What's with the men's long legs fetish?

There is one thing about men I've been thinking about a lot and just can't understand:

Why is it that men fancy long legs?

In works of fiction and non-fiction, I have over many years (as we all have) read countless praising descriptions of one or another woman's looks. Time and again, I have seen a writer admiringly state that the woman had long legs. Long legs are without doubt applauded far more often than, say, smooth skin or firm buttocks. And whenever a man describes a woman's legs, it's almost never about how straight or curved they are, how thick or thin they are, how firm or flabby they are, how hairy or hairless they are. The focus is always on their length, as if that was more important than anything else.

Now, it is perfectly understandable why a man would prefer large breasts over small breasts, or small breasts over large breasts, or a slim figure, or a stout one, and so on. I'm sure most of us have a personal preference concerning women's skin color, hairstyle or pubic hair. Surely there are very few men in the world who don't dislike cellulitis. But, for the life of me, I can't see how the LENGTH of a woman's legs should influence her attractiveness one way or another. I mean, it makes perfect sense when a man doesn't like legs that are too thick, or too muscular, or too bony, or too scarred, or whatever. But what in Heaven's name has the legs' length got to do with anything?

I can understand pretty much everything else about men (and women, for that matter). That's why it's driving me crazy that I can't figure that long legs thing out. Every male writer seems to think that every male reader understand why long legs are better than short legs. This is a clear indication that the long legs fetish must be very widespread. The impossibility of finding even the slightest attempt of explanation to this phenomenon is therefore perplexing beyond words.

Some time ago I found a forum which seemed suitable for openly talking about such topics, and posted this question. In no time my thread was hijacked by complete and utter morons who began discussing the question whether or not the beauty standards "imposed by the society" were justified or not, posting photos of ancient statues to illustrate their points which I must say escaped me completely. In hindsight I realise I should have known that the overwhelming majority of men don't have the slightest capability of, nor interest in, putting themselves into another person's head. For them the question "what goes on in the mind of a man who likes long legs" could just as well have been written in Swahili. Such men are only able to discuss things like how much is the type of women generally held beatiful in this day and age different from that in Ancient Greece, Araby or China. What I need is something completely different. I want to be able to imagine what a man feels when he looks at a woman and finds her attractive because her legs are long.

I'm at the end of my wits. I no longer know whom to ask. So, on a remote chance that someone who reads this is able to help me even a tiny bit closer to the answer, I am posting this article.

Please resists your urge to tell me platitudes such as:

"I don't know why, I just find long legs sexy."

"Not all men like long legs."

"Men like many things, not just long legs."

I am asking you to share your insights as to what goes on in the heads of the men who are aroused by long legs.

To bring you an analogy, there are several possible reasons why some men find large breasts arousing and some men find small breasts arousing.

When a man prefers large breasts over small breasts, the most likely explanation is that we have genetically inherited the preference for large breasts because large breasts can produce more milk and thus increase the chances for our children's survival – meaning, men whose genes program them to get aroused by large breasts have, on average, slightly more surviving offspring, and thus the large-breasts-are-arousing gene spreads better. This is not the only possible reason, though. For some men large breasts might be subconsciously associated with the safety and closeness provided to us by our mother.

When a man prefers small breasts over large breasts, it may be because he generally preferes petite women – maybe because he is relatively short and weak and therefore doesn't feel confident around larger women. Or maybe he is repulsed by the whorish behaviour of women in our time, and petiteness associates in his subconscious mind with youth and youth associates with innocence. Or maybe he likes boyish-looking women because he subconsciously wishes to actually fuck a young man.

This is what I'm looking for here: an understanding of what inner motives might move a man to adore long legs or, for that matter, attribute any importance whatsoever to the length of a woman's legs.

I pray to God whom I don't believe that at least some of you will be intelligent enough to understand my question, because I can't explain it any more clearly than this.

What's with the women's guitar fetish?

 

When I try very hard, I can somewhat understand the women's flower fetish.

When I try really very very extremely hard, there are moments when I can vaguely begin to understand the women's shoe fetish.

But try as I might, I can't understand the women's guitar fetish.

Every woman whom I have asked why women are crazy about men who play the guitar has replied: "I'm not crazy about men who play the guitar." But whenever there is a man playing the guitar, most of the women present have a look on their faces that tells they're ready to strip naked and spread their legs this instant.

It doesn't matter if the man is the most pathetic dork in the world. Neither has the style of music any importance whatsoever. As long as a man plays the guitar, he just can't fail to get women wet.

I understand that the guitar is a phallic symbol, but there are many long and thin objects in the world. What's so special about the guitar?

One female psychologist said, answering my question, that women are generally aroused by a man doing something. But that doesn't explain why groupies despise bass guitar players. Honestly, I wouldn't trust most women to have enough brains to tell a lead guitar from a bass guitar, but strangely enough a man who plays the lead guitar is a god to the women while a man who plays the bass guitar is a nobody.

This fake news story sums it up brilliantly.

It's a joke, of course. But the joke clearly reflects the prevailing mindset – bass guitar players are far less desirable than lead guitar players. I have seen other reports to the same effect. Of course, I don't think the bass players can't get laid at all, but the mind-blowing difference between the lead guitarists' and bass guitarists' general desirability is rather undisputed.

Anyway, the crucial question is not why do women prefer lead guitar players over bass guitar players. The crucial question is why is guitar playing causing such incredible arousal in women. Why, in heaven's name, the guitar?

I would really be very grateful if someone could give me at least some insight as to why do women get so horny over men who play the lead guitar, as this is pretty much the last thing remaining I just don't understand about women at all.

The real reason why we celebrate birthdays

Have you ever stopped to wonder why we have this traditon that everyone is expected to throw a party at their birthday, inviting guests who bring them presents and congratulate them on having grown older by one year as if it was something to be glad of?

I had actual birthday parties with guests at home until I was 16. After that, I had birthday parties only (with one exception) on those years when I was either living with a girlfriend, or belonged to a group of friends who celebrated each other's birthdays even when the hero of the day was unable to attend – it was just an excuse to party. I enjoyed getting together with people and being merry all right – but in my adult age I found no pleasure in having aged by yet another year. That, and the time when I was getting really cool presents ended sometime around 13.  ;-)

Why do most people enjoy birthdays, or at least act as if they did? I eventually found out the (most likely) reason, but in order to make the reasoning easier for you to follow, I'll start with a few brief stories from my life. For your convenience and their privacy, I have given the participants made-up English names.

I remeber that on his 50th birthday, my father said – after the guests' congratulatory speeches – something to the effect of "dear friends, you said many kind words to me, but the sad truth is that I have grown old". He threw an awesome party all the same.

I remember a later occasion when a former long-time female colleague of mine reached 30 and I decided to call and congratulate her, but I wasn't quite sure if I had written down her birthday correctly, so I called and asked her if this was her 30th birthday. To my surprise, she reacted really offended, and I completed the call quickly and didn't congratulate her after all. It was her 30th birthday all right, I gathered as much, but I had been too clumsy to realise that I wasn't supposed to remind her of her age. Not when a woman gets 30.

Anyway, over the years I found myself wondering a lot why do we celebrate the anniversary of our birth instead of some great events in our life? Obviously your birth hasn't got the slightest to do with you. It's solely the achievement of your parents. Now, a reason to have a party and scream with joy would be, for instance, the anniversary of my very first sex act. Such an event would be a thousand times more a reason to celebrate than something as random (from my point of view) as my birth.

When I shared that thought with a friend of my girlfriend's in one of our frank discussions, she said she couldn't imagine herself visiting a lady friend with a bouquet of flowers and congratulating her on losing her cherry. Figures. Of course women wouldn't be exactly eager to openly celebrate something sexual. But still, there are personal achievements that are perfectly decent. Why don't we celebrate the anniversaries of those?

Now comes the story that helped me put it all together. My uncle Edward (more precisely, the husband of my aunt Julia) had died. He had been among the people I have most admired during my life. I knew he had troubled relationships with his wife and apparently with his younger son Tony, and I had heard about bad things he had done in the past, but that was past. To me he was totally one of the greatest men I've ever had the honour to interact with. I was very happy when I was able to do him a favour or two in the final years in his life. Also it filled my heart with the deepest gratitude when I was allowed to be one of the coffin carriers at his funeral.

My elder cousin Paul's wife Kate hated Uncle Edward. I remember a conversation I had with her where she happened to say casually "Well, you obviously didn't come to Edward's funeral to pay him your respects, did you? You came here to help Julia and Tony and the others to come to terms with his death."

I was dumbfound that she would say such a thing. I had come to the funeral precisely to pay my respects to Uncle Edward. As to Julia and Tony, they were grown-ups, they knew people died. It had never crossed my mind to try and play psychotherapist to them. Apart from which, it had always been obvious they didn't exactly love Uncle Edward. They had more like put up with the inevitability of his presence in their home. Trying to console them was beyond the last thing on my mind.

However, that expression of Kate's, "help them come to terms with", kept echoing somewhere on the edge of my counciousness, and one day it suddenly dawned to me how it was so relevant to an event of a completely different kind. You guessed it – the birthday!!

We visit people on their birthdays and congratulate them and give them presents and be merry with them in order to not give them time to feel the anguish. Birthday celebrations are meant to help people to come to terms with the horrible truth that they are getting older.

This is how it works:

When we are very young, our parents often celebrate not only the passing of years, but even the passing of 1, 2, 3 etc. months from our birth. They have every reason to toast their immense achievement – the mother has actually raised a baby inside her body, and, well, the father has also helped a little bit. To have produced an actual living, sentient being is a miracle, really, when you stop to think about it. So of course the parents want to shout their joy from the rooftops.

When the child gets a little older, he becomes actually aware of his having a birthday once a year. He notices how his parents are so happy on that day and everybody are so kind to him and bring him presents and he gets to eat birthday cake. That pleasant experience is repeated every year and thus getting habitual. Apart from which, a child wants to grow up as quickly as possible, so getting older is really a happy occasion to him. By the time it no longer is, one has this program firmly fixed in one's neuronal connections that birthdays are a cause for merriment, and even when we have some doubts about it, we simply have to organise birthday parties because it's expected of us, it's what people do.

It would take great courage to tell your family and friends: "Look, I have decided to stop celebrating my birthdays, because there is no pleasure in getting older. Instead, I will invite you all over on the anniversary of my graduation from the university, because it is an achievement of my own of which I am really proud." Obviously, people would consider that a little weird. And it is very likely that many people would disregard your decision and continue to congratulate on your birthday – simply because they are celebrating birthdays of their own, and they need their friends to come over and bring them flowers and presents and thereby expel the grief of having gotten older from their minds.

By the way, this theory explains plausibly why women are so crazy about birthdays – to them getting older is a real devastation, so they need this "helping to cope" thing a lot more than we men do.

Cat and guinea pigs murdered by Russian spies. Or?

I do not know who committed the crime against Sergei Skripal. I have not seen the crime scene, I have not examined the victim and I haven't even followed the story in the news.

I have no doubt that the Russian (or whichever other) secret service is not above killing a double agent (or whichever undesirable person) by using nerve gas or whichever other suitable method.

That said, I was stupefied by this article in The Guardian by Haroon Siddique and Luke Harding. I double-checked that it was not published on 1st April. No, it was 6th April.

That article is so incredible that I actually took screenshots, so in case the newspaper eventually realised what earth-shattering foolishness they had published, and altered the article, they wouldn't be able to deny that they had originally published what I am saying they had.

The article begins with:
 

Two guinea pigs belonging to Sergei Skripal died and his cat was put down after the Salisbury nerve agent attack, the government has revealed.

Note the word "after". Of course the journalists can say they never said "because". But 90% of the readers who read the words "dead after the nerve agent attack" assume that the animals died as a result of the nerve agent attack. Messrs. Siddique and Harding know that perfectly well. This is a brilliant example of how journalists put thoughts in people's heads while being able to insist afterwards to be as innocent as Caesar's wife.

But that is a trifle compared to what comes next.

A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the dead guinea pigs and a "distressed" cat were discovered when a vet was able to enter Skripal’s home, which had been sealed off during the police investigation. Defra said it believed the guinea pigs had died of thirst.

I re-read those sentences several times and I still can't quite believe my eyes.

Let's recapitulate what that paragraph says:

1. Home was sealed off.

2. After a period of time, a vet was able to enter the home. (Meaning, he wasn't until then.)

3. When he did, he found dead guinea pigs.

4. The guinea pigs had died of thirst.

Now ask yourself (or anyone else) these question:

1. What causes thirst?

a) nerve agents

b) lack of water

2. When you lock up an animal without water, what is the likely result?

3. Who is to blame for the death of the guinea pigs?

a) Russian secret agents

b) the British police who sealed off the home, leaving the animals inside

You might think the story can't possibly get any absurder. You would be wrong. It does:

The Sun reported that Skripal’s black cat, Nash Van Drake, was put down after being tested at Porton Down, where he was found to be severely malnourished.

What would you do when you found a malnourished cat? Would you put it down to end its suffering, or would you... well... um... FEED it?

It seems to me that some kind of a nerve agent has damaged not only Mister and Miss Skripal, but also an unknown number of British scientists and journalists.

No, women aren't innocent and naive (Part 2)

Hopefully, I succeeded in the previous part to make it clear that when you chat up a woman or even ask her out on a date, you mustn't assume that she doesn't know that you are after sex. She knows you want to fuck her. The only thing she doesn't know is if you are inventive and determined enough to break through her (fake or actual) resistance in a socially acceptable manner. (I will come later to why she will resist, why any woman will resist in the first place.)

Needless to say, the same applies when you ask her over or when she invites you to come over. You tell her you have a really very cute cat, would she like to see it, and she says: yes, I'd love to. You smile to yourself, thinking how lucky you are that she is gullible enough to not realise your true intentions. For the rest of the evening, you keep calculating in your head when will be the right moment to reveal your sexual interest in her so as to not scare her off by letting the proverbial cat out of the sack when she is not yet "ready". (The feminists keep telling us that women do things only when they are ready, so we men spend insane amounts of effort trying to catch that magical moment when she is "ready".) The shocking truth is – from the moment the two of you agreed on a date (if not before), she has been calculating in her head when you will make your move and what it will be like. Mind you, all I'm saying is you can be certain she has been thinking about it. I am not saying she necessarily wants it. Although they do much more often than we think. As someone said: "If you are wondering if you should, chances are she is wondering why you don't."

Most seduction teachers pay a lot of attention to the signs of attractions. Those are largely irrelevant. Noticing signs of attraction tickles our pride, but they mustn't really affect our strategy. Meaning, even when there are no signs of attraction, it doesn't mean you should back off or something. And even when the signs of attraction are clearly noticeable, you still can't just grab her tits. Be the signs of attraction present or absent, you still have to do pretty much the same thing. You have to conquer her in a non-aggressive, yet confident and unrelenting way.

Your strategy and the woman's attraction signals relate to each other pretty much like the Red Army and the landmines. The WW2 Soviet generals openly admitted that they didn't worry about minefields. Even when they knew there was one in their way, they didn't bother with finding it or even disarming the mines. They just ordered their soldiers to advance as if the minefield was not there. Part of the soldiers got killed, the rest went through. It's the same thing with conquering a woman. Even when you can observe no signs of attraction, you still advance, and keep advancing until you have reached your goal. When there are signs of attraction, it's a good thing, but the only thing it means is that she is likely to surrender faster. Your basic strategy is the same, regardless of signs of attraction.

So, how do we overcome her resistance without giving up, yet without getting ourselves in trouble?

Do you know the Chinese martial art called Wing Tsun? It is an external soft martial art that teaches that you must never counter force with force. At the same time you never retreat. You advance. Should you meet no resistance, you simply break through, that is, injure the enemy. Should you meet resistance, you move sideways and continue advancing. You never try to break through the enemy defence with force, yet you never move backwards. The only movements are forward and sideways.

I have found that the basic principles of Wing Tsun describe exactly the optimal strategy when seducing a woman. You do something to her. She says no. You immediately cease the (ostensibly) offending activity. You don't argue. You show no sign of displeasure. And an instant later you continue your offensive in a different way. As soon as she objects to whatever you're doing, you stop doing it and continue with a different approach, as if nothing was wrong. You continue trying out one method after another until she ceases to object.

Specifically, what is it that you should do? That depends on what kind of a person you are. Some men are very glib talkers. Me, I'm a lousy talker. Some men are able to come up with a trick or a game or a non-serious bet that will give them an excuse to get physical. For me, I have discovered that the best approach is simply to start caressing her in non-offensive places, such as the back or arms. Women have told me that I am very good with my hands. You will have to try and find out what works for you, but I would totally recommend taking a massage class. I don't know if you have any idea how horny a perfectly innocent back and legs massage can make a person. (And, as I hardly need to remind you, the buttocks are located right between those two.)

The feminists Louis and Copeland say in the preface to their famous book that you must always respect (or was it "honor"?) a woman's "no". That is an incredibly stupid thing to do. You must never break through a woman-to-be-seduced's reluctance with physical force, but neither must you ever respect or honour her "no" – that is, if you want to get to fuck her. Whatever you are doing, you interrupt your advance upon her "no" (a sideways move), and a second later you will unperturbedly continue to advance in some other way (a forward move from another angle). Like, I had accompanied a woman into her hotel room after a date, and we were in the bed. I was (of course) naked. She had stripped down to her bra and panties, but she wouldn't take them off. She kept telling me that she was not going to have sex with me. I just kept touching her up. When she brushed my hand away from her breasts, I touched her down there, and when she brushed my hand away, I touched her breasts, and so on, until she finally stripped naked, and she even sucked my dick. Now, at that moment when she finally gave up her resistance, I wasn't doing anything special. I just kept doing what I had been doing, until her, as it were, reservoire of reluctance had ran dry. Of course her nonwillingness to have sex had been a pretense from the beginning.

I am sure that every man who has seduced several women has stories like this to tell. Many men are much more persistent (as well as much more successful) than I am. The methods of siege differ from case to case. They may be physical or verbal. But the basic principle of seduction is the same: to overcome her resistance act in such a way that she won't feel abused.

Now, I think the explanation is overdue as to why the woman always resists, even when she actually wants to have sex with you, even when she has actually arranged for the two of you to be together in private. That will be the topic of the next part of this article.

[To be continued]

Why do Farang men fall for ladyboys?

When you begin to gather information about the sex market in Thailand, you can't avoid running across numerous warnings about ladyboys: how there are so many of them and how they are so difficult to detect.

"Ladyboy" is a common term for transvestites and transsexuals. Transvestites are men who wear women's clothes, and apparently many of them pose as women in Thailand and woo tourists, so they would take them back into their hotel room – only to discover that what they thought was a girl has a penis. Transsexuals are persons who were born male but later chose to undergo sex-change surgery. From what I've read, they have surgically-constructed vaginas that can actually be fucked, although they don't get wet, and there is supposedly a slight risk of rupturing the thing when the penis is too big or the fuck too intensive.

On almost all photos, ladyboys look very obviously non-women. However, I remember a photo of a naked girl whom I would have never suspected, yet the person who had posted the photo claimed that the person on it was a ladyboy.

When I went to Thailand for the first time, I was very cautious about it. Before I took a girl back to my hotel, I stuck a hand into her panties regardless of her protests to make sure she had a vagina and not a penis. As to transsexuals, I found myself agreeing with one writer who said that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then he'll just treat it as a duck. I decided that when a person looks like an attractive woman, talks like an attractive woman and acts like an attractive woman, I don't care if he or she is a sex changer or not. I will fuck him or her and not worry about it. After all, it's the nice body that matters, not its ability to produce children.

As to the supposed difficulty of detection, one mustn't forget that transsexuals have only their genitals and breasts altered, not their throats or arms. Regardless of the silicone breasts and such, there is a good chance that the voice should give them away, and regardless of them having learned to walk like women, their manly muscles still have a good chance to make them look unattractive to us.

However, there is this weird thing – I have seen white women back home and in other white countries whose faces look very much like Thai ladyboys to me. Their percentage is especially large among beauty pageant contestants. In the distant past when I still watched those, I often found myself wondering how could any man find such women beautiful. Women I saw looking out of my window were on average clearly prettier than those tall and big girls especially chosen as suitable candidates for the titles of beauty queens. To make it absolutely clear – I am not talking about fat ugly dykes here. I am talking about women who are generally very stylish and attractive to many men, but tall and with crude mask-like faces. (To give you an idea what I mean – look at the porn models Sandee Westgate and Priya Rai. They have obviously female genitals, and I have no reason to suspect that they weren't born female, yet their faces look repulsively unfeminine to me, as does the large size of their bodies.)

Anyway, on my second trip to Thailand, I had this curious experience. I was walking along Sukhumvit Road, and there was another one of those places where girls stand on the sidewalk and do all they can to awake your interest. One of the girls gently grabbed my arm and addressed me, as girls do. When I looked at her, I not only found I didn't particularly fancy her – I also had a strange feeling that something was wrong. Anyway, I happened to be on my way to somewhere else, so I walked on. A little later it occurred to me that those girls were unusually tall for Thai women. Also they had faces like those big blatantly unfeminine chicks back home. So they might well have been ladyboys, I realised. The point I am trying to make is this – while I don't know what they had in their panties, I do know they didn't look like anything I'd ever want to fuck.

I also had my suspicions about a quite normal-looking, petite girl I took from a go-go bar in Angeles. When I was inserting my penis into her vagina, she began to wail and protest like she was in pain or something, and she adjusted her position and I tried it again, and again she wouldn't let me, and so we continued until I lost my erection and she gave me a blowhandjob. (I rewarded her with a correspondingly small tip.) Also she acted in a strangely dominant and aggressive way with the other girl. So she might have been a transsexual. Again, I have no way of knowing for sure.

Those two are the closest encounters I have personally had with ladyboys. Need I tell you that I stopped worrying about the ladyboy danger eventually? So I was mildly amused when a friend of mine told me this story. I knew his grown-up son who had moved to Australia after school. He was still living there, and the two of them decided to have a holiday together in Thailand. My friend told me how he took a woman into his hotel room and he or she turned out to have a penis. And he said there were several occasions when a woman caught his fancy and his son was like: "Get real, dad, that's a man!"

The point is, some men (such as my friend's son and myself) seem to be able to easily tell ladyboys from actual women, and some men just can't.

That story, along with that beauty pageant weirdness I mentioned, brought me to the realisation that many white men are apparently attracted to tall big women with rough unfeminine faces. That is why such women keep scoring high in beauty contests and that is why some men keep ending up with penissed girls in their hotel rooms.

Another thing about that buddy of mine: I have noticed how he keeps getting mildly gay when drunk – not outright touching, but brushing against me all the time, and generally getting uncomfortably into what I perceive as my private space. Whenever I try to move away by 20-30 cm, he just moves closer, apparently not aware of it himself. Apart from that private space thing, he has never shown the slightest sign of homosexuality. The way he talks, sober or drunk, he is a staunch hetero. Married and a repeat adulterer, for that matter.

Could it be that the men who fall for ladyboys fail to recognise them as such because, subconsciously, they don't want to?

Could it be that they sense the male pheromones naturally secreted by the ladyboys' bodies, and that turns them on (as well as turns men like me off)?

The suppressed homosexuality hypothesis does not explain the popularity of tall stone-faced white women. It is therefore likely that the primary reason for the ladyboy-gullibility syndrome remains the affected men's yearning for a big strong woman taking care of them (in other words, a substitute mother), while subconscious homosexual tendencies enhance the effect in some cases.

No, women aren't innocent and naive (Part 1)

In the English language, the testicles are colloquially often referred to as "balls". In a number of languages, such as German and my own native language, the word is "eggs". Now, the same word "eggs" obviously also means chicken-eggs, the ones we eat. When men talk about chicken-eggs in my native language, they usually say "chicken-eggs" and not just "eggs", so as to avoid the allusion to the testicles. Women, by contrast, virtually always say simply "eggs", as if it had never crossed their mind that the word can also be understood to mean "testicles".

There are a number of other words and expressions that mean everyday things but can also have sexual meanings. Undoubtedly, that is the case in English and other languages as well. The point is, women frequently use those expressions and men find themselves smirking and rolling their eyes, amused at the women's ignorance of those words' sexual meaning.

Actually, women know precisely what those words' sexual meanings are, and they use them intentionally – either to bring men's thoughts to sex without coming across as sluts, or because they simply happen to be in the mood to tease the men in earshot a little.

* * *

Ever since we're old enough to understand what sex is, we are told on every step how women detest being viewed as sex objects and how we are supposed to value a woman's personality rather than looks, and how it's despicable if not even sick to desire sex before deep emotional closeness between the partners has been reached. In virtually all American movies today, it's women who initiate sex. Men seem to be spending no thought on sex at all unless it's with their steady partner. Whenever a man shows sexual interest in a woman without a clear initiative from her part, or (shudder) in more than one woman, it is usually a cue to the viewer that that man will turn out evil in one or another way. Positive heroes pretty much run away from horny women until one of them grabs him and drags him into bed – after which he will, of course, be unable to have sex with any other woman for the rest of his life.

Being brainwashed by feminist propaganda, being constantly surrounded by feminist propaganda, it is no wonder that when we see an attractive woman and approach her, we automatically assume that we must under no circumstances let her guess our true intentions. We are certain that she is not interested in sex and will consent to it only after a highly attractive man has wooed her for a long time, eventually overwhelming her with romanticism she just can't resist. We are certain that as soon as she realises we want to have sex with her, she will be repulsed and hold us for a pervert and never want to see us again.

The truth is: she knows you want to fuck her. She knows it from the moment you lay your eyes on her. What she doesn't know is if you have the guts to go through with it. Neither can she know if you have decided to remain faithful to your girlfriend no matter what. But she most certainly knows you desire her body. When you approach a woman and address her, don't think for one second that she is so naive as to believe you are "not like that".

Why am I so certain? Because – blood-chilling as the realisation may be – she is bound to have been approached like that tens if not hundreds of times. A man leering at her from distance trying to look like he isn't, then approaching her coyly, then making conversation on some innocent topic, trying to make it look like he has no interest in sex whatsoever, then asking for her phone number and leaving, so as to not scare her by advancing too quickly, then calling her after a week or two when she's already tired of wondering if and when he'll call and ask her out... I can imagine how fed up women must be with one likeable man after another turning out to be an insecure dork.

Women know we want to fuck them. We are not supposed to say it directly (I will come to the why), but we aren't supposed to be ashamed of it either.

* * *

The overwhelming majority of men think that dating is a kind of war – your goal is to get her into bed, her goal is to amuse herself with you and avoid having sex with you afterwards. Either you win and she loses, or she wins and you lose. 

That mistaken assumption is made because men think in terms or giving and reciprocating. They see sex as a kind of commodity which she owns and you want, and which she can give you or not. Now, women's resolute resistance to men's sexual advances is an obvious fact each one of us has, if not experienced personally, then extremely familiar with from books, movies and conversations. When we think like a man, there is only one possible conclusion we can draw – either sex is unpleasant to the women, or they are able to enjoy it only under some very special circumstances. After all, if women enjoyed sex the way we do, we could simply approach them and propose it and they would agree – or, in some cases, excuse themselves with being busy at the moment or having their periods or us being not handsome enough or such. That is obviously not happening. In movies, we can see women hitting men or throwing their drinks into the men's faces for offences much less grave than an outright proposal of sex. That leaves no doubt in our minds that women don't want to have sex with us.

How come women have sex with men at all then, we ask ourselves. The answer is not hard to find. Why do people do things they don't want to do? Either because they are forced, or because they get something in return that makes it worth their while. The first option being clearly out of the question here, only one solution remains – in order to make her submit to getting fucked, we must give her something of comparable value. With every date – we believe – we gather some satisfaction points with her, and when we'll have gathered enough points, she'll reward us with sex. When another guy gets a woman into bed after the first date and we don't, we assume that our date wasn't cool enough, and try to think of something more spectacular for the next time. As a result we find ourselves in constant stress, wondering how other men seem to be able to come up with romantic ideas that get women into bed and we don't.

During your frustrated ponderings over that dating nonsense, it is not surprising when the question occurs to you: why have there to be intermediaries? What is the point going through that charade with dinners and movies? Why not just give the woman an appropriate amount of money and be done with it? Why are we required to pay for sex indirectly, but forbidden to pay directly? Why is the latter viewed as insulting, humiliating or even criminal?

Let us assume, for instance, that you spend 150 euros on dates and then succeed in seducing her. Suppose that from those 150 euros, you get roughly 50 euros worth of food and pleasure, she gets roughly 50 euros worth of food and pleasure, and the remaining 50 euros is the restaurant-owners' profit. (The numbers may differ from case to case, but the principle remains the same.) Now, if you would have just given her 100 euros, she would have received twice as much benefit. You would have spent the same amount in material terms, but saved a lot of time and spared yourself a considerable amount of anxiety, frustration and embitterment. There is no question that the emotional cost of seduction can easily be worth more to a man than the actual money spent.

So why doesn't this logic work? Why won't the women just take the cash and spare you all that effort of figuring out dates romantic enough to be worth to be rewarded with sex?

The mistake men make is to go out from the erroneous presumption that dates are about giving to her. It seems reasonable from a man's point of view, but women don't work that way. For a woman, dates have three functions. Firstly, a date enables her to get comfortable with your presence. (For you, seeing what a woman looks like is sufficient to decide whether or not you want to have sex with her. It's not that simple for a woman.) Secondly, going out on a date first makes it easier for her to not appear like a slut when she does go to bed with you. (It is not sufficient for her to want to have sex with you. It has to take place in a socially acceptable way. Having sex after a date is socially acceptable, it's what people do. I'll cover this in more detail later.) Thirdly (and that's what this article is all about), it allows her to learn what kind of a man you are. It's not what you give her. It's what kind of money you are comfortable with spending.

Perhaps the principle can be made clearer by this simple analogy. There was a cartoon set in the village of a hunter tribe. Two young men were courting a girl old enough to get married. The girl said: go into the woods and kill an elk and bring it to me. I will get married to the one who does it. One of the men actually killed an elk. The other man found a way to lure him into a trap and stole the elk from him. I won't go into the rest of the plot. The point is: why did the girl tell her suitors to bring her an elk? Because she wanted a dead elk? No, she wanted her future husband to be able to hunt down an elk, because if she commits herself to spending the rest of her life with him, he has to be able to provide for her and their children. She had no use for a man who stole an elk from someone else and brought it to her, because she didn't need the actual elk. It was not about increasing her possessions by one elk, it was about making sure that her fiancé was an able hunter.

As much as many of us like to pretend to stand above "such things", we still have the same instincts. The woman wants you to take her to a fancy restaurant not because she wants to get a meal at your expense. She wants to see that you are the kind of man who is wealthy enough to be cool about paying for an expensive dinner.

Look how Vin DiCarlo so brilliantly sums up the dating problem from a man's point of view:

"I ran my own cleaning business after college, and I recall spending tons of money on fancy dates, just to be rejected when I'd go for the kiss. And then she wouldn't return my calls. I EARNED that money – what'd she do to earn it? Sit there and look pretty, so I could sweat and rack my brain for conversation topics for two hours straight."

The sad truth is: if taking her out is bleeding you dry, what is your value as her future husband? Close to none. No matter how amusing you are to spend time with, you won't be able to give her and her future children a secure and stable life. Actually, you will be far more attractive when you take her to a date affordable to you. That will show her that instead of trying to show off, you are able to get things done with the means you have. Yes, on average she would prefer a rich man over a poor man, but she will prefer a poor man who takes her to a walk in the park to a poor man who spends his savings to take her into a fancy restaurant – because the latter is reckless and the former is responsible. A fool ruining himself trying to impress her might be good enough to take advantage of, but a man resourceful enough to come up with a date without ruining himself is clearly more qualified as a husband. (Yes, I know you don't want to marry her, you just want a fuck. But in order to efficiently lure women into your bed, you must understand what it is that makes them attracted to you.)

To clear away a possible misunderstanding – I don't mean to say that a woman goes to bed only with men she would like to get married to. I mean to say that one and only life-long marriage is her supreme goal, and the qualities that make you suitable for becoming her one and only life-long husband are the very qualities that make her sexually attracted to you. That is why, contrary to what the porn magazines insist, the size of your wallet affects your attractiveness far more than the size of your penis. (For that matter, it's the exact same reason why men are aroused by well-shaped bodies. Men are subconsciously looking for women able to produce many big strong healthy children. Women are subconsciously looking for men capable of defending the family and providing for the same.)

To clear away another possible misunderstanding: of course it's not primarily about money. Even if you aren't all that wealthy at this moment, you can still be attractive if you show her that you have goals and are willing to work to make something out of your life.

For that matter, even if you are a complete and utter loser, you can still be attractive if you are an unusually glib talker who can make her believe that you have a great future ahead. But we can skip that part because if you were, you wouldn't be needing any advice on handling women.

In any case, when out on a date with you, she is not after getting flowers and food and gifts and amusement out of you. She is after getting to know what kind of a man you are.

next part