Cougars On The Prowl? No.

Demi Moore may be a beacon of light for aging cougars on the cusp of sexual worthlessness who want to crow triumphantly about all the boy toys pursuing them, but the facts are, as is usual when discussing the functioning of the dating market, quite a bit more depressing than what passes for reality in their fevered imaginations.

British psychologists said that the phenomenon of the “cougar” – older women on the prowl for younger men – does not actually exist in the real world.

They studied a number of online dating sites and found that men and women are still rather traditional when it comes to searching for their ideal partner.

Women generally seek an older and, therefore hopefully, wealthier man whereas men desire a young and attractive female, and often prefer a much younger partner as they themselves age.

The findings, published in the journal Evolution and Human Behaviour, disputes the phenomenon popularised in TV shows and movies like “Cougar Town” starring Courteney Cox and “Sex and the City” of women aged over 40 seeking “cubs”.

Many cougars have argued that since they are modern women with financial independence, they are free to pursue younger men for their looks alone. But this runs into two problems that are perfectly predicted by evolutionary psychologists; one, younger men don’t want them, and two, cougars, no matter their own economic independence, remain more attracted to older men with means, just as they did when they were younger and poorer. It seems the hindbrain which governs our sexual impulses is largely impervious to cultural shifts in mating market variables.

He said it was a commonly held assumption that with the advent of female financial independence, women were now free to target men of any age group, as securing financial security from older, wealthier males was no longer a priority.

“The transference of female desire from relatively older men to relatively younger men, it has been argued, is reflected by the growth of the toy boy phenomenon,” he said.

“The results of our research challenges these assumptions. Although there was some cultural variation in extremes, the results showed clearly that women across all age groups and cultures, targeted males either their own age or older.”

Some things never change. What about men?

Dr Dunn said a strikingly different pattern of age preferences was evident in men.

Younger men, aged 20 to 25, either targeted females their own age or marginally younger.

But as males aged, they clearly expressed a preference for women increasingly younger than themselves, with this pattern also being cross-culturally consistent.

“These findings are clearly supportive of evolutionary theory,” Dr Dunn added.

“A wide variety of evidence has shown that women, when considering a potential long-term partner, focus more than males on cues indicative of wealth and status and these logically accumulate with age.

“Males conversely focus more intently on physical attractiveness cues and these are clearly correlated with the years of maximum fertility.”

This should highlight just how quickly and radically women lose sexual value as they hit their 30s. The rare gem is Monica Bellucci who can still look bangable at age 40. Most women look like this at 40:

If you really want to get under a cougar’s skin, tell her the truth: she is the sexual equivalent of a nerdy, socially inept beta male. When she has hit the wall and no men but the lowliest degenerates would try to fuck her, she has become what she loathes the most — the omega male.

Cougars on the prowl? No. More like cougars settling down for a long winter’s nap.

Read Full Post »

Sex At Dusk

Just what is our sociosexual evolutionary heritage?

Here is a comment left by Christopher Ryan, author of “Sex at Dawn“:

The ‘ancient biological reasons’ that you’re referring to are currently being called into question by serious primatologists and anthropologists.

It is not really obvious that ancient homo sapiens really gave a fuck about paternity, because it wouldn’t have been obvious to them how sex and reproduction were actually related considering everybody was banging everybody.

Also add to this the fact that not only are women naturally promiscuous, but men are attracted to other men having sex with women ( your web browser history will back this up. )

This is why women scream during sex. to attract more men to join the fight. Literally, almost, considering the fight that takes place inside the woman. Not only does one sperm compete against millions of your own, but millions of other men. Considering women’s immune system treats sperm as invaders, women select their mates on a cellular level regardless of what their instincts might tell them.

A lot of this research calls the science behind the alpha male / game worldview into question. It isn’t that I’m arguing against evolutionary biology, either. I’m arguing for it, against a conception of it which mistakes our very recent cultural shifts ( agriculture ) as a constant in our 200k year + history.

It only made sense for men to care about virgins with the invention of private property which is passed down along paternal lines, agriculture, and a division of labor. This is a cultural adaptation not an ancient biological fact.

How do we know ancient (i.e. pre-agricultural man) didn’t give a fuck about paternity, or that they didn’t know that sex eventually led to children? And if it’s true that they were unconcerned with who’s the daddy, what relevance does this have for modern post-agricultural humans, who have had 10,000 – 12,000 years to evolve a different reaction to the threat of false paternity and female sluttiness? We now know distinct traits can evolve rather quickly in different human population groups. See: Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, northern European lactose tolerance.

From what we know of modern hunter-gatherer societies (the Yanomamo, for instance), homicide rates are incredibly high. Something like 30% of men in those tribal societies are killed off by acts of male-on-male violence. This would release some of the competitive pressure on the men for mates. In a society with a heavily skewed male-female ratio favoring men, “everybody banging everybody” wouldn’t elicit as much of a jealousy response if each man was spreading his seed with multiple women, increasing his chances to procreate.

Women are naturally promiscuous, true, but to a lesser extent than men and in a different way. Women’s impetuous promiscuity is a function of their ovulatory cycle, in large part, where they seek alpha genes one week out of the month. Men’s promiscuity is noncyclical. Men can cheat whenever and wherever, and can do so whether in love or out of love with their primary partner. Women are often emotionally unable to cheat if they are in love with their partner.

Addressing Ryan’s other points, there is no evidence that men in any significant number outside of a tiny fetishist minority enjoy cuckold porn, or are attracted to other men having sex with women. If you look at porn, you’ll notice that the most popular videos (really, 90% of the videos on major porn sites) block out the male actor’s face. The camera zooms in on the penetrating cock and the woman’s body and face contorted with (albeit faked) pleasure. The man’s face and chest are deliberately excised from as much of the sex scenes as possible. What men really like to watch is women having sex with a disembodied cock, (hence, point of view porn, which is very popular), into which the viewer can imagine he is the one fucking the girl.

Do women scream during sex to attract more men to the fight, or to warn other men away? I don’t see how the former is more clearly the reason than the latter. Or is there another explanation why women scream during sex? Perhaps to advertise their attractiveness to alpha males to other women, as a sort of status competition?

It’s understood that the penis is shaped like a sperm scoop, and that this is evidence that there is some amount of sperm competition resulting from female promiscuity going on. But there is also the powerful emotion of jealousy, a painful emotion which is not socially constructed, but is instead a visceral hindbrain reaction in the majority of men to thoughts of their women fucking other men. Did jealousy really evolve in just the last 10,000 years, or has it been with humanity for eons? It is possible that jealousy is a more recent evolution in the human psyche, and perhaps there are population group level differences in how much jealousy is experienced as a motivating impulse. (Maybe Africans feel less jealousy than Asians toward cheating partners.)

Whatever the evolution of jealousy, it is clearly an indicator that men DO give a fuck about paternity, and are NOT Ok with promiscuous women as long term partners who have been chosen to carry their young. If virginity weren’t valued by men, there would be no market for it. But in many large scale societies, not only is there an implicit market for virgins, there is an overt market for them. Did the invention of private property cause this powerful drive in men to seek out virgins in many parts of the world, or has the drive been a part of the neuronal network of the male brain for longer than that? Occam’s Razor normally falls on the side of biological imperative rather than social construction, as the latter is rarely an answer for anything except as a comforting illusion to help feminists and assorted blank slate lefties to sleep at night.

Bottom line is that there seems to be evidence for some kind of a balance between the sperm competition-female promiscuity nexus and mate guarding jealousy, and that this balance varies by population group. (r selected populations may lean more toward the large male genitals-female promiscuity part of the spectrum.) Double bottom line: Do you really want to live in a society where men don’t give a fuck about paternity and “everybody is fucking everybody”? We already have an example of what such a society might look like: sub-saharan Africa.

***

Interesting comment left by Rum:

What is the advantage to a woman of being less-than-aware of her actual arousal? It helps with her pretending to love a type of guy that her pussy really does not want. After all, if we accept the 80:20 rule regarding men and gina tingles, a lot of women are doomed to be paired via monogamy with a guy they never truly wanted – for sex. It is simple math. How could too much awareness of her true pussy-feelings help her attract a beta? It is just an extra burden for her to carry. So nature gives her an anesthetic for those unwelcome, burdensome insights.

This angle deserves further reflection. A lot of supposedly low libido women are simply women who settled for resource providing beta males who don’t sexually excite them. It’s already been shown that women are more likely to orgasm when they step out with an alpha male during that golden week of ovulatory sluttitude. If women were consciously aware of the connection between what they find attractive and what arouses them — in the same way men are aware of the connection — then women might be less inclined to remain loyal to the beta provider, and thus jeopardize the raising of their young. Or maybe the arousal ignorance is the cause of the infamous female caprice, which serves as a mate-selecting strategy ensuring that only men who are good with women will be able to navigate her seemingly illogical whims.

Read Full Post »

Soft Polygamy In A Single Picture

Read Full Post »

Yet More Proof That A Few Men Are Getting Most Of The Action

Vox Day writes:

It’s not an 80/20 rule, it’s a 90/10 rule.

“Percent of all women 15-44 years of age who have had three or more male partners in the last 12 months, 2002: 6.8%

Percent of all men 15-44 years of age who have had three or more female partners in the last 12 months, 2002: 10.4%”

– Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 15–44 Years of Age, United States, 2002, CDC

That’s the CDC, folks. Hard data providing evidence for the reality of female hypergamy.

Here are some more related soul-ripping statistics:

“Median number of female sexual partners in lifetime, for men 25-44 years of age, 2002: 6.7
Percent of men 25-44 years of age who have had 15 or more female sexual partners, 2002: 29.2%

Median number of male sexual partners in lifetime, for women 25-44 years of age, 2002: 3.8
Percent of women 25-44 years of age who have had 15 or more male sexual partners, 2002: 11.4%

NOTE: Includes partners with whom respondent had any type of sexual contact (anal, oral, or vaginal intercourse)“

That footnote is important. The Chateau has argued before that social survey data like the GSS are compromised by the fact that modern women are more likely than generations past to preclude mouth, hand and ass love from the definition of sexual partner. Le Hamster Version Deux, he is working overtime, non?

Read Full Post »

Proof Of The Modern American Harem

Back in this post I tantalizingly wrote that the female predilection for having sex with a small cohort of alpha males was proven by the rates of venereal disease transmission.

Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.

Some commenters, though, remained unconvinced. Well, there’s more proof of the universal law of female hypergamy, the sexual cornucopia of alpha males, and the near-celibate aridity of beta males. Did you think I was finished after busting one nut?

Exhibit A: 80% of women and only 40% of men reproduced in human history.

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

If you were a man living 4,000 years ago and you knew that you only had a 40% shot at sweet sexual release with the women of your tribe, would you tend toward short-sightedness or have the temperament of someone with a well-developed future time orientation? Would you put more emphasis on learning how to swing a club or mastering the multiplication tables? Compare and contrast with today’s geographic distribution of sociosexual norms.

But maybe things have changed?, some of you will argue. Yes, I believe these ratios have changed with the advent of Christianity, the nuclear family, and Western civilization in general. How much the 80-40 ratio was altered by the preeminence of the rising West is subject to debate, but there’s no doubt that strong patriarchal norms and a social and religious proscription against infidelity and hoarding of women contributed to the increased sexual access of beta males. If I had to guess, I’d say at the high water mark of the kingdom of beta (1950s America? Victorian England?) 90+% of men had nominally exclusive low risk sexual access to unmarried, childless women during the women’s prime fertile years.

But that was then. As this blog has claimed for the past three years, there is change in the wind. The future is the past. The constraints on female, and to a lesser extent male, sexual choice are lifting and the hindbrain is reasserting itself, waving its banner of bloody tooth and claw as it crests over the hilltop. The pendulum is swinging back. The 80-40 ratio may yet return to claim its rightful throne.

That is, unless the reconstructed monogamous Mormoms and Orthodox outbreed the seculars and morlocks. It’ll be a demographic cage match between zealots and orcs as SWPLs haughtily congratulate themselves until there is no one left to admire their virtuous posturing. Fun for the whole family! Kinda makes the latest iPod release seem trivial by comparison.

******

Exhibit B: The rise of the “hook-up” culture among teen and college-age women may be a leading indicator of a forceful female hypergamy reshaping the sexual market, (or responding to it).

Abstract: “Hooking-up” – engaging in no-strings-attached sexual behaviors with uncommitted partners – has become a norm on college campuses, and raises the potential for disease, unintended pregnancy, and physical and psychological trauma. The primacy of sex in the evolutionary process suggests that predictions derived from evolutionary theory may be a useful first step toward understanding these contemporary behaviors. This study assessed the hook-up behaviors and attitudes of 507 college students. As predicted by behavioral-evolutionary theory: men were more comfortable than women with all types of sexual behaviors; women correctly attributed higher comfort levels to men, but overestimated men’s actual comfort levels; and men correctly attributed lower comfort levels to women, but still overestimated women’s actual comfort levels. Both genders attributed higher comfort levels to same-gendered others, reinforcing a pluralistic ignorance effect that might contribute to the high frequency of hook-up behaviors in spite of the low comfort levels reported and suggesting that hooking up may be a modern form of intrasexual competition between females for potential mates. […]

Popular media coverage may be sensationalistic, and undoubtedly influences attitudes and sexual behavior in adolescents and young adults. However, the hook-up phenomenon is not merely a creation of the media; rather, the media seems to be reflecting an actual shift in behavior. Such casual sexual experiences among college students are by no means a product of the 21st century; “one-night stands” and “casual sex” have been studied without the current “hook-up” context (Boswell and Spade, 1996; Cates, 1991; Maticka-Tyndale, 1991). However, the high prevalence of these behaviors, coupled with an openness to display and discuss them, appears to be recent, particularly with respect to women (see Reitman, 2006).

Now why would women be quick to believe that other women are more comfortable with hooking up than they actually are (pluralistic ignorance)? The study authors suggest evolution has primed humans to embrace pluralistic ignorance when the sexual marketplace changes and it is in the interest of the individual to do so.

We expect that because human psychological processes are the product of evolution, the capacity and tendency to exhibit pluralistic ignorance – particularly with respect to sexual/reproductive behavior – must reflect the evolved best interest of individuals, and thus be predictable on the basis of evolutionary theory and sexual selection. […]

Several predictions follow from these evolutionary sex differences. First, men are predicted to be more comfortable than women with all hook-up behaviors. Second, each gender is predicted to know the gender-specific strategy of the opposite gender. […] Third, individuals of each gender are predicted to know the gender-specific strategy of their own gender. […]

[M]odern Western women live in cultures in which there are simultaneously large differentials in male resources and status, and imposed marital monogamy, the combination of which is expected to provoke intrasexual competition among females for potential mates (Gaulin and Boster, 1990). Engaging in uncommitted sex may be one form of female-female competition. If this is so, we would predict that women attribute to other women comfort levels that are higher than they, themselves, feel; this would generate PI that would heighten women’s awareness of potential threats from female competitors and may motivate women to engage in competition.

Fascinating. Women are slutting it up because they fear competition from other women taking their men. This is another confirmation of my analysis of modern society: as the sexual revolution freed women and men to act on their desires outside of a marital framework, women’s sexuality became their primary, in fact their only, bargaining chip to secure attention and commitment from attractive (read: alpha) men.

And what about the male side of the equation? Well, it’s not betas this hookup culture is benefiting. At least, not while the women are young and at their hottest. Women don’t fight intrasexually for the gift of tepid beta spooge. They’re fighting for the choice cuts of meat. If the structurally numerous betas were getting pursued by women, then the market would reach saturation and there would be few unhitched women to compete against each other; but because women prefer dating up into the arms of de facto harem leaders, the female-to-female competition rages at a heated pitch.

Now it should be noted that a few upper betas may ride the hookup wave to more sex than they would’ve gotten in a less licentious culture, but for the most part it’s alphas that are enjoying the bounty of free pussy. This is why game has come at JUST THE RIGHT TIME in our culture’s hedonistic careen — it’s allowed men to fully capitalize on an already emergent trend toward hooking up with dominant, flashy alphas. In another time, game would’ve served the function of strengthening relationships instead of fostering hookups.

******

Exhibit C: Our currently operational sexual market is influencing women to prefer short term hookups favoring alpha male harem builders over long term commitments favoring beta male nest builders.

Short-term sexual appeal largely rested on targets’ attractiveness, particularly among women with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation. Dating appeal was dependent on attractiveness, particularly among unrestricted women, and on ambition. Ambition and attractiveness synergistically influenced targets’ long-term desirability, and these preferences were not moderated by women’s sociosexual orientation.

The take home point: as cultural and biological constraints have lifted, women are giving more weight to their preference for short term hookups with bold, dominant alpha males. (The women would probably prefer long term relationships with these alphas, but if they are given free rein to choose between a flighty alpha and a commited beta, the alpha wins more often than not. That is, until the woman is past her peak and losing sexual leverage by the day.)

You’ll note a common theme in all the above studies: women’s sexuality is wilder and more dangerous than men’s, and absent social shaming and other similarly restricting mechanisms designed to encourage “acceptable” (i.e. civilization enhancing) sexual behavior, women will quickly revert to their more primitive 80-40 norm.

The $4.7 trillion dollar debt question: Is a reversion to the 80-40 norm inevitable? And, even more discomfiting, does the modern welfare state guarantee a return of the 80-40 norm as a sort of “cleaning house” that will purge the overpopulating dregs and filth and help continue human evolutionary progress as our one true god, the Lord DNA, intended?

We lament the betas, but we wouldn’t be the humans we are today if those 60% of bygone male rejects tossed to the icy wastelands in unrelenting pain and misery had instead gone on to enjoy sex and love in the bosoms of wonderful women who bore them children. Had our sympathies been retroactively indulged, we might still today be digging in the dirt for tubers and termites instead of arguing about the oppressive patriarchy.

******

Commenters sometimes complain I don’t bring the science to back up my personal observations, honed as they are by a very keen eye, a finger on the pulse of cultural trends, and an empathic understanding of human psychology. If you want a steady stream of backing science, feel free to open an institute in the Chateau’s name and hack away. Meantime, I’ll be skipping the lab work and enjoying myself with the best pleasures of life. You can sleep easy that about 80% of my observations are eventually corroborated by scientific evidence.

Read Full Post »

Of Manjaws And Furry Forearms

Have a cuckold fetish for relationships with sluts who are likely to cheat? Want to get into relationships with sluts who are likely to put out quickly, and to fuck like the energizer bunny? Date women with big chins!

If you have not already chosen your new love, researchers suggest you stay away from those with big chins as they have a tendency to cheat. Researchers from four universities across the US and Canada prodded into the sexual habits of chinny and relatively chin-less females to determine these results.

Kidding? No, they’ve published in the journal Personality And Individual Differences, so it must be true. Larger chins, especially on adult females, are associated with the male growth hormone testosterone and too much of that bad boy can lead to messing around. It seems on an unconscientious level men sense this trend and are biased against a more masculine chin. […]

“The findings are important in demonstrating that perceptions of women as desirable and trustworthy long-term mates can be reliably gleaned by men from viewing only the women’s facial features.

“Results suggest that information about women’s sexual unrestrictedness, which is related to their risk of infidelity, can potentially be conveyed by the masculinity of women’s faces.”

Hogwash you say? Perhaps you are already hooked up with said chin-cheater? Well, they may cheat, but you may also have found a sexual goldmine. Women (and perhaps men) with larger chins are also more sexually assertive and perhaps better in bed.

Yet again the science proves me right. Always ahead of the curve, I am. Over three years ago I wrote in this post about generalizing the sexual habits of women based on physical or behavioral traits:

Does she have lots of dark forearm hair?

Girls with this have more circulating testosterone.  They will be more likely to sleep with you by date 3.  Although forearm hair on a girl is unattractive, rejoice when you see it, because it means the moment of sexual congress is nigh.

Big chins, manjaws and dark forearm hair on women are all signs of exposure to high levels of testosterone. And women who have been thusly exposed like to fuck — hard, often, and usually with lots of different men. If you are doing a girl doggy style, and a thatch of thick ass crack hair is staring back at you, you can bet she’s exceeded the national female median of three lifetime sex partners. Have your fun, but don’t make the dumb mistake of marrying her. Or, really, spending any money on her, since she won’t require much male resource display before she’s willing to spread.

Thanks to the additional scientific evidence buttressing my personal observations, we can now add big chins and manjaws to the list of slut tells I outlined in my infamous post describing how easy it is to identify a slut. If you are an inexperienced younger man who wants to know if your girlfriend is marriage material, this blog will arm you with the knowledge you need.

To summarize:

Manjaws are more likely to:

• fuck on the first date
• fuck for hours in every room of the house
• cheat
• need a psychologically dominant boyfriend to keep her faithful.

Personally, as a normal man with normal tastes in women, I prefer feminine girls with dainty jaws and chins and soft flat bellies that aren’t ripped six packs. So Leno-chinned women of the world are not much concern to me, except insofar as their numbers in the general female population seem to be increasing of late, and thus causing the aggregate beauty in the world to shrink. As a lover of beauty, I consider this environmental destruction. Luckily, manjaws are less prevalent in younger women, so I will do my part to help the environment by casting out older women to the wastelands of solitary cougardom where their jutting mandibles can do no harm to anyone except 18 year old boys desperate to lose their virginity.

Read Full Post »

Why You Should Leave After Sex

Because it will signal your high male mate status:

Chapter 5, “Green-Eyed Desire: From Guarding a Mate to Trading Up,” deals with other economic constraints relating to the human mating market. Women appear to use sex to help guard male mates by keeping them satisfied, reminding men what they stand to lose should they defect—or as many women in the study put it, “keep[ing] his mind off other women.” Women also seem to be motivated to sometimes have sex with other men as a way of gaining information about their mate value or to obtain a better partner—i.e., to “trade-up” in the mating market. Attracting a high-quality mate can allow a woman to enhance and evaluate her mate value, and many women cited this as a reason to have sex. The authors refer to research showing that women do this more often around ovulation.

So what does this have to do with leaving a woman’s company soon after sex? Much can be inferred from the study results in the quote above. For instance, if women use sex to keep a mate satisfied and his mind off chasing other women, then a hasty post-coitus skedaddle undermines her mate guarding efforts; she will be compelled to try even harder in the sack next time. And as I’ve noted before, a solid, healthy relationship rests on a foundation of the woman chasing the man. The day your woman succeeds at guarding you is the day you begin the slide into betahood, infrequent sex, cuckoldry, and eventual breakup.

More importantly, since women sometimes use sex with new men to enhance and evaluate their own mate value, a calculated quick departure after sex will disrupt her self-evaluative process, leading her to conclude that she isn’t as hot as she thought (which is exactly what you want her to think). While landing a charming SOB like yourself for sex will boost a girl’s ego, persuading you to linger afterward to cuddle will send her ego straight into the stratosphere. Since American women’s egos are already in the stratosphere, theirs will get propelled into distant galaxies. It’s critical that you keep a woman’s ego in check if you want to enjoy years of blissful love and sexual release.

This study, and its implications, confirms my everyday experiences. I have noticed that when I leave a chick right after sex — either directly by walking out or indirectly by nudging her out — she will text or call like a woman in love the very next day, or even later that night. The post-coitus premature exit (PCPE) is especially powerful when executed at two in the morning.

If you are at her place, many times a girl will invite you to stay for the night. She’ll couch it in plausibly deniable terms, such as “You’re welcome to stay if it’s too late for you to grab a taxi now.” If you need an excuse to drop a PCPE, just tell her you have to get up early for a business trip. If you and her are at your place instead, assume the PCPE by announcing soon after sex that you’ll be happy to walk her to her car or her home, and that she must be looking forward to sleeping in her own bed.

Whatever you do, avoid the post-coitus cuddle with a new girl who is above the average quality of girls you normally get. If you’ve had the good fortune, or expertise, to bag yourself the female equivalent of a 12 point buck, you don’t want to ruin your established high mate value and budding relationship momentum by snuggling and squeezing her tight as if she were your childhood security blanket. Post-sex cuddling is like a chemical reaction which drains your testosterone by the minute. Intimate cuddling will convince a girl to give herself high marks on her self-evaluation, and once she’s done this the odds she will see you as a worthy mate for the long haul — sexual or otherwise – drop precipitously. It’s all done on the subconscious level of course, but that’s the level that is most dangerous, since it operates by flying under the radar of our conscious perimeter defenses.

Looking at all my flings, one night stands, and relationships, the ones where I rolled over after sex and gave the girl my back, or where I got out of bed and put on my clothes to go home, were the ones I was in complete command of the direction of the romance. I never had to initiate texts or phone calls, or come up with date ideas, with those girls; they did all the legwork.

Read Full Post »