The great thing about tearing the scales from your eyes and seeing the world for what it is rather than what you wish it to be, besides the additional poon such clear thinking offers up for pillaging, is that science eventually comes around to proving the validity of your personal observations, thereby boosting your ego major and giving you permission to gloat in a blog post to an audience of millions.
In my post “Hotter Women, Better Sex“, I wrote:
How your body responds to a woman during sex tells the tale. The hotter I find the girl, the better the sex is, all else being equal. Since men remember sex acts with crystal clear clarity, it’s easy for me to recall the exact specifications of my sexual encounters with each woman in my life. Not to put too fine a point on it, but my jizzbombs were heavier and the distance ejected farther with the prettier girls. Since this is something I cannot consciously control, it is proof of the innate characteristics of the male sex drive.
In the interest of science, I’ve put my beauty-to-cumload comparison in a handy chart:
hotness of woman size of load squirt distance
0 * *
1 * *
2 * *
3 pre-cum only had to be squeezed out
4 droplet dribble
5 <5 grams 2 cm
6 fills bellybutton 3 inches
7 1 tbsp 8 inches
8 2 tbsps 1.5 feet
9 1/4 cup 3 feet
10 gallon** 5 yards***insufficient data
**extrapolation
Thought I was being glib when I wrote this? Maybe being controversial just for the sake of controversy? Oh no, I was telling it like it is, and now science has confirmed the truth of what I wrote in this study showing that sperm travel faster toward the eggs of more attractive women (hat tip: Kassam):
New research found that males can adjust the speed and effectiveness of their sperm by allocating more or less seminal fluid to copulations. The determining factor is whether the male finds the female attractive.
The study, conducted on red junglefowl, a director ancestor of chickens, adds to the growing body of evidence that males throughout many promiscuous species in the animal kingdom, including humans, can mate with many females, but chances of fertilization are greater when the female is deemed to be attractive. […]
“There was a strong relationship between sperm velocity and the volume of the ejaculate sperm came from,” Cornwallis and O’Connor determined, adding that males allocated “larger ejaculates to attractive females.”
The mechanism behind this remains a mystery for now, but the scientists have an intriguing theory.
“Males may alter the velocity of sperm they allocate to copulations by strategically firing their left and right ejaculatory ducts, which can operate independently,” they explained.
Stimulation from sexy, attractive females, therefore, leads to the double firing.
“Furthermore,” they added, “differential firing of left and right ejaculatory ducts may contribute to how males strategically change the number of sperm in their ejaculates, a phenomenon that is widespread, but for which the mechanism remains unknown.”
Guys, you want kids? Only blast inside attractive women. You’ll increase the chances of knocking her up with your turbocharged seed. You don’t want kids but hate condoms? Stick to rawdogging women a couple of points lower than yourself on the mate ranking scale. Your ennui during lovemaking will ensure your tepid jizztrickles never find their way to her unattractive eggs.
In another post, I wrote about the critical importance of the neg as a game concept in picking up women cold:
I’m coming to the conclusion that the best opener is a neg straight out of the gate. In order to set the right tone as soon as you begin talking to a girl, you want to establish alpha cred immediately before any of her beta-sniffing circuits have had a chance to subconsciously dress you down. The quickest way to sear alpha grill lines in a woman’s heart is through the neg.
Stop the presses! Reader Welmer has a post up at his blog about a study demonstrating that negging women, particularly highly anxious (read: flaky, attractive and under 30) women, will cause them to respond positively to you.
And what about when the boyfriends behaved negatively? Again unexpectedly, [high social anxiety] women behaved more negatively when their boyfriends behaved more positively to them. Among low-social anxiety women, there was no difference in behavior regardless of how their boyfriends behaved. Why did the highly-anxious women behave worse when their boyfriends were being nice?
I’ll answer that. Because women with options subconsciously register niceness, especially persistent, knee-jerk niceness, from a boyfriend as evidence that they can do better. To a woman’s mind, niceness often means “He’s placating me. I must be too hot for him.” This is why all men absolutely MUST learn game, if they want to find happiness.
I’ve no doubt science will continue to prove my theories, maxims and observations about men and women correct. If you are able to jettison the great lies that have been foisted on you from birth by nearly everyone around you, from your parents to your peers to the culture at large, you will discover that science eventually comes around to confirming at least 80% of your personal, anecdotal observations.
It’s a good feeling to live with truth.
[crypto-donation-box]
