Sophie Pollitt-Cohen writes:
For a complete list of things that don’t change, google “the past” and “still photographs of anything anywhere.”
“Women order smaller and less calorific meals if eating with a man than if dining with female friends,” according to a group of people the DailyMail calls “Scientists.” Women responded: “Obviously. What? No, I’m not crying. Get out of my office!”
If having this insight qualifies you as a scientist, apparently any human being can be one, and I would like to be an astronaut please. Then I could wear a diaper and hang out with monkeys, who also wear diapers.
Furthermore, what real scientist would use the word “calorific” in this context? I’m pretty sure they mean “caloric” (containing calories.) Calorific means heat causing, although I would permit its use in a marketing campaign for a delicious cereal made of lard and topped with sprinkles.
According to the “scientists” who “conducted” this “study,” men continue to eat as much as they want with no social consequences. They do not consume less (or even with basic table manners) if they are around women, and the Times even reported that guts are a growing trend in Brooklyn. Scientist Judd Apetow made a documentary a few years ago demonstrating how one of these hipsters managed to have sex with Katherine Heigl.
I actually know more than one man, and they want women to eat. And after years of reading Glamour Magazine and Men’s Health, I have concluded that nothing is less attractive to a man than a woman with all kinds of issues, especially if those issues get in the way of loving life and fun. Men are mainly just happy you showed up. They want women to be whimsical and carefree and hang with the guys and drink beer and eat pizza. But also, don’t get fat. This reminds me of how I want to be an astronaut but not go into space.
If I were to go into space, however, the good thing is that no “study” has yet shown the effects of monkeys on how much women eat. Now I’m out to snort some Splenda and practice not eating.