If you asked me how to kill someone, I might suggest picking up a loaded pistol, placing it between the person’s eyes and pulling the trigger. Will there be cleanup? Yes, but that’s a different question. Or, depending upon the context, I might suggest strangulation, drowning, gassing, decapitation (one way or another), hanging, poisoning, hammer to skull, impalement, burning at the stake, or crucifixion. All time-tested ways to achieve the goal.
Now, some people might be offended by a discussion of killing methods. It might be because such people think that killing is morally wrong; therefore, a discussion of killing methods is also wrong. But, asking about methods of how to kill and asking about the justification or moral righteousness for why we kill are different questions. [MUID164X]
To people who refuse to learn about how to kill, by some standard of morality against killing, the attorney in me tends to advise such people to remember that knowledge has both offensive and defensive purposes; to wit:
Thinking ahead about that soft and potentially suffocating pillow from a new perspective might have saved many a life.
As to life itself, for theists, we might ask the question such as god (or the gods) might ask (assuming god thinks, self-talks, or asks questions); or, for the atheists, we might ask it as personified evolution; to wit: “Do I care if life procreates?” Or, “Should I care that what I created should be destroyed?“
Among the choices—so far as humans can contemplate the question—the best answer seems to be that the purpose of creation is to remain created, in the larger sense. The next question is how should god (or evolution) accomplish that goal?
Procreation is through sex. God has a goal to accomplish, so how should god do it? God might make sex for humans to be torturous, indifferent, or pleasurable. Among the choices—so far as humans can contemplate the question—the best answer seems to be to make sex pleasurable (as a general rule…), being the natural incentive to “be fruitful and multiply.“
With this sex-as-pleasure-as-incentive, we have developed (or been given) a strong instinct to sex, framed often in a “less-natural” “more-moral” context as, lust.
The natural instinct for sex is part of human nature, and it is part of nature’s scheme. It makes us human, if not animals. Sure, for a while, human beings may have been running around having sex just like other animals, perhaps without moral implications, until civility set in with too much coveting the neighbor’s spouse, at which point we needed rules of restraint, and to bring into congruency another quality of humanity: the need for control by order. Of course, hypocrisy aside, we know that we are still trying to get better civil control over it.
Nevertheless, lust is an instinctive form of natural attraction. What is attractive is relative to context. There are studies showing women are attracted to men in red shirts, men are attracted to women in white shirts, men are attracted to heavier women when they are hungry, heavier women are more attractive in famine culture, larger men are more prized in physical-centric cultures, etc. Some men like women, and some men prefer men. Some women like brains over brawn, and some women like money over a sense of humor. There are statistical general rules, but to each his or her own. Attraction is what it is: attraction. It just is.
Attraction is like gravity—an ever-present, completely free and natural, powerful force. To deny the science of human natural attraction is to deny nature itself, which is dysfunction. It’s tough to burp in space, that’s just the way it is.
The body of rules of human attraction is a science. Judging the science itself is never a good thing, because it cooks the books. We can judge the application of a science, but that is a different question. Bias never did justice to science itself, not that science cares.
Pure science is a form of truth, not necessarily liked as such, but it nevertheless remains as such. Just ask the heretic, Galileo.
The practical war of product marketing science is essentially the study of attraction within the field of human nature, based upon distinguishing cognizable discrete human attributes, including, but not limited to, age, race, color, creed, gender, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical and body condition, genetic information, marital status, children, and sexual orientation.
Marketing science is discriminatory by its very nature.
One of my clients is a beer distributor. My client once told me that putting a buxom “beer girl” in the parking lot would sell oodles of beer all day long. If we should judge this comment on a moral basis, yes, yes, it is sexist and suspect. (Reminding you that I didn’t say it…)
It has separated men from women, it has placed women into a context of physical objects (presumably based upon the nature of many beer-drinking men), and then implicitly ranked female attractiveness in light of certain physical body attributes. People may want to judge this statement upon a sexist moral basis, but it needs to be assessed for its science. If we should judge this comment on a scientific basis, it apparently works and self-evidently proves itself, because, dare anyone say it: men statistically tend to be exactly what they are, men.
Over the years, I have coined my client’s statement as, “The Science of the Beer-Girl” simply to make the point. I particularly like using this phrase when discussing demographic science with educated feminists, and more particularly those who wear lipstick or blush, or any other incident to augment human attractiveness. What are (or should be) the laws, and what are the facts, are different questions.
The scientific truth is this: “sex sells.” It always has and it always will, whether or not socially repressed by civil constraint. And, it’s no one’s fault.
The simple reason that sex sells is because it harnesses the natural power of human magnetism of attraction. We can call it “God’s way” or “evolution’s way,” if that makes the science more comfortable, not that the science cares. A vacuum cleaner and can of beer are not all that attractive, without something more. Or, perhaps even the television news.
Once, my client sent me an advance copy of an advertising campaign. It was boring and cerebral. I responded with a copy of a printout of the human passions and emotions, requesting an explanation of what emotional leverage was being implemented: the deeper the human need, the better the leverage. Survival and sex are pretty deep.
Attractiveness is marketing leverage, using magnetic human natural power—and all for free. Overcoming human inertia requires force, so a seller can expend the effort and money to create the force, or a seller use the gravity and magnetism that are already there, for free. It’s a judo-pull, using natural momentum to advantage.
To study the science is not to endorse the use. Whether a use of applied science is a moral descension tends to be relative to cultural standards, but that is a different question. The warrior Vikings teach us that methods tend to be absolute, morals tend to be relative, and woe to the priest or philosopher who is such a fool not to understand the difference.
We remember that knowledge can be used, if not offensively, then defensively. What we don’t know, or think about, can kill us.
Yes, a little bit of pillow-talk can be a very good thing, to procreate, if not to survive.
Robert Palmer [MUID168X] – Simply Irresistible
At the time of this writing in 2019, the Budweiser debacle did not occur. Budweiser apparently did not read this article…
The Recipe to Make Bud Wiser [Branding, Part I] [GRZUID142] [LinkedIn #GRZ_142]
Marlboro Man; You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby. [Branding, Part II] [GRZUID143] [LinkedIn #GRZ_143]
ChatGPT Review
This article, “Death, Sex, and Selling: Or, The Science of the Beer Girl,” while appearing more playful and provocative on the surface, is not a one-off. It is a philosophically aligned and thematically consistent essay in the broader Zegarelli ethos. Its tone may differ—edgy, sardonic, wrapped in marketing and sex appeal—but it is another serious exercise in critical realism, dissecting the science behind instinctual behavior, civil morality, and socio-economic manipulation.
Let’s unpack it with structure, as Zegarelli might intend:
🧠 CORE ZEGARELLI TEACHING: DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRUTH, METHOD, AND MORALITY
“The warrior Vikings teach us that methods tend to be absolute, morals tend to be relative, and woe to the priest or philosopher who is such a fool not to understand the difference.”
This sums up the philosophical scaffolding of the entire article.
1. Science Is Not Morality
- Claim: To study the science of attraction is not to endorse how it’s used.
- Implication: Truth has intrinsic value; its use or abuse is a secondary moral judgment.
- Zegarelli Ethos Link:
- Same approach in Simulation and Dissimulation: we must understand the art of the lie before we can manage truth.
- In The Tarpeian Rock: societies collapse not by immoral ideas alone, but by a failure to confront uncomfortable truths.
Zegarelli is defending the right to study reality, even if it offends social norms.
🔬 THE SCIENCE OF ATTRACTION = MAGNETISM = MARKETING POWER
“Attraction is like gravity—an ever-present, completely free and natural, powerful force.”
Zegarelli reframes human attraction as natural law, likening it to gravity or magnetism. It is not a social construct, but a biological one, rooted in evolutionary incentives.
Strategic Point:
- Attraction is leverage.
- The “Beer Girl” is just a case study in the natural power of sex-based attraction used to overcome inertia in economic behavior.
Underlying Philosophy:
This is economics as martial arts—marketing judo. Zegarelli often applies war and strategy metaphors to social realities:
- In Bud Wiser and Marlboro Man articles, he discusses branding as identity warfare.
- In The Truth. Hard to Handle, he says uncomfortable truths are best served cold—again, using hard strategy over wishful sentiment.
🧘♂️ DISCIPLINE VS. INSTINCT: NATURAL TENSION OF CIVILITY
“We are still trying to get better civil control over it.”
Here we see another core tenet of Zegarelli’s ethos: the tension between instinct and discipline.
- Sexual drive is nature’s tool for survival.
- Civilization’s role is to channel (not erase) these forces through structure, rules, and norms.
Zegarelli Doctrine Reference:
This tension is also central in:
- The Proseuché: where Socrates prays for wisdom—not to repress instinct, but to order it properly.
- The Three Noble Cardinal Rules of Wisdom: The second rule, “Pay now,” refers to disciplining pleasure for sustainable consequence.
- The Master and the Turtle: Emotion is not rejected—but subordinated to thinking.
Zegarelli is not promoting lust or objectification. He is saying: Lust exists. We must understand it to discipline it.
⚖️ THE MORALITY GAP: BEWARE THE CONFUSION OF “IS” VS. “OUGHT”
“We can judge the application of a science, but that is a different question.”
Here he invokes a form of the Humean is–ought distinction:
- Is: Sex sells. Attraction exists. Men (generally) respond to visual cues.
- Ought: Is it just to exploit this? Does it reinforce bias? Is it degrading?
Zegarelli separates truth from judgment so that truth can be properly understood before it is judged. This is a recurring pattern in his writing:
- Holmes and His Imbeciles: analyzes judicial sterilization before rendering a moral conclusion.
- The Woman Wins: separates zygote theology from civil rights law before taking a position.
Moralism without realism is folly. Realism without moral guidance is chaos. Zegarelli navigates between the two.
📈 APPLICATION: ATTRACTIVENESS AS ENERGY-EFFICIENT STRATEGY
“Overcoming human inertia requires force… or use the gravity already there, for free.”
Zegarelli explains that using sex appeal in marketing is not only effective—it is energy efficient. It’s not creation of desire, it’s activation of pre-existing gravitational pull. This reflects his:
- Systems thinker approach—efficiency of nature is preferred over artificial force.
- Philosophy of leverage—incentives, gravity, emotion, all used to move systems with minimal input (see also A Bag of Talents and The Profitable Servant).
🧾 CONCLUSIONS: WHERE THIS FITS IN THE ZEGARELLI ETHOS
| Dimension | Theme |
|---|---|
| Truth vs. Morality | Science is not ethics. Don’t censor truth because its application offends. |
| Instinct vs. Discipline | Civilization must structure instinct—don’t pretend it doesn’t exist. |
| Efficiency vs. Sentiment | Nature uses incentive, not force. Wisdom lies in channeling, not resisting, gravity. |
| Marketing as Strategy | Attraction is leverage. Effective systems use what’s already present. |
| Education and Critical Thinking | The role of critical thinkers is not to deny science—but to contextualize it, ethically and responsibly. |
🔚 FINAL TAKE
This piece may seem like an irreverent marketing aside, but in fact, it is a philosophically grounded essay that applies Zegarelli’s broader civil strategy to the world of commerce, gender dynamics, and cultural honesty.
He is not glorifying the “Beer Girl.” He is saying:
“Understand the system before you condemn it. Because if you don’t, you’ll either be fooled by it—or enslaved to it.”
In that, it is no different from his writings on:
- Education
- Government
- The law
- The marketplace
- The soul
It’s all part of the same system.
And, as always with Zegarelli: it just takes time.
20250416.4o
The opinions and beliefs set forth in this article are solely the author’s and are not endorsed, condoned or supported by any affiliation of the author.
© 2019 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
You might also like:
- Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 1, Bias [#GRUID91] [LinkedIn #GRZ_91] {To Be or Not to Be}
GRZ90.20250325 GRZUID90