A stripper who feels sexy gives a more tip-worthy lap dance than one who feels uncomfortable or bloated.
Comment: this is pathetic
Comment: I think this is a fantastic article, and maybe not suitable for a science/biology venue, but then you must be missing the point. It's about time someone addressed men's cop-out excuses for not using their brains and/or hearts or taking responsiblity for their choices. Proudly assuming that they are "programmed" and followers of their evolutionary destiny is just their way of making their lustful actions OK, and all the scientific research and studies are helping to fill people's minds with this nonsense. You would never have heard my grandfather's generation talking like that. We all need to get back to being classy civilized human beings.
Comment: Evolution is the central concept in all biology and one of the most powerful, mind-boggling ideas that exists. It needs to be defended and explained, yet Sharon Begley has chosen to editorialize that evolution is not that important. If she prefers non-scientific explanations to human behavior she should stop posing as a science writer.
Comment: I think it's true that when a women is ovulating she feels sexier. I know that in the past when I was single. It was obvious to me that a woman changes alot during a month. Especially in 'dating mode' ! I remember my life coach from healthyvibesuk.com telling me this and I didn't really understand. But if you keep an eye on the phases of the moon, and make a note in your calendar, you'll see a pattern.
Comment: I was going to say exactly what 'imaging' said!
Comment: Sharon Begley joins the traditions of Cato the Elder, Pope Urban VIII, and many biblical fundamentalists in arguing that it is ???a mistake to let scientists anywhere near [certain] topics.??? The scientific topic that she disdains is the ???Biology of Love,??? by which she means that part of evolutionary biology that attempts to explain human sexuality. She has two complaints about this topic: miscreants misuse it to ???blame the genes??? for bad sexual behavior, and practitioners effect bad science by relying upon inadequate evidence to draw implausible conclusions that are contrary to ???plain old thinking and feeling.???
Neither complaint holds water. That some people misuse evolutionary biology, or any other branch of knowledge, is not, by itself, sufficient reason to disdain its study. Nor is bad science made good science by abandonment.
I am neither an evolutionary biologist nor a scientist and cannot intelligently comment upon whether any of Begley???s several purported examples of bad science is valid. I have, however, read several excellent books that touch upon evolutionary biology and commend, among others, Jared Diamond???s The Third Chimpanzee. Diamond makes an excellent argument in favor of some of the conclusions that Begley holds to be contrary to ???plain old thinking and feeling.??? Diamond also makes an excellent argument that our species is doomed to extinction unless we gain a better understanding of evolutionary biology.
Comment: Regardless of the overall biology vs. free will debate, the really sad thing here is that the author wrote such a poorly thought-through article and that Newsweek published it. And the only one here that seems to have noticed either is "Sylvanus" .
The author cites two examples of how "(male) scientists" present research that makes love all about biology and she counters with alternate reasons for the purported results of those studies, namely "Women feel sexiest when ovulating." and "Ovulation increases libido". Does she have no understanding that she proposed alternate BIOLOGICAL explanations? Women feel and have increased libido during ovulation? Is that not likely because of chemical reactions in her body? Isn't that BIOLOGY?
I do not actually disagree with her basic premise that we are not slaves to our biology. I am just appalled that she uses arguements that counter her own premise - and she doesn't even seem to realize it. And where are the editors? A little more QC please.
Comment: Thereis nothing magical about life, humanity, or the existence of pigs or twigs. Life is an accident programmed to follow the path of least resistance, which is mathematically the only "path" that can possibly exist. We are no more than a momentary whimper in the chaos of unending meaninglessness. How can any thinking quasi-rationalizing mass of neoronic following the treadways of entropiy-controlled impulses assume differently?
Comment: God is patient. i hope you can come to your senses.
Comment: Yeah, come to your senses. Join the other groups of people in the third world countries who are commiting genocide because each group believes in a different invisible man in the sky.
Comment: It seems that Sharon Begley did not read the article in question properly. the authors of the study in question excluded the possibility of human pheromones as humans do not have a vomeronasal organ unlike other organisms. The authors speculated that it could be something in the movement of the women rather than any olfactory input. The genetic basis of mate choice does not appear to abolish free will but bias it in ways which lead to noticeable changes in outcomes. In any case we need to start thinking of humans as biological entities instead of a "magically conscious beings" set apart from the biological realities of our brains.
Comment: Where is there any scientific sources backing up this article? If you want to read about the true biology of love, read "Sperm Wars" by Robin Baker and "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley. This article insults the great field of human ethology.
Comment: i see it in the varieties of dogs as they are selectively breed for specific purposes. All dogs at heart but some are equiped for different jobs, shepherd with 5-0.....well fill in the blanks...pick your favorite one yo. my favorite is the pitt bull who is friendly but given the chance to fight would count it an honor to war to death and suffer torture for his crew. Bow wow .
Comment: Where is there any research that backs up this article? The real truths to the biology of love can be read in "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley. Also look up "Sperm Wars" by Robin Baker.
Comment: truth "real truths"are all over all you have to do is open your eyes (with God's help of course-Glory to God!)
i am thinking of a bird dog, labrador, beagle, chiwawa all different and all beautiful. Good luck putting your Bulldog on a diet so he can look like the greyhound on the cover of Kibble and bits. You are beautiful just like you are, why can't you believe that??????????????
Comment: Is it just me or the article was not too smart ?
Comment: Of course the article is correct, however it isn't an refutation of an evolutionary perspective. The statistics given in the last paragraph pertaining to age selection is undoubtedly true, and any serious student of evolution and or "dna research" would obviously agree. The truth is, any serious student of the human condition would have to predict those results. The arguments to the contrary are under ideal and greatly exagerrated conditions. J. Howard Marshall was exceedingly wealthy and also had exceedingly youthful taste in women with respect to his own age. Science only seeks to explain the tendancy, and as we all know, tendencies aren't law. Women who are ovulating could just as easily be thought of as exhibiting an evolved response to be more attractive and interested as making a concious decision to be so. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that this is a subconcious effect in nearly all instances, which points to an evolved response as opposed to a rational decision. The bottom line is that science explains much of what we understand better when we seek to apply it. While science can't currently (or possibly ever) be described as having all the answers, it certainly is applicable to situations such as these. My problem with this article is that it tries to get us to stop thinking about the way our mindless DNA guides us in love, when the reality of the situation is that our mindless DNA and the processes of natural selection consistently guide us in astounding ways. The future of these discoveries about what makes us love and how our evolved brains think about our relationships is awe inspiring, and may just be more worth dreaming about this Valentine's Day than some ethereal heart and mind.
Comment: This quote is a bit misleading "A libidinous wife is more likely to send signals???readers are invited to provide their own examples???that she would welcome affection. Again, no genes controlling us like puppets. A loving heart and working brain are enough."
Perhaps the fact that she is seeking affection because she is ovulating is what causes her to arouse the lustful urge in her selected mate. A loving heart and a working brain only pertain to getting the sexual attention she wants. Love? Ha.
Comment: Man's intelligence has evolved yet he would have you believe his other head has not?
This article is correct, but there are those who would love to spin it otherwise.
Comment: Thank you!! This is common sense, but common sense has apparently been placed on the "nearly extinct" list . As one who had to use ovulation detection as birth control, I can attest to the merits of this article.
For those who choose the DNA theory, common sense would seem that evolution would have long altered man's need to procreate with young women as well as man's need to procreate with many different women. Man's intelligent has evolved, and so has his second head.
Comment: one of my favorite quotes is "common sense is not so common" or something like that by i believe the American man Mark Twain.
Comment: I would say it's a little naive to assume our biochemistry has nothing to do with it. We are animals and as big and important we would like our selves to be because we are almighty humans, we are not exempt from the world of creatures. Either way, the cultural relationship we have also plays a role in what we do. So I think like most science the answer to this question lies somewhere between.
Comment: Genetic denail... tsk tsk tsk. How many woman do you know that make rational decisions about the men they do or don't date?
Comment:
There is no question that awareness of the often unconscious nature of genetic control is the key toward understanding the forces that each gender is subject to when seeking love and happiness.
Whether men admit it or not, nature seems to have programmed them to desire sexually reserved women as prospects for marriage. They may want to date the other kind, but the girl they can???t get off their mind, is likely the one who is not easy to get.
Radical feminists, with their advocacy of sexual liberation have done women a major disservice. When women today complain that men seem unable to commit, one needs to tell them that: ???they certainly can, but maybe not with you.??? Somehow, someway, men???s genes are looking after their interests and investments, and eagerness on the part of a woman is pushing all the wrong buttons. Clearly sexual eagerness on the female???s part is not always correlated with latter infidelity, but natural selection plays the odds. Somehow, something deep within him is saying that marriage just doesn???t feel right with this accommodating girl. But that other one who is aloof, mysterious, difficult to attain, somehow he can???t get her out of his head; and if there is a chance he might lose her to another man, he hasn???t got a chance of escaping the spell.
Comment:
There is no question that awareness of the often unconscious nature of genetic control is the key toward understanding the forces that each gender is subject to when seeking love and happiness.
Whether men admit it or not, nature seems to have programmed them to desire sexually reserved women as prospects for marriage. They may want to date the other kind, but the girl they can???t get off their mind, is likely the one who is not easy to get.
Radical feminists, with their advocacy of sexual liberation have done women a major disservice. When women today complain that men seem unable to commit, one needs to tell them that: ???they certainly can, but maybe not with you.??? Somehow, someway, men???s genes are looking after their interests and investments, and eagerness on the part of a woman is pushing all the wrong buttons. Clearly sexual eagerness on the female???s part is not always correlated with latter infidelity, but natural selection plays the odds. Somehow, something deep within him is saying that marriage just doesn???t feel right with this accommodating girl. But that other one who is aloof, mysterious, difficult to attain, somehow he can???t get her out of his head; and if there is a chance he might lose her to another man, he hasn???t got a chance of escaping the spell.
Comment: This is a worthless op-ed piece, not news or science or fact. Given a choice, a 25 hot young woman will take a 40 something professional over a 27 YO male ONLY if he's in shape. The money is just a bonus, and besides a hookup it's doomed from the start. Young chics flirt with the idea but it's an exception and not the norm for American women to seek out men twice their age. In Latin America, however, it is a completely different story. This story is apropos to America and ONLY America....the rest of the world does things differently and it has nothing to do with DNA.
Comment: Plus note one other interesting concept that was omitted for this ridiculous piece.
Culture might make a 20 year old girl become involved with a wealthy old man, but biology will have her in bed with her tennis instructor behind said wealthy mans back.
Comment: The scinence in this article is so terrible that it is provacative. Even if the stripper is not emmitting any sex signals (and see the comment above that would indicate that Begley ignored portions of the study), the fact that she is dancing in a more sexy manner when she is ovulating is also a product of evolutionary biology, just on the female side instead of the male side.
The idea that evolution would make the average 25 year old female seek out a male in his 50's is stupid. The 25 year old does not just want a male with status and assets, she wants a partner who can help her raise her children. 200 years ago, the average lifespan of most men was about 33. Evolutionary progress is expressed in mellenia, not decades. So women would certainly not be evolutionaryly programmed to seek to mate with a man who was dead or almost dead.
The average 50 year old man has already had his children, so obviously he is not looking to start a new family. He wants a 40 year old because they have simlar maturity levels and life experiences that he has. If he does want to start a family, you can bet he will be looking in the 25-35 crowd, if not younger.
I could go on, but I will not. Suffice it to say that NEWSWEEK should immediately pull this shabby excuse for an article.
Comment: Purely speculative (Possibly correct, but still speculative)
Without real work done by people without an agenda (and boy do I smell an agenda here), no thruths will ever be found, and in our current culture that is unlikely. To many groups with axe's to grind cringe at science bringing us truths that may undermine political objectives.
Is pedophillia controlable? Is monogamy geneticly compatible with our makeup? Is homosexuality a choice, a predisposition or an illness? Can we use pharmacology to alter those whom society considers deviant to behave in a prefered manner? Will we abort based on undesirable genetic markings in our prenatal children?
In a short time I suspect we will begin to decipher all these genetic mysteries, but it will take a VERY long time to morally appreciate the findings and use the knowledge in a productive fashion.
Comment: The author of this article overlooks the controlled nature of the ovulating strippers study to further her own argument. To that end, she provided a link to an individual whose argument supports hers, but neglected to link to the study she is criticizing. Here, I will help her out. It is only fair, after all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/magazine/09lapdance.html?ex=1354856400&en=348764b6b1728e69&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The study compared women in three different phases of their cycle: ovulation, menstruation, and the luteal phase (after ovulation but before menstruation). Strippers in the ovulation phase of their cycle earned higher tips than not only women in the menstrual phase, but more than women in the in between phase of their cycle as well. Furthermore, strippers on birth control were used as a control group in this study. Women who are on birth control do not ovulate, and their earnings did not fluctuate in the same way as women who were not on birth control. In fact, these non-ovulating strippers??? earnings did not fluctuate at all, and their average earnings were less than strippers who were not taking birth control.
Yes, strippers may earn bigger tips during ovulation because they feel ???sexier??? and dance in a way that earns bigger tips. Evolutionary psychology does not attempt to rule out this explanation, and in my opinion it is preferred over the idea that men are detecting some sort of ???fertility pheromone.??? However, the question still remains as to why these strippers, and women in general, feel sexier while ovulating. The logical answer, evolutionarily speaking, is that because feeling sexier during ovulation means a higher chance of having sex. Having sex means a higher chance of producing offspring, and passing along genes to the next generation is the ultimate goal in any species??? evolution.
Comment: To draw ANY conclusion about something so complex as sexual attraction, based on just EIGHTEEN strippers, is extremely irresponsible. Of course, to seriously criticize those conclusions is even more silly. The research didn't take into account, how pretty the strippers, how desparate their public, compared to a national average, etc etc.
Comment: If you build something over a period of time (evolution) aren't you still the creator?? Why can't both ideas live together? Since when is it all or none? God or science. i like to see it as God and science is his lyrical masterpiece.
Comment: The thing is, the ideas set forth in this article aren't aimed at rendering the evolutionary explanations obsolete. Rather, they 'vaguely' point out that such approaches can't obviously account for people's choices today. As this should have been the point the author was trying to make, well, she is just thumbing her nose at the evolutionary stance. I think opposing something as broad as evolution takes a much more serious style.
Comment: Art is stupid to some but thank God we have theaters and museams and parks and monuments and bentleys rolling and enzos screaming and sirens like Natasha Bedingfield on MTV - God has blessed America and i hope heaven looks alot like this place too. Ms Begley thank you for helping to keep it light and give another piece of art to explore as we go about our daily grind and seek to find some R and R on a Saturday or Sunday side.
Comment: This is one of the dumber articles by Ms Begley who seems to excel in dumb articles
Comment: This is one of the dumber articles written by Ms Begley ho seems to excel in dumb articles
Comment: "All male species are simple, "anything to get laid) we just make it look complex because we have so much anthropocentric baggage traits and artifacts that we carry around."
Funny. i could commentate more with you but need to keep it above board for the sake of ladies. Funny though. Shout out to Alisha Keys - that is some total package - oh yea baby - God knows how to make a masterpiece.
Comment: Comment: Interesting observations, nice try, but to quote Buller, of NIU, to question "evolutionary explanations for complex behavior" and think that men, attracted to ovulating females, is complex is like saying that the urge to urinate is too simple to drive; finding a restroom, find the proper one, open the door, check that it is the proper one, fumble withe the zipper, fish through two layers of clothing, (perhaps more complex for te female) pull it out, judge distance, take aim, summon up required pressure, (keep eyes to self), blast away, check for further streams, (self snsing remaining bladder urge, sphincter control, etc. reverse "fishing excercise (two layers ald all that) sense and pull flush handle, make decision about washing hands, wash hands, dry hands, exit "complexly". Yes, a simple biological urge can trigger some pretty complex behaviors. Furthermore (1) There are many similar studies,(this has been going on for at least 30 years) done with photographs of ovulating females, menstruating females, or females in between (word?), and the same with the women behind glass (i.e. no pheremones) and the results were just the same. and (2) males are really, really simple creatures, do you really think that something as simple as slightly engorged lips (whence collegin injections) big boobs (silicone), good hips (read great butt), and skin glow or great hair (not to mention pheremones) doesn't get us excited?? All male species are simple, "anything to get laid) we just make it look complex because we have so much anthropocentric baggage traits and artifacts that we carry around.
Anthropos 1
Comment: Fun points. i always like the picture of a stripper being painted. what a creation the female body!! But to pay that kind of $ you must be insane and to have no happy ending you are a punk. Sorry i know it is the in thing to do but if you have every ventured into one of those durty house of tricks you would know that it is a big TEASE. So back to the scientific stuff when a girl is menstrating she is usually not in the most up to teasing mood and may have swollen glands, hormones off-balance etc, which is why women are stronger than men, because they are tested every month while we go along on easy street. Go Hillary!!! But men are pigs and as member of the pig group i recommend staying away from those places. They degrage women, exploit people, get people intoxicated and run their credit card into the thousands FOR WHAT!!! You still have to go home and find a real relationship, but then why even go in the first place. Be satisfied with your wife, girl or whatever and if you find yourself getting crazy you know what to do and dont believe the SCIENTIST who tells you about ocular disorders - that is another lie. Peace out and many happy endings.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
PROJECT GREENSustainable buildings are virtuous, but they can be ugly. Only a few designs are truly great.
Sponsored by
|
Loading Menu
