Hottie hunt
I’m a little tired of the “Advice Goddess” Amy Alkon’s simplified views of male and female sexuality [“Leering impaired,” Ask the Advice Goddess, May 17]. Of course men are “hardwired” to look at pretty women, but to suggest women care very little about how a man looks is crazy. Women have as much biological incentive to chase after hotties as men do. After all, if people who are physically well-built had such a survival advantage, wouldn’t it make sense for a woman to want attractive kids?
In fact, some research has suggested a side to female sexuality that makes our gender seem just as shallow as Ms. Alkon makes men out to be. When women are fertile, we tend to cheat more, and we tend to be more attracted to “macho” features (strong chins, broad shoulders, etc.). Some scientists have suggested that during our evolutionary heritage, women were predisposed to seek out the hot guy to make the kids with—and some nice, disillusioned guy to raise them.
However, human beings in any culture are not slaves to our biological predispositions. If we were, we’d still be sitting in trees snacking on the lice we pick off each other’s backs. Besides, if only pretty women can get guys, that kind of throws Alkon out of the dating pool, doesn’t it? So what is she doing giving romantic advice?
Kay Williams
Charlottesville
Panty raid
This is in regards to “Bored with boxers” [Mr. Right, May 17]. To wit : There’s a difference between “underwear” and “panties.” I suppose underwear is worn by one’s grandmother and one’s very young daughter. The definition of panties is: “Not the best thing in the world—but right next to it.”
I am sure longjoans ain’t panties.
M. A. Jones
Waynesboro