Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Julian Assange’s OK Cupid Profile

December 18, 2010

Check out Julian Assange’s alleged OK Cupid profile:

http://julian-assange-fanciers-guild.tumblr.com/post/2184631787/the-ok-cupid-profile-of-harry-harrison

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

Ass pinching = shit testing

September 21, 2010

Men like to pinch the asses of attractive female strangers. It’s natural. It feels good.

I’ve discussed in detail that female shit testing is really rubbing up against your manhood. Ass pinching, then, is the male equivalent of light variants of female shit testing. As such, it should be considered equally acceptable.

Both practices serve the same twin purposes: Testing before investing, and then also: just enjoying the other’s sexual quality. When we are slightly attracted to a stranger, these testing behaviors are hard to resist. Whatever the result of the test, it’s win-win for the testing party:

  • If he or she fails the test, then we’ve enjoyed whatever little desirable female or male quality the other party had to offer, and more importantly, we now know that we need not pursue.
  • If he or she passes the test, then we have escalated the interaction and know that we are going to take things to the next stage.

(A related argument is here.)

Like shit testing, ass pinching is a compliment. It means: I’m considering you.

Both ass pinching and shit testing are objectifying and, thus, slightly demeaning. That’s ok as long as it’s playful.

In the interest of gender equality, if shit testing is allowed then so must be ass pinching.

Perhaps ass pinching should be more acceptable than shit testing: After all ass pinching is healthy for women (a micro-massage), whereas shit testing stresses most men and reduces their life expectancy by a couple of years.

Ass pinching should be the average male’s goto response to a shit test. View the shit test as permission to pinch her ass. The only problem: You might not know that what she just said or did was a shit test. But then pinching without permission is sexier anyway.

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)

The Masterplan

August 23, 2010

I want it all: Sexual fulfilment and long-term love. But how can I reconcile the idea of a loving and equal relationship with the female sexual preference for the dominant mysterious manipulator, whom I love to play?

There is no easy fix, but the following game plan might do the trick.

I am open to where life takes me. The freedom of roaming as a single man and the security of long-term love both have substantial appeal. Combinations of these two elements are possible, either concurrently (in an open relationship) or sequentially (regaining freedom if love is lost). But either alternative by itself could also be fulfilling.

I have high standards in selecting a long-term partner. She has to be hot, passionate, loving, interesting, intelligent, and honest. And she has to accept the sexual polarity. (“I treat a bitch like a queen, but she’s got to realize I’m the goddamn king.” – Gangster of Love by the Geto Boys)

I hold myself and her to high standards for maintaining a long-term relationship. I’m radically honest. I enjoy the love and relatively greater security of a relationship. But I balance this with relationship game and independence. I accept her sexuality, including some degree of drama generation and continued shit testing (which I consider her rubbing up against my manhood). But I also expect the relationship to be soothing and loving overall. If she brings more stress than soothing over an extended period, I explicitly threaten to end my commitment and follow through if necessary. This converts the relationship to some combination of fuck-buddies and friendship, if she is open to that, or ends it altogether.

I lead the cultivation of the sexual polarity, and expect her complicity. I will offer her a common narrative, in which I am a kind of superhero and she is there to adore and support me. She will accept and help elaborate this narrative, effectively gaming herself and boosting my confidence. Her complicity is essential. Should she reject the offer of building a common narrative of this nature together, then I will reclaim my freedom. (The bottom line is this: if she doesn’t cooperate in creating the sexual polarity that she needs to maintain her sexual attraction, then I’d rather game multiple girls and enjoy the sexual variety of the single life.)

If she says she loves me and I believe her, I may conditionally accept monogamous commitment. I will only do this if I trust her monogamous sexual and emotional commitment and if the sexual chemistry is great. As long as we keep this up, she has me. However, I will reclaim my sexual freedom should I subjectively feel that she is less committed or if the sexual chemistry between us fades. She is the commitment leader; my commitment will always be a little below hers. To the extent that she inspires my trust, my commitment will approach hers.

If I subjectively feel that her commitment has dropped, I will reclaim my sexual freedom without confronting her about it. I may or may not stray at that point. Perhaps she turns it around before I do. Should I stray, I will not confront her about it, but will not go out of my way to lie either. I will make sure not to mislead her in the long-run by pretending to be entirely committed when I am not. If she finds out I strayed, I will explain that I reclaimed my sexual freedom, because I had a strange feeling about that part of our relationship. I will not seek to find out whether she cheated or what happened. My feeling led me to reclaim my freedom. I won’t hate her. She might win me back. I will continue to be emotionally committed if this is reciprocated (in what has by then become an open relationship).

If this game plan makes a long-term love relationship impossible, then I’ll enjoy the freedom of being a single man.

You like a slut?

August 22, 2010

Slut is a term used to shame women who have a lot of sex.

Why would having a lot of sex be a bad thing? And why should it be particularly bad for a woman?
Poetry of Flesh has an interesting first-person perspective.

Progressives embrace the idea that men and women alike should be sexually free. It’s everyone’s right, right?

We’re tempted, thus, to redefine slut as “sexually passionate and promiscuous woman”, and to counteract the stigma by using the term with positive connotations: “She’s wonderful — such a slut.”

While the political plan of destigmatizing the term has some appeal, there is little indication that the stigma will be overcome  anytime soon in mainstream culture. The stigma is deep-seated and strangely powerful. More so, than that of, say, ‘gay’, today.

Beyond the intellectual considerations of a political discussion, we may ask ourselves how we feel about sluts. How do we feel about having a slut as a girlfriend, wife, or daughter?

Personally, I’d say my ideal is a woman who is very sexually passionate, but also highly selective. A woman who has experience, but no compulsion to jump random strangers. Hammer has some interesting thoughts along related lines on sluts versus hedonists and sexual-liberator game.

Baumeister and Twenge (2002) argue that slut shaming occurs mainly among females to keep the price of sex high. Their argument makes sense. Dumping willing vaginas on the market should be bad for women (except those very vaginas) and good for men: (1) Men get more sex. (2) Men get more power (as the sexual deprivation that enslaves many men is alleviated).

Nevertheless, slut shaming is widespread among men as well. And surprisingly, given that sluts give sex, especially in the sphere of game.

Personally, I won’t game a girl, lay her, and then disrespect her for being easy. I feel that that’s fucked up and prefer less conflicted relationships with women. I’ve had long-term girlfriends that slept with me on the first date. They are no less trustworthy (and not even necessarily sluttier) in my experience than girls who play chaste.

Male slut shaming may have a lot to do with sexual insecurity (“Can I compete with the others?”) and vagina envy (“Why is she getting laid more than I?”). But can we dismiss it so easily?

Here‘s a recent example from Roissy’s blog. The slut shaming on Roissy’s blog and elsewhere is part of an agenda to curb female power.

The general evolutionary-psychology argument about the discontents of today’s sexual market is compelling:

Females are attracted to powerful males. Merely equal males are never sexually attractive. This already creates a real problem for the progressive ideal of equal societal power: Equality of societal power means that most men are not attractive to females. They can get to have sex only to the degree that culture enforces monogamy, such that males and females are matched in pairs, and few are left out.

This is where  sexual liberation comes in to compound the problem. Sexual liberation means a free sexual market, unconfined by monogamy. And in a free sexual market, female sexual preference dominates. The reason for this is greater female selectivity reflecting the biological scarcity of eggs and abundance of sperm: Only a small proportion of the males is needed to keep all women constantly pregnant.

Ironically, the result of a sexual market dominated by female sexual preference is soft polygamy: few alpha males monopolize access to sex with most females. A female may suffer from her chosen alpha’s promiscuity, but not enough to settle for a male she could have to herself.

The chosen alphas reflect female sexual preference, for power, along with dark-triad traits (narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Like the males’ promiscuity, these particular preferred traits may cause suffering for the women liberated enough to follow their sexual preference. Beyond these preferred traits, the alphas are special for their position at the center of a crowd of women. Nothing attracts a crowd of women like a crowd of women.

Indeed most men, today, are sexually frustrated to varying degrees. It’s not surprising that they are angry and aggressive. Something has to change to integrate them better. I’m just not sure that shaming sluts and reinstating 50’s-type morality will do the trick at this point.

In the interest of both genders, we cannot let sex be controlled entirely by the female brain’s sex module.

Game is one response. But will it suffice?

Does anyone have a serious answer to this?

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.

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

[Chorus]

[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

[Chorus]

[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

[Chorus]

Game is a gift to women

August 9, 2010

Is game fake and manipulation? Yes. We’re cheating God, who wants assholes and abusers to rule women’s sexual fantasies. We’re tricking women into desiring us, even as we are caring and loving at heart (in secret, as she wouldn’t respond well to such knowledge). We do this because we enjoy sex and sexual power. As a side effect, it saves women from their own immutable biological program of sexual preference. A man with game will give a woman the exact amount of domination, degradation, and abuse she sexually needs. But unlike the true asshole and the true psychopath, he can control the dosage.

Rubbing up against your manhood: a slightly different perspective on female shittesting

August 7, 2010

Sexual girls will test you from the very first moment. For example, she may look you in the eye and keep eye contact in order to try and make you uncomfortable. Look away first, and you’ve failed the test.

Alternatively, she may ask you an innocent-seeming question. Answer her seriously (whatever your answer may be), and you’ve failed the test.

Naive men are surprised and confused by this over and over again. Why is she doing this?

One accurate answer is: to test your masculine mettle. It’s called a shittest. If you’ve looked away first or naively answered her question, she is done with you.

Why is looking away bad? Because it suggests that you are more nervous than her. This means you are weaker than her, and hence you are sexually repulsive to her.

Why is answering her question bad? And doesn’t it depend on the answer?

Check here at 2 min 10 s, for an example:

Should he have given a different answer (truthful or not), so as to impress her?

No. Whatever answer he gives, he’s failed her shittest. Whether his answer is honest or not is beside the point. Whether his answer is impressive or not is also beside the point. The fact that she asks and he answers establishes that he will let himself be led by her. This means he is weaker than her, and hence sexually repulsive to her.

How to pass the test? Don’t answer. Dominate by silence. Change the subject. Mock her. Ask a different question. Just don’t jump through her hoop.

It may be hard to believe, but how you handle her shittests is de facto more important to her than all your objective qualities. Your personality, your work, your brilliance, your looks, your social connections, your societal status, your wealth: all these things matter to women to some extent. And some of them, like status, matter more than others, like looks. However, failing her shittests will render all your objective qualities irrelevant by comparison.

Disentangling the contributions of different factors to her sexual response is complicated by the fact that the factors are dependent. For example, to the extent that your looks lend you status and confidence, they do (indirectly) make you attractive. Another example: your passing or failing of her shittests may reflect your general level of confidence; so one could argue that the tests are effective at probing a deeper quality.

However, female sexual preference is fundamentally superficial, and arguably more so than the male sexual preference for beauty. A confident man with excellent genes, good looks, high intelligence, and high societal status, may fail shittests simply because he is too honest and trustworthy. And this weakness will trump all of his deeper strengths. He will not get laid, let alone loved by her. Similarly, a careful man of solid judgment will tend to project less confidence than a bold man who, like George W Bush, will judge incorrectly and then refuse to admit his error. And the latter will get laid and loved.

Feeling your manhood: testing versus just enjoying

The concept of shittest suggests a probing and information-gathering function. Once you’ve passed a sequence of such tests, your manhood should be accepted (or rejected), and the shittesting should end. However, to the extent that the relationship remains sexual in nature, her shittesting, though it might become milder, may never end.

This is because what we call a shittest is not just a test. It is rubbing up against your manhood, and it serves not only to test but also to feel and just enjoy your manhood.

Just like squeezing a new girl’s tits and ass is equal parts testing and enjoying their physical quality, her shittesting is equal parts testing and enjoying your manhood. And both activities are equally objectifying in a sexual way.

Do you stop squeezing her tits, once you know they are good? Not entirely: because you just enjoy it. And so she will not entirely stop shittesting, even when she knows who you are: because she just enjoys feeling your manhood.

Recall that porn is about physical encounters that reveal the female object’s physical beauty. And romance novels, the female equivalent of porn, are about story, dialogue, emotion, in short: dramatic interactions that reveal the male object’s dominance and power.

Similarly, the female equivalent of rubbing up against your sex is not touching your prick, but creating dramatic interactions that reveal your dominance and power.

Being rubbed up against without one’s consent can be an unsettling and degrading experience, whether it is the physical (male) or psychological (female) variant.

Either type of rubbing up against the other sex is a natural sexual response. However, the male variant is shamed (in the absence of consent), while the female variant is widely accepted. This seems all the more unfair when we consider that manhandling a woman is generally unharmful to the woman’s health, while the stress that female shittesting creates for men over their lifespan is substantial and likely contributes to men’s lower life expectancy.

However, a few of us learn to enjoy the abuse, like a massage, and to playfully assert the dominance she so craves to feel.