The electrifying 'news' Australian billionaire James Packer and supermodel Miranda Kerr are shagging each other was simultaneously comforting and disconcerting for many people.
If you're male and have any dash in you at all, I dare say it was reassuring to have confirmed (once again) that it doesn't matter how rough your head is, if you've got enough money, there is a beautiful woman somewhere who'll have much sex with you.
If you're female and very beautiful, it may also have been encouraging to see verification of the fact (once again) it doesn't matter how vapid you are, or transparent your motives, there'll be a rich man quite ready to bed you as well.
This is not to say Packer's motives are not also transparent; he's long since disposed of the pretension to be interested in anything other than how a woman looks in her headshot and bikini.
The comprehensiveness of Kerr's vapidity may also be disputed by some but I think it's fair to say the public has been adequately exposed to her musings to judge her principal appeal as physical.
Having also been witness to James Packer's very public child and adulthood, as well as widespread rumours of his moodiness, impressionability, fulsome nocturnal appetites and obvious rich kid entitlement, we might also conclude his foremost allure is wealth.
A relationship between these two is thus highly instructive about the modern state of heterosexual attraction because both parties are obscenely endowed with the singular assets the rest of us kid ourselves "don't really matter".
I have to wonder if this is the subtext of the frightening amount of media attention given this romantic pairing (261 Google News items and counting)?
That is, it confirms a basic human impulse the majority of people have experienced but do not have the opportunity to indulge, so we instead deny its ubiquity or denigrate those with the chance to gratify it.
"He's a creep. She's a gold digger," might sum it up.
The fact is, most men aren't incredibly wealthy and most women aren't incredibly beautiful, so their speculations about how they would behave in this situation are just that, speculations ... often distorted by insecurity and anger at the "unfairness" of being denied these commodities.
The inverse applies as well: most women are not fabulously wealthy and most men are not fabulously handsome, but you don't see a lot of wealthy older women dating young, handsome men or hot young guys falling for super-rich women. It happens, sure, but it's far less pervasive than the 'Pac-Kerr Syndrome'.
It might pain some to acknowledge wealth and beauty as the most socially-valued attributes for men and women respectively, however, when you do so the inequity becomes clear.
A man's accumulation of wealth is not fixed at birth, while female beauty - aside from the obscenity of plastic surgery and the vagaries of culture - is.
Might this explain why stories like 'Pac-Kerr' are perennially chased and broken by the smiling sadists of female gender - 'women's' magazines - and not GQ or Men's Health?
Please don't take it personally if I do not reply to your email as they come in thick and fast depending on the topic. Please know, I appreciate you taking the time to write and comment and would offer mummy hugs to all.