The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-22-2004, 10:14 AM
Surreal Surreal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Why Are Racially-Mixed People More Attractive Than 'Purebreds'?

I used to think that I was the only one who felt that people who are multi-racial are usually more attractive than people who aren't, but I now realize that many others share this opinion.

Why is it that, generally speaking, multi-racial people more physically attractive than people whose parents are of the same race? Does continued breeding within a single race cause deleterious recessive genes to accumulate, causing homeliness in their offspring??

Thanks.
__________________
"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it."- J. W. von Goethe
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 07-22-2004, 10:39 AM
pravnik pravnik is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: TX
Posts: 13,331
This is more a matter of opinion than it is a question with a factual answer. Beauty isn't an objective, genetically measurable quality. It's kind of like saying "why are girls with big butts so damn hot?"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:06 AM
Mister Rik Mister Rik is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The bunghole of WA
Posts: 10,189
Maybe it's just because mixed-race people tend to look more "exotic", and so therefore more appealing?

One of the most beautiful women I've ever seen was a swimsuit model whose racial background was a blend of Japanese/Hawaiian/Mexican/Irish. She was absolutely stunning, I've also seen pictures of a Japanese model who, to my eye, clearly had a substantial portion of Irish or Scottish blood. Don't see too many Japanese people with green eyes - it made for a memorable picture.

So "mixed" people likely just look different enough to stick in our minds, and that may lead to the "more attractive" impression.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:07 AM
Revtim Revtim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Actually, it could probably be stated as a fact (or at least a scientific hypothesis with experimental support) that folks tend to find people with features that have been "averaged" more attractive.

There was an article in, I believe, 'Discover' magazine, where a researcher had digitally combined or "averaged" many facial photos, and was surprised to find that the more photos put together, the more attractive the end result was. I know I agreed with the researcher from looking at the photo examples, but I don't recall if it had been put to a poll with large sample base. I felt comfortable that the end result would have been considered more attractive by most people, and not just me, though.

I do not recall what theories were floated to explain this, though. Speculating now, though, I wonder if somehow our "tastes" have been bred to "recognize" when someone has a diverse genetic background, and hence is less likely to carry genetic disease that requires multiple recessive genes.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:17 AM
Futile Gesture Futile Gesture is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is all there is to it.

And there's no such thing as a race, far less a 'purebred'.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:22 AM
Illinois_Boy Illinois_Boy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
The idea that mixed race people in general are more attractive than 'purebreds' is of course a gross stereotype, and most likely unprovable.

However, I kind of get what you're saying and agree. Here are my half-assed theories.

1) by combining relatively different gene pools (yes I know all races really only differ in the nth decimal place, but...) you are providing the opportunity for a more optimal mix of gene combinations, i.e. the best of both worlds.

2) since there is a varying degree of stigma attached to mixed race parings, the couple who do come together might be on the more attractive end of the scale. To put it bluntly, if you're going to suffer whatever level of stigma and social disapproval for being with someone, he/she better be hot.

3) This I think is the most likely: since mixed race people are still relatively rare, the examples we do see may come through the media rather than real-life. We get the aforementioned Irish/Brazillian (whatever) bikini model, or Rosario Dawson, or some other celebrity, and that skews our perception of the whole.

Just my two cents.

Full discolsure; my 'race' is the typical Caucasian stew, my wife is Japanese, and I think our new son is the cutest thing ever, so I might be biased!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:26 AM
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Ft Benning, GA
Posts: 6,909
I think it's a mystery why we find most anything more attractive than something else. Human beauty could at least be argued on the evolutionary basis. Certain traits were better for producing babies, so we would find those more attractive.

But why have a preference for other things? Why do we find some puppies so damn cute, but other puppies ugly? Why do we think certain dogs are prettier than others. I find certain species of dolphins more visually appealing than others. Why would I even have a preference? It seems we have preferences for just about anything living. I find certain flowers prettier than others. Maybe not trees though. I dont think I've ever thought one tree was prettier than another. But I hate trees. So we find beauty and preference for most living things. Why is that? And what about colors? Why is one color better to us than another. It doesn't really make sense.

Same with multi-racial people. I dont think anyone could possible explain it without answer all the above questions.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:31 AM
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Ft Benning, GA
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futile Gesture
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is all there is to it.
Any idea why we even have the concept of "beauty" though? Why is one color prettier than the other. But we have no opinion about other things. Like I can look at a pile of concrete and a pile of wood and not think either is more attractive than the other. But if I see a field of dandelions, I will have an opinion as to whether or not the field of sunflowers is prettier. Why does my brain make a distinction? What's the point?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:42 AM
badmana badmana is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
I've seen plenty of unattractive mixed people. One was a guy (I'm a guy but I felt he looked rather odd) who was of chinese / white mix. His mixed features looked rather strange on his face (almond eyes with brown hair and very pale skin).

But I agree, mixing "races" seem to make people more "general" which might be why they tend to become more attractive to more people (since many people like asian girls or european girls, mixing the two might interest both groups of people etc).
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:44 AM
Mister Rik Mister Rik is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The bunghole of WA
Posts: 10,189
To expand on what RevTim said about "averaging" - a racial mix is likely to soften distinctive racial features. We can find someone of another race to be unattractive, but may not know specifically why. But if that person has children with someone of another race, the physical characteristics of race are likely to be toned down in the children and we may find the children more attractive when they grow up.

For example, the child of a white mother and black father will likely not have his/her father's thicker lips and broad nose, and will therefore be closer in appearance to what the average white person finds attractive. (Apologies - I'm white, so I am hard-pressed to pick out features that are "distinctive" to whites, because those features are "typical" to me, rather than "distinctive. So I have to mention typical distinctive features of other races.)

As another example, a white or black woman may not be attracted to Asian men, due to Asian men being shorter and more slightly built than white or black men. But a man who is a mix of Asian and white or black may be more attractive, because he's taller and more stout.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-22-2004, 11:54 AM
Terminus Est Terminus Est is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Surrounded by reality
Posts: 5,066
You want gross, stereotypical, half-baked generalizations, you got it:

Purebreds are the result of generatations of inbreeding and are therefore more susceptible to a variety of genetic ailments. You wouldn't want to mate with a sick individual, so you tend to think that these people are less attractive. Mixed-race people are hybrids (obviously), so are more likely to be healthier and more vigorous than their purebred counterparts. You'd rather make babies with a healthy person, so this translates into greater attractiveness.

I wonder if that gets this thread sent to GD. Or maybe I get sent to the Pit?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-22-2004, 12:00 PM
Tangent Tangent is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinois_Boy
3) This I think is the most likely: since mixed race people are still relatively rare, the examples we do see may come through the media rather than real-life. We get the aforementioned Irish/Brazillian (whatever) bikini model, or Rosario Dawson, or some other celebrity, and that skews our perception of the whole.

I think this is a HUGE factor. You probably pass by many average or below-average looking people on the street every day and do not realize that some of them come from a multiracial parentage. In my job I work with a large number of people and the ones that I know are multiracial are not, IMO, more attractive on average than the rest of the people.

But that's sure easy to forget when Halle Berry walks onto a movie screen!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-22-2004, 12:25 PM
KP KP is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
I think it is 90% selection bias of various types. I doubt any other possible contributing factors, would be nearly as significant a viewer selection bias

The most obvious is "beauty selection bias". Go to an impoverished urban center, and you'll see many "ugly" people of mixed parentage, many more roughly 'average-looking', quite a few with the transient beauty of youth (lower SES correlates with high birth rate). However, we tend to disregard unattractive people (and depending on private nature, often average-looking people as well). Of the exceptionally attractive people we see (leaving aside personal tastes), those who are unusual for a clearly defined reason (like mixed race) stand out, and stick in our minds with a label under them.

There's are also social selection of parents. (The "attractive people" you are admiring were probably born in the 1960s-80s, when mixed race mating was more stigmatized than it is today especially in the middle and upper classes; presumably a greater degree of mutual attraction was required on average to bring such couples together -- pretty parents tend to produce pretty kids: they are likely to share the generally preferred proportions and features. That's one reason I cited the lowere SES urban centers, where the barriers began to break earlier (due to propinquity) and where, therefore, mixed couples of average appearance (or less) are more common. This happens almost anywhere that the barriers are lowered: Hawaii, the Carribean, etc. have many attractive people, but I've never seen any evidence that they are more attractive on avergage

While there is probably some merit to the idea of "averaged" faces, it doesn't apply to individuals. An individual is the mix of his/her parents, not their "races" and therefore not much more likely to be pretty or ugly [on average] than the child of any othe parents of the same degree of attractiveness as their own.

When it comes to research on facial averages, I much prefer the research that focuses on mathematical models like "eigenfaces" or socio-, psycho-, anthropological papers that are written with a good understanding of the findings of studies based on those models (I often check the bibiographies before analyzing a paper - it's good to know what major work they considered or ignored). Too many papers on this subject fixate on methods or some specific conclusion. Some skew is unavoidable, but mathematical modeling studies seem to eliminate many possible complicating factors

For example, marked signs of age or obesity are often deliberately eliminated from the sample pool of photo evaluations studies. These are not 'complications', but precisely the kind of "reality" that justifies photo studies over CGI models. Any study that eliminates them is skewed at the outset. I know many attractive people with very distinct signs of aging or excess weight. Any robust theory or principle of attractiveness must account for them as easily as the young or slim. The older and heavier populations of the US, combined, are easily the majority, yet many papers treat youth and slenderness as the norm. One can only speculate why.

Of course, these are just my offhand thoughts and personal opinions, even less reliable than my usual posts
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-22-2004, 12:36 PM
The_Llama The_Llama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno
Any idea why we even have the concept of "beauty" though? Why is one color prettier than the other. But we have no opinion about other things. Like I can look at a pile of concrete and a pile of wood and not think either is more attractive than the other. But if I see a field of dandelions, I will have an opinion as to whether or not the field of sunflowers is prettier. Why does my brain make a distinction? What's the point?
Screw you.

I've never even thought of this, and now I likely will for a few weeks. I can't even venture a guess. I know that some researchers believe that in animals, we like the ones that have human traits more than those that don't. So when it comes to saving baby seals with big bright eyes (like a human baby) or sea otters who lie on their backs and play (like little kids) we get all protective, but when it comes to smashing bugs, who have almost 0 human traits, it doesn't bother us.
But as to what the point of beauty in nature is, wow. No clue. I mean, if you think sharks are beautiful, and go swimming with them, instant Darwin Award. I'm sure there are a million examples like that.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-22-2004, 12:44 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 13,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Llama
Screw you.
I mean, if you think sharks are beautiful, and go swimming with them, instant Darwin Award. I'm sure there are a million examples like that.

Yes, but I happen to find dolphins cuttier than sharks. A lot of people dislike snakes. Is it just random chance?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-22-2004, 01:31 PM
citrus x paradisi citrus x paradisi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase42
One of the most beautiful women I've ever seen was a swimsuit model whose racial background was a blend of Japanese/Hawaiian/Mexican/Irish. She was absolutely stunning.
Masuimi Max?

I strongly agree with the theory Illinois_Boy advances. Also, I'm certain more people are "racially-mixed" than you might notice. My friend is a Spanish/Filipino, and when she mentioned her dad cooking paella, I was quite taken aback.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-22-2004, 03:19 PM
Spoke Spoke is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revtim
Actually, it could probably be stated as a fact (or at least a scientific hypothesis with experimental support) that folks tend to find people with features that have been "averaged" more attractive.

There was an article in, I believe, 'Discover' magazine, where a researcher had digitally combined or "averaged" many facial photos, and was surprised to find that the more photos put together, the more attractive the end result was. I know I agreed with the researcher from looking at the photo examples, but I don't recall if it had been put to a poll with large sample base. I felt comfortable that the end result would have been considered more attractive by most people, and not just me, though.

I do not recall what theories were floated to explain this, though. Speculating now, though, I wonder if somehow our "tastes" have been bred to "recognize" when someone has a diverse genetic background, and hence is less likely to carry genetic disease that requires multiple recessive genes.
I remember that article (it was in Discover), and I believe RevTim has reported it accurately.

As to why we find the average attactive, my recollection (from the article) is that the "average" face will be more symmetrical, and facial symmetry is (supposedly) a mark of genetic health to which we are subconsciously attuned.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-22-2004, 03:50 PM
Zsofia Zsofia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
Yes, but I happen to find dolphins cuttier than sharks. A lot of people dislike snakes. Is it just random chance?
Dolphins smile. They have people-faces. They look "friendly". Sharks are cool animals, but they have that dead-black-eye thing and they don't smile.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-22-2004, 04:54 PM
xash xash is offline
Ogministrator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 4,133
Surreal, I don't believe there is a factual answer to your question.

This is moved to IMHO.

-xash
General Questions Moderator
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-22-2004, 04:55 PM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 10,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revtim
There was an article in, I believe, 'Discover' magazine, where a researcher had digitally combined or "averaged" many facial photos, and was surprised to find that the more photos put together, the more attractive the end result was.

Is it possible you were remembering this Time Magazine Cover Story ??

I understand the O.P. and have sometimes felt that way- but then I see someone who appears- appears to be purely african, or asian, or caucasian and my breath is taken away and there goes that theory.

I would opine- and I really belive this thread belongs in IMHO- that not only is beauty in the eye of the beholder, but the beholder is programmed. If you grow up in a household/family/culture where only african people are beheld to be beautiful and any other skin color and physical feature is beheld to be NOT beautiful, then you will doubtless be inclined to see people in that light. It is human nature. ( Insert other primary races in the place of african, I just threw it in there, ok? )

My cousins are nominally african-american/white. They don't just "pass" for black, they are what we in America regard as black folk. My kids are full-blooded Koreans, so I've grown up and now spend my time in a mixed-blood family. I get the exotic nature of mixing races and ethnic backgrounds, I've seen some stunners. Russell Simmons, musician and founder of Def-Jam records is married to Kimora Lee. She's listed as " Asian/African-American
(Japanese-American mother/African-American father". I spent the day with her and her husband shooting an MTV Cribs, in 2001. It was.....very difficult...not to....gape like a lovestruck teenager. Sublimely stunning is one way to describe her.

Anywhoo, I've always thought that beauty was where you find it at the moment it strikes you.

Cartooniverse
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-22-2004, 05:33 PM
Vlad/Igor Vlad/Igor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revtim
Actually, it could probably be stated as a fact (or at least a scientific hypothesis with experimental support) that folks tend to find people with features that have been "averaged" more attractive.

There was an article in, I believe, 'Discover' magazine, where a researcher had digitally combined or "averaged" many facial photos, and was surprised to find that the more photos put together, the more attractive the end result was.
I remember that article, and read it two or three times. A few years later, I was inspired to find and download a program that allowed me to do my own facial averaging. My results were much like those in the Discover
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-22-2004, 05:44 PM
Vlad/Igor Vlad/Igor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revtim
Actually, it could probably be stated as a fact (or at least a scientific hypothesis with experimental support) that folks tend to find people with features that have been "averaged" more attractive.

There was an article in, I believe, 'Discover' magazine, where a researcher had digitally combined or "averaged" many facial photos, and was surprised to find that the more photos put together, the more attractive the end result was.
I remember that article, and read it two or three times. A few years later, I was inspired to find and download a program that allowed me to do my own facial averaging. My results were much like those in the Discover article; a very feminine (perhaps hyper-feminine) and attractive face. My wife saw the final product, and said that the face was attractive, but would not stand out in a crowd.

My conclusion was that there are certain gender-specific features that we pick up on and flag as attractive, but unique features and asymmetry are what make a face striking, rather than a similarity to "standard." Personally, I get weak in the knees over dark skin, a slightly triangular face and large, almond-shaped eyes, but not always in those combinations. Sometimes only one of those features is all I need to be smitten.

Vlad/Igor
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-22-2004, 05:58 PM
ZebraShaSha ZebraShaSha is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Many people have danced yet iluded aroudn this possibility: genetically speaking, you get half of your chromosomes from one race which has different typical immunizations and resistances to certain illnesses and you get half from a race which has different ones. This creates a hybrid with more immunizations, someone less likely to become terminally ill, and thus someone more attractive to mate with and someone who will help to pass on your DNA. Better offspring and all that. So, you see this person who would be better to have a kid with because the kid with your DNA would be more likely to survive natural diseases, and thus think they are more suitable for mating.

Yea, I just thought of all that aka pulled it out of my ass. I have a vague understanding of evolution and genetics so bite me if it is wrong. Just my two cents and all.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-22-2004, 06:07 PM
JRootabega JRootabega is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangent

Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinois_Boy
3) This I think is the most likely: since mixed race people are still relatively rare, the examples we do see may come through the media rather than real-life. We get the aforementioned Irish/Brazillian (whatever) bikini model, or Rosario Dawson, or some other celebrity, and that skews our perception of the whole.
I think this is a HUGE factor.
Definitely. What cell-phone/McDonalds/beer commercial does not have one of those hip prettyboys/girls with a halfro?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-22-2004, 07:00 PM
START START is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surreal
I used to think that I was the only one who felt that people who are multi-racial are usually more attractive than people who aren't, but I now realize that many others share this opinion.

Why is it that, generally speaking, multi-racial people more physically attractive than people whose parents are of the same race? Does continued breeding within a single race cause deleterious recessive genes to accumulate, causing homeliness in their offspring??

Thanks.
Thank You...I am a classic example of that.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-22-2004, 07:07 PM
Hey, It's That Guy! Hey, It's That Guy! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by citrus x paradisi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phase42
One of the most beautiful women I've ever seen was a swimsuit model whose racial background was a blend of Japanese/Hawaiian/Mexican/Irish. She was absolutely stunning.
Masuimi Max?
Mmmm, Masuimi Max... I'm not sure what her ethnic background is, but every part of her came out 100% perfect!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-22-2004, 07:26 PM
cromulent cromulent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZebraShaSha
Many people have danced yet iluded aroudn this possibility: genetically speaking, you get half of your chromosomes from one race which has different typical immunizations and resistances to certain illnesses and you get half from a race which has different ones. This creates a hybrid with more immunizations, someone less likely to become terminally ill, and thus someone more attractive to mate with and someone who will help to pass on your DNA. Better offspring and all that. So, you see this person who would be better to have a kid with because the kid with your DNA would be more likely to survive natural diseases, and thus think they are more suitable for mating.

Yea, I just thought of all that aka pulled it out of my ass. I have a vague understanding of evolution and genetics so bite me if it is wrong. Just my two cents and all.

If half 'n half hybrids are genetically "fitter," shouldn't we simply be attracted to people who are a different race than ourselves, thereby creating hybrid children? If you're white and find yourself attracted to people who are white/Asian, your kids will be 75% white, and if you assume that 50/50 hybrids are the most fit, your kids will be worse off (according to this theory.)

There are plenty of lovely mixed-race people out there. I agree with the other posters who have said that the idea that they are better looking than those of us who are boring monoracial people is mostly an example of selection bias and the media images we're exposed to. There are too many holes in the genetic explanation.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-22-2004, 08:01 PM
monstro monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Another vote for exoticism. People spend more time looking at people who are racially ambigious.

I know people mean well when they remark about the attractiveness of "mixed" people, but I also find it to be annoying sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-23-2004, 11:30 AM
Mister Rik Mister Rik is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The bunghole of WA
Posts: 10,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by citrus x paradisi
Masuimi Max?
Nope. But it sounds like I'd like to see her...

I think her name was something like Leilani Kei, or Kai, something like that. I probably have some photos of her on a CD somewhere...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-23-2004, 11:58 AM
Lord Ashtar Lord Ashtar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
A buddy of mine is half black, half Puerto Rican. His woman is Korean. Their kids are the most adorable I have ever seen (except for my nephew, but of course he's going to be good looking, because he shares genes with me ).
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-23-2004, 06:10 PM
Shirley Ujest Shirley Ujest is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
I use to kinda know a family who's mother was an average looking anglo white bread woman. Her husband was average looking Malaysian ( or somewhere in that part of the world.) They had a bunch of boys.

Every one of them got the best parts of each of their parents and were hot, hot, hot, hot, hot, and hot. The drool factor for me was about flood level warnings whenever I saw them. That skin, the dark eyes, dark hair, cheek bones....oooooh.

We have a few mixed kids at my son's school. One girl is a black-white mix that is so stunning, spectacularly so, everyone notices her. Everyone.Notices.Her. She like Vanessa Williams kinda stunning. And she's only in 2 or 3rd grade.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.