simple-minded shop girl is perfectly suited for a perfunctory knee-trembler behind some bins, if it’s eye-boggling three-way genital branding you’re after, get yourself along to a poetry recital.”
But Brubaker’s research has come under fire from his peers, who claim it was nothing more than a ruse allowing him to say dirty things to clever women.
Professor Julian Cook, of the Studying Institute, said: “He claims to be researching the link between intelligence and intimacy but the next thing we know he’s trooping female historians into his office and asking them if they’ve ever used a ball gag.”
Tom Logan, a sexual intercourse enthusiast from Finsbury Park, said: “Are you telling me that just because Anne Widdecombe’s got a degree in Latin that somehow makes her better at sex than Kelly Brook? I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that for a second.”
Brubaker defended his research methods, insisting: “It is perfectly valid to ask women what sort of freaky shit they got up to at Cambridge and whether or not they think I’m good looking.”
Astro-physicist Dr Nikki Hollis said: “I was slightly concerned when he asked me how long I could keep my ankles behind my ears. A quiet, bespectacled women like me is not used to hearing that kind of thing.
“And it’s 45 minutes, in case you were wondering.”
