But "nicely" was not the term used to describe the sartorial habits of fertile women. It was "sexy" or "seductive." It wasn't the "most attactive" outfit, it was the "skimpiest" outfit.

And I was unable to tell for certain, but it seemed to me that Traister was sneering at the research. The only people who will appreciate that kind of attitude are science-haters. And I am pretty certain that the science-haters are going to be the ones least likely to want women to be empowered.

Seems kind of unwise for a feminist. But what do I know, I have a y chromosome.

My Animal Behaviour class (at a community college no less) covered this back in '99, so unfortunately I can't name the studies we used. But of sclatter's point, extra-marital affairs at time of fertility, has actually been studied, and found to be in fact, true. Related studies that were discussed included finding that women were more likely to wear makeup, more attractive and/or skin revealing clothing, etc. at their highest fertility time as well.

However, we also worked with the memorable quote: "Women in heat get more to eat." Yet another study found that the subject monkeys were offered more food, grooming, etc. when the female displayed signs of fertility. It's a direct translation as to why the hoochie at the bar gets all the free drinks, and as result why some people dress to imitate fertility all the time-it's potentially beneficial to them. We can't all do it of course, as it would affect the benefits and the bar would keep/keeps getting raised; and as mentioned again by sclatter, men don't want this behaviour in their chosen long-term mate, as they can't be as sure the babies they are helping to raise are their own.

Regarding statistics: my point was that Traister doesn't seem to understand the difference between Size of Effect and p value.

Regarding Dr. Haselton's work: I'm not familiar with her stuff (my stuff is in Map Cognition, not Evo-Psych) but looking at her CV at the UCLA website, she appears to be the real deal.

That being said, if your point is that the mass media tends to oversensationalize "salacious" research findings, then I think we agree.

But if your point is that Traister's rookie pseudo-feminist analysis is valid, then I think we disagree.

A 10% anomaly in thousands of observations is still quite "beyond chance".

The odds of guessing a coin flip 600 out of 1000 times is less than one in seven billion, for example.

The phrase "only 60%" shows a profound lack of knowledge of science and mathematics. It's the sort of thing I'd expect from the Bush administration, not here.

Attacking the conclusions is fair game, but Traister's analysis is pretty facile. I'd like to see the study.

and so I did. Thing is, I'm a guy. Does this mean I'm ovulating?

As I understood it, 50% of the photographs were of ovulating women- one photo of each woman at her least fertile and one photo at her most fertile. If that was indeed the case then 60% wouldn't be too overwhelming.

...'cause if I could wear a t-shirt and jeans (or shorts) every day, I'd be happy. But I'm a damned good accessorizer--must be my uterus talking. ;-)

A human woman ovulates for about 48 hours, right?

There are 28 days in a cycle, right? That means an observer, by chance, would have on average, a 1 in 14 chance to point out the ovulating female.

Instead, they picked the ovulating female about 8 out of 14 times.

The odds against that are astronomical (probably billions to one).

It is perfectly possible that women subconsciously dress more attractively when they are fertile.

It is also possible that women aren't consciously interested in sex on those days for any number of reasons.

It is certainly possible that women consciously don't want to get pregnant for years at a time for any number of reasons.

None of these propositions contradict one another.

Women should be interested in having their conscious choices respected. The fact that sub-conscious biology plays a big or small role in their behavior is irrelevant to the respect they deserve and ought to demand.

This study does not appear to demean women in any way. An acknoledgment of biological factors in no way diminishes the role and primacy of thought and free choices in human behavior. It also in no way diminishes the respect that society should afford these choices.

This blog post seems to be an overreaction. Maybe the popular press should be pilloried for the way they have carried this story. The study itself seems pretty unobjectionable.

Mostly, I'm shocked that the Post knows how to pluralize a neuter Latin noun properly, even for the sake of a lame-ass pun.

And anon, good-looking women -do- like sex. Just not with you.

Never dress nicely?

glad to hear that ms. traister questions the declaration, "well beyond chance." think about it: the study involved 42 college-aged women, 60% of which appeared more attractive on their most fertile days. 60% of 42 = 25 women. that's it. only 25 women. can we say small sample size?

i also wonder what percentage of those 42 women may have been taking contraceptives that *prevent ovulation* during the study? so if hormones that cause ovulation are supressed, what does that do to our instinctive need to breed? perhaps supress it?

but what do i know.

my personal theory: when women feel bloated, greasy, and crampy, sometimes more fancy duds and jewelry do a damn fine job of making us feel normal again...

Why is a snide, angry, sarcastic blog entry necessary here? So women unconsciously pay more attention to their own sexual attractiveness when they're ovulating. So what? Nobody said anything about laying a trap for sweet seduction or any of that dumb hyperbole. What's so threatening about this that we have to pretend that 60 percent isn't "well beyond chance"?

The only thing this entry conveys is absurd paranoia. People care about sex, and they care about being sexually attractive, and yes, that means that straight women typically take steps to be sexually attractive to men. If you can't say that straight women typically take steps to be sexually attractive to men (just as, incidentally, straight men take steps to be sexually attractive to women) without being treated like you advocate foot-binding and taking away the right to vote, then we're building an entire discussion on a whole lot of fiction.