Translations

• “I want to be romanced.”

Translation: “I want you to state your desire to fuck me with impeccable subtlety.”

• “One day you’ll meet your soulmate.”

Translation: “One day you’ll settle.”

• “Just be yourself.”

Translation: “Know your place.”

• “I will never cheat on someone I love.”

Translation: “I will never cheat on someone I love given the options available to me.”

• “Does my ass look fat in these jeans?”

Translation: “Will you assuage my insecurities?”

• “If she doesn’t want me, it’s her loss.”

Translation: “It’s my loss.”

• “It’s what’s on the inside that counts.”

Translation: “You’ll never get laid.”

• “I’m spiritual.”

Translation: “I’ve substituted one bogus belief for another that is peer-approved.”

• “Everyone is different.”

Translation: “Generalizations are an affront to my inflated ego.”

• “You look as beautiful as the day we first met.”

Translation: “I forgot how much better you used to look.”

• “I love you.”

Translation: “I love you.”*

*I love you is impossible to say deceitfully without some part of your face twitching in betrayal. It’s like the truth serum of turns of phrase. Try it sometime with a lover you don’t really love. You’ll see what I mean. The words will ricochet in your brain and curdle your tongue before they’ve escaped your mouth if they aren’t sincerely felt. I love you too, baby and Love YOU don’t have the same effect. Those permutations can be effectively fibbed. Only the original three words, with meaningful eye contact, will thwart your best efforts at lying.

Read Full Post »

Vaj Day

‘Cause, really, that’s what it is. A day to celebrate vaj.

So in the consumerist spirit of the occasion here’s the Valentine’s Day card I plan to send out to my stable of regulars.

For my extra special girls, I’ve put the effort and love into making homemade cards:

I’m a romantic at heart.

Read Full Post »

Why Are There So Many Lawyers?

In the last post discussing the Japanese embrace of all things A.I., one of the commenters mentioned that Japan’s ratio of engineers to lawyers is 10 to 1, while the U.S.’s ratio is the reverse: 1 to 10. Because I have a special contempt for most lawyer chicks which impels me to fuck them hard, deep and violently until their gratingly argumentative masculinized tough girl exterior lies in a wet spot of pent-up orgasmic release on my bedsheets, I was curious why this is so.

My first guess is similar to what commenter ‘agnostic’ wrote about the Japanese possessing an IQ profile that favors visual-spatial reasoning over verbal fluency. If this is true, we should expect to see disproportionately more Asian-American engineers than lawyers, including second and third generation Asian-Americans, compared to the rest of the U.S. population. Lawyers, for reasons unbeknownst to me and at odds with the objective evidence concerning their contribution to society and the rigor of their curriculum, have higher status in the U.S. than do engineers, so if the highly pragmatic Asians are choosing engineering over law in spite of all the social pressure to do the opposite then that would suggest an ingrained mental proclivity for the hard maths.

Another possibility may be that homogeneous societies, like Japan’s, don’t need as many lawyers because the trust factor is stronger. When everyone looks like everyone else strangers are more apt to trust one another and work cooperatively, negating the need for lawyers. Corruption is lower so the courts are less involved in business transactions. A Harvard study has even shown that more diversity reduces civic-mindedness.

Is the U.S., the premiere multicultural experiment on the world stage, overburdened with lawyers because of its diversity? Is trust so low that recruiting an army of lawyers is the only way anything can get done here anymore?

To answer this, I’ve put together a chart comparing the number of lawyers per capita to the level of diversity for each state in the U.S. The second column is the Diversity Index for the year 2000 and it is based on a Census algorithm. The higher the Diversity Index number of the state, the more likely you are to run into someone from another race or ethnicity there. The lower it is, the more the entire state will look like an extended family backyard BBQ. The third column is number of lawyers in each state per 10,000 residents as of 2001.

STATE	Diversity Index 2000	Lawyers per 10,000 Residents
ME	0.07	9
VT	0.08	8.2
NH	0.10	7.7
WV	0.10	8.8
IA	0.14	6.2
ND	0.16	4.4
MT	0.19	8.5
KY	0.20	7.1
WY	0.21	8.3
SD	0.22	5.8
ID	0.22	6.1
MN	0.22	11.2
NE	0.23	8.3
WI	0.23	6.8
IN	0.25	6.9
UT	0.26	9.1
OH	0.28	8.6
PA	0.28	11.9
MO	0.29	10.9
OR	0.29	7.9
KS	0.30	5.8
RI	0.32	9.1
MA	0.32	14.5
TN	0.35	8.2
AR	0.36	5.3
MI	0.36	7.8
WA	0.37	8.7
CT	0.38	14.3
CO	0.42	13
OK	0.43	8.1
DE	0.44	18
AL	0.44	9.4
NC	0.46	8.2
VA	0.47	9.5
SC	0.48	8.4
MS	0.50	7.6
IL	0.50	14
LA	0.50	11.1
AK	0.51	8
GA	0.52	12
FL	0.52	11.7
NJ	0.53	11.7
AZ	0.53	8
NV	0.53	10.4
MD	0.53	9.4
NY	0.57	20.4
TX	0.61	9.5
NM	0.62	6.9
CA	0.67	10.9
HI	0.73	9.5
DC	0.56	276.7

I’ve separated DC from the main list as an outlier. 277 lawyers per 10,000 residents! In distant second place is New York at 20 lawyers per 10,000 residents. Now I know why I can’t get away from dating lawyers in this town. They’re everywhere. The overwhelming lawyer presence goes a long way toward explaining why DC is the toughest city to game chicks. No wonder there are cat adoption shelters on every corner.

The coefficient of correlation between the diversity index and the number of lawyers for all states is 0.38, which is a moderately positive correlation. So my theory that diversity breeds lawyers has some merit.

Next: I will discover a correlation between a woman’s career success and how often she bitches about guys.

Read Full Post »

The Morality Equation

In my post on morality I offered a few thoughts on the shifting sands of moral certitude:

If you had the power in your hands, would you kill in such a manner as to ensure maximum pain and suffering

a. 10,000 Indonesians if it would save your lover’s life?

b. your lover if it would save 10,000 Indonesians’ lives?

I concluded with the following wholly scientific effort at a layman’s definition of morality:

Morality = genetic affinity + expedience + quid pro quo + self-serving status posturing

Commenter “godparticles” picked up where I left off and admirably quantified my definition:

I would probably give more weight to S (status posturing) like this:

M=(g+E+q) x S

…where M is defined as the strength of a moral decision. I guess you could create a scale of relatedness for g, a scale of convenience for E, a scale of likely material return for q, and a scale for the explicit ingroup approbation of the moral position, decision, or action for S.

Let this serve as an innocuous example: A middle-aged, poor black man recently asked me for a dollar outside a grocery store. I was sitting in my car waiting for a friend, and he approached with the opening, “I’m not trying to start any trouble or anything, but can I get a dollar for the bus…” I don’t usually carry cash, and that’s what I told him and he left… even though I knew I had a few bucks in my wallet. I’ve been begged for more cash before after having pulled out my wallet so that wasn’t going to happen again.

So the g was 0. The E was actually high. The q was 0. And the S was 0 (no one was watching to approve). HOWEVER, if my (very liberal) friend had been in the car, the S would have increased and multiplied by the E would have led me to give him the buck.

I liked godparticles’ strengthening of my morality equation so I refined the variables and scoring and added an example of my own in the comments:

given: M = (g + E + q) x S

where M = degree of moral umbrage and the likelihood of taking action to rectify the perceived injustice.

g = genetic affinity
E = expediency (I define this as fluid morality, which is similar to moral convenience. You’re more likely to adopt a moral position when it works to your benefit or is relatively painless to act upon.)
q = tit for tat
S = status whoring

The scale for each variable is 1-10, where 1 = no impact on your decision and 10 = influence of the utmost importance.

Let’s say you’re at a party with friends and your brother (who is in attendance) blurts out a racist joke (he has an awkward sense of humor). A hush descends over the crowd. Your response hinges on a series of subconscious calculations:

g = 10 (he’s your brother!)
E = 2 (it’s tough to call out a racist joke at a party and risk dragging out the discomfort. it’s even tougher when it’s your brother’s public humiliation on the line.)
q = 1 (you’re contemplating a moral action that will prevent your loss, rather than win you gains.)
S = 6 (you risk losing the approval of your friends if you seem as if you are acceding to your brother’s faux pas. acting will not raise your status, but it will prevent you losing status.)

calculating M we get:

M = (10+2+1) x 6 = 78

If M resides on a scale from 3 to 300, where a score of 300 equals a moral action that is easy to take, quite personally beneficial, and encourages the sort of self-righteous preening that feels almost as good as sex, then in the scenario I outlined above a score of 78 means you would probably hesitate briefly before deciding to evade your moral discomfort by changing the subject and yelling out “WHO’S UP FOR SHOTS!!!”

An M of 1 means “Kill em all and let bog sort them out”.

Now I’m curious how other common moral dilemmas would rank using the morality equation. Here’s an example from the battlefront:

You and your buddy are in a bar. He notices two girls, a hottie and her friend who was born to cockblock. He tells you it’s all his and he’ll signal you to join when he needs a wingman to occupy the obstacle. He approaches and soon the girls are laughing. You get the signal and move in, doing your best to draw the CB’s attention away from her friend and to you. But your natural charm infects both girls and the cute girl starts touching your arm and tossing you the flirty eye. Your friend is losing the set but you have a good chance of acquiring his target’s digits. You think about number closing her. The morality variables look like this:

g = 2 (no genetic relation to your friend but racially he looks like you.)
E = 7 (any decision you take would be easy to act upon, but getting her # could potentially cost you your friend’s respect since he’s standing right there. because it is only one friend and not a whole group of friends you feel you can smooth out the situation later with a little one on one.)
q = 8 (if you get her # you have a shot at adding a notch. if you don’t get her number you retain the wingman services of your friend for the future.)
S = 6 (you will gain a lot of status points with your friend if you don’t number close his target for yourself. but it is just one friend.)

M = (2 + 7 + 8 ) x 6 = 102

On the morality scale of 3 to 300, there is a one in three chance that you will put your friend’s feelings before the pussy.

Ask yourself, does this result match up with your personal experience dealing with the same situation? Would a good friend opportunistically number close your target 2 out of 3 times?

Read Full Post »

32 Vs. 21

I can draw a precise comparison of the sex appeal in the bedroom between a 32 year old woman and a 21 year old woman because I’ve had the opportunity to sleep with both within two weeks of each other. This means my memory of how they compare is strong. The average guy who has moved onto banging 30+ year old women has not slept with a 21 year old since his college days, and so won’t remember in lucid detail just how much better a younger girl’s body looks and feels naked.

This is why you should always take older men’s opinions of the sexual appeal of older women with a grain of salt; they have weaker memories of the superiority of their long-ago conquests, and their fragile egos oblige them to proclaim endless paeans to the wonders of the older woman.

Following is a side-by-side comparison of sex between a 32 year old woman and a 21 year old woman. Any differences between the two are age-related only, as neither one exercised regularly and both looked attractive fully clothed.

21 year old

Visual – When she took off her clothes my hard on got harder. There is nothing like a flawless woman’s body. No creases, no wrinkles, no cellulite. All the curves flowed gracefully without interruption by pockets of fat or love handles. The area where the ass cheeks meet the back of the legs – usually the first place to betray the droopiness of aging – was smooth. I wanted to stare at her naked body all day long.

Feel – Despite never having lifted a weight in her life, her flesh was firm, resilient, and supple. Her muscle tone was taut and gravity-defying. Her skin like silk ribbons. Her labia possessed the springiness of a marine’s cot. My hard on felt like it was bursting out of its skin wrapper.

Smell – A young woman is drenched in estrogen and these vapors send waves of pleasure through the male brain as they are inhaled. Guys will know what I’m talking about when I describe the sensation of getting a lap dance from an especially beautiful and fertile young girl and her natural aroma emanating from her pores grips you in sudden arousal. The smell of youthful femininity is more intoxicating than the sweetest rose.

Experience – In this age of ubiquitous porn, bedroom skills aren’t an issue. Every girl has seen the sex act by the time she has graduated high school. In my opinion, experience is highly overrated anyhow. It’s the plaintive ego-salving of older women who want to believe experience can make up for lost looks. Of all the girls I’ve slept with, I can think of only one off the top of my head who remotely resembled a “dead fish” in the sack. If the girl is cute and she likes you, she’ll gyrate her hips, return your thrusts, moan, wrap her legs, and run her hands up and down your back, which is really all she needs to do to qualify as an acceptable lay. Any cradling of your balls just before you jizz is bonus points. It’s not rocket science.

32 year old

Visual – When she took off her clothes the best I could muster was a chubby. It’s not that she was fat; in fact, she was the same weight and height of the 21 year old. The devil is in the details. The subtle age-related flaws in her body combined to produce an overall effect of fading femininity. There were creases and dimples in places there shouldn’t have been. A small pouch had begun to develop in her lower abdomen. The bottom of her tits pressed against her chest. Unlike the 21 year old, I could not get hard just looking at this woman. Squinting helped.

Feel – One word: squishy. If I had tried to bounce a quarter off this woman’s body, it would have sunk into her spongy flesh. There is nothing more… deflating… than squeezing a chunk of ass meat only to pull away with folds of loose skin in your hand. Even her pussy looked older; the lips more floppy and bedraggled, the color a washed-out hue. Since visual stimulation and the feel of her body were not working to arouse me, I had to mentally concentrate very hard on the tip of my dick building friction with her vaginal wall in order to cum. This is why you will see older women in porn work the penis like a piston with their mouths and hands – hard, firm, and unrelenting tactile stimulation is the only way they can get a guy off.

Smell – Whatever alluring scent a young women has is gone by the time she hits her 30s, to be replaced by some rather astringent odors. The faint whiff of baby powder is missing from the older woman’s skin.

Experience – There can be such a thing as too much experience. Nothing is a bigger turn-off than a woman giving you directions in bed on how to please her sexually. Because she has learned over the years which positions and movements bring her to orgasm reliably, she refuses to deviate from her gameplan, and has closed herself off to spontaneous sexual expression.

Advice from my heart:
To all 30+ year old women – If you want to stay in the game and compete with the younger competition, lift weights regularly and stop directing the action during sex like you were Spielberg’s protege. This will give you a fighting chance against out-of-shape 21 year olds.

Moral of this post:
What a horrible cruel joke of the universe is the brief window of a woman’s beauty. Proof, as if any was needed, that god does not exist.

Read Full Post »

Thoughts On Morality

Right now, in some small town in America, perhaps in Kansas or Iowa, a young father of a beautiful daughter just shot himself in his garage, leaving behind a broken family and unanswered questions.

Where are your tears?

Where are your sympathy blog posts?

Why isn’t your heart open to his tragedy?

WHY WON’T YOU CARE?

Yesterday, a filthy street bum died in the cold night air in a puddle of his own steaming piss and shit.

Why hasn’t he made you feel anything?

Why won’t you immortalize him in eulogy?

“i have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.”
– john locke

You say: “But I didn’t know the man in Kansas or the street bum! Why would I feel anything for someone I don’t know?”

P r e c i s e l y.

You didn’t know Heath Ledger, either. All you knew was his manufactured screen presence. And you cultivated a false relationship based on that. Fact: You were completely invisible to him. HEATH LEDGER DID NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU. Yet you cared. You poured out your heart for him in a way he would not have done for you if the circumstances were reversed. You felt this way because he played roles that “spoke to you” or “touched you”. There was a sensitivity in his eyes that made you feel a “connection”. You experienced good feelings when you watched his movies. Maybe your loins tingled.

That is why you care. Because Ledger brought VALUE in the form of emotional pleasure to your life. He was BETTER than the average human because he was more VALUABLE, and therefore inspired you to feel sadness for his death. We care for those who are worth something. Which leads us inevitably to:

Maxim #3: Some human beings are worth more than others, despite their equality under the law.

Let me tell you how our concentric circles of morality are arranged.

In the small inner circle, we feel the most moral regard for lovers and immediate family.
Followed by close friends.
Then extended family.
Then acquaintances.
And in the distant outer circle, our countrymen.

Substitute “race”, “ethnic religion” or “ideological allies” for “countrymen” if you are feeling especially cynical.

Beyond that outer ring of sympathy I wouldn’t shed a tear for anyone’s misfortune. A hundred thousand tsunami victims floating on the seas like bloated balloons of waterlogged flesh will not perturb me from syncing my ipod. And neither will they perturb you. Or to put it another way, try the following thought experiment:

If you had the power in your hands, would you kill in such a manner as to ensure maximum pain and suffering

a. 10,000 Indonesians if it would save your lover’s life?

b. your lover if it would save 10,000 Indonesians’ lives?

In a worldwide conflagration where the existence of civilization is threatened watch how quickly the conventional morality falls apart. And how much quicker the moral shakeout is justified.

Morality = genetic affinity + expedience + quid pro quo + self-serving status posturing

This is morality defined. Examine your actions over the course of your life and you will see I am right.

Read Full Post »

Bad Sex

It’s often the man who gets blamed for bad sex.

He came too fast.

He didn’t make me come.

He forgot about foreplay.

He wouldn’t go down on me.

In and out, roll off. That was it.

He never kisses me during sex.

All he knew was one position — doggy style. 

Women can be bad lays too, but when it’s the man’s fault there are two possible reasons for it. One, he was inexperienced. Women usually blame all bad sex on the inexperience and ineptitude of the man. This is a comforting thought for them, but the reality is that virginal incompetence accounts for very few poor sexual encounters. For every virgin clumsily popping his cherry there are 10,000 men with extensive sexual histories enjoying a romp in the sack. The second, and by far more frequent, reason for bad sex is that the woman wasn’t pretty enough to stimulate the man to answer the call of duty with enthusiasm. This reason — uninspired sex caused by female ugliness — is understandably disturbing for women to contemplate. There will never be a situation where one girl says to the other “He’s horrible in bed because you’re kinda gross-looking.”

If a woman wants an attentive lover she has to learn to settle so that whichever man she sleeps with is grateful to be there. Only this will guarantee lavish devotion to her sexual needs.

Betas who have managed the trick of getting laid regularly never veer off the path of least resistance. They are satisfied with subpar sex from girls who don’t push their limits. A man of discerning taste should make it a rule to pursue the choicest ass. He knows that phoning in unexciting sex with marginal girls will have a negative effect on his bedroom skills. His thrusting muscles will atrophy and his staying power will grow weak. His tepid loads will barely reach escape velocity. His knack for finding the location of the G spot will disappear. Soon, he will forget what it takes to drive a woman into ecstasy.

Then when the time comes to perform with a quality babe, he’ll stumble into his role unprepared and unsure of his abilities, like a declawed house cat abandoned to the wild.

Easy sex with mediocre girls also risks damaging a man’s self-confidence (though not as badly as involuntary celibacy would). He will begin to wonder if this is the best he can do. As an analogy, if you spend a few hours learning to play one simple song on a guitar and then play only that song over and over for months, you’ll slowly lose pride in your accomplishment.

Seducing a beautiful woman ensures you’ll give her maximum attention to detail in bed. The way to be a sex god is to have sex with women who motivate you to be a sex god. You’d be surprised at the depravity you’re capable of with the right girl. The hottest girl I ever slept with couldn’t stand up for an hour afterwards.

Keep yourself in fighting form. Let the betas hunt wounded prey. Alphas hunt the hunters.

Read Full Post »