Recently, various writers have been alluding to Terry Pettijohn's now-mythical survey of the relationship between Playboy Playmates and the economy. Pettijohn's argument is that, as times get tougher, male concepts of beauty shift toward more mature, stable-looking women who are older, taller, and less curvy. Conversely, in boom times, the woman of choice would be shorter, younger, and more hourglass-shaped.

While my knowledge of Playboy Playmates was once disturbingly encyclopedic, I have to admit that I have been out of the game for quite some time now. That said, I'd have to question Professor Pettijohn's methodology, if only for the fact that the Playboy ideal has shown far less fluctuation over the years than society at large. To put it bluntly, many of the heroin addict-thin models that grace the pages of women's fashion magazines would never be allowed within arm's length of a Playboy pictorial. Like the Rockettes, Playmates have traditionally remained within a comfortably healthy median, neither ballerina scrawny nor fully zaftig.

Now, arguably, there could be some comparisons drawn between economic boom/bust cycles and the shapes of women's bodies. Certainly, the androgynous flapper look of the 1920's, the Twiggy look of the 1960's, and the starvation victim/heroin addict look of the late 1990's/early 2000's are somewhat comparable. Similarly, the hourglass 1940's, 1950's, and 1980's have similar style cues. While it would be silly to take these comparisons to extremes, fashion goes in cycles, and those cycles overlap somewhat with the economy. However, this is far from a direct confluence; the 1930's look, for example, was still boyish, and our current ultra-thin look has been developing for quite some time.