To be honest, it makes sense that Behrendt's phrase would take off when it did. As a recently singled guy, I can tell you that there's a glut of women out there willing to cater to the priorities of a significant portion of the male population. What are those priorities? Commitment-light relationships. Why is there a "glut"? There's a generation of economically independent women hitting their sexual peaks around age 30 who are willing to have sex without pinning their hopes and dreams on just one guy.

However, I can't think of any other time in human history (which goes back a million years give or take depending on the paleoanthropologist you're talking to) where this has been the case. So as "advanced" as I would like women to be in terms of taking the initiative dating-wise, there are very few humans capable of significantly short-circuiting their evolutionary tendencies.

Therefore, instead of seeing his book/movie as demonstrating a lack of female agency because women're not acting like dudes, how about recognizing that women and men have had fundamentally different mating goals and strategies for as long as ova have been larger than sperm, and that our society is witnessing a truly novel mating situation? Cut yourself and everyone else some slack for trying to figure all this stuff out as we go along.

Wasn't there an article/excerpt from a book in Salon a few weeks ago about a woman who almost got a divorce because her husband did not make enough money? I don't get what lies behind the difference in editorial moral judgment. That woman doesn't deserve scorn because she got married to a laid-back surfer dude as opposed to these women who are dating Type A assholes?

"Hmm. Granted, I lack the scientific expertise of Judson, but do you really need a Ph.D. to realize that formulating an essay on a completely hypothetical correlation is somewhat reckless?"

The first thing that jumps to my mind is that in the context of conducting science, every assertion is completely hypothetical.

Boo-urns, Rossmeier.

I didn't know I was doing it at the time, but I can testify to the effectiveness of Cary's recommendation. I started asserting myself and beat back the accusations of selfishness. I also began to be more sociable with people I had known for years. The end result was an engagement broken by her, and me learning to enjoy life for the first time since elementary school.

Are you serious? This woman got one of the longest posts I've seen on Broadsheet and she manages to not mention evolutionary implications once? There are tons of more coherent explanations available for why people would want to see and why Miley Cyrus would want to show off her skin than that "culture wants to see it".

Also, as other people have stated, she misuses so many cultural terms as well that I'm starting to wonder if she spent all of her research time masturbating.

No one is required to depant themselves just for going to the bar. Chances are that very, very few women would be willing to display their panties unless they were immaculate and/or a pair they are particularly proud of. Sure you're bound to get one or two who get off on making other people see their period stains, but I can rest easy in the assumption that the people running that bar will judiciously remove or not allow the display of panties that would have a significantly negative impact business.

There is one substantial risk the bar is running though: assuming this catches on, any guy who walks into that bar will be able to tell immediately what kind of women are hanging out that night. Lots of fun, sexy, brand new underwear probably means the women came out with a plan of drinking $50 worth of alcohol. Everyday and unspectacular, but otherwise clean, underwear could mean that there are women who were gonna take it easy that night, but the mood hit them and they don't care that they have work the next morning.

Those are all good outcomes. However, on off-nights, guys on the prowl will be able to assess their prospects and move on without much time investment and therefore less purchasing of booze.

Aside from the fact that piano bars and art openings probably would never have this type of promotion, I don't think this bar deserves so much criticism just for catering to men, but also giving women the option of taking advantage of a pretty sweet deal.

In fact, maybe I'll pass this article on to the manager of the Applebees out by the interstate and start spicing up the family's weekly Sunday dinner out on the town.

You beat me to the punch Sensitive Bill.

I didn't see the link to the article.

My assumption was confirmed, and there's nothing even remotely, scientifically controversial about their results. The only caveat I would raise concerns how reliably psychologists can identify the "dark triad" traits.

Granted I cannot actually listen to the video because I left my headphones at home, I must say that as an anthropological archaeologist, I would argue that most events in human history consists almost entirely of people (men AND women) desperately trying to achieve goals they would never be able to explain rationally.

Therefore, assuming this study was conducted by a credible, scientific institution rooted in evolutionary theory, what women say they want is irrelevant if the researchers' hypothesis could be tested independent of individual consciousness. Although the research subject's voice should always be given credence in interpreting the results, a study that does not depend on that voice actually demonstrates a more elegant experimental design.