Sparrowhawk
06-27-02, 07:27 PM
Hoochie Pants as barometer of marriage market
Laurel Wellman Thursday, May 2, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May is here, the wind is cold, and the women of San Francisco have been tripping about, bare-midriffed, since last summer, at least.
Yes, this is a column about Hoochie Pants, and the socioeconomic factors that mean butt cleavage -- as this month's Allure magazine so eloquently put it -- "isn't just for plumbers anymore."
Reading material like this is why I go to the gym. How, otherwise, would I ever find out that the Derriere Decollete butt facial ($75) is a newly popular beauty treatment in L.A. among those whose delicate lumbar-region skin may have been, uh, chapped by winter weather?
At this point, a few of you -- for example, those more practically minded males who have persisted in reading today's column out of strong senses of civic duty to be well-informed -- may be asking, "But gosh! Why don't women just wear sensible clothing that keeps them warm and protected? After all, they don't call it Northern California for nothing."
With the endearing schizophrenia that typifies fashion magazines, a small article in the same issue points the way to an answer to this question as well:
According to research psychologist and author Nigel Barber, women's clothing choices are determined by the state of the marriage market. When there are more marriageable women than men, women dress more provocatively; when the reverse is true, women's fashion becomes less revealing.
Well, duh. But one might ask whether that means we can expect, or even fervently hope, to see fewer back tattoos anytime soon. After all, the government's current population survey shows there are now slightly more than 32 million never-married men over the age of 15 in this country, versus fewer than 28 million never-married women.
(continued)
http://store1.yimg.com/I/magnus_1665_3570782
Laurel Wellman Thursday, May 2, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May is here, the wind is cold, and the women of San Francisco have been tripping about, bare-midriffed, since last summer, at least.
Yes, this is a column about Hoochie Pants, and the socioeconomic factors that mean butt cleavage -- as this month's Allure magazine so eloquently put it -- "isn't just for plumbers anymore."
Reading material like this is why I go to the gym. How, otherwise, would I ever find out that the Derriere Decollete butt facial ($75) is a newly popular beauty treatment in L.A. among those whose delicate lumbar-region skin may have been, uh, chapped by winter weather?
At this point, a few of you -- for example, those more practically minded males who have persisted in reading today's column out of strong senses of civic duty to be well-informed -- may be asking, "But gosh! Why don't women just wear sensible clothing that keeps them warm and protected? After all, they don't call it Northern California for nothing."
With the endearing schizophrenia that typifies fashion magazines, a small article in the same issue points the way to an answer to this question as well:
According to research psychologist and author Nigel Barber, women's clothing choices are determined by the state of the marriage market. When there are more marriageable women than men, women dress more provocatively; when the reverse is true, women's fashion becomes less revealing.
Well, duh. But one might ask whether that means we can expect, or even fervently hope, to see fewer back tattoos anytime soon. After all, the government's current population survey shows there are now slightly more than 32 million never-married men over the age of 15 in this country, versus fewer than 28 million never-married women.
(continued)
http://store1.yimg.com/I/magnus_1665_3570782