Ripped From The Headlines

I was perusing my Denton Record Chronicle while I drank my morning coffee. Some people may prefer their news on the internet or the television, but I am a die-hard fan of the daily newspaper. It’s how I know the important things that are going on in the world. You know, like: what’s happening in the police blotter, who died, who is getting married, what happened on this day in 1897 right here in Denton. That’s the news I just can’t live without.

Yesterday, this headline blared right out at me:

news.JPG

“Study:Men base dating decisions mainly on looks”

This is news?

Evidently.

Being a curious sort, I read the article even though I didn’t think it was worth putting in the bottom of the bird cage. It seems that researchers led by Peter M. Todd, of the cognitive science program at Indiana U went over to Munich, Germany to study folks’ mating habits.

The article didn’t make it clear just exactly what they were trying to prove, but it mentioned some mumbo jumbo about “Darwin’s principle of choosy females and competitive males.” For the test, researchers had 26 men and 20 women participate in a “speed dating” meeting. That’s where you talk to a potential date for a few minutes and then play “musical chairs.” Sounds as stressful to me as trying to pick somebody up in a bar [not that I would know anything about that].

The people filled out a questionnaire beforehand to tell what they looked for in a mate (attractiveness, healthiness, family commitment, status, wealth etc). Researchers compared that questionnaire to what people actually chose.

You will never guess what!

Yeah you will.

The researchers found that what people said they were looking for in a date wasn’t actually reflected in the people they chose to ask out. The “study” showed that women “made more discriminating choices.” Men weren’t picky. As long as the packaging wasn’t damaged, they didn’t care what was inside. The article states, and I quote, “Men tended to pick every woman above a certain minimum attractiveness threshold.”

pig.jpg

They needed a study to figure this out? Do you need a study to determine if a pig likes to roll around in shi mud?

Now, I’d really like to talk to this Professor Todd, because I have a few questions for him:

  • Why in the thunder did you think this topic worthy of study?
  • What difference do your findings make to the price of tea in China?
  • Who paid for this scientific study?? Is this my tax dollars at work?
  • I do have to tell you that I take exception to this statement in the article, that said women chose “men who had overall qualities that were on a par with the women’s self-rated attractiveness. They didn’t greatly overshoot their attractiveness because part of the goal for women is to choose men who would stay with them.” This fellow Todd also stated that women “knew what they could get and aimed for that level.”

    Asinine.

    Those researchers don’t have a clue about how women think!

    I don’t know about the rest of you ladies, but I’d be “aiming” for Tom Selleck or Johnny Depp!
    selleck.jpgdepp.jpg

    That’s if I didn’t already have my Sweet Spousal Unit, who is just as attractive as either of those men. In fact, since I have him, I never dream about Harrison Ford anymore.

    What’s that Paul Newman quote? “Why fool around with hamburger when you have steak at home?”

    [Did I pull myself out of that one, Honey? Do I need to buy flowers for you?]

      13 comments for “Ripped From The Headlines

    1. September 7, 2007 at 6:50 am

      Hi Shelly!

      I saw this one the news and literally LOL’d. I, too, wondered how much that study cost.

      One of my friends has always wanted to start a businesses called “I’ll tell you whatever it is you want to know for half the price.” She thinks if we take over these stupid studies, we’ll be rich in a year without even having to do anything. I think she has an idea there!!!!

      Jessica

      Yeah, I almost spurted coffee on the page when I saw this one. Your friend has a great idea! She ought to run with it~skt

    2. Cori
      September 7, 2007 at 7:13 am

      Very well put! I shouldn’t be thinking about Harrison Ford this morning – thanks for that, I really should be baking cookies with my kids.

      You can bake cookies while thinking about Harrison Ford. Maybe bake a Devil’s Food cake? 😈

    3. September 7, 2007 at 7:18 am

      We at the American Mustache Institute share your love and devotion for Mssr. Tom Selleck.

      I’m sure you do!:lol:~skt

    4. September 7, 2007 at 7:45 am

      Enjoyed your post this morning as I was drinking My Coffee 🙂

      And I’m still wondering why they needed FURTHER research to figure out men date ’cause of looks.

      My thinking – duh.. ya figure?

      Things that make me giggle and shrug my shoulders…

      I don’t think they needed research, Shelby. They just found deep pockets to fund a study!~skt

    5. September 7, 2007 at 7:55 am

      Yep, tax dollars at work folks – it just goes to show you that they’ll pay for anything to be researched.

      I once saw Al Gore on Letterman and he was talking about how the government spent over $40,000 to find out what ashtrays broke into the least pieces so they could select the safest ashtrays for the White House.

      😆 yeah, they needed a study about ashtrays! We should think up some ridiculous study and see if we can get a grant! I know a teensy bit about grant writing, it’s just finding the source. I’ll have to work at thinking up something stupid (actually, I don’t have to “work” at that, do I?)~skt

    6. September 7, 2007 at 9:44 am

      First, so glad they stated the obvious.

      Now how much did that cost again? and the benefit is…??

      Second, duh, I watched another study of this on Discovery like five years ago.

      Sheesh. What a waste of inches. No pun intended. 😉

      Julie
      Using My Words

      I thought they gave it a lot of column space for what it was worth (your inches pun was too intended :twisted:) Never ceases to amaze me the amount of money they can spend on stupidity! Think of all the shoes we could have bought with the money they spend!~skt

    7. September 7, 2007 at 9:54 am

      Did my comment get eaten? ARGH!

      That comment went to the Aksimet spam monster, but I saved it!

    8. September 7, 2007 at 11:14 am

      How about why on earth did he feel it necessary to leave Indiana and do this study in Germany? Free trip anyone?

      Exactly…and if I could get me some grant money like that, I’d take a vacation, too :lol:~skt

    9. September 7, 2007 at 11:24 am

      That was one meaningful, scientific study – wow.

      And thanks for the J Depp pic; I don’t need a study to know what is lovely.

      My husband was a little hurt that I was sitting at the computer drooling this morning…some things must be done, you know. Like…looking at eye candy.~skt

    10. September 7, 2007 at 12:49 pm

      Yep, that’s basically the same thing I thought when I read that article (or similar one) online. Did we really need a study for this?

      Happy Friday! 😛


      Yep, it’s pretty crazy. I can’t believe some of the things that the government will fund~skt

    11. September 7, 2007 at 2:45 pm

      No suprise to me Shelly. Men don’t think with their big head here. And keep you hands off Tom Selleck! He’s mine, all mine and I’m older so I have first dibs… Have a great day. 🙂

      Bwahahah! I threw Tom in there just because I knew it would get your attention. I’ll take Johnny Depp in a pinch..~skt

    12. September 7, 2007 at 5:52 pm

      I stumbled across this story and had the same reaction — you know, “Duh.”

      George Clooney. It’s his inaccessibility. I always found that appealing in a man.

      George Clooney is good. He could be in the top ten list. ~skt

    13. Marcia
      September 25, 2007 at 10:01 pm

      Yeah, like looks will keep a man “home”.

      If a man is inclined to roam, I don’t think it matters if you look good or if you cook good. He’s gonna do it anyway~skt

    Comments are closed.