And no, it’s not because I want to see your breasts. I don’t. Really. Furthest thing from my mind.

It’s because I don’t want an Alex-Forrest brand psycho — OK an alleged an Alex-Forrest brand psycho — wearing a T-shirt emblematic of my alma mater.

H/T: Ace.

In two senses of the word: the ladies are conservative, and so are the photos. There’s no genuine cheesecake in the Claire Booth Luce Policy Institute’s 2010 wall calendar — not that you’d expect it.

But it does remind me of the not-so-long-ago blogburst about conservative women vs. liberal women. And for a good laugh, see how Doug Ross carries that theme a step further with a hypothetical face-off against a wall calendar featuring liberal women.

Many will, I’m sure find McCain’s advice not to “give the milk away for free” to be terribly old fashioned. But old fashioned morals and practicality, I like. Unfortunately, I think McCain goes wrong in the very first paragraphs by assuming that men are the same now as they were when he and I were young men (i.e., 20-something). It begins thus:

Not long ago, at a social event in D.C., I found myself talking to a very intelligent, funny, attractive woman who is 31 years old and not married. She had just ended a “relationship” with a guy, and I was sort of amazed.

Why was she still single? And why would this guy date her and dump her? Surely, if he had any appreciation of her wonderful qualities — some qualities evident to the eye, and others that might be learned in a brief conversation — he would have spent all he had to buy her a diamond ring, fallen on his knees and, with tears streaming down his face, begged for her hand in marriage.

I wonder this all the time myself. I don’t hit the cocktail party circuit, like McCain must as a journalist in Washington, but I will run across a woman from time to time about whom I’ll wonder the same thing: Why the hell isn’t she married? Are young men these days idiots? And the answer, in large measure, an unfortunate YES.

I’ve been Googling around without success to find the source of the following information, which I heard presented by an author being interviewed by Dennis Prager about her book on the immaturity of the American male, and thus I may have some of it wrong, but here’s the gist:

• Portrait of the typical 26-year-old American male in 1960: Married. Two kids, good chance of a third already on the way. Employed in a trade or working his way up in management in a white collar job.
• Portrait of the many 26-year-old American males today: Single. Job with no future. Spends a couple of hours a day playing video games. Lives with 2 0r 3 roommates who are just like him.

Now, even if those details are wrong, I think the relative immaturity of the more contemporary of those two demographics is pretty hard to dispute. And I don’t say that because I was 26 in 1960. Born in 1960, I fall squarely between those two demographics, as does McCain (who, if I’m not mistaken, is around my age), and I’m afraid I didn’t measure up to the 1960 standard, either. But as much as my contemporaries may have spent their time chasing skirts and avoiding commitment — which I refrained from not on moral grounds but because I was damn clumsy with women — many of my friends got married before I did at 26.

Anyway, what this means is that when I ask myself that question these days — Why isn’t she married? — I assume its in large part because good, marriageable men in their early to mid-20s, and even slightly beyond, are rare.

It’s a chicken-and-egg-argument whether men have gotten this way because women have let them get away with it, or that women started “giving away the milk for free” in response to this decline. Probably a little of both. But if women widely followed McCain’s advice — and men worked harder at keeping it zipped — I think men would improve.

The problem with McCain’s advice (as a strategy, not as a moral code) is that it can only work for some women. If good, marriageable young men are indeed few and far between, then the women who hold out are likely screen out a lot of losers and nab the good ones. What are the rest of women — those stuck with the leftovers — to do? Well, McCain’s advice would still help, if it was widely followed. That night force men to grow up some.

Overall, it seems a sad state of affairs.

So, in one of my rare applications of Stacy McCain’s Rule 5, I’ll chime in with my 2 cents on the topic. That way you can claim you subscribe to The Skepticrats “for the articles,” just like Playboy subscribers.

I’ll start with outrage — outrage, I say! — over two obvious omissions: Patti Ann Browne and Jenna Lee.

Techincally, Jenna’s with Fox News Business instead of Fox News, but she should have made the list anyway, and I doubt I’m the only one that thinks so:

And how can you leave Patti Ann Browne off the list? I always thought she was great looking as an anchor, but see her let her hair down on Redeye:

When she sat behind the anchor desk, it was hard to tell she was so . . . healthy.

On to those who made the list.

Right wing darling Megyn Kelly made the list.  I’m not big on blondes generally or her look in particular, but now the she’s pregnant, she does seem to have that “pregnancy glow” about her.

The only one on the list I can truly, truly, agree belongs on the list is Julie Banderas.  Gorgeous, gorgeous hair, and the rest of her — at least what we can see on screen — ain’t bad either. Hot enough to make you lose your head around her and say shocking things like this:

Did he really mean to say that?

Speaking of what you can see on screen (and what you can’t), Courtney Friel fans are in for a treat at nextround.net.  Here’s just the headshot from one of two bikini pics:

By the way, this is a follow-up to nextround.net’s list of “The 9 Hottest CNN Reporters.” Just remember, conservative babes are generally hotter. Just imagine you had hot identical twins next to each other, each on the opposite ends of the political spectrum from the other.  Who would you find hotter?

Then again, I once had a very politically conservative friend who viewed the desireability of women this way: you want to date a liberal, but you want to marry a conservative. If you get my drift.

UPDATE: Word Around the Net has “Tea Party Cuties.” (H/T Stacy McCain, who also links!)

UPDATE #2: Ace links in the headlines! Ace. I’m going to take a screenshot, frame it, and put it over the fireplace. Even though he doesn’t mention the blog by name. I’ll know it’s me.

Let’s start with the girls in the video. They’re not physically attractive. They’re not charming. (Yes, I know both of these comments are highly subjective.) But it seems to be enough for Uncle Jimbo and the Blackfive guy that these two are not old hags like the rest of the group. They’d have a point if the only females left on earth were Code Pinkos and it was their duty to repopulate the planet. But in the real world, these young girls shouldn’t even merit a glance from conservatives . . . at least, not once they’ve opened their mouths.

Thankfully, this “Code Pink Cutie” delusion does not appear to have reached anywhere near meme status on the conservative blogs. It’s showing up in conservative blog aggregators, and American Power gives it a link without actually endorsing it, but it appears the rest of the conservative blogosphere has more sense.

Now, for those of you doubting me . . . didn’t you find Jessica Alba (a genuine cutie/hottie) the least little bit less attractive when she spouted off here? (Though I think she was unfairly criticized on the issue of Sweden’s neutrality.) I’m not even sure R.S. McCain could spend more than a few minutes with Christina Hendricks if she were spouting such inanities at the time (not that he’d take advantage anyway, being a married man).

Hollywood is an aberration. In real life, conservative women are generally more attractive. Attractive women don’t start their lives with chips on their shoulders. Which is why Rush Limbaugh’s undeniable truth #24 — “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society” — always made sense to me. And it’s why you see art like the banner in this blog post.

Of course, I’m not saying all conservative women are babes. I’m just saying that if you start with identical twin cuties next to each other, with one espousing Code Pink values and the other one preparing to participate in CPAC, they look markedly different from each other. And if you gradually start making the difference in their physical appearance wider — the CPAC babe getting gradually less attractive and the Code Pinko becoming gradually more so — it will still be quite a while before the Code Pinko looks better to you. Or at least, it should be quite a while.

Now, when you start out with a woman who is already hot but of unknown political persuasion, then you learn she’s a conservative to boot — or at least plays one on TV — well, that just adds to the babe factor. Case in point, hottest of the hot Fox News babes, Patti Ann Brown (pipe down, Julie Banderas and Jenna Lee fans), with her hair down on Redeye, and not exactly espousing conservative values (mildly NSFW for language):

Maybe that just proves that someone with a conservative persona is even sexier when she departs from it. Anyway, that’s probably about as close as I’m going to get to implementing Rule 5 for blog traffic generation.

UPDATE (5/2/2009): A similar topic has generated all kinds of traffic (judging by the numbers of comments) in the last few days for some other conservative bloggers, more than a month after I posted this. Instead of being bitter about it, I am once again going to follow “Roadhouse” Stacy McCain’s Rule from “How to get a million hits on your blog in less than a year”. I’m going to e-mail all these guys, and see if they’ll link back to me.

From what I can tell, the current string of successful posts started with Matthew Archbold at Creative Minority Report, with “Are Conservative Women Hotter?” Pundette followed with a post about attractive conservative men, with a similar “hook” of a title: “Hotness gap”? Suzanna Logan followed up by explaining that gumption explains “Why Conservative Women are Hotter”. Monique Stewart joined in with “What Hotness Gap?” — another post about hot conservative men. And they all got home page exposure at McCain’s.

OK, I’m noticing a trend here: the word “hot” or some variant thereof in the title. MY post? It has the words “more attractive.” Lame. Then again, my discussion goes well past looks . . . but so does Suzanna Logan’s.

OK, on to the e-mailing. Wish me luck!

UPDATE (5/3/09): Newbie blogger William John Perry of Beating the Liberty Drum has another theory: it’s the legs. Be sure to scroll to the end of his post for the photographic evidence (including a stunning photo of Suzanna Logan). And he’s getting an e-mail from me, too, newbie or not. For all I know, his trafic is already through the roof.

Researchers suspect the stereotype [that overweight women have less sex] could mean overweight women get different messages than thinner women from physicians regarding pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease prevention, and that their sexual behavior might therefore vary.

“Some medical practitioners may not do appropriate follow-up with women who are overweight; they might assume they aren’t having sex unless they are told otherwise,” said Oregon State University Professor Marie Harvey, a specialist in women’s sexual and reproductive health issues.

“Our analysis demonstrated that obese and overweight women do not differ significantly in some of the objective measures of sexual behavior compared to women of normal weight,” said Harvey’s colleague, Bliss Kaneshiro, an assistant professor at the School of Medicine at the University of Hawaii. “This study indicates that all women deserve diligence in counseling on unintended pregnancy and STD prevention, regardless of body mass index.”

How hard do you have to think to come up with something that bone-headed?

If members of the medical community are counseling heavier women differently because of an assumption that they don’t have much sex, then shame on them. Not just for depriving these women of good advice, but for thinking something so stupid. The world is full of people of all shapes and sizes and tastes of all sorts.

But even if the counseling is different, I really doubt that accounts for the difference.

First, I’d like to know how this study defined “overweight” or “obese.” Since the article refers to Body Mass Index, I tend to discount this study entirely. (Any system that classifies Michael Jordan during his playing days as “overweight” is suspect.) So if the article considers anyone heavier than Keira Knightly to be overweight, then just throw out the study completely.

But assuming the study is a little more reasonable on this, there are sure better explanations than the one quoted above. How about the possibility that women who obsess about their weight to the point they can’t even enjoy a meal might just be a little more high strung and less likely to enjoy life than women who are a little more relaxed about food? I have to admit that’s a borrowed theory. A friend who’s wife was overweight once explained, “You don’t want a woman that doesn’t enjoy food. A woman who doesn’t enjoy the sensual experience of eating isn’t likely to enjoy other sensual experiences.” I think he was on to something. (Granted, not all thin women are obsessive. Keira Knightly, for instance, reputedly eats like a horse.)

Here’s another shocking possibility: maybe a lot of men don’t go for bean poles. Ever think about that?

H/T: HotAir.