QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Jul 19 2005, 01:10 PM)
I am with you all the way to the end. Blonde hair in women is marketed and my, don't we react to marketing. By your argument all of the male sex symbols would also be blond, and they're not. In fact, few are. Dark hair and stubble are marketed, and my, don't you gals react to marketing.
Me, not so much into the blondes, but I can't help but notice they are everywhere. And that is the by-product of Brittney Spears.
Oh, Civy, Civy, Civy, my profile-changing friend. These things are not so prevelent just because they are marketed. They are marketed because they are so prevalent!
As for the blonde thing, I return to my original assertion: that what is reproductively desireable is what is attractive. And you know what is reproductively desirable if you area gal a-lookin' to get a bun in the oven? Why, a big strapping man who looks very male, like he has testosterone to spare. Yes, testosterone, that delightful provider of secondary sex characterstics like, oh, I don't know, facial hair! Yes, facial hair ... although most women don't like LOTS of facial hair, but maybe enough to know it is there ... why, stubble! Yes! Stubble! So stubbly and good -- and so not prone to showing up when it is blond.
Listen, there are as many flavors of attraction as there are flavors of ice cream -- socially conditioned and innate, in and out of fashion -- but some things remain baffling consistent, and blonde hair (or tall dark and handsome men) is one them.