Archive for the ‘evidence’ Category

“That’s the name of a song, right?”

May 16, 2011

Last summer, I tried to seduce a girl who resisted my charms. We went on 3 or 4 dates within as many weeks. There was a charming dynamic overall, albeit overpeppered (for my taste) with constant heavy shittesting. We danced, we shared stories, I sexualised our conversations, but all that happened physically was one passionate kiss. After that she playfully evaded me, always responding to txts, but not agreeing to meet, until I dropped her. After 9 months of no contact, here’s a facebook chat I had with her the other day.

ME: [her name], how have you been?

[let’s see if she responds…]

SHE: hi, glad to hear from u, to be honest? bad

[genuine response]

ME: why?

SHE: [her current problem at work]

ME: just got back from [job at vacation spot]. great fun.

[truthful dhv]

SHE: jealous about u, what is about ur work, so when will [my cultural achievement] come out?

[bites and remembers previously ignored more substantial dhv from last year.]

ME: oh, [my cultural achievement]. yes, it will come out this year. presentation in [location].

SHE: send me a copy with autograph

[she appears to be in groupie mode here, which would be excellent. but she might just be shittesting: if i were too happy about this fawning response (revealing neediness), she’d lose interest. so i’ll ignore her request.]

ME: what are you up to these days (other than having erotic fantasies about me)?

[unabashed sexualization and prizing. note: if she just answers the question, ignoring the parenthetic remark, then she’s implicitly accepted that i can say stuff like that and that she has these fantasies, making it social reality between us. if she responds (positively or negatively) to the notion that she has erotic fantasies about me, then she is following my sexual escalation. tricky situation for her.]

SHE: ………………….. just having erotic fantasies about u, that is all cuz of [her current problem]

[she bites: accepting the frame, but playfully undermining it with irony.]

ME: i was worried that it might be so.
addicted to those fantasies?  distracted from your work?
baby, we need to have a talk.

[playfully rubbing it in to solidify the frame]

SHE: about the context of the fantasies?

[she plays along, good.]

ME: exactly. i think you need catharsis.

[escalate sexualization]

SHE: keep u arms on pc while writing me pls

[reframing attempt: i am fantasizing about her, not her about me. in reality, it’s mutual.]

ME: this is about YOU. i am concerned about your mental well being.

[playful rejection of reframing attempt.]

SHE: since what time u have been concerned ?

ME: since hearing that you do nothing but fantasize about me. here’s what the doctor prescribes…

SHE: [my name], we havent spoken for a long time, what is going on that u r writing me? cant forgive urself that i may be affected by u 😀

[she had rebuffed my sexual advances. i like the implicit admission here that i might have more deeply impressed her.]

ME: i saw you on chat. something you may not know about me: i harbor protective feelings about friends.

[playfully cheesy – but true. also: comforting her with the friend frame.]

SHE: o really, i fucked up my life, [list of her current problems], so what would the smartest and sexiest [my name] suggest?

[i like her words. she is poking fun at the image i claim for myself: smart and sexy. but really she believes it.]

ME: (1) discipline: no more than 1 hour of sexual fantasizing about me per day from now on.
(2) catharsis

[expand on the plan by which i lead her to a better life]

SHE: just real sex with guys, ok

[shittest: she wants to see if i get jealous or insecure about the idea of her fucking others. i entirely ignore this and continue the program…]

ME: mental catharsis: you write down your fantasy in detail each day and send it to the doctor.
physical catharsis: you may masturbate to your fanatasy one time (but no more) each day.
(3) control: the rest of the day, you get your life in order.

SHE: from 1-2 boyfriend will deal with, 3… there r troubles

[she tries to expand on her shittesting theme of other boyfriends]

ME: boys, boys… [her name]. they are not the solution.

[playful nullification of her “other boys” shittest. note that “boys, boys…” also implies that i am not among them: i am the man.]

SHE: suggest girls?

[i like her playful suggestion of bisexuality: this softens her shittest into a charming tease.]

ME: girls are good, but… not the solution, either.

SHE: r u in conflict with ur girlfriend that now trying to compensate smthng?

[she’s trying to analyse me, but then she’s also happy to try another shittest, namely to put me on the spot. in addition, she might want to find out about my current situation.]

ME: which girlfriend?
it’s complicated.

[you get what you deserve for your shittests, baby.]

SHE: its always complicated so (1) dicipline …. other i think u known

ME: ?

SHE: try your recipe on yourslef

[strong rejection of my attempt to playfully lead her]

ME: i don’t have your problem.

[factual response emphasizing the polarity between us. i realize this is heavy artillery, but she asked for it.]

SHE: my problem??? what is my problem

[i hit her close to home. she is a little upset now.]

ME: as you said: intrusive sexual fantasies about one particular man, who is too far away for direct sexual release.

[i lead it back to the playful sexual frame from before, sidestepping her negative thoughts, and introducing the notion of the two of us fucking.]

SHE: ok, cool, then what do u want ?

[she’s in “whatever” mode, but still hooked.]

ME: a description of your fantasy. i want to see your imagination.

[sexualization, attempt to get her to qualify (does she have imagination?) and invest (work at writing it).]

SHE: i understand that for sexual arousal u need some text from female written with idea about u but sorry i cant write cheap porn stuff – not for me.

[is she mad at me? is it a shittest? or does she feel unable to write well enough? a bit of all of the above, i guess.]

SHE: have to go and dont project on me ur own stuff pls, it makes really bad image of u

[slightly clumsy manipulation attempt: if she says what i’m doing makes me look bad, then i will have to stop. yeah, right.]

ME: not cheap porn stuff.
your unique erotic fantasy.
that’s a big difference, baby.

[combine the sexual frame with the idea that she is unique and important to me. top up with an affectionately presumptive “baby”.]

SHE: dont call me baby

[mad-at-me shittest.]

ME: that’s the name of a song, right?

[i’m proud of this spontaneous response, and i will use it in the future, no doubt.]

SHE: have a good evening, hope u will get better, see longtime flights have an influence

[shittest: she’s suggesting i’m momentarily deranged.]

ME: i am good. and like to see you smile.

[i don’t bite. instead get more serious and positive.]

SHE: see me what?

ME: when you are down, i like to give you some of my good time. so you can smile and be happy for a moment.

[i’m reminding her that i’m spending half an hour entertaining her and giving her my attention. and i do like her.]

SHE: should i understand it directly or read between lines?

[thinks i’m bullshitting – she’s halfright.]

ME: directly.


ME: and between the lines.
both, baby.

[escalate again, by disrepecting her previous request not to be called “baby”.]

SHE: my iq doesnt let me, u know

[playful withdrawal shittest: she’s claiming she lacks the intelligence to converse with me. but then also: she might really be a little insecure in this regard.]

ME: your social and emotional iq is very high. and i like that a lot.

[genuine appreciation of something special about her. true.]

SHE: (scared) sounds like compliment

[how sweet and genuine is that?!]

ME: sometimes a compliment is a compliment.

SHE: that is why i am wondering

ME: why?  

SHE: to easy for u too
have to go  

ME: alright. talk to you later.

[not clinging]

SHE: then have a good evening, have a real girl pls (its more healthy!)

ME: i have enough real girls. i want to be in touch with you.

[true strong frame.]

SHE: u know my fantasies about u r only for me. u wont get them

[explicit admission without irony.]

and i think that [flattering description of me] shouldnt have any relationship with [unflattering description of herself], u know

[this is evasion but might also reveal that she really does feel somewhat unworthy of me. i didn’t fully appreciate this point during the chat.]

ME: societal boundaries only heighten our feelings.

SHE: stop stop stop. we started with instincts lets finish with them also.
feeling theory will try on another one.


[sweet how she negotiates the arc of the interaction: sexual start to sexual finish. she is threatened by the idea of the possibility of feelings between us. this reveals my potential emotional power over her. she is asking now to keep it just sexual. i should have said ” societal boundaries only heighten our attraction” instead of “…feelings”.]

ME: send me your fantasy then. talk to you soon.

SHE: no way! it’s for me can’t share. c u

[she, again, refuses to share. but note that it is now social reality between us that she has sexual fantasies about me. i don’t respond anymore, but leave it for another day.],t=1,mt=video

Julian Assange’s OK Cupid Profile

December 18, 2010

Check out Julian Assange’s alleged OK Cupid profile:

If he set up this profile, he clearly has game.

I’m a thug, I’m a lover, I’m a dog, I’m a father…

August 27, 2010

Meredith Brooks sings:

I’m a bitch, I’m a lover
I’m a child, I’m a mother
I’m a sinner, I’m a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I’m your health, I’m your dream
I’m nothing in between
You know you wouldn’t want it any other way

Imagine a male version, a smoky, ultra-masculine voice singing:

I’m a thug, I’m a lover,
I’m a dog, I’m a father
I’m a sinner, I’m a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I’m your h/wealth, I’m your dream
I’m nothing in between
You know you wouldn’t want it any other way

The interesting thing is: this gender inversion renders the final line “You wouldn’t want it any other way” true.

This is because the original lyrics are in fact a confused inversion of the reality of gender dynamics.

While women love assholes, men do not love bitches.

Women love assholes because they project power, which is what women are primarily attracted to. Men do not love bitches, because being a bitch does not enhance beauty, which is what men are primarily attracted to.

Being highly desired, can cause arrogance in either gender, turning a woman into a bitch and a man into an asshole. However, the reverse causality only works on women. So for a man acting the asshole increases his sex appeal. But for a woman acting the bitch doesn’t increase her sex appeal.

The misguided inversion of genders sometimes leads females to try seduction tactics on men that are bound to fail. For example, I’ve had women neg me to seduce, saying things like: “I don’t like you.” and “You don’t have any sense of rhythm.”

Now, of course, it could be that she just really didn’t like me or I don’t have any rhythm. However, in these situations it was obvious from context that she was just trying to get my attention.

This phenomenon is fascinating. The technique is unlikely to have ever worked for her on a man. That she is using it reveals her thought process: she knows it would work on her, and she assumes that men are the same.

There’s even a book selling this misguided idea to unsuspecting women…

Honest grandmother

August 24, 2010

“Women are an unpredictable race. They always want the unattainable. You need to proceed strategically: remain unattainable. No one can take that right from you.”

– My grandmother’s words (I remember the exact phrasing because I wrote it down immediately after the conversation)

Sex to her: like dancing to me

August 21, 2010

I love dancing – with women – as part of the game. It’s a metaphor for sex.

But when she is mine sexually, my motivation to dance with her and my enjoyment of it diminishes.

Is dancing just a means to the end of seduction for me then?

No. I genuinely enjoy it for the experience itself – but it is irresistible to me only in the context of seduction.

Sex to a woman is like dancing to me. She loves sex. But when a man is thoroughly hers, her enjoyment of sex with him diminishes somewhat. Is sex just a means to the end of conquering a man to her then? No. She genuinely loves it – but it is irresistible to her only in the context of seducing a man to fall in love with her.

Equality and power dynamics

August 19, 2010

“I want our relationship to be equal.”

Sounds good. But what does it mean?

What if one of the two is afraid to lose the other and starts accepting patterns that hurt him or her?

Let’s say it’s a closed relationship and no one is cheating. However, she adores him too much and ends up working to please him all the time, while he is cruelly ignoring her. (That could be a happy relationship, if she is masochistic — as many women are. Or it could be an unhappy situation for her, if she has less of a taste for his cruelty.)

Or vice versa: perhaps he is constantly giving her love and attention and this makes her lose interest in him sexually. (That could not be a happy relationship for most men.)

Unfair situations arise because one has more power than the other.

Can the more powerful person mend this?

We would like to say: Yes, the more powerful person can shape the relationship. The more powerpul person should not abuse his or her power.

But the answer is: No, the more powerful person cannot fundamentally change the balance of power.

One can strive to be honest and not to abuse one’s power. But in sexual relationships if you have power, you have it. And whatever you do won’t change that. You can’t hand over the gun.

You cannot give the other the freedom to do what they want if what they want is to please you. Freedom cannot be given, it can only be taken.

And you also can’t make yourself feel like doing things you don’t feel like doing. You can pretend within narrow limits of minor favors. But the other doesn’t want favors, they want you to want to — and controlling that is simply beyond your powers.

Can the less powerful person mend the imbalance? Only to a limited degree: One can strive to hold one’s own, correcting the balance. But if you don’t have power, it’s hard to hold your own indefinitely.

Either one could end the relationship. The one to whom it is unfair should end it, right? But perhaps he or she doesn’t have better options. So ending it would be sacrificing a measure of happiness for the abstract ideal of equality.

Or the one who is more powerful could end it. But perhaps he or she is enjoying it, despite (or because of) the unfair form that it takes.

In reality, the unfair relationship just reflects a larger unfairness of life: that the two don’t have equal options. Should the one with better options be required to give them up and be less happy than they could be?

I say no. After all, it would mean that the more powerful one is asked to accept a relationship that he or she would be better off without.

Is any perceived unfairness always just a reflection of the relative options of the two?

I don’t think so. There are situations where people fuck others over by making them underestimate their power, by making them helpless and dependent, so that they feel they don’t have other options, when actually they do. For example, if the other died unexpectedly, they might find themselves better off after a short while. Some men do this to women; some women do it to men. It’s dishonest.

While it sounds good to say both should strive for equality, it’s unclear what that really means.

Does equality mean both are allowed to do the same things, like sleep with other people?

Ideally yes, but then perhaps one has more options to do such things, and so, despite the symmetric rule, it’s not actually symmetric.

Or perhaps both have equal options, but one has no interest in sleeping around. And so, again, it’s not actually symmetric. Or perhaps, both have equal options and equal interest, but one is hurt every time the other does it and the other doesn’t care comparably. And so, again, it’s not actually symmetric.

Or should equality be taken to mean both get equal love?

That seems closer to a meaningful definition of equality. But then this likely means somewhat different things to each.

For example for an average man, getting love might essentially mean sex. And for an average woman getting love might essentially mean attention.

If there’s a script in which attention precedes sex, women can take men’s attention and not give any sex.
And if there’s a script in which sex precedes attention, men can fuck women and not give any attention.

When each gives something they’d rather keep to take something they want, that’s prostitution. It comes in two varieties, an honest and a dishonest one: the bordello and marriage (or monogamous relationship), respectively.

I want none of that at all, no prostitution of any type.

I want sex with people who want sex with me and friendship with people who want friendship with me. And ideally these should be the same people, but that complicates things. And ideally both the fucking and the friendship should be deep and thorough, and this further complicates things.

Doing both at maximal intensity with a single person is perhaps the deepest and most satisfying experience. But it is also most complicated and least likely to occur, let alone last.

The symmetry this non-prostitution sex-love or fuck-friend ideal suggests is only present at an abstract level. For the sex to be hot, there must be a strong sexual polarity.

Women are generally turned off by men who don’t have power — while men can love women who don’t have power. Conversely men are generally turned off by women who don’t have beauty — while women can love men who don’t have beauty. ‘Opposites attract’ — and opposites are by definition maximally unequal. But then also ‘birds of a feather, flock together’: similar interests on top of sexual polarity make the perfect mix of contrast (for sex) and concord (for friendship).

Because of the major gender differences, a relationship that is both happy and fair in terms of love given and received is often not a symmetric one. For example, the man may need more power (unequal) and the woman may need more beauty (unequal) for an exchange of equal love.

And then with age, beauty fades and power rises — to a point, before it drops. So the woman may have more options in her twenties; the man may have more options in his forties. This is why relationships, where the man is older (unequal) may be better matched in terms of sexual options (more equal).

If both are equal in genetic attractiveness and age and in their twenties, the woman may run away (singing ‘I’m like a bird’), because she has many exciting options. Perhaps around thirty there’s a period of equality (of sexual power for age-matched partners equally ranked among their peers). But this equality of sexual power is short-lived: In their forties, the man may run away, because now he may have more exciting options.

Let’s say I had five girlfriends who love me and I them — five open relationships, because I am honest. We tell our friends that it’s
symmetric and open. But perhaps one of them only wants to sleep with me — it’s not unheard of. So actually it’s only symmetric in theory. Is it unfair?

Maybe. She might suffer because I’m sleeping around. But then maybe she doesn’t mind that as much as leaving me for a different guy. And maybe if I became monogamous, she would be less enticed by me.

So, in summary, we can have symmetric rules (that meet our friends’ approval), but still an unfair relationship — even one where one misleads and fucks the other over. Or we can have major inequalities (appalling to all our friends), but still overall a fair and honest relationship, in which both are as happy as they can be.

It is very superficial things (looks, power) that make us fall. But the consequences are not superficial. The love is real, and the sex is good.

Two out of three

August 18, 2010

The female sex module selects men by their personality, preferring traits of the dark triad: narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy.

I’ve got one of them in abundance by nature.

And machiavellianism I just fake to manipulate her.

Two out of three, I do alright.

I love the way you lie

August 11, 2010

Eminem and Rihanna are two artists with histories of violent relationships. They are perfectly cast in the roles of “tornado” and “volcano” in the duet “I love the way you lie”.

Ok, perhaps Chris Brown, Rihanna’s real-life abusive, and much beloved, boyfriend would have been even better, but he doesn’t write or rap like Eminem.

The two artists’ roles in the song are defined by gender at every level: Rihanna sings (feminine), Eminem raps (masculine). Rihanna feels and emotes, Eminem acts and then judges. Rihanna is the victim. Eminem is the perpetrator and takes responsibility for his actions.

Rihanna’s chorus:

Just gonna stand there and watch me burn
Well that’s all right because I like the way it hurts

Just gonna stand there and hear me cry
Well that’s all right because I love the way you lie

I love the way you lie

Rihanna’s explicit masochism is reminiscent of Leona Lewis’s “Bleeding Love”.  The word “burn” suggests emotional pain in the beginning of the song. But Eminem’s final verse takes the story to the bitter end of a bride burning fantasy.

If she ever tries to fucking leave me again, I’ma tie her to the bed and set this house on fire.

In the video the couple is played by Megan Fox and Dominic Monaghan. Note than Megan’s character brings beauty to the table. Dominic is distinctly less good-looking. His character’s appeal to her clearly lies in the lies, the tattoos, the short fuse, and the violence that ensues. All of this rhymes perfectly with the female sexual program.

We see Megan Fox’s character literally playing with fire in the beginning: a small controlled flame in her hands. At the end, Megan is shown in flames, and serene as she burns – now literally.

“I love the way you lie” is an interesting line and title. Manipulation and lies are usually thought of as per se unattractive acts that serve the manipulator’s purpose (e.g. to seduce a woman) only through their consequences (e.g. she believes his lies). However, manipulation asserts control. To women, therefore, the act of manipulation itself is deeply sexy. She does not have to believe his lies to love them. On the contrary, if she deeply believed that he will never hurt her again, she would immediately be much less attracted to him. The manipulator’s sex appeal is lost on a woman who doesn’t sense the evil at all.

The song’s run-of-the-mill R&B production is uninspiring, but the lyrics and vocal performances are great. They push the envelope of mainstream sensibilities just enough and not too much. They attract attention, even controversy, to help sell the song, while not disqualifying it as a mainstream cultural product.

The song stokes controversy by going one step across the line. The personal experience and genuine expression of both artists is expertly channeled by the producers for this purpose. They clearly succeeded: Rihanna has been predictably criticized for glorifying domestic violence with the song.

After her own public romance of delicious domestic violence and sweet reunion with Chris Brown (which has been discussed broadly and deeply on Roissy’s blog, here’s one post), she received counseling and has publicly stated that women should leave abusive relationships. Will her female fans do as she says, or as she does?

Well, the real flame attracting them is their own sexual program. But Rihanna’s story (like Whitney’s and Madonna’s) and sweet siren pop songs like this one, are perhaps little garden torches that help set a romantic mood and mark the path through the darkness that leads to the flame.

We have to appreciate what is honest about the song: the description of the dynamics of passion. Eminem’s lyrics are excellent. But note that while Rihanna’s role is to enjoy the pain of victimhood, Eminem’s role is to assemble the facts, analyze them, judge them, admit to his lies and violence, and take full responsibility.

What makes this song interesting is that it tempts the truth. What makes it acceptable to the cultural mainstream is that it doesn’t go all the way to the truth. Going all the way would mean an honest look at her role and responsibility in the dynamics. To take that look is much scarier than seeing her burn and would disqualify the song as a mainstream cultural product. Sex and violence sells, but female sexuality is still a serious taboo. (I have discussed this before, here.)

No matter how much Rihanna admits that she loves the way it hurts and the way he lies, the lyrics place the responsibility squarely with him. Good boy, Eminem. We have an excellent product.

PS: Rihanna’s “Rude Boy” isn’t bad, either…

I love the way you lie

[Chorus – Rihanna]

Just gonna stand there and watch me burn
Well that’s all right because I like the way it hurts

Just gonna stand there and hear me cry
Well that’s all right because I love the way you lie

I love the way you lie

[Eminem – Verse 1]

I can’t tell you what it really is, I can only tell you what it feels like

And right now it’s a steel knife in my windpipe

I can’t breathe but I still fight, while I can fight

As long as the wrong feels right it’s like I’m in flight

High off her love, drunk from my hate, it’s like I’m huffin’ paint

And I love it the more I suffer, I suffocate

And right before I’m about to drown, she resuscitates me, she fuckin’ hates me

And I love it, “wait, where you goin’?”

“I’m leavin’ you,” “no, you ain’t, come back”

We’re runnin’ right back, here we go again

So insane, cause when it’s goin’ good it’s goin’ great

I’m superman with the wind in his back, she’s Lois Lane

But when it’s bad, it’s awful, I feel so ashamed I snap

Who’s that dude? I don’t even know his name

I laid hands on her

I never stoop so low again

I guess I don’t know my own strength


[Eminem – Verse 2]

You ever love somebody so much, you can barely breathe

When you with em you meet and neither one of you even know what hit em

Got that warm fuzzy feeling

Yeah them chills used to get em

Now you’re getting fuckin’ sick of lookin’ at em

You swore you’d never hit em, never do nothin’ to hurt em

Now you’re in each other’s face spewin’ venom in your words when you spit em

You push pull each other’s hair

Scratch, claw, hit em, throw em down, pin em

So lost in the moments when you’re in em

It’s the face that’s the culprit, controls you both

So they say it’s best to go your separate ways

Guess that they don’t know ya

Cause today that was yesterday

Yesterday is over, it’s a different day

Sound like broken records playin’ over

But you promised her next time you’ll show restraint

You don’t get another chance

Life is no nintendo game, but you lied again

Now you get to watch her leave out the window

Guess that’s why they call it window pane


[Eminem – Verse 3]

Now I know we said things, did things, that we didn’t mean

And we fall back into the same patterns, same routine

But your temper’s just as bad as mine is, you’re the same as me

When it comes to love you’re just as blinded

Baby please come back, it wasn’t you, baby it was me

Maybe our relationship isn’t as crazy as it seems

Maybe that’s what happens when a tornado meets a volcano

All I know is I love you too much to walk away though

Come inside, pick up the bags off the sidewalk

Don’t you hear sincerity in my voice when I talk?

Told you this is my fault, look me in the eyeball

Next time I’m pissed I’ll aim my fist at the drywall

Next time there won’t be no next time

I apologize even though I know it’s lies

I’m tired of the games I just want her back

I know I’m a liar if she ever tries to fuckin’ leave again

I’ma tie her to the bed and set this house on fire


When she endlessly repeats the same question about you…

August 7, 2010

I open a girl at a bar.

Me: “Your drink looks poisonous.”
She: “It’s my favorite.”
Me: “It will kill you.”
She: “I hear an accent. Where are you from?”
Me: “Where are you from?”
She: “I’m from here. Where are you from?”
Me: [pause] “Abroad.”
She: “I can tell as much. What country?”
Me: [pause] “A dark land.”
She: “Tell me.”
Me: [mock serious pose]
She: “Where are you from?”

I smile and leave her hanging to go back to my friends.
Ten minutes later, close to the dancefloor, she reopens.

She: “Where are you from?”
Me: [calm, friendly, questioning expression]

She: “Where are you from?”
Me: “You should be dancing.”

She: “Where are you from?”
Me: “Is it important to you?”

She: “I just want to know. Where are you from?”

She repeated that exact same question another five, or so, times. The exact repetition almost appeared as an attempt at pretending the question had not been asked and left unanswered previously. Asking it freshly, as though out of the blue, might trigger a reflex to truthfully answer, she might have felt. Or perhaps she was just planning to wear me out.

I never told her.

Different situation: 21-year-old HB8, third date (not counting two meetings in groups), and she is still resisting the kiss, playing good girl.

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “Old!”
She: “How old?”

Me: “Imagine a number, and I’ll read your mind and tell you if you’re right.”
She: [annoyed look]
Me: “Close your eyes and imagine a number.”
She closes her eyes. I wait a couple of seconds, then break out laughing: “Ha, ha, ha, I’m much older than that.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [calm, friendly expression]

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [mock serious pose]

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [amused chuckle]

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “I am a vampire. I’m hundreds of years old.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “I don’t remember exactly. I was born so very long ago.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “Please say it again. It’s sexy.”

She’s shocked and also amused, turns away for a moment in frustration.

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [Taking out iphone to film her say it.]

She: “No, you can’t film.”
Me: “It’s so funny and sweet. Just want to capture the moment, please say it again one more time.”

She: “I don’t like you.”
Me: “Yes, I know you like me.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “I like your passion.”

She: “What passion?”
Me: “Your sexual passion, which makes you want to know.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [no response]

She: “Why don’t you answer? Is it a problem?”
Me: “You want to know why I don’t tell you?”
She: “Yes!”
Me: “I like that you feel this passionate curiosity. It is a very beautiful thing. It’s my gift to you.”

She: “How old are you? Show me your ID card?”
Me: “I’m sorry officer, I left my card at home.”

She: “I’m going to find out eventually anyway!”

She steps closer, touches me, faces very close now.

She: “How old are you?”
Me: “Actually I have my ID card here in my pocket. But it’s fake. If you were police, I’d show it to you. But to you, I am honest, so I won’t show it.”

She: “How old are you?”
Me: [gazing straight into her eyes with brashness and amusement]

Passionate kiss!

The exact repetition of the same question, again and again and again, is an interesting phenomenon. These girls were both young. More mature women perhaps would stop themselves. However, I suspect there is a lesson here that applies not only to young girls.

What makes her repeat the question?

Of course, she really wants to know. Perhaps she wants to wear me out through repetition. That’s probably part of it. Perhaps she wants to trigger the beta male’s reflex to truthfully answer any question. So her motive is to find out as much as to shittest me.

But more importantly, she feels the heat rising between her legs with each denial of an answer. And she is simply addicted to repeating that experience.

Priceless advice: refrigerator game

July 13, 2010