I think the NY Times Style section should invest in a resident evolutionary psychologist. Its pages are often filled with the most blatant examples of human nature and sexual selection. The scientist could also help me understand stories like this:
Dr. David Stoker, a plastic surgeon in Marina Del Rey, Calif., has a surgical cure for the ravages of motherhood. He, like many plastic surgeons nationwide, calls it a “mommy makeover.”
Aimed at mothers, it usually involves a trifecta: a breast lift with or without breast implants, a tummy tuck and some liposuction. The procedures are intended to hoist slackened skin as well as reduce stretch marks and pregnancy fat.
“The severe physical trauma of pregnancy, childbirth and breast-feeding can have profound negative effects that cause women to lose their hourglass figures,” he said.
If I remember my evo-psych correctly, the whole reason the “hourglass figure” is so attractive is because it’s some sort of implicit signal that a woman can have lots of kids. (It has something to do with wide hips leading to easier births.) But isn’t already having kids the best evidence that you can have kids? Nothing says “I’m fertile” like having offspring. By that logic, women should be celebrating the physical effects of post-pregnancy.
Of course, that won’t happen anytime soon. So much for my pathetic attempts at telling “just so” stories.
On a related note, Mind Hacks discusses the link between menstrual cycle and lap dancing:
A study shortly to be published in the journal Evolution and Human Behaviour found that lap dancers in their most fertile phase of the menstrual cycle earned much more than dancers in the least fertile phase. In contrast, dancers who took the contraceptive pill, which ‘flattens’ the hormone cycle, earned much the same throughout the month.