OK, first of all, it was fewer than 300 undergrads. Second of all, you really need to keep the "women were more likely to..." part in your head as you think about this.

That probably means that most of the women gave the team players higher ratings than they gave the other guys. It could mean that the other guys also got high ratings (the article doesn't elaborate). It could mean that 49.9 percent of the women gave the other guys higher ratings than they gave the team players.

This is all fine. The problem I have with it is that suddenly, without even knowing any actual numbers, we're all acting as though ALL women ONLY ever want to have babies with successful team athletes. When actually what we know is that, among a very small group of female Canadian college students ages 18 to 24, most (we don't know how many) said they'd prefer (we don't know by how much) to have sex with (not mate with, be the girlfriend of, or marry) men described by researchers (with lots of weird details like "He loves to eat out and watches television occasionally. He loves dogs.") as being successful team-sport athletes.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that this is not earth-shaking news. It's a tiny sliver of ev psych data sensationalized for the newspapers.

And C-Bob, you crack me up.

I was totally with Hillary for calling MSNBC on the attack on the mother-daughter relationship as "pimping." They were WAY out of line, and I truly admired her, as I have many times before, for sticking up for herself and her daughter. But her spin (or twist, as Benen puts it) of Obama as "complaining" just sounds inaccurate to me. Have you seen the Obama "brush-off" video? And, if you have, does her characterization of it sound accurate to you?

Yeah, paternity fraud should not be taken lightly. Definitely true! As a feminist, I believe we should be a nation of laws, not men OR women.

However, I am having trouble understanding what this has to do with testing your girlfriend's panties for traces of semen. Surely if there is any possibility that you might be the biological father, you boinked her recently. Where does the $50 semen test kit come in?

I wonder, for example, how many of the women who preferred team-players are themselves extroverts. While I still get all gushy thinking of what my husband of 8 years looks like while playing Ultimate, I am quite introverted and am much more interested in what he looks like when gazing into my eyes while he washes and I dry. (The DISHES, people! You're so dirty minded!)

I can't believe you are stooping to such deeply imbedded tactics in this forum, you meta-trolling troller of meta-trolling trolls! How dare you?!

The problem with this, as you yourself point out, is that when Obama called Clinton on her complaining about unfair debate treatment, she was actually, you know ... complaining.

So...I'll just end up giving my 18 cents a gallon to the state of Vermont to fix the potholes on I-91? Brilliant idea!

when that term first started getting thrown around, I think someone actually did a study correlating coffee choices with political affiliation, and more Republicans drank lattes and Democrats drank macchiato or something. I couldn't find it, but I found this debunking of the underlying concept:

http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/6885.html

Democrats have been portrayed as latte-sippers for several election cycles now. You don't have to accuse anyone of racism to see how it works. Unless there's something you know that we don't about Al Gore? And who among us does not love Maureen Dowd's fabricated quote about John Kerry?

I'm sure the logic professor knows better than I do, but I would call this a Burden of Proof Fallacy. You accuse somebody of something and place the burden of proof on them to explain why they don't meet your standards. The standards themselves are never addressed. This is the typical Republican tactic: place them on the defensive so no one notices we actually have no substance.

I have skipped your comments for several months, but I accidentally caught that one since it was first. Where did Buckwheat come in? Did you mean to say 'Tiger Woods'?

I would have been equally grossed out by video of a bulimic woman abusing her body by making herself throw up repeatedly for nine months. The ethical problems of this project have nothing to do with "suffering" embryos (which, even if she really had done this cute little experiment on herself, would probably not have even implanted yet). Instead, they are about the reproductive equivalent of bulimia. I get stomach viruses and throw up occasionally, and I also spent a lot of time puking from morning sickness. That does not mean that a) I think it's "art" to watch someone else inducing vomiting in herself as a spectacle about the (distorted) form and (perversion of the natural) function of her body or that b) I think people shouldn't be allowed to induce vomiting in the privacy of their own bathrooms.