Mentioning Camilla Belle

I mentioned Camilla Belle. She was previously famous for dating Joe Jonas of the Jonas Brothers; she's an actress with a growing resume, include taking on (forgive me) the mother of all roles, i.e., Mary, the mother of Christ. Good luck with THAT! But I was mentioning that she turned up in a fabulous dress at the Metropolitan Opera's premiere of Rossini's opera Armida. Gosh, she's beautiful and she gets invited to ALL the good parties.

























Jennifer Morrison, formerly on House, looked pretty nice, too.

Pretty girls in pretty (amazing) dresses

The stars came out in dresses and droves for New York's Costume Institute Gala. I've got two links to that below. (And I'm so far behind, this is a week old). The Daily Mail highlighted Katy Perry's LED-light color changing ensemble, and in another article they highlighted Christina Hendricks' golden globes (in a blue dress); the Washington Post just showed quite a few pictures.

Hits:
* Perry, in a one-in-a-million dress
* Kate Hudson, featuring updated and uplifted cleavage
* Jessica Alba, though the hair was a little over-cute
* TAYLOR delectable SWIFT
* Camilla Belle -- more on her to come

Misses:
* Julianne Margulies (way pale)
* Iman (sorry, she looks like a robot; might just be a bad photograph)

and this may not be news:
* Janet Jackson possesses significant cleavage

Blake Lively (everybody else is in a gown, and the wonderfully-legged Lively shows up in a mini-skirt; GREAT to look at, but not quite the right tone), same for the still-wonderful-to-view Gisele Bundchen and Bar Rafaeli

Met Costume Institute Gala (Daily Mail)

Washington Post:
Fashions at the Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute Gala

(the picture of Taylor Swift here is -- OK, I've got to say it -- SCHWING! I know I shouldn't think it, but sometimes it's impossible not to. This is one of those times.)

Chelsea doesn't even make it interesting

Chelsea rolled over Wigan 8-0 to win the English Premier League title. Now -- on to the World Cup!

Chelsea 8, Wigan 0

Two complementary discoveries

Yes, there's a reason.

Beautiful women can be bad for your health, according to scientists

The researchers concluded: "In this study we considered that for most men the presence of an attractive woman may induce the perception that there is an opportunity for courtship.

"While some men might avoid attractive women since they think they are 'out of their league', the majority would respond with apprehension and a concurrent hormonal response.

"This study showed that male cortisol levels increased after exposure to a five-minute short social contact with a young, attractive woman."

And there's one particular way that this syndrome can manifest itself:

Men take more risks when pretty women are around

As the researchers expected, the skateboarders took greater risks in the presence of the attractive female, even when they knew there was a greater chance they could crash. Along with this increased risk-taking, the young men had higher testosterone levels when they performed in front of the female than when they did their jumps in front of another guy.

"This experiment provides evidence for an effect that has existed in art, mythology, and literature for thousands of years: Beautiful women lead men to throw caution to the wind," wrote the authors of the study, Richard Ronay and William von Hippel, of the University of Queensland in Australia.

"These findings suggest that, for men, the adaptive benefits gained by enticing mates and intimidating rivals may have resulted in evolved hormonal and neurological mechanisms that facilitated greater risk-taking in the presence of attractive women," they added.

Why, I must ask, is neither of these findings surprising?

But I guess it's good to know we operate the way we think we probably operate.

Star Dunes on Mars

Star Dunes on Mars

Not the title of some strange techno-pop hit, this is the subject of some striking new pictures taken from Mars orbit. New pictures from HIRISE show a star dune field in a Martian crater:


Link to the full-size image, map-projected

Ulrika Jonsson stands up for her 4x4 record

I wrote about her here:
Defining love and luck and lucky


She writes about herself here:

Ulrika Jonsson: Why am I derided for being a 4x4 mum when dads like Rod Stewart (7x5) are heroes?

Society continues to regard men who have had many sexual partners as studs, whereas women who have had several lovers are regarded as 'tarts' or 'sluts'.

It is utterly unjust and, frankly, sexist. Why is it that we expect men to sow their wild oats and then accept that they may not be around to pick up the pieces? Why do we presume it is the woman - the mother - who will take full responsibility for the product of that failed relationship?

Although I'm not proof that it's a marvellous idea for women to have children by different men, I will never sit back and accept sole responsibility for my situation without asking: what about society's attitudes to men?

And so now I say:

I hope I didn't deride her. I was just pointing out how unique she was. Indeed, one of the problems with a Murphy or a Stewart is that in their dotage, they can still target young, nubile, and fertile females and fertilize them, while it is somewhat unique that a woman can be attractive enough to attract fathers* (a credit to Ms. Jonsson) and also fertile enough as she gets older to get pregnant again. I.e., the window of opportunity to be a 4x4 is much shorter than for a man to be a multiple father. I don't admire the behavior of silverbacks, I just point out the occurrences. Jonsson, who is raising all her children, is to be commended.

*As I also noted in the same posting, this multiple-mother by different fathers thing seems to occur way too often where the women are exploited and abused, or both; that's not good. Ulrika wasn't quite in that category, but some of her men treated her VERY caddishly.

This just in: National Academy signatories confirm global warming!

Had to interrupt my planned posting sequence to put this up (I found it by following a link at the GREAT Energy Collective site):

Letter in Science, (2⁸ -1) members of the National Academy of Sciences confirm global warming, decry politicization and targeting (this is a PDF, by the way)