Overthinking

I used to think I wanted to be scientist of some sort.

This story cracked me up (and I’ll admit, maybe it’s just the reporting of the science that is so silly).
Here’s the study basics:

Participants were asked to look at an image and decide whether they would consider this person for a one-night stand or a marriage partner, but the image was covered by two boxes. In order to make their decisions, they were allowed to uncover only one box; either the face or the body.

And the results after men would choose to uncover the box when looking for a one-night stand? They’d uncover the body box – which must mean…………………

Perilloux said that some indication as to why a woman’s body is more appealing to men for physical relations has to do with her body’s indication of fertility.

“Studies show that a woman’s waist-to-hip ratio is a cue to her current fertility levels, so a higher waist-to-hip ratio would mean higher fertility rates,” Perilloux said. “Cues that are associated with high fertility are not a conscious mechanism. It is a subconscious method of attraction.”

Think about why you would uncover the body box men, and then read that again. (I know you didn’t the first time through.)

If I were a man – I’d choose the body box for the one night stand because body’s come in all shapes/sizes and one night stands are about sex and fun and exploring new things. But body’s all change and especially after marriage. You’re going to have to look at that face forever, but the body is going to be adjustable.

If it was about fertility, wouldn’t you want the woman you marry to be the fertile one?

ps – as a woman, I’d choose the face for both. Because either way – I’m not looking for that one night stand, so consciously or unconsciously, it’s going to be the face/personality over the body that makes the difference.

America.

I like to think that one of the most beautiful things about this country is it’s fairness.

In general our laws treat everyone the same.
We all have the same opportunity to whatever we aspire.

I realize that it doesn’t always work out quite right which is why there are lawyers. I realize that those with cash or celebrity have things more “fair” than others. But in general…..we can count on fairness here and our leaders try to at least make people think that everyone is treated the same.

That was preObama.

Now those who agree with Obama get publicly treated MORE fairly than with those who disagree. 3 Examples from the Friday news dump.
1 – The New Black Panthers trial with Christopher Coate’s testimony. The Dept of Justice apparently will only look at racial intimidation cases against whites.
2 – The war in Afghanistan being fought not for American safety, but for Democrat votes.

In explaining his July 2011 deadline to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, Obama told Graham:

“I have to say that. I can’t let this be a war without end, and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

Not even the general public, but specifically Democrats.
3 – Finally the truth is coming out about the unfairness of the UAW pensions/pay during the government takeover of GM.

The retirees [the salaried ones], who are suing the feds, have obtained court documents showing that White House officials hatched a plan to dump nonunion workers’ pensions on the federally-run Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which immediately proceeded to slash their promised benefits.
At the same time, the administration earmarked GM and TARP bailout money to fully cover the pensions of UAW hourly workers. Sworn depositions of White House auto task force and Treasury officials show that they considered the UAW pension liabilities more “politically sensitive” than those of nonunion workers.