Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Researchers Discover Irresistible Dance Moves 215

Posted by samzenpus
from the gene-gene-the-dancing-machine dept.
sciencehabit writes "To find out if certain dance moves are more attractive to women than others, researchers recruited a bunch of college guys and used motion-capture to create avatars of them dancing. When women watched the avatars (2 videos included in story), the men they found most attractive were those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs. The researchers say dancing is thus an honest signal to women of the man's strength and health, just as it is in crabs and hummingbirds, who also move in special ways to attract mates."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Researchers Discover Irresistible Dance Moves

Comments Filter:
  • the men they found most attractive were those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs

    Discovering what common sense knew years ago, Today!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In the face of real science, so-called common sense is often wrong.
    • Re:Science! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gurps_npc (621217) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @09:57AM (#33508538) Homepage
      Common sense is neither common nor sensical. Common sense says that heavier objects fall faster. Common sense says that a son of an islamic black diplomat must be islamic and can't be american. Common sense says that man can't be descended from apes. Science is as much about proving common sense to be wrong as it is about discovering the rare occurences it is correct.
      • Perhaps where you are from that is the common sense, but where I am from, none of that is common sense.

        I mean, my definition of common sense is the "Look both ways before crossing the road" - kind of stuff.

        I was merely jabbing that it didn't take a bunch of research scientists creating a bunch of avatars to determine that women don't find flailing arms attractive.

        Perhaps Common sense in this scenario would have been to simply ASK women what they find attractive in male dancing.

        • Perhaps Common sense in this scenario would have been to simply ASK women what they find attractive in male dancing.

          Which is exactly what they did. Except they removed the actual male who's doing the dancing from the equation by using those avatars. In case, you know, something about the male himself changed the females' evaluation of his dancing.

        • Perhaps Common sense in this scenario would have been to simply ASK women what they find attractive in [anything]

          I'd love to see the results for this compared to experimental results.. I suspect they will be quite different.

        • by Krahar (1655029)
          Not only does it take "a bunch of research scientists creating a bunch of avatars to determine that women don't find flailing arms attractive," it even still isn't established having done that! This is just one data point and in future we might find a different way to interpret it. You are confusing on one hand having an expectation (we've all got that) and on the other hand having confirmation of that expectation (much more difficult).

          E.g. if I showed you a study saying that being cold causes you to hav
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by operagost (62405)

        Common sense says that a son of an islamic black diplomat must be islamic and can't be american.

        Huh? Common sense isn't supposed to be illogical.

        Common sense says that heavier objects fall faster.

        It depends on whether your commoner uses Newtonian or quantum physics [iop.org].

      • Uh.. heavier objects do fall faster (as they exert a gravitational pull of their own which will give them a very very very slight increase in acceleration over a lighter object when both are falling towards earth - of course the difference is negligible when compared to the gravitational pull of the earth so you can ignore it in most cases). I don't see what religion has to do with race so that doesn't make sense. Why doesn't it make sense that man descended from apes? It makes more sense than men being cre

        • by jcochran (309950)

          Hmm. Seems to me that with 2 objects, one with twice the mass of the other, both being dropped at the same time, the following would happen:

          The more massive object would have twice the force being used to accelerate it than the less massive object. But, in order to accelerate the more massive object, it would take twice as much force to cause the same acceleration. So the actual acceleration for both objects would be the same. Of course this isn't taking into consideration any time dilation effect due to th

          • Discussion thread including math for why heavier objects fall faster because of earth gravity (normally imperceptible except with massive objects):

            http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/8/2/006 [iop.org]

            How quantum mechanics says that heavy objects fall faster:

            http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39234 [sciforums.com]

            In any case, whether heavy objects fall faster than light ones is tangential to the story. Many studies are wrong, some are pointless, but most have some relation to objective reality even if they c
          • You have to consider that the object itself is exerting a gravitational pull though. Every mass in the universe could be said to be gravitationally attracted to every other mass, just the inverse square law makes the attraction rather weak in most cases. Place two suns in close proximity and they will accelerate towards each other a hell of a lot more quickly than two billiard balls placed the same distance apart..

        • Uh.. heavier objects do fall faster (as they exert a gravitational pull of their own which will give them a very very very slight increase in acceleration over a lighter object when both are falling towards earth - of course the difference is negligible when compared to the gravitational pull of the earth so you can ignore it in most cases).

          Un... no. In a vacuum, all object fall at the exact same acceleration regardless of their mass.

          In the real world, friction caused by moving through the air mucks things

          • That's what they tell you in high school, but you're forgetting the gravitational pull of the objects themselves. *sigh* Had this same conversation on slashdot a couple of years ago. I didn't even study Physics past "advanced higher" high school level, but it's pretty obvious. Do you think the moon would accelerate towards the earth at the same rate as an elephant if you dropped them both from 50 metres (in a vacuum of course)?

            • Do you think the moon would accelerate towards the earth at the same rate as an elephant if you dropped them both from 50 metres (in a vacuum of course)?

              Yes it would.

              M1=mass of the earth
              M2=mass of the moon (or elephant)

              Fg = G*M1*M2/R^2
              A=F/M2

              A=(G*M1*M2/R^2)/M2

              A=G*M1/R^2

              The additional gravitational force between the earth and the moon as compared to the force between the earth and an elephant is balanced exactly by the fact that the moon has more inertia and therefore requires a greater force to be exerted on

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by somersault (912633)

                A=F/M2

                And what happened to

                A=F/M1

                ?

                • You're right, the total acceleration would be the sum of the two values.

                  (as they exert a gravitational pull of their own which will give them a very very very slight increase in acceleration over a lighter object when both are falling towards earth

                  This is the part the threw me off, because in Newtonian mechanics there's only one gravitational force involved, you just have to apply the force to both objects.

      • by mike260 (224212)

        Common sense says that heavier objects fall faster.

        At human-scale and in human environments, they generally do.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by drsmack1 (698392)
        It is hard to believe that your post was modded as "insightful". It is funny how you seem to equate two beliefs commonly attributed to the Christian right with what the society at large considers "common sense". Obviously you do this to bolster your point.

        I think you can do better.

        If your point is that science regularly proves the beliefs of religious people to be incorrect - I agree. However, saying that without context or qualification is no different in terms of results than an outright lie.

        Scien
    • by Gilmoure (18428)

      So... the Mashed Potato is right out?

  • That pic (Score:2, Informative)

    by snookerhog (1835110)
    made my day
  • Where is that picture from? That's just awesome, I clicked on this just to see that photo, the two guys in the background look absolutely horrified at that girl.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...make sure your avatar dances like the example on the bottom. Otherwise, you're never going to pretend to get laid.

    • by tverbeek (457094)

      It's online advertisers who are going to pick up on this report, modifying all those dancing figures in their verdammt animated ads to do more head-and-torso wobbling.

  • by ciaran_o_riordan (662132) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @09:55AM (#33508498) Homepage

    > without flailing their arms and legs

    That's all well and good for impressing the ladies, but how then am I supposed to scare of my competition?

    • by o'reor (581921)
      Headbutts. Very efficient. Especially when your competition is offending your sister. [youtube.com]
    • I think wildly flailing your arms does seem to do the trick. A pity it scares off everyone. The nice thing is that this discovery also says how to be a really bad dancer when you want it. This can come in handy...
    • I find talking to them usually works. If that fails, pretend to come on to them.

    • by TeethWhitener (1625259) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:39AM (#33509058)

      If you watch the two videos, the good dancer is moving his arms and legs much more than the bad dancer is. He even starts with the running man! I'm not exactly sure what the quantitative definition of "flailing" is, but the bad dancer definitely isn't flailing if the good dancer isn't.

      It'd really be nice to see the rest of the videos. While I think it's a really big leap to go from good dancer to attractive mate, it could be something as simple as the fact that the bad dancer keeps his head down and looks much more defensive and withdrawn than the good dancer. My suspicion is that judging someone to be a good dancer or not has much more to do with the standard body language we already intuitively understand than with any sort of display of strength or fitness. Think about it: you could be the best dancer on earth, but if you're dancing around with your arms crossed in a defensive position, people probably aren't going to be too impressed. On the other hand, if you're dancing with your arms not obstructing your body and you keep your head level but don't really do much else, maybe no one will say you're a great dancer, but I doubt anyone will say you're a bad dancer. I dunno; I just think this study is another case of psychologists trying to prove too much with a limited amount of evidence.

      • If you watch the two videos, the good dancer is moving his arms and legs much more than the bad dancer is. He even starts with the running man! I'm not exactly sure what the quantitative definition of "flailing" is, but the bad dancer definitely isn't flailing if the good dancer isn't.

        I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

      • by Troy (3118) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @12:33PM (#33510480)

        It's important to remember that flailing != movement. The 2nd guy is moving his arms a lot more, but everything that he does is connected to movement in his torso (either playing out a movement that started in his torso or moving in opposition to it). As a result, his movements look more fluid and "connected" to what he's doing with the rest on his body.

        The first guy is a poor example of flailing, because he's hardly moving anything at all. Nevertheless, if the arms aren't working in concert with the torso, then whatever the arms do looks disconnected (and creates a look of flailing).

        I think this is part of the "hard to quantify" difference between an expert dancer and a beginner. Beginners are usually replicating what the see, without any understanding of what muscle groups need to be involved in the movement. This makes what they do appear very flat and mechanical. Expert dancers have the experience to know which muscles to engage when, making their movements look dynamic and fluid.

  • Whatever. I watched the Avatars too. I was attracted to neither. The one with the blue cat people gave me a headache, and the one with the emo bald kid was just sad.
  • What is love? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Millennium (2451) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:01AM (#33508586) Homepage

    If this article is any indication, it sounds like Will Farrell and Chris Kattan should be the most irresistible men on the planet.

    Baby, don't hurt me
    Don't hurt me no more

    • And Al Gore the least sexy?
    • I was thinking Bill Cosby [youtube.com], but this does sound like Will Farrell and Chris Kattan:

      Better dancers are "nodding their head, they're turning the head to one side, they're turning their head to the other side, there's a large nod, there's a small nod, there's a nod to the left," Neave says.

  • To (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cptnapalm (120276) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:03AM (#33508606)

    Neave says pilot studies by his group found that asking women who's a good dancer is the same as asking who's attractive.

    Does this not undermine their argument? When actual men are involved, it boils down to who is better looking. So how he moves is of little importance as long as the women find him attractive.

    • Re:To (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:24AM (#33508882) Homepage Journal

      Neave says pilot studies by his group found that asking women who's a good dancer is the same as asking who's attractive.

      Does this not undermine their argument? When actual men are involved, it boils down to who is better looking. So how he moves is of little importance as long as the women find him attractive.

      You... you don't actually think that male attractiveness is directly related to physical appearance, do you? That would be very sad, that you'd genuinely know so very little about women. I mean, it's one of the variables involved, but it's far from being the leading factor (the big three are Money, Assertiveness and Muscles, in that order). I've had girls tell me the lead singers of Aerosmith and the Rolling Stones are very attractive, and you know those guys look like road kill, but they are rich and famous, and so they are very attractive.

      Also, women seem to believe that how a man dances is a proxy for his sexual prowess. Which I know for a fact to be a false belief because the dance classes I took had a very big impact on how I dance but no impact on how I screw (it had an effect on 'how often', but not on 'how').

      • by OverlordQ (264228)

        I dont know if you were trying to be funny or not. I think Spock's head would explode if he tried to analyze female 'logic' of attractiveness.

        • Re:To (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @11:03AM (#33509326) Homepage Journal

          I think Spock's head would explode if he tried to analyze female 'logic'

          I hypothesize that women are instinctually driven to cryptic behavior in order to promote high social intelligence in their mates: They're confusing for the good of the species.

          As for the two types of dances shown in TFA, one was a submissive pose (shoulders hunched, head down, slow and predictable centripetal movement), the other was dominant behavior (open stance, chin up, unpredictable high-amplitude movements, isotropic gaze).

          • by modemboy (233342)

            I hypothesize that women are instinctually driven to cryptic behavior in order to promote high social intelligence in their mates: They're confusing for the good of the species.

            Brilliant. Someone get this man a research grant! ;)

      • by cptnapalm (120276)

        you don't actually think that male attractiveness is directly related to physical appearance, do you?

        For short term interest, yes it is. And if we are talking dance clubs, then short term is order of the day. As long as you are not spastic and "flailing [your] arms and legs" then you have a huge advantage because it gets you noticed. You are on the radar.

        Assertiveness does matter more. If you are attractive and assertive, then you are golden.

        Money is mostly only important for exciting long term interest.

    • by batquux (323697)

      It's been shown time and time again that the sexiest thing women see in men is confidence. It's no different here. If you watch the videos in the article, the 'bad' dancer is staring at the floor, while the 'good' dancer is clearly confident in his ridiculous gyrations. I'm not so convinced this has as much to do with the actual dance moves as the display of confidence through posture.

    • by samael (12612) *

      As TFA says, they didn't show them the actual people, they showed them a CGI version of the dance moves that the people had carried out, put together using motion capture.

      • by cptnapalm (120276)

        My quote is from TFA. In a preliminary study they couldn't get women to separate who was a good dancer from who they thought was attractive. That seems to be why they made the CGI versions in the first place.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:03AM (#33508608)

    My mother asked me why our generation never came up with any dances. Her generation had the Twist, the Mashed Potato, etc.

    I replied that Micheal Jackson killed dance. Nobody else could move like him, so we all gave up and just mosh and twitch randomly.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      The real answer is that choreographed dances suck. Move however feels good, that's all that matters.

      • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:46AM (#33509134)

        Real dance isn't choreographed. A good swing dancer is making up the dance to fit the mood and the music as they go along.
        The female is constantly being surprised, touched, brushed and it's all part of the dance.

        I am not a good swing dancer- at best I got to be average but women like good dancers so I took lessons.

        Fortunately, I'm tall, make good money, have muscles, and good dental hygiene.

        The last is a lot more important that most guys realize to keeping her once you catch her.

        I suspect regular dancers are in better physical condition for sex once they get it.

        • by D Ninja (825055)

          Actually, swing dancing is somewhat unique in that it's typically not choreographed (at least the social aspect of swing dancing). However, I have seen Lindy Hoppers who had choreographed dances that were absolutely amazing. And, much of other types of dancing (ballet, ballroom, modern, jazz) is choreographed.

          With that said, yes, swing dancing is very fun in the sense that you kind of make it up as you go along. However, there are a core set of moves and basics that every dancer must know for the "making st

          • by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @11:17AM (#33509524) Homepage Journal

            wing dancing is very fun in the sense that you kind of make it up as you go along. However, there are a core set of moves and basics that every dancer must know for the "making stuff up" thing to work (the swing out comes to mind for example).

            Dancing is like programming, there's a few basic moves and techniques you have to learn, and then you make of them what you can.
            Dancing is NOT like programming in that the more you dance, the healthier you get. ;-)

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by mdmkolbe (944892)

            Actually, swing dancing is somewhat unique in that it's typically not choreographed (at least the social aspect of swing dancing). However, I have seen Lindy Hoppers who had choreographed dances that were absolutely amazing. And, much of other types of dancing (ballet, ballroom, modern, jazz) is choreographed.

            Swing is not unique at being not choreographed. Competitive ballroom is usually choreographed, but social ballroom is improvisational.

            Pretty much any couples dancing in a non-competitive, social setting (e.g. club, milonga, wedding, etc.) is of necessity not choreographed because choreography requires prior planning between the couple. Exceptions would be the bride and groom at a wedding, dances with a caller (e.g. square dance) or certain dances/songs with a well-known, set choreography (e.g. minuets?).

        • We Did (Score:2, Insightful)

          by w8dm4n (568583)
          "Our" generation did innovate our own dance. It's called West Coast Swing, and it's danced to top 40 music, hip-hop, blues, soul, and generally anything with 4/4 timing. There are dance parties and events across the US. Innovation, creativity, and technique are all important. The dance is currently evolving.

          These two are 27 years old, and are the current innovators. Not Choreographed.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGP8CEklpGg [youtube.com]

          Again, not choreographed.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkcHzqr8a34 [youtube.com]

          Y

    • by blair1q (305137)

      We saw the Twist, Mashed Potato, etc., and rebelled by not being that silly ever again.

      (Pogos off the stage.)

  • by JoshuaZ (1134087) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:08AM (#33508670) Homepage
    This sort of study might be interesting but it seems clear that the article and one of the quoted anthropologists are assuming that this is a human universal or close to that. But this study was done in a single country with a small group of people. Without a lot more detail it isn't possible to tell if this is an ingrained preference or is culturally driven. Overarching conclusions from interesting but not broad studies like this give ev psych and anthropology a bad name.
    • by PatrickThomson (712694) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @11:02AM (#33509316)

      Claiming that research done with realistic budget limitations shames us all is asinine bullshit. You have this result, or you have nothing. This is intriguing, perhaps it merits further study, perhaps behavioural psychologists in other nations will study the locals there. Perhaps not. The only overarching conclusions were written by the five word headline, or by your own built-in summariser.

      • by JoshuaZ (1134087)
        Did you read TFA and the paragraph with Prof Fisher where she connects this to millions of years of evolution for what would be relevant for men throwing weapons?
  • Wrong question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Carewolf (581105) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:08AM (#33508680) Homepage

    What they have established is who is considered a better dancer. I doubt anyone finds a blue figure "attractive" so they a judging who is the better dancer.

    In real life the guy who moves the least is considered more attractive but a poor dancer. The reason is that the less you can get away with moving while dancing the more it will look like the girl is dancing "for you" and not "with you", demonstrating you have values worth fighting for even if you are a terrible dancer.

    • by Chemisor (97276)

      If you've learned ballroom dancing you may have heard this one: "You are the frame. She is the picture in the frame. Everything you do is to make her look good."

  • A jump to the left, and then a step to the right. With your hands on your hips, bring your knees in tight...
  • by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:09AM (#33508684) Homepage Journal

    What, no analysis of social dancing? Ya know, dancing with girls? With a lead and a follow?

    I guess that kind of research will have to wait for a scientist willing to ask a girl to dance... might take a while.

  • Researchers recruited a bunch of college guys and used motion-capture to create avatars of them dancing. When women watched the avatars (2 videos included in story), the men they found most attractive were those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs.

    Being a trendy virtual avatar, this will be very useful to me. Maybe sometime they'll have the women looking at actual guys, so the humans can get some benefit from this too.

  • How to score chicks

    1) Cut off own arms and legs; leave head connected.
    2) Flail
    3) Commence to tapping ass

  • Arms at your sides, 90-degree angles. Don't need no pizza, they got food there. Don't bite your lip.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py5qAH7wELY [youtube.com]

  • So, every woman in the group found the dull head-bob most attractive, or most of the women found it attractive? All it takes is one woman for it to be attractive to for passing on the genes.
  • by gmuslera (3436) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:22AM (#33508852) Homepage Journal

    How much of that is in our genes vs how much is in fact cultural? The dance of 500, 1000 or 10000 years ago was probably considered irresistible at their own time and boring now.

    Probably is just culture what makes things (dance moves, clothing, hair styles or whatever) irresistible or not. Maybe is not just physical fitness what is being seen there, but also ability to perform or create a meme. "Functional" attractiveness of the opposite sex has changed with culture too

    • Burning mod points, but I would argue that dancing is extremely cultural. If you go back 100 years or so then ballroom dancing was a lot more popular than it is now and both genders were judged on the basis of how they danced. Now ballroom dancing is something that you need to go looking for and what makes someone a good dancer at a club in one part of the world might be completely different than another part of the world.
  • Porn (Score:3, Funny)

    by Joebert (946227) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:28AM (#33508940) Homepage
    Imagine for a second that you're a woman getting drilled away by a perfect mate, how much of that guy are you going to see? Pretty much just his torso, head, and arms, right? That would explain why the legs are unimportant in teh decision making process.
    • Re:Porn (Score:4, Funny)

      by Geeky (90998) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @11:11AM (#33509430)

      Imagine for a second that you're a woman getting drilled away by a perfect mate, how much of that guy are you going to see? Pretty much just his torso, head, and arms, right? That would explain why the legs are unimportant in teh decision making process.

      Depends what position you're doing it in. Sometimes you'd see nothing. Except maybe the pillow.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Locke2005 (849178)
      Don't know about you, but when my wife is getting drilled, she usually sees just my belly button...
    • by blair1q (305137)

      It ties in.

      When men walk, we move our shoulders. When women walk, they move their asses.

      Shouldn't be any different on the dance floor, right?

  • WTF? (Score:3, Funny)

    by DragonTHC (208439) <Dragon@NosPAM.gamerslastwill.com> on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @10:35AM (#33509012) Homepage Journal

    who are you to tell techno-viking he can't dance?

  • The good dancer is all over the place. Obviously a better dancer. Couldn't this be summed up by saying women like men who don't suck at dancing?
  • I always wondered why I never got laid when I went to bars and did the Chicken Dance. It's all so clear now.

  • "Dancing makes women horny and men tired."
    -Dad

    According to this article, it is now optimal not to move either your feet or your hands when you dance.

    FTA FTW.

  • by blair1q (305137) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @02:29PM (#33512252) Journal

    It could just mean that the guys who used more legs and arms were just exposing their #fail more than the ones who didn't.

    If you did this same test with professional dancers, how would it come out?

  • tensor loops (Score:3, Insightful)

    by epine (68316) on Wednesday September 08, 2010 @07:21PM (#33515536)

    What women want degenerates into a common knowledge problem. Just read this thread, it illustrates what any sensible woman already knows: the incredible male fascination with easy ways to get laid without doing any real emotional work.

    Even if the ruse works, you'll likely end up with the kind of chick who is easily duped by a shallow ruse. The pussy might be good in the short term, but soon you'll have to gnaw your arm off.

    To really understand what women want involves tensor calculus: it's a varying function of what the women currently has. The tensor system has fairly strong immunity to fixed points. It tends to loop through sex, babies, parenthood, graduation, sex, babies, parenthood, etc.

    As soon as you achieve one of these, your emotions migrate to the next stage. There's no gloriously horny fixed point.

    Sometimes you find a woman who is so disillusioned with life, she gets off the bus. She's often found in the company of a man who is sexually exhausted (beyond caring), and disillusioned with disillusioned. Who knew that caring about life makes a woman more attractive?

    The other term that confuses matters is that a women evaluates what she knows about you differently than what you've stated about yourself explicitly, even if these are the same thing. This tends to happen when a woman consciously knows better, but subconsciously continues to hope.

    That's where real emotional work enters the picture. To have any real success with women, you have to be able to navigate the simultaneous equations. Sometimes you wander into a cul de sac, where there's no solution at all. Then you have to jump bravely from one ledge to another. This involves the use of that other male bone, the backbone. Anakin Skywalker is not your role model.

    If the relationship has any emotional equity, the backbone move is termed "conflict resolution". Many relationships suck at this. A quick test for sucking at conflict resolution is when your typical relationship goes directly from great sex to Armageddon.

    These days, for people who live in urban areas, there are a lot of fish in the sea. Nevertheless, the Armageddon cycles eventually build up, until you find yourself sitting around in your underwear watching Seinfeld reruns.

    And you still don't know what women want.

Nothing will dispel enthusiasm like a small admission fee. -- Kim Hubbard

Working...