Discussion:
Does attractiveness enhance mating success?
(too old to reply)
franco
2005-05-05 17:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating
success?

Abstract
If attractiveness is an important cue for mate choice, as proposed by
evolutionary psychologists, then attractive individuals should have
greater mating success than their peers. We tested this hypothesis in a
large sample of adults. Facial attractiveness correlated with the
number of short-term, but not long-term, sexual partners, for males,
and with the number of long-term, but not short-term, sexual partners
and age of first sex, for females. Body attractiveness also correlated
significantly with the number of short-term, but not long-term, sexual
partners, for males, and attractive males became sexually active
earlier than their peers. Body attractiveness did not correlate with
any sexual behavior variable for females. To determine which aspects of
attractiveness were important, we examined associations between sexual
behaviors and three components of attractiveness: sexual dimorphism,
averageness, and symmetry. Sexual dimorphism showed the clearest
associations with sexual behaviors. Masculine males (bodies, similar
trend for faces) had more short-term sexual partners, and feminine
females (faces) had more long-term sexual partners than their peers.
Feminine females (faces) also became sexually active earlier than their
peers. Average males (faces and bodies) had more short-term sexual
partners and more extra-pair copulations (EPC) than their peers.
Symmetric women (faces) became sexually active earlier than their
peers. Given that male reproductive success depends more on short-term
mating opportunities than does female reproductive success, these
findings suggest that individuals of high phenotypic quality have
higher mating success than their lower quality counterparts.
August Pamplona
2005-05-05 18:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by franco
Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating
success?
Abstract
If attractiveness is an important cue for mate choice, as proposed by
evolutionary psychologists, then attractive individuals should have
greater mating success than their peers. We tested this hypothesis in a
large sample of adults. Facial attractiveness correlated with the
number of short-term, but not long-term, sexual partners, for males,
and with the number of long-term, but not short-term, sexual partners
and age of first sex, for females. Body attractiveness also correlated
significantly with the number of short-term, but not long-term, sexual
partners, for males, and attractive males became sexually active
earlier than their peers. Body attractiveness did not correlate with
any sexual behavior variable for females. To determine which aspects of
attractiveness were important, we examined associations between sexual
behaviors and three components of attractiveness: sexual dimorphism,
averageness, and symmetry. Sexual dimorphism showed the clearest
associations with sexual behaviors. Masculine males (bodies, similar
trend for faces) had more short-term sexual partners, and feminine
females (faces) had more long-term sexual partners than their peers.
Feminine females (faces) also became sexually active earlier than their
peers. Average males (faces and bodies) had more short-term sexual
partners and more extra-pair copulations (EPC) than their peers.
Symmetric women (faces) became sexually active earlier than their
peers. Given that male reproductive success depends more on short-term
mating opportunities than does female reproductive success, these
findings suggest that individuals of high phenotypic quality have
higher mating success than their lower quality counterparts.
Hey, that's pretty interesting.

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
Lash Rambo
2005-05-05 20:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by franco
Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating
success?
Abstract
If attractiveness is an important cue for mate choice, as proposed by
evolutionary psychologists, then attractive individuals should have
greater mating success than their peers. We tested this hypothesis in a
large sample of adults. Facial attractiveness correlated with the
number of short-term, but not long-term, sexual partners, for males,
and with the number of long-term, but not short-term, sexual partners
and age of first sex, for females. Body attractiveness also correlated
significantly with the number of short-term, but not long-term, sexual
partners, for males, and attractive males became sexually active
earlier than their peers. Body attractiveness did not correlate with
any sexual behavior variable for females. To determine which aspects of
attractiveness were important, we examined associations between sexual
behaviors and three components of attractiveness: sexual dimorphism,
averageness, and symmetry. Sexual dimorphism showed the clearest
associations with sexual behaviors. Masculine males (bodies, similar
trend for faces) had more short-term sexual partners, and feminine
females (faces) had more long-term sexual partners than their peers.
Feminine females (faces) also became sexually active earlier than their
peers. Average males (faces and bodies) had more short-term sexual
partners and more extra-pair copulations (EPC) than their peers.
Symmetric women (faces) became sexually active earlier than their
peers. Given that male reproductive success depends more on short-term
mating opportunities than does female reproductive success, these
findings suggest that individuals of high phenotypic quality have
higher mating success than their lower quality counterparts.
From what population were these samples drawn? I ask because it's very
strange that women's faces turned up a correlation, but their bodies did
not. That would make sense, for instance, in a culture where women are
forced to wear clothes that hide their figures, but are allowed to show
their faces. Here in the states, though, the "ideal body type" for women
(low body-fat, particular waist-to-hip ratio, large breasts) seems at
least as important as the one for men. I've seen no shortage women who
"got it and flaunt it" with regard to their attractive bodies.

Very odd.
August Pamplona
2005-05-05 20:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lash Rambo
Post by franco
Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating
success?
Abstract
If attractiveness is an important cue for mate choice, as proposed by
evolutionary psychologists, then attractive individuals should have
greater mating success than their peers. We tested this hypothesis in a
large sample of adults. Facial attractiveness correlated with the
number of short-term, but not long-term, sexual partners, for males,
and with the number of long-term, but not short-term, sexual partners
and age of first sex, for females. Body attractiveness also correlated
significantly with the number of short-term, but not long-term, sexual
partners, for males, and attractive males became sexually active
earlier than their peers. Body attractiveness did not correlate with
any sexual behavior variable for females. To determine which aspects of
attractiveness were important, we examined associations between sexual
behaviors and three components of attractiveness: sexual dimorphism,
averageness, and symmetry. Sexual dimorphism showed the clearest
associations with sexual behaviors. Masculine males (bodies, similar
trend for faces) had more short-term sexual partners, and feminine
females (faces) had more long-term sexual partners than their peers.
Feminine females (faces) also became sexually active earlier than their
peers. Average males (faces and bodies) had more short-term sexual
partners and more extra-pair copulations (EPC) than their peers.
Symmetric women (faces) became sexually active earlier than their
peers. Given that male reproductive success depends more on short-term
mating opportunities than does female reproductive success, these
findings suggest that individuals of high phenotypic quality have
higher mating success than their lower quality counterparts.
From what population were these samples drawn? I ask because it's very
strange that women's faces turned up a correlation, but their bodies did
not. That would make sense, for instance, in a culture where women are
forced to wear clothes that hide their figures, but are allowed to show
their faces. Here in the states, though, the "ideal body type" for women
(low body-fat, particular waist-to-hip ratio, large breasts) seems at
least as important as the one for men. I've seen no shortage women who
"got it and flaunt it" with regard to their attractive bodies.
Very odd.
I would think that an unattractive face with a nice body would
probably not improve mating success greatly (though this might may more
about me than anything else) but I can't see how the reverse case of a
nice face with an unattractive body would fare better. That's why I
bothered to reply commenting that it's pretty interesting.

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
gty
2005-05-05 20:41:32 UTC
Permalink
just proves guys will fuck anything.
August Pamplona
2005-05-05 21:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by gty
just proves guys will fuck anything.
As long as it has a pretty face, that's what's possibly weird.

August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
franco
2005-05-08 17:26:38 UTC
Permalink
All I know is that research is flawed! if I were a reviewer I would
reject any study relying on only still pictures to determine physical
attractiveness. Attractiveness is more than just skin deep: Facial
muscles movements and expressions are very important determinants that
are missed in still pictures. First impression attractiveness studies
must be done on video samples. No need to mention that the perception
of physical attractiveness could also change with time (we start seeing
people as more attractive when we fall in love with them for example),
but since we are restricted to first impression here we won't discuss
that point.
Post by Lash Rambo
From what population were these samples drawn? I ask because it's very
strange that women's faces turned up a correlation, but their bodies did
not. That would make sense, for instance, in a culture where women are
forced to wear clothes that hide their figures, but are allowed to show
their faces. Here in the states, though, the "ideal body type" for women
(low body-fat, particular waist-to-hip ratio, large breasts) seems at
least as important as the one for men. I've seen no shortage women who
"got it and flaunt it" with regard to their attractive bodies.
Very odd.
August Pamplona
2005-05-08 20:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by franco
All I know is that research is flawed! if I were a reviewer I would
reject any study relying on only still pictures to determine physical
attractiveness.
As long as the pictures are standardized (by taking them under
nearly identical conditions).
Post by franco
Attractiveness is more than just skin deep: Facial
muscles movements and expressions are very important determinants that
are missed in still pictures. First impression attractiveness studies
must be done on video samples.
As long as the video samples are standardized.
Post by franco
No need to mention that the perception
of physical attractiveness could also change with time (we start seeing
people as more attractive when we fall in love with them for example),
but since we are restricted to first impression here we won't discuss
that point.
Post by Lash Rambo
From what population were these samples drawn? I ask because it's
very
Post by Lash Rambo
strange that women's faces turned up a correlation, but their bodies
did
Post by Lash Rambo
not. That would make sense, for instance, in a culture where women
are
Post by Lash Rambo
forced to wear clothes that hide their figures, but are allowed to
show
Post by Lash Rambo
their faces. Here in the states, though, the "ideal body type" for
women
Post by Lash Rambo
(low body-fat, particular waist-to-hip ratio, large breasts) seems at
least as important as the one for men. I've seen no shortage women
who
Post by Lash Rambo
"got it and flaunt it" with regard to their attractive bodies.
Very odd.
August Pamplona
--
The waterfall in Java is not wet.
- omegazero2003 on m.f.w.

a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.

To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
Dolores
2005-05-09 04:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by franco
All I know is that research is flawed! if I were a reviewer I would
reject any study relying on only still pictures to determine physical
attractiveness. Attractiveness is more than just skin deep: Facial
muscles movements and expressions are very important determinants that
are missed in still pictures. First impression attractiveness studies
must be done on video samples. No need to mention that the perception
of physical attractiveness could also change with time (we start seeing
people as more attractive when we fall in love with them for example),
but since we are restricted to first impression here we won't discuss
that point.
Post by Lash Rambo
From what population were these samples drawn? I ask because it's
very
Post by Lash Rambo
strange that women's faces turned up a correlation, but their bodies
did
Post by Lash Rambo
not. That would make sense, for instance, in a culture where women
are
Post by Lash Rambo
forced to wear clothes that hide their figures, but are allowed to
show
Post by Lash Rambo
their faces. Here in the states, though, the "ideal body type" for
women
Post by Lash Rambo
(low body-fat, particular waist-to-hip ratio, large breasts) seems at
least as important as the one for men. I've seen no shortage women
who
Post by Lash Rambo
"got it and flaunt it" with regard to their attractive bodies.
Very odd.
Some studies I've seen over the past few years indicate that female
attraction is more strongly affected by a man's smell than his appearance.
--
-=Lola
-------
As the King of Saturn's Rings and Plenipotentiary of the Outermost Moons
of Jupiter, I declare this thread to be donkey-ball suck-fest. (Mad
Mambo Master of Macedonia)
franco
2005-05-13 20:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dolores
Some studies I've seen over the past few years indicate that female
attraction is more strongly affected by a man's smell than his
appearance.

Sex differences in response to physical and social factors involved in
human mate selection: The importance of smell for women

Abstract
A survey study examining the relative importance of various social and
physical traits in heterosexual attraction was conducted. Data from 198
male and female heterosexual college students revealed that women
ranked body odor as more important for attraction than "looks" or any
social factor except "pleasantness." Moreover, in contrast to response
to fragrance use, liking someone's natural body odor was the most
influential olfactory variable for sexual interest for both men and
women. Men rated a woman's good looks as most desirable and as more
important than any other factor except pleasantness. Sex differences in
the relative ranking of several social factors were consistent with
prior research.
Dolores
2005-05-14 05:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dolores
Post by Dolores
Some studies I've seen over the past few years indicate that female
attraction is more strongly affected by a man's smell than his
appearance.
Sex differences in response to physical and social factors involved in
human mate selection: The importance of smell for women
Abstract
A survey study examining the relative importance of various social and
physical traits in heterosexual attraction was conducted. Data from 198
male and female heterosexual college students revealed that women
ranked body odor as more important for attraction than "looks" or any
social factor except "pleasantness." Moreover, in contrast to response
to fragrance use, liking someone's natural body odor was the most
influential olfactory variable for sexual interest for both men and
women. Men rated a woman's good looks as most desirable and as more
important than any other factor except pleasantness. Sex differences in
the relative ranking of several social factors were consistent with
prior research.
One of the pieces of research I remember reading (wish I could cite it,
but I don't remember specifics) found that women were most attracted to
men who smell like their fathers... but not *too* much like their
fathers. There is another slightly conflicting olfactory phenomenon at
work, which is that people (men and women) will not normally be
attracted to people who share their "family" smell; this is theorized to
be a biological deterrent to accidental incest.
--
-=Lola
-------
As the King of Saturn's Rings and Plenipotentiary of the Outermost Moons
of Jupiter, I declare this thread to be donkey-ball suck-fest. (Mad
Mambo Master of Macedonia)
franco
2005-05-14 15:02:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dolores
One of the pieces of research I remember reading (wish I could cite it,
but I don't remember specifics) found that women were most attracted to
men who smell like their fathers... but not *too* much like their
fathers. There is another slightly conflicting olfactory phenomenon at
work, which is that people (men and women) will not normally be
attracted to people who share their "family" smell; this is theorized to
be a biological deterrent to accidental incest.
It's in the same study I mentioned above:
"Several studies have shown that major histocompatibility complex (MHC)
genotype influences mate choice in mice and that this choice is made on
the basis of body odor (Potts, Manning, & Wakeland, 1991). Research
with humans has also shown that MHC type and body odor play a role in
the selection of heterosexual mates. For instance, Wedekind et al.
(1995) found that females preferred the smell of T-shirts worn by men
who were different in MHC alleles than themselves. Mate selection that
favors different/complementary MHC is valuable because allele
combinations in offspring would maximize disease protection and
minimize recessive mutations. It has also recently been shown that
women prefer the scent of physically symmetrical men, especially during
ovulation, which supports the suggested relationship between "good"
genes and body odor in women's mate-selection strategies (Gangestad and
Thornhill)."
Dolores
2005-05-14 16:42:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by franco
Post by Dolores
One of the pieces of research I remember reading (wish I could cite
it,
Post by Dolores
but I don't remember specifics) found that women were most attracted
to
Post by Dolores
men who smell like their fathers... but not *too* much like their
fathers. There is another slightly conflicting olfactory phenomenon
at
Post by Dolores
work, which is that people (men and women) will not normally be
attracted to people who share their "family" smell; this is theorized
to
Post by Dolores
be a biological deterrent to accidental incest.
"Several studies have shown that major histocompatibility complex (MHC)
genotype influences mate choice in mice and that this choice is made on
the basis of body odor (Potts, Manning, & Wakeland, 1991). Research
with humans has also shown that MHC type and body odor play a role in
the selection of heterosexual mates. For instance, Wedekind et al.
(1995) found that females preferred the smell of T-shirts worn by men
who were different in MHC alleles than themselves. Mate selection that
favors different/complementary MHC is valuable because allele
combinations in offspring would maximize disease protection and
minimize recessive mutations. It has also recently been shown that
women prefer the scent of physically symmetrical men, especially during
ovulation, which supports the suggested relationship between "good"
genes and body odor in women's mate-selection strategies (Gangestad and
Thornhill)."
Awesome! Thanks.

Like I said, we're all basically just squirrels.
--
-=Lola
-------
As the King of Saturn's Rings and Plenipotentiary of the Outermost Moons
of Jupiter, I declare this thread to be donkey-ball suck-fest. (Mad
Mambo Master of Macedonia)
ci+
2005-05-15 03:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dolores
Post by franco
Post by Dolores
One of the pieces of research I remember reading (wish I could cite
it,
Post by Dolores
but I don't remember specifics) found that women were most attracted
to
Post by Dolores
men who smell like their fathers... but not *too* much like their
fathers. There is another slightly conflicting olfactory phenomenon
at
Post by Dolores
work, which is that people (men and women) will not normally be
attracted to people who share their "family" smell; this is theorized
to
Post by Dolores
be a biological deterrent to accidental incest.
so trailer-trash have no sense of smell? or the bad whisky disguises the familial odor?
Post by Dolores
Post by franco
"Several studies have shown that major histocompatibility complex (MHC)
genotype influences mate choice in mice and that this choice is made on
the basis of body odor (Potts, Manning, & Wakeland, 1991). Research
with humans has also shown that MHC type and body odor play a role in
the selection of heterosexual mates. For instance, Wedekind et al.
(1995) found that females preferred the smell of T-shirts worn by men
who were different in MHC alleles than themselves. Mate selection that
favors different/complementary MHC is valuable because allele
combinations in offspring would maximize disease protection and
minimize recessive mutations. It has also recently been shown that
women prefer the scent of physically symmetrical men,
i know what symmetry *looks* like, but i wonder what symmetry smells like...
Post by Dolores
Post by franco
especially during
ovulation, which supports the suggested relationship between "good"
genes and body odor in women's mate-selection strategies (Gangestad and
Thornhill)."
Awesome! Thanks.
Like I said, we're all basically just squirrels.
looking or the best nut. we're all after the same nut.. Sissy Knox .... that's the trouble...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
%20Parker
Loading Image...
%20Parker






squirrel that...



---
the next best thing to mother mary on a slice of bread?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050509/1911/k050913aujpg
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Salon+Sex+Symbol
http://openscroll.org/lj/diebold_1a.jpg
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-6/111591090046280.xml
Dolores
2005-05-15 16:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ci+
Post by Dolores
Post by franco
Post by Dolores
One of the pieces of research I remember reading (wish I could cite
it,
Post by Dolores
but I don't remember specifics) found that women were most attracted
to
Post by Dolores
men who smell like their fathers... but not *too* much like their
fathers. There is another slightly conflicting olfactory phenomenon
at
Post by Dolores
work, which is that people (men and women) will not normally be
attracted to people who share their "family" smell; this is theorized
to
Post by Dolores
be a biological deterrent to accidental incest.
so trailer-trash have no sense of smell? or the bad whisky disguises the familial odor?
They're already from such a limited gene pool that everyone smells the
same to begin with.
Post by ci+
Post by Dolores
Post by franco
"Several studies have shown that major histocompatibility complex (MHC)
genotype influences mate choice in mice and that this choice is made on
the basis of body odor (Potts, Manning, & Wakeland, 1991). Research
with humans has also shown that MHC type and body odor play a role in
the selection of heterosexual mates. For instance, Wedekind et al.
(1995) found that females preferred the smell of T-shirts worn by men
who were different in MHC alleles than themselves. Mate selection that
favors different/complementary MHC is valuable because allele
combinations in offspring would maximize disease protection and
minimize recessive mutations. It has also recently been shown that
women prefer the scent of physically symmetrical men,
i know what symmetry *looks* like, but i wonder what symmetry smells like...
Post by Dolores
Post by franco
especially during
ovulation, which supports the suggested relationship between "good"
genes and body odor in women's mate-selection strategies (Gangestad and
Thornhill)."
Awesome! Thanks.
Like I said, we're all basically just squirrels.
looking or the best nut. we're all after the same nut.. Sissy Knox .... that's the trouble...
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0310281/Ss/0310281/4196.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Posey,%20Parker
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0310281/Ss/0310281/1685.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Posey,%20Parker
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/1990/Events/1990/ParkerPose_Kambo_1107252_400.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Posey,
%20Parker
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/1968/Events/1968/ParkerPose_Mazur_1102184_400.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Posey,
%20Parker
squirrel that...
---
the next best thing to mother mary on a slice of bread?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050509/1911/k050913aujpg
--
-=Lola
-------
As the King of Saturn's Rings and Plenipotentiary of the Outermost Moons
of Jupiter, I declare this thread to be donkey-ball suck-fest. (Mad
Mambo Master of Macedonia)
Lash Rambo
2005-05-12 19:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by franco
All I know is that research is flawed! if I were a reviewer I would
reject any study relying on only still pictures to determine physical
attractiveness. Attractiveness is more than just skin deep: Facial
muscles movements and expressions are very important determinants that
are missed in still pictures. First impression attractiveness studies
must be done on video samples. No need to mention that the perception
of physical attractiveness could also change with time (we start seeing
people as more attractive when we fall in love with them for example),
but since we are restricted to first impression here we won't discuss
that point.
All good points. How many pictures of each person did the subjects in the
study get to see? The angle a face (or body) is viewed from can make a lot
of difference ("get my good side!").
Bernd Jendrissek
2005-05-13 08:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lash Rambo
All good points. How many pictures of each person did the subjects in
the study get to see? The angle a face (or body) is viewed from can
make a lot of difference ("get my good side!").
The angle can also influence the apparent symmetry, hence
attractiveness. When I renewed my driver's licence, I deliberately
skewed my head a little (*) so my mugshot on Big Brother's records would
be slightly assymmetrical, to confound any potential future applications
of face-recognition computers. I'd rather maintain anonymity until *I*
make the decision to reveal myself.

Interestingly, when I saw the photo, I was amazed to see just how weird
or ugly I looked in the picture.

(*) Despite the photographer's insistence that I look straight into the
camera. I just skewed my head a little *less*.

- --
I have neither the need, the time, or the inclination to put words into your
mouth. You are perfectly capable of damaging your reputation without any help
from me. --Richard Heathfield roasts a troll in comp.lang.c
Michaela Mackenzie
2005-05-13 08:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
The angle can also influence the apparent symmetry, hence
attractiveness. When I renewed my driver's licence, I deliberately
skewed my head a little (*) so my mugshot on Big Brother's records would
be slightly assymmetrical, to confound any potential future
applications
Post by Bernd Jendrissek
of face-recognition computers. I'd rather maintain anonymity until *I*
make the decision to reveal myself.
You *do* have some crazy hang-ups.

- Michaela
ci+
2005-05-15 02:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lash Rambo
How many pictures of each person did the subjects in the
study get to see? The angle a face (or body) is viewed from can make
a lot of difference ("get my good side!").
Loading Image...
better tahn
i.timeinc.net/time/ potw/20020503/backside.jpg
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Salon+Sex+Symbol
Loading Image...
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-6/111591090046280.xml
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...