10. Benjamin Underwood can’t see for squat but he gets around by making clicking noises and using echolocation to visualize the obstacles his radar sends back. Unless he was hit by a truck full of radioactive material and now wears red tights and carries a billy club, science has no explanation for this:

Want to impress me, Ben? Read this blog.

9. Telephone telepathy. How is it that sometimes you are thinking about someone and they call? Egads, can that be possible? Of course it can … it’s like wondering how it is possible that men think about sex and sometimes they get sex. If you are thinking about people all of the time but only know 50, chances are one of them will call when you happen to be thinking about them.

Want to impress me, audio guys? Explain how Lady Scientist magically knows an ex-girlfriend called “just to say hello.”

(more…)

Okay, before all you crazy feminists get upset and menstruate all over your computer screens because of that headline, hear me out.

Well, get in the kitchen and bake me a pie. Then hear me out.

Mistresses are getting popular in China. Some Commie bigwigs spend their days bilking the proletariat and then their nights canoodling with as many as seven mistresses who all live in lavish apartments.

Okay, I agree anything in excess is bad. And seven mistresses would be a lot even for me. And I have two penises. But let’s get back to the core argument, that being the mistress of modern times or the plain old concubine of yore. Why did it ever fall out of fashion? What are the pros and cons?

(more…)

This study says that TV in the bedroom cuts the sex life in half. Now, this is an Italian study so maybe that skews the results. Italian men only want to have sex with someone else’s wife. And Italian women? Don’t get me started. If I had to have sex with Italian women, my sex life would be cut in half too. Unless it is Monica Bellucci. And then it would be something like 8X.

But it seems to make sense. No TV equals fewer distractions and more boredom - scientists inherently understand this important correlation. So hidden cameras, yes. TVs, no.

Want to know the best result of a vigorous debate about evolution? It’s now okay to talk about how people are different without getting into all of that touchy-feely “you’re special too” hoopie. Let’s take mathematicians, for example. They have always been toilet monkeys for scientists but in public we had to be nice to them and nod our heads at what they said even though we could do everything they could do ( scribble gibberish on a chalkboard )and we did it with a lot more style. It’s not us being mean to say it now, it’s just data.

Fellow scientists who aren’t concerned about being politically correct are finally laying it out there about differences between men and women too. I don’t know about you but this scientist did much of his young schooling in the 1970s when the popular theory was that there were no differences between men and women and if you raised them the same, they would be the same. This was baffling at the time but, hey, if important scientists said it, it had to be true, right? That’s why I believe those evolution guys today when they say that micro- and macro-evolution are the same thing and that evolution doesn’t require actual evidence, like fossils.

Well, it turns out common-sense people without science degrees may have been onto something after all and scientists are just now getting it. Science has discovered there are some things that women like to do because of their brain differences; flirting, gossiping and getting all up in our business, for example.

No kidding. I hope “baking me pies” is somewhere farther down that list. So if women’s brains are fundamentally different from men’s now as compared to the 1970s when we were all the same, maybe it’s because they are evolving differently. I’m going to reveal some research here for the first time which shows that not only are women evolving at different rates than men, they are actually devolving in some areas.

Take this example. We’ll call her “Carol.” As you can see, Carol is evolving nicely in some ways, with the blue eyes and the blonde hair and the flat tummy that all women will one day have. Yet either evolution is a fickle mistress or some higher power is having a laugh at us because, as you can see by this evidence, not only are women still hairy in some spots, they are getting hairier.

Clearly this is deviating from the evolutionary plan of having women smelling pretty and being mostly hairless that we all want.

So what is the solution? Evolution experts aren’t sure and say some changes won’t matter at all but some do. Giraffes, they say, evolved long necks to reach food but having Carol shave her arms wouldn’t make a bit of difference.

So we can’t use any chemicals except Miss Clairol to change the hair aspect but we can use lots of chemicals to modify the brain functions. Research is just beginning so we don’t have many concrete solutions but Louann Brizendine offers a few ideas in her book, The Female Brain. She suggests testosterone if a woman has a low sex drive, for example.

I would think shots of Jäger would be a lot cheaper but I am not a neuropsychiatrist. She also talks about chemical treatments for mood swings but as long as those pies keep on coming, I am not too concerned about moods.

Anyway, this sounds like an important book and you can order it here to support science.

I hope this helps in your everyday lives because understanding the crucial differences between the sexes can help you get what you want in your relationships with women, like some peace and quiet.

Teenage Scientists Have Redefined Sex In Order To Have Less Of It

We’ve talked about this before. Not only do I think kids today are smarter than we ever were, I pretty much can’t wait for them to run the world. Nothing … and I mean nothing … in the corporate world compares to trying to get laid as a teenager. And not only are kids today having sex like cocaine-fueled bunnies, they are convincing researchers they’re having less of it. That, my friends, is scientific brilliance.

But there’s confusion in the scientific ranks about all of this and I will tell you why; it’s because teenagers are so smart they redefined sex to fool researchers so they can have more of it. First, the data. Item 1: a new study found that students who think about sex and listen to music about sex actually have more sex than other students.

How can that be true? I thought about sex all of the time as a teenager and I can assure you that thinking about sex - and I even went so far as to post pictures of mostly-naked girls in my bedroom as a hint - actually did less to make real naked women appear.

This is why scientists were secretly happy when well-meaning teachers put sex education in the curriculm. Nothing makes it easier to get laid than showing girls what they would be doing if they were ‘grown-ups’ - that is the kind of subtle peer pressure we could never have dreamed up. Thanks National Education Association!

And yet, it has worked perfectly for teenagers who get to have buckets of pre-marital sex and blame us if it goes badly. But wait for Item 2 - another study says that students are having a lot less sex than they used to have.

How can they both be true? Science will tell you how. Because kids may be book dumber than they used to be, but they are a heck of a lot street smarter.

We can have studies that give opposite results due to the problem of calibration. What do I mean? The second study uses 1991 as the reference year and, as everyone knows, that was the year before the election of President Bill Clinton. Now, this site is about science, not politics, but scientists will go on record as saying they like Bill Clinton for the same reason students taking surveys about sex do; he redefined what sex means. The study says in 1991 54.1% of students were having sex but today, even with all of that music in the first study and free internet porn, only 46.8% of students are having sex.

How is this possible? It must mean that sex education really works, right? Well, no, it means that the one time teenagers listened to their elders, it was when the President told them some kinds of sex weren’t really sex. In the 1991 study, it was sex if it involved two people and orgasms. In the intervening 15 years it changed so that it isn’t sex if you don’t know the girl’s name until your sixth orgasm. That means I was a virgin before I met Lady Scientist.* No wonder Paris Hilton thinks she is celibate.

I know this all sounds a little confusing. Given this new paradigm you probably want to know what the current definition of ’sex’ is, in case you have to take a survey. Well, it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.

Conclusion: Not only do I think the future is safe in the hands of such smart kids, I am cashing in my 401K. I think my Social Security will be worth millions in their capable hands and I’d like to buy a big trampoline for the yard right now.

*That’s right, you took my flower. Now bake me a pie.