The babe theory of political movements essentially holds that:
Where and when there are hot babes, an exponential number of men will show up. If 100 cute girls with voluptuous bodies are protesting for freedom, you can count on a thousand men being there as well.
If sexy babes are involved in a peaceful political movement, it has a far greater chance of succeeding. If there are no good-looking women involved, the odds of a successful (and peaceful) movement fall dramatically.
Where and when alluring women are excluded from demonstrations, you can expect greater chances of strife, rioting, and failure.
Based on what we've seen recently in Lebanon and the Ukraine, this seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb. And, as Will points out, the opposite seems to hold pretty well, too. The American Left, over the years, has gone downhill. Of course, the rule is not universal, but it holds pretty well. Translating it into terms social scientists and Marxists might be more comfortable with, Will posits the following:
The Babely-Come-Lately Sub-Theorem.
An alternate view of the Babe Theory holds that attractive women are drawn more to successful political movements than to fringe movements. In other words, if the ideas behind a political movement has value, if the fight has a noble purpose, if it has worth, it will attract lovely young ladies, who then become the face of the movement. Women (babes), then, are discerning consumers of political movements, and when there is a worthwhile one, they buy into it whole-heartedly. Under this view of the Babe Theory, sexy women just happen to be found at successful demonstrations; the sexy women are not actually responsible for the success of the movement, babes at political rallies are but a symptom of success, an effective heuristic for prognosticating, an augury of what is to come.
The Babe Prerequisite Corollary.
Another view of the Babe Theory holds that a society will not be ready for democratic reforms if it does not have babes. Babes, you see, are a sign of a certain minimal level of affluence. In international relations circles, there is a belief that a society must have a certain level of wealth before it can truly become free and democratic. Folks like Fareed Zakaria argue that a democracy is nothing special, and perhaps even inimical to the world, if it is "illiberal." Zakaria uses wealth as a short-cut for determining whether a nation is ready for true democracy.
Putting it all together, Will summarizes thus:
So, if there are babes, it means the country is ready for democracy, because babes are a sign of wealth and progress.
I believe he's nailed it!
[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]