Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

Steve Sailer, bless his hardening heart, has a post up about a Charles Murray article reminding leftoid paymasters that high achievement on tests like the SAT are more a consequence of genetic heritage than of socioeconomic status.

One of the commenters, Jonah, draws the mostly-unspoken parallel of SAT scores to female hypergamy:

I’d wager a guess that the correlation would be significantly stronger if the father’s IQ could have been assessed as well. I’d assume that there are a significant number of affluent families where the father is the skilled/educated breadwinner.

This is very astute and under-considered by sociologists looking at longitudinal data like these. Given hypergamy – the propensity for women to “marry up”, and the willingness of men to “marry down” in favor of looks or other non IQ traits – I would bet Murray’s point would be amplified by if you looked at father’s IQ instead of mother’s. Wish he had the #s for dads/SAT rather than moms/PIAT. Would be a stronger and more striking piece.

By the way, I doubt I’m the only person here whose father was smarter than my mother. It’s probably true for over 60% of the population but you never hear about it. For people with one parent SIGNIFICANTLY smarter than the other, I bet it’s Dads over Moms 10-1.

And yes, the math checks out. Dumb, low status men, and ugly smart women are more frequently shut out of the marriage game than their gender opposites.

Female hypergamy in the West is, at least in its current configuration, dysgenic. Smart, overcredentialed women are shunting their smart genes into an ever narrower demographic slice, because these women can’t stomach the thought of “marrying down” in intelligence or phonyfuck credentials. And we see exactly that playing out, as the fertility rate of high IQ white mimosaettes is zeroing in on a little over 0.0 kids per woman.

But high IQ fathers, especially conservative fathers who don’t do woman’s work, have higher fertility and thus “male hypergamy” is eugenic. The primary reason has to do with the lifetime SMV slopes of men. High achieving men experience a gradual increase in their SMVs peaking at right about the time same-age women’s SMVs are crashing into the Wall. Many of these men go on to second or third younger wives, and produce second or third families of scions.

A secondary reason for the eugenic effect of male hypergamy — the urge to pair off with ever-younger, hotter, tighter minxes — is the fact Jonah mentioned: High achieving/high IQ men cash in their higher SMVs for prettier women at a wider range of female smarts. Because, you see, to the vast majority of men, even to the SJW manlets in full denial mode, a woman’s youth and beauty are nitroglycerin to a man’s boner. Blows it right up. A woman’s smarts? No effect. Worse for the grad school ladies, boners will sometimes wither under the droning onslaught of SMRT women with something insufferably feminist to prove.

In the final analysis, high IQ women demographically hoard their advantageous genes, just like they romantically hoard their eggs. High IQ men, in contrast, spread their advantageous genes just like they spread their sperm.

Which brings us to the fascinating, if perturbing to fragile minds, question Jonah asks: Is your father smarter than your mother?

I can recall with the crystal clearest clarity only Lucifer’s favored son can summon that it did, and does, seem to me most of my peers’ fathers were/are brighter than their mothers. (NB: I am not a product of a black ghetto. I only play one on TV.) There were a few glaring exceptions, and like all exceptions they are extraordinarily memorable by reason of their rarity. Mostly, these pairings featured a ballbuster proto-feminist tankwife cracking the whip over the back of a stepnfetchit beta hubby. Not all though. A few couples in which the mother of my friend was noticeably smarter than the father had the right sexual polarity — submissive wife and dominant husband — that managed by way of alchemical sexual magic to work despite the father’s relatively gimped brainpower.

That’s the monkey wrench in the patented CH theory of dysgenic female hypergamy: The allure of badboys — who may or may not have upper quintile SAT scores — to all women, maybe especially to SMRT women surrounded in their milieus by supplicating beta males. If the Pill and condom and abortion weren’t acting as procreation thwarting intermediaries, the fertility of high IQ women might be a lot higher, as they opened the un-latexed gates to their eggs to sundry charming jerkboys.

Evolution grinds regardless. Where are we heading? I don’t know, but I do know the late 20th-early 21st century paradigms are not long for this world. More and more it appears the historical pairing of smarter, high achieving men with prettier, low achieving women has been severed and hijacked by powerful anti-human social forces. More and more the romantically healthy arrangements are upended by discordant faux-aristocratic entities. What was once common — a vital middle class distinguished by fathers smarter and higher achieving than mothers — has become a curiosity gawked at by the destroyers of harmony.

We know our trajectory. What we don’t know is our destination. So certain are you that a bright, sunshiney day waits at the end?

Read Full Post »

The really illuminating lesson of this photo is the tacit realization that its inverse wouldn’t be nearly as revealing of the participants’ SMVs. If a hot girl was in the arms of a shlubby beta male, no one would mistake her as the female version of “beta”. She would still be a hot chick. A hot chick with a really lucky beta boyfriend who must have some compensating SMV-boosting traits. No one would negatively reassess her looks (the bulk of a woman’s SMV) because her boyfriend didn’t appear to be “in her league”.

In contrast, people DO reassess the SMV of men based on the physical attractiveness of their girlfriends. A handsome man with an ugly girlfriend isn’t a quirky love match; it’s a tell that the handsome man has unattractive personality qualities which decrease the potential return on his looks. Similarly, an ugly man with a beautiful girlfriend immediately prompts musings that he’s got cash, got flash, got mast, or some combination of all three plus the rarefied “charisma”.

An ugly girl with a handsome boyfriend isn’t the fortunate recipient of positive reassessment from onlookers. An ugly man with a pretty girlfriend *does* receive revisited glowing reviews. This photo is sort of a Voight-Kampff empathy test, reminding viewers that the sexual market values of men are women are intuitively assessed very differently by impartial strangers, because the measure of a man is nothing like the measure of a woman.

In short:

Ugly man with a hot girlfriend is an alpha male.
Handsome man with an ugly girlfriend is a beta male.
Ugly woman with a handsome boyfriend is still an ugly woman.
Hot woman with an ugly boyfriend is still a hot woman.

Read Full Post »

CH is feeling slutty and hypergamously empowered, hence the reason for this batch of themed posts. We’ll be back to practical pickup advice on the morrow. *tips fedora to adoring concubines*

A reader passes along a sly study which found some discomfiting facts about the mate pairing choices of male and female doctors.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.
SETTING: Two medical schools in Ohio.
PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of physicians from the classes of 1980 to 1990.

RESULTS: Of 2000 eligible physicians, 1208 responded (752 men and 456 women). Twenty-two percent of male physicians and 44% of female physicians were married to physicians (P < 0.001). Men and women in dual-doctor families differed (P < 0.001) from other married physicians in key aspects of their professional and family lives: They earned less money, less often felt that their career took precedence over their spouse’s career, and more often played a major role in child-rearing. These differences were greater for female physicians than for male physicians. Men and women in dual-doctor families were similar to other physicians in the frequency with which they achieved career goals and goals for their children and with which they felt conflict between professional and family roles. Marriage to another physician had distinct benefits (P < 0.001) for both men and women, including more frequent enjoyment from shared work interests and higher family incomes.

***

Case study of hypergamy regarding “high status women” i.e. doctors:

22% percent of male physicians and 44% of female physicians were married to other physicians

How do those numbers add up?

How indeed. 😏

Part of the reason for the sex disparity in physician-to-physician (P2P) marriage is the demographics of these two medical schools. If male medical students roughly outnumber female medical students two-to-one, then a necessarily higher percentage of the female student pool will be married to their male peers, assuming all the P2P marriages are within-school.

That’s a big assumption, of course. Most likely, many of these P2P marriages drew from the larger physician mating pool outside of the medical school context. Therefore, something else must be going on to fully account for the P2P sex disparity.

Female hypergamy is the most obvious “something else”. Women HATE HATE HATE marrying down, where by “marrying down” we mean marriage to a man with a combination of social, physical, personality, occupational, and economic statuses that in total lower his MMV below the woman’s achievable spouse acquisition threshold. Given two equally attractive men, (attractive along multiple dimensions of measurement), separated by only one difference — their job title, say — most women would choose the man with the higher status title.

This is a highly abstract thought experiment, to be sure, but it does help illustrate how intolerable the idea of, as Rollo puts it, an “unoptimized hypergamous desire” is to women. Unlike men, for whom as a sex there is very little psychological consternation when contemplating marrying an HB8 nurse versus marrying an HB8 doctor (usually the nurse wins this mental exercise and almost as often wins the real world exercise), women have a real aversion to failing to absolutely maximize the return on their sexual value. Women’s visceral aversion to marrying down expresses as a distraught emotional state, which itself is a property of their Bartholin’s-drenched genes impelling them (usually) to be supremely cautious about choosing which men will have the honor of monopolizing their limited collection of rapidly-spoiling eggs.

Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive, as it were. 😎

If Female Hypergamy, MD is at play in the P2P marriage statistics, then the numbers found in the linked study make sense. More female doctors refuse to marry non-doctor men (“doctor” being one of, if not the, highest status general occupations), and instead hold out to marry (likely beta male) doctors. If men are not as hypergamous as women, (and given men are predominately interested in youth and beauty), then we would see relatively fewer male doctors obsessively pursing marriage with female doctors to the exclusion of all other kinds of women who meet similar physical attractiveness thresholds.

Which, again, is what the numbers allude.

Female hypergamy can be both a force for good and a recipe for decrepitude. Think of it this way: when women place high demands on their potential suitors, men are motivated, under normal patriarchally-delineated and tribally-coherent circumstances, to step up and appease the reproductively more valuable sex. Female hypergamy, in this instance, can assist in civilizing an organic nation. But the civilizing assist rests in large part on the nature of the women’s demands. Do women demand accomplished, peaceable, wise men, or tattooed, impulsive roughnecks? The answer isn’t so obvious, and can change depending on environmental or biological cues, the most palpable cue being women’s ovulation cycle.

Where female hypergamy can fail a civilization is when it spins out of control, driving high social status women possessing a more civilized suite of genes to become terribly assiduous about reserving their genes for men of equal or greater genetic blessing. This failure manifests in two ways: One, by reducing the fertility of aging, high IQ spinster candidates. Two, by restricting the Clarkian genetic mobility to a small sliver of inbred, credentialist, suckup overachievers.

If female doctors refuse to breed with any man who isn’t a doctor, then their civilization-compatible genes get shunted into a narrow, shrinking demographic slice. In this scenario, female hypergamy fails to further civilizational progress, and can even reverse it by unwittingly creating massive chasms in intra-ethnic economic, social, and reproductive inequalities.

The real mean trick the devil played on women when he crafted their souls was his refusal to reconcile female hypergamy with female beauty. Ugly women with high social status want the same high social status men that pretty women want. Her intrinsic hypergamy becomes the ugly overachiever woman’s worst enemy.

But the ugly women have no chance, an intractable problem which is compounded by the ability and willingness of many unattractive, masculinized SMRT women to conceal under mounds of self-delusion and ego-sparing bromides, aka Feminism.

In stark contrast, high IQ and high social status male doctors, who aren’t nearly as maritally hypergamous as their female peers, spread their civilization-compatible genes more widely. There are plenty of youthful, pretty girls at most IQ ranges, after all. There then follows a “trickle down” effect in doubleplusgood genes, as higher status men knock up sexy but not quite as feminist tankgrrl striver-ish secretaries and nurses. If anything, most men with options prefer somewhat lower social status wives, as they generally present fewer headaches on the way to romantic and familial bliss. (Sexual polarity is the best preventive medicine against marital discord.)

Female Hypergamy is both Brahma the Creator and SHIVa the Destroyer. Women’s leashed sexuality births empires; women’s unleashed sexuality desiccates civilizations. We are well past the birthing stage of America and well into the barren womb stage.

I have mentioned before that the cultural, if not consequently procreative, shift in female romantic preference for badboys may be a subconscious reaction to a native society getting overrun with weak, effete males intent on bending over and taking it up the pooper by unapologetically self-serving, outgroup marauders. If I’m right, then the trend toward intensified assortative mating within the credentialist classes, as noted by Charles Murray of “Coming Apart” fame, may get short-circuited by a silent, but extremely powerful, resistance in the form of a shift in female hypergamous mate preference for less conformist (and hence less credentialed), less obediently beta, sexier jerkboys.

Highly speculative, I admit, but my instant-feedback field observations tell me something like this is happening in geographic beta male cuckspots. Picking up the dinner tab, waiting months for sex, and signaling dependability just don’t buy as much lovestruck pussy as it used to. Sending a half-assed birthday cat emoji, on the other hand, pays poon dividends.

In secular, sex egalitarian, established civilizations like the West, the great anti-feminist truth may be that Male Hypergamy — the desire of men for ever prettier and younger women, and the ability of HMMV men to fulfill that desire — will be the heart matter force that saves the advanced cultures from navel-gazing themselves into oblivion.

Read Full Post »

Rollo comments, concerning the de-stigmatization of polyamory subject,

Making Up for Missing Out:

On a social scale it seem like the next deductive next step – blend a justifiable Eat Pray Love narrative with the more visceral (yet unignorable) sexuality of 50 Shades and women will readily consume it. I expect there will be the same hamster spinnings of NAWALT and most women respect their marriage vows, but it still wont wash with the overwhelming ‘guilty pleasure’ popularity that 50 Shades exposed on a large scale.

Writers like Rinaldi and E.L. James have tapped into the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks anxiety rooted in women’s primal insecurity inherent in doubting their optimization of Hypergamy. If appealing to visceral sex sells products to men, appealing to the inherent ‘you-only-live-once’ insecurity of feminine Hypergamy sells to women – and women being the primary consumers in western society, sell it does.

EatPrayGetPumpedAndDumped plus 50 Shades is the event horizon of civilizational decadence and decline. Once that Boobicon is crossed, it’s a rapid swirl down the toilet bowl. Give women the run of the place and the Swirl is the inevitable result.

I believe the Roman Empire in its waning years was also marked by sexual libertinism, especially of their women. Weimar Germany, too, before its rebirth under a patriarchal epoch which unfortunately insufficiently and belatedly weeded out the psychopaths who are otherwise so crucial to the early stages of revolution, welcomed the indignities of wanton women pursuing the alpha fux/beta bux (sometimes not even bothering with the beta bux) lifestyle.

A telling societal signal of imminent collapse is the glorification and commercialization of the worst instincts of women, and the denigration of the best instincts of men. Our women become like men, and our men like women, until an androgynous slop characterizes an empire wheezing its last.

For a small but portentous example of this radical change, just read the title of the latest attention whore du jour’s memoir: “The Wild Oats Project”. Sowing one’s wild oats used to be the prerogative of men, or at least the excusable offense of men, and this was widely understood by men and women. Now the modern aggrocunt and her mewling manlet sidekick want to assume the wild oats mantle for aging hags and urban brunchettes, while denying the same fun to men whose testes haven’t yet climbed north to hibernate.

The cultural message is unmistakable: The clit is the new cock. But this message is wrapped in a fairy tale with a very dark ending. Women can no more play the man’s game than men can play the woman’s game. Not for long, at any rate, and not without a gnawing unhappiness that corrodes the soul.

Read Full Post »

From an American Sociological Review research paper, 💋SCIENTISTS💋 (as opposed to feminist “””scientists”””) discover that egalitarian marriages — ones where in practice husbands shoulder a significant amount of the household chores traditionally the province of wives — are arid, sexless wastelands.

This article began by noting that American marriages are more egalitarian today than they were in the past, but scholars have found it difficult to offer a clear interpretation of how egalitarianism has changed the nature of marriage itself. One broad interpretation of egalitarianism is that couples exchange resources across various domains. Moves toward more equality in one area, such as earnings, might thus induce more equal distributions in other areas, like housework, a suggestion that has certainly received extensive investigation. In this article, we asked whether men and women use housework and sex as resources for exchange, or whether other logics govern sexual frequency within marriage.

Following up on the widely publicized claim that by doing more housework, husbands in more egalitarian marriages got more sex, we sought to investigate the links between men’s participation in housework and sexual frequency using nationally representative data. Our findings suggest the importance of gender display for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage: couples where men participate more in core tasks—work typically done by women—report lower sexual frequency. Similarly, couples where men participate more in non-core, traditionally masculine tasks report higher sexual frequency, suggesting the importance of gender-typed participation in household labor. Additionally, although our main results examined core and non-core labor separately, we note that regressions using the share of total housework (core and non-core combined) also show a negative and significant coefficient for men’s share of housework.

Game, set, match, Sheryl “Lying Shrike” Sandberg. Doing more women’s work in the home will NOT improve a husband’s sex life, as you feminist creeps assert. It will result in the opposite: A gradual weakening of the sexual polarity until a unisexual listlessness consumes the relationship in a quellfire of anhedonia.

Any male feminist who at this point still claims that chipping in with the housework will make his wife happier and their sex life hotter is just fooling himself. Or rationalizing his abject supplication to an overbearing shrew. Housework doesn’t lubricate vagina; acting a dominant man with dropped testes who’d rather swing a splitter than scrub a toilet is what turns on women.

These results—whether using both men’s and women’s reports in a pooled analysis, relying on opposite spouses for reports of our key variables, or relying on men’s or women’s results alone—show that households with a more gender-traditional division of labor report having more sex. The pattern of results suggests the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity.

Sex-traditional division of labor is sexy because, stop the presses, masculinity in men is attractive to women and femininity in women is attractive to men.

Many confounding variables were accounted for in the paper, including overall marital happiness, religion, and sex ideology. None of them mediated the housework-sex frequency interaction. Men who did more girly chores got less nookie; men who did less girly work and more manly outdoors work got more nookie. Women who did more girly work got more nookie; women who did more manly work did no see a change in their sex frequency.

(The bottleneck variable appears to be the type of work that men do. As long as the husband is the whip-hand, the wife will desire him, regardless how much non-core housework she does.)

The lack of interactions or mediation lends support, we argue, to the notion that the operating mechanism is one that links within-couple displays of masculinity and femininity to sexual scripts leading to sexual frequency. […]

Men or women may, in essence, be turned on (however indirectly) when partners in a marriage do more gender-traditional work. Of course, men and women could also be turned off by doing work that is not traditional for their gender.

Feminists and their down-filled male lackeys trying to convince people that women “leaning in” like men, and men “cleaning in” like women, will heat up the bedroom are fighting a losing battle. Because no matter how much propaganda the Hivemind Hatemachine churns out, there’s simply no substitute for the rude reality-based imperatives that harden dicks and slicken pussies.

At the very least, our results are difficult to reconcile with the idea that women trade sex to men for doing what is traditionally viewed as women’s work. Based on our findings, sex seems to lie outside the realm of conventional exchange.

Why do feminists argue against common sense? Why are feminists anti-pleasure? Why do feminists loathe male prerogative? One answer has to do with the intrinsic character of feminists. Most feminists like Sheryl Sandberg are masculinized women, in body and/or in psyche. This deformity of nature arouses their bitterness and motivates their desire to upend normal society to not just acknowledge, but exalt, their peculiar disposition. A psychologically manly broad like Sandberg is nothing like the majority of women, but that leetle inconvenience doesn’t stop her from trying to poison sex relations and rework society to assuage her low-E ego.

The importance of gender has declined over time, but it continues to exert a strong influence over individual behaviors, including sexual frequency within marriage.

Clarification: The importance of gender as a matter of legal redress has increased over time, but despite these immense social and legal pressures to obliterate any differences between the sexes the natural and evolved compulsions deriving from our gender continue to have the final say over individual behaviors, including sexual frequency within marriage.

***

Executive summary: As per usual, non-feminist science shits in feminist faces and slobbers kisses all over the Chateau Heartiste worldview. To preen, or not to preen… that is a silly question. *preen*

Read Full Post »

There’s a new(ly identified) attractiveness standard by which women are relentlessly judged for sexual, romantic, and yes, marital worth: The swayback. Reader Experienced Father passes along the relevant study.

This paper reports independent studies supporting the proposal that human standards of attractiveness reflect the output of psychological adaptations to detect fitness-relevant traits. We tested novel a priori hypotheses based on an adaptive problem uniquely faced by ancestral hominin females: a forward-shifted center of mass during pregnancy. The hominin female spine possesses evolved morphology to deal with this adaptive challenge: wedging in the third-to-last lumbar vertebra. Among ancestral women, vertebral wedging would have minimized the net fitness threats posed by hypolordosis and hyperlordosis, thereby creating selective pressures on men to prefer such women as mates. On this basis, we hypothesized that men possess evolved mate preferences for women with this theoretically optimal angle of lumbar curvature. […]

Men again tended to prefer women exhibiting cues to a degree of vertebral wedging closer to optimum. This included preferring women whose lumbar curvature specifically reflected vertebral wedging rather than buttock mass. These findings reveal novel, theoretically anchored, and previously undiscovered standards of attractiveness.

The optimal swayback looks like the middle female silhouette:

The woman with no swayback too closely resembles a prepubescent boy. The woman with excessive swayback looks like a scoliotic whore who spent too may nights leaning into the open car windows of johns. The woman in the middle is juuuuuust tight.

It’s theorized that women with a 45 degree curvature of the lower spine are best adapted for squatting on their haunches and foraging for food. Over time, men would’ve come to prefer this female body shape because it indicated better fitness at the job of gathering nuts, berries, and other huthold objects.

I don’t know if this study controlled for race, but I bet one that does would find that the male preference for swayback is more cross-racially universal than is the male preference for bloated booty, which black men favor more.

Anyhow, more lab confirmation of the CH formulations based on real-world observations that biomechanics is god, love is a tender effusion stimulated in men by small adjustments in the geometric contours of the female face and body, and feminists are butthurt loons.

Read Full Post »

Not too long ago, a couple of “””academic””” feminists tenured at a New Scandinavia university compiled a study which they asserted disproved all the preceding studies which showed that women’s mate preferences change according to their ovulation cycles. You see, feminists don’t much like the idea of a set-in-stone mate choice algorithm making mockery of “female empowerment”, so this news was greeted with relieved, rapturous chants by lay(less)-feminists.

The feminist “””scientists””” used, or claimed to use, meta-analysis to disprove the theory of ovulation cycle shifts in female mate preferences. Meta-analysis is all the rage in the HBD (human biodiversity) set, but the technique is not without its flaws. I, for one, came to have my doubts about its efficacy when meta-analysis studies started to crop up that were 180 degrees at odds with the hundreds of individual studies purportedly examined in the relevant meta-analysis.

Now it turns out my doubts about the accuracy of meta-analyses have some foundation. A more recent study was published in response to the anti-cycle shift feminist meta-analysis and reconfirmed the original theory that women do indeed crave alpha male cock more when they are ovulating. Abstract:

Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women’s mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.’s meta-analysis—some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden’s (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal—that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers’ reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence.

Somewhere, a shiv twisted. And an old feminist hag wept.

Moral of the bitch slapping: You can’t fully trust social or psychological science research coming out of universities these days, because the vast landscape of academia is stocked with feminists, leftoids, and their sycophant weaklings. There are no Realtalkers around to keep these freaks honest. My humble suggestion: Get out in the field and learn for yourself through direct experience what women are like. Later, leaf through the non-feminist scientific literature to amuse yourself with the loving complementarity between your personal observations and the laboratory data.

This latest salvo against the forces of sex equalism makes one wonder if the meta-analysis findings regarding obesity, exercise, and parental influence are equally as flawed by researcher bias or incompetence.

As for any game lessons to be drawn from this post, recall that CH has tackled the topic of female cycle shift preferences many times. While it’s easy to get too deep in the thickets of tracking women’s ovulation cycles for maximum seductive impact, it does help to mix up your sexual signaling strategy to keep women off-balance and wondering if you’re a charming player with Voltarian lovemaking skill, or a dependable provider with visions of a suburban familial fiefdom.

Bottom line: Chicks dig an unpredictable man.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,196 other followers

%d bloggers like this: