One of the many, many ways that men frustrate women is with their propensity to constantly look at (some might say leer at) other women. No matter how attractive a woman is, she will find that the man she is with will invariably scope out other women anywhere and anytime they come across his field of view, especially if that woman “has it in all the right places.”
And frankly, men will admit to this behavior and most would agree that it really isn’t a good thing to do, but they seem powerless to stop themselves. It’s almost as if they are being influenced by a force beyond their control. Recent scientific studies have indicated that may indeed be the case, and the force that is controlling them is basic biology.
In one such study, which I read about this week on livescience.com, researchers performed brain scans on 14 young men while they showed them before and after photographs of women who had their…er…posterior regions surgically enhanced to be more…um…pronounced. Unsurprisingly, the men had stronger positive reactions to the post-op photos, but what was interesting was that the portions of the brain that started buzzing when seeing the “after” pictures are the same areas that get stimulated when someone who is addicted to alcohol or drugs takes a drink or a hit of their drug of choice. In very real terms, then, it might be said that all men are literally addicted to looking at hot women.
It turns out that men actually feel a tangible, pleasurable response in the brain when looking at women with hourglass figures. Well-defined curves in the hips are a sign of fertility, and men’s brains are designed to seek out and zero in their attention on women with those body types. And when they do, just the looking makes them feel very good inside. At least until their wives/girlfriends catch them in the act.
The researchers think this information may also help explain why some men become obsessed with pornography. Looking at images of women can directly stimulate a reward mechanism in the brain and, as with any addiction, once the brain gets used to that pleasurable feeling it craves more and more of the thing that makes it happy.
I’m not sure how helpful any of this will be to women, but at least maybe now men’s behavior may be a little more understandable, if not more tolerable.
Interestingly enough, research has also shown that well-shaped women attract the attention of other females as well, but not for the same reason. Instead of stimulating their pleasure zones, women see other women with attractive bodies as potential rivals. They tend to compare themselves to other women in the environment and identify potential threats. Of course, anyone who’s ever attended an office Christmas party or taken a date to a nightclub has already experienced this scenario firsthand.
My advice to women is that you should accept the fact that men are programmed to enjoy looking at shapely women and realize that it is not a sign that you are undesirable to your partner when he does this. Don’t take it personally. Whack him with a rolled-up newspaper if it makes you feel better, but don’t delude yourself into thinking you are going to reverse basic biology-driven behavior.
My advice to men is that you remember that although we can all agree that the fact that we like to look at other women really isn’t any reflection on how you feel about your mate, your mate is never going to see it that way. If you see a hot girl in the area, chances are your partner saw her first and is monitoring your reaction. And when you do react, expect your partner to react to your reaction. In other words, watch out for that rolled up newspaper.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
R.I.P., campaign finance reform
On January 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court struck a decisive blow in defense of free expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Or, they struck a decisive blow for big businesses and labor unions who want to buy political offices for their chosen candidates. As with many things, how the decision handed down in Citizens Untied vs. FEC is interpreted depends on whom you ask, and which end of the political spectrum the person you ask tends to favor.
In a nutshell, this highly controversial ruling removes restrictions on how corporations and labor unions can directly advocate for candidates for federal office. These restrictions had been in place for over a hundred years, and many were shocked by the decision.
Prior to this ruling it was, for example, against the law for a company to pay for direct advertising designed to convince voters to vote for or against a specific candidate. That is now perfectly legal, and as a result many people expect the next election cycle to be unlike anything we have experienced before.
Most conservatives say this is a good thing. They fail to see any line in the Constitution that suggests that the federal government has the authority to restrict political speech, whether that speech is generated by an individual or by a group of people acting in concert.
Liberals, on the other hand, are appalled by this decision. They contend that the First Amendment was never designed to protect the right of Exxon or Microsoft to completely blanket the airwaves in support of their chosen candidates for federal office. Individual rights and the rights of corporations are two very distinct things under the law, they contend, and blurring that line as the Court has done in this case sets a very bad precedent.
Opinion polls seem to indicate that the general public opposes this decision as well, by about a 2 -1 margin. And I can’t say I’m surprised. It’s not hard to imagine a future candidate’s campaign success hinging on how many “corporate sponsorships” he or she is able to pick up. It is certainly hard to compete in a federal election if your opponent has a significantly larger advertising budget than you do, and it is easy to see why people would be concerned that tomorrow’s candidates will come into office “bought and paid for.” Even more than they are today, I mean.
It’s also not hard to see why this decision is generally a lot more popular with Republicans than it is with Democrats. Big businesses, as a rule, tend to favor the GOP and their corporate-friendly philosophies. Certainly the Democrats can count on labor unions for support, but unions can never match big corporations dollar for dollar. It won’t be a fair fight.
You can be sure that we haven’t heard the last of this. There are already rumblings in congress about creating a new amendment to the constitution clarifying the government’s right to restrict corporate participation in federal elections. And I am sure this will become a political football in the 2010 elections.
The Democrats are sure to try and use this as an avenue to attack their Republican opponents, and the Republicans may have a hard time fighting back on this one. It’s not as if they can use all their newly available corporate-sponsored advertising to defend themselves against the idea that they are tools of big business.
It’s sort of a no-win situation for them, and the Democrats are probably thankful to have an issue they can flog that puts them on the right side of public opinion for once. I’m not sure that it’s going to be enough to turn things around for them, since they still have a lot to answer to voters for with things like the failed health care bill and the increasingly ridiculous national debt situation. But at least they now have a straw to grasp at.
In a nutshell, this highly controversial ruling removes restrictions on how corporations and labor unions can directly advocate for candidates for federal office. These restrictions had been in place for over a hundred years, and many were shocked by the decision.
Prior to this ruling it was, for example, against the law for a company to pay for direct advertising designed to convince voters to vote for or against a specific candidate. That is now perfectly legal, and as a result many people expect the next election cycle to be unlike anything we have experienced before.
Most conservatives say this is a good thing. They fail to see any line in the Constitution that suggests that the federal government has the authority to restrict political speech, whether that speech is generated by an individual or by a group of people acting in concert.
Liberals, on the other hand, are appalled by this decision. They contend that the First Amendment was never designed to protect the right of Exxon or Microsoft to completely blanket the airwaves in support of their chosen candidates for federal office. Individual rights and the rights of corporations are two very distinct things under the law, they contend, and blurring that line as the Court has done in this case sets a very bad precedent.
Opinion polls seem to indicate that the general public opposes this decision as well, by about a 2 -1 margin. And I can’t say I’m surprised. It’s not hard to imagine a future candidate’s campaign success hinging on how many “corporate sponsorships” he or she is able to pick up. It is certainly hard to compete in a federal election if your opponent has a significantly larger advertising budget than you do, and it is easy to see why people would be concerned that tomorrow’s candidates will come into office “bought and paid for.” Even more than they are today, I mean.
It’s also not hard to see why this decision is generally a lot more popular with Republicans than it is with Democrats. Big businesses, as a rule, tend to favor the GOP and their corporate-friendly philosophies. Certainly the Democrats can count on labor unions for support, but unions can never match big corporations dollar for dollar. It won’t be a fair fight.
You can be sure that we haven’t heard the last of this. There are already rumblings in congress about creating a new amendment to the constitution clarifying the government’s right to restrict corporate participation in federal elections. And I am sure this will become a political football in the 2010 elections.
The Democrats are sure to try and use this as an avenue to attack their Republican opponents, and the Republicans may have a hard time fighting back on this one. It’s not as if they can use all their newly available corporate-sponsored advertising to defend themselves against the idea that they are tools of big business.
It’s sort of a no-win situation for them, and the Democrats are probably thankful to have an issue they can flog that puts them on the right side of public opinion for once. I’m not sure that it’s going to be enough to turn things around for them, since they still have a lot to answer to voters for with things like the failed health care bill and the increasingly ridiculous national debt situation. But at least they now have a straw to grasp at.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
