Glamorous Free Fire Zone

There’s no news today — not our kind, anyway — but that’s no problem. The video posted above runs only two minutes, and you’ll find that it’s time well spent.

Afterwards, use the comments section for an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. We’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, or even astrology, theology, mythology, and sociology — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

We now throw open the comments to you, dear reader. Have at it.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

10 responses to “Glamorous Free Fire Zone

  1. Smart women. Yeah !

  2. Erm, I didn’t post about lack of women nominated for Nobel prizes as I thought I was overreacting, but dear SC, this is sexist. Please stick to what you do best and carry on bashing creations

  3. Outrageous calumny! Only number 5?!??!!!

    Olivia will ever be my Numero Uno!

  4. Jason says: “dear SC, this is sexist.”

    Nonsense! I have been even-handed. See A Gallery of Creationist Hotties.

  5. Here’s a good one:

    A Parliament in Australia Just Passed a Motion Declaring Trump a “Revolting Slug”

  6. Latest news about Mars:
    Schiaparelli, the European spacecraft, is due to land on Mars this Wednesday. It is going to try to detect gases as signs of life.

  7. It’s really a shame that we should be surprised that there are glamorous female scientists. Of course there are attractive women who are scientists! Glamor and brains are not mutually exclusive. What is a mystery is why our culture has supposed otherwise for so long.

    What’s gratifying is that we are finally getting away from that mindset, at least in our Western culture. it’s a good thing — we’ve only been using half of our brainpower. But we still have a long way to go. It hasn’t been that long that intelligent women are encouraged to go into fields other than teaching, nursing, or secretarial work.

    I agree with Jason that judging a woman’s worth by her looks is sexist. We don’t have a parallel “Top 10 Beefcake Scientists”; we only think of doing such judging with women.

  8. Nonsense. When I determine if I find someone attractive I am judging his/her (usually a her, though young Alain Delon should be high on any list) worth by his.her looks. It’s just totally irrelevant for their scientific work, something neither the video nor our dear SC makes any claim.
    Having said that I would like to have some lists of male scientists as well. Everybody already know how attractive I think the Good Rev David Rives. As a counterweight I present a young Albert Einstein:

    Were I a woman or a gay my heart would melt.

    Runners up:

    Bonus because I’m a chauvinist and handsomeness is timeless:

    So now we have a parallel.

  9. I assume this is sharp satire, the point being the inappropriateness of the criterion used when applied to women scientists; and indeed why only scientists? And the sad fact is (can’t recall my source, can anyone?) that both male and female Faculty recommended lower salaries and startup for female than for comparably quaified male applicants for Faculty positions. Also, more atractive-looking individuals (male or female) get shorter prison sentences