Mmmmmmmmmmm such a nice image to see when getting read for work. You are the sweetest advice chick on earth!

Oh, there are words up there too. Hold on.

MY GAWD! This seems to be a case of coastal brain poisoning!

Aren't ugly people almost guaranteed the "right" to be naked in CA? Now hot people can't be shown at all?

Same thing with religious items, they can only be displayed if covered in fecies or urine, apparently.

How about that smoking business? You can smoke whatever you like in any public place EXCEPT tobacco.

Amy, you live in a strange place.

I was gonna come up with a snappy comment to this posting...something that would have my wife doing the Mr. Spock eyebrow thing. Guy pretty much beat me to the punch.

Um...yeah. This bloody state is strange.

Amy, I saw this story last night and knew you'd be all over it.

[borrowing Leftist 'discussion' technique]

Why is Santa Monica so racist and sexist? It is obvious that they are censoring any image of a black woman that does not involve her as a servant. If they support censorship and slavery why don't they just say so?

[end Leftist 'discussion' technique]

Now, back to reality, I am having wild images dancing in my head of these women bound in booths at McDonald's being force fed Big Macs by the angry townspeople to "cure" the ladies of their wrong-headed self image.

Wait - now being hot is insensitive to the community?

Or is this just more pandering to the Islamists who hate women so much that they cannot bear the sight of an attractive woman without going into a murderous rage?

Or is this just more pandering to the Islamists who hate women so much that they cannot bear the sight of an attractive woman without going into a murderous rage?

I think it has more to do with insecure and/or ugly women who want to eliminate compitetion from hot women by any means necessary.

I remember something from around 1993/1994 where a sports related shop had added a rock climbing wall. The information mailed to the folks in the area had the image of a woman climbing the wall. Well toned, well defined, lean and pretty, in proper summer rock climbing gear.

Some 'womens' group had a fit about it calling the woman anorexic, almost naked and saying the image was bordering on pornographic! I forgot if the store caved or not.

"Aren't ugly people almost guaranteed the "right" to be naked in CA? Now hot people can't be shown at all?"

*snork*snork*snork* ... Well that is no lie! Why is it okay for the tubbies to walk around in belly tops with their muffins hanging out, but you can't even look at a PICTURE of someone you might actually want to see in a belly top? Those swimsuits were really pretty modest, too.

Amy is damn right - the fatsos need to just lose their extra weight and stop thinking that bitching about the skinny people is going to help. These are probably the same women who freak out if their husbands look at the Playboy website.

These are probably the same women who freak out if their husbands look at the Playboy website.

Or mates of the other sex too.

In DC I always get a chuckle when the Leftist cause women do little makeout session street theater in front of the counter-protestors as if we would be upset seeing women kiss. It would be better if they looked like the women above, or at least shave their pits.

I dont consider myself ugly, but by no means do I have a body like those women. Yes, Im envious of them, but I dont mind seeing that picture! I dont look like them because Im too busy to work out and Im lazy. Im not going to try and take it out on them. My job is to sit behind a computer at work all day and then go home and be a wife and mom. Thier job is to keep thier body in shape, and do whatever it is that models do. That's thier career we are messing with! And the friends I run with arent supermodels either but we all like leafing through magazines and seeing pretty women and talking about how we wish we had thier legs and maybe one day we will go to the gym. I think you stereotyped the fatsos! I bet you a variety of people complained.

I agree with Amber. I'm in no way shape or form as sexy as those women. Yes, looking at them makes me realize everything that I'm not, but that's all my own fault. Its not like they're up there in a big orgy. They're modeling and advertising a television show. You can see women wearing less that that any evening of the week when you turn on the television. Give it a rest, people. If you want to get pissed over somthing get pissed over somthing worth while. If this advertisement is the only thing that you have to get annoyed over, be thankful. (See, Amy? Not all fatsos are complete half-wits!)

I think the complaining about stuff like this is lead by the women who feel bad about their bodies because they don't look very good, and think they deserve a world that fits their personal psychological needs. The rest are just following the Pied Piper.

Before this gets out of hand: I'm not against fat people particularly - just people of any weight who want to control the environment of the rest of us to meet their personal psychological needs.

"I'm not against fat people particularly - just people of any weight who want to control the environment of the rest of us to meet their personal psychological needs."

Telepathic insight!
That's the ticket!

This makes me wonder what is next. Women who look like models abound in Santa Monica; you'll see them any time you walk along Main Street or Montana. Should they be banned as well?

I'm curious, though. Where's the fat people stuff coming from? I figure this is more likely to be the result of either paleo-feminist thinking that women shouldn't be seen as sexy, or reactionary parents thinking that children should never see hot women in bikinis.

It's not just fat women -- it's women who don't care to take care of themselves or don't fit the beauty ideal who figure that the beauty ideal should be stamped out to make them feel better. Fatsos was just shorthand. But, there are certain marching orders of the PC crowd -- what must not be -- and they are applied to the lives of the rest of us. Feminism as fundamentalism is still fundamentalism.

Dear Political Correctness Club, California Edition:

You should consider looking into eugenics. That science would give you the power to create true genetic equality. So that no person's DNA would result in a truly breath taking specimen who could , gasp, actually make money by displaying her physical attributes as opposed to getting a degree and working at boring jobs like the rest of us schmucks. Go ahead, create a society of people who look the same and have the same IQ. You should probably work on bringing down capitalism - the evil mechanism that allows people to make money doing something that has no actual "social value" (arguable...).

Or, you could stop feeling sorry for yourself and either 1) be satisfied with who you are, in opposition of the big bad society that perpetuates the powers of being pretty or 2) get off your fat ass and work out like I do 4 times a week (and I'm still no size 4 stick figure - although I'm tall enough to be a model). Then stop eating crap. If that doesn't work, have your thyroid checked.

There will always be "ugly" people and "pretty" people - we're biologically hard wired to recognize different facial features and register them as being one or the other. If you want to wage a war with mother nature, go for it, but for chrissakes, don't drag everyone down with you. Go get a PhD or something to make yourself feel better, it's healthier than a Snickers.

Bottom line, quit ya bitchin'.

Yours Truly,
President of the Anti-PC Club, Boston Edition

"If you want to wage a war with mother nature, go for it, but for chrissakes, don't drag everyone down with you."

Sorry to disappoint you, Gretchen.

But glossily airbrushed bikini babes in a retro jungle pose on huge billboards are the ones "at war" with mother nature. Get some spectacles!

And P.S, I personally enjoy half naked, buff men. My boyfriend (who has a delectable body) complains that he feels pressure to "fit the mold" in order to be attractive. Well - welcome to the world of women. It's a struggle; I want to be "attractive" but I am also educated and hopefully a nice and caring person.

There's obviously a lot more to my boyfriend than his pecks (he's the smartest and most motivated person I know - but also the most modest and compassionate, how I nabbed him I'll never know). However, I feel no shame in admiring delicious male bodies or telling my boyfriend that I think he has a sexy one - sex appeal and outward appearance is just one aspect of a person we look at. It just so happens to be the first thing we see.

Physical appearance appeals to our more animalisic, instinctual selves.

"But glossily airbrushed bikini babes in a retro jungle pose on huge billboards are the ones "at war" with mother nature. Get some spectacles!"

I'd look pretty hot, too, if I got paid to work out everyday and had an entourage of make up artists and the like.

Looking like those models is one part DNA, and one part computer editing. Thanks for pointing that out - I actually don't live under a rock. How those women get to the way they look is actually irrelevant. The average woman can put in the effort but the result obviously won't look like the above. All the plastic surgery in the world wouldn't get me to a size 6, I have these things called "hips" and they're not going anywhere.

At the same time, should I be offended by the picture? Should I demand that women not be allowed to look like that on a billboard? No - the PC Police are high and mighty. They think that sexuality and attractiveness are somehow anti-woman. That's the point I was trying to get across.

And I'm 99% confident that no spectacles would find a flaw on that billboard - the computer airbrushing person would get fired.

I'll tell you what's objectionable about that picture. Not one of them is smiling! Bitchy is a turnoff. What kind of marketing retard doesn't know that everyone looks better when they smile?

But glossily airbrushed bikini babes in a retro jungle pose on huge billboards are the ones "at war" with mother nature.

On the contrary, what we consider beauty indicates fertility: youth, clear skin, hourglass figure, facial symmetry, etc.

It's not at war with "mother nature" -- it's in perfect alignment with it. In general, above all, men prefer beautiful women and women go for men who seem they could be good providers -- whether or not they want kids. In the Pleistocene, when the adaptations that still rule us evolved, you didn't need to want children. If you had sex, chances are you'd have kids. Birth control is what's called "evolutionarily novel." Our evolved adaptations don't know it exists.

"Our evolved adaptations don't know it exists."

With respect, Amy: that statement is utterly bone-headed.

Our understanding of evolving adaptations is in its infancy - not a closed book!

The complaint is a nonissue. It has no merit.

The real issue is the person or persons raising the complaint. Does the world have to suffer based on their psychological insecurities?

What really irritates me is the level of debate on this particular issue found in various tv news programs. Even the people defending the advertisement. The usual defenses of 'what harm does it?' or 'live and let live.' The real target should be the person or group that raises the complaint in the first place. Place them on the defensive. What are their insecurities? What is the threat to society from a billboard? Compare it to real threats. Not imaginary threats.

The people behind these complaints hide behind movements, but the real goals is to have everyone else share in their discomfort and to have society legitimize their emotional problems.

Damn, those women are gorgeous. I'll never look like them - my genes are working against me, and even if I were to undergo extensive plastic surgery, current science couldn't do much about my thick leg bones. But I greatly enjoy looking at pretty people, male or female...plus, I know they won't look like that forever. MWA HAH HAH.

"On the contrary, what we consider beauty indicates fertility: youth, clear skin, hourglass figure, facial symmetry, etc."
Yes...although I'd say the super-skinny look present among certain actresses and other celebrities doesn't indicate fertility. However, I've noticed that generally guys don't like quasi-anorexics - a description, I hasten to add, that would not apply to any of the women in the ad posted above. I'm thinking more of the Kate Bosworth/Nicole Richie types.

""Our evolved adaptations don't know it exists."

With respect, Amy: that statement is utterly bone-headed.

Because you don't understand doesn't mean it's wrong.

It's quite correct.

Why do women seek "Big Men On Campus" even when they have their own money and power? The "theory of structural powerlessness" -- the notion that women only go for powerful men because they lack power, has been proved wrong. Powerful women go for more powerful men -- it's in their genes to do so. That's just one example. Jodi, in general, I don't spout off about things I don't know. I read about this stuff every day, and get appreciative e-mails from researchers in the field for getting the facts right in my column.

And the thread winners are:

Amber - hottie name

Gretchen - "Its not like they're up there in a big orgy." inspired the best mental picture

Casca - "I'll tell you what's objectionable about that picture. Not one of them is smiling! Bitchy is a turnoff." LOL! I bet you look for plots in porn movies too!

Probably some others, but I went back and looked at the picture and forgot them.

Mewonders if there would have been such an issue with the locals if an almost identical ad was displayed for a drag show?

People who use the real mother nature label are in denial themselves. Everyone of us defies our genetic fates. Even the so called close to nature crowd.

What was attractive for early homo sapiens would be considered different now. There are similarities that still exist, but the concept of good healthy mates varies over the centuries.

"That's just one example. Jodi, in general, I don't spout off about things I don't know."

You do, actually.

It's in your Amy-genes! (So it's not your fault).

Joe,
I'll defer to Amy in taking apart this (largely innacurate) comment:

What was attractive for early homo sapiens would be considered different now. There are similarities that still exist, but the concept of good healthy mates varies over the centuries.

Bitchy is a turnoff. It can be kinda hot, too. There's lots of ways to be hot - a smiling, all-American girl is only one.

Justin,

Ever watch a runway show? Are the models smiling?

Sorry, Justin. I meant Casca. Multi taksing again.

One of my fans reminds me that Undeniable Truth #24 is still alive.

It's a show about modelling, so one would expect them to use an airbrushed, photoshopped image (and this one so obviously is). Hey, I'll even cop to watching ANTM on occasion; it's such a train wreck. (You hate yourself for looking but somehow you just can't turn away.) Also makes me glad to be in my late 40's instead of my early 20's. Wouldn't go back to all that youthful mishegoss for all of the brie in France.

And yes, I think the protest is silly.

I'm sure that some twisted souls like bitchy women, not me.

Justin,

Inaccurate statement? How is it inaccurate?

What is considered the 'big man' on campus varies over centuries.

An example:

Does Paul Allen have the attributes of the classic alpha male of the 'big man' of the cave? How is his 'alpha ness' measured? Remember, he is currently dating Laura Harring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg

Paul is on the front row extreme right, between the ladies.

Models don't smile because you aren't supposed to notice them - you're supposed to notice THE CLOTHES.

And Amy - the concept you're looking for is "Women don't date beneath their perceived position". Which is why there are so many thirty-something career women who are single, childless, and lamenting the lack of acceptable men. The definition of "acceptable" is fluid, and in general a highly ambitious career woman is only going to be attracted to an even more ambitions career man. Unfortunately for her, that career man isn't interested in her, he's interested in the aerobics instructor at the gym because he doesn't have to compete with her.

My little girl saw that ad and this was her response: Mama, can I have one, please? She thought they were Barbie dolls and was floored when I told her they were real people. So they're princesses then, she asked.

Even as a proud mama and someone who calls herself a feminist, this ad doesn't offend me. There are gorgeous women in the world who are made even more beautiful with special effects, big surprise. And they're wearing more clothes than many people around here do on a hot summer day.

So there you have it, a Santa Monica feminist who agrees with you. Savor the moment.

On the other hand, those Norbit ads bug me. Every time my girl sees one she shouts out "BIG TUSHY" or "BIG BOOBIES." It's not something I'd want her to see if I had a say in it.

Oh, Amy, you might not remember this tidbit from last year, but Passover is fast approaching and at least the kosher markets will soon have Coke/Pepsi with real sugar in stock. On the West Side you can try Glatt Kosher Market on Santa Monica and Barrington, I think.

Air brushing is not required. Just a corset and some thigh high boots with 5" heels can do wonders for over 69% of all "not perfect" bodies.

Haha, you are so right, Amy. As we all know, there are only two kinds of human societies--those where everyone walks around in bikinis all day, and those who keep women locked in their houses in burqas. And if you're not with us, you're against us.

Joe,
Amy knows this stuff better than me, but here are some reasons that research suggests your statement was inaccurate. Fundamental components of what is attractive are pretty stable over time (These are off the top of my head, so I could be wrong about details). What has pretty much always been attractive to men in women are indices of fertility and health. These include such things as waist-hip ratio (about .70),youthfulness, bilateral symmetry, etc. Whereas women tend to seek men who are likely to be good providers, and as such appear to value status, power, and resources (read: money) more than strict physical appearance and age. Some of the details change - today's hotties are slimmer than those of the 1950's, but there is a high degree of consistency in the basics.

My November 2001 experience at the Burbank airport was close to what we are seeing in the ANTM picture above. I sometimes thought I was seeing airbrushed/photoshopped women in real life.

The distinct style of dress there could easily be called painted on.

It was deliteful.

Yes...although I'd say the super-skinny look present among certain actresses and other celebrities doesn't indicate fertility.

David Buss (I believe it was Buss) found that while men prefer a .7 WHR (waist-to-hip ratio - per Dev Singh's work), which is an hourglass figure, basically, they want whatever body shape is "high-status" in a culture. What shape is high status corresponds to the availability of food in that culture. In a culture where food is readily available, like ours, thin women are preferred. In the Kalahari, the supermodels all have gigantic asses. Well, if there were supermodels, they'd be big mamas.

More evidence of Amy's position can be found in any gallery of really old art. Rosie would have been too boney by those standards.

You folks who grew up in the odd-speaking parts of the USA may not know the term "you are looking fat", but it is a compliment going back to the days of scarce food. Now the term is no longer literal.

I think the youngsters in cartain musical arts use a similar term now and spell it "phat" or something like that.

Justin,

I agree with Amy's points. I'm also a scientist-researcher that specializes in enhanced immunology therapies. If she wrote an article with an inaccuracy... I would have emailed her about it. It has never happened. It is the other reason why I enjoy her advice column, because she uses evolutionary biology to back up her views. She stands apart from the traditional Ann Landers clones. Biology plays an important role in relationships. I’ve known this since my early teens. But sadly, many of my ex-girlfriends disagreed.

Our status symbols change over the centuries, because our ever changing civilization. Nature and nurture play an important part. One doesn't completely surpass the other. Most people believe it is 50/50, but in my view its more 55/45.

Why were large women more attractive in the past centuries? Famines and food shortages were quite common. So very shapely women were considered healthy and attractive. When was the US last major food shortage or famine? What will humans consider healthy and attractive in 500 years?

Another change in society deals with our sweet tooth. There is an evolutionary purpose for all of us having one. In the past it was quite rare to eat something sweet. Now with 24 hour convenience stores and fast food restaurants at every corner. Our desire for something sweet can lead to obesity and diabetes.

The Paul Allen types were the tool makers of the early homo sapiens. As our society becomes more sci-tech dependent the need for more tool makers will in some cases surpass the traditional alpha males.

Another change in society deals with our sweet tooth. There is an evolutionary purpose for all of us having one. In the past it was quite rare to eat something sweet. Now with 24 hour convenience stores and fast food restaurants at every corner. Our desire for something sweet can lead to obesity and diabetes.

Again, an example of adaptations backfiring on us in an "evolutionarily novel" environment (the one in which we live).

Since there was no real wealth in the stone age, there's the hypothesis (by many researchers) that women went after POTENTIAL in a man. The ability to protect her was important, of course, but a man who has abilities can trade for protection, and is valuable to the group -- that's worth something.

Joe,
I also appreciate the fact that Amy's interested in using research in her advice as well as the intuition that all advice writers need. I have a Cognitive Psych Ph.D. I'm passingly familiar with evolutionary psych issues but my specialties are memory and language. It sounds like I was somewhat off here in not recognizing the role of situational factors in attractiveness, and only really recalled the stable physical features revealed by the Singh research. As is always the case, the reality turns out to be more complicated.

> while men prefer a .7 WHR...

It the whole of human history, no rhetor has held a datum as close and dear as you hold that one.

'Zup widdat? Seriously, what's the deal?

It's good data, and culturally invariant (meaning it showed up in cultures around the world -- even those without television), and something too few women realize. If you want a man to be attracted to you, wear clothes that reveal (or fake) a waist.

Same as, with men, if you want a woman to be attracted to you, have a job; ideally, one where you make good money and/or are doing something important and are a Big Man On Campus.

With a clap of thunder and a flash of insight, the course of history and texture of human relations now pivot violently into chaotic new outcomes as I modestly present an electrifying alternative to your advice: Offer people something ELSE that they want, let them do the math, and have faith your needs will get met.

Just thinkin' out loud here. There's more to life than WTH ratios... Can you cook? Got good friends? Are you sober in a world of drunks? Is your stepdad working in the business I want to make a living in? Do you have a nice rack, good teeth, or thick hair? Are we expats of the same origin?

Too much data, Crid.

Just keep your tubes honeymoon fresh!

Women still go for "potential", just listen to Loveline. They (callers) sound hotter than Amber. As Adam Carolla used to say "The poster boy for 'potential' is Ted Kazinsky."

Women really do go for money, as exagerated in a Seinfeld episode where Elaine was mezmerized by Jerry counting off cash. I think he bought his father a Cadillac in that episode.

Anyway, I don't like the hint of "gold digger", guess I am kind of a wuss in wanting women to like me for me. When I got a good job I would tell DC area chicks I worked at 7-11 and they said I was lieing. I said I worked in the back because I spoke English.

Yea, I guess that was "bad" but it was a good weeding technique. Got some bad ones but it turned away the horrible ones.

Back to the ANTM thing, I was speaking to a VERY hot and bright waitress, who I am familiar with, and told her about this story. She thought it was BIZARRE. I seriously told her that she was not on the show because she was hotter than Tyra (she is) and she was so bashful and said she wished that were true.

She is athletic too and thinks steroids are out of control. I agree, but was way ahead with getting my child into academics rather than sports.

Wow, that was a twisting stream. Sorry Amy!

I didn't give too much data, it was just a horribly mixed metaphor! Again. Every time Amy shops this factoid I go apeshit. There are a quadrillion gazillion factors that get computed when people match up, and to focus on any one as being some determinative is nutty.

Also, what are honeymoon-fresh tubes?

Photoshop is everywhere, and the Internets are full of examples of composite photographs of women's faces that are supposed to illuminate the universality of this or that. But all you ever see is that she has reasonably pretty eyes and good skin (almost always Caucasian, but I think that just speaks to who can afford a copy of Photoshop CS 2 nowadays). If you took one of those composite girls, put her in some blue jeans and dropped her into a guy's freshman orientation group at the University, or put her in uniform at Burger King, guys would probably fall in love with her. But so what? People respond to youth, and health and... And in real life, that's about as much as you can predict.

There are a lot of weirdly shaped women and desperately poor men who are out there making babies, even as we speak.

Women really do go for money, as exagerated in a Seinfeld episode where Elaine was mezmerized by Jerry counting off cash. I think he bought his father a Cadillac in that episode.

You're using a TV character to make a point about what real women do/want/think is hot shit?

I've never been attracted to the BMOC types. Too full of themselves. One of the nice things about being financially independent is that I've never had to look at a man as a meal ticket.

And I agree with Crid here that what constitues the kind of attraction that goes beyond the first date (or screw) is far more complicated and individual than can be relayed in a formula. We've all known one of those "what does he/she see in her/him???" relationships.

Well, I for one have no real rack to speak of, but do have a killer waist-hip ratio, so I'm all for Amy's side in this dust-up. But yes, attraction is a strange, strange thing.

Amy,

Sorry to go OT, but how's Cathy doing? Over at CW the natives are getting anxious. Thanks!

Hi, Bradley, I'm actually at Cathy's now. She's okay, but tired today from chemo yesterday, and she says just not up to posting anything right now. (Told her you asked.)

Amy

That's all we needed to know! Sorry to bug you and her, and we'll try to play nice at CW.

You're using a TV character to make a point about what real women do/want/think is hot shit?

No, I was just using that as a generality.

Marion sounds like a robo hottie to me. I am a small rack admirer.

I've never been attracted to the BMOC types. Too full of themselves. One of the nice things about being financially independent is that I've never had to look at a man as a meal ticket

I'm the same way, but let me clarify something -- BMOC doesn't necessarily mean one of those rich, flashy, assholes. It means somebody who's doing something, who has something going on -- Paul Allen is a BMOC. For me, a BMOC is somebody who's doing something exciting with their life who's a person I respect and admire.

Good studies are better than that, Crid. And I use the good studies and ignore the bad ones.

Hey, back off, Guy, Marion's mine! I don't know that I'm a small-boob fan, but I'm definately a small-waist-big-round-butt fan, and her previous comments show that we're obviously meant to be together.
(Walks to full-wall window, hands behind back) "Soon, my pet....sooooon...."

cat brother,

I suppose that is a butt-whippin' I am going to have to take.

Besides, I bet she likes my cooking better than yours and I have the coolest 'hybrid' in Crystal City, VA.

You would definately win in the car arena, Guy, as I drive a 94' Toyota POS, but I am ready for duelling stir-fries, or penne with vodka sauce.

Cooking? Mmmm, cooking.

"BMOC doesn't necessarily mean one of those rich, flashy, assholes. It means somebody who's doing something, who has something going on"

Indeed. I've come to the conclusion that, from a cold, hard, evo-bio point of view, the worst mate after a guy looking to bilk me out of my life savings so that he can support his seven kids with seven women is a guy in an ostensibly high-paying career who keeps screwing his jobs up through self-destructive behavior. Very bad from an emotional and a financial point of view - when you work in a field that demands that you have a critical mass of suits, drive a certain car, etc. etc., and you not-infrequently lose jobs, your financial picture is not good. I think of this whenever I read letters to advice columnists from young women saying, "I work hard and I want a nice life; what's wrong with prioritizing that in a mate?" That's not evil or anything, but what's more important that immediate earning power is personality. Someone with the right personality - like a Paul Allen - has tons of potential. What women should really be looking for is not the guy driving the sports car, but instead the guy who's reliable. Unfortunately, for *some* women, flashy signals override common sense...

For me, a BMOC is somebody who's doing something exciting with their life who's a person I respect and admire.

OK, then we're in agreement, just those pesky definitions getting in the way again. "BMOC" for me conjures images of obnoxious frat boys, or Wolfe's "Big Swinging Dick" types (Bonfire of the Vanities). Flash a Rolex and I head in the other direction.

ut oh . . .

I wear custom suits and shirts to work four days/week. The cowboy boots are off the shelf though. No Rolex (I don't like them), I wear a stainless 1963 Bulova Accutron Astronut.

Oh, and I have just been picked up for a new project, waiting for the customer to approve. Long story, but my last customer was the first one in 14 years of Defense Contracting who wanted me off of a contract.

Good news! No "flashy" sports cars, just a 1972 Dodge Charger and a 1996 Jeep Cherokee. The Cherokee has a butt kickin stereo too. Wanna check it out?

Plus more carbon credits than any human could possibly use :)

"OK, then we're in agreement, just those pesky definitions getting in the way again..."

And this is one of the reasons Ev. Psych often staggers around in circles.

It aspires to classifications (so that it sounds sciencey) - then relies on context to justify the classifications - for the purpose of bestselling books.

So MY Big Man on Campus might be radically different from yours, but they might both be described as "someone who's doing something exciting with their life."

Which might - or might not be - something your granny could have told you anyway about picking a decent guy.

duelling stir-fries, or penne with vodka sauce?

Sorry, I don't have a pink apron.

Slow cooked marinara sauce from whole peeled canned tomatoes, Italian sausage rigatoni, lasagna, grilled chicken chili, custom macaroni & cheese (with bacon).

Oh yea, bacon, eggs and toast breakfast. But you won’t be there for that.

I make a positively wicked Thai curry - beef panaeng - but cat brother is all into marion's Kool-aid now. (*sulks*)

Not sure what a pink apron has to do with either stir-fry or vodka penne, but if I decide to wear one, I'll carry it off.

Guy's definately got better cars, and a more expensive watch. I use a Timex (!) Atlantis, as I like the timer that goes down to the second for sprints and various activities.

Polo shirts and comfortable pants to work, as I have to demonstrate most of the exercises, and play around on the equipment while the client warms up. SHoes are women's track shoes (Adidas Okapi), best flat-sole shoe I've found.

"Oh yea, bacon, eggs and toast breakfast. But you won’t be there for that."
True. I'll be with Marion, eating an omelette with spinach, red onion, and chicken.

Hey Marion, how tall are you, 5'8/9?

Re Rolexes, a guy named John T Reed did a devastating critique on Robert "Rich Dad Poor Dad" Kiyosaki's writings, everything from his Vietnam service to his real estate advice to his views on tax deductions, it's available online and well worth reading, where he made the excellent point that a Rolex only serves to (attempt) to impress people with how much disposable income you have. I understand some women check out a man's watch, first thing. Guess I'm safe there...

I know tons of people have said this already, but...

Okay, I'll admit that I hate seeing computer-generated women in Cosmo wearing (basically) fig leaves selling beer or perfume. I hate this idea that fictional, pretend women are the ideal (and sometimes real women who are so airbrushed they don't even seem to have muscles anymore).

But these women are dressed incredibly modestly, and they are advertising FOR A SHOW ABOUT MODELING. They're supposed to be super-thin and super-hot. If we can have a swimsuit competition in Miss America, America's Next Top Model can advertise on the side of friggin' bus!

Sorry for the reiteration, I just felt the need to express myself.
-CD

This isn't offensive, its cute. And so harmless that its gone past funny.

Actually, the Bulova is because of history and geek factor, not price. It is the same model watch used by many of the Mercury astronauts.

Some day I might get an Omega like the ones worn during the Apollo program. Perhaps after the condo is paid off.

Oh, I do shoot in the low 20s in both Trap and Skeet. None of my guns are American made.

Marion, if you are any height under 6' I will just assume that you are 5' 8" because all those folks sort of look the same height to me. I am 6' 3" 230. Hope that is not too chunky ;-)

Here, Crid, from the Fug sisters, why women are sorely in need of that waist-to-hip ratio thing:

http://gofugyourself.typepad.com/go_fug_yourself/2007/03/independent_spi_1.html

PS On a trivia note, Garcelle and I took Groundlings classes together. She's very sweet, but apparently, is an asshat in the fashion department.

where he made the excellent point that a Rolex only serves to (attempt) to impress people with how much disposable income you have.

I'm impressed by men who don't seem to need to impress me.

And this is one of the reasons Ev. Psych often staggers around in circles.

It aspires to classifications (so that it sounds sciencey) - then relies on context to justify the classifications - for the purpose of bestselling books.

So MY Big Man on Campus might be radically different from yours, but they might both be described as "someone who's doing something exciting with their life."

I explained it quite well, above, that women are attracted to men with potential. I'm sorry you don't want to like evolutionary psychology, but while we can speculate about what life was life in the stone age, the studies being done by people I reference are quite solid.

> I'll admit that I hate seeing
> computer-generated women in Cosmo
> wearing (basically) fig leaves
> selling beer or perfume.

Why? Why do you hate it? Children of four, little imbeciles who know only fragments of the alphabet, are aware of the bait-and-switch at work in advertising. You don't have to be an especially savvy person to see how it operates and resist. And why would you admit hating it? (If more Cosmo readers could chill with a can of brewski, this would be a much different planet.)

> from the Fug sisters

Before summertime, you're probably going trot this thing out a few more times and I'll have more chances to spazz. But for now: This number doesn't mean anything. If that's the explanatory power that the laboratory brings to the understanding of human attraction --and I suspect it is-- then science is worthless here indeed.

Numbers are fun! Personally, I think music is all about numbers, and it doesn't get any better than Bach's Harpsichord Concerto BVW #1052, especially the Allegros. It's a piece of tremendous nuance, calculation, balance and cleverness. It's a duple! And it's FREE!

http://tinyurl.com/ysrau8

But millions of people like to listen to Britney Spears records, even though they cost money. Actually, more people like to listen to "Whoops, I Did It Again" than "Jesus, Joy of Man's Desiring." Are those people wrong?

And .7 is a wonderful number! It's a great ratio, especially for waist-to-hips! But if you really want to talk ass, go find yourself a 17-year-old boy with an erection. Any dim bulb from high school shop class can chat about the geometry of a woman's butt with encyclopedic detail. There are shelf butts and bulby butts and delta butts and pediment tails and this comment could go on for a very long time. For a woman to imagine that this silly little number describes a meaningful truth about lust is just HOKEY. It's embarrassing.

You still haven't explained how all those badly-shaped women and powerless, impoverished men-with-no-future manage to make babies.

Crid,
I offer the following par tentatively (but, I admit, a raised eyebrow too) from HealthandAge.com.

This cannot possibly explain the "sciencey" basis of the Advice Goddess-beloved .7 ratio thingy, can it?

There MUST be more to it than a ruler and old sex mag pictures?!!!

"Devendra Singh scrutinized statistics for body measurements for Playboy Magazine centerfolds between 1955 and 1965 and of Miss America contest winners from 1923 to 1987. In line with earlier research, he found that there was a reduction in body weight over the years. Thus, as far as total weight is concerned, the women were getting lighter over time. However, he discovered that the waist-to-hip ratio of these beautiful women remained within a narrow low range."

>remained within a narrow low range.

...As did their age range, racial heritage, and milieu. Ditto the trivial, far-removed market they were photographed to amuse.

Tressider comes through like a sister.

Mwah!

Sorry, guys, I'm only 5'5" and I loathe onions.

But I love weaponry. Defense contracting? Cool!

I'd say there's a separation between what men and women admire in the gender to which they are attracted and what they actually expect to get. I admire the looks of George Clooney, much like I admire a Picasso, but do not expect to ever call either mine. (Besides, I wouldn't want to listen to George, just look at him.) For every-day life, I confess that I'm more attracted to men who make some effort to take care of themselves, but I don't demand Hollywood-level style of looks...because I, while not unattractive, am not Cindy Crawford or Tyra Banks (sigh). I'm guessing that there's even more of a gap among the typical male in terms of how they view women.

There's also the fact that we're talking about averages, and most averages are made up of distributions of data with standard deviations. If .7 is the mean or median ideal, that leaves a lot of room on either side. Throw in the fact that some of the deep instincts held by individuals go against the whole must-procreate thing - such as, for example, the strong desire not to have children - and you get a wide palette of preferences. And, of course, there's the fact that most people can't tolerate gorgeous idiots, at least not forever.

In general, though, if you're looking to be judged solely on your appearance and you're a woman, it's wise to remember the waist-hip ratio thing...or to dress to minimize your flaws. I dress to flatter my upper body and wear a lot of black on my lower body. If I'm exposing anything, it's my stomach. The only women who generally look okay in the shapeless-bag dresses are the very pregnant ones...and, that having been said, Naomi Watts looked fine at the Oscars in a non-paper-bag dress.

If you loathe onions, you'll be better off with Guy. They're in much of what I cook. Also, I have little in the way of weaponry, at least explosive weaponry; my (one) gun IS made in the US, a Mossberg, which I believe comes from New England. I like the idea of a nice Jewish boy turning to gunsmithing...It's loaded with salt shot (with one double-ought at the end, for those who can't take a hint) for the next person who tries to steal my copper tubing. Not sure what skeet score I'd get that way.
Now if you wanta talk edged weapons, them I've got.

I asked about your height as I tend to end up with women taller than me (I'm 5'7), flat chested with a great ass, and smart.

Oy, Crid, re the .7 ratio, as Sir Mix-a-Lot said, little in the middle but she got much back, is attractive to most men. Not the one and only thing, but you can't see someone's personality from across the room. That person could wipe out a positive visual impression with a grating voice, or a wince-inducing personal opinion, or breath that would drive back flesh-eating zombies, true. Amy wasn't arguing that that was the beginning and end of attraction.

> attractive to most men.

Word! As Marion, our new fantasy girl, put it...

> you get a wide palette
> of preferences.

We all like a girl with a wide palette! Especially on a tight little easel!

(I have no idea what that means... It just sounds suggestive as Hell.)

> Amy wasn't arguing that
> that was the beginning
> and end

No she wasn't. But the way she cleaves that little number to her bosom starts to get ridiculous after a few years. The teenage boy mentioned earlier, the one who's flunking Math, English, and Social Studies but doing OK in Small Engine Repair, can nonetheless talk about the backside with stunning articulation. His discussion will include the following notations:

1. Skeletal substructure. While this is the number at the deepest core of Amy's precious ratio, there are many other surrounding factors! It's important to recognize that these are three-dimensional considerations of appearance that vary over time, whether over the course of single VHS of a Pauly Shore movie viewed in her Dad's basement on a schoolnight or across decades of a life well-lived. Such a construct is not described in a single digit.

2. ACCESS. We can't stress the importance of this factor highly enough. What are the odds? At 8p? 10:49p? 11:02p? Midnight straight up? 12:47a? Closing time, i.e., When her Dad's coming down the stairs with rage in his voice? What are we talking about here?

3. Musculature. The teenager will describe, with the expertise of a neurosurgeon, the arrangement of contractile tissues and tendons appearing at the backside in inexplicably novel arrangements, athletically superfluous capabilities which exist only to amuse and delight.

4. Other Soft Tissues. You know what I'm talking about here. Cat Brother knows what I'm talking about here. Sir Mixalot knows what I'm talking about here.

5. Skin tone: texture. Etc.

6. Skin tone: Coloration/Pigmentation. Etc.

7. Hair.

8. Other

Our teenager can go on and on about this, and he usually does, twice before his morning shower, and three times before falling asleep at night.

Amy says it all fits in a single number, as if that number tells you whether or not a baby gets made... Because Mr. Singh told her that. Mr. Singh is a grad student near Boston who hasn't tapped a tail since well before his sullen wife had their first baby a year ago November, but he sure knows how to knock out a thesis... He has lots of energy for it.

BTW, Marion, I'm not just 5'7"... I'm 5'7" and a HALF!

I dress to flatter my upper body and wear a lot of black on my lower body. If I'm exposing anything, it's my stomach.

I am in!

I can leave out onions easily, I rarely use them but when I do they end up sweet from the long cooking, just like the garlic.

Perhaps I should mention that I was, in the past, an Armor Officer (enlisted too), then an Air Defense Officer before becoming an Aviator? Mostly in the Cavalry.

5' 5" is just like 5' 8" to me, as stated earlier. In 5" heels it is just like 5' 11" :)

Most of my defense contracting has been in resource management of Army Aviation assets. I support a bigger "blow stuff up in the air" agency now and just got on a new project.

Had the 'certified hybrid' out earlier today. The guys liked it.

Amy, note to your Jeff Gordon fans. If they want to attract guys, get a muscle car. For guys it is fun and the women attracted to it are better, but it seems that almost all guys period will gather around. Not that there is anythign wrong with that.

I might have a good "ask Amy" question along those lines too. Not sure if you would find it useful.

Another note: I never order Swiss on a Philly Cheesesteak.

However, the appropriate wine for that item is whatever you have open, or can open.

I think Dev Singh's kind of adorable:

http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/faculty/Singh/singh.html

He's cuter when he smiles.

At least he's a Buckeye!

From Crid:
> I'll admit that I hate seeing
> computer-generated women in Cosmo
> wearing (basically) fig leaves
> selling beer or perfume.

>>Why? Why do you hate it? Children of four, >>little imbeciles who know only fragments of the >>alphabet, are aware of the bait-and-switch at >>work in advertising. You don't have to be an >>especially savvy person to see how it operates >>and resist. And why would you admit hating it? >>(If more Cosmo readers could chill with a can >>of brewski, this would be a much different >>planet.)

I hate it because the women AREN'T REAL. It's one thing to have a beautiful woman who is just darn lucky enough to be practically perfect out there, its another to create a woman who looks really close to real, but isn't. To me, its like when you can tell the car in the car commercial is CGI-enhanced. It's the not-realness that bugs me.
And I admit to hating it because I do. I shouldn't feel the need to say "oh, I don't mind" when I do mind. And naturally, I can see the way it operates and resist, but that doesn't mean I want to see a lot of it thrown about. I see and understand the way muggers operate and take the proper precautions in order to resist them, but that doesn't mean I want to see lots of them out there.
Just to make sure you don't think I'm one of those chicks out there who send angry letters to Cosmo and complain that Nicole Kidman is an unrealistic model of beauty or boycott shows like America's Next Top Model, I brought it all up simply b/c that's the subject we were talking about: Why silly crud like this ad got removed and why it shouldn't have been like that.

CornerDemon: Following that line of reasoning, all advertising should be banned, because companies all portray their product in an enhanced manner. What would come next is art, because that's not realistic either, so this would mean no paintings or sculpture, especially of the human form.

Maybe you should dig deep and find out why this makes you so angry. It doesn't make me angry at all-but I am comfortable with my body.