Friday, August 15, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Meghan, I'm curious about that T-shirt sniffing, too, and am trying to get hold of the actual paper. In the meantime, I confess, I've been riveted by another tale that features some modicum of science but also five puppies, a Mormon sex slave, and (possibly) a three-legged horse. So, turning for a moment from birth control to copious reproduction ...
Last week, a woman named Bernann McKinney received five puppies that had been cloned from her dear, departed pit bull, Booger. This was apparently the first time a canine had been cloned for commercial purposes, and McKinney was photographed frolicking on the floor, hugging and squeezing one of the pups (whom she called "mini-Boogers"), and telling them, "Yes, I know you! You know me, too!"
Unfortunately for her, someone watching the spectacle also recognized her as a fugitive whose real name was Joyce. According to the Associated Press, in 1977, Joyce McKinney "became a British tabloid sensation over a kidnapping case. She faced charges of unlawful imprisonment after she was accused of abducting a Mormon missionary in England, handcuffing him to a bed and making him her sex slave. She jumped bail and was never brought to justice." Another account, which likens McKinney (weirdly) to John Edwards, features velvet handcuffs and has her posing "as a deaf-mute actor to escape to Canada."
McKinney is also wanted in Tennessee, it turns out, for "criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary" in 2004. "Authorities there said she instructed a 15-year-old boy to break into a house," the AP reports. Her attorney explains she "needed the money to help her three-legged horse." She wished to buy the horse (seriously) a fake leg.
So where is McKinney now? Is she on the lam with five puppies and a four-legged horse? Will she ever explain what insatiable drive led her to buy five clones of a beloved pet (let alone one)?
The South Korean company that did the cloning, meanwhile, is not backing down and seems, in fact, to sense opportunity. The head of the company says "criminal records will not disqualify future customers." Indeed, "cloned animals could even help them find stability and thus prevent crimes." I'll gladly stay tuned.
-
sponsorship
Has anyone been reading about this new U.K. study examining how the birth control pill affects women's choice of sexual partners? As one CBS headline crudely puts it, women on the pill allegedly choose "the wrong partner." That's because, as the authors of the study argue, women NOT on the pill are generally "attracted to men whose genetic makeup differs from their own" which "increases the chances for a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby," as CBS put it. But women on the pill seem to choose partners who are genetically similar to themselves. I can't quite tell how they've determined this, but it has to do with something called MHC genes, which affect immune responses, and smelling T-shirts. As CBS puts it: "In laboratory studies, women who sniff men's sweaty T-shirts find them more attractive when they come from men whose MHC genes don't match theirs. It's not that certain MHC genes smell better to women -- it's the difference that counts."
On the pill, however, this seems to change, and it has, according to a number of scientists, a lot of implications for relationships going forward, because apparently women who are with men who have similar genetic material get dissatisfed quickly and search for new sex partners. (It's not your hair, honey, or the fact that you don't do the dishes, it's your MHC genes.) But do these kind of studies really tell us very much? Are our sex and romantic lives really so genetically deterministic that we can make predictions based on smelling a man's T-shirt? (God, that would have saved a lot of novelists some trouble.) I'd love to know what some of our more scientifically trained XXFactor bloggers have to say, because the study and the conclusions being drawn raised all sorts of questions for me. It's times like these when you wish more journalists understood biology, because the pieces I've read on this story seem, in general, very crude.
-
sponsorship
I’m with Melinda on this one Emily. I’ve always believed that "closure" and "catharsis" are pretty much just empty words one generally uses to justify sleeping with ex-boyfriends after the fifth glass of wine. The mere fact that Clinton insists this roll call will be cathartic, just as Obama asserts that’s not the point at all, highlights the deep disconnect here. Not all symbolism is empty. But symbolism is not always enough, either.
That said, I found myself longing for a strong shot of Hillary as the first swiftboats were launched this week. As Tim Noah has pointed out, watching the conservative imprints of reputable publishing houses float "books" comprised of lies braided to racial and religious stereotype and innuendo is like being dragged back to the wretched Groundhog Day of 2004. And watching the media sputter "But ... these books aren’t true!" is almost worse. I can’t help but feel that Clinton would have matched kidney punch for kidney punch with Corsi and his ilk. She knows better than anyone that there just no “rising above it” to be done, when there’s no depth to which your opponents won’t sink.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?