The other twin continued to grow, living inside Kang's stomach and crushing her internal organs. Doctors say this condition is very rare, but Kang is recovering well from her surgery, and is going to be just fine. • Self magazine has ranked the top 10 healthiest cities for women, based on disease rates and other factors. Topping the list is Burlington, Vt., which boasts a large number of co-ops and organic food options, as well as low rates of diabetes, cholesterol and hypertension. •  According to a doctoral thesis out of Spain, students aged 11-16 have generally resigned themselves to bullying. They believe that it is "something natural" and has always happened. They also found that girls viewed bullies differently than boys. Girls tended to empathize with the victims and associate negative feelings with the bully, while boys focused more on the shame of being a victim. •  Researchers have discovered a rather odd link between morning sickness during pregnancy and cognitive ability. Apparently, children whose mothers suffered from nausea and puking tend to score slightly better on cognitive tests. Doctors believe hormone levels may be to blame. • Devout Muslim Rabia Sarwar allegedly tried to slit her new husband Sheikh Naseem's throat, saying he's emotionally abusive and made her drink alcohol, eat pork, and wear revealing clothes. He's unharmed, and she's been charged with attempted murder. • The American people apparently have as low an opinion of Sarah Palin's qualifications as they did of Dan Quayle's. • Also, Iowans can relax: Palin isn't giving a speech in your state... yet. • The US currently bans people with HIV from entering the country, meaning there hasn't been a major AIDS conference here since 1993. However, Obama says he will reverse the ban next year. • Rev. Bernice King, Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter, will become the first female head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which her father helped found. • An Iraqi man accused of running his daughter over with a car because she had become "too Westernized" has been found in Atlanta after a search. • A study found that Swedish mothers who ate more vegetables during pregnancy were less likely to have children with type 1 diabetes. No word on what happens to babies whose moms eat a lot of Swedish fish. • Hillary Clinton's meeting with Pakistani women today went poorly, perhaps because she modeled it on "The View" — or perhaps because she joked about "not talking about security issues," while the Pakistani women want to talk about... security issues. • Pat Robertson responded to Obama's signing of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, which would allow hate crime prosecution for crimes based on sexual orientation, by saying, "The noose has tightened around the necks of Christians." Because not letting Christians persecute gay people is apparently the same as lynching them. • On facing Jaycee Dugard's kidnapper Phillip Garrido in court, the woman he raped 32 years ago says, "It's always been just under the surface of my life, and I thought this was in its box and put away. But this Pandora 's box is open for me, and now I'm dealing with it again on a different level, like I've been victimized myself." • Two waitresses are suing Hooters after they were forced to buy the hideous orange uniforms out of pocket. It is illegal to demand employees buy uniforms if they are required to wear something other than "everyday street clothes." "I don't think that could confuse the Hooters uniform clothes as part of someone's ordinary wardrobe," said their lawyer. •  A recent study from Harvard University has found that men, regardless of their sexual orientation, are most attracted to faces that look most synonymous with their gender. In other words, gay men like very masculine looking men, while straight men are attracted to the most feminine-looking women. • 

First of all, the study was very small, 13 women and 14 men. The participants were shown 50 photos of "healthy and attractive babies" (Time's wording), and 30 photos of babies with facial abnormalities, such as cleft palates. The photos would remain on a computer screen for four seconds, unless they pressed a button to shorten or lengthen the time. Women were less likely than men to lengthen the time they looked at "pretty" (again, Time's wording) babies, but they were 2.5 times more likely to shorten the time the ones with abnormalities appeared on the screen.

Time and the AP offer several explanations for this, all of them upsetting in their own way. Time says,

All animals, humans included, are hardwired to spend wisely, devoting the most energy to the offspring most likely to yield the highest genetic payoff; healthy, beautiful offspring are the best bet of all. Perhaps women, who still must do the lion's share of childcare, are naturally more attuned to this trade-off than men are.

The idea that a universal definition of beauty exists, that this particular kind of beauty indicates health and genetic fitness, and that people unconsciously make decisions based on this beauty, is deeply ingrained in the popular coverage of evolutionary biology. We are always being asked to accept that some bodies — whether they belong to babies with cleft palates or overweight women — are inherently less attractive, and that people have to overcome a strong genetic impetus in order to love them. Time even extrapolates the results of the study to people's own offspring: "the fact that both parents and nonparents in Elman's study reacted the same way to the pictures suggests that their responses are deeply ingrained and that they may be hard to mitigate simply by having children of their own." And the headline of the Time article is, "Is an Ugly Baby Harder to Love?," which assumes both that babies with abnormalities are ugly, and that this study can actually tell us something about parental love.

Attraction — both to babies and to potential partners — may have biological components, but popular science writing is often far too quick to assume that these components are everything. If we uncritically accept that people are naturally attracted to a certain appearance, that this attraction has to do with the survival of the human species, and that there's nothing we can do about it, we continue to stigmatize people who don't fit whatever ideal of health and beauty we've set up. It's not that we should entirely discount studies like this one — it's just that we should pause before we make the now-popular abnormal=ugly=harder-to-love link. Both science and attraction are partly culturally determined, and science these days may be a little too enamored of a simplistic view of human love.

Coverage of the baby study is also rife with gender stereotypes. Lauran Neergaard of the AP writes,

Puzzling new research suggests women have a harder time than men looking at babies with facial birth defects. It's a surprise finding. Psychiatrists from the Harvard-affiliated McLean Hospital, who were studying perceptions of beauty, had expected women to spend more time than men cooing over pictures of extra-cute babies. Nope.

So, the scientists just expected women to look longer at all the babies, because women love babies so much? And yet women, rather than having a coo-fest over every single baby, actually had a complex reaction? So surprising! And Jeffrey Kluger of Time says, "Turns out that your mother's feelings for you may not be the unconditional things you always assumed. It's possible, researchers say, that the prettier you were when you were born, the more she loved you." There's no handwringing over the men's reactions to the babies, but when women behave in an unexpected way, it means your mom didn't love you? The idea that a mother's love is a single, uncomplicated entity that can be disproved by a tiny study is not only dumb, it's also damaging — to children, who may worry that their normal, complicated moms don't love them; to moms, who may feel that any ambivalence makes them inadequate; and to society, which expects moms to be constant conduits of sweetness and light, and gets all confused when they're human.

Study: Women Look Away At Abnormal Babies [AP]
Is An Ugly Baby Harder To Love? [Time]

We like disproportionately large heads; large eyes, set low on the face; button noses and soft round bodies. Hence the popularity of this and these.

But I still wonder why I'm attracted to what I'm attracted to. While my sister and I both are "meh" about most human babies, we totally squee over baby animals. And she goes a little further and gets super emotional about turtles. Not exactly cuddly, but she adores them.

When it comes to guys, I've dated all kinds and wouldn't at all say that I have a "type," although delicate, slender, olive-skinned, dark-eyed, dark-haired boys generally make me sigh. The thing is: If I get really honest with you? Truly honest? This might gross you out. But a couple of years ago, I suddenly realized that this sorta looked like this. That second link, friends, is my mother. I know. Horrifying. I saw this boy on Facehunter and thought, mmm! And then I was like, oh God. I mean: Some chicks date dudes who look like their dad. Chace Crawford went out with a woman who looks like his sister. A professor once told me that the more your parents tell you you're beautiful, the more likely you are to be attracted to someone who looks just like you. Does any of it make sense?

We Don't Need Popular Science To Tell Us Why Kittens Are Cute [Videogum]

While we've long been taught that first impressions are basically a function of experience, Professor Helen Fisher of Rutgers University says this isn't the case: according to MRI studies she did, "love" - as defined by science - can be instantaneous. According to The Guardian

The idea that you can infer more from a brief encounter than just sexual attraction is supported by findings from the Perception Lab at the University of St Andrews, which suggests that it may be possible to identify men who are more likely to indulge in short-term flings from facial features alone. In the study, 700 heterosexual participants were shown pairs of photographs of facial images of men and women in their early 20s who held opposing views on relationships. When asked to choose the male faces they felt would be more open to one-night stands, the majority chose correctly. The same faces were also judged to be the most masculine - characterised by a strong jaw, heavy brow ridges, a high forehead and larger nose.

While this sounds suspiciously like phrenology - and as such evokes various vague eugenics associations - Fisher claims that the hormones testosterone, estrogen, dopamine and serotonin can help determine "not only facial features but character types."

She would argue that the physically masculine men in the study above display an openness to one-night stands due to increased prenatal testosterone, and has found that women and men who have a round "baby" face, puffy lips, small nose and big eyes are likely to have had more exposure to oestrogen before birth which, she argues, may make them a better bet for something long-term.

While off the tops of our heads we can think of exceptions to this rule, we suppose we're willing to give it some hypothetical cred. That said, can nature trump nurture in this regard? And what about the fact that, according to these criteria, we're apparently programmed to think of assholes as attractive and "masculine?" Fisher also makes correlations between people's one-word self-description and the pre-natal hormone levels...but surely that kind of response is conditioned by society, upbringing, and the person you're talking to? Here's the thing: in a lab, all this might be true. But as we all know too well, the dating world is anything but controlled...and a lot depends on how bad the last guy was.
Written all over your face [The Guardian]

The Explorer, defined by high dopamine activity, is adventurous, novelty-seeking, creative. The Builder, with high serotonin activity, is cautious, conventional, managerial. The Director, pumped up with testosterone, is aggressive, single-minded, analytical. The Negotiator, more estrogen-influenced, is empathetic, idealistic, a big picture thinker.

People will always make their own mistakes. What I hope to do is enable us to make fewer of them and understand that sometimes human nature is working against us. Sometimes we fall in love with somebody who will probably never love us, for reasons having nothing to do with us but with their own mind-set, their chemistry.

According to a story in the new issue of the Economist, selling men on scent is a tricky business, and a lot of companies have to couch it as "aftershave" and "deodorant." But a new breakthrough study reports that men are so sensitive to the way they smell that — get this — "when a man changes his natural body odor it can alter his self-confidence to such an extent that it also changes how attractive women find him."

In the article (a section of which is oddly titled, "Born chicka wah, ker-ching chicka ching,") the author explains that perfume and cologne use fall into three basic categories: masking odors; pheromones; boosting natural smells. These all are sort of real and mostly psychological. And it's the psychology that's important: which kind of explains why guys drenched in vile scent apparently have no problem attracting women.

But, what I wonder is, does the confidence a scent imparts actually offset the negative associations some of us have with cologne? A lot of women, after all, hate it with a visceral passion. "Cologne" as a concept can signify cheesiness, vanity, a certain horrible hybrid of B.O. and chemicals, and middle-school nerds awash in Cool Water. It's one of those ingrained double-standards a lot of people just can't fight. While women are encouraged to change scent with their mood, the same behavior would seem suspect in a man. The much-ballyhooed metrosexual backlash led to a lot of pieces claiming women just wanted manly smells — B.O., sweat, that kind of honest stuff.

So, if a lot of women hate cologne — not all, obviously — why does the wearing of it create such confidence in men? Are they that susceptible to lame "Axe Effect" style campaigns? Do they feel that bad about their natural odors? Are they that convinced that "cologne" equals seduction and effort? And if that's true, why is it so hard to get them to wear it in the first place? Is it more that they need to be convinced, but once they are, they are sold? Or do they require this kind of scientific justification to feel okay about wearing perfume? Or — and here is a big question? — do men not know how women feel about cologne? Inquiring minds — and noses — want to know.

The Scent Of A Man [The Economist]

I'm not even talking about the first fifteen years of my life, my legitimately blonde phase, also characterized by tininess, enormous flannel dresses and extreme self-righteousness. Rather, I'm referring to a particularly low moment a few years ago in which I agreed to go blonde for a feature in an alleged women's magazine I'd never heard of. Being unemployed at the time, it was no problem for me — along with a blonde and a redhead, neither of whom seemed especially jazzed — to show up at a salon somewhere in Manhattan for our gratis metamorphoses.

The first doubts began to intrude when we learned that the makeover was a promotion for an at-home haircolor line that shall remain anonymous. Basically, someone would be dyeing our hair, but using the same stuff you buy at the grocery store. The smelly, stinging ordeal commenced. I was excited to see myself transformed into a glamorous sex kitten — it was one of those deals where seeing ourselves would be a big surprise at the end - but my fears mounted as colorist after colorist walked over to my chair, went into hurried consultation with the stylist, and gave me a wan smile that I didn't find reassuring. An assistant styled my hair in silence, refusing to meet my eyes.

They assembled us for the reveal before a bank of mirrors. One by one they turned us towards our reflections. Everyone enthused over the former blonde's maghgany mane and the redhead's ebony crop. When they reached me there was an awkward silence. They turned me to face the mirror. There, atop my head, was a pile of Velveeta-hued straw. I burst into tears. Chaos ensued. The beauty editor screamed that she couldn't run a picture of the atrocity; someone else demanded they repair the damage. The "repair" meant an additional three bleachings which left the Velveeta marginally paler and my hair utterly destroyed. A makeup artist gamely blotted at my tears with a powder puff; the hairdresser sprayed me with some silicon-based product to create an illusion of glowing good health. The khaki pants they made me wear were several sizes too big and needed to be cinched in the back with a diaper pin. I heard the words "Photoshop" and "color correction."

Of course, further coloring was out of the question; I would have to live with what resembled a cheap doll wig. Which would have been fine, except that next day I got called in for a job interview. There was nothing for it; I would have to make the best of it. What I found galling — besides the way it looked, of course — was that I looked like a moron who a) had wanted to be incredibly blond and b) had totally fucked it up. There was no way this color was deliberate; too horrible to be deliberate, too conventional to be cool, it simply looked like the worst dye job in the history of the world, a canned corn-colored pile atop my small, sallow face. On the day of the interview, I screwed "hair" into a knot on my head and resolved to keep my beret on until the last possible moment. It is a testament to that boss's open-mindedness that she hired said hair to be her assistant. I suspect no one at that job was ever quite able to take me seriously, even when I was able to color it brown again. As to men "preferring" it, well, if you count jeering references to troll dolls or the hilarity of bums as signs of marked preference, then yes, I suppose they did.

Do Gentlemen Really Prefer Blondes? [Houston Chronicle]

Related: Want To Marry A Billionaire? Curl Up And Dye.
Do You Get Dumber Around Blondes?