“Are You Seeing Anyone?”

A reader emails:

Really loved the “it’s complicated” post, and have found lots of versatile use for it in my life. Thinking about it though, I think it’s most effective with women new to you as opposed to women you have history with. I also don’t think it should be used as a text response. Some of my ex’s will hit me up out of the blue via text, usually playful messages, but sometimes with the direct inquiry “are you seeing anyone?” that only a woman (or clueless beta orbiter) would ask. While “it’s complicated” would now be my default response to a new girl at a bar if she asked the same, I think it sounds too defensive and pandering to an ex, as though you’re trying to hide something from someone who already knows you very well. [Ed: Agreed.] I also think it doesn’t have the same effectiveness if used as a text reply to anyone.

I went with this exchange recently:

aspirational ex-girlfriend: Are you seeing anyone?
(next morning) me: you workin for tmz now?

Good answer. Cocky and funny, jes like da ladeez like it. She also appreciates the haphazard attention to punctuation.

“Are you seeing anyone?” is a common enough question from interested women that the proper handling of it deserves its own post. (Rumor has it there are a lot of sniveling gameless betas who ask women this question when they first meet them. Pitiable creatures.)

If an ex-girlfriend, former fuckbuddy or platonic female friend who you think wants to revisit the good times with you, (or who simply wants to segue from friendship to sex), asks if you are seeing anyone, and you have decided that “it’s complicated” is not the best response, there are alternatives at your disposal.

1. Sincerity

“I’ve been dating someone for a bit, but I can’t say for sure she is the one.”

2. Lying

“No.”*

3. Evasion/Reframing

See: the reader’s reply above. Few women will follow-up an expertly delivered evasion with cunty lawyerly argumentation. This is because women who ask such questions don’t really want to know the unvarnished answer. The question is asked only to give them plausible deniability should they find themselves bedding a taken man.

4. Circumspection

“I’m dating around.”

This is my favorite answer, regardless of its accuracy. First, it shuts down further inquiry. Second, it leaves things open to interpretation.

5. Challenge

“I’m not tied down yet.”

6. Agree & Amplify

“One?”

7. Aloofness

“Nothing serious.”

Also a personal favorite. Girls like to think the guys they desire have no worries about meeting and banging women, or about settling down.

*”No” is not the ideal reply. Because of the power of preselection, you run a better chance of losing her interest if she thinks you are completely single than you do if she thinks you are getting pussy regularly. So even if you aren’t seeing anyone, you should massage your answer so that ambiguity is introduced to the dialectic. Women aren’t put off a man’s scent if he is seeing someone; if anything, they become more like a bloodhound on his trail. The only exception is when the man sings odes of love and devotion to his woman. Competitor women will generally** back off if they see that the man they want is truly, deeply in love with someone else.

**Before the fairy dust, pie in the sky, swoon brigade gets all gushy at this optimistic outlook on the female gender, let me remind the studio audience that I have observed, and experienced, plenty of exceptions to this rule.

Replies that you should avoid:

“Define ‘seeing’.”

Too goofy. Chicks don’t dig the goof.

“Not sure.”

Too indecisive. Chicks don’t dig vacillators.

“Well, I’m fucking someone, if that’s what you mean.”

Too visual and sexual. Chicks don’t dig braggarts.

“I’m married.”

Too final. Chicks need a window of opportunity.

“Aren’t you the nosy one?”

Too slippery and awkward. What are you hiding?

“Wouldn’t you like to know.”

Too abrasive. If she’s an ex who knows you well, this albeit funny line will close off further exploration.

“Why do you ask?”

Too defensive. Also, why would you step on her hamster right as its revving up for a glorious rationalization to sleep with you?

Commenters are available during business hours to help you with further suggestions.

Read Full Post »

More Women Have Rape Fantasies Than Previously Thought

Science is validating unflinching, real world observation with progressively closer glimpses of the id beast lurking underneath our polite and self-deceptive exteriors. Today, science strips away the ego and superego from women’s brains and peers into the sticky, cobwebbed limbic interior to see what really turns them on.

The nature of women’s rape fantasies: an analysis of prevalence, frequency, and contents.

This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy, which is somewhat higher than previous estimates. For women who have had rape fantasies, the median frequency of these fantasies was about 4 times per year, with 14% of participants reporting that they had rape fantasies at least once a week. In contrast to previous research, which suggested that rape fantasies were either entirely aversive or entirely erotic, rape fantasies were found to exist on an erotic-aversive continuum, with 9% completely aversive, 45% completely erotic, and 46% both erotic and aversive.

62%. That’s a majority, folks. A majority of women fantasize on average four times per year about being forcefully and nonconsensually penetrated. Nearly two out of ten women fantasize about rape at least once a week. If that doesn’t convince you of the animal nature of women’s sexuality and their deepest desire to submit to a more powerful lover, nothing will. Oh, except watching forlornly as jerks and assholes walk off with the girl of your dreams.

For those wondering what the difference is between “aversive” and “erotic” rape, here is a description culled from a number of studies examining female sexuality (with the important point bolded):

According to Kanin, erotic rape fantasies contain low to moderate levels of fear with no realistic violence. In these fantasies, women typically are approached aggressively by a dominant and attractive male who is overcome with desire for her; she feels or expresses nonconsent and presents minimal resistance; he overpowers her and takes her sexually. Kanin made the interpretation that these were not true rape fantasies, that the described resistance amounted to a “token no,” and he called these “seduction fantasies.” Participants themselves characterized these as rape situations, however, and the self-character in these fantasies showed nonconsent. As no evidence was presented that the self-character’s nonconsent was insincere, the label of “seduction” does not seem justified. [Ed: Feminists wept.] Certainly, in actual rapes minimal resistance and female sexual arousal do sometimes occur (Duddle, 1991; Johnson, 1985), and their occurrence would not render the encounter a seduction rather than a rape.

Aversive rape fantasies come closer to representing realistic rape. In these fantasies, the male is more likely to be older, unattractive, and a stranger. These fantasies contain coercive and painful violence, and little or no sexual arousal. A typical scenario for an aversive fantasy would consist of an assailant “grabbing, throwing to the ground, ripping off clothing, while the victim is fighting to keep the aggressor from achieving penetration” (Kanin, 1982, p. 117). Kanin found that women with aversive rape fantasies were more apprehensive about actual rape and more likely to have dreams of rape than were other women. The more aversive rape fantasies may operate as attempts to deal with the fear of actual rape by gaining some sense of control over rape situations and rehearsing how one might deal with actual rape (Gold & Clegg, 1990; Gold, et al., 1991).

Feminists who lamely try to handwave away rape fantasies as just another form of BDSM consensual sex are wrong. As the studies show, there is no consensual seduction as widely understood in women’s rape fantasies. They are about rape, and nothing but the rape. The only difference is in how violently the rapist penetrates her in her fantasy and in how much of a fight she puts up to stop him. In neither case, though, could the rape fantasy be reasonably termed a consensual seduction.

Ironically, aversive rape fantasies are the ones feminists would be more inclined to believe as true reflections of the female id, because those are the types of rape fantasies that women have to deal with the fear of rape. Too bad for the feminists, though, that, according to the first study linked above, aversive rape fantasies account for only 9% of all rape fantasies, with the great majority being either solely erotic in nature or a mix of erotic and aversive. Seems the ladies really do get off on the feeling of being raped by a strong and willful man.

Nothing in these studies should be a surprise to readers of this blog. It has been noted here, to much consternation and gnashing of the teeth by haters, that women secretly desire to submit to a powerful man — more powerful than they, at any rate — and that this desire sometimes includes a nonconsensual component. Women love the feeling of being overtaken by a man unbendable in his will and unstoppable in his lust.

Some of you might be wondering how valid is a study that only looked at female undergraduates. To that criticism, I say: Would it make a difference? The most sexually valuable women are in the age range of 15-25. Any older than 25 and she is past her prime, already beginning the descent to sexual irrelevancy. (Exception: A fat 21 year old who loses weight and regains a sexy figure at age 30 will look better than her 21 year old self. But this effect only lasts so long.)

When men want to know what arouses women so that they can tailor their game for maximum effectiveness, they observe the behavior patterns of slender women in their primes. Men do not wonder, nor do they care, what cougars, fatties, frumpy hausfraus or grandmothers fantasize about. So for all of you has-beens emphatically denying that you ever have rape fantasies and shouting from the mountaintop that you wouldn’t date jerks…

…who gives a flying fuck?

Read Full Post »

Dating A Vegetarian Girl Is A Sacrifice

This comment from Quant reminded me of a girl I used to date:

And it doesn’t matter how bad she wants to save the planet, it would better for my image of her if she flushes after doing number 1 instead of “letting it mellow.”

Too funny. The girl I dated would say the same exact thing to me.

Me: [getting up in the morning to pee and seeing yellow water in the bowl] Gross. Yo, babe, you forgot to flush.

Her: I didn’t forget. If it’s yellow let it mellow.

Me: Why?

Her: It’s good for the environment.

Me: I didn’t know we were in a prolonged drought. Is toilet water in short supply?

Her: You shouldn’t waste water.

Me: My god the urine smells so bad it’s singeing my nose hairs.

Her: All right, give it a rest.

Me: What if I have to take a dump? Your urine water is gonna splash back up on my baby smooth ass cheeks. Is that supposed to turn me on?

Although the above conversation sounded fun and teasing, I never could see my ex the same way again after that traumatic morning I first saw her yellow pee water. Something triggered in the primitive sex part of my brain and she instantly lost 0.5 sexual market value points. The end was sealed by an unflushed toilet.

YelloMello Girl was also a 5-year vegetarian (shocker!). No meat or fish whatsoever. Her diet consisted of pasta, bread, beans, sprouts, quinoa, cereal, carrots and trail mix. For a vegetarian, I rarely saw her eat truly outstanding (and paleo-approved) vegetables like broccoli and kale. Although she had a nice figure from running and biking all the goddamned time, her un-made-up skin was sometimes blotchy. When the sun glinted off her cheeks, I could tell that her diet was going to result in premature wrinkling for her.

Dating a vegetarian girl is no fun. (This is primarily a female phenomenon. Heterosexual vegetarian men are so rare in the state of nature that few women have experience dealing with one.) A simple formula for those who need a demographic breakdown of vegetarians: Vegetarianism = single female SWPL.

One of the sublime pleasures in life is a medium rare filet mignon with a glass of pinot noir. Grazer girls rob you of enjoying this pleasure to the fullest. Sure, vegetarians will insist that they don’t judge you for your carnivorous barbarity, but you can easily observe her judging you in all the little mannerisms and passive-aggressive quirks she throws your way.

For some reason, grazers are highly offended by the smell of bacon. If you happen to cook bacon for yourself when she’s staying over, grazer girl will snark at you for “stinking up the place”. She will scrunch her face up with exaggerated disgust, and ask you to “please hurry up and eat that, it’s turning my stomach.” So much for nonjudgmentalism.

I have a theory that the reason grazers react so violently to bacon aroma is because it smells SO GOOD it might tempt them to betray the Gaianist religion for which they have sacrificed so many years in penitential devotion. Bacon is the gateway meat to apostasy.

Now that Western Christianity is a dead letter religion among the suckup SWPL set, something needs to replace the evolution-sized hole left in their heads from the excision of the traditional organized religions. That worshipful, in-group yearning is replaced by a new religion: the religion of “sustainable living.” Gaia is their God. Lettuce their Eucharist. Global warming their Nicene Creed. Canvas tote bags their cross. Marathons their forty days and forty nights in the desert. Recycling their tithe. Pet adoption agencies their soup kitchens and charity organizations. It’s a fucking joke, and it’s on them. They think they are above the religious impulse, when in fact they are as much a base animal as those plebes who earn their sneers; they’ve simply substituted a different flavor of the religious crack that gets them high.

Most vegetarian chicks aren’t going to blatantly try to convert you. They know better. And they also know, on a subconscious level, that you as a man would be less attractive if you joined her in pasture grazing. So they smirk and sneer and judge but they won’t ever really push their insipid lifestyle on you. Nevertheless, their lifestyle is an imposition on yours. Want to cook at home? If she’s cooking, you’re going to be crabby eating her twigs and leaves. If you’re cooking, prepare to brush up on vegetarian recipes. Home cooking is always a one-way street with grazers. Even the simple act of sharing platters at a restaurant becomes fraught with romance-killing difficulty. And don’t forget the hidden seething envy and affront that grazers feel as they have to watch you eat succulent meats in front of them.

And however tolerant of meat-eaters that grazers claim to be, their sanctimony can’t help but assert itself. After all, what’s the point of being a dedicated vegetarian if you can’t lord your moral rectitude over the unenlightened? It’s a human compulsion to grasp for status points by assuming a higher plane of moral reasoning. YelloMello girl, like most veggie chicks, would act unduly offended if I mistakenly ordered take-out stir fry that included chicken.

“You KNOW I don’t eat meat!”

“Just pick it out.”

“Why don’t you respect my wishes?”

The phony indignation is especially grating. It’s as if they want you to notice their hallowed commitment to their bean sprouts religion. Why suffer for an arbitrary religion if others can’t see and appreciate your suffering? After a point, it became something of a running gag to me. When she asked for a snack, I would hand her beef jerky, and say “Oops, thought it was a celery stalk.” Or I’d buy pigs’ feet and leave them in her fridge, telling her I ran out of room in my own fridge.

Ever watch the chicks at Trader Hoe’s browsing the veggie section with a basket full of plant foods? Look closely, and you can practically see the righteous self-satisfaction smeared like spackle across their faces. Behold her proudly line up her beans and hummus containers on the check-out stand, carefully arranging each product so that the entire line can bear witness to her revelation.

I despise her. Then I proudly line up my salmon, whole milk, broccoli, red peppers and almond butter and feel a glow of superiority as I watch the ghetto black mom behind me with her crate of juice boxes, chips and candy.

The id monster doesn’t play favorites.

Read Full Post »

Chicks Dig Jerks: Science Edition

The Inductivist has a number of posts about studies examining, indirectly, the widely-observed but heretofore unquantified phenomenon of chicks digging jerks. In this post, he reports that the average family size of jail inmates is higher than the general population:

Mean number of children

One lifetime arrest 3.00
Two 2.95
Five 2.86
Ten 3.38

More serious criminals have just as many kids as minor ones, and as many as non-criminals. The correlation between number of offspring and number of arrests is .04–basically non-existent.  Evidently, criminals are sufficiently alpha to have as many kids as anyone else, in spite of their low social status and time behind bars.

Girls find a way to sniff out ex-cons — or even current cons — and get impregnated by them. They just can’t get enough of their hellraising seed.

Here is a second post on the same study, broken down by race.

Family size does not decrease with more arrests for either race. The correlation between number of offspring and number of arrests is -.02 for whites and .02 for blacks; in other words, there is no relationship. According to the MIDUS Study of non-criminal men aged 45 or over, the mean number of children is 2.62.  Criminals have just as many, if not more, kids. (I’ll look for prison inmate data–jail inmates have a lower average level of criminality.)

You would think that men spending many of their prime reproductive years behind bars would hinder their ability to pump out sprog, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Male prisoners have loads of female groupies willing to have raw dog sex with them.

A commenter to that study writes:

I have no science to back this up, but I can tell you this from experience… inmates in jails and prisons have more kids than the system will ever know. Your numbers are skewed because of children not reported. I knew of one young man that was 22 years old that had 4 children and another 3 women pregnant with his babies. I would wager that the number is much higher for felons than the general population by a large margin. look at the number of women and children on state aid. Where do you think the fathers are… or have been?

Isn’t it funny how a woman will remain faithful to a lowlife behind fucking bars so that she can bear his, and only his, children, but will step out on a loyal provider beta hubby who plays by the rules? Knee-slappingly funny, I say.

Another commenter writes:

What if a single arrest is just enough to make you into an “alpha” in the eyes of a significant number of females but not enough to subject you to the racially-biased sterilization effects of jail?

One arrest seems to be the sweet spot for capitalizing on your instant alpha attractiveness to women without having to sacrifice too much personal freedom, or without experiencing de facto sterilization by decades away from pussy. This study validates the relevance of question #18 in the Dating Market Value Test for Men.

It should go without saying (unfortunately this blog gets its share of dense readers, so little goes unsaid or implied lest the short bus crowd starts screeching like constipated tards) that not every woman pops a clit boner for criminals. Perhaps not even a majority of women. But enough of them do that we can make accurate generalizations about the contours of sexual desire that all women possess.

In comparison to men, desirable women are far and away more likely to feel sexual and emotional attraction for opposite sex criminals, thugs, killers and assorted bad apples. If we map this desire on a bell curve, we would see at the far right tail the women who send letters to death row inmates and sometimes even fuck them and bear their children. In the middle would be the mass (and I do mean mass) of typical women who tingle for criminals but would not go out of their way to seduce one unless a consequence-free opportunity were present. At the left side of this jerk-loving bell curve would be the women who swear up and down that criminal men have no appeal to them. These latter women are usually lesbians or older, married broads who have lost touch with the intense libidos that motivated their younger selves.

If we superimpose a male bitch-loving bell curve onto a female jerk-loving bell curve what we would see is that the female curve is far to the right of the male curve, and the male curve would be bunched up into its left side. That is, there are significantly more women who love jerks than there are men who love bitches. This is as a Darwinian reading of human sociosexuality would predict. Male criminals have advertised their fitness as strong survival gene machines, while female bitches haven’t advertised much except what a pain in the ass they would be after sex.

If you have to wonder why chicks dig jerks and guys don’t similarly dig bitches, you need to recall the fundamental premise of the sexual market:

Men love youth and beauty. Women love charisma and power.

Beauty is not contingent upon a women’s bitchiness or criminal propensity. (In fact, female thuggishness is usually a leading indicator of ugliness.) In contrast, charisma and will-to-power are correlative with male criminal propensity.

In future posts, I will look at the appeal that death row inmates have for women. (Death row females — the few that there are — don’t have the same appeal for men. Shocking, I know.)

Read Full Post »

Raising Your Value By Telling Women You Have Stalkers

Preselection comes in many flavors. The most direct way to spoof your attractiveness to women is to be seen in the company of beautiful women. Of course, if you can do that, you’re not really spoofing anything, unless the women are friends you are using as pawns to pick up other women.

Another form of preselection involves embedding references to women in your life in stories you tell about yourself. This is the classic DHV — demonstration of higher value — that is well-known in the game community.

A third way to hit those primitive preselection buttons all women have buried in their limbic systems is to allude to competitor women who are attracted to you, but to do so in such a way that you give yourself cover from the perception that you are bragging. This can be done by framing the preselection reference in a negative light.

Letting women know, either directly or indirectly, that you have female stalkers is a huge DHV. This is particularly true if the girl you are picking up sees evidence of your stalkers. Now you might think that women would be suspicious of, or at least uncertain about, a man who has stalkers. They might wonder how badly he breaks hearts that he would accrue desperate, clingy stalkers.

Turn off your logical male brain for a minute and marvel at the reality that is the unflappable female head hamster. In truth, stalkers are a massive status boost for any man, unless the stalker is morbidly obese or old. A man who has acquired stalkers who fell so deeply in love with him or were so smitten by his charms that they lost all self-control and threw dignity to the wind in a futile pursuit to be back in his life, is a man who has otherworldly powers of attraction over women.

Casually remark to a new woman about your stalkers and she will subconsciously perceive you in a sexier light. You do this by furrowing your brow, frowning, and heavily sighing about the poor girl with emotional issues who can’t leave you alone. Double pickup points if you mention you have had to get a restraining order.

Why should stalkers be a DHV? One big reason: Most stalkers are men. Stalking is predominantly a male digression. So when a woman defies her evolutionary programming to behave as the more valuable sex and instead becomes a stalker, you know the man with whom she can’t extricate herself is one charming motherfucker. And other women know this, too. A man with stalkers is a proven hot commodity.

A man who is successful with women will find it difficult to glide through life without any stalker exes or infatuations. If you run any game at all you won’t be able to go five years without at least one or two girls aggressively making fools of themselves to be with you or to spite you for breaking their hearts.

Read Full Post »

Love: When Women Turn Into Beta Males

When are women most like beta males? When they’re in love.

No, I’m not talking about the “he’s got acceptable college credentials and a good job and car” kind of ledger book love. I’m talking about the “he smells so great and I love the way he buttons his shirt from the bottom up and I can’t wait to jump into his arms at the end of the day” kind of love. The two kinds of love are very different, and often mutually exclusive.

When a woman falls into the second kind of love she begins to behave around her man much like a beta male does around women he is attracted to. The change is such a radical metamorphosis that it leads one to believe that love rewires a woman’s brain in a direction that makes her singularly vulnerable to the vicissitudes of romance. It’s no wonder then that women are very careful about doling out the innermost sanctum of their hearts to just any man. Even sluts, who let it be known aren’t exactly inclined to impart their pussies with much significance, are surprisingly circumspect about how quickly and easily they allow themselves to fall in love.

Here is a partial list of the similarities between the woman in love and the beta male:

Woman In Love (WIL) – goes out of her way to please her lover
Beta Male (BM) – goes out of his way to please his LJBF

WIL – small deviations from the relationship norm send her into a tizzy of self-doubt
BM – every little thing she says sends him into a tizzy of overanalysis

WIL – tears flow effortlessly from the slightest infraction
BM – self-hate flows effortlessly from the slightest infraction

WIL – quick to blame herself for relationship problems
BM – quick to blame women for dating problems

WIL – eager for constant stream of validation from her lover
BM – eager for constant stream of indicators of interest from women

WIL – asks “do you love me as much as I love you?”
BM – asks “do you like me?” (Or behaves in a way that subcommunicates asking this kind of question.)

WIL – pushes for validation by stating “sometimes I feel like you’re not all there with me.”
BM – pushes for validation by asking “are we dating?”

WIL – seeks to calm her self-doubt with continual positive appraisals of the relationship status
BM – seeks to calm his self-doubt with continual positive signs of emotional intimacy

WIL – calls at awkward times because she has sixth sense for when her man might be flirting with another woman
BM – calls at awkward times because he has no sense for when a woman doesn’t like him

WIL – gets really nervous if her lover calls her from a bar
BM – gets really nervous if his object of affection doesn’t return his calls

WIL – “Why is he working late? I’ll call him.”
BM – “Why hasn’t she replied to my text yet? I’ll send another.”

WIL – suffers from oneitis
BM – suffers from oneitis

WIL – quick to ignore her lover’s faults
BM – quick to ignore his date’s faults

WIL – feels like she’s walking on eggshells
BM – ditto

WIL – works harder and harder to please her lover the more the relationship fades
BM – works harder and harder to suck up to a date the more indifference she shows

WIL – will forgive him anything, even, sometimes, cheating
BM – will forgive her anything, even, sometimes, sexless manipulation

WIL – can’t wait to introduce him to everyone she knows
BM – can’t wait to be seen around town with her

WIL – super sensitive to the mildest criticism
BM – doubleplusditto

WIL – fawning
BM – cloying

WIL – sexually submissive
BM – emotionally submissive

WIL – masturbates quite frequently when lover is away
BM – masturbates quite frequently

WIL – needs reassurance that he loves her and will make a future with her
BM – needs reassurance that she sees him “in that way”

WIL – can cuddle for hours with her lover
BM – can cuddle for hours given half the chance

WIL – her lover is a jerk, but she thinks he’s a paragon of masculine virtue
BM – his date is a cocktease, but he thinks she’s a paragon of feminine virtue

WIL – frets over the minutest details of every word he says, every text or voicemail he sends, and every wink he throws
BM – was born fretting

WIL – will ignore or rationalize red flags
BM – will completely miss red flags

WIL – will audibly sigh with pleasure when thinking about her lover
BM – will audibly moan with discomfort when thinking about his performance on the last date

WIL – will cherish every hackneyed romantic word her lover whispers in her ear
BM – will cherish a date-ending peck on the cheek

WIL – will constantly qualify herself to her lover
BM – will constantly qualify himself to his date

WIL – will stop shit testing, or, even better, will begin to shit test *herself*
BM – will fail every shit test

WIL – will worry about every blemish, every single pound of weight gain, and every bad haircut because it might turn off her lover
BM – will worry about every word out of his mouth because it might turn off his date

WIL – will suffer greatly if her lover leaves her
BM – will suffer greatly if his date LJBFs him

What this list juxtaposes is the illuminative comparison between women in love and beta males. It is not a list of beta female traits. That is a different thing entirely. Beta females are defined mostly by their plain looks and their inability to convince high value men to commit to them.

What is interesting here is that the woman in love who behaves like a beta male might still be an alpha female on the dating market. This would be true if, for instance, she was a hot broad. Women who lapse into total servility and betatude with their lovers don’t usually carry that over into their dealings with other men. The woman in love might be a beta to her lover, but she’s still a stone cold bitch to you.

Correction: Women in love tend to be nicer in general to all men, because their need for love has been met. Her prime directive fulfilled, she can now ease up on the bitch shields and shit tests with men she has no intention of dating.

A woman in love, in short, suffers from a form of Stockholm Syndrome. She is held captive by her lover, and wouldn’t have it any other way.

Read Full Post »

Woman Is The Kitty Of The World

Soul of a woman was created from cats.

Cats are funny. If you’re around a cat, it won’t deign to give you more than a passing token of affection, usually around dinner time. But if you leave it alone for a couple of days, upon return it will rush up to you, urgently meowing and bumping its head into your leg, starved for affection. It will then curl up in your lap, thankful you are back home, and purr contentedly until a glisten of cat saliva forms on its mouth. Then, once a certain amount of time has passed in your lap, (as determined by whatever cat brain mechanism is at work), the cat will decide it has had its fill of your love and promptly jump off to saunter out of the room with the closest approximation to a haughty look a cat can muster. If you attempt to follow it for more petting, it will harshly meow and maybe even take a swipe at you.

The cat wants your love on its terms. It does not value your affection freely given. It is most loveable when it has been psychologically mindfucked to believe it was on the verge of being abandoned. Just like women.

This inscrutability and natural aloofness perfectly explains the appeal of cats to women, and why they identify so strongly with the hellforged beasts. They see in them reflections of their gender’s psychological traits, and, being cognitively biased to project onto an idealized man that which comprises their own contours of sexual desire, thus anthropomorphize the cat into the alpha male lover they wish was courting them.

I like cats. They’re cute, fluffy stress balls. Give ’em a squeeze round the middle and feel your stress melt away. But dogs make better pets. Dog owners tend to be earthy and grounded. Cat owners tend to be drama-prone and concerned with image.

Read Full Post »