After years of telling us things were as was opposed to common sense, they’re finally catching up with the reality of things. Like for instance, did you know that inhaling smokey substances filled with chemicals – such as cigarettes – is bad for you?

Today’s wisdom came to me in the form of one of those brain-dead morning “news” shows on ABC or one of the other 3-letter channels I never actually watch. They were talking about how you can tell things about a person by their face. At issue was whether or not a woman could tell a man looking for sex from a man more likely to commit to a relationship from his facial features. Turns out, they could!

Like we needed science to tell us this, right? Because even though it’s not politically correct to say it, we already know the answers I’m about to reveal, right? The more handsome guys were less likely to settle down, and the ones with softer, less “masculine” and “sexy” features were more likely to commit to a relationship. Well no freaking duh, dudes. I mean, let’s look at the reality of it, huh?

A handsome guy that girls swoon over is going to be less likely to settle down, because he can go out and get any other good-looking female he comes across to do what he wants for him. Why settle down? He needs nothing he can’t just get at any stop, you know? The softer guy, the one that can’t attract the women as well? He’s going to be more likely to commit, because commitment means having the means available to him. If he’s in a committed relationship, he does not have to worry about going out and competing with the Fabios of the world and coming home empy-handed, as was a likely outcome. He bagged one! He can go home and be pretty much assured!

Yes, we’re talking about sex here. Yes it’s crude, but when they talk about “one-nighters,” as they were here, they don’t mean book readings; they mean sex. I’m just actually saying it.

Then they turned the tables and started asking questions of the women in the study. What do women find most attractive? Well they tried to be “PC” about it at first, saying that women like commitment, so they’re drawn to the men with the “softer features” (read: less attractive) because they like commitment. Well we all laughed, but the question was pressed, and it turns out that… women prefer the good-looking guys, and when they’re ovulating – when they’re the horniest – they chase after the best-looking guys. You know, those same ones from above that didn’t have to worry about going home empty-handed? Yeah those guys. Then when they want a man around to take care of committal things, they latch onto… the guys who weren’t good enough to get them riled up. Sweet. So there's still a place for guys like me, so women can be comforted and cry about how Mr. Universe broke their hearts after all the wild, unforgettable and absolutely unequaled sex. Just great!

So it turns out… that good looks are quite the draw, and people – women & men alike – are prone to chase after what they find attractive physically. WOW! You mean guys don’t often go out to bars and say things like “Wow check out that girl over there… She looks homely. Like she’s very sweet, with just the right hints of humor and political discourse to really make me open up to my true inner self.” Is that it? That’s the epiphany science has for us? Yeah. Yeah right, that’s what we think when we go out, sure...

What do we think? “Wow, look at that girl over there. She’s f*cking HOT. I’d like to…”

And what do the girls think? “Wow, check out that guy; He’s f*cking HOT. I’d like him to…”

Nice. I knew this already guys, thanks. Thanks for finally catching up with reality and this little thing we call Common Sense.



Other recent Common-Sense Findings in Science
A few months ago I saw a news spot about how they did a different study. In this one, they sat people down and then filmed them as they talked. They then had other people view the footage, with no sound, just watching the people’s motions and mannerisms. What did they want to know?

If people could pick out “gay” people just by their physical mannerisms. And what was the outcome? Sure enough, after years of “PC” telling us that that’s just stereotypical thinking and patently false, it turns out that “gaydar” really does exist; you CAN pick people’s sexual preferences out just by studying their mannerisms.

Geebus. I mean, we all knew this. If we would just be open enough to admit it, and separate the idea of knowing from being stereotypical… There’s this connotation that if you think or say you can tell a homosexual by their mannerisms, that you’re on the lookout because you’re a homophobe. No, maybe it’s just that you can tell a homosexual by their mannerisms – maybe the two aren’t necessarily linked.

Like if I were to say I could tell a black man from a white man by the color of his skin I’d be labelled a racist. You know, because I focused on the difference instead of the similarities. And that I think is what it is – in our society, you’re not allowed to mention the differences, because we’re “all equal" or some bullsh!t, which we tend to forget is not the same as "identical."

We’re all different too. Black is black. Just because someone’s black and I noticed does not mean that I think they are or that actually they are somehow less X or Y, just that they are in fact black. It’s OK to be black, right? So why so touchy? Seriously, making more of it than there is with that sort of behavior.

Any way, back to the gaydar thing. Yeah it’s real. Yes I can tell you apart. Calm down, folks. Hi, I’m just the average white guy. Oh no! You noticed I’m white! Now you think I’m KKK! SH!T.

Peace.