Tag Archives: sex

Does sleeping with a guy on the first date make him less likely to call back?

I have no idea. But there is a simple reason that it might seem like it does, even if it doesn’t.

Note: correction made to the second figure on March 5.

 Let’s imagine that a woman — we’ll call her “you,” like they do in relationship advice land — is trying to calculate the odds that a man will call back after sex. Everyone tells you that if you sleep with a guy on the first date he is less likely to call back. The theory is that giving sex away at a such a low “price” lowers the man’s opinion of you, because everyone thinks sluts are disgusting.* Also, shame on you.

Photo by Emily Hildebrand, from Flickr Creative Commons

So, you ask, does the chance he will call back improve if you wait till more dates before having sex with him? You ask around and find that this is actually true: The times you or your friends waited till the seventh date, two-thirds of the guys called back, but when you slept with him on the first date, only one-in-five called back. From the data, it sure looks like sleeping with a guy on the first date reduces the odds he’ll call back.


So, does this mean that women make men disrespect them by having sex right away? If that’s true, then the historical trend toward sex earlier in relationships could be really bad for women, and maybe feminism really is ruining society.

Like all theories, this one assumes a lot. It assumes you (women) decide when couples will have sex, because it assumes men always want to, and it assumes men’s opinion of you is based on your sexual behavior. With these assumptions in place, the data appear to confirm the theory.

But what if that those assumptions aren’t true? What if couples just have more dates when they enjoy each other’s company, and men actually just call back when they like you? If this is the case, then what really determines whether the guy calls back is how well-matched the couple is, and how the relationship is going, which also determines how many dates you have.

What was missing in the study design was relationship survival odds. Here is a closer look at the same data (not real data), with couple survival added:


By this interpretation, the decision about when to have sex is arbitrary and doesn’t affect anything. All that matters is how much the couple like and are attracted to each other, which determines how many dates they have, and whether the guy calls back. Every couple has a first date, but only a few make it to the seventh date. It appears that the first-date-sex couples usually don’t last because people don’t know each other very well on first dates and they have a high rate of failure regardless of sex. The seventh-date-sex couples, on the other hand, usually like each other more and they’re very likely to have more dates. And: there are many more first-date couples than seventh-date couples.

So the original study design was wrong. It should have compared call-back rates after first dates, not after first sex. But when you assume sex runs everything, you don’t design the study that way. And by “design the study” I mean “decide how to judge people.”

I have no idea why men call women back after dates. It is possible that when you have sex affects the curves in the figure, of course. (And I know even talking about relationships this way isn’t helping.) But even if sex doesn’t affect the curves, I would expect higher callback rates after more dates.

Anyway, if you want to go on blaming everything bad on women’s sexual behavior, you have a lot of company. I just thought I’d mention the possibility of a more benign explanation for the observed pattern that men are less likely to call back after sex if the sex takes place on the first date.

* This is not my theory.


Filed under In the news

Why I don’t defend the sex-versus-gender distinction

Or, the sex/gender distinction which is not one?


(This post includes research from my excellent graduate assistant, Lucia Lykke.)

Recently I was corrected by another sociologist: “Phil – ‘female’ and ‘male’ refer to one’s sex, not gender.”

Feminists — including feminist sociologists — have made important progress by drawing the conceptual distinction between sex and gender, with sex the biological and gender the social categories. From this, maybe, we could recognize that gendered behavior was not simply an expression of sex categories — related to the term “sex roles” — but a socially-constructed set of practices layered on top of a crude biological base.

Lucia informs me we can date this to Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex. In 1949 she wrote:

It would appear, then, that every female human being is not necessarily a woman; to be so considered she must share in that mysterious and threatened reality known as femininity.

Later, she added, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” And this is what Judith Butler put down as the root of the gender/sex distinction, calling it “the distinguished contribution of Simone de Beauvoir’s formulation”:

The distinction between sex and gender has been crucial to the long-standing feminist effort to debunk the claim that anatomy is destiny… At its limit, then, the sex/gender distinction implies a radical heteronomy of natural bodies and constructed genders with the consequence that ‘being’ female and ‘being’ a woman are two very different sort of being.

In their famous article, “Doing Gender,” West and Zimmerman report making the sex/gender distinction in their sociology classes starting in the late 1960s. I’m guessing this really started to catch on among sociologists in the 1970s, based on this ngram of “social construction of gender” and “social construction of sex” as percentages of all uses of “social construction” in American English:


The spread of this distinction in the popular understanding — and I don’t know how far it has spread — seems to be credited to sociologists, maybe because people learn it in an introductory sociology course. As of today, Wikipedia says this under Introduction to Sex/Gender:

Sociologists make a distinction between gender and sex. Gender is the perceived or projected component of human sexuality while sex is the biological or genetic component. Why do sociologists differentiate between gender and sex? Differentiating gender from sex allows social scientists to study influences on sexuality without confusing the social and psychological aspects with the biological and genetic aspects. As discussed below, gender is a social construction. If a social scientist were to continually talk about the social construction of sex, which biologists understand to be a genetic trait, this could lead to confusion.

Lots of people devote energy to defending the sex-versus-gender distinction, but I’m not one of them. It’s that dichotomy, nature versus culture. I got turned on to turning off this distinction by Catharine MacKinnon, whose book Toward a Feminist Theory of the State I have used to teach social theory as well as gender. In her introduction, she wrote (p. xiii):

Much has been made of the supposed distinction between sex and gender. Sex is thought to be the more biological, gender the more social; the relation of each to sexuality varies. I see sexuality as fundamental to gender and as fundamentally social. Biology becomes the social meaning of biology within the system of sex inequality much as race becomes ethnicity within a system of racial inequality. Both are social and political in a system that does not rest independently on biological differences in any respect. In this light, the sex/gender distinction looks like a nature/culture distinction in the sense criticized by Sherry Ortner in ‘Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?’ I use sex and gender relatively interchangeably.

From another perspective, Joan Fujimura argued for mixing more social into that biological scheme:

My investigation is an argument for broadening our social imaginaries—our definitions and understandings—of the material, the natural. A critical sociomaterial view of sex integrates sociocultural and historical investigations of the production of the material (e.g., the complexities and variations of sex physiologies and genetics) with diverse social imaginaries about sex and bodies proposed by feminists, queer theorists, intersexuals, and others. In this approach, we study and juxtapose the actions and interactions of social activist groups, social theorists, biologists, bodies, and genes in order to understand the collective, contentious, contradictory, and interactive crafting of sex in humans.

… [D]emonstrations of the sociomaterial production of sex, the Möbius strip production of sex, are useful for maintaining our awareness that natural categories are also social categories. Further, even as our current language of analysis maintains the division between the natural and the social, the point of a critical sociomaterial approach is to move in the direction of a language where there is no division, where we are always conscious that the natural and the social are not separated.

For example, we need to think of the categories male and female not as representing stable, fundamental differences but as already and always social categories. They form a set of concepts, a set of social categories of difference to be deployed for particular purposes. Ergo, what counts as male and female must be evaluated in their context of use. The categories male and female, like the categories men and women, may be useful for organizing particular kinds of social investigation or action, but they may also inhibit actions.

In that West and Zimmerman article, you may remember, they argue that “since about 1975 … we learned that the relationship between biological and cultural processes was far more complex — and reflexive — than we previously had supposed.” To help smooth the relationship between sex and gender, they use “sex category,” which “stands as a proxy” for sex but actually is created by identificatory displays, which in turn lead to gender. As I see it, the sex category concept makes the story about the social construction of sex as well as gender. For example, their use of the bathroom “equipment” discussion from Goffman’s 1977 essay is also about the social process of hardening sex, not just gender.

The U.S. Census Bureau says, “For the purpose of Census Bureau surveys and the decennial census, sex refers to a person’s biological sex,” and their form asks, “What is Person X’s Sex: Male/Female.”

But that explanation is not on the form, and there’s no (longer) policing of people filling it out — like race, it’s based on self-identification. (Everything on the form is self-identification, but some things are edited out, like married people under age 15.) So for any reason anyone can choose either “male” or “female.” What they can’t do is write in an alternative (there is no space for a write-in) or leave it blank (it will be made up for you if you do).

So its words are asking for something “biological,” but people are social animals, and they check the box they want. I think its eliciting sex category identification, which is socially produced, which is gender.

This all means that, to me, it would be OK if the form said, “Gender: Male/Female” (and that’s not a recommendation for how forms should be made, which is beyond my expertise, or an argument for how anyone should fill it out). I’m just not sure the benefits of defending the theoretical sex/gender distinction outweigh the costs of treating biological sex as outside the realm of the social.


Filed under Me @ work

All hands dimorphic: Gnomeo and Juliet edition

I previously complained about Tangled‘s 75%-male cast and extreme sex dimorphism in the romantic leads, as seen in this hand shot:


Keeping to my policy of two-year delays in movie reviews, let me add the same complaint about Gnomeo and Juliet, the charming adaptation from Disney’s Touchstone imprint. Here, a writing team of 8 men and 2 women (including Shakespeare) gives us a named cast of 14 men and 7 women, in a love story featuring these two adorable garden gnomes:

gnomeojulietHe’s only a little taller, and (judging by the gray beard) a little older. And in the movie she demonstrates bravery and feats of strength, as is now the norm. But look at those hands! Take a closer look:

gnomeojuliethandsWhat is it about hands that makes it so essential for men and women to have such differences? In the “man hands” episode of Seinfeld we learned how distressing it can be for a man to find out the woman to whom he was attracted has large hands.


That scene required a hand double. In real life, men’s and women’s hands differ on average but with a lot of overlap in the distributions — lots of men have hands smaller than lots of women. But in animation the gloves are off — and Disney is free to pair up couples who are many standard deviations apart in hand size. If real people commonly had this range of hand sizes, would such an extreme difference be considered desirable?


Filed under Uncategorized

Yes, mothers and fathers still exist

On FamilyScholars.org, which (having retreated on opposing homogamous marriage) is busy promoting its “new conversation on marriage,” Elizabeth Marquardt writes: “Where do babies come from? The state of New York seems unsure.”

Her link to a “report” is to one of those “you wouldn’t believe what my friend saw” posts on the Christian conservative site First Things:

A friend’s wife recently gave birth. He reports that the New York birth certificate asks for the sex of the mother, and the sex of the father.

It goes on to mock people who think seriously about sex and gender. And so the thing starts spreading around the religious-conservative sky-is-falling blogosphere.


I’m not too embarrassed to say I spent 15 minutes trying to look this up. Live and learn.

It’s hard to find information about birth certificates, because everything online keeps steering you to ways to order birth certificates, not create them. But, in New York state it appears there is a state system, and a state system excluding New York City. On the New York City site, there is an Electronic Birth Registration System, described here. It asks for a lot of information about the mother and father, but not their sex or gender.

I didn’t find the equivalent for the rest of the state, but the state’s Department of Health reports that they follow National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) guidelines, which seem to refer to this revised birth certificate recording form, which was revised in 2003. In addition to health information, it records the mother’s and father’s marital status (mother only), country of birth, education, Hispanic origin, and race. The mother is “the woman who gave birth to, or delivered the infant.”

The only mention of sex (or gender) pertains to the child: “Print or type whether the infant is male, female or if the sex of the infant is not yet determined.” And “not yet determined” is a temporary state, as the recording instructions clarify:

An N code for “not yet determined” should not be allowed for any record in the file at the time the file is closed. NCHS will query states to obtain the sex of the infant for all records still retaining the N code at the time the file is closed.



Filed under Uncategorized

Where did we go wrong, or did we? (love and sex edition)

For ever – or at least for 70 years – make love was many times more common than have sex, at least in the Google Ngrams database of millions of books in American English. And, then — well, you can guess what happened then:

The results are the same with “making” and “having” (you can play with the search here).

Why? What happened? Could it be “the culture”? Zooming in on the period since 1950, preliminary evidence is mixed:

I’m open to hypotheses.




Filed under Me @ work

Tangled up in Disney’s dimorphism

Sitting through Disney’s Tangled again, I saw new layers of gender in there. They’ve moved beyond the old-fashioned problem of passive princesses and active princes, so Rapunzel has plenty of action sequences. And it’s not all about falling in love (at least at first). Fine.

But how about sexual dimorphism? In bathroom icons the tendency to differentiate male and female bodies is obvious. In anthropomorphized animal stories its a convenient fiction. But in social science it’s a hazardous concept that reduces social processes to an imagined biological essence.

In Tangled, the hero and heroine are apparently the more human characters, whose love story unfolds amidst a cast of exaggerated cartoons, including many giant ghoulish men (the billed cast includes the voices of 12 men and three women).

Making the main characters more normally-human looking (normal in the statistical sense) is a nice way of encouraging children to imagine themselves surrounded by a magical wonderland, which has a long tradition in children’s literature: from Alice in Wonderland to Where the Wild Things Are.

That’s what I was thinking. But then they went in for the lovey-dovey closeup toward the end, and I had to pause the video:

Their total relative size is pretty normal, with him a few inches taller. But look at their eyes: Hers are at least twice as big. And look at their hands and arms: his are more than twice as wide. Look closer at their hands:

Now she is a tiny child and he is a gentle giant. In fact, his wrist appears to be almost as wide as her waist (although it is a little closer to the viewer).

In short, what looks like normal humanity – anchoring fantasy in a cocoon of reality – contains its own fantastical exaggeration.

The patriarchal norm of bigger, stronger men paired up with smaller, weaker women, is a staple of royalty myth-making — which is its own modern fantasy-within-reality creation. (Diana was actually taller than Charles, at least when she wore heels .)

In this, Tangled is subtler than the old Disney, but it seems no less powerful.


Filed under Me @ work

Abstinence, Antichrist and teen births

I’ve written before about the abstinence-only problem in sex education. The short answer is it doesn’t work to promote abstinence or prevent pregnancies among young people. The long answer goes all the way down to Hell and back.

The announcement that teen births hit a record low in 2010 offered a chance to revisit the curious pattern in which states that require abstinence-only education have higher rates of teen births than those that do not. The ThinkProgress post that got tens of thousands of “likes” just mentioned the top and bottom of the list. But using the list of state policies put together by Guttmacher, and the birth rates from CDC (I used the “final” data from 2009, instead of the new 2010 data, but it doesn’t seem to matter), here’s the complete breakdown:

Those that require that abstinence-only be “stressed” in any sex-ed classes average 9.9% of births to teenagers; those that require it be “covered” average 9.0%; and those with no requirement average 7.3%.

This pattern was verified by a much more rigorous analysis in the peer-reviewed journal PLosOne last year. The authors broke the laws down somewhat differently, into four levels (no provision, abstinence covered, abstinence promoted, abstinence stressed), and plotted them against state teen pregnancy rates, like this:

Their conclusion:

…increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.

In any event, the rates in the U.S. are much higher than in most European countries, as I wrote on last year’s report.

Googling Antichrist

So, abstinence education may be the cause of teen births — or just a very ineffective response to them. But what role does the Antichrist play in all this? According to Google search patterns, a big one (this statement has not yet been peer-reviewed). States’ percentages of all births to women under age 20 (left) are correlated at .87 with their searches for “the antichrist”:

Whenever I can correlate a real-world pattern of social importance with search behavior, I like to seize the chance. So I took the top 100-most correlated-with-teen-births Google searches and broke them into 9 categories, ranked in order of their interest to me. All of these were correlated with the teen birth percentage at the level of .84 or higher. Your interpretations of these are as good as mine. (Background and previous Google search posts are here.)

Christian stuff

  • antichrist
  • bibles
  • book of enoch
  • christ jesus
  • christian graphics
  • end of times
  • friday quotes
  • hagee
  • hagee ministries
  • john hagee
  • john hagee ministries
  • mark of the beast
  • obama antichrist
  • obama the antichrist
  • satanist
  • the anti christ
  • the antichrist
  • the book of enoch
  • the trinity
  • where in the bible does it say


  • abortion pictures
  • blood pressure high
  • blood pressure symptoms
  • dna testing
  • fever blisters
  • high blood
  • high blood pressure
  • high blood pressure symptoms
  • high pulse rate
  • prescribed
  • std pictures
  • walking canes


  • 40 cal
  • 40 caliber
  • caught on tape
  • fighting videos
  • fights caught on tape
  • girl fights
  • glock 40
  • street fights


  • love poems for him
  • poems about love
  • poems for him


  • banana nut
  • banana nut bread
  • banana nut bread recipe
  • nut bread
  • vinegar diet


  • american pit
  • chihuahua puppies
  • doberman pinscher
  • doberman puppies
  • english bulldogs
  • english bulldogs for sale
  • german rottweiler
  • kill a dog
  • miniature doberman
  • parvo
  • pit bull terrier
  • pit bulls
  • teacup chihuahua
  • teacup chihuahuas


  • 07 mustang
  • 2006 mustang gt
  • 2008 mustang
  • 2011 camaro
  • 2011 camaro ss
  • 2012 dodge challenger
  • f150 truck
  • gt mustang
  • mustang accessories
  • mustang body kits
  • mustang gt
  • trucks for sale by owner


  • bieber games
  • cheat codes for xbox
  • cheat codes for xbox 360
  • codes for xbox
  • codes for xbox 360
  • directv.com/myaccount
  • ed hardy purses
  • free music.com
  • funbrain.com all games
  • jeepers creepers 3
  • justin bieber games
  • music .com
  • music videos.com
  • my yahoo account
  • myspace.com login
  • pictures.com
  • spongebob videos
  • tattoos of
  • tattoos pictures
  • tattoos.com


  • anticipation loan
  • get a degree
  • money card
  • nuvell
  • search for people
  • water hose


Filed under In the news, Me @ work

Civil rights bonanza (demographic fiasco)

Keeping it in perspective.

The at least 823 legal homogamous weddings in New York state this weekend mark a civil rights milestone. That’s the big news. Celebrations abound.

That said, there are some relatively small matters I’d like to mention. Sooner or later we’ll have to clean this up, technically speaking.

1. No one knows how many men are marrying men, or women marrying women.

Many people seem to assume one of two things: that these things just take care of themselves, and “statistics” emerge; or that “marriage is just marriage,” and it’s no more important to count different kinds of marriage separately than it is to count the colors of their outfits — dwelling on it is just so binary.

But (as Gary Gates explained to me last week) California, with perhaps the largest number of legally-married homogamous couples, cannot report their numbers because the state’s marriage licenses (like this one) just record the applicants’ names, not their genders. New York’s marriage license has sex/gender “optional.” You might think that’s awesome. But “statistics” will emerge anyway, from somewhere, and everyone – including people who don’t think I should keep talking about this – will consume and repeat those numbers. So, wouldn’t it be nice if they were accurate?

2. The technical language here is absent.

I am convinced that if marriage rights had been extended to include same-sex couples by 1900, the accepted technical terms to describe the sex of people in marriage would be homogamous and heterogamous. Because same-sex marriage was not on the table, however, social scientists thoughtlessly started using those terms for other things, such as race, education and age patterns. The lack of statistics and the lack of conceptual terminology are deeply linked – and both related to the heteronormative nature of family law, religion and demographic tradition under which we still labor.

(One alternative, practiced by Gates and others, is to use the terms “same sex” and “different sex,” thereby avoiding the problematic use of “opposite-sex.” I was happy to see that New York’s law uses “different sex,” but – just as I feared – even before the law took effect the City had slipped into using “opposite sex” in its instructions to couples.)

My detailed argument is here. But instead of pleading with the world to agree with me, I think I’ll just start calling homogamy and heterogamy “the technical terms.” It sounds less desperate.

3. The Federal government counts divorces for people whose marriages it doesn’t.

This is just an interesting aside, but it occurred to me in looking at the groundbreaking new data collected annually by the Census Bureau in the American Community Survey. For the first time in decades – in a giant sample – the ACS asks vital demographic questions such as “In the past 12 months, did this person get married / widowed / divorced?” as well as, “how many times has this person been married?” and, “in what year did this person get married?” It’s hard to overstate how valuable this information is in my business.

Unfortunately, homogamous marriage is not built into the survey (yet), so married same-sex couples are “unmarried” if they are reported (changed to “unmarried partners”). However, if someone filling it out is divorced – so the ex-spouse isn’t present, and his or her sex is therefore unknown – then the divorce is kosher and remains on the books, even if the marriage it ended was banned. Go figure!

Even though most demographers are liberals (or so it seems to me), lots of classical demographic models are based on the conservative assumption that marriage is “between one man and one woman.” That makes things simpler. It means that if you count either male or female marriages and divorces, for example, you have a clean count of couples marrying or breaking up. (Demographers also used to assume that childbearing women were a subset of married women, that every child had two parents who had no children in other families, and etc.) No more!

The old scrap heap of history keeps growing.

1 Comment

Filed under In the news, Politics, Uncategorized

Low fidelity sexology

Infidelity, believe it or not.

From Equality Myth comes a plea to debunk sexologist Ian Kerner’s latest CNN post. Starting with the premise that “female infidelity is often much more damaging to a marriage,” he asserts:

In recent years I’ve noticed a precipitous rise in the number of men who have been betrayed by adultery, and while there’s an overall consensus among professionals that female infidelity is on the rise, the trend doesn’t garner nearly as much attention as male infidelity. … While there aren’t any hard statistics on female infidelity, most experts agree that it’s on the rise, especially among women who have their own careers and a degree of financial independence.

He also claims, “cheating is an equal opportunity sport, one that women are just as likely as men to play.”

All I can say after a short search is that (a) men cheat more; (b) there is no evidence of increasing infidelity, among men or women, in the last 20 years; and, (c) there may be a small increase in infidelity among women with college degrees in the last 10 years, but if so it is quite slight. Here are the numbers I got, from the General Social Survey, which since 1991 has been asking, “Have you ever had sex with someone other than your husband or wife while you were married?” For the overall trend:

Infidelity has been, and remains, more common among men than women, and neither group shows a significant time trend. And for the claim that it has been increasing among professional women:

For this one I pooled two survey-years of data at each end of the decade to increase the sample size. Still, the increase among women with 16 years or more of education, from 11% to 14%, is not strong evidence of an increase, especially when you look at the year-to-year fluctuations in the first graph. Education is associated with less infidelity among men, but shows no significant difference among women. In short, his empirical claims don’t match the “hard statistics” that I can find. Granted, the GSS is relying on self-reported bad behavior, albeit anonymously, so this is not proof (not as reliable as, say, the second-hand claims wronged spouses make to their sex therapists!).

That doesn’t mean he’s not seeing an increase among the people he counsels in his practice, which seems to focus on sexual problems and presumably is pretty expensive. That’s a select group — so maybe he should have saved the observations for his patient newsletter instead of spreading them all over CNN.

Even further from the “hard statistics” are his “signs that a woman could be cheating or thinking about it.”

  • She shows less general interest in her partner’s comings and goings
  • She dresses up for work, but seems to care less about whether her partner finds her attractive
  • She has less interest in sex with her partner
  • She’s keeping an irregular schedule and spending more time at work
  • She seems happy, except when she’s around her partner
  • She shows less tolerance of her partner’s friends and family
  • There are unresolved issues in the relationship that have either been ignored or not resolved in a way that’s satisfying to her
  • She’s in a child-centric marriage that prioritizes parenting and neglects a couple’s relationship, with few opportunities for romance and alone time

I could imagine these patterns apply to lots of women who are unhappy in their relationships, whether they’re having affairs or not. So when he says, “Guys, think your wife would never cheat? Think again,” Kerner might just be adding gasoline to a lot of smoldering fires.


Filed under In the news

Is dating still dead?

The media pop the question about dating — over and over.

Today’s headline in the print edition of USA Today was, “Is Dating Dead?” Say it isn’t so. Still?

By evening, the online edition just used the subhead, “More college ‘hookups,’ but more virgins, too.” The story includes new information and quotes from a number of sociologists, summarized by this:

The relationship game among college-age adults today is a muddle of seemingly contradictory trends. Recent studies indicate that traditional dating on campuses has taken a back seat to no-strings relationships in which bonds between young men and women are increasingly brief and sexual.

But the pitch had a decidedly familiar ring. The more things change, the more the media uses the same headlines. You could go back to 2001, in the Sun Herald of Sydney, Australia…

If your memory is a little longer, you might recall Maclean’s insightful article in 1995:
Or, specifically on the campus scene, there was this in the New York Times, March 26, 1989 — almost exactly 22 years ago:

In Beth Bailey’s 1989 history, From front porch to back seat: courtship in twentieth-century America, she says the “dating system … flourished between 1920 and 1965.” So we’re approaching the 50th anniversary of its original demise.

(I confess, I mocked up the Sun Herald and Maclean’s versions from text retrieved through Lexis-Nexis.)


Filed under In the news