Why Women Have A Sixth Sense

Women don’t literally have a sixth sense, but they do have better intuition than men, if casual observation is to be believed. (Readers may correct me if I’m off-base, but I think there have even been studies purporting to show that women do have a more finely developed intuition than men, or that women lean on their intuition more than men lean on theirs.)

If we take it as a given that women are more intuitive, then we can offer two plausible evolutionarily modulated reasons why this sex difference exists.

1. Women need to be better than men at screening out undesirable mate prospects, and intuition is a tool they use to accomplish on-the-fly screening.

Men are more visual-oriented than women, so men can see with a split second glance which women are worthy of their seed and which aren’t. Women, on the contrary, require many input variables to determine a man’s worthiness as a mating partner, including, in great measure, his personality; so women have evolved a preference for intuition — molded by eons of accumulated genetic wisdom — as a guide to help them filter out beta males from alpha males. (Or lesser value men from higher value men.) This intuition is what allows a woman to uncover, through the mechanisms of gut feelings and subconsciously formulated sly psychological “tests”, a man’s strength, character, attractiveness to other women, and ability to take the heat without melting down. Her hamster gets a tingle for the man who passes through her intuition filter, and she responds by physiologically opening up to him.

2. Women need to be better than men at averting and resolving relationship trouble, and intuition is a tool they use to identify early warning signs that the relationship is foundering.

A woman is honed like a machine to be a first responder to relationship crisis. She uses her intuition to pick out subtle nicks in the relationship armor that could grow to chasms if left untended. Women’s attractiveness window for landing a desirable mate is shorter than men’s attractiveness window, so a woman who has invested some months or even years into a relationship will have more to lose than the man should the relationship fail. A man can more easily pick himself up and brush himself off for another go-round in the dating scene. Women therefore have evolved an exquisite sense for sniffing out warning signs that a man is losing interest, or that his love, and hence his commitment, is cooling. This is why men are perplexed when women bring up “problems” with the relationship that the men can’t fathom are worthy of discussion. And yet, women’s refined intuition for evidence of men’s emotional distancing has likely served their sex well over the millennia, helping her head off additional investment that would lead nowhere but to an older and unlovelier version of herself alone again in the mating market.

Men who have experience with a lot of women have acquired an astute awareness of women’s intuition, and have even developed their own to compete with women. Players have a preternatural ability to know when a girlfriend is drifting away, or a lover is about to cheat, or a date isn’t both feet in. They know better than less experienced men when to cut their losses and when to press on, partly based on their own refined intuitions and partly based on a better ability to manipulate women’s intuitive sense for both of their gains. This is why some of the best players beloved by women possess feminine acumen themselves. The alpha male leader of men who cares not for the emotional world of women often leaves the sensitive female cold, and finds himself playing second fiddle to the man who has absorbed female psychology and made it work for him.

Read Full Post »

“I didn’t need game to land my wife”

A fairly common hater/game denialist shibboleth is the extrapolating from anecdote fallacy. For example, a well-respected herb in his community will find this blog, feel his beta ego fill with regret for years of missed opportunity, and immediately assert he is manlier and/or a more attractive and psychologically balanced individual because he “didn’t need these mind game tricks” to find a wife or girlfriend who loves him.

I don’t doubt that a lot of these anti-game haters are telling the truth as they perceive it. They probably didn’t need game, or more likely unwittingly used a greatly diluted version of game, to find and fall in love with a faithful (best not think otherwise) GF or wife.

Reasoning from anecdote is a logical fallacy, but there are enough of these assertions by game haters that it’s possible a statistically nontrivial number of men really did not need or use game, intentionally or otherwise, to get hitched. Therefore, discounting them automatically is not a legitimate counter-argument. There is a better way to expose their sham claims for what they actually represent.

Here’s the rub: it’s a good bet the quality (aka the sexual market value, or SMV) of their girlfriends or wives is on the middling to low end of the female attractiveness scale.

If you are the average man — average height, employed, no major physical or emotional deformities, able to hold a conversation without shitting your pants, don’t know what LARP means, can refrain from obsessively counting toothpicks that fall on the floor — then you won’t need game, or very much game as the term is commonly understood, to fall ass-backwards into long term relationships with plain janes, facial mediocrities, or chubsters (who, note, constitute the majority of American womanhood, and thus fall right in the middle of the fat (heh) part of the bell curve).

If you are this man, all you need to do to win over a woman like this — the average woman — is approach, say “hi”, chat a bit about her likes and dislikes, and show some persistence and you’ll get her in bed by date five or twenty. Voila!, an “I didn’t need game to land my wife” anti-gamer is born from the wreckage of his surrendered dreams. Since most average men are ball-less castrati, the majority of you anti-gamers are likely staying within your comfort zones and meeting only women who are not attractive enough to fuel inject your lust or challenge your risk-avoidance habits.

This is my working assumption, and I’m certain the types of guys who go stir crazy with spite at the mention of game are dating or married to dreary commonplace women they had little trouble “winning over” the lackluster, “show up on time” way.

So, to visually summarize, if the women you date or are married to are about as attractive as her:

or her:

…then, yeah, congratulate your virtuous self, you won’t need much game to score a date every two months that resolves in uninspired, tepid sex.

But if the women you date, or want to date, are as attractive as these girls:

…then you will need game. And a lot of it. Because, you see, hot girls have options, and options means they will demand more of the men who want to sleep with them and love them. And game, aka learned charisma, effectively satisfies that demand.

Or you can continue taking the path of least resistance and settling down in easy monotony with potato faces so that you can enjoy stalking pickup blogs and railing about the futility of game.

Read Full Post »

Womanly Economy

Are women doing better than men (by some metrics) in the modern economy because the corporate and government world has been rejiggered to accommodate female worker preferences?

Reader epoche writes:

The reason that more men are not in college or at least not achieving the way that women might like is that the economy has specifically been re-arranged to accommodate the feminine preference for material risk aversion making it difficult for men to extract status out of working. There are two ways of organizing society – as noted by Victorian Lawyer Sir Henry Maine A) Status (Compulsory cooperation) and B) Contract (Voluntary cooperation) and the modern progressive movement is a giant step backwards towards compulsory cooperation and away from voluntary cooperation. How a group of people determine achievement says nearly everything about how their lives are going to be lived – this is why Kay Hymowitz noted that these degrees “take years” in “preadulthood” but mistakenly blamed the “knowledge economy” instead of noting the shift away from material resourcefulness and towards credentialing as the source of social standing.

Any “rearrangement” of the economy is likely to be organic in provenance rather than orchestrated, but I’m open to evidence saying otherwise. I’m not a big believer in conspiracy thinking; most of what strikes naturally skeptical people as conspiratorial is just the emergent property of millions of minds with shared neurogenetic predispositions coalescing around certain ideologies and policies that then gives the impression to dissenters of calculated malevolence. This is my working assumption, though I allow that conspiracies — even society-wide conspiracies — have existed and may yet exist again. It’s also not outside the realm of possibility that organic social and economic frameworks may eventually morph into self-conscious networks with conspiratorial underpinnings intent on preserving their power.

The flood of Western women into the workforce has had, and will continue to have, massive, heretofore unexamined in an honest way, unintended downstream and upstream effects on social and sexual organization. It was practically preordained. When you fuck with the god of biomechanics, expect uncontrollable consequences to belch forth from the depths and rake at your legs dragging you into its disorienting hellhouse. This was never going to be a simple matter of giving upper class, bored housewives something to do. Female economic self-sufficiency rivals the Pill, abortion, easy divorce and alternative male sexual outlets for the acid bath demolecularization potential each has on the standard model of growth industry civilization.

If the result of feminism, equalism (aka anti-white male “progressivism”) and all these other little earthquakes rattling the very foundation of the Western sexual market is to make various sectors of the economy more risk averse and more status whoring, and thus more pleasing to women’s innate preference for a hidebound, exclusive aristocracy and genteel “makework” in service to the lords, and less friendly to the openness, candor, effrontery, class shuffling and innovation that is the preference of men seeking to make a mark in the world, then we really have to ask ourselves what the end game will look like. Because, right now, the accumulating signs do not point to a happy future.

Executive summary:

Credentialism stifles innovation and risk-taking, and solidifies a de facto corporate, academia and government aristocracy preferred by women. Credentialism is a natural outgrowth of feminism and equalism, which themselves are natural outgrowths of the feminine sensibility. The root of these twin evil ideologies must be destroyed and the ground upon which they grow salted before the West can begin an era of renewal that returns it to the eternal principles enshrined by the gods of the copybook headings.

Read Full Post »

Dimensions Of A Perfect Woman

Courtesy of reader Mike, here’s a page from a late 19th Century booklet named “Woman’s Own Book of Toilet Secrets”. The page describes the “dimensions of a perfect woman.”

I’d woo that.*

Here’s what it says, for those with Magoo eyes:

The dimensions of a perfect woman are: Five feet 5 inches in height, weight 128 pounds. Arms extended should measure from tip of middle finger to tip of middle finger just 5 feet 5 inches (the height). The length of her hand should be a tenth of that, her foot a seventh, the diameter of her chest a fifth. From her thighs to the ground she should measure just the same as from her thighs to the top of her head. The knee should come exactly midway between the thigh and the heel. The distance from the elbow to the middle finger should be the same as from the elbow to middle of the chest. From the top of the head to the chin should be just the length of the foot, and the same distance between the chin and the arm-pits. A woman of this height should measure 24 inches around the waist, 34 about the bust, if measured under the arms, and 43 if measured over them. The upper arm should measure 13 inches; the wrist 6 inches. The calf of the leg should measure 14½ inches; the thigh 25; the ankle 8.

FYI, her perfect dimensions are BMI 21.3 and waist-hip ratio (estimating based on chest measurement) 0.70 on the dot.

Sounds like the perfect woman of the early 21st Century, too. And she’s facially pretty, as well.

Now where else have I come across these ideal female measurements? Oh yeah.

Chateau Heartiste: reacquainting the world with turn of the (last) century truths.

Contrary to the delusional claims of feminists and their fellow travelers in the degenerate freak mafia, there has never been a time in history when women weren’t physically objectified, by either women themselves or by men. Objectification of the female form is the manifest nature of sexual selection. Shaking a fist at it and whining for it to change on feminist blogs is akin to forming an advocacy group for the reversal of the earth’s orbit. Except for some minor fluctuations at the margins, these timeless truths of human sexual preference are unchanging. Wailing for the ghost of Rubens won’t spare the resentful, rump-faced rejects from the unalterable truth that a fatopia, or a lawyercunttopia, or a manjawtopia, or a bigfatbeardedfeministtopia has never existed in modern human history, and likely hasn’t long before that. Fat, ugly, unfeminine, and/or older women were never in demand and never considered desirable by men or women with skin in the game.

The feminist, of course, will move the goalposts until her ego is sufficiently assuaged. When the evidence all around her belies her bromides, she will rhetorically assert:

Men liked plumper women in the past!

Nope. Playboy centerfolds in the 1950s fell within the ideal 17-23 BMI range and the 0.65-0.75 waist-hip ratios, just as Playboy centerfolds of today do. (Dec 1953 Playmate of the Month Marilyn Monroe had a 19.6 BMI; Nov 2009 Playmate of the Month Kelley Thompson has a BMI 18.6.)

Ok, then. Men liked plumper women in the distant past!

Nope. Pamphlets from the 19th Century depict desirable women having the same measurements as desirable women of today.

Ok, then. Men liked plumper women in the ancient past!

Nope. Fat “mother goddess” icons were not viewed as sex objects. And Rubens’ contemporaries painted slender babes, adding weight (heh) to the notion that Rubens was a fat fetishist outlier.

Ok, then. Men liked plumper women in the prehistoric past!

Nope. Figurines thousands of years old have been found of thin, young women with hourglass shapes wearing miniskirts.

Ok, then! Fuck you, misogynist pig!

Mmm, I taste your hot, bitter tears laden with saturated fats.

Beauty is objective. Beauty is measurable. Beauty abides universal standards. Beauty is an ironclad cosmic law that can’t be wished into irrelevance. Beauty is the golden ratio that holds illimitable dominion over all. Beauty

is

not

in

the

eye

of

the

beholder.

It is an inherent trait of the beheld. And it is immune to societal reengineering campaigns to reconstitute it for the benefit of those lacking its blessings.

Feminists and equalists, YOU LOSE. GOOD DAY, LOSER. YOU GET

NOTHING…

but eternal torment and anguish until your last breath escapes the prison of your ugliness and lies.

*I can already see the female readers rushing to the mirror with tape measure in hand, to find out how close they conform to perfection. It’s ok, ladies. Your reaction is normal and healthy and reflects a subconscious understanding and acceptance of reality that will redound to your personal advantage. Don’t let some whiny, bloviating porky pig convince you otherwise.

Read Full Post »

Male Choosiness, Female Beauty And Monogamy

Here’s a hypothesis that I haven’t seen elsewhere: More beautiful women will be found in monogamous cultures, or among monogamously-inclined races.

Where women don’t (or can’t) sleep around, and where men are expected to assume a heavy economic and emotional responsibility for the women they woo, men will be choosier about the women they date and marry. Monogamy selects for male choosiness.

If you’re a man, and you’re limited to dating only a few women in your lifetime, and there are onerous familial and cultural pressures to marry the first or second woman you date, you are not going to throw away your one shot at a girl — not to mention all those resources you accumulated to win her over — on an Amanjaw Marcuntte. You’ll take your time assessing the available female goods, and aim for the hottest babe you can get. You’ll waste little time or energy spelunking slutty fat chicks or mustachioed feminists.

Over eons, this results in the more monogamous races and cultures of humanity producing more beautiful women. Of course, seismic shifts in the mating market have been underway for the past 60 or so years, so I expect a future of less beautiful women, on average and proportionate to their overall numbers, compared to the recent past. The one exception to this uglification trend will be the total bifurcation into a female beauty oasis of the 1% ruling class from the Gorgonian masses.

Relatedly, I am familiar with the theories that cad societies where men hypervigilantly (and hyperjealously) guard their women from alpha male interlopers, and geographic regions where high parasite loads influence the sexual selection process so that beauty — a sign of health and lack of genetic mutations — is favored, produce more beautiful women.

Arguing somewhat orthogonally to my monogamy-male choosiness theory is the theory that skewed sex ratios which favor men would produce more beautiful women over the generations. Such societies would be notable for their polygyny, de facto or de jure.

Perhaps all these theories reinforce each other, such that we would find the most beautiful women in countries with established monogamy norms, higher parasite loads, and sex ratios favoring men (caused predominately by men dying young, or otherwise taking themselves out of the sexual marketplace). Where we won’t find the most beautiful women, or any halfway-decent looking woman, is among the readership of Jizzebel or Feministing. Their high parasite load is offset by their self-selecting loserdom.

Read Full Post »

Ditch The Treadmill

Women (and men) who run slow laps on treadmills for hours on end, or who rack up languid miles running SWPLthons, are in for a rude surprise: your efforts aren’t amounting to much. Advocates for the paleolithic lifestyle got another boost from science recently, in a study which found that short, intense bursts of exercise are more beneficial than long, moderately intense exercise for your heart health.

Short, intense bursts of exercise could be better for our health than longer intervals.

Spending 2 minutes 30 seconds exercising at a high level of intensity, could be better at protecting the body against risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) than longer sessions of less intense exercise, claimed experts at the British Science Festival today.

The ability of the body to deal with fat following a high-fat meal is a marker for the likelihood that a person will develop CVD in the future. The faster the body is able to get rid of the fat in the blood following a high-fat meal, the less at risk that person is of developing CVD – for example atherosclerosis, which is the build up of fat within the blood vessels.

A study led by Dr Stuart Gray, from the University of Aberdeen’s Musculoskeletal Research Programme asked participants to undertake 2.5 minutes of high-intensity exercise – 5 x 30 second sprints exerting themselves to their maximum ability with 4 minutes of rest between each sprint – before eating a high-fat meal.

Findings of the study—published in Clinical Science—showed the fat content in the blood of these participants after that meal was reduced by 33% compared to if they had not undertaken any exercise.

The fat content in the blood is only reduced by 11% if a moderate intensity exercise session – 30 minutes of brisk walking – is undertaken before the same meal is eaten.

Paleo gurus have been saying for quite a while that wind sprints and heavy low rep deadlifts >>>>> jogging for miles and high rep pink dumbbells, for both maximizing heart health and muscle tone. And now we have some lab proof. On a personal note, I feel a lot stronger and alive when I do a set of sprints, complete with hard turns at the 40 yard mark, than I do running five miles at a slower pace. I also like to clean and jerk fat chicks. Not a euphemism.

On another personal note, it gives me pleasure to sneer at SWPL chicks and emaciated hipsters running hither and tither to their poofy froo froo pillow fight aerobicizer classes and ventkatamaran yogurt meditations. Classes, seminars, socials, oh my! Must feel busy before I die!

Read Full Post »

Your Girlfriend Is Flirting With Your Best Friend. What Now?

Joe Mama writes:

Wanted to get your thoughts on: getting vibes that your gf and best buddy have sexual tension between them.

It’s almost as if they’d be a better fit for each other, it’s fucking with my mojo.

My working philosophy in matters of suspicions of cheating, or suspicions of potential cheating, is to go with your gut. If you feel a chest-tightening discomfort that a sexual vibe may be happening between your GF and your best friend, odds are pretty good it is happening.

There’s a reason many societies attempt to limit the exposure of wives to too many single men. Women’s hypergamy and sexuality don’t just turn off the moment a marital contract is signed, or a meaningful eye-gaze discussing dating exclusivity is shared. If your male friends are very alpha, very charming, and/or very flirtatious, especially relative to your own talents, then you are staring into the maw of an excited vagina aroused by the scent of cock in the water.

Alpha male friends (AMF) can be more fearsome sexual market competitors than alpha male strangers (AMOG). The comfort of acquaintance pacifies the female urge to caution, and an alpha male friend whose bond of loyalty is weak will pose a bigger threat than some random guy hitting on your girlfriend. A simulacrum of familiarity coupled with a constant state of self-enforced denial is rocket fuel for female fantasy.

Plus, think back to the ancestral environment, and realize that the norm for much of human history has been small tribes interacting only occasionally with outside tribes. In this environment, the men that women would most likely cheat with would know on some personal level the male partners of such women.

The wickedness of double disloyalty — from both your girlfriend and your best friend — can rend a man’s soul. I don’t have hard numbers at hand on the frequency of female cheating with males unknown to her primary partner versus males known to her primary partner, but I’d bet the latter happens just as often as the former.

Women, because they are just as duplicitous as men in their desire to cover their cheating tracks, will hesitate to get involved in any affair that has a high risk of exposing them. Ironically, affairs with male buddies can sometimes have a lower exposure risk than affairs with outside males, or at least be perceived as lower risk, because the male buddy has just as much incentive as the woman to keep a lid on things. A woman knows her boyfriend’s male friends better than she will know a dude she met on the train, and she understands that where incentives align, the particulars of affairs are more manageable.

Working against this exposure limiting incentive is the male friend who secretly loves your girlfriend, and will blow things up if he thinks an affair with her signals something deeper. For that reason, women are wary of trysts with male friends who don’t honor, as revealed through his professed feelings of love and yearning, the woman’s relationship with her boyfriend or husband.

Most times, women will resist the temptation of the alpha male friend. A woman who has invested much in a relationship will think twice before assuming a high risk cuckold maneuver that might destroy her investment. But it only takes one time, one magical night of heedless tingle, for years of virtue to dry up and blow away like tumbleweed. And for good reason: that one night could mean eighteen years of indentured servitude to a genetic impostor.

If there is a hint of sexual tension between your girlfriend and your best friend, you have to make a clear-eyed reappraisal of your relationship. Asking a few questions to yourself is a start.

1. Is her flirting harmless?

You can usually tell when a woman’s flirting is the playful self-boosting variety rather than the charged erotic variety. Women, and particularly good-looking women (one of life’s paradoxes), like to be reminded of their desirability, and flirting with other men is one way they fulfill that need. If it’s just an itch being scratched by a party girl poser, you’ll know by how lazily she flirts in front of you and by how quickly she rescinds her offer of flesh to rush back into your arms. If it’s genuine attraction, and the two of them are in your company, her contorted face will tell of her burgeoning guilt. A woman will not try to hide something of no consequence.

2. Is her flirting a jealousy ploy?

If it’s obvious she’s trying to make you jealous, that’s generally a good thing. It means she still loves you, but isn’t getting what she considers enough signs of commitment from you. I actually love it when girlfriends lamely and transparently flirt with other men in front of me, because it provides such a convenient way to lord my peen-cred over them by ambushing them with their own ham-fisted efforts.

3. Is she touching your friend, or herself, a lot?

It’s hard for a woman to consciously control her touch instinct in the presence of a man she desires. If you catch your GF placing her hand on your best friend’s forearm or shoulder more than once, you should be concerned. Same goes if she’s stroking her hair or caressing her face with her hands when talking with him.

4. Is she asking a few too many questions about your best friend?

This is a major tell. Doubly so if she tries to form her questions so that they sound like innocuous, spontaneous inquiries. “Hey, remember when you were telling me about Svengard’s trip to Italy? When’s he coming back? I bet he’d love to tell you all about it.”

5. Is she always offering to arrange co-ed events or nights out with your friends?

She wants to see him, but needs the cover of mixed company.

6. Are you having problems in your relationship?

Any sort of beta backsliding, or drifting apart, will push a girlfriend or wife into serious contemplation of competing market options. Luckily, you have an early warning sign at your disposal: the frequency and timing of sex. Be very wary if she stops fucking you during the ovulation part of her cycle.

If, after a careful answering of the above questions, you determine that the sexual chemistry you perceive between your girlfriend and your best friend is real, you have a number of choices.

– Call her out on it.

“I notice you flirt a lot with Tertullian. You think I don’t notice it? If we’re having problems, maybe we should part ways.”

– Tease her in front of him.

“Jesus, you’re blatant. You’re making Tiberius uncomfortable. I thought I was dating a nun, not a stripper.”

– AMOG your best friend.

“Hey, man, I think she’s into a threesome with you and me. I figure your pretty comfortable with a little accidental sword fighting.”

– Fuck with her head.

“Honey, I think Anfernee wants to sleep with you. It’s so obvious. I’m… sure you’ve noticed it.”

– Agree and amplify.

“Babe, the next time you flirt with Brantworth, try leaning in more, and licking your lips. I don’t think he’s getting the message.”

– Ignore it.

An aloof attitude won’t save your hide every time. You might successfully bluff her and she’ll run back to you to re-earn your love, or your inaction might seal your cuckolded fate. Much depends on the reactiveness of the chemistry your GF has with your best bud.

– Dump her.

Sexual chemistry is a powerful force. If you sense her infidelity is inevitable, get the jump on it and spare yourself the humiliation. If you’re married, make sure to collect evidence of her cheating before pulling the plug. You’ll need all the leverage you can get in divorce court.

Generally speaking, women will not cheat with your best friends unless one or both of the following criteria are met:

Your friend is significantly higher value than you are.

Sadly, female hypergamy can only be chained so long as it doesn’t grow too strong in the presence of a much higher value male. Your beloved will jump the bones of a Hollywood celebrity if given a real chance for it, no matter how much she sincerely loves you. And I suspect a lot of you tradcon loyal hubbies with visions of beatific virtue dancing in your heads would jam the hammer in Emma Stone’s toolbox if she backed up into you and breathlessly whispered her longing for your Biblical cock.

You have lost value within your relationship.

Relationships, barring compensatory game, tend to betafy even the rock hardest men. Time and familiarity and fairly predictable sex enervate the virile masculine essence.

Maxim #67: A man who has stopped seducing new women is a man who is becoming less seductive to his main woman.

When you become more beta, you are, in practice, raising the value of every other man your girlfriend or wife meets. Your best buddy Lil’ Petey starts to seem more like Peter the Great to your GF. Once you have turned to the beta side, even the most loyal, loving woman will begin to experience a reckless disregard for your feelings and a concomitant lessening of guilt when the prospect of sex with a more alpha man presents itself. Women are nothing if not masters at rationalizing away their malevolence when communion with alpha cock is on the altar of their womb cathedrals.

Preventative measures, then, are simple.

One, try as best you can to limit the amount of time that your girlfriend spends in the company of men higher status than yourself. You are playing with fire if your woman goes to work every day under an alpha boss. Now, obviously, certain realities prevent you from imposing the draconian limitations you would like and that would make a powerful dent in her ability and desire to cheat. But you can do little things. For instance, gently persuade your lover into work that is female-heavy, or run by women, or staffed with a lot of mediocre beta males. Or, get her knocked up fast, so she isn’t shunted into a lifestyle of peonage to an alpha male captain of industry. Or refuse to include her in your male buddy circle if you think some of your friends represent real sexual threats.

I can hear the baters now: “Waaah, you don’t think women have the willpower to say no to alpha males?!?”

Sure, I do. But willpower is conditional. The more her options increase, and the value of her options increases, the more malleable and fragile her willpower becomes. It’s a matter of removing excessive temptations from her life that might challenge her willpower. (Wives would be wise to keep to the same philosophy as concerns their husbands’ fidelity. It’s no wonder new wives move quickly to the suburbs, where atomistic single family homes and long commutes restrict the availability of young, nubile babes who would tempt their husbands.)

Two, avoid the betafying degeneration of long-term relationships. This means, in practice, keeping your flirting skills up to snuff by occasionally hitting on women other than your GF or wife. Game is not only useful for pickup, it’s useful for revitalizing the fading love brought on by predictability and familiarity.

If your girlfriend nags you a lot, and she’s hot enough to attract men of the caliber of famous actors, you may as well take her extrapair flirting as a message that she’s already serviced cocks other than your own. Don’t be surprised if that headache she has at the most inopportune times becomes a chronic condition.

Read Full Post »