Making the right choice when finding true love is an important business, so how do we go about selecting a mate?
Many factors add up to make us desirable to potential partners. There's the obvious stuff like symmetrical features and good skin - which showcase a healthy development, immune system and good genes. Women look for tall men with masculine faces, kindness, wealth and status. Men prefer young, fertile women with a low waist-to-hip ratio and who are not too tall. Neither sex is very keen on people who wear glasses.
Beauty can come at a price however.
Other factors are less obvious. Research suggests that humans are attracted to partners who resemble themselves and - slightly disconcertingly - their parents too. Smell appears to be important as well; people are often more attracted to the smell of those who have different combinations of some immune system (MHC) genes to themselves. Mates with dissimilar MHC genes produce healthier offspring that are better able to thwart disease. People with similar MHC genes even prefer the same perfumes.
Suitors of some species such as birds, and even mice, attract their mates with complex songs or showy displays. Intelligence and talent are prized by people too. As are expensive gifts and even cheap love tokens. Even being in a relationship can make you more attractive to potential mates.
Other factors are more random - a woman's attractiveness and pheromones can fluctuate with her hormone levels and menstrual cycle. As a consequence, taking the pill can inhibit a woman's ability to select an appropriate mate.
In concert, these many factors mean the path to true love can be somewhat unpredictable.
Many people with hectic lifestyles today are turning to the internet, online lonely hearts, dating websites and speed dating to help them track down a partner. Love by wire may have started much longer ago however. See here for six tips to woo your lover.
The Art Of Loving And Keep Relationship Strong Info Online
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Most Expensive Men’s Suits
The business suit, the traditional outfit of men in the Western world, is generally worn with a dress shirt and tie. The modern suit first made its appearence in fashion during the late nineteenth century. Suits have always been a status symbol used in formal occasions and when conducting business. The fashions of suits have changed, but suit’s power to signal rank and membership maintains. So we must ask, what are the most expensive suits in the world?
Forbes recently released their Fall 2005 article of most expensive suits, which can be bought from a rack, as opposed to custom made expensive suits.
From the article:
Indeed, while the splurge appeal of custom and made-to-measure suits is still a draw for some shoppers, chances are they’d do just as well with a suit that could be fitted to their peers. “Our off-the-rack suits are the same make with the same natural shoulder as our custom suits,” says Jay Kos, a high-end New York suitmaker, whose beautifully made classic men’s suits have a wide appeal among the city’s heavier hitters. “Guys who are just coming into money want custom suits, so they can choose their own fabrics and details. But guys who already have a few custom suits are also buying off-the-rack if they see something great.”
Brioni $6,000
Kiton $5,800
Canali $4,200
Bottega Veneta $3,800
Giorgio Armani $3,595
Ralph Lauren $3,295
Oxxford Clothes $3,000
Jay Kos $2,800
Issey Miyake $2,800
Some people may suggest business suits are too formal for the modern work-a-day Google world of casual dress. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the use of suits will decline, because even a the most casual slacker needs an expensive suit for weddings, funerals, court appearances, and even some job interviews. The most expensive suits in the world are modern day replacements for polished European medieval armor.
Do you know of a more expensive off-the-rack suit?
Forbes recently released their Fall 2005 article of most expensive suits, which can be bought from a rack, as opposed to custom made expensive suits.
From the article:
Indeed, while the splurge appeal of custom and made-to-measure suits is still a draw for some shoppers, chances are they’d do just as well with a suit that could be fitted to their peers. “Our off-the-rack suits are the same make with the same natural shoulder as our custom suits,” says Jay Kos, a high-end New York suitmaker, whose beautifully made classic men’s suits have a wide appeal among the city’s heavier hitters. “Guys who are just coming into money want custom suits, so they can choose their own fabrics and details. But guys who already have a few custom suits are also buying off-the-rack if they see something great.”
Brioni $6,000
Kiton $5,800
Canali $4,200
Bottega Veneta $3,800
Giorgio Armani $3,595
Ralph Lauren $3,295
Oxxford Clothes $3,000
Jay Kos $2,800
Issey Miyake $2,800
Some people may suggest business suits are too formal for the modern work-a-day Google world of casual dress. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the use of suits will decline, because even a the most casual slacker needs an expensive suit for weddings, funerals, court appearances, and even some job interviews. The most expensive suits in the world are modern day replacements for polished European medieval armor.
Do you know of a more expensive off-the-rack suit?
Most Expensive Sweaters
How would you like to gain a piece of television and fashion history while helping out children with learning difficulties? Bid on one of the most expensive sweaters and you may be able to do just that.
Erinn Cosby, one of Bill Cosby’s four daughters, is auctioning off three of her famous father’s notorious sweaters “just in time for Father’s Day.” Bidding starts on June 2nd and proceeds from the sale of the three sweaters will go to the Hello Friend/Ennis William Cosby foundation.
When playing Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable on The Cosby Show (1984-1992), Bill Cosby most often wore shirts with loud, geometric, swirling and/or patchwork patterns. This habit gave rise to the term “Cosby sweater,” used to describe similar sweaters.
Bill and Camille Cosby set up Hello Friend after the murder of their son, Ennis Cosby, while he was studying for his master’s degree in education at Columbia University. Having struggled with dyslexia as a child, he wished to become a special education teacher. The Ennis William Cosby Foundation seeks to help teachers address the needs of children with similar difficulties.
The most expensive sweaters are being auctioned on eBay. Bidding starts at $5,000.
Erinn Cosby, one of Bill Cosby’s four daughters, is auctioning off three of her famous father’s notorious sweaters “just in time for Father’s Day.” Bidding starts on June 2nd and proceeds from the sale of the three sweaters will go to the Hello Friend/Ennis William Cosby foundation.
When playing Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable on The Cosby Show (1984-1992), Bill Cosby most often wore shirts with loud, geometric, swirling and/or patchwork patterns. This habit gave rise to the term “Cosby sweater,” used to describe similar sweaters.
Bill and Camille Cosby set up Hello Friend after the murder of their son, Ennis Cosby, while he was studying for his master’s degree in education at Columbia University. Having struggled with dyslexia as a child, he wished to become a special education teacher. The Ennis William Cosby Foundation seeks to help teachers address the needs of children with similar difficulties.
The most expensive sweaters are being auctioned on eBay. Bidding starts at $5,000.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Is Marriage Just About Sex And Babies?
Two of my friends recently got married in a great ceremony in a small chapel with amazing Byzantine tilework. It was a very romantic setting, even though the chapel was in the middle of a cemetery. This fall seems to be a busy season for marriages—everyone in my social set seems to have had a wedding to attend. For all the talk about how marriage as an institution is failing, it seems like the anecdotal evidence points the other way.
But why do we have marriages anyway? Why did society create the institution of marriage, and why does society spend so much time fretting over it—from courtroom battles to Say Yes to the Dress?
The editors of National Review, the leading magazine of the American conservative movement recently posted an editorial making their case for traditional marriage. They ask a fundamental, but difficult question: just why do we have marriages anyway? Their answer:So at the risk of awkwardness, we must talk about the facts of life. It is true that marriage is, in part, an emotional union, and it is also true that spouses often take care of each other and thereby reduce the caregiving burden on other people. But neither of these truths is the fundamental reason for marriage. The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children.
If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people's emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.) If mutual caregiving were the purpose of marriage, there would be no reason to exclude adult incestuous unions from marriage. What the institution and policy of marriage aims to regulate is sex, not love or commitment. These days, marriage regulates sex (to the extent it does regulate it) in a wholly non-coercive manner, sex outside of marriage no longer being a crime.
This is not the answer that most people want. We like to think of marriage as being all about love. But legally speaking, it's not. There's no requirement that married people actually love each other. And it isn't about caregiving either: we let people divorce each other in most states for no other reason that they don't like each other. Marriage, in its legal sense, isn't about love or caregiving. It's all about the babies.
Our culture has been trying to decouple marriage (and sex, for that matter) from reproduction. The problem with that is that you can't. Yes, not all married couples plan on having children—although some of them eventually do. And even infertile couples can adopt children. We like to think of marriage as being a celebration of love and caretaking—and while that's the core of marriage, that's not why the state recognizes it and supports it.
If there's a theme that should be obvious in these columns, it's that the family is the bedrock of society. And you can't have a healthy family without marriage. Society values marriage not because of abstract values like love and companionship—but because society gets something out of the deal. And even though that sounds harsh, it's true. As National Review points out, society shouldn't be in the business of regulating our emotional relationships. That would just be creepy.
That view of marriage is hard for people to grasp. We want to think of marriage as being about people's feelings. And on an individual level, it should be. But marriage isn't just about the (hopefully) happy couple. The IRS doesn't have a filing category for married couples because the IRS is all about love and romance. Government supports marriage because it creates strong and happy families, which in turn create stronger and happier communities, which in turn creates stronger and happier units of government, which in turn lets government tax everyone until they're no longer happy or strong.
That's why the traditional definition of marriage matters. Because it's part of a much larger societal structure. And that's why messing with it, even if for good reason, can be dangerous. If marriage is the foundation of society, playing around with that foundation can bring the whole house down. That doesn't mean that we can't change marriage with changing times—but we need to ask ourselves if those changes are really for the better.
But why do we have marriages anyway? Why did society create the institution of marriage, and why does society spend so much time fretting over it—from courtroom battles to Say Yes to the Dress?
The editors of National Review, the leading magazine of the American conservative movement recently posted an editorial making their case for traditional marriage. They ask a fundamental, but difficult question: just why do we have marriages anyway? Their answer:So at the risk of awkwardness, we must talk about the facts of life. It is true that marriage is, in part, an emotional union, and it is also true that spouses often take care of each other and thereby reduce the caregiving burden on other people. But neither of these truths is the fundamental reason for marriage. The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children.
If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people's emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.) If mutual caregiving were the purpose of marriage, there would be no reason to exclude adult incestuous unions from marriage. What the institution and policy of marriage aims to regulate is sex, not love or commitment. These days, marriage regulates sex (to the extent it does regulate it) in a wholly non-coercive manner, sex outside of marriage no longer being a crime.
This is not the answer that most people want. We like to think of marriage as being all about love. But legally speaking, it's not. There's no requirement that married people actually love each other. And it isn't about caregiving either: we let people divorce each other in most states for no other reason that they don't like each other. Marriage, in its legal sense, isn't about love or caregiving. It's all about the babies.
Our culture has been trying to decouple marriage (and sex, for that matter) from reproduction. The problem with that is that you can't. Yes, not all married couples plan on having children—although some of them eventually do. And even infertile couples can adopt children. We like to think of marriage as being a celebration of love and caretaking—and while that's the core of marriage, that's not why the state recognizes it and supports it.
If there's a theme that should be obvious in these columns, it's that the family is the bedrock of society. And you can't have a healthy family without marriage. Society values marriage not because of abstract values like love and companionship—but because society gets something out of the deal. And even though that sounds harsh, it's true. As National Review points out, society shouldn't be in the business of regulating our emotional relationships. That would just be creepy.
That view of marriage is hard for people to grasp. We want to think of marriage as being about people's feelings. And on an individual level, it should be. But marriage isn't just about the (hopefully) happy couple. The IRS doesn't have a filing category for married couples because the IRS is all about love and romance. Government supports marriage because it creates strong and happy families, which in turn create stronger and happier communities, which in turn creates stronger and happier units of government, which in turn lets government tax everyone until they're no longer happy or strong.
That's why the traditional definition of marriage matters. Because it's part of a much larger societal structure. And that's why messing with it, even if for good reason, can be dangerous. If marriage is the foundation of society, playing around with that foundation can bring the whole house down. That doesn't mean that we can't change marriage with changing times—but we need to ask ourselves if those changes are really for the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)