email serge


Target of strategies

Men, and even boys, have male strategies to achieve sexual satisfaction. These strategies are success-oriented, and they have two targets at whose expense success is achieved.

The one target are other men who have to be won against in a competition for access to females. Competition against other men can be constructive such as improving the own sexual market value by improving ones own physique, or ones quality as a lovemaker. Or they are destructive by undermining the sexual market value of other men. Examples of undermining male competitors could include cheap booze for others, or rumour mongering, or racist activity and propaganda aimed at putting down large groups of competitors.

The other target of male strategies are women. In this context, strategies include advantage-taking, cheating and a whole pletora of other forms of dishonesty.

Women don’t like male strategies that target women. Women want men to conform to their own ideas on what characteristics men should possess. That is quite natural, and women are not to blame for this. Alas, there is no happy synthesis for male and female sexuality. There always is a tilt towards one or the other.

That human sexuality is designed for conflict makes for its evolutionary edge.



It’s not the richest man who gets the most and most beautiful girls. It’s also not the most powerful who fares best. And a person who may be in the top one percent of the sexual attractiveness scale will most probably not be the one with the best “body count” (the one who gains the highest number of best-quality sexual partners).

That man will fare best who knows best the tricks of the trade. It is essential to be a good liar. Honesty may not be the best policy. But you want others believe that you think that “honesty is the best policy.” Therefore, do repeat often that you do believe that honesty is the best policy. Only then can you be a perfect liar.

It’s essential to lie if you want to improve your body count. You want to be loved by as many attractive women as possible, and you want to be loved as deeply as possible.

But women are not that stupid. If they notice that you just want to consume them, they will be reluctant to love you deeply, and they may not even grant sex. Most women are not willing to invest emotion into men who just regard them as temporary partners.

Women usually are prepared to make concessions regarding physical attractiveness of men, if a man seems sufficiently serious.

“Seriousness”, at the end of the day, comes down to the willingness to marry. And to still be her husband when she is old and no longer attractive at all.

You don’t want that. You want to be a youthful lover to the end of your days, with a new genuine love affair at not-to-long intervals, or a good number of parallel love affairs at all times.

To be honest of your intentions will get you nowhere. That’s not where you want to go. You want to land in bed with her, and you want her to agree to that because she loves you. Hookers do not count in the “body count”.

It won’t be the most attractive men, and not the most powerful ones who score the best “body count”. A marriage impostor whom nobody suspects to be one will most likely win the trophy. So much for the tricks of the trade.


Wrong priorities

Depression is a common condition among aging men and women. While, being a man myself, I have an easier time writing from the perspective of a man, I assume that the causes for depression are largely the same for women as they are for men.

Most depressed men are depressed for a good reason. Deep inside, they know that what they are lacking is a satisfying love life, or, in more direct terms, good sex. Better sex.

There possibly are many advantages to lifelong monogamous relationships: they are good for raising children, they likely are economically sound, and in a dangerous world, they can be protective capsules. But one thing they can not. They cannot make for a satisfying love life. Not for an extended period of time.

I realize that a good number of my readers are in longtime monogamous relationships, and I do not want to offend those who respect my writing; not individually, anyway. But I do believe that deep inside, every person wants to be free. And this means: free to have many sexual relationships.

I am not against longtime relationships. I have them, too. More than one, though this is sometimes difficult to manage in a world where US American standards of sexual morality encroach upon every part of the world. It is possible only if one enforces a certain level of secretiveness and mobility.

For successful Asian men, the import of US moral standards can feel like virtual castration. For men in many Asian cultures, to have parallel sexual relationships is a behavioral pattern to ease the unnatural restraints of monogamy. And Asian wives fear that by Americanized rules, they would have to separate from husbands who have parallel sexual relationships but nevertheless are good providers, family men, and fathers, thus ending up as losers anyway.

American ideology educates women that it breaks their heart if their men have sex with other females. Asian women also like men for themselves, and do not want to share them with other women. But Asian women are more willing to compromise. There are many other things one can get out of men, not just faked faithfulness.

Ethnically I am not Asian. Ethnically, I am a Westerner. But I have lived in Asia most of my adult life, and Asia is my home. Because I know both cultures equally well, I know what is wrong in the West, especially America, and what is right in Asia. For example: the awareness that women, even though they, too, have a natural polygamous impulse, have an easier time to adapt to monogamy than have men.

Mating strategies of men and women have been shaped through evolution and, in principle, by reproductive success. And reproductive success has formed the male and female sexual frame of mind.

No, we do not carry our genes to reproduce ourselves; rather, our genes have designed us to reproduce themselves. This includes mating strategies. They are their, not our choice.

Archetypal male mating strategies emphasize the aim to fertilize as many females as possible. By contrast, archetypal female mating strategies emphasize the aim to provide the best conditions far a much smaller number of offspring (which includes, for their sons, the best possible conditions to fertilize as many females as possible).

But we have to be aware of what the mating strategies of our genes are, and what humans who have reached sufficient self-cognition rightfully consider a sensible mating strategy.

Our genes only use our sexual desires as an instrument for their self-replication. But once we have achieved enough self-cognition, we will be aware of the fact that for each of us individually, the self-replication of our genes doesn't provide a sensible meaning for life. At that stage, the sexual desires themselves, and their fulfillment, separate themselves from their original purpose, which has been replication. And at that stage, when no longer reproductive success is the purpose of mating strategies, but to optimize the pleasure of sexual conduct, the difference between male and female mating strategies diminishes. This is why I can rightfully postulate that optimal sexual experience is the only philosophically valid sense of life for both men and women.

The American feminist imperative that men not have more than one sexual relationship at a time isn’t only aimed at men; it is also aimed at younger, more attractive women. That older and less attractive women resort to it as ideology to fight off competitors is itself a consequence of free-market democracy applied to sexual relationships.

In a society that considers “one at a time” as the ultimate standard of honesty, both men and women are restricted when it comes to opportunities to enjoy success by redeeming it in biological currency (nice attractive sex partners). A clear choice is presented to them: (1) either suppress your basic desire to have a variety of sexual contacts and keep your permanent partner (and social status), or (2) give way to your sexual inclinations and lose it all (family, social standing, career).

I cannot be blackmailed this way. I don’t have to live in a society of such rules.

With most of my articles, I have addressed a primarily male audience. Even though I have started to edit my work to address more of a female audience, too, the tilt remains. Thus, while in the further paragraphs of this article, males are the addressed audience, many of the assessments also apply to women.

Western men who are in mid-life and depressed usually started out with the wrong priorities. Their priority for many years has been to advance their professional careers, or to run a business and to accumulate wealth. And because all of this requires a high level of social conformity, they have maneuvered their private lives into a cage, albeit a golden one. When you pursue a political career, you can’t be a womanizer, or a bigamist. You can’t even visit a prostitute, or watch pornography.

So you ask: and what about Mr. Bill Clinton? A womanizer. I have to laugh. A marriage, and a few affairs left and right (probably all publicly known). Are these all his exploits? I match his lifetime achievements within a few weeks.

Social climbing? The only currency in which we can realistically measure male success is the number of lays, and the satisfaction we get out of them.

The dialectical nature of human biology (and sexuality) brings with it that traditionally, female success is measured with a different stick: her ability to bind an alpha male, and if it can’t be an alpha, a beta version will do. However, for truly liberated women, not her capability to bind a male, but the degree to which she achieves optimal sexual experience is what determines her individual success.

Eastern societies, throughout history, have always been more sensible in that a successful man could have as many women, wives, or concubines as he could afford), while in Western (basically European) society, there has, for some 1500 years (of Christianity) always been a clear imperative for monogamous relationships.

And that’s the model that sets modern moral standards.

In such a world, men have to make awkward choices. Social climbing, on certain routes, results in fewer, not in more rewards. Just look at the politicians of the Western, democratic world. Who, in his right mind, wants to be the president of a Western European country? Or a television personality? Or, for that matter, in any position which is subject to constant public scrutiny?

My biological parameters, philosophically emphasized, are that I strive to have optimal sexual experience with a considerable number of different partners. For the self-conscious individual of our species, all metaphysical projections beyond one’s lifetime are plain nonsense. The only thing that counts is sexual satisfaction, an after that, a gentle death.

If, in the modern Western world, you place the need for optimal sexual experience behind your career, and behind your business, and behind accumulating riches, you stand a good chance to miss out on what really counts.

To be rich, of course, can come in handy. If you know how to exchange riches into sexual satisfaction. And no, I don’t mean frequenting nightlife establishments. They’ll exchange your riches alright, but not for a satisfying love life. What you’ll get from them is just some outrageously overpriced champagne (or orange juice), and sex that probably is worse than masturbation.

I have been totally focused all my life on successful mating, and I am aware of the fact that my love life is better than what 99 percent of all men experience. I don’t frequent prostitutes, but for many years have had at least one new love affair each month.

In my younger years, I primarily had to concern myself with supply questions. What to do to have at least one new sexual relationship per fortnight. I have solved this problem when I moved to Asia, and I believe that many men, whether young or advanced in age, could learn from my experience.

I am now well beyond 50, and over the past decade, I have increasingly faced restrictions to my love life that had nothing to do with supply problems, but with nature throwing other handicaps at me.

There is no question that at my age, one’s physical and mental ability to experience full sexual satisfaction tends to decline. This has never been acceptable to me, and throughout years of experimenting, I have found ways to counteract this tendency. I can proudly announce that my physical capabilities of lovemaking are as good, or better, than they were 20 years ago.

I am also proud that my capability to satisfy my partners now is better than it ever was. Several of my girlfriends carry on with me simply because they are much more likely to achieve an orgasm with me than with anybody else.

I have to give credit where credit is due. Both the quality of my love life and my capabilities to satisfy my partners have a lot to do with how I consciously intervene with the physiology of sex. This includes, for example, the use of the Southeast Asian testosterone booster tongkat ali.

I am a writer by profession. But even more so, I am a writer by obsession. I write to drain my brain of the sentences that constantly form themselves, all by themselves. Thinking, for me, is formulating sentences. And to type them into a keyboard is my preferred method for making place for new sentences.

I am German by birth, and German is my native language. I was a journalist for newspapers and magazines, and I wrote a few books, all in German (under various aliases, as I am not interested in being personally known).

But I have been using English as my main tool of communication for more than 20 years, and I like the idea of writing for a worldwide audience. I can’t afford a copy editor, so I apologize for errors of grammar and word choice.

On the other hand, I am confident that I do get my message across. It’s a message of better sex, or, if you wish, of more satisfying sexual love.

My monthly statistics show that I have several thousand unique visitors per day. Unfortunately, this translates into less than three new members a week.

Never mind.

For a book, this would be a dismal performance. On the Internet, such a low performance is normal. The point is that too many people still believe that information on the Internet has to be free.

I care for my worldwide audience of less than three new members per week.

The others, those who only read the free articles, have the wrong priorities in life.

They may spend much more than what it costs to subscribe to my site on status symbols of questionable benefits, or they spend money indiscriminately, because they are not aware of where it really counts.

Stupid enough.

Many of their investments are a waste of money. Becoming a member of my site is not. To become a member of either “Sexual opportunities” or “Sexual function”, or, ideally, both, will have a major impact on any man's life. The promise is more sexual opportunities (more love relationships with more beautiful young women in Asia) and better sexual function (even at an advanced age).


Manoeuvring and logistics

Kreutzian ideology is about an agenda of optimal sex, terminated by a comfortable death.

While optimal sex means optimal sexual function, it also includes the pursuit of sexual relationships with females of a high sexual market value, young, attractive, and healthy. I have never been interested in females of a low sexual market value, e.g. prostitutes, or women who have, or have had, numerous sexual relationships. There is often a reverse proportionality between the number of sexual contacts and health.

I have lived in Southeast Asia for many years, but I have never frequented brothels, bars, nightclubs, massage salons, barber shops, and if ever a prostitute has been among my girlfriends, than I definitely wasn’t aware of her trade when we met, and definitely, the affair wasn’t one of her normal business transactions.

I don’t mind if a girl works in a factory, and I can take it if she works in a restaurant kitchen and smells of food. But I have no personal tolerance for women who work in sexual services.

Yes, my agenda may be in conflict with the agenda of some of my girlfriends who would prefer to have me all to themselves.

My agenda is male. It is a result of a male evolutionary history in which that set of genes is the most successful that takes procreative chances with the largest number of healthy women. As a result of male evolution, my typically male sexual desire is directed towards attractive and young-looking women because their procreative capacities are at a peak. (Fortunately, we are on the brink of a “mode of production” which in principle makes it possible for women to look as if they are in their thirties, even when they are chronologically much older.)

No, I do not have procreative intentions when I carry on with a new girl. But my typically male sexual desire is directed towards women in their procreative prime because of the evolutionary mechanism by which the genes of men who spread their sperm among the largest number of healthy women in their procreative prime are the most likely to become dominant, and this includes the genetic trait of a preference for women in their procreative prime.

I consider it likely that not only the male preference for many women, and for young women, has a genetic basis, but also the preference for certain standards of beauty, as beauty is a general indicator of health, and men who spread their sperm among beautiful women were more likely to be successful in siring an optimal number of children than men who were drawn towards women without teeth, or those who are blind on one eye, or lame on both feet, or covered with skin lesions, or featuring a yellow, smelly discharge in places where I don’t want this.

While my preference for young, beautiful, and healthy women is certainly genetic, the emphasis I put on women that are not promiscuous is probably only partially genetic, and partially cultural. Genetically, I must be against the promiscuity of my girlfriends because insemination by other men would threaten my reproductive success.

On the other hand, during pre-AIDS times, when every sexually transmitted disease was either easily treated or non-life threatening, the promiscuity of a man’s sexual partners has probably been more acceptable than it is today.

My sexual agenda is in conflict with the sexual agendas of my girlfriends, because, in general, the procreative and sexual strategies of women are in conflict with the procreative and sexual strategies of men. Women don’t produce trillions of gametes. During all of a woman’s life, she generates just about 400 impregnable egg cells. And as opposed to the male minimum investment of 5 minutes of insemination, producing offspring for a woman means a burden of at least 9 months.

For women, procreative chances are a rather precious resource, and you try to avoid wastage with a precious resource. As a result, women are far more selective in their sexual strategies, and for good reason, it is in the best of their interests not to take risks with men.

For good reasons, the sexual agenda of women is directed towards men who are good providers, and who are around for the period of pregnancy, and beyond. For men with an average or no accumulation of resources (of which the capability to do qualified work and earn a living is just one), the provider-oriented expectations of women mean that he should be willing to dedicate all his resources, and all his attention, just to her and the offspring sired together with her. For men who are either very rich, or very powerful, or outstanding for other reasons, women may be willing (and often have been willing throughout history) to compromise, though they may prefer not to have to.

That seeking material benefits is deeply ingrained in typically female mating strategies has been mentioned by David Buss in his book The Evolution of Desire, as well as in the work of other academic evolutionary psychologists. That a mating strategy of seeking material benefits and security for herself and her offspring in a lifetime relationship with a dedicated spouse is essentially based on the same paradigm (seeking material benefits) as the mating strategy of a street hooker is nevertheless violently challenged by well-reputed housewives.

My sexual agenda obviously also is in conflict with the agendas of other men. It is in conflict with the agenda of other alpha males, because we potentially compete for the same resources. It is even more though in conflict with the agendas of betas and gammas, because the whole system is unfair to them. There is always the potential risk that betas and gammas band together and apply the methods of the French Revolution. Fraternity, of course, is only transitory, as kings are replaced by emperors, and the nobility by politicians, bureaucrats, and capitalists who then appropriate the unfair share.

My sexual agenda is not condoned by the societies where I pursue it, and it wouldn’t be in any other society. My agenda generates envy, and envy generates social friction, and that’s not good for law and order, which is the responsibility of the politicians who govern societies. Politicians in power are against trouble. Even men who themselves pursue an agenda which is comparative to mine, will typically not endorse it, certainly not in public, and most likely not in private either. For what? Sharing information on the typical alpha lifestyle only attracts suspicion in one’s immediate environment, and unwanted attention on the part of the authorities. A decrease in opportunities would be a likely consequence of both suspicion and attention. You don’t want to be known for your pursuits and your corresponding opinions, neither among your current or potential girlfriends, nor in the wider public. Known playboys are on a downward track, simply because they are known.


Biology of behavior

'I believe that some very basic facts of life, in our times, are not receiving adequate attention. I’d summarize these facts as the biology of behavior.'

'There are many aspects to the biology of behavior, and the topic bears similarity to the biology of thought as outlined in Darwin’s Descent of Man. However, this article shall concern itself only with that specific biological trait of the males of the species homo sapiens, which I shall call harem building.'

'It is a common trait among primates and, for that matter, among a large number of mammalian species.'

'We may have been to the moon, and we may be able to count the electrons of an atom, while some mere 500 years ago, we didn’t even know that the earth is a planet of the sun, and some mere 50000 years ago were still unclothed.'

'Most of the technological amenities we surround ourselves with have been invented only within the last 100 years. We ourselves don’t evolve that fast. We may learn to behave civilized, but the roots of our behavior are genetic, and the mechanisms by which they change are determined by mutation and natural selection, not by conscious action (unless this conscious action is genetic engineering).'

'The mechanism of natural selection, however, is negated by the system of state social security.'

'I am obviously not advocating such nonsense as state-supervised breeding of humans with traits desired by political leaders.'

'But I believe that the human society of the future should be more in accordance with the biological traits with which we, as primates, are born. I believe it is futile to try to engineer societies based on ideologies of the equality of all men. The communist experiment was an outright failure primarily because it was in opposition to some fundamental axioms of our social, or anti-social, behavior. We are not all brothers; we are competitors. We don’t want to work with each other; we want to defeat each other.'

'I believe that societies of the future should provide a frame for humans to live in accordance with their sexual biological traits, rather than civilizing them away.'

'In the past, social engineering often entered the stage in the form of religions. Imperatives that were in opposition to biological traits, such as sexual abstinence, were enforced because they were alleged to have been ordered by a god. Few people nowadays are willing to heed advice that draws its legitimacy primarily by referring to a god; too many people just don’t believe in his existence.'

'I imagine a society of the future much more polygamous than current society. Or rather, I imagine a society that has a much higher degree of acceptance of polygamous relationships.'

'The current Western moral standard still prescribes that we are in one monogamous relationship at the time. Which is absurd. Such moral standards are tolerable only when their implementation cannot be controlled, thus leaving ample of loopholes. Because social control requires economic resources, poor societies tend to allow a higher degree of personal sexual freedom than do rich societies.'

'If the level of control is low in a certain society, a large number of men definitely take the opportunity to have parallel sexual relationships. And the reason why other men don’t take the opportunity is: they don’t have the opportunity. I assume that in Western societies, 80 percent of all sexual relationships go on account of just 20 percent of all males.'

'Monogamy is the prescription of losers who speculate that their own chances of at least one sexual relationship are better if monogamy is strictly enforced. Enforcing monogamy thus presents itself as the sexual strategy of those who would otherwise go home empty-handed. Restriction of successful competitors also satisfies their envy.'

'But even for losers who try to get hold of their quota, monogamy is not the biologically encoded behavior. Their dream world is still: to possess their own harem. And I am sure that the prospect to have their own harem in paradise is a major incentive to Islamic suicide bombers.'

'While some hope for their dream to come true in a fictitious afterlife, others pursue it on earth. And with astonishing accuracy will men who climb on the ladder of success become more likely to look out for additional sexual conquests.'

'An agenda for a more sensible society would have to include the following points:'

'The recognition that sexual fulfillment is, genetically encoded, the only real purpose we have in life. Awareness that it is natural that males of our species aim for multiple parallel sexual relationships. No moral or social stigmatization of multiple parallel sexual relationships. Acceptance that multiple parallel sexual relationships are the primary reward for being successful in life.'


What keeps me alive

Come on. Now I am in my sixties, and nothing has changed in the past forty five years. What keeps me alive is the idea that I will still have great sex in the future.

I have great sex this time around. It is better than it has been in decades. And it has been getting better for years.

I am of pretty good health, and in pretty good shape. I do not know, really, whether I am of good health because I have good sex, or whether I have good sex because I am of good health. But either way, tongkat ali has been a great contribution.

Nothing has changed in the past 45 years or so. I am still very hurt if a girl or young woman does not like me. Hurt like a jealous child.

And that’s good so. There is nothing like gracefully getting old. Emotionally, we are the same. Or rather: that we are emotionally the same as we were in our 20’s is a requirement for both our health and great sex.

Never surrender! Our immune system works best when we are convinced that there still is something on the road ahead that is worth living for: great sex and romantic love. A feeling, even, that we want to share another 50 years together (hey, I’ll be well beyond 100 then).

How do I manage? Unfortunately, in our modern societies, what determines our quality as a person to be sexually loved is tied greatly to how old we are perceived to be.

You do not just have to look good. You have to look young.

I have fairly high regards for cosmetic surgery, even though, in comparison to what cosmetic surgery will be in the future, it is an amateurish business nowadays.

They did a good job on Michael Jackson in time for Thriller. But you can only do that much, for that long. And at the current state of art, there comes a time when it is best to avoid highly invasive surgeries such as lifts.

So, surrender to old age after all? No more “best sex ever” on the road ahead.

Never surrender! I said it. And if I am no longer competitive in societies where the quality of a man depends on young age, then I have to go somewhere else.

Poor societies are always an option, thankfully. The poorer a society, the more a man can score points by not being poor.

Or irrationally religious societies which greatly limit the choices women have. Anyway you turn it, I have to convince myself that the best sex was not in the past, but will be in the future. It keeps me alive.


Sexual exploits

Men are in search of sexual exploits. But bear in mind that “exploits” is not equivalent to “exploitation”.

Black Africans were exploited as slaves in the Americas. Children are exploited when they are forced to work in sweatshops. Women who are forced into prostitution are exploited.

Men who pursue sexual exploits do not automatically have a part in the sexual exploitation of women. If the girls and women with whom they have sexual relationships (their exploits) engage in sexual relationships with them on their own free will, even without the knowledge of their fathers, mothers, older brothers, or husbands, the term exploitation doesn’t apply. It may even be implied that fathers, mothers, older brothers, and, of course, husbands would oppose what they and their daughter, sister, or wife, are doing together.

The motive of the woman or girl with whom men have sex may not always be sexual desire alone, but a mixture of desire and an act of protest against her elders, or may include commercial considerations (richer men may be generous). But if the relationship definitely is based on free will on the part of the girl or woman, it may be an exploit but the relationship is not based on exploitation in a sensible interpretation of the term.

One should not overstretch the meaning of words because this would lead to a dogmatic, scholastic dead end. Not every interaction between a rich man and a poor girl, or a socially powerful person and a largely powerless one, is exploitive per se, even though the interaction is not between equals.


Know your enemies, and your allies

Most men who are either rich, respected, or renowned, or who otherwise have a high sexual market value, have wrong ideas about who their principle enemies are?

Most poor men, or those who otherwise have a low sexual market value, are not so much in danger to become victims of misconceptions about their enemies.

The worst enemies of men with a high sexual market value often are their wives. For men of low sexual market value, wives, typically are not enemies but often even genuine friends (if their wives, too, have a low sexual market value).

For rich men, especially those who marry poor women, wives are enemies because in any conflict, they cannot win. Most rich men lose more wealth to a wife in a single divorce procedure than to robbers or muggers in their whole lives.

And even for rich men who do not go through a divorce, wives, sooner or later, are enemies. These men often are aware that in case of a conflict, they stand to lose a lot, and for this reason, they modify their behavior so that a severe conflict does not arise.

Especially for men who are famous or respected, the options typically are: avoid conflict with your wife and maintain your status and position, or force your freedom and pay for it with having to bear a scandal, and with a loss of your reputation, or career.

In their relationship towards rich men or men who otherwise have a high sexual market value, women often are predators. Their bait is love and sexual satisfaction. And if they have entrapped a prey, they will likely not let him off the hook just like that.

Poor men, and men who otherwise have a low social and sexual market value typically will not realize the predator attitude of women, especially sexually attractive women. Why? Because they are no worthwhile prey. They do not experience entrapping games, because they are not worth to be entrapped.

I am a man, and while, in the above paragraphs, I analyse that for men of high sexual market value, their wives often are their worst enemies, I do not just feel sympathy with those men of high sexual market value who are entrapped by women.

The reason is that, as far as sexual market value ranking is concerned, men always are my competitors. Therefore, those women, who restrict other men of high sexual market value, are my natural allies when, for me, it comes to protecting my own sexual market value.

And thus, I am not biased against predator women, who intend to use their sexual attractiveness to get out of rich men whatever they can.

Rich men, and men of otherwise high social value, have many enemies, not just women looking for worthwhile prey, but also all those men who compete with rich men and men of high social value (in other words: other men who compete to become preferred prey of women with a high sexual market value).

The natural allies of women of high sexual market value are other men: those of lower sexual market value, who are envious of men of high sexual market value. Women targetting rich prey can, and often will, appeal to lesser men whenever they need help against those men they have entrapped.

While for men of high sexual market value, their wives, as well as lesser men, are natural enemies, who are the natural enemies of women of lower sexual market value? The answer is; husbands of higher sexual market value (who may want to desert wives of whom they have grown sexually bored), as well as other females, girls or women, who have a high sexual market value (and may target other women’s husbands for their good value).

All the above considerations can be applied to analysing why Islamic societies are a miserable alternative for females with a high sexual market value, while they hold considerable appeal to those women whose sexual market value has become, or has always been, low.

What women of comparatively low sexual market value (aging, with children) are primarily interested in, is their capability, or right, to maintain hold of that man whom they captured at a time when their own sexual market value was still high.

In this respect, not only men who want to be free are contrary to a woman’s interests but also other (younger, more attractive) women who are after rich and socially valuable men, even if these have already been locked into a relationship.

People in Western societies often believe that all women in Islamic countries should unanimously be in favor of a Western social, and sexual, order. But often, they aren’t.

The reason is that while Islamic societies heavily restrict the opportunities of women with a high sexual market value, it also protects women with a low sexual market value. It does so in that it greatly restricts the sexual opportunities of husbands. Indeed, for most men in Islamic countries, there are fewer options for promiscuity than there are for men in non-Islamic countries. In Islamic countries, women of low sexual market value (married with children) feel a natural affinity to their religion, not just because it provides comfort in face of one’s approaching death, but also because it restricts their husbands from womanizing.

Thus, in many Islamic countries, a large number of women are staunchly pro-Islam, and this is the case even in modern Islamic countries such as Malaysia. They would not be if it were not in their sexual interests.

I have referred earlier in this article to a domain that gives advice to women onhow to entrap a man of high sexual market value.

An important domain that concerns itself with the interests of men is Duncan Rhyne’s It provides advice on how Western men who are just of average or rather low sexual market value in their own countries, can enormously boost their sexual market value by relocating to an Asian country where there then new sexual market value qualifies them for relationships of true love and sex with the best women a country has to offer.


Rules of deceit and deception

While in some fields (business, politics, or the professions, and especially in writing), honesty is or may be the best approach, the area of human sexual relationships is so complicated and messed up that keeping to honesty will either shortchange you, or stir up a lot of unfavorable emotions among the women with whom you have or attempt sexual relationships.

Of course I am totally against breaking the law. I believe there are no clever criminals. It is much smarter to get what you need without breaking the law. Those who see no other way to get what they need but to break the law, haven't done their homework.

However, if you want to have the best of sexual relationships, and the most, then you won't get very far if you are not willing to apply techniques of deceit and deception. Try approaching a young woman, telling her what may be on your mind: “Hey, I‘d like to screw you a few times, and if the chance presents itself, I'd screw your best friend as well. Later this afternoon, I have time, but only until 7, because at 8, I already have an appointment with another girl.”

You won't get anywhere with this kind of honesty.

Now, try the following line: “Wow, I think you are the most beautiful woman I have ever seen. This is the first time I have falling in love at the first sight. Sorry, I am confusing you, but looking at you has totally confused my mind. I hope you aren't married or something like that. That would break my heart.”

This second approach won't necessarily work with every girl or woman. But the first one never will.

Now, talk to your male buddy. He will perfectly understand you when you tell him about option one. He won't take you serious on option two.

Not every woman will take you serious on option two either. But unlike your buddy, most women like to hear that kind of bullshit.

By and large, the techniques of deceit and deception for building sexual relationships are the same as the techniques applied in hypnosis. When the hypnotist tells his patient / victim that he shall imagine himself on a sunny island of the Pacific, where all his dreams come true, and where all his problems are solved, that's also bullshit. But it's what the patient / victim wants to hear. At least unconsciously, he wants to hear this.

Suggestions for paradisiacal imaginations lull people into a state of mind no longer controlled by their own reason but the hypnotist. It's the same, albeit on a lower scale, with telling a girl or woman how beautiful she is, and that you will love her until the end of your days.

You don't have to hypnotize a woman you want to use. That would be too dangerous. It would be illegal and put you in jeopardy of prosecution. But there is also no need to hypnotize a girl or women to get what you want. It is much safer you keep her conscious and manipulate her nevertheless. You cannot be blamed for what happens because it will appear to have happened on her own will.

You will be surprised when you learn how susceptible women, and especially girls, are for dreams which are so standard that they are best classified as clichés.

Even a fat and ugly girl likes to hear that she is sooo beautiful and sooo sexy. Tell an average looking girl that she has the potential to be a movie star or a photo model, or at least a stewardess on intercontinental flights. She may tell you, consciously, that all of this is impossible, that it will ever happen; that you are just talking honey. But unconsciously, she will blossom in the imaginations you incite in her.

OK, when girls become women, they usually become better in differentiating what are realistic perspectives, and what are not.

However, if you are a Caucasian men hunting in Asia, you are an option that doesn’t have to become unrealistic as girls become women. More precisely: in most Asian countries, the career perspective of being the housewife of a Western man is probably as good as the career perspective of becoming a singer or movie star.

Actually, the career perspective of becoming the housewife of an American or European husband combines two dreams of average young women most anywhere in the world, the one of glamour and the one of lifelong love. And the perspective of becoming the housewife of a Western man doesn't have to fade for women until they are beyond 30. In Asia, many just-average girls and many women who are already beyond 30 succeed in landing a foreign husband. That's what Asian girls and women see many times when they walk the streets (usually only of large cities), and that's what they read about in celebrity magazines.

Combine this insight with the first rule of deceit and deception: give signals to an Asian girl or woman that you are on the market for lifelong love. If you can create this impression realistically, you can be beyond 50, and look it, and still successfully compete with any local, young or old, rich or poor, and with any other foreign man who is half your age, but gives the impression that he is just out looking for a clean fuck.

No, I don’t want to tell you to find a wife in Asia. I want to tell you how to achieve an optimum number of consenting lays with non-prostitutes in Asia. You can go along charming, and creating impressions that help you with your goals (sexual intercourse), but you have to stop short from becoming somebody's legal husband. Anyway, it is your legal right to change your mind, even on the stairs of the chapel.

To summarize it: rule one is to let girls and women hear what they, consciously or not, want to hear, and not to tell them what you really think.

Rule two is that you eliminate social control by aiming for as much privacy as possible. You can't tell a girl that she has the potential to become a movie star or a photo model in front of her parents. Her parents won't fall for it. They will smell your tactics, and they will perceive you as trouble.

It’s best to sort-of hypnotize a girl or young woman under four eyes. Even her friends, when they hear your lines, may be inclined to bring her back to reason. And that would be very counterproductive for your game of seduction.

Chapter one of your game of deceit and deception ends with her genuinely loving you. Actually, it's not you she loves. It’s her hopes and dreams that she loves. And you have become a very essential part of these hopes and dreams. So much so that her hopes and dreams depend on you. If you are out of the picture, all her dreams will be shattered.

Chapter two of your game of deceit and deception begins when you start implementing your ideas, not in her dream world, but in reality. You tell her that yes, you want to marry her, but you will first have to go and get permission from your mama (or your government). This will still take time. But at the present, you always suffer such terrible headaches because of sexual urges. Yes, of course, you want to be faithful to her until the end of your days. But if she is not willing to give you what you need, sorry, you will have to find another girl. How can she be so gruesome to you and not let you. Because you only need it a little bit. Not serious yet. Only a little bit.

Be assured that you can talk her into it. If it is under four eyes. You have to avoid witnesses, not because you would do something illegal but because they would maybe bring her back to her senses.

If you have taken her virginity (assuming that she was a virgin), she will be yours for further manipulation. Under the strangest pretexts, you can come up with the most outlandish of demands.

If you are skillful you will even be able to convince her that the best way to further deepen and strengthen your love for her, is to bring another girl for threesome fun. You can give this a metaphysical, religious dimension, and she will get deeper and deeper entangled. Religious sects (scientologists and others) play this game, and so can you.

There will be no sexual acts she will refuse, just for you, or, in reality, just to uphold the romantic perspective that you have implanted in her initially. Obviously, she will also be obedient in other aspects of life. If she is rich, she will give you access to economic means, though you have to be aware of the fact that rich girls are under more social control by their parents.

It is truly amazing to what extend girls and women can be controlled without the necessity to formally hypnotize them. However, the stranger your plans for her, the more important it is to stick to rule three of deceit and deception.

Rule three is to go step by step. You cannot manipulate a woman who is newly in love with you to perform anilingus on you, if you confront her with the request before you have exchanged conventional kisses. To get what you want, you have to play a game of two step forward, one step back.

Before confronting her with new requests that would normally be declined, be extra nice and romantic for a week or so. Then give the impression of withdrawing mentally. Don't smile. Look sad. She will ask you what is wrong with you. Tell her that it is because of her. Because she doesn't want to do this or that. That's why the whole perspective of your life together has become bleak. Be assured that she will cooperate.

The point is to go step by step. Don't present her with bites that are too large to swallow. She will agree to anything if you apply the right tactics. Never threaten or physically abuse her for not agreeing to something. Just play with the idea that you may withdraw from her if she doesn't agree.

These techniques of manipulating girls and women of course are not new. Con artists have used them form centuries, and some pimps apply them to get their “girlfriends” to work as prostitutes (and bring the money home).


A lesbian girlfriend

I never had a bisexual girlfriend but have always been intrigued by the constellation. I have once known a foreigner married to a Filipina whom he identified as lesbian. He divorced her, what I thought was a stupid thing to do.

I think that for any woman, to have an intriguing personality is an immense plus.I could find myself for hours every day, imagining what goes on in the head of a woman I love. It keeps me focused on her. And I could not imagine anything more intriguing than the woman I love being in love with another woman (and sharing her with me).

I have been contemplating this constellation before.

I imagine that a female bisexual orientation would suit a man with a high sexual market value because it would be least likely to conflict with such a man’s desire for sexual relationships with a variety of women.

Under normal circumstances, with only straight women involved, a man with a high sexual market value will perceive a girl or woman not just as an object of desire, but also as a potential enemy.

Once he has initiated a sexual relationship, and independently of how much he enjoys their relationship, and independently even of how much he loves her, and of how long the relationship persists, a man with a high sexual market value will usually be aware of the fact that the straight female will want to monopolize him, and may turn amazingly aggressive once she becomes aware of the fact that her man pursues sexual relationships with other women.

However, if the female who is a sexual partner of such a man with a high sexual market value has a bisexual orientation, even slightly preferring female sexual partners over male sexual partners, this conflict is elegantly avoided.

In such a setting, the male’s promiscuous orientation can be a conduit for the female partner to gain herself access to females who would otherwise be beyond reach.

In such a setting, the male and his bisexual female partner can become more than just lovers. They can become genuine friends and partners, because they have the same interests. In all other settings, even marriages, men and women do not have the same interests as each wants to monopolize the other, while claiming liberties for himself (or herself).

I assume that few women of a bisexual orientation, especially in traditional Asian societies, are aware of the fact that their sexual orientation is a great asset when it comes towards finding a husband of exceptional quality (both intellectually and with respect to wealth).

Of course, most men in traditional societies lack the intellectual horizon to see the sexual orientation of bisexual women as an asset. They may think that such an orientation is abnormal, or that it is immoral, when in fact, it is the finest possible character a woman can have.


How women achieve orgasm

To sexually satisfy a woman, is a male strategy. Women derive a pleasure benefit, and men who have the capability definitely raise their sexual market value, albeit quite possibly only in the mind of the satisfied woman.

While most men are well aware what it needs for them to achieve sexual satisfaction, they lack appallingly in knowledge on what it takes for their female partner to do so as well.

It’s not really the average man’s fault. A young man does not know intuitively what it takes for his female partner to reach a climax. The subject is not taught in school, and even on the Internet, genuine information on the topic is scarce.

The matter often also is taboo among the partners involved, especially in conservative societies. And in modern societies, women normally find it more practical to fake orgasms, or to declare the topic unimportant, rather than to educate their husbands or partners. This is not surprising as the male reaction on being taught by his female partner on this sensitive subject is somehow unpredictable. The man may feel put down if guidance is given. He may believe she thinks he is a bad lover (which actually he may be, indeed), and react hurt or aggressive.

While we have discussed achieving orgasms with many of our sexual partners and therefore believe that we are knowledgeable to a certain degree, competent advice really has to come from women. We therefore include below a detailed account from a female reader on what it takes for her to have orgasms. We do want to invite other female readers to contribute to this database by sending in their own stories. We would be especially interested in comments from lesbian and bisexual women. All contributions are treated with total confidentiality, and names and email addresses will not be given. As the purpose of our endeavor is entirely educational, neutral language would be appropriate.

Here the first account, submitted by a female reader.

I have experienced my first orgasm at 9 or 10 not knowing what the hell it was. It was a result of a movie showing some physical punishment and a bare bottom. It did not happen during the movie, but after I was thinking about it. And it happened without my fingers, just my muscle contractions while tightly squeezing my legs. I remember it very well. Later I learned to imagine variants to what I saw with a pillow between my legs, which always led to orgasms.

I realized the connection between what I experienced and the meanings of sex at about the same time, I started experimenting with different kinds of stimulations. By 15 I already liked anal stimulation as well as clitoral. I have to say though that if my memory serves me well, those were never really strong orgasms. I started using small objects for anal and vaginal stimulations probably about the same time. I have to say though that now I am not a fan of anal sex. Although I have tried numerous times, it was always more discomfort than pleasure. I totally gave up with my husband, because he is considerably larger than average size.

As I started having normal and frequent sexual activity with a partner (I was 19), my personal experiences became less elaborate, but definitely better. Still, I very rarely have orgasms alone as strong as with a partner. I prefer having a dildo (not a vibrator, hate those, they are so unnatural) and clitoral stimulation at the same time. As far as the time is concerned, well it differs greatly. It can be one minute, it can be 10, it depends what goes on in my head. I don’t have the same wave pattern orgasms when I am alone. Can’t explain why. I can bring myself to orgasm up to three times alone, but every next one is harder to achieve and not necessarily stronger. It is also absolutely necessary for me to have nipple stimulation. Somehow without it, the whole thing is not as good and not as quick.

I also noticed that the older I am the better the orgasms are that I achieve alone. Still, they are no comparison and no substitution to normal sex.

I also have to say, that I had one experience with a person I knew well, but not in a sexual way. It was a one night that I wish I did not have. It was so ordinary and almost boring… It strengthened my belief that if the person does not care for you, he cannot bring you pleasure either. He was too excited himself and too quick to finish to bother about what I need. Well, that is another point in favor of not picking up strangers. I expect a lot from a sexual experience, and if I can’t get it, then I am better off alone with my toys, a glass of wine and good porn.

From a previous mail of the same reader:

My first favorite memory was of me being 19. My fiance at the time (I never really planned to marry him, but my parents were head over heels about him) was my partner in experiments. He was 25 and much more experienced than I was, but none of those experiences of his were adventurous. We both shared excitement in domination/punishment scenarios, but I was not ready to experience pain yet. So, he would tie me up (face down), blind-fold and tell me a story while slowly undressing me and barely touching my skin in different places. As the story progressed and I would be melting away, he would have less and less strength to control himself. I would hear grinding teeth, irregular breath and “I can’t go on like this”, but I would normally make him continue anyway. I don’t remember how long this lasted, as long as he could tolerate it, but it would always end with very forceful, even brutal act of love that would have been not unlike rape if I were not so wet and ready. In this situation I would normally have an orgasm in the first 30 seconds after him entering me and the sensation was remarkable.

The strongest orgasm I have had was with my ex-lover, the guy who I was planning to marry and who nearly got control over my feelings. He was not in the least into playing parts and telling stories, but there was another way. He had patience like nobody else I know or heard of. It started with him telling me not to move while he was caressing me. This obviously did not work well. So, eventually he would tie my hands and then work my body in every possible way he knew. The point was in getting me close to orgasm, but never allowing me to actually finish and achieving it by different stimulations. This was mind-warping. He could go for 40 minutes to an hour this way, bringing me close and easing off and repeating it again and again. When finally he would enter, my sensation seemed to have intensified 10 times and orgasms were incredibly strong. I remember once during an orgasm I burst into sobs and actually cried with pleasure. (It is funny to remember because he freaked out thinking he hurt me).

However strong my experiences were before my husband, I still have to say he brought out the real woman in me. He played out my every fantasy and penetrated every part of my body. There was nothing off limits for me, so we tried everything. Most of those wild experiments I never really want to repeat, but I believe that everything should be tried at least once. We got into S&M and I tried both to humble and be humbled. It was interesting to lead, but I absolutely do not enjoy it. My husband does not like to tie me up. So we avoid it. But on the other hand, it is to some extent more stimulating when control that one has over you is mental rather than simple physical constraints. As I said, I don’t like pain, it has to be very, very subtle, not strong, because if it grows beyond a certain point, it does not add to the pleasure, but negates it. We used to play sometimes a spanking game, but in order to enjoy it, I have to be in the mood.

Please, don’t think that I only like sex in dominance scenarios. It is absolutely not true. It all depends on my mood. Sometimes, especially with a new partner, in order to be comfortable, I would prefer it slow and gentle, with intensity escalating as time progresses. I like to be teased, to not be given everything I want right away… Other times, if I am absolutely turned on by something in circumstances that prohibit immediate satisfaction, the sex that would follow would be rough, animalistic, resembling more of a fight than a gentle embrace. At such times, I catch myself thinking that human beings did not go far from the animal world in their act of love with biting and roaring and tearing off each other’s clothes. And of course, at other times I can play any of the parts that I described above, I find one or other form of submission very stimulating.

I guess, I should mention something about me that I know sets me apart from a lot of women. Most women are capable of multiple orgasms, but as I read I have a rare ability of what they call wave pattern orgasms: having many of them and often. With the change of stimulation, I can come up to 15 times a night (if a partner can hold up that long). Of course, not all of these orgasms are strong. Most are like reaching the top of the wave and then drifting down and going up again. If all goes well, after 2, 3, 4 orgasms like that, I reach the top of the mountain. My husband prefers to wear me out like this. There were times when he pretty much set experiments on how much I can take. We lost count after 12, so my estimation is 15. It is a great unbelievable feeling after such a night, because the sensation I have is a body without bones, tiredness not unlike total inability to move, the feeling that if I am to die, this is how I would like to go… And when I know it is over and the heart is just slowing down, I close my eyes and feel the world spins into non-existence. Unfortunately this takes incredible amounts of energy from a man, and control for long periods of time, so… you can imagine, this is not an experience I have every week.

I have never had an orgasm as strong with oral stimulation as with vaginal penetration combined with some handwork. Depending on the position, I prefer to do it myself, since I can absolutely control what I need, how much and how fast. I guess this is my preference. I also like and can have an orgasm while giving oral stimulation to my partner (of course not without help from my fingers). This is only possible if it is not a quick thing, I need time. I should say that it might give a fright to a man, since even after doing it for years my hubby says his heart sinks every time expecting my jaws to lock.

As our correspondence went on, I was able to ask some questions: “Do you need manual stimulation in combination with penetration to reach an orgasm, or do you reach it through penetration alone?”

Normally, I do need manual stimulation. But, I have achieved orgasms with penetration alone in the past. It absolutely depends on how aroused I am and what is going on in my head. As explained in my previous message, if I am at the very top of my senses – the touch-me-and-I-will-explode kind of feeling (achieved through any kind of previous stimulation: oral, verbal, caresses of different parts of my body) – then penetration alone can very easily bring me to an orgasm and in a very short period of time. If it does not happen in a short period of time (I imagine 1-2 minutes), then it is a definite that some manual help will be necessary.

“Do you prefer the on-top position?”

2. I almost never achieve an orgasm on top. It only happens if I feel close enough to an orgasm and then finish on top. I find it pretty strenuous to do it long enough to achieve an orgasm. After 3 minutes or so, discomfort starts to take over pleasure. Definitely not my favorite position.

“Can you differentiate between clitoral and vaginal orgasms?”

I can differentiate between clitoral and vaginal orgasms. I would say that most of my orgasms are clitoral; orgasms achieved by masturbation are always clitoral. A large part are what you would call “can’t differentiate” or mixed (those are obviously the ones achieved with penetration). And maybe 5% or less are purely vaginal. I have achieved vaginal orgasms in the past without any manual stimulation in certain positions and certain angles (only with my husband, I think due to his large size) when there is direct contact with the G-spot. I am not saying that I achieved vaginal orgasms only though G-spot stimulation, it happened without it as well, but again, I have to say it is a very rare occurrence. I have no idea how and why sometimes direct contact with the G-spot raises such intensity of feeling, and sometimes it does not. But it is a very unique thing. The same position does not always achieve the same stimulation. When a man happens to get to this remarkable place, my suggestion is – do not breath and don’t move a muscle, keep doing exactly the same thing with exactly the same strength, otherwise it will be lost. Communication here is essential. I would normally say right away “don’t change”, and I can climax within 30-40 seconds. Another thought on the G-spot: I never had a positive experience with it through manual stimulation or object stimulation. I found manual stimulation not just useless, but also uncomfortable.

I also wanted to remark on manual clitoral stimulation. I have never had a really good experience receiving it from a partner. I will explain why. In order for it to be pleasurable, it has to be in exactly the right place, with exactly the right pressure and exactly the right speed. No man can read your mind, and even though I have no problem saying what I need and how, it is hard to explain exactly what you mean. A man can put your finger on the right spot, but I found it extremely hard to control the pressure, especially since one day it should be different from another. If partners have been having sex for half an hour for example, the clitoris might be more sensitive and need less pressure than in the first minutes. If a woman already achieved one clitoral orgasm, then the pressure should be much, much less than before, again due to sensitivity. The same with the speed, although it is easier to control; what a woman needs can change from the beginning of the stimulation to the end. Too slow is usually pretty irritating rather than stimulating and too fast too soon is also not such a good thing. Well, to complete this, I would say that I prefer to do it myself rather than struggle with guiding somebody else’s hand. I think it is only fair.


Competitive advantage

Male fools set out to explain female sexuality to women. As a rule of thumb, women know their own sexuality pretty well. But to lie, to men and to everybody, about their own sexuality is a very important female strategy. Because, generally speaking, the more sexual women appear, the lower their sexual market value.

On the other hand, a good understanding of female sexuality is part of male sexual competentness. Lovemaking technique and physical sexual endowment are other elements of it. Proper sexual competentness is an aspect of sexual market value that doesn’t suffer from advancing age, and it is more personal than wealth. It even has the potential to generate love. Men of sufficient intellectual capacity have a good reason to work on their sexual competentness.


Understanding women

Not all women are the same. But the traits cited below are, to a larger or lesser extent, present in all.

1. Women, like all people, have economic needs. To meet their economic needs, they will make use of whatever empowers them. In what manner they will use it, depends much on local culture.

2. Women, even more so then men, are afraid of negative implications of their behavior. In simple English, most of us do not want to be punished. We also do not want to be slandered.

The above two traits are very much rooted in the present.

But there are also traits that are more genetic, and thus reach back hundreds of thousands of years.

The behavior of all of us is geared towards producing offspring. Character traits that are antagonistic towards producing offspring, just as character traits that come with an inclination to commit suicide, have a lower chance to be inherited when compared to character traits that support the idea of many children, because its carriers are not interested, or hanged themselves before the required act.

Both men and women have genetically encoded character traits that assure maximum procreative success.

For men, this means fertilizing as many women as possible. Whether men are playboys (pass-by flirtous sex, no commitment), or harem possessors, is just a matter of circumstances.

Women are genetically more primed then men to be in a main relationship like a marriage. Women want children but are handicapped by having them. Men are not.

Because women with children are handicapped, they need and seek stable partnerships with a husband who is a protector and breadwinner.

This concern can become quite central to women, especially when they feel their sexual market value is in decline. Furthermore, in the own imagination of women, this trait usually expresses itself in more romantic terms such as “desire for true love”, “til death will us part” etc.

You know, if you as a man tell a woman “I”, that doesn’t mean all that much. You have to say “I love you forever!” Sounds much better.

Sure, men, in certain circumstances, also value the idea of a stable partnership. But the motivation is different. Men do not need women as protectors and breadwinners. But in hard times, the economy of stable man-woman relationship is way superior to solo. This is why poor societies are more conducive to a female agenda than a male one.

It is also true that women often suffer more when a serious relationship breaks.

So far, so commonplace. But if you now think that you understand women, you are wrong. Because women are much more complicated, and it’s probably genetic.

Remember that those traits become dominant that assure the greatest number of quality offspring.

To bind a single man so there is a protector and breadwinner is only half the strategy. The other half is quality sperm.

She won’t necessarily get that from the man who is her normal partner. .

Because men can have many hundreds and even thousands of offspring, it does not matteer whether each mother is quality. Butbecause the number of offspring a woman can have is limited indeed, the inseminator should please be high standard.

This desire for best quality fathers manifests itself in many everyday occurences.

That female teenagers in droves fall in love with certain pop stars. Or the willingness to remain without a partner if a really good one is not in reach.

Even the fact that nons break their celibacy less!frequently than monks fits the picture.

But of course, while an alpha male may have good genes, he may not have the most fertile sperm.

For the genes of a men, the survival success rate is highest if they are spread wide.

For the genes of a woman, the survival success rate is highest if that sperm gets to an egg that is the winner of the widest possible competition is the one that fertilises.

Even the anatomy and physiology of the female primary sex organ is bult to enable this competition. Sperm survives several days in the vagina in a sperm pool. The sperm of several inseminators can stay alongside each other with no detrimental effect. And when the egg descends, the race is on.

Our brains and our emotions are not independent. They have evolved to have a function.

Why do men have no desire after orgasms, and why is there a comparatively long refractory period. The answer: no ready sperm anyway for spreading genes.

And why can women have many orgasms in shorter intervals. The answer: it opens an opportunity for more sperm, from.multiple donors, to compete with each other.

Examine Internet porn. Loads of gangbang there.loads of bukkake, too. And it’s always a large number of men, and just one or two women.

This porn has been produced because there is a market for it. When porn had to be bought, men were the buyers. But did they buy it for their own consumption, or as a favor for female partners?. .

So far, all my women, if a relationship has been close enough, admitted to “many men” phantasies, and such phantasies reliably prepared them for orgasm. It feels to me as if these “many men” phantasies are a normal part of female sexiality.

That is what I say. What I do not say is that woman go out at night to get gangbanged.

Women have various character traits in various proportions, and these traits can well be, and often are, in conflict with each other.

That a woman may get turned on by gangbang porn. That never once in her life she will agree to be gangbanged.


Female sexuality

Female sexuality overall is probably more complex than male sexuality. There is also much more cultural and regional variety.

Male sexuality is, I assume, more straightforward. And it is so with a rather regular pattern around the world.

While men may choose to surrender to religious, cultural, or moral restrictions, these restrictions are more superficial than various concerns that play a role in the typical female mind.

Basically, cultural, religious, and moral restrictions do not intercept the pathway of male sexual arousal. A man may obey cultural, religious, and moral restrictions and not give in to a sexual stimulus. But the stimulus exists, and often, it is a rather straightforward affair.

Almost every heterosexual man can be aroused by the sexually inviting behavior of a young, beautiful woman. A man who obeys restrictive cultural, religious, or moral norms may resist the sexual invitation. But the arousal has happened, and the man will likely carry the memory of the arousal around with him for some time. He may even fantasize about the sexual invitation when he has intercourse with a regular partner.

Women, by and large, encounter fewer temptations. From all I have learned from the women I have been with, I assume that girls or young women in many Southeast Asian countries often indeed are not aroused by sexually inviting behavior of men. Often, they are too concerned with romantic ideas about lifelong love with a gentle male partner with whom they have a number of children.

It’s not that they could not imagine sexual excitement. However, the sexual excitement would have to be imbedded in a much more complex setting.

Men with little sexual experience often have a hard time imagining such a female frame of mind. They can be helped by the following mental exercise.

Imagine yourself at a time when you were a young man without an appropriate outlet. You certainly were susceptible to sexual stimulation.

Now imagine that at that stage of your life, you were approached by a toothless grandmother of 60 plus, who tried to get you into bed with her.

Go along with the thought exercise. Imagine you as politely declining, whereas the grandmother becomes ever more open with her advances, inviting you at a certain stage to touch her private parts.

You decline? Why? Because the whole thing just isn’t right, and you are not aroused.

Now, to the best of my knowledge, that’s about how women feel most of the time when they are approached by a man. It’s not that they wouldn’t be sexually excitable. It’s just that they are not excitable as randomly as men.

So, just as the imagined grandmother was wrong in assessing that you were an impotent young man, it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that a woman is “cold” because she doesn’t react on your sexual stimuli.

I have mentioned time and again that for a man, the most important decision is to choose the right place for his sexual adventures. This choice will not only determine the quality of his sexual opportunities, but also whether he experiences women as sexually motivated or as not sexually motivated.

The reason for this is that in some countries a Western man has a better status as potential sexual partner than in others. Or, even more directly: while in Europe or the US, most women will consider an average man as average, he may seem extraordinarily attractive as a sexual partner in other parts of the world. And in those parts of the world where he appears extraordinarily attractive to a large number of women, he, but possibly not the majority of local men, will experience women as more sexually oriented than in Europe or the US.


Female orgasmic fantasies

Most men are largely ignorant about how women experience orgasm. I have asked many women about their orgasms. Not in a sterile interview setting but on a basis of trust and shared sexual experience.

Men on average are ignorant about how women experience orgasm because most women either don’t want to discuss the matter, or simply lie about it.

Experienced women more often lie about how they experience orgasm than novices because experienced women are aware that it is a sensitive issue. Most men can’t face the truth that they play a small role in their female partner’s orgasms. Which doesn’t mean that women would be unhappy with such a sexually unimportant man. Women need men, and seek their company, for social needs, economic needs, and emotional needs, not primarily for sexual needs.

But male sexual partners want to have a definite role in their female partners’ orgasms. Which is why experienced women often do him the favor and pretend that he plays a major role in their orgasms. A possible reward: a happy family life, with a proud husband.

Unfortunately (for the self-confidence of men), women don’t experience orgasms in a manner that their male partners normally would wish for.

There are two components: those psychogenic and those physiogenic. The psychogenic element is what happens in a woman’s head, and the physiogenic is what happens with her sex organs and her body overall.

Men, stupid men, are focused on standard penetration to be the physiogenic element in a woman’s climax.

And men usually wish that the psychogenic element in a woman’s climax is within the following parameters: she finds him attractive (actually, one of the most attractive men she has seen), and he is a good lover; his kisses arouse her, and her mind is focused on what he may do next. And when she reaches a climax, her mind just imagines him. Her mind is occupied only with what they are doing.

Wishful thinking.

An orgasm during lovemaking is by far not as certain for women as it is for men. Women are not so much into casual sex because most have a hard time reaching a climax in a casual setting. Also, during casual sex there is usually not enough intention on the part of the man to actually make her reach a climax.

Furthermore, lack of familiarity with a new man often makes it difficult for a woman to relax sufficiently during such an encounter.

In relationships in which no jealousy is involved, a woman’s psychogenic elements in reaching orgasm are practically never focused on the man they are with.

Often, the thoughts that carry a woman to orgasm during sexual intercourse with her routine partner are so strange that women would not want to share them with their partners, if only to avoid embarrassment.

Strangeness of fantasies in itself is a pro-orgasmic quality for many women.

To illustrate what I mean: A woman may imagine another man during intercourse with her routine partner (husband). This in itself is not really strange. It’s a standard situation.

Her fantasies will have a higher degree of strangeness if she imagines this man to be her husband’s brother. Or a neighbor with whom she just had an argument over a minor matter. Or the boyfriend of her daughter.

Or add strangeness in situation: assume she imagines that the encounter takes place, no, not in the bedroom, but on a lonely island where there is no disturbance, or during the shooting of a pornographic film.

Strangeness of imagination in itself is an orgasmic quality.

Strangeness can be measured as a decreasing degree of the likelihood that a certain fantasy may ever become reality.

Her husband’s brother or her daughter’s boyfriend are indeed unlikely candidates for a sexual encounter.

Most women have no real interest to turn their sexual fantasies into realities. And even in an ideal situation where a repeat orgasmic fantasy is enacted almost true to a woman’s imagination, the orgasmic certainty, and even the excitement, cannot catch up with the imagination. There is even a great likelihood of orgasmic failure.

I believe that it is a standard situation that in the female orgasm, there regularly is a discrepancy between the actual sexual event and the perceived, fantasized sexual event that makes for the psychogenic origin of the female orgasm.

I only know of one setting in which a woman is clearly focused on the man she’s with. This is when she is sufficiently jealous.

I write for a worldwide audience, not just a European or North American one. Which means that in 90 percent of all male-female relationships, men provide material support for women.

A nice guy normally is on the losing end because he provides material support, but the orgasmic focus of his female partner may just be on her man’s enemies, or in another way specifically on men with whom her permanent partner would be the least likely to agree.

Women may often consider their own orgasmic fantasies as “not normal”. Which is why it is even more unlikely that they will share them with anybody, and especially not with their husbands.

Nevertheless, for the sheer convenience of it, most women prefer nice guys as boyfriends or husbands. And for her orgasms, she has her sexual fantasies that are unrelated to her actual sexual partner.


Problems with the female orgasm

This is a problem mostly for men in Western societies who cannot bring their female partners to a climax. It’s not a problem for women, especially not in traditional societies. Girls find this out by themselves, just as boys do. But girls and women in most societies kniw better than to discuss this with anybody, as female sexual market value typucally depends on knowing as little as possible about sex.

On the other hand, in Western societies, knowledge about the female orgasm raises the sexual market value of men.

To start with, men have to be aware of the fact that the female orgasm is more complex, and more complicated, than the male orgasm.

For many men,especially younger men,orgasms are a simple, and in some cases even a primitive, affair. Give them a female body to play with, and they will ejaculate. A new body to play with often works better than one that the man already is familiar with.

There are no complicated requirements that can be categorized as love.

Many men don’t even understand that for most women, love is coupled to their sexual experience. These men think that women put request a love relationship before they grant a man, and themselves, access to sexual enjoyment, as a kind of pay-off (show your commitment and I let you have it).

But for most women, love is part of the sexual excitement, not something the request parallel to it.

I believe that I have a fairly good understanding of the female pattern of sexual arousal because I am one of those men to which it also applies.

I have never had much interest in casual sex: sex with women I have just met, or with women who are not attractive enough so that I could imagine them as a steady girlfriend. And most definitely, I have never had any sexual interest in prostitutes.

On the other hand, I (like many women but rather few men) am susceptible to the sexual thrill of just holding hands and whispering “I love you”, or, even better, “I love you forever”. It doesn’t matter that, rationally’, I know that it won’t be. But at the moment, such sentences are uttered, they can, for me, as for many women, have a high sexual arousal value.

Men who fail to bring their female partners to an orgasm usually have a too narrow idea of orgasm. They may see it too specifically as a plainly physical event, and often underestimate psychological preparatory components.

This does not mean that there wouldn’t be necessary physical components (larger penises are usually better than smaller ones), and some love-making techniques that are better than others. However, large male genitals and a fine technique, combined with good stamina, are often not enough for the optimale female sexual experience. Some psychological, often romantic, component often is also required.

The following aspects are important:

1. The best love-making techniques for the male partner (for the purpose of bringing his female partner to a climax).

2. The best love-making behavior for women who have in mind primarily their own orgasm.

3. Measures a man can undertake to improve his capability of bringing his female partner to an orgasm.

4. Pharmacological intervention to lower a woman’s orgasmic threshold.

5. Psychological instruments that improve a woman’s orgasmic potential in specific situations.

Which of the above is best appplicable depends on the woman, and on the mistakes men are making, and on the specific case.

Just one thing is certain: if both do it right, every woman can experience genuine orgasms during love-making with a man.


Liberating the sexuality of women

It is a myth that men restrict the sexuality of women. Why should men restrict the sexuality of women? Men everywhere around the world are seekers of female sexuality. Men restricting female sexuality would be like thirsty people restricting access to water, or those in danger of starvation restricting access to food.

In order to elucidate who restricts access to female sexuality, one should examine who profits from such restrictions.

A certain portion of the world’s female population profits from the restrictions. Females in all cultures of the world traditionally are providers of sexuality. Only females in a certain age bracket, of course.

As a rule of thumb, providers of any service or product are interested to keep supply tight, as this increases the value of the service or product.

And indeed, women often can avail of astonishing prices for their sexual availability. Many women become rich by marriage, and some become even richer by divorce.

Apart from women themselves, the peddlers of religious lunacy profit from the restriction of female sexuality. They can sell all kinds of solutions and solace to frustrated men. Solutions like a paradise full of virgins, or solace like an assurance that those who do not have sexual opportunities will at least not be roasted in hell for eternity.

There are other profiteers, like the sellers of ersatz satisfaction and sportscars, and the traditional tabloid media but if female sexuality were not restricted, they would find other tricks to cheat the world.


What a woman needs in life

It is conventional wisdom that the primary emotional need of a woman is to be in a lifelong relationship with a man. Traditionally, this would be her husband. But even in Western Europe, where many people no longer get married, women still desire a lifelong partnership with one man.

I think the affinity for lifelong love relationships is in the nature of women, as it has resulted from hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Thus, it is a matter of nature.

However, there also is a strong element of nurture. Women, of course, lose their sexual market value much quicker than men do. When you are 20, you can have every man, even though it may only be for an episode. But when you are over 40, it is very difficult for you to enter a new long-term relationship with a man who genuinely prefers you over other women.

Yes, you may still be able to find a man. But either he is attracted to other qualities you can provide apart from yourself (e.g. the wealth of your family, or your own wealth), or he is with you because he is not good enough to get a younger woman.

“Younger” is the keyword. Youth, or the beauty of youth, has a magical power over men. And from the end of your 20s, you are discriminated upon because of your age. And this is a discrimination that is much more difficult to legislate away than just lower pay for equal work. Because this discrimination is in the minds of men who feel sexually attracted to younger women. They cannot be forced by the law to be attracted only to women of the same age.

Of course, some women do look younger than they are. And cosmetic surgery can do its bit. But then, when a man sees a woman’s passport (or any other ID), and realizes her real age, every year that she is older than she appears will downgrade her value. This is why we advocate that birthdates are eliminated from any official or non-official ID, just as race specifications have been eliminated. For administrative purposes, it would be sufficient to identify a person by a genetic sequence.

Anyway, for people who have achieved adulthood, no rights or obligations are connected to a person’s age, just as no rights or obligations are connected to a person’s race (and unlike to a person’s nationality).

Without any age specifications in any personal document, women could do a lot (which would include far-reaching cosmetic surgery) to maintain a youthful appearance, and thus a better sexual market value. And in such a scenario, women would not be under so much pressure to build a lifelong love relationship with a man of a comparative sexual market value at a time when their own sexual market value is high.

For it is not that a woman would not enjoy the thrill of a newly developing romantic relationship more than the routine of being married for the umpteenth year with a man who has lost much of his sexual interest in her. It’s just that, because of her more rapidly declining sexual market value, as well as social restrictions, the option of frequent repetitions of courtship years is much less realistic than it is for men, last not least for the fact that when she is getting older, fewer men of reasonable sexual market value are genuinely interested in her.

Thus, for married women in their 30s, it is, in most societies, not a realistic alternative to break up a working marriage, just because she wants to experience again the delight of a newly developing romance, and we would not advise a wife to give up easily a working marriage.

Instead, while the working marriage will satisfy the first emotional need (the feeling of security in a stable relationship), the second emotional need (the delight of a newly developing romance) is best met by being unfaithful and having a lover. I am aware that this advice will not be understood by girls and young women who are not yet married. As long as the first emotional need (the desire to have a man forever) is not met, most girls and young women are not aware of the fact that her emotional needs may well split after some years. This is the case because obviously, at the beginning of a romantic relationship of a young woman with a man she wants to marry, both needs are fulfilled in the same person (the romantic need and the need of the security a lifelong union should provide).

For all the above reasons, and even though it will sound strange to some, and immoral to others, I proclaim that a woman needs more than just a husband to have a fulfilled life. She also needs a lover, and quite possibly more than once, especially if the woman is beautiful.

If a woman is beautiful, she sometimes needs to hear it from another man, not just her husband. Furthermore, because they involve a high level of secrecy, the romantic thrill of love affairs can bring back an element of excitement that typically is lacking in married life with a husband who usually feels so sure that he is the only possessor of his wife that he often no longer is attentive. And quite often, the lovers of married women are precisely that: better lovers.

Most women have their love affairs at the end of their 20s, often after having given birth to a child. And usually, they are more selective than their husbands. While husbands, even though they are seeking extramarital sex more decisively than their wives, usually only have sexual opportunities with women who have a lower sexual market value, young beautiful married women can have virtually every man, if they make it sufficiently known to that person that their intention is to just have a sexual relationship.


Female gene shopping

Shouldn’t we assume that every normal man of average built and of good health would also be equipped with a sufficiently large and fully functional penis?

Well, I do believe that there is sound biological logic why we shouldn’t be so sure about this. Humans obviously have a biological character and a cultural character. Our cultural character accounts for much of our conscious behavior. On the other hand, our emotions and unconscious states of mind (including desires) are largely an affair of our biological character.

Our cultural character has changed tremendously over the last 2000 to 3000 years, but our biological character is still basically the same as it was for our stone-age ancestors some 10,000 years ago, or their predecessors some 50,000 years ago.

And there is no doubt that in earlier phases of our history, our sexual function and behavior was largely one of mammalian biology.

A salient aspect of mammalian sexuality is what Darwin defined as male competition and female choice. Mammalian males typically strive to inseminate as many females of the species as they can handle. Females display a profound preference for men with what they (unconsciously, in accordance with their biological character) consider the best genes.

But this is not yet the full story. Human females, as they developed throughout the past 6 million years, have more differentiated interests than just to mate with the male with the best genes. Human females have a material interest in male-female bonding. In order to preserve their genes, human females spend many years raising their young. And unlike other mammalian species, human females had and have to take care of offspring born years apart, and possibly of different fathers. (Great apes have an inferior procreative strategy, as females only give birth every few years, after having raised the offspring born in one year.)

Human and pre-human females, during millions of years of evolution, have developed a survival strategy that includes the permanent binding of a male partner. The benefit for the male partner lay and lies in the permanent availability of a female for sexual intercourse.

So far, this is standard anthropology.

But there is a twist, which is the definite interest of both the male and the female partner in being unfaithful.

For the male, the strategic benefit of unfaithfulness is obvious. Getting a shot at another female means an increased chance to preserve one’s genes. To spread one’s genes in acts of unfaithfulness, furthermore, is a low-risk behavior for men. There is potentially no additional obligation. The female is inseminated, and after that, she alone cares for the common pool of genes, or she enlists the help of another man who happens to be that female’s permanent partner.

For the female, the benefit of unfaithfulness is subtler. In a human or hominid society where one-on-one bonding is the standard pattern, only a few women end up with the best males, while other females form permanent partnerships with less than ideal males who nevertheless can be of valuable help in raising offspring.

However, the biological interest of these females still is to mix their own genes not with the genes of lesser males, but with those of the fittest men.

The solution is female unfaithfulness: have occasional, even secretive, intercourse with an alpha male, and after being inseminated, take any male you can get as a permanent partner to help in raising one’s offspring with an alpha male!

This is, of course, a complex pattern of biological sexual behavior. It’s never a clear-cut scheme. Rather, the pattern is one of a trend. Because the female can bind a lesser male only by giving him sexual access, and by allowing him at least the illusion that all the offspring in the liaison are his, it will have occurred on a regular basis that indeed, a female human gave birth to the offspring of lesser males. A standard setting may have been that some of the offspring resulted from unfaithfulness with alpha males, and others from a permanent relationship with a lesser partner.

The whole thing developed like a kind of involuntary horse-trading.

Much also depended on the economics of the times. When economic basics allowed more complex societies to develop, alpha males were capable of maintaining a larger pool of females who were not bonding at all with lesser males. This is evident in the harem building of the alpha males of all early complex human societies. But harem building is an aspect primarily of male sexuality in situations where one man has to his disposal the means to exclude other males from a pool of females. Harem building is also an aspect of male dominance.

On the part of the females, living in a harem is probably much less in congruence with their biological interests as they cannot follow the trait of their biological character, which would be to monopolize a man.

Biological sexual behavior is obviously regulated through sexual desires.

Again, for men, this is rather straight-forward. Because the most promising sexual strategy for men is to spread their genes, and sperm, throughout as many females as possible, the behavioral sexual goals of men is to either possess exclusively as many females as possible, or to inseminate not only the one or few females he directly possesses but also, in acts of unfaithfulness, as many females as possible who are in permanent bonds with other males.

Therefore, male sexual strategy definitely is directed at a multitude of females. And as the regulatory force is desire, it cannot surprise that there is a clear incentive to add new partners: sex with new partners typically is more exciting, so there is a higher likelihood of orgasm and ejaculation.

For the female, the most promising sexual strategy is to first play it safe: have one sexual partner in a permanent relationship who can provide material help in raising the offspring he considers his own. However, beyond this, a success-driven female strategy includes to seek better, or the best, genes to pair with through regular acts of unfaithfulness with alpha males.

For such a setting, female sexual desires have to be more differentiated than those of men. Nature regulates this by not allowing them full sexual satisfaction with the lesser male who may be their permanent partner. They may bond ok with a lesser male, and develop the emotions summarized as “love”, but there is an element that becomes obvious to them only over time, and usually only after having given birth to an offspring fathered by a lesser male (thus already making sure of her genes’ survival in principle). This element is her desire for sexual satisfaction with a male who is better equipped to bring her to the level of sexual pleasure that results in a vaginal orgasm. Thus, female sexual, more than male sexual desire, is dualistic: have a love relationship with a permanent partner, and seek sexual satisfaction with an alpha male.

If biological science teaches us something than it is this: nothing is accidental. Every phenomenon we encounter in the world of living species has developed through evolution and natural selection in precisely the fashion we encounter it because this is what has proven to be the best survival strategy.

For this reason, we have to make sense of the following: almost all men have no problem, and great pleasure, in achieving orgasm and ejaculation through sexual intercourse with a female. But females only achieve sexual satisfaction through vaginal intercourse with men of an alpha built (which means: men who have a particular large penis). The above explanation tries to make sense of this phenomenon by assuming that the female incapacity for vaginal orgasms with men with penises of an average size has been developed in the course of evolution in order to make sure that the females of the human species will seek out sexual relationships with alpha males (large penises) in spite of being bonded to lesser males (average penises).

Based on the above anthropological considerations, I believe that penis size is a valid genuine concern for all men. It’s not a matter of locker-room vanity. Only men with large penises are well equipped to bring women to penile-vaginal orgasms. And men who can provide this to their female partners will not have to fear the humiliation of their permanent partner seeking out better-endowed alpha males. Apart from that, alpha males stand a good chance to be sought for encounters of unfaithfulness by females who are bound in permanent relationships with average males, simply for their likely capability to enable women to experience the superiority of the vaginal orgasm.


Size matters

The published public opinion, especially the female published opinion, is wrong in its assessment on why men are concerned about the size of their penises.

The public published opinion, and views held publicly by female commentators on the matter, assume that men are concerned about the size of their penises on the basis of a rather childish attitude just like when eight-year-old boys try a far arc while urinating, and then boast about it.

The common published opinion tends to belittle the concern of men about penis size. An example is the following remark of sex adviser Ruth Westheimer, quoted from the TIME cover story of May 4, 1998: “Even if a man has an erection from floor to ceiling and can keep it that way for an hour, it will not be pleasurable for a woman if he is not sexually literate.”

This is making ridicule out of a serious concern.

Of course, until recently, all sex therapists could offer men with insufficient erections, or a small penis, was some consolation of the above kind.

Published opinion may be quite different from the opinion held privately by people who are represented by a specific general published opinion. The publishing trade has its own rules on what opinions may be offered in public. The motto of a major US publication used to be (or still is): All the news that’s fit to print. (Not: All the news that’s true.)

And in the opinion of newspaper editors, it’s not fit to say that penis size is of importance when assessing the qualities of a man.

Sorry, but size does matter. And men would probably not be concerned about size, if they wouldn’t have learned from intimate experience that it’s important. They learn it from their female sexual partners when discussing sexual matters. When they engage in sexual talk with their female partners, many men will be confronted with women’s fantasies in which rather large-sized male organs play a role. It’s not common that women’s fantasies center on disfigured, under-sized, or flaccid male organs.

It may be true that most women who do experience orgasms experience them clitoral. More than 90 percent of all women are easier to bring to an orgasm through clitoral stimulation than through vaginal penetration. However, there are women who prefer to be brought to an orgasm through vaginal penetration, and in such cases, sufficient size, sufficient rigidity, and sufficient staying power are absolutely necessary. Sexual technique is a distant fourth. Usually, woman who can experience vaginal orgasms will anyway apply their own technique.

Furthermore, when it comes to vaginal orgasms, no one single technique fits all women. Some prefer quick short thrusts from below, others rather have it from behind. Often, women who can experience vaginal orgasms like to do the moving, and prefer a static man.

While clitoral orgasms result in rhythmic contractions of the pelvic area, including the vagina, there often is a magic additional component in vaginal orgasms: a ballooning of the Grafenberg area (the front vaginal wall near the vaginal opening), and a move forward of the cervix. Both these reactions can exert an expelling pressure on the inserted penis. A marvelous experience, available probably only to men with a sufficiently large penis.

But even among women who can be brought to an orgasm through clitoral stimulation, the idea of big, hard penises plays a major role in their fantasies. The stimulation may be clitoral, but the fantasies that are absolutely necessary to make clitoral stimulation an orgasmic success may still center on penetration and usually on penetration by a large male organ.

While the editors of periodicals anywhere around the world may only be willing to touch the topic of penis size in a manner that ridicules the concern, penis size clearly is a major aspect when it comes to the qualities of a man as a lover.

We seldom receive email from women who are of the opinion that penis size is not important. But we regularly receive feedback that confirms that a large penis is an important attribute. Here some comments by one female reader, Ka.:

– quote –


I stumbled on your website a few hours ago. I very much enjoyed your essays. It’s almost 5 am here (Toronto, Canada), and I just stopped reading.

I just keyed in “love” into my search engine…I don’t even know why (I guess I just wanted to focus on something sweet before bed). Your inclusion of our neurology was great. And your sincerity was refreshing. I’ll read a few more of your articles tomorrow night.

Now, I got a few questions:

1. You praise tongkat ali very much. I heard that it raises your testosterone levels through the roof (which I guess would explain irritability, and sexual desire). But do you know how it effects woman? (Not that I need help in the arousal department). Just curious.

2. In your essay: “Female Orgasm in Asia”, you spoke about the female orgasm…and so on. I need to say this (actually to all the men in the world): Please don’t act like you are on a mission in bed. There were plenty of men who were determined to give me an orgasm…and I just ended up faking it. Once it seems that the guy is on a mission…the magic is gone. For me, I can be immensely satisfied without an orgasm (if one happens: great!… but if it doesn’t…then leave it alone).

3. You also talked about penis size. Well: IT MATTERS! (At least to me). There was a time that if I liked a guy, and thought that there may be potential for a more serious relationship, I would take things slow, not sleep with him right away… bla bla… But now: I try to get him into bed quickly. I don’t want to start liking him… and so on… and then find out he is tiny down there. For me it doesn’t have to be huge, but it has to be at least average. And for me, it’s not a psychological thing. I want to feel filled! And if he is not at least average, then I don’t want to waste my time with him. I don’t want to marry a man that is small. He can give the best oral in the world… but if he can’t stuff me properly… then I’m gone. I don’t want to get emotionally attached, no matter how great they are, and then find out I’m gonna be cheating on them for sure if we continue.

Please don’t get me wrong: it doesn’t have to be mega huge… but at least average. I dated a few “small” men. Sometimes I wondered what the point of us having sex was. Cuz for me nothing beats the main course.

4. I don’t understand how increasing dopamine levels can help a man get erect. Doesn’t cocaine increase the amount of dopamine in your synapses? But… enough cocaine… and a man just can’t get it up. I don’t get it. (I dated a cocaine user…and there were soooooooooooooooooo many disappointments.)

Don’t feel like you have to rush with the answers.



P.S. Looking forward to reading more articles of yours!

– unquote –

We left Ka.’s mail unedited. As questions have been asked, we include the answers of our reply mail.

– quote –


thank you for your interesting contributions.

Tongkat ali indeed raises testosterone. This has been shown in many scientific studies.

Dopamine enhancement works for libido, not for erections. Cocaine users get sexually agitated (in the head) but can’t perform. Not only will they have weak erections; they will also typically have rather small penises, even when they do get an erection. The reason is too much sympathetic tone.


– unquote –

Back to penis size. Luckily, penis size, like erectile capacity and staying power, can be worked upon and improved.

For erectile capacity and staying power upon demand, sildenafil citrate (Pfizer’s Blue) is the drug of first choice. Sildenafil citrate is not just for 50-year-old diabetics or 60-year-old prostatectomy survivors. Even 25-year-olds can benefit from low doses of the drug. (And the drug is a necessity for cocaine users.)

For the improvement of basic penis size, there are two options: either pull and pull with methods described as penile exercise programs, or have the Leydig cells of your testicles synthesize more testosterone. Penis and testicle size is heavily dependent on testosterone synthesis. That Leydig cells start to synthesize testosterone is what causes the penis and testicles of boys to grow to man size. Furthermore, bodybuilders or athletes who use exogenous testosterone or steroids pay for it by testicular and penile shrinkage. Because they supply more testosterone than the body (more specifically: the hypothalamus) wants, the testes shut down the Leydig cells, and the testicles and penis revert to boyhood size.

The only herbal that stimulates the Leydig cells to synthesize more testosterone is tongkat ali (Eurycoma longifolia by scientific name), which is why heavy tongkat ali usage causes penile and testicular growth, independent of erections.

Of course, more than any other organ, the penis is variable in size. The size of a penis at any given time will depend on body chemistry. Vasoconstrictive nutrients such as caffeine and theobromine, as well as drugs that enhance the sympathetic autonomous nervous system (cocaine, amphetamines) will cause temporary testicular and penile shrinkage.

Beta blockers, which increase the levels of circulating adrenaline by blocking the hormone’s binding to cardiovascular sites, thus increasing adrenaline’s effect on abdominal receptors, will temporarily reduce penis size and interfere with erectile capabilities. No permanent damage.