FelxH writes "Scientists have found that evolution is driving women to become ever more beautiful, while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors.
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern." I just thought my
standards were changing as I got older, but it turns out it's just science!
They'd have seen Jessica Simpson as a freakishly stretched elf - on the verge of starvation.
I wish I had a mod point for you.
We're talking about a lot of different cultures in lots of different times, I'm sure not many of the average men from each instance would find today's average American woman (The data used was gathered in the US) much more attractive. And of course, if the qualitative assessment of how beautiful a woman is is based on how many babies they make, I'm not sure if they could really agree anyways; I could call a girl a perfect ten, even if she turns out to be barren.
I do find it odd, however, that the article states that today's men are supposedly as aesthetically pleasing as cavemen. This doesn't really fit with the argument they make in saying attractiveness tends to be hereditary. Smells a little too much like bullshit on the. Either that, or the scope of the study is too narrow. I'm failing at looking up any other real information about this study.
That it is the curvature which men find most attractive, the 0.7 index - women a hundred years ago were heavier, but the attractive ones still had the "right" aspect between hips and waist (ie, that which makes for best reproduction)
Which is why I so often chose the beach for 1st dates during my dating years and took soda and fruit juice to those encounters rather than alcohol of any kind.
If you soak her in warm salt water and scorch her in 100 degree heat for for a few hours and she still looks good in a bikini standing under the noonday sun you know that at the very least, she either looks good naturally or has modifications of some permanence.
It's called "getting older". When you're 20, almost all women over 40 are unattractive, when you're pushing sixty most of the 40 year old woman are good looking.
That's not my true in my case. When I was a teenager I thought a woman was beautiful all the way upto 40 (think classmates' attractive moms)
Nowadays I often think 30 is the cutoff point...sometimes even as young as 25 if she lets herself get fat... from "cute" to "porky" in just a few years. For example I might look at Britney Spears and think, 'She used to be hot, but now she has jumbo thighs and a beer belly." Ditto Ashley Simpson or that Ghostwhisper girl. I often find myself thinking younger is better.
I blame the internet. Whereas I used to think "girl == hot" and I really didn't care if she had saggy breasts just as long as she had some, now exposure to literally millions of photographs has made me prefer small, firm breasts. i.e. I'm more picky and shallow.
Until these females develop an interest in Linux (and know that it's really GNU/Linux) plus a preference for subterranean dwelling, nobody here is likely to notice.
Women's average earnings will stay lower than men's average earnings until there is no difference in the average amount of time spent as primary caregivers to offspring.
Employers pay for (among other things) experience. Spending less time at work in order to be a primary caregiver reduces the amount of experience you can gain and offer to potential employers.
Female executives with no concept of work/life balance (living with cats) still get paid less than their male peers. Same thing for brown people, short people, and all sorts of minorities in the US (I am a tall white male that gets paid way more than my peers). The only way any of this will ever change is if companies start publishing payroll data publicly, or at least to their employees. Companies take advantage of the strange social stigma that it's somehow inappropriate to talk about salary with peers, and they use that to underpay as many of their employees as they can get away with.
Also a woman is seens as a risk. Yes, I know it's sexist and no employer will ever admit it because he could be dragged to court for it, but there is the "risk" that she will get pregnant and go on maternity leave. Depending on the country you're in, that could well mean not only that you are going to miss an experienced worker but also that she may even be entitled to getting her job back after being away 2-3 years. That in turn means that you would have to hire someone new, train him, then fire him after 2-3 years when he finally reached productivity level, only to rehire someone who has been out of the loop for 2-3 years and maybe has to be retrained.
See why many companies refuse to hire women for any job but the ones that require the least training? And thus also usually have the lowest pay?
>>>Women's average earnings will stay lower than men's average earnings
This is called lying with statistics. When you compare like-to-like, such as a female programmer with 20 years experience versus a male programmer with 20 years experience, you find the woman actually gets paid a few percent more. Given equal jobs with equal experience both sexes are treated basically equal.
The reason why the *overall* average shows women getting less is because there are simply fewer women willing to do high-paid jobs like programming, or dangerous high-pay jobs like living on an oil rig.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday July 27, @10:04AM (#28837385)
I'm confused, how does this help the average slashdotter? Perhaps you are just reminding the readers that an even higher proportion of women are out of their league. Salt in the wound, my friend.
If more attractive parents have more daughters and if physical attractiveness is heritable, it logically follows that women over many generations gradually become more physically attractive on average than men.
Except that the standard for "beauty" changes over time. I'm not sure I'm buying this.
Except that the standard for "beauty" changes over time. I'm not sure I'm buying this
not really. In magazines they change, but the real beauty does not. There are basic qualities that have withstood the test of time. Also there have been MANY studies using the baby smile test. You take babies ranging from 3 months to 1 year old. These kids are too young to have been influenced by what the media/general public considers to be attractive (e.g. magazine influence). You show them pictures of people of one attractive person and one unattractive person. The babies will gaze and smile towards what they find attractive, and ignore what they don't find attractive. So put up a picture of Rosie O'donnal vs Scarlett Johanson and Rosie won't get more then a glance from the baby. They have found, over the years and even regions, babies find similar things to be attractive. A few of the features I remember
Symmetry (e.g. Chunk from the goonies is not symmetrical)
Smooth/similar colored skin (not black vs white, but your skin color is even colored. If you have a melanoma condition you are screwed)
Developed hips (for women) which helps in child birthing
Healthy weight (anorexia is not healthy, but neither is a person who is 10 lbs overweight)
Developed/Square jaw (for men)
Good muscles for men (yes your abs are important) - it shows you can physically protect and hunt for your mate
Good teeth (shows you get things like vitamin C)
Developed breasts (for women duh)
Smell (yes being clean is a physically attractive trait)
This test has been done over and over since at least the 60's (if not before). It always has the same results (meaning its verifiable and reliable).
What has been considered attractive, for the most part, has been the same over time.
This seems like the guppy phenomenon. Under a lack of predation the guppies self select to breed for beauty. Under heavy predation they breed to survive and quickly become plain. We are the guppies. We have no predators. It just takes longer to show up with us because our life cycle takes longer.
There are only two physical traits with universal sexual appeal cross-culturally, symmetry you mentioned and clear skin. All of these ratios and such are measuring the current cultural zeitgeist with regards to beauty, and those standards are largely culturally plastic. Little better in methodology than phrenology.
>while men remain as aesthetically unappealing as their caveman ancestors.
Really? You mean those 5-foot-1 suits of armor at the museum were worn by the same 6-foot-5 monsters who grace our modern football fields and armed forces?
I guess men from the Renaissance were the same as us, except highly compressible.
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.
If anything the reasons a woman has a baby has nothing to do with her looks and everything to do with her sense of well being, security along with cultural beliefs. Women are plenty attractive enough to get some sort of a sex partner and I'm trying to identify a time when that has not been the case.
In today's day and age, culture matters for birth more than looks. There are some women out there having nearly 10 children simply because they feel it is a christian thing to do. How does evolution account for that, unless it accounts for obvious social influences. On the opposite end of the scale, you have some green women who are deeply concerned that bringing too many children into the world might somehow compromise the planet.
It's almost like environment plus culture need to be considered as a holistic system in order to really understand human evolution.
They used old photographs in the study of people from past generations and their method of "objective" measurement of beauty were to have modern-day people judge them.
It seems almost a foregone conclusion that people in modern times would find the women of modern times more attractive; standards of beauty change.
Women aged 20-29 were nearly 29 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Women aged 40-49 were about 25.5 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Had I not lost my mod points, you'd have gotten a funny.
Since I don't, I'll do the next most popular thing on/. and point out your error. Silicone, which used to be used for fake boobies, has a specific gravity just above that of water (1.1 range). Silicon, which powers your computer, has a specific gravity of 2.3.
Again, this/. so I can see how things got mixed up. AFAICT, the latter form is more popular as a tool for personal gratification around here.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday July 27, @10:07AM (#28837423)
The downside is that unless you are a dirty old man, there is no way to take advantage of the beautification of the female portion of the human race.
What downside? That's what the Internet is for.
Thanks to technology, you can see more boobs in an hour than your dad had in his entire stack of Playboys, and than your grandfather did during his entire life.
Thanks to technology, you can see more boobs in an hour than your dad had in his entire stack of Playboys, and than your grandfather did during his entire life.
Speak for your own grandfather. My grandfather was part of the army that liberated Paris. I'm told that the French were most appreciative.....;)
As a male, let me just say that it is sometimes good to be in the minority. The downside is that unless you are a dirty old man, there is no way to take advantage of the beautification of the female portion of the human race.
It is not only attractive women. What you are saying here is actually known as a social disease. Urban centers, overpopulation etc will have the effect of making woman want to have less kids. If you get those same woman and leave them on less populated places for a few years (6+), they will start wanting to have kids again.
As a father, I can say this doesn't happen only to women. Having a child will actually completes you and make you happy. It is natural for men and women to want to have kids. All the other "career" bullshit (given as a reason for men/women not having kids) is a symptom of a social disease.
"Having a child will actually completes you and make you happy."
Hey, whatever floats your boat man...I've spent my entire life trying my BEST to avoid having the little 'milstones' around my neck. That's what contraception is for (and abortion if those still fail).
I'm glad people like having kids, but, it just isn't right to say it "completes" you. I've never wanted any, and I feel very complete! I'm not tied down to kids and a wife, I can date as I please, trade to a new 'model' of woman when I feel like it, and I don't have to worry about what I spend my finances on, because little Suzy needs braces. I can come and go as I please, travel, experience life and all it has to offer.
I don't look down on your for your choices, but, to say one must have that 'traditional' home with wife and kids to be a complete person is just plain nonsense. Different strokes for different folks...
Teenage girls blossom earlier for one reason: calories.
Menses is largely dependant on having sufficient calories, both intake and stored(approaching 20% bodyfat), and estrogen. Fat also emits estrogen, so fat kids means earlier menarche.
Compare a gymnast (high caloric output, minimal caloric input relative to output) to a girl who's economic status is such that she gets sufficient calories in the form of fast food & microwave meals and spends 15+ hours per day sitting on her ass.
On the other hand, the average age of menarche has only changed by maybe 3 or 4 months in the last 30 years.
Evolution has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Funny)
It's called Photoshop.
Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
DEFINE: Subjectivity (Score:5, Insightful)
"Gee, more women appear to conform to modern standards of beauty, than at any time in the past!"
Mid 19th century beauty can be deduced by portraiture. The pre-raphaelite stuff from Rosetti does a pretty good job of this:
http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/s356.repro.jpg [rossettiarchive.org]
http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/s536.repro.jpg [rossettiarchive.org]
They'd have seen Jessica Simpson as a freakishly stretched elf - on the verge of starvation.
Parent
Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean, they would? Isn't that what people think about her right now?
Parent
Re:DEFINE: Subjectivity (Score:5, Insightful)
"Gee, more women appear to conform to modern standards of beauty, than at any time in the past!"
Mid 19th century beauty can be deduced by portraiture. The pre-raphaelite stuff from Rosetti does a pretty good job of this:
http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/s356.repro.jpg [rossettiarchive.org]
http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/s536.repro.jpg [rossettiarchive.org]
They'd have seen Jessica Simpson as a freakishly stretched elf - on the verge of starvation.
I wish I had a mod point for you.
We're talking about a lot of different cultures in lots of different times, I'm sure not many of the average men from each instance would find today's average American woman (The data used was gathered in the US) much more attractive. And of course, if the qualitative assessment of how beautiful a woman is is based on how many babies they make, I'm not sure if they could really agree anyways; I could call a girl a perfect ten, even if she turns out to be barren.
I do find it odd, however, that the article states that today's men are supposedly as aesthetically pleasing as cavemen. This doesn't really fit with the argument they make in saying attractiveness tends to be hereditary. Smells a little too much like bullshit on the. Either that, or the scope of the study is too narrow. I'm failing at looking up any other real information about this study.
Parent
Statistics show (Score:5, Interesting)
That it is the curvature which men find most attractive, the 0.7 index - women a hundred years ago were heavier, but the attractive ones still had the "right" aspect between hips and waist (ie, that which makes for best reproduction)
Parent
Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v_azJv50KQ
Amazing what 4 hours of makeup and 4 hours of photoshop can do.
Parent
Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Funny)
If you soak her in warm salt water and scorch her in 100 degree heat for for a few hours and she still looks good in a bikini standing under the noonday sun you know that at the very least, she either looks good naturally or has modifications of some permanence.
Parent
Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called "getting older". When you're 20, almost all women over 40 are unattractive, when you're pushing sixty most of the 40 year old woman are good looking.
Parent
Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not my true in my case. When I was a teenager I thought a woman was beautiful all the way upto 40 (think classmates' attractive moms)
Nowadays I often think 30 is the cutoff point...sometimes even as young as 25 if she lets herself get fat... from "cute" to "porky" in just a few years. For example I might look at Britney Spears and think, 'She used to be hot, but now she has jumbo thighs and a beer belly." Ditto Ashley Simpson or that Ghostwhisper girl. I often find myself thinking younger is better.
I blame the internet. Whereas I used to think "girl == hot" and I really didn't care if she had saggy breasts just as long as she had some, now exposure to literally millions of photographs has made me prefer small, firm breasts. i.e. I'm more picky and shallow.
Parent
Re:Evolution has nothing to do with it (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed, everybody knows that beauty is in the eye of the beer holder!
Parent
Does it matter? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does it matter? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
re: does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
now that's a rejoinder that you could only find on slashdot...
Parent
Each sex is defined by the needs of the other (Score:5, Insightful)
Women get more attractive. Men develop bigger wallets.
Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other (Score:5, Interesting)
Employers pay for (among other things) experience. Spending less time at work in order to be a primary caregiver reduces the amount of experience you can gain and offer to potential employers.
Parent
Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other (Score:5, Insightful)
Female executives with no concept of work/life balance (living with cats) still get paid less than their male peers. Same thing for brown people, short people, and all sorts of minorities in the US (I am a tall white male that gets paid way more than my peers). The only way any of this will ever change is if companies start publishing payroll data publicly, or at least to their employees. Companies take advantage of the strange social stigma that it's somehow inappropriate to talk about salary with peers, and they use that to underpay as many of their employees as they can get away with.
Parent
Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other (Score:5, Insightful)
Also a woman is seens as a risk. Yes, I know it's sexist and no employer will ever admit it because he could be dragged to court for it, but there is the "risk" that she will get pregnant and go on maternity leave. Depending on the country you're in, that could well mean not only that you are going to miss an experienced worker but also that she may even be entitled to getting her job back after being away 2-3 years. That in turn means that you would have to hire someone new, train him, then fire him after 2-3 years when he finally reached productivity level, only to rehire someone who has been out of the loop for 2-3 years and maybe has to be retrained.
See why many companies refuse to hire women for any job but the ones that require the least training? And thus also usually have the lowest pay?
Parent
Re:Each sex is defined by the needs of the other (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Women's average earnings will stay lower than men's average earnings
This is called lying with statistics. When you compare like-to-like, such as a female programmer with 20 years experience versus a male programmer with 20 years experience, you find the woman actually gets paid a few percent more. Given equal jobs with equal experience both sexes are treated basically equal.
The reason why the *overall* average shows women getting less is because there are simply fewer women willing to do high-paid jobs like programming, or dangerous high-pay jobs like living on an oil rig.
Parent
news for nerds? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm confused, how does this help the average slashdotter? Perhaps you are just reminding the readers that an even higher proportion of women are out of their league. Salt in the wound, my friend.
I'm dubious (Score:5, Insightful)
If more attractive parents have more daughters and if physical attractiveness is heritable, it logically follows that women over many generations gradually become more physically attractive on average than men.
Except that the standard for "beauty" changes over time. I'm not sure I'm buying this.
Re:I'm dubious (Score:5, Informative)
Except that the standard for "beauty" changes over time. I'm not sure I'm buying this
not really. In magazines they change, but the real beauty does not. There are basic qualities that have withstood the test of time. Also there have been MANY studies using the baby smile test. You take babies ranging from 3 months to 1 year old. These kids are too young to have been influenced by what the media/general public considers to be attractive (e.g. magazine influence). You show them pictures of people of one attractive person and one unattractive person. The babies will gaze and smile towards what they find attractive, and ignore what they don't find attractive. So put up a picture of Rosie O'donnal vs Scarlett Johanson and Rosie won't get more then a glance from the baby. They have found, over the years and even regions, babies find similar things to be attractive. A few of the features I remember
Symmetry (e.g. Chunk from the goonies is not symmetrical)
Smooth/similar colored skin (not black vs white, but your skin color is even colored. If you have a melanoma condition you are screwed)
Developed hips (for women) which helps in child birthing
Healthy weight (anorexia is not healthy, but neither is a person who is 10 lbs overweight)
Developed/Square jaw (for men)
Good muscles for men (yes your abs are important) - it shows you can physically protect and hunt for your mate
Good teeth (shows you get things like vitamin C)
Developed breasts (for women duh)
Smell (yes being clean is a physically attractive trait)
This test has been done over and over since at least the 60's (if not before). It always has the same results (meaning its verifiable and reliable).
What has been considered attractive, for the most part, has been the same over time.
Parent
Are we guppies (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems like the guppy phenomenon. Under a lack of predation the guppies self select to breed for beauty. Under heavy predation they breed to survive and quickly become plain. We are the guppies. We have no predators. It just takes longer to show up with us because our life cycle takes longer.
Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
36 - 24 - 36.
Parent
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
36 - 24 - 36
Only if she's 5'3"
Parent
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature [psychologytoday.com]
Parent
Causation? (Score:5, Funny)
Are beer sales up?
Wrong-o on the male-o (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? You mean those 5-foot-1 suits of armor at the museum were worn by the same 6-foot-5 monsters who grace our modern football fields and armed forces?
I guess men from the Renaissance were the same as us, except highly compressible.
Re:Wrong-o on the male-o (Score:5, Funny)
I guess men from the Renaissance were the same as us, except highly compressible.
They weren't any more or less compressible, they just used a more efficient algorithm.
Parent
I can assure you... (Score:5, Funny)
Not in Liverpool. Looking at the women on dating sites for this city is like looking at a freak show. Seriously.
It's so easy (Score:5, Funny)
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.
So easy a caveman can do it.
evolution versus creation? (Score:5, Funny)
If evolution is making women more attractive, does creation have the inverse effect?
The birth part is silly. (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything the reasons a woman has a baby has nothing to do with her looks and everything to do with her sense of well being, security along with cultural beliefs. Women are plenty attractive enough to get some sort of a sex partner and I'm trying to identify a time when that has not been the case.
In today's day and age, culture matters for birth more than looks. There are some women out there having nearly 10 children simply because they feel it is a christian thing to do. How does evolution account for that, unless it accounts for obvious social influences. On the opposite end of the scale, you have some green women who are deeply concerned that bringing too many children into the world might somehow compromise the planet.
It's almost like environment plus culture need to be considered as a holistic system in order to really understand human evolution.
This thread is useless without pics (Score:5, Insightful)
Eye of the Beholder, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
They used old photographs in the study of people from past generations and their method of "objective" measurement of beauty were to have modern-day people judge them.
It seems almost a foregone conclusion that people in modern times would find the women of modern times more attractive; standards of beauty change.
my wife is proof of evolution? (Score:5, Funny)
Huh. I had no idea that watching my wife grow in beauty over 15 years was watching evolution in process. Nice.
This discovery has lead to the solution to a particular slashdot meme.
a. Yes, this post is sappy and sentimental.
b. Yes, I am sending my wife a link to this post.
c. Yes, the kids are going to bed early tonight.
d. Profit!!!
So beauty is measured in pounds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Women aged 40-49 were about 25.5 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.
Re:So beauty is measured in pounds? (Score:5, Informative)
Had I not lost my mod points, you'd have gotten a funny.
Since I don't, I'll do the next most popular thing on /. and point out your error. Silicone, which used to be used for fake boobies, has a specific gravity just above that of water (1.1 range). Silicon, which powers your computer, has a specific gravity of 2.3.
Again, this /. so I can see how things got mixed up. AFAICT, the latter form is more popular as a tool for personal gratification around here.
Parent
Re:As a male... (Score:5, Funny)
What downside? That's what the Internet is for.
Thanks to technology, you can see more boobs in an hour than your dad had in his entire stack of Playboys, and than your grandfather did during his entire life.
Parent
Re:As a male... (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks to technology, you can see more boobs in an hour than your dad had in his entire stack of Playboys, and than your grandfather did during his entire life.
Speak for your own grandfather. My grandfather was part of the army that liberated Paris. I'm told that the French were most appreciative..... ;)
Parent
Re:As a male... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:As a male... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a male, let me just say that it is sometimes good to be in the minority. The downside is that unless you are a dirty old man, there is no way to take advantage of the beautification of the female portion of the human race.
Rich. Not dirty, rich.
Parent
Re:As a male... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not only attractive women. What you are saying here is actually known as a social disease. Urban centers, overpopulation etc will have the effect of making woman want to have less kids. If you get those same woman and leave them on less populated places for a few years (6+), they will start wanting to have kids again.
As a father, I can say this doesn't happen only to women. Having a child will actually completes you and make you happy. It is natural for men and women to want to have kids. All the other "career" bullshit (given as a reason for men/women not having kids) is a symptom of a social disease.
Parent
Re:As a male... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, whatever floats your boat man...I've spent my entire life trying my BEST to avoid having the little 'milstones' around my neck. That's what contraception is for (and abortion if those still fail).
I'm glad people like having kids, but, it just isn't right to say it "completes" you. I've never wanted any, and I feel very complete! I'm not tied down to kids and a wife, I can date as I please, trade to a new 'model' of woman when I feel like it, and I don't have to worry about what I spend my finances on, because little Suzy needs braces. I can come and go as I please, travel, experience life and all it has to offer.
I don't look down on your for your choices, but, to say one must have that 'traditional' home with wife and kids to be a complete person is just plain nonsense. Different strokes for different folks...
Parent
Re:Couldn't be hormones in our food, could it? (Score:5, Informative)
Teenage girls blossom earlier for one reason: calories.
Menses is largely dependant on having sufficient calories, both intake and stored(approaching 20% bodyfat), and estrogen. Fat also emits estrogen, so fat kids means earlier menarche.
Compare a gymnast (high caloric output, minimal caloric input relative to output) to a girl who's economic status is such that she gets sufficient calories in the form of fast food & microwave meals and spends 15+ hours per day sitting on her ass.
On the other hand, the average age of menarche has only changed by maybe 3 or 4 months in the last 30 years.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/1/110
Let me know if the study is bullshit.
Parent
Re:What's the rate? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent