WOMAN’S WILES

or
MAN’S VULNERABILITIES
J. Bruce Evans
Volume 231
March, 2002

WOMAN’S WILES

The fact is that I did not know how to understand anything! I ought to have judged by deeds
and not by words. She cast her fragrance and her radiance over me. I ought never to have
run away from her....I ought to have guessed all the affection that lay behind her poor little
stratagems. Flowers are so inconsistent! But I was too young to know how to love her...
The Little Prince by Antoine De Saint-Exupery
So laments the Little Prince after he has run away from his Little Princess, metaphored
as a flower in De Saint-Exupery’s classic exploration of all-too-familiar male/female
relationships. Much later, and evidently lonely then, he regretted that he had been, we might
say, “faked off” by her poor little stratagems.
The line has returned to my memory many times when I realize how often I too have
fallen for woman’s wiles–to the detriment of us both, but at cost of potentially fulfilling
events at the time, if not extended positive relationships. No longer can I blame it on age, that
I was too young to know how to love her, as did the Prince in the tale. It’s certainly past time
now that I learn to see through female stratagems so that I may more often enjoy the delights
of love.
Here I want to explore the dark arena of woman’s wiles which obviously work
positively for them on many occasions, but which I wish to cease falling for in ways which
cost me dearly in my own well being–not to mention, as I did, missing love. Perhaps by
seeing them more clearly I will be less likely to be faked off, finding, instead, the courage to
love more often.
First, I must quit blaming them for their stratagems, as have we Adam’s done since
Eden. Eves are, as best I can tell, simply wielding power in ways which they have long
learned to work for them. We males are no different in this regard. We too try to move our
opposite gender in paths of our own choosing. Our means, however, are generally overt,
blunt, even crass, and all too easy to recognize by any attentive women–this in sharp contrast
from the covert and often hard-to-see ways women engage in our mutual quests of moving
each other. Hence my name wiles–because woman’s ways, like those of the Little Prince’s
Flower, are “wily,” subtle, and generally far sharper and certainly more effective than ours.
&&&&&&&
PREFACE
 These essays, mostly pages from my daily journals, are obviously–since I am male,
written from a male perspective and in language more typical of men than of women. Men, I
suspect, will understand them more easily. After years in the preaching ministry, I predictably
write often, out of long habit, in a quasi-objective manner–as though about or “for others.”
Actually, I write for myself, as I try to clarify dark areas in my own understanding.
These pages are about some of the ways I have been moved by women into acting,
even trying to be, as I actually am not. I say moved, implying that they “did it to me,” or
caused me to move or behave in ways not of my own choosing. This, of course, is not literally
true since I left the domain of my only real goddess and moved into the world outside my first
home among other females with lessor actual control over me. Still, I say moved because in
the absence of my consciousness about my choices, I have often lived-as-though “they” were
moving me–either in compliance or causing my rebellion against what I took to be their
directives to me.
Past all projection, these are some of the ways I have commonly left my “Green Spot”
of personal integrity and self responsibility in the presence of women, while in effect
“blaming it on them”–often, probably, quite unfairly.
Should any woman happen to read these essays I can easily imagine potential
misunderstanding for several possible reasons. First, my language, being more typically male,
is subject to easy misreading (at least insofar as my intentions are concerned). I am often
blunt, using male-type language which is sometimes offensive to females–such as, words like
fucking and pussy. Also my language about this theme may be patently offensive to many
women since it can easily imply meanings which I don’t intend–such as, the name wiles,
which is often taken in only a strict definition as a conscious, cunning, devious manipulation–
that is, something that a mean woman sneakily does to an innocent man.
These implications may, of course, sometimes be true; but mostly, I think, not. Even
when a particular procedure falls into my category of wile, such as, Eve’s proverbial apple, I
am not here trying to place responsibility on females for “doing it to us”–even when we “fall.”
I choose my title woman’s wiles because it is the way I, as well as many other males, tend to
think about this subject. It is objective sounding, in keeping with the way I tend to ease into
very personal subjects, holding them slightly at mental distance while I try to come closer in
my awareness.
More literally, when I drop all projected-type thinking, I am writing here about typical
male vulnerabilities–mine in particular. I may at times, assume an unwarranted innocence in
the maneuvers I will describe in detail later, as though you Eves truly cause us Adams’ woes,
making us fall for them; still, any alert reader may remain forewarned that I know better than
this. My topic, women’s wiles, is only ostensibly about either women or wiles; actually it is
about us men–that is, things about us (me, anyway) which women may sometimes use, even
unwittingly or unintentionally, to their own advantage. Most all the wiles I will describe may
be decoded or translated for clearer understanding as male buttons which may be pushed,
even mistakenly, by females. Wiles are, in the final analysis, ways we males are often moved
from places of responsible containment within ourselves, while in the presence of women
who may in fact not mean to do anything “to us.”
Finally, these essays are about how males participate, even when we project blame, in
“being gotten to,” or worse, “had” by women.
REDUNDANCY
The pieces were written over an extended period of time as I happened to notice the
various subjects. Often, as my mind seems to work, I think of the same thing over and over
until it finally becomes clear to me. In gathering the pages and placing them in some order, I
have tried to leave out the earlier versions of each notion; still, however, there is redundancy–
which I dislike, even though I know this is how I think.
NAMES
Seen from the male side of the gender wall, these explorations may be titled: How
Men Are Influenced By Women, or, How Males are Moved By Females, or How We Guys Get
Jerked Around--and often caught by women who artfully pretend, often to themselves, that it
isn’t so. “Who me? I would never stoop to doing such things,” the most successful of wily
women may demurely think, if not say. No woman, I think, is more powerful than one who
innocently pretends to be wile-less.
From another perspective, woman’s wiles = man’s vulnerabilities. Woman’s strengths,
named wiles here, are literally man’s weaknesses. Delilah’s wiles are finally about Sampson’s
hair.
In practice, these observations are about how women get and manage men, or how
men get gotten to and gotten. For women, it may be likened to a “how to” book about how to
hook a man and then manage him effectively, or for men, it may be useful for becoming
conscious of “how it commonly happens,” so that we have more options than blind falling.
DEFINITION
By wile I mean a way of wielding power, of causing something to happen in the
world. A wile is a tool, a “thing (object, action, or procedure)” used to influence external
reality or try to accomplish a personal goal.
A wile is like (metaphor) a spade used to dig a hole, except in a less obvious way.
Wiles, as distinguished from other more evident forms of wielding power, are covert rather
than overt–that is, subtle or concealed, not obvious and out front. Hitting someone, for
example, is overt power at work–an obvious way of effecting another person; but smiling at
someone in order to achieve or keep their good will is covert power at work.
In our essential-for-survival efforts to shape the world, to live creatively, males
typically use overt power, females, covert power. Males “push” for what we want; females
“pull” or invite what they want. Generally speaking, of course.
Although these terms tend to have judgments attached–which are unintended here,
wiles are ways “women manipulate men.” Wiles, negatively seen, are “con jobs,” clever ploys
for “fooling men” or “tricking us into doing what women want.”
Wiles are weapons available for females in wielding power with males, which are
commonly unavailable to males in the same arena. They are tools potentially useful for
females, but more likely to backfire if tried by males. They may or may not be used, at least
intentionally, but nevertheless they are continually available. Even if a woman prefers not to
wield certain of these powers, often they work anyway–for instance, the breast wile. Just by
virtue of having breasts a female often wields power whether she chooses to or not.
&&&&&&&

OVERVIEW
Here is a fast track summary of what I will amplify next:
Wiles are what works with men; as such, these pages are more about how-men-are
than what-women-do. There is no inherent connection between what works with men and the
intentions of any woman, even her consciousness. Women may or may not intend to use
wiles; they needn’t “mean to” do the things which move men in order for them to work
anyway. In fact, I suspect that most of the time women might even prefer that what I call their
wiles didn’t work at all–that is, they may be, under many circumstances, more of a personal
liability than a positive asset.
In either case, the important thing to understand about woman’s wiles is the power
which they wield, regardless of the intentions, meaning, or even consciousness of one who
wields them anyway–like it or not. At issue here is understanding what moves men, not what
women think or consciously “mean to do.” The deeper subject is power–that is, how men are
moved to thoughts and actions of myriads of sorts by, as we commonly perceive it, women
and their wiles.
1. The power of woman’s wiles is 90-95% rooted in male projections. We males blindly give
away powers women simply use after being handed on a silver platter.
2. Women commonly use these projected powers nonsciously–that is, without bringing them
into consciousness. Women in general, as best I can tell, do not consciously choose to wield
these wiles and are therefore not being, as it sometimes appears to us who “fall for” them,
mean, vicious, or conniving–only being wise about available powers. The fact that wiles are
nonsciously used gives females the additional advantages of “unconscious competence”–that
is, they may function “automatically” without the limitations which conscious attention often
brings.
3. But nonsciousness on the part of females who wield wiles in no way diminishes the power
of their effect, anymore than “not knowing the gun was loaded” erases wounds of a shot.
4. Male recognition of female wiles (“seeing them”) will not change their power, but
unless/until men do see how they work the odds of freedom from their powers are almost nil
and void; we will continue to be done in by what we don’t see. Ultimately unrepression and
withdrawal of projected power is the only true resolution which will return us to a level
playing field. But understanding, for males (and unlike for females), generally must come
first. Until we can mentally catch on, we are likely to continue in patterns of projecting power.
5. A male effort to understand how female wiles work (rather than simply remaining blindly
vulnerable to them) is not the same as blaming women or excusing men as though we were
simply innocent victims of female circumstances. Although many men do stop short of fuller
understanding by condemning women this in only a cowardly escape from personal
responsibility. Women would indeed be truly dumb not to use powers we give them.
HOW WILES WORK
1. Covert rather than overt.
Wiles function subtly, in covert fashion, rather than blatantly, in an overt manner.
Unlike male modes of coping which, like our external genitals, “stick out” and are easy to see,
female modes, like their internal genitals, are largely hidden to casual glance.
2. Carrot on a stick.
From largest perspective, woman’s covert wiles work like the proverbial carrot
dangled before a horse pulling a carriage–with implications of being subject to eating if the
animal ever catches up. Beyond the metaphor: some female wiles in general are implied
promises with hints of delayed gratification. Their power becomes operative when what a
male wants is hinted at as available from the female in the future–if he does so and so. A
tempting presentation is made in the moment, but acquiral is delayed.
The force becomes expanded with female resistance to giving what the male took to
be promised. In the carrot metaphor, it is as though just when the horse is about to bite the
carrot the “driver” resists his success by “holding it out” a bit further. The artistry of
resistance is to keep the carrot close enough to keep the male tempted, yet just far enough
away as not to be reached. This procedure may be extended in time with unchanging
resistance as long as the horse keeps pursuing; but if he appears to be stopping (“kicking at
the traces”), then the female may in effect, allow a taste to rekindle his interest–or even an
occasional bite as necessary to keep him performing as desired.
3. Security and sex.
On the deepest genetic level, the primal summary words for translating the metaphor
are: security for the woman, sex for the man. “Pulling,” as done by the horse, translates into
providing security for the woman and her offspring. The “carrot” as dangled by the woman
translates, on the deepest level, into having sex with the male. If he will serve her by
providing security for her mothering, she will reward him by providing sex for his own
replication. Surely there are many other tangential elements in the services and promises–such
as, sperm and house keeping; but most basically the forces are at their apex when focused on
security and sex.
4. Looks, words, activities, and emotions.
Major categories of female wiles are: a) looks, b) words, c), activities and d)
emotions–that is, silent presentations, vocal language, physical acts, and feeling management.
The many specific wiles can be grouped in these four categories.
&&&&&&&
INTRODUCTION
Both in quest of gender different self-interests (enhanced selfing and maximum
replication), women and men have distinguishable modes of pursuit which I name here: wiles
and ploys.
Wiles, woman’s ways, are more socially acceptable because they are more covert and
less socially dangerous, while ploys are generally unacceptable since they are more overt and
conflict with prevailing social values. Even so, I think that each are morally neutral, one no
better or worse than the other–just different. Still, given the social situation, women are less
likely to feel guilty about their wiles than are men about our ploys.
Replication of each gender has two major requirements: sex and security; sex for
initiating pregnancy and security for pregnancy, birth, and child rearing. Both genders hence
have vested interests in both, or neither can reproduce ourselves. But as the 600 million year
history of replication by sex rather than cloning has evolved, our roles in this mutual drama,
the gender requirements for each, are vastly different. In service of maximum self-replication
males increase our odds by maximum sex and minimum security, while the opposite is true
for females who are better served in the same agenda by maximum security and minimum
sex.
I estimate these differences to be about 95 and 5% for males and 5 and 95% for
females–that is, that genetically based concerns for males are 95% interest in sex and 5%
interest in security, with the reverse comparisons for females. Male genes increase their odds
of replication by taking great risks and having sex with as many females as possible, as often
as estrus comes; but females in sharp contrast, only need minimum sex–as little as 1 to 5 or 10
times for a life time when successful impregnation occurs, but a maximum amount of
security–say, all the time, especially during child bearing and rearing.
These differing values, whatever their accurate comparisons may be, become the most
significant factors in shaping wiles and ploys. In the wisdom of Mother Nature, she has
artfully, in broadest summary, evolved us in true complementary fashion–males capable of
providing much security, far more than we need for ourselves, and females able to provide
much sex, far more than they need for themselves.
These differences set the stage for the primary basis of wiles and ploys. Men, with far
more security potential than we actually need can, in effect, tempt females to have sex with us
by promising security, while females can tempt males to provide security by promising sex.
What each has and the other needs most becomes, in effect, their best carrot for dangling
before the other and attempting to get what they themselves most need for self-replication.
Men, that is, can barter security for sex, and women, sex for security.
We want, indeed need, much more as persons–companionship, communication,
affirmation, etc.; but the bottom lines, genetically speaking, are sex and security.
These explorations of gender powers will be divided into two parts: first, female wiles,
and then, male ploys.
&&&&&&&
SAMSON AND DELILAH
In a biblical story, Samson is a strong man who is tricked by Delilah, a cunning
woman, into revealing the source of his strength; afterward he is de-powered and blinded. In a
later book, Solomon writes in his memoirs after 700 wives and 300 concubines: Give not your
strength to women (Proverbs 31:3).
I submit that a grand advance in gender history was required before man began to
realize that he indeed had some part in the all too familiar drama of men being done in by
women. Samson, like so many of us until this day, naively believed that he was innocently
tricked by Delilah, ignoring the fact that he first had to tell her what made him strong. He
evaded his responsibility by the easy out of blaming women–as, of course, is still common till
now. But Solomon, in his proverbial wisdom, at least recognized that men must do some
“giving” before women can “take” away our power. Surely experience with 1000 Delilah’s
must have helped him wise up; but still he dared write down what he had learned, projecting,
no doubt (as have I and preachers ever since) his hard earned knowledge into advice to others.
But that, obviously, is ancient history about life lived long before monogamy came to
prevail on the social scene. Still, thousands of years later we may borrow old myths to mirror
current insights perhaps even more relevant today than in olden times. Times may have
changed, but male knowledge, in spite of Solomon’s wisdom, often remains as dark as it was
when cunning Delilah out-smarted strong-but-dumb Samson.
As in my case.
Whatever may or may not have been true for Samson and Solomon, I am exploring
here what I am more confident has been true for me–and, I project, for countless other males
since those ancient times. How do strong men end up done in by supposedly weaker women?
How do we continue to “give our strength” away? Males often think of ourselves as smarter
than dumb blonds, et al; yet we continue in this pattern of female dominance which must have
begun so long ago. How do we/they do it?
Or, more personally, how have I been controlled by females while busily caught up in
acting independent? What are the means by which I have given away masculine powers into
feminine hands, all too often, as naively as Samson, blaming them for what I blindly did
myself? What are the female wiles which I have unwittingly fallen for? How, in other words,
do they do it–that is, wield the powers we unknowingly give them?
&&&&&&&
FEMALE OBJECTIONS
Among 40 Unwritten Rules Of Manhood is this one:
Never make any sort of generalization concerning gender, even if it’s so true God himself
would back you up.
MEN’S HEALTH, March 2002
 Ever since I first began exploring gender differences some 20 years ago I have puzzled
over how consistently females, even the most apparently liberated, have objected to my
observations and resisted talking openly about the subject–at least to me. The same has been
true with these speculations about women’s wiles. Although men are usually delighted to talk
about the subject, women often seem offended and object to most all my observations. Even
explaining the personal nature of this venture, plus my “good intentions,” has done little to
ease the tension of bringing up the subject in female company. Why?
I am beginning to see three possible reasons for female objections to looking openly at
their wiles–at least by men: 1) Threat to image, 2) Threat to consciousness, and 3) Threat to
power (magic?).
First, the very term wiles can easily be taken as a “put down” before the subject itself
even comes into consideration. Few woman, I suspect, have an image of themselves which
includes “being wily” in the sense of cunning, clever, or manipulating–as this word easily
implies. The fact that I don’t intend it so must hardly be relevant at all. Just to note that
“women have wiles” may automatically be taken as another typical male “put down” on
females in general–which, obviously is breaking the 23rd unwritten rule noted above in a
leading male magazine. Perhaps I have erred in the beginning with my choice of a title,
insofar as female understanding is concerned.
Males, obviously, are also concerned with our self images, especially as strong and
capable (which, unfortunately is often seen by females as a “fragile ego”). But females too,
less obviously of course, seem to be deeply concerned about a self image which commonly
includes traits of cooperation and caring, which would logically exclude cunning and/or
manipulating.
So, perhaps the notion of wiles is as predictably threatening to female self-images as is
cowardly to typical male images.
Secondly, there may be a threat in bringing these ancient forms of female coping into
conscious awareness. After eons of practice, I think, beginning with a mythical Eve in an
original Garden of Pleasure (called Eden), female wiles may have become so thoroughly
ingrained in nonsciousness, if not in genes, that they are commonly operative today “without
a thought in the world”–that is, automatically, without consciousness.
I, and many others, have also observed a general psychological fact summarized as
“unconscious competency”–that most all human endeavors can more effectively be done, as it
were, “unconsciously.” For all the obvious values of consciousness, of “thinking about what
we are doing,” most everyone seems to intuitively know that we often do better when we rely
on “body knowledge” rather than “head knowledge.” “Thinking” often gets in the way of
“just doing it”–whatever it is, all the way from hitting a tennis ball to wielding power.
It is this latter instance of “unconscious competency” which may be relevant here. If,
as I speculate, the Eves of the world have long known how to “tempt” us Adams into
following their wishes, then girls would now be born, as it were, having what I call here,
wiles at their disposal–all without any “thinking” or conscious education at all. And just as
thinking about how you should hit a tennis ball will temporarily decrease natural efficiency,
so, and much more so, will thinking about how to wield power interfere with any inherited
“body knowledge.”
Consequently there may be an element in ancient female knowledge, here summarized
as “unconscious competency,” which wisely knows not to risk the threats of “thinking about”
what you already do competently without consciousness. Why take the chance of “messing up
a good thing” by throwing light on the subject?
Thirdly, there may be a threat in exposing trade secrets, artful skills which always
underlie the workings of magic. No good magician wants the public to know how he pulls
rabbits from a supposedly empty hat, etc., etc. Wisely, purveyors of illusion protect the hidden
arts behind their tricks of the trade. A whistle blower about “how they do it” is understandably
to be silenced whenever possible.
Could it be that all women since Eve (or even Gaia?) have deeply (“unconsciously”)
known that their powers are best worked when carefully kept in the dark, out of public–
especially, male, scrutiny? Might there be unconscious wisdom operative when supposedly
innocent and naive females automatically object to what can easily be taken as “whistle
blowing” by a “traitor to the cause”–and a male at that?
Just perhaps.
I don’t know the man who wrote the advice included in MEN’S HEALTH, but if I truly
heeded what I have learned “the hard way” I suspect I would follow it “without thinking.”
&&&&&&&
“WHAT WILES?”
Typically, as best I can tell, women wield their wiles nonsciously–that is, without
conscious attention. What males may dimly recognize as manipulation or “causing us to act”
in certain ways, is often completely invisible to females–especially those who do so best.
Such a woman, for example, may think she is simply going about being her own natural self,
just tending to her business without regard to wielding any power over males. She may see
any male attention to her so-called wiles as a projection of his own problems, which
essentially have nothing to do with her. She, after all, has no conscious desires to “manipulate
men,” and is certainly not being “mean” or “conniving.” At worst, she is only trying to
help.
&&&&&&&
WILES AND INTENTIONS
There is no inherent correlation between woman’s wiles and any particular female’s
intentions–that is, what she consciously “means to do.” Wiles are about powers, not thoughts;
about effects, how-things-work, operative forces–regardless of personal intentions.
Breast power, for example, has absolutely no connection at all with what a woman is
thinking or “meaning to do.” Good tits, we might say, work independently on their own, even
in total absence of intentions, like male wealth and strength. Just as a man may not “mean to”
use his wealth or strength to influence a woman (though most often we do!), so a woman need
not intend to move a man with her breasts, et al.
In some extremely small number of Mae West type females, woman’s wiles may be
consciously wielded; but as best I can tell, the vast majority of most effective wielders of
wiles have hardly a clue to what they do–which only enhances their blindly operative powers.
&&&&&&&
WILES AND AWARENESS
Wiles, by definition, subtle and covert, may or may not exist in awareness. One does
not “have to know what he or she is doing” in wielding covert power–that is, be conscious of
either their motives or their moves as “wily.” Females, as best I can tell, are generally
unconscious of their own wiles. They “just do” the subtle acts which wield power in the world
“without thinking.” It is as though they have inherited their wiles from ancient generations,
perhaps long enough ago to even be genetic by now. An average woman today, as best I can
tell (I add as best I can tell again to keep myself aware of how presumptuous it is for a male
to assume he ever knows “what a woman is thinking”), practices and works her most effective
wiles in relative if not complete nonsciousness–as though she hasn’t a clue as to what or why
she is doing things which wield immense power in the world, especially with males.
There are at least three major consequences of unconscious wiliness, apart from its
actual effectiveness in accomplishing goals in the world; first, it may be acquired or learned
(if it is not inherited like how-to-breathe air and how-to-digest food) without conscious
attention. Anything which can be learned “by intuition,” “just watching others,” or without
otherwise “having to go to school” and focus on education, is easier to grasp. Consciousness,
for all its values, even wonders, remains a poor and limited way of truly learning well,
especially of moving knowledge from head to body so that it “becomes second nature.”
However it happens, women’s wiles seem more like “second nature,” if indeed they
are not truly “first nature” in the sense of being inherited at birth. Even little girls who “have
not been taught” often seem proficient in wielding the powers of wiles “without a thought in
the world.”
But the second consequence of nonscious wiliness is perhaps even greater than the
first. Since wiles can seemingly be effected without awareness, they do not have to face the
scrutiny of conscious judgments. We cannot be held responsible for things we “just do
without meaning to.” Even in courts of law “unintentional” crimes often go unpunished.
Outside the courts–in everyday life, we may readily forgive others for what they “didn’t mean
to do.”
Point: if wiles are done unawarely they never come under the threats of judgment or
social condemnation which are common with intentional actions. You can’t reasonably
condemn (or praise, for that matter) someone for their unintended actions. If a woman, for
example, “didn’t mean to be seductive,” or did not consciously say “yes,” then obviously she
cannot be responsible “for what happens.”
Thirdly, and probably most relevant of all, is the ease with which any unconscious
skill can be carried out in comparison with the demands of “having to think about what you
are doing.” Any natural action, like throwing a ball (at least for males), is far easier than an
unnatural action, like manners at the table (again, at least for males!). Just as swallowing
candy is easier than “taking medicine (an unnatural act),” so anything which can be “done
without thinking” is easier than an act which requires conscious attention.
“Second nature” activities are not only easier to begin with, but also to perfect. When
skills can be honed apart from the often disconcerting eyes of self-consciousness, they may
become powerfully effective without disturbance by the scrutiny of reason. This phenomenon
has been called “unconscious competency” to distinguish it from other abilities which require
careful awareness for even small degrees of effectiveness.
When these latter two consequences are brought together, namely, freedom from
judgment and unconscious competency, then wiles have distinct advantages in practice over
overt power moves which both require conscious attention and face social judgments at the
same time. For example, deception or “lying” is commonly condemned in society and
religion. We are, as we all know, “supposed to be honest,” certainly to “tell the truth” and
“not lie.” Ideal George Washington, children are taught, “could never tell a lie.”
But wiles are, almost by definition, deceptive–that is, subtly yet powerfully aimed, all
under cover of covertness. When unawareness is added to covertness, an extremely potent
form of force becomes operative, all outside the scrutiny of either conscience or law. If I
“don’t know what I am doing” I bypass the potential pangs of conscience as well as the often
debilitating eyes of consciousness. I can, if you will, “lie without knowing it.” I can actively
“be deceptive” without “knowing what I am doing.” I can “fool others” without having to face
my own dishonesty. Freed from the condemning eyes of conscience, all my mental energies
can then go to effecting my “innocent” deceptions. Conscious dishonesty may be a grand
challenge in our society–even impossible for many; but unconscious lying can be both safe
and effective.
These generalized observations become extremely relevant in regard to female wiles.I
will later use the rather judgmental term, “faking estrus,” as lying at the deepest heart of
woman’s most effective wiles. But while I think it is accurate in an objective sense, I also
think it is almost never acknowledged as such by females. The nonscious nature of wiles in
general leaves females free from facing this potentially unacceptable social judgment. If, for
example, a female “just likes to be pretty”–no “ulterior motives” involved, then any hint of
faking anything is successfully avoided.
&&&&&&&
REPRESSION

At least 90-95% of “woman’s wiles” are, I reluctantly see, human capacities which
have simply been utilized by women but ignored by men–that is, they are rooted more in male
repression than in anything innately female in nature. Certainly women use the powers
operative in their wiles, but mostly they exist there because of male projections; in other
words, we males blindly give away, as it were, powers which females wisely pick up and use.
Without our typical male denials/projections what we blindly give away might be useful to us.
In the final analysis, we men dumbly give females many powers which they smartly
use to their own benefit. More accurately then, my title in this exploration of woman’s wiles
might be man’s repressions–or even more personally, Bruce’s projections. Even so, I confront
the issue as I see it first, namely, in its mirror image in women’s wiles. I try to see more
clearly the images of my power projections “out there” on the longer way, hopefully, to
reclaiming them “in here.” I look outside at woman’s wiles for mirroring powers which I now
think are largely inherent in all human’s capacities but which I, and I think most other males,
typically repress within ourselves and then only recognize externally in the females who are
smart enough to use what we unwittingly give them.
Left in the mirrors which reflect them, the powers under consideration here might
more personally be named: Way’s I’ve Been Fooled By Women, or How I’ve Been Used By
Females. These, however, ignore what I now know about repression/projection and leave me
self-righteously appearing as an innocent victim of female circumstances–which I also now
know to be far less true than I ever realized before.
&&&&&&&
WILES AND POWER
On the surface, woman’s wiles are about influencing man’s behavior, about managing
male actions in accord with female desires; but on the deepest level wiles are, I think, about
power, final control, the “last say so”–that is, ultimate possession. The chain on which a male
is kept may be long, the prison bars carefully hidden; but keeping-him-as-mine, even if he
doesn’t know it (preferably so), must be the deepest goal.
The power behind the proverbial throne may wisely allow and keep a deceived king
out front but in the dark. But never mind the appearance of “who’s in charge”–this is but a
part of the artful wile; what matters most is who has the “last word.” In the process of keeping
ultimate control, a woman may give up many lessor powers, even to the extent of appearing
as a poor victim, yet secretly knowing who holds the upper hand after all is said and done,
“behind closed doors” where ultimate pussy power reigns supreme.
This female control need not be over every action, or even every decision, but lies in
the final veto power over all, in the fact that none will be beyond her final correction. Ideally,
she has a man “reading her mind,” that is, doing/getting what she wants without having to ask
or even “let on to” wanting–i.e., sexual response without any seduction. She, at best, wants a
man to do what she wants without being told, preferably, even hinted–that is, to read her mind
so she can remain effectively nonscious.

POWER WIELDING
From largest perspective, woman’s wiles are one of the two major forms of wielding
power, namely, overtly and covertly. In reality, both men and women are capable of using
either or both forms; but in practice, for reasons I will explore later, men tend in most
situations to use overt power, and women, covert. Power wielding itself, in either form, is
simply a means of getting what we want, of achieving personal goals in the world, especially,
with other people.
As such, power wielding, whether by overt or covert means, is essential in human life
and therefore morally neutral–neither good nor bad within itself. We all must wield some
form of power in order to survive and replicate ourselves; whether we use one or the other, or
both, is a pragmatic call, not a moral issue. Overt power, for example, is not good or bad,
inherently; nor is covert power. They are simply different ways of trying to get what we want.
In practice, however, there seem to be more social judgments attached to covert than
to overt power wielding. With overt power we tend to say, “well, at least he was honest about
it.” But we often see covert power, if at all, as “sneaky,” “dishonest,” or, “behind the back.”
All power wielding, all efforts to reach personal goals, are inherently aggressive in the
sense of being assertive or reaching forth. But to distinguish the two major modes we may
further generalize by seeing overt power management as “active aggression,” and covert
operations as “passive aggression.” Both are aggressive, but in contrasting ways. Even though
negative judgments are often attached to some of the descriptive terms, such as,
“manipulative,” or “conning,” for covert power moves, in fact, such judgments can only color
understanding. Here I try to suspend such condemnations of one or praises of the other; I am
simply trying to see the second major form more clearly–and in an arena which is significant
to most of us, namely, gender relationships.
Typically male forms of power wielding, being overt in nature, are relatively easy to
see because they tend to be “up front” and “out in the open.” Sampson’s strength, for
example, is obvious; but Delilah’s cunning is subtle and hidden, less subject, we might say,
“to public scrutiny.”
Even so, it is this second way, the one most typical of females, which I am trying to
bring more clearly into my consciousness. I know that merely “seeing something” doesn’t
change it; but if I don’t see something I am far more likely to be effected, even “done in,” by
it, than when I am consciously alert. My intent here is not to judge the Delilah’s of the world
for “being sneaky,” but rather to try to understand their modes more clearly so that I may
relate to them more in self-chosen ways than in simply being blindly manipulated by them.
Another relevant generalization in looking more carefully at covert power
management is the fact that it works better “in the dark,” both literally and figuratively.
Whereas overt power is better served by consciousness, by “having things in the light,” by
“knowing what you are doing,” the opposite seems to be true for covert power. Woman’s
wiles, for example, are even more effective when carried out surreptitiously–both in the world
and in mind. Men “do better” when we “know what we are doing,” that is, are consciously
alert to our overt means of operation; but women seem to be even more effective when they
“don’t know what they are doing,” when they simply “do what feels right” without ever
bringing it under the bright lights of conscious scrutiny.
 This observation is relevant here because whereas an examination of overt power
modes can profit by such open looking, covert ways may actually suffer by exposure,
becoming harder, not easier, to wield. Men have good reason to try to understand how to be
actively aggressive; the more clearly we “understand the rules” of how overt power works, the
better we can wield it. But the same may not be true for passive aggression. It may function
best “in the dark,” when wielded “intuitively,” or, “by feel,” rather than being “brought out
into the open” of the world or mind.
Consequently, I must remain aware that while trying to understand woman’s wiles
may be a valuable addition to male thinking, the same is not necessarily true for females who
may in fact “do better” when not “looking at” their own moves. Delilah may well ask
Sampson where his strength lies, because men take pride in our powers. We like showing off
our physical muscles, and, even to our own eventual detriment, we often enjoy showing off
our mental muscles as well–that is, telling women “how we do things.” But the Delilah’s of
the world, given their passive forms of aggression, are far less likely (and with very good
reason) to reveal (even to want to see) their own trade secrets.
If a woman asks a man, “How did you do that (whatever that is)?,” we are usually
delighted to “get to explain ourselves,” especially to a female. It easily becomes a form of
bragging or looking for ways to see our own strengths more clearly. In contrast, however, if a
man asks a woman, “How do you wield your wiles?,” well, the answer must be obvious to all.
If she is truly dumb, a Delilah may show her symbolic scissors; but not if she is at all smart,
either intuitively or consciously. This means in practice, and for my own reminders here, if
men want to understand women’s wiles, we can’t simply ask them; almost certainly we won’t
get a “straight answer,” especially if our stated speculations are “on target.”

We must, that is, do our own looking–and trying to understand entirely on our own,
which is what I am attempting here.
&&&&&&&
WILES AND PROJECTIONtc" WILES
AND PROJECTION"
Before getting specific I want to again acknowledge that I think about 90-95% of
power wielded by women in their here-called wiles is the result of male projection rather than
any literal power in the moves we commonly fall far. We males, I regret to see, unwittingly
give females most of the powers which they then use in their own agendas. We may blame
them, as since Adam we so commonly do, but the major fault lies hidden in our own forgotten
repressions of male power which lead to the projections in the first place. Surely women use
our projected powers, as we would theirs were we so fortunate; but if the truth be known, we
are more often victims of our own blindness rather than actual female powers.
In coping with reality via blind repression rather than conscious confrontation, we
unwittingly set the stage for later manipulations by females with powers we have previously
projected onto them. I doubt that we ever know at the time–as is the nature of projection, that
we have given females the powers which they later use, as we so often think “against us.” But
in hindsight, with at least some minor degrees of faced repressions and withdrawn projections
of my own, I can sometimes see now how often I still remain tempted to fall for stratagems
and miss the affection which may be hidden behind them.
&&&&&&&
FAKING ESTRUS
 So, if I am able to stop blaming and simply observe, what do I see? If I can bring dark
wiles into the light of analysis and understanding, what are they like? Other than our own
male projections, what are the substances of female stratagems?
Faking estrus must lie at the deepest heart of the most effective of all woman’s wiles.
Content ranges far afield from this primal illusion, but in broadest summary, appearing to be
conceive-able–that is, to be able to “get pregnant,” to “have babies,” must be the most
powerful of all female ruses. Rooted, I theorize, in this most ancient and pervasive “gene eye”
search of masculinity in quest of self-replication, women since Eve must have deeply learned
that what moves us most mightily are signs of their own pregnability. If female “heat”
instinctively invites male “rutting”–as appears to be so in the animal world, the appearance of
estrus–even when it is faked, may compel human males to react likewise.
This is what I think must have happened since ancient eras when estrus–monthly times
of conceive-ability, somehow ceased to be overt and honest (“went underground,” as it were,
lost to eyes and noses of discerning males as well as to unavoidable attention of females).
With its loss of obviousness came the possibility of pretending, and thereby fooling males into
responding as we would were conception truly possible. If ancient females with emerging
consciousness could somehow give signs of baby-making capacities all during the month,
rather than only when an ovum was descending, then perhaps they could elicit continuing
response from males who were gene-bent on impregnating them.
This theory seems plausible to me as a possible explanation of how the ruse may first
have begun. But however it came to be, I am convinced that appearances of being a good
baby maker have long been the most powerful wile of females in their essential quests of
wielding power with men.
Also, faking estrus may be even more effective than real “heat” because it can be
augmented with skills of unconscious competency. Not limited by true signs of conceive-
ability (actually being “hot”), a woman may become even more artful in mimicking looks,
sounds, and actions normally associated with real estrus (i.e., moaning, and faking orgasms).
Without the limitations of consciousness and hence conscience, the arts of deception may, I
theorize, be escalated exponentially.
&&&&&&&
PRIMAL CAUSEStc" PRIMAL CAUSES"
Understanding the root causes of our differing power modes is less relevant than
simply seeing and accepting how they operate in daily life; but for me, seeing causes is
helpful in catching on to operations. Although the actual arenas of woman’s wiles range far
and away from biological genetics evolved for replication, I think they can broadly be best
seen by observing basic facts about conception. When the realities of conceiving-for-baby-
making are transformed into notions of conceiving-for-thinking–that is, when mental
conception is recognized as rooted in physical conception, the whole confusing issue may be
seen more clearly in this primal light.
Specifically, in broadest look, for conception (the most primal event in replication) to
occur, the overt male organ must get hard and the covert female organ must get soft. He “gets
hard” to penetrate, while she “gets soft” to receive. He actively pushes in, while she passively
takes in. The firmer he (his penis) is, the better “it” works; the softer she (her vagina) is, the
more likely is her reception of his sperm to occur. Overt and hard/ covert and soft; this is how
sex works best. If the male is soft and the female hard, conception, even when mutually
desired, becomes unlikely.
And in the intricate power processes leading up to fucking and following conception,
the same principles of operation seem to work best, namely, males actively pursuing females
who passively seem to resist their “advances.” I place seem to in italics to emphasize its
intended metaphorical sense. Covert aggression seems to be passive–as it in fact is to the eye.
But in practice, if the light of understanding ever falls on it, so-called passive aggression may
turn out to actually be far more assertive than more obvious active aggression (as males
commonly use). Only to the eyes of head and mind is it truly passive.
For example, a woman may privately work far harder in artfully wielding her passive
forms of aggression than does a man whose efforts, like his penis, are move easily visible.
Putting on make-up, to be specific, may take far more energy, time, money, and effort, than
asking for a date (even including buying roses, dinner, etc.). But I get ahead of myself; for
now I only want to note the deceptiveness of the adjectives active and passive when used to
describe male and female modes of wielding power (or trying to!).
Point: if facts about how sexual intercourse and extended marriages work best are seen
as metaphors–if not in fact the actual biological basis (primal cause), then the workings of, for
example, woman’s wiles may be easier to understand. They all, I submit, fit into this ancient
reproductive motif.
One other primal fact about animal estrus and potential conception lends an apt
metaphor (if not real cause) for seeing the overall stance of most female wiles, namely,
presentation. A female ape, for example, in her times of estrus when conception is possible,
“presents” herself to male apes. Her reddened and engorged genitals are exposed for male
vision and smell. She, in human terms, “raises her ass” or presents her genitals for
examination and possible penetration by a male–one, of course, of her own selection. But in
the meantime, while her “heat” is on, she goes about “presenting herself.”
I think this single term which is so obviously accurate for female apes in estrus, is
equally descriptive of most human female modes of wielding covert power. At the very heart
of nearly all women’s wiles are various and assorted forms of multi-colored (most obviously,
red) presentations. She does not “get hard” and forceful, as works best for males; but she can
amplify and multiply a near infinite variety of soft and passive, yet powerfully inviting, artful
presentations, not too terribly far removed from the more obvious exposures of female apes.
In summary, in looking for apt metaphors, even if not accurate facts, presentation is
among the best I have found for giving an overall picture of the most artful of female wiles.
Passive aggression (overt power management), when done well, involves presenting images–
in faces, figures, bodies, feelings, postures, movements, words, and actions, all of which are
clues if not conscious invitations to the primal receptivity which lies at the heart of the female
role in conception. Human females, with good reason, are far less obvious and more subtle
than their primate ancestors showing reddened genitals laden with estrus smells; but, after all
is said and done, not that much different--still, that is, presenting.
&&&&&&&
AIMS OF WILES
In service of female genetic needs (1% sex, 99% security), woman’s wiles may have
at least three basic aims. In order of strength and drive, they are, as I now see them: 1)
possession, 2) control, and 3) service.
First and foremost, woman needs to get a man for herself alone. This is why “getting
married” is so critically important for females. A woman needs to have a man or else the final
functional value can never be achieved, namely, a man in service of her biological needs.
“My man” is a primal female value. Woman may endure, for example, a long courtship and
maid-in-waiting period while she works her wiles which are initially aimed at achieving
possession.
Next, once the vows are made signifying total possession and excluding her man’s
availability to any other woman, wiles are then aimed at control. It is not enough to simply
have a male; for fullest utility (aim #3), he must also be managed in ways which make him
most useful to her. Control is often seen as a harsh word, and females seem to resist (with
good reasons, explored before) acknowledging this goal for their assorted wiles; but from a
male, or objective viewpoint, this is precisely what is sought–call it what you will.
The ultimate control aim is commonly cloaked by a leash of varying lengths. Like a
dog on an invisible rope, a man may be allowed considerable leeway in relatively unimportant
“freedoms,” but remains subject to being rudely jerked in when he reaches these limits
individually set by a wily female. Within this carefully structured though hidden framework
of limited freedom, a man may appear to be quite independent and “doing as he pleases.”
Closer examination, however, will often reveal that these relative freedoms are artfully
curtailed, primarily via woman’s wiles.
Finally, service is the real and most important point of it all; a girl venturing into the
mysterious and demanding realms of pregnancy, birth, and child rearing is in serious need of
massive amounts of security–which is best achieved by various services of her man. Again, it
would sound harsh to say that a woman aims at using a man; but attitudinal judgments and
cloaking words aside, this is precisely the nature and meaning of service. Females caught up
in woman’s role in the shared Drama of Reproduction desperately need to use a male to “help
share the load.” In particular, she needs to use him for protection from threatening world
forces, for providing resources and supplies from the outside world, and, if fortunate, for
specific functions with children and home. In cliches, she needs to use her man for “fighting
off enemies,” “making a living” or “bringing home the bacon,” and “being useful around the
house and yard.”
In service of grand challenges unfairly assigned to the “fairer gender,” woman’s wiles
must indeed seem like fragile tools for achieving the security essential for successful child
rearing. In this biological drive, crudely called the mothering instinct, getting, controlling, and
using a man must seem like small compensation for massive responsibilities only he can
avoid.
&&&&&&&
PASSIVE AGGRESSION
Woman’s ways of wielding power can be divided into two categories, both with the
same aim, namely, achieving her desires in the world. The first and most oft used forms of
female power-wielding are more subtle and accurately seen as wiles. They are, from broadest
perspective, various forms of teasing–that is, offering a desired “object” but at the same time
“holding out” or resisting giving it. With this mode of wielding power one extends a
proverbial carrot (desired object) but resists giving it by holding it in front of the desiring
one--in this case, male. Only when all else fails, that is, when the wile ceases to work, does
the woman “give in.” Then it must be on to the next wile.
A second major category of woman’s wiles is passive aggression–the flip side of the
coin of active aggression--which is more common with males. Passive aggression is a form of
power-wielding which, as the name implies, is passive rather than active–or more literally,
covert instead of overt. In reality it may in fact be even more active than the overt types of
aggression more often used by males; but the activity of passive aggression is less visible to
the eye, more evident to the emotions.

First, perspective: aggression is the defining part of the term; this is simply one way of
asserting oneself, of aggressively pursuing a goal–except here the aggression takes a passive
rather than an active form. It is subtle rather than obvious, “behind the scenes” rather than “up
front.” It is like a concealed trap, carefully set, into which an unsuspecting one steps, only to
find himself “caught” by the passive aggressor.
 For contrast, the more familiar kind of aggression–the more typically male-type, is
clearly assertive because its major forms are obvious to the eye and other physical senses.
“Hitting,” for example, physical violence, is a common form of active aggression. “Bodily
harm” is a favorite weapon in the type of aggression more often taken by males.
In the big picture, passive aggression is, as noted, much like the other major type of
female “fighting”–that is, a wily form of “baiting” or teasing, balanced by resistance or
withholding as a way of wielding power. In this case, however, the “carrots” are more often
mental than physical, verbal than tangible.
Specific types of passive aggression are probably as diverse as are the females who so
commonly use them; but among those I have come to occasionally recognize (when I am not
too caught up in falling for them) and will describe in more detail later are these: “niceness,”
“good intentions,” insincere “apologies,” phony “feelings,” global irrationalities, and general
spiritual abuse–which may take any of many other forms.
&&&&&&&
SPIRITUAL ABUSE
Because spiritual abuse, quite unlike physical abuse, is both socially acceptable and
legal, plus often hard to detect by the eye or logical mind, it commonly goes unnoticed–at
least at first or even while in process, until one later feels hurt and begins to wonder why.
Spiritual abuse is like (note metaphor) a stab between the emotional ribs by an invisible knife.
One hardly knows he has been attacked until he “feels” the blood flowing from his heart.
For further comparison (more metaphors before I try to get specific) this covert form
of aggression may be likened to the contrasting male type which is basically against the
physical body. Passive aggression, however, seldom attacks the body; indeed it may even
come in the form of overt bodily care. This female type of power wielding is, in contrast,
more like an attack on the spirit–“heart,” “feelings,” “self,” or “ego,” that is, one’s inwardness
rather than outwardness. It strikes, as it were, below the surface of the skin, not on the skin
itself.
After physical abuse, one may experience bodily pain; after spiritual abuse one
experiences emotional pain. The blood-letting of active aggression is obvious and may be
treated externally with drugs, bandages, and anti-biotics; the “blood-letting” of passive
aggression is more like internal bleeding, with few if any means of active treatment. Splints
may be effective in healing broken bones resulting from physical abuse, but “time,” as it
were, is often the only treatment for a broken spirit; and even this spiritual “anti-biotic” may
never work finally.
Point: the subtleties and hidden nature of passive aggression are often deceptive both
in regard to its immediate and long range effect. Even though it is socially acceptable, widely
used by females, never illegal and hardly even impolite, this form of covert assertion is
immensely powerful and possibly even more lethal in time than the more common kinds of
physical abuse.
Point Two: males, if wise, will beware of the powers of passive aggression. They may
often “get us” when we least expect it. (Of course, this form of power-wielding is by no
means exclusive to the female gender. Many males learn and effectively use it as well; but in
most everyday life, the form remains more typical of females than of males.)
&&&&&&&
SOURCES OF WILES
There are three significant sources for diverse individual wiles: body, mind, and
actions--particular activities with advantages in the first two arenas. Men, of course, have
access to these same three sources; yet significant differences exist in each which lend
themselves to greater utility by females.
First, body. For sound genetic reasons woman’s body always means more to man than
does man’s body to woman, because of its greater significance in our complementary roles in
replication. More than all else, woman’s physical capacity for baby-making–that is, her body,
is essential for male replication. Man’s sperm, of course, is equally necessary for female
replication, but his body itself is far less relevant to his security-making potential which is
more essential to her in the long run.
A male butt, for example, may be “cute” to a female, but it is hardly relevant as a clue
to his dependability which matters far more. In sharp contrast, however, a woman’s ass
(pelvis) can be a crucial sign of her capacities for what matters most to males, namely, her
baby-making possibilities.
Second, mind. In spite of a common male notion that “women don’t think much,” or
are “just emotional,” I think that woman’s actual brain power is typically greater than that
man’s. Not that females have more brain cells or improved circuitry, but they do, as best I can
tell, typically activate and use more of our native human mental capacities. Probably, based
on physical measurements alone, our physical brains are quite similar, except for a somewhat
larger Corpus Callosum connecting the two hemispheres in women.
But when we come to comprehensive, overall, effectiveness, I reluctantly
acknowledge that my data supports the conclusion of “better thinking” by women than by
men in general. They typically “think circles around us,” both literally and figuratively. If
there is a male mental edge it lies in “focus ability” in contrast with expansive mind activity.
But even this possible edge which is quite valuable in hunting, aiming at game, particular
types of problem solving, and “being reasonable,” is based more on excluding data than on
comprehensive thinking. The true mental skill in these limited arenas where males do indeed
seem to have advantages over women are more related to practice at excluding external sense
data as well as internal emotional information, both of which are important in wise decision
making “in the big picture.”
Thirdly, most all female wiles not inherent in these two sources come from artful
combinations of them in action. Men too act in ways aimed at achieving our own goals with
women; we have, that is, wiles of our own–which I will distinguish by calling them ploys.
But, and this is the critical difference, most male actions aimed at managing females are overt
and relatively crude in comparison with female moves which are generally covert, subtle, and
sharply tuned. Male advantages mainly rely on our greater physical strength and the capacity
to inflict bodily pain, plus doing things which threaten female security–such as, gambling,
drinking, and “running around on” women. Surely these all too typical male activities effect
females who depend on us–but mostly in negative rather than positive ways, as is more often
true with subtle female wiles.
&&&&&&&
RESISTANCE WILES
Another genetic fact reflects in an animal mode of actions which may themselves be
useful in understanding human female wiles in an overall sense. I refer to the hidden nature of
female ovulation in all species, especially us humans. The “propitious moment” when a ripe
ovum is loosed from an ovary and becomes briefly available for conception before being
discarded in a menstrual flow remains a mystery to animals as well as humans. Somehow,
both males and females, in order to replicate ourselves, must do our best to find this hidden-
to-mind time–else genetic immortality eludes us both.
But in our mutual searches for optimal times for conception, where females obviously
have a grand advantage, given that it is occurring within their own bodies, making the event
of penetration succeed can become an even grander challenge. As noted before, the ultimate
instant is more likely to be successful when the male is actively hard and the female passively
soft, when he is best able to penetrate, and she most likely to receive.
The process, however, involves both the quest for best time, and the conditions for
optimal union. Since the final answer is best determined by the female in whose body the
critical ovum release is taking place, reasonably she is in the best position to determine the
time when actual intercourse is most likely to be successful. He, in the meantime, is well
behooved to be readily available when she figures the “time is ripe.”
All these obvious facts about conception become relevant in understanding the powers
operative in the process. The male, less informed about the best when, understandably pursues
over a period of time so he is there and ready whenever the female makes the final
determination; but she, while awaiting the tides of nature to move by their own wisdom, must
smartly evade his less knowledgeable persistence with appropriate resistance–until she finds
“the time to be right (literally, her ovum ripe).”
This dance of rhythmical persistence/resistance–the lordly lion, for example,
attentively pursuing while the queenly lioness artfully walks away or openly resists when his
persistence is deemed untimely, is the very genius of mutual cooperation in seeking the brief
magical moments when the immortality of each hangs in a delicate balance. It is indeed a
dance of destiny.
The point here, however, is not the noted facts of biology, but rather the psychological
implications of these facts. In the animal world, when replication is the only goal, the intricate
gender dances work to perfection–else they would have evolved out of existence long ago.
But in the human world, where consciousness has also evolved, the same primal dances can
easily go awry unless they are understood and used wisely.
For now I only want to note the often hidden powers operative in female resistance to
the move easily seen aggressions of male persistence in “forcing our attentions.” Resistance, I
have belatedly come to recognize, is, in spite of how it appears on the surface, one of the most
powerful of all female wiles.
In the animal world, where Conception is the name of the game, there is no one
winner and one loser. Either both win, or both lose. Only together can their separate genes
open the door to extended life beyond themselves. Power wielding, for lower animals, is
apparently only a servant, as it were, of replication. But with us humans, not so. Indeed the
forces which I theorize to be rooted in these noted biological facts can be completely severed
from their native purposes and made available, especially for females, in wielding power for
totally unrelated causes.
It is this latter possibility, the use of resistance as a womanly wile for any reason,
which I wish to examine here. Easily I see how persistence works (or backfires); but the
utility of its opposite has long evaded my awareness while I remained so completely
vulnerable to its operation.
HARD TO GET
To begin with, “playing hard to get” is a male perspective of a female endeavor which
on the biological level might more clearly be seen as “getting soft to give.” To us who are
already ready for our role in Conception, the true name of the game, it does indeed appear that
females are “resisting our advances” and hence “just playing hard to get.” Not so, however,
insofar as the female role in our shared Drama of Reproduction is concerned; while we males
are generally ready to spread our multiple sperm, even at the drop of a hat (pants, literally),
females are rarely ready to release a single ovum. The genetic situation is complicated by the
additional fact that while we have millions to spare, they have precious few, certainly none to
waste.
 Therefore, crucial to female replication is somehow determining that hidden moment
of ovulation and the brief time following an ovum’s release for its journey down a Fallopian
tube on the way to possible impregnation but more likely, slow death. Of course both our
genetic futures depend on finding the same dark time for potential conception; but since
woman has most information, Mother Nature has wisely left final determinations to her. We
males, in the mean time, can only pursue, wait, try to be patient, and hopefully not lose heart
in the whole process which we only see as “playing hard to get.”
The true female agenda, at least insofar as biology is concerned, is, however, not that
at all. She, genetically speaking, is just as concerned with timely intercourse as are we. For
her, this is no game at all, but rather a deadly serious endeavor to wisely discover an answer
which is only slightly less hidden to her than to us. Also, she has an additional challenge, past
that of best guessing about “when to do it,” namely, of becoming engorged, soft, and flexible
in her reproductive tract so as to be open for presenting her ripe ovum and selecting a one-in-
a-million best sperm.
She must, if we are to mutually succeed in Conception, “get soft to give” along with
wisely figuring out “when to open.” Only we self-centered, ego determined, males could
blindly see females as “playing hard to get.”
Another bit of male projection which I have made in the past has involved a play on
words which, I reluctantly admit, is more like a repressed wish than an accurate fact. In this
fantasy I have imagined that females “play hard to get” in order to “get it hard” to get–that is,
that the whole game of resistance is more for male benefit in reaching and maintaining an
erection than for anything personal to women, other than assuring themselves a firm penis for
the final act. Perhaps there is a slight bit of genetic wisdom in this fantasy, given the facts that
we males do sometimes “need help” in “getting hard” and certainly females need a stable
instrument for “plowing” the proverbial “furrow.”
But only slight, I now figure. Mostly, I imagine with more light on the subject,
females are so caught up in the noted challenges of their own genetic agenda that they don’t
have time nor energy for “helping us.” Nor should they, even if they could, since, after all,
Mother Nature wisely wants a strong, enduring male who can stand on his own, not a weak
wimp who needs a hard woman to “make him a man.”
Still, it is the wondrous phenomenon of how we ever get together in quest of
Conception which I wish to examine here–not to quibble over what to call it, or whose
perspective is most accurate, or if there is any biological basis for my various imaginations.
All such theories aside, less controversial are the observations that successful sex–for
whatever reasons, involves an intricate dance of: pursuing/being pursued,
persistence/resistance, hard/soft; or, in game language, of playing “hide and seek,” of “trying
hard to find” and “playing hard to get,” (or even “playing hard to get to get it hard to get”–
from a male perspective; or “trying hard to get it soft enough to give and receive”–from a
woman’s view point.
But from a variety of available terms, all with certain limitations, I choose the two
which seem to me to be the most descriptive on the surface, namely, persistence for the male
role, and resistance for the female part. Men just naturally persist in trying to “get in women’s
pants,” while women with equal predictability just naturally resist “letting them in”–all, that
is, up to a point.
Now I come to the crucial issue relevant to my current exploration of women’s wiles,
namely, that the above descriptions are only about functional roles evolved to relative
perfection over eons of evolution, when the only goal is mutual replication. Although the
parts in the drama appear to be in opposition to each other–that he is literally persisting and
she truly resisting, in reality they are each artistically cooperating, dancing harmoniously, we
might say, in a beautiful encounter of mutual concern. This is, in nature, a drama, an act, but
not a true game. Insofar as Mother Nature is concerned there can be no winner and no loser. If
one truly wins and the other loses–as in the male actually prevailing and the female
conceding, then all is to no avail. It only “works” if, as illogical as it sounds, “both win”–that
is, if each “succeeds” in “getting what they most dearly want.” If we see the biological drama
in game terms, it may look serious, but is in reality always playful.
Even so, in ordinary daily life, where we all spend 99.9% of our time in some form of
cross-gender relationships of an immense variety, there are indeed serious games going on
with these same biological roots. Persistent men are regularly involved with resistant women
when the true name of the game is Power, not Conception. Each is trying, usually
unconsciously, to wield power with the other for reasons having nothing to do with literal
baby-making. Sex may be the name of the game from the standpoint of male consciousness,
but from a female point of view, sex has almost nothing at all to do with it.
Surely the playing pieces in this hidden game of Power are the same bodily parts
operative in biological agendas aimed at Conception; but only the playing pieces. The
commonly dark goals are completely different. Penises and vaginas, finally, are the tools of
the trade. Male urges to “do it” and female “tits and ass” are what move around the board with
assorted throws of the dice. But beneath all the show, even when it ends up in bed if not a
cold shower, the bottom line reads Power–and here, unlike in nature, there is always a winner
and a loser. The power of one is enhanced, while that of the other is diminished–if not lost
altogether at the time.
Although there are, obviously, two players in each such everyday game, a man and a
woman, here I am first exploring the latter players–the women who wield, as I am calling
them, wiles in their various moves aimed, not at Conception, but at Power or Control.
Specifically, I want to look more clearly at the mode of resistance as a tool of power, rather
than a role aimed at “giving in” and “receiving” where no winning and losing occurs. How
does resistance work insofar as wielding power is concerned? What is the psychology of the
wile? What are the male factors subject to manipulation by female moves of resistance? How
do females, either consciously or unconsciously, manage to achieve control through passive
resistance as distinguished from the more familiar (to me) mode of active persistence?
&&&&&&&
RESISTANCE AND POWER
My best analysis so far is this: resistance works like the proverbial carrot dangled
before a horse pulling a carriage. By holding a desired object before the hungry animal, a
driver uses a horse’s instinctive desires (in the metaphor, food) to motivate him into serving
the driver by pulling the wagon. Rather than actively wielding force, i.e., by the pain of a
whip, the clever driver passively invites a desired response by tempting the animal toward
what she wants for herself. She plays, as it were, on the animal’s own urges, only now in
service of the desires of the rider (a free ride?).
Resistance power, from another perspective, is like teasing, pretending to do or give
one obvious thing when another hidden agenda is actually at work. A teaser offers a gift with
unseen strings attached. A gullible one goes for the apparent gift, only to find himself pulled,
even yanked, in another direction by the unrevealed “string”–which is the true power.
Effective resistance is also like an unstated promise. It implies: “If you will do this, I
will do that.” “If you do what I want you to, I will give you what you want to get.” The
“carrot”–to mix my metaphors, is the promise. One promises a tasty morsel in return for a
desired action, i.e., pulling the carriage or otherwise serving the promiser.
The often unsuspecting (unconscious of what is actually going on) one willingly
complies at the time, based on a belief that desire satisfaction of his own will be forthcoming
in time. The gamble, as it were, is that a smaller sacrifice just now will lead to grander
rewards later on. He “gives in” temporarily with the secret hope (implied promise) of “coming
out on top” eventually. He does, for example, a task not of his own choosing, which he
believes will result in other rewards which are his choice.
The translations of the metaphored carrot or unspoken promise into real forms in daily
gender life are as varied as are the men and women who play this serious game; but the one
abiding, underlying, and all too often unrecognized issue at stake is Power. The true, even
though unspoken, agenda is Control–one person wielding power over the actions, even life, of
the other.
In general, and most effectively, the playing pieces of the serious Power game are
drawn from the biological roles and bodily parts of the playful Reproductive drama. That
which is biologically evolved for genetic purposes of Mother Nature is borrowed, as it were,
for the psychological purposes of Mother Mary–plus Mary Jane, Sally Sue, Dorothy Mae, et
al. Equipment and moves designed for replication are used instead for purposes of
manipulation. Modes evolved for increasing the relatively slim odds of mutual conception are
activated with aims (most often unconscious, I think) of increasing bonds of personal control.
Specifically, in largest perspective, females have long ago learned the fine arts of
dangling, as it were, “carrots” of sex before male “horses” who easily get “hot to trot” at even
the slightest of implied promises. But in this social world, quite separated from the animal
kingdom where Mother Nature reigns supreme, the carrot is only a tool of power, not a true
invitation for potential conception. As soon as a male makes even the slightest of moves
toward “taking a good look,” let alone a feel or taste of any female “fruit (I switch, for clarity,
from vegetables to sweets),” the phenomenon of resistance, which I am exploring here,
follows immediately. “How could you even dare to think such?,” an artful female power-
broker may predictably reply to such an instinct-hungry male.
To be sure, female “carrots” and their associated resistances take many other
psychological forms apart from biological equipment and reproductive procedures, such as,
proffering “understanding,” “mothering,” or emotional affirmation; but the most immediately
effective female wiles, I conclude, all bear at least overtones of sexual promise. Even the
firmest of denials and most sincere of conscious motivations to the contrary, cannot hide the
correlations between how “good girls” present themselves, move, and act, and how “bad
girls” reveal themselves, seduce, and perform.
Subtle sexual promises with all their predictable resistances–when power rather than
conception is the hidden goal, work so well, I analyze, for two major reasons: first, the most
powerful of all male instinctive motivations, past the barest of survival satisfactions, are
drives for self-replication. The same, of course, is true for females; but in the shared drama,
the immensely differing female role places minor focus on sex and gives major attention to
pregnancy and child rearing. What matters most to healthy males, namely, “doing it,” is of
relatively minor concern to equally healthy females who reasonably are far more concerned
with getting and keeping faithful husbands.
Also, what is always a grand physiological and psychological event culminating in the
ultimate self-transcending pleasure for a male–deceptively seen as “just having sex,” can,
when power replaces conception as the goal, be a near nothing happening for a female. The
physiology of producing millions of sperm, achieving a firm erection, and engineering an
explosive ejaculation–not to mention the mental and emotional preparations (the
psychological parts) as well as the logistics of seduction required, are, in spite of how easy
they often seem, an immensely elaborate event in the life of a male. In fact, “about as big as
they get.”
But in sharp contrast, simply taking in a male penis, even faking an orgasm, can be a
relatively minor happening in the overall economy of femininity. Surely, when conception is
at risk, the far reaching consequences grandly exceed those of “five minutes of male
pleasure”; yet when the hidden agenda is power only, with “necessary precautions” of course,
choosing to spread one’s legs and “let him do it” is comparably inconsequential.
My point (even if male Chauvinism colors my descriptions) is that what is always a
“big deal” for a man--an event which “gives him heart” and “takes his mind away,” can be a
relatively minor “no big deal” for a wily woman who at the same time examines the wall
paper on the ceiling or plans tomorrow’s meals.
It is this grand difference in potential significance of sexual intercourse for a man and
a woman which becomes most relevant when power rather than conception is her goal. It
would, I submit, be hard to overestimate the potential power inherent in the ease with which a
woman can “let a man do it (if she chooses to),” can “act interested and personally involved,”
and even, when she feels especially benevolent, “let him think he has made her happy.”
The simple facts that a man can’t (and wouldn’t want to if he could) easily fake an
orgasm, and that a woman can, sets sexual intercourse up as a potential power tool of
immense proportions for all females. Coupled with the strength of healthy male drives toward
self replication, this disparity in facts easily makes the family bed room the grandest of arenas
for wielding female power–the wile, we might say, of holding out her “favors,” resisting
“doing it,” as a form of maintaining control, keeping him “interested” by subtle promises long
delayed in fulfilment but continually keeping him “on hold,” even “chomping at the bit (to
return to my carrot metaphor).”
Given her ease of pretending and his difficulty in waiting, the potential power inherent
in sexual resistance is magnified. Feeling no “pressure to perform”–or even engage in the “act
(as it literally may be to her),” a woman can freely devote her mind and attention to the arts of
resistance, of balancing the distance between carrot and serving horse, so as to keep him
pulling as long as possible without having to “give in” with her actual “favors.”
&&&&&&&
DECEPTION
The arenas of female wiles vary widely, but underneath them all deception is the
common theme. Ever since Delilah, and probably long before, clever women have fooled
unsuspecting men (see, I still play innocent, even long after I know better!) by a clever array
of assorted deceptions–all of which are systematically cloaked by functional veneers of
sincerity which may fool themselves as well as us.
Though a complex variety of mental tricks which are even more subtle than our crude
male-type repressions/projections, females have become so adept at wielding their wiles that,
as best I can tell, they commonly do so “without a thought in the world”–that is, nonsciously,
without ever having to bring their own deceptions into the light of awareness. Perhaps, I
speculate, women’s wiles have been around the evolutional scale long enough to even become
partially genetic by now. It may be that no single female now ever has to learn the wisdom of
Eve and Delilah for herself; maybe they are born with it after eons of survival in male
dominated jungles.
However it occurs, I have little doubt that female deceptions are so well ingrained by
now that few women require consciousness in order to wield them artfully. They simply seem
to come naturally and many, should they read my journals, would probably take offense at my
labeling their “natural ways” as deceptive.
Even so, it seems to me that deception is the most accurate overall adjective for the
great variety of ways in which women wield powers over men. Cleverly, even if
unconsciously, they fool us into acting in accord with their wishes–especially well after our
own repressions (symbolized as “giving away our secrets” in the Samson tale). Wily women
commonly control repressed men with deceptive “looks,” deceptive “words,” deceptive “acts”
and deceptive “feelings–all the while appearing, even to themselves, to be totally sincere in all
their make-up and dress, words, deeds, and emotions.

&&&&&&&
WILES CATEGORIZED
tc"WILES CATEGORIZED
"
Women’s wiles can be summarized into four major categories (as we males are won’t
to do before we face more difficult matters of de-coding what we see into functional
learning): looks, words, actions, and emotions–that is, appearances, verbal skills, deeds, and
feelings. In practice they commonly occur in elaborate combinations, an artful mixture of,
say, looks and actions, with perhaps words and emotions phased in for good measure. Still,
for understanding, I begin with an analysis of 77 of the various elements which are seldom
seen as separable as I describe them here. Also, there are probably many more wiles than I am
yet able to recognize.
Wiliness, or an event of using wiles, might be compared to a flashy automobile with
thousands of parts. We respond to the, say, Mercedes, in general; but here I try to describe the
wheels, windshield, etc. Or, if wiliness were a complex computer, what follows are
descriptions of the mouse, monitor, etc. Shallow, I realize; but I must start somewhere with
the simple if I am to ever catch on to the complex practices of female wiliness.
But enough of generalizing; what, specifically, are the contents of these four
categories which I summarize as deceptive? How do women use foolery in appearance,
language, performance and feelings to control the men they “love”–or say/think they do?
&&&&&&&
 I. LOOKS WILES
First, women artfully arrange their presentations of themselves in accord with
what men see as pretty or beautiful. They attract by appearing to be attractive; and that
which is most attractive to all male gene eyes is broadly summarized as conceive-able.
I coin this contraction because I can’t find another more descriptive name for the
bottom line I see in “what appeals to males.” By conceive-able I mean: able-to-
conceive–that is, to “make babies” or “have children.”
&&&&&&&
1. HOT WILES
I have concluded that conceive-ability–or the appeal of its possibility, must lie
at the deepest heart of female powers wielded through wiles. Consequently, evidences
of this capacity for baby-making will reasonably become the focus of such forces. The
most dramatic and hence effective clues to conceive-ability are: 1) Heat, 2) Sexiness,
and 3) Beauty.
First, a “hot” female can wield more immediate power than any other. “Hot”–
with all its never-clarified but always-recognized signs, probably achieves its deeper
powers from older associations with animals “in heat.” “Hot” implies estrus-under-
way, that a female is ovulating and in quest of sperm. The enduring appeal of Peggy
Lee’s sultry song, Fever (“You give me fever, fever that’s so hard to bear....,” is, I
suspect, its direct expression of this socially unacceptable stance when presented
without cover. A woman with passionate fever–one who appears to be “hot,” presents
a temptation men are rarely able to resist.
Perhaps the best translation of this impossible to finally define clue to
conceive-ability is sexual desire–“wanting to do it.” More than all else, I think, males
are moved by a female who seems to “want to”–that is, one who is “ready and willing”
to have sex. A multitude of other clues move us, but none so mightily as overt sexual
passion. Rapists who may overlook all other signs to the contrary (age, ugliness, even
deformity) often fantasize and explain their violent actions with the illusion “she was
asking for it.”
What in nature, with all “lower animals,” is the most honest and
straightforward of signs of “when to do it,” becomes with humans who also have the
capacity for deception, the most powerful of all wiles. Pretending to be “hot,”
appearing to be ready to “do it,” especially as signed by a “fever that’s so hard to
bear” that she seems to want to immediately jump into bed, will move most any
healthy man.
Unfortunately, “dangling” heat as a come-on, as a means of wielding power for
purposes other than conception (as is the nature of wiles), is as dangerous for a woman
as it is powerful. Unless used with the utmost care, “hot” moves quickly to fucking,
which may diminish rather than enhance a woman’s power over the tempted man.
Only when it can be artfully extended, rather than consummated, does heat prove
effective as a wile in the long run.
Consequently, this powerful-but-dangerous wile must be used with extreme
discretion, else it backfires. Truly “hot” females who do indeed “produce” rather than
seduce only, quickly become “sluts,” “whores,” or at best, “too easy.” They may get
fucked and pregnant, but they lose the power inherent in deceptive heat as a wile
rather than an honest invitation.
 Many other lessor variations on this same theme prove to be more functional in
the long run.
&&&&&&&
2. SEXY WILES

The second most powerful set of wiles can be summarized as “sexy.” A “sexy
looking” female, as all successful advertisers know, is probably the best of all ways to
capture male attention and perhaps sell their product. Victoria’s Secret, for example,
captures huge markets by portraying “sexy” females.
“Sexiness” is almost as hard to define as “hot”; but in general it involves a host
of clues which may be summarized as “warm”–that is, looking and/or acting-as-
though she just might eventually go to bed, even if not conceive. If hot females appear
to be immediately ready, sexy women look like they are getting close to ready. Their
passions, by implication, are potentially there, but still below the surface. The pussy
carrot is a bit further away, but implied as in the offing.
The specifics of “sexy” are amplified and expressed in most all other wiles
which in general become cloaked clues to the same. The underlying theme of the other
specific wiles to be described next boil down, in general, to what men take to be
“sexy” on the longer path toward “hot.”
Beauty, to be amplified later, is generally about presenting the appearance of
being sexy or hot, without registering any real heat or doing anything overtly sexy.
&&&&&&&
3. BEAUTY WILES

Beauty, I conclude, is the third most powerful of women’s wiles–following hot

and sexy as numbers 1 and 2. Beauty, obviously, has a near infinite number of
elements; but its bottom line, I analyze, is conceive-ability. More than all else what is
taken as beauty in a female boils down–after all is said and done, to the appearance of
baby-making potential.
Specific elements are: youth, health, hair, figure, face, smell, etc., but each of
these loci of beauty are, if truth be known, signs of what males seek most, namely, the
second half of our potential access to genetic immortality. We can and do easily make
sperm, the first requirement; but we can’t make ova, nor are we made to make babies.
For these second essentials we must have females. And what we most primally view
as “pretty” are those signs and clues we have long ago learned to associate with
“getting pregnant” with our own offspring.
Most primally of all, female beauty is posited in proverbial “tits and ass”–that
is, bodily equipment for producing and nourishing babies. More than all else, past heat
and sexiness, we are moved by a woman’s breasts and pelvis when they appear to be
ideally constructed for this second half of our self-replication.
Ultimately, of course, “good” breasts, hips, etc. are inherited (or not), and
hence beyond a woman’s personal choices. Either a girl is “just lucky” enough to have
them–or worse, is not. But once deception enters the scene, as it always does as surely
as Eve comes to all our Edens, the options of breast and pelvic management (modes of
presentation) multiply magnificently.
&&&&&&&
 4. LOOKING WILES
Before turning to specific bodily parts which are the subject of individual
wiles, I note the most powerful of all “looks” wiles–namely, looking itself. Ever since
estrus became hidden and hence subject to deception several thousand years ago, smell
has lost its prominence as our best sense for recognizing pregnable females. Now sight
has become our next best sense–especially at a distance. We look first for beauty, but
then to body itself, as, I theorize, our most functional means of determining best baby-
makers. We want, that is, to see your body as a better way of seeing that you are truly
beautiful. Clothing and make-up–that is, beauty aids, may fool us; but “seeing you
naked” is a more certain sign of what we are finally looking for.
Perhaps reflective of this fact, females must have long ago learned that
“looking at their bodies”–that is, their capacity to control bodily revelations, is one of
their better “carrots” for getting and keeping male attention. A James Taylor song
includes this line: “Is that the way you’re made? Is that the way you’re really made?,”
with sounds of wonderment, even awe. But even without music, from the time we are
small boys until we are older men (anytime pre-death?), we males are powerfully
drawn to look at female bodies--and are generally awed by them.
Trafficking with this information, I conclude, females find one of their rather
awesome wiles within the capacity for concealing, and then carefully and artfully
revealing their physical selves. The dangling carrot is the implied possibility of
“letting a male look” at, as Taylor sings, “how she’s made.” The entire pornography
industry, “men’s magazines,” as they are discreetly called, is built first around this
deep-seated male desire to “look at naked women”–as is a massive element of more
socially acceptable forms of female dress–and undress.
The artistry of the wile lies in the implied promise: “ I’ll let you look at my
body if you....” The innate power of male desire to see female bodies (as signs, I
conclude, for better determination of conceive-ability) is grasped, as it were, and held
by wily females to be used first for getting our attention, then as a carrot for what we
see as “leading us on.”
Bodily appeal varies, obviously, from male to male; but in general, stronger
powers are wielded by concealment–with implied promises of revelation, beginning
with feet and legs, then breasts and ass, and finally, cunt itself. We males want to “see
it all,” but in terms of greatest power, the Mound Of Venus remains our site of final
worship. Small wonder then, that the wiliest of women conceal it longest.
&&&&&&&
5. BREAST WILES
Only during Mardi Gras, and then only on Bourbon Street at the height of the
frenzy, can an occasional American male get away with openly saying what most of us
would like to voice, were we honest, to all attractive (or ugly if well-endowed)
women, namely, “Show me your tits.” And even there a successful response is highly
unlikely with all but an occasional brave and wily one, and only then when we can
throw or promise a batch of beads for reward.
Elsewhere, and at all other times, far more substantial rewards must be evident
or promised before females make such delightful displays of their physical wares to us
who are so easily moved by the looking wile.
Beginning in early boyhood, and continuing–who knows how long, most males
are immensely curious about female bodies and are easily influenced by artfully
allowed glances far short of Bourbon Street style displays. Would that we males had
anything to show which was equally appealing to female eyes. But alas, only wealth or
other subtle qualities of personality which we can rarely present even come close to
the looking wile available to most all females. Just by virtue of being embodied in
female form, and willing to be ever-so-slightly revealed–that is, to allow even a
limited, let alone a “good” look, a woman can often wield enviable forces with us who
are moved by ancient urges toward self replication–which is to say, most all healthy
males.
The arts of cleavage management and presentation, for instance, are far beyond
the simplicities of “natural endowments.” As soon as puberty brings swelling to a
female chest, if not before, all young girls must some magically how begin to learn
how to present (hide, hint, and move) these expanding nodules of tissue in ways
designed as initial clues to future nourishment-abilities. Then later (a short while, all
too often) when the deceptive shaping of brassieres is added to the inherited (?) magic
of natural breasts, a woman’s potential wiliness with only breasts at her disposal
expands exponentially. Adding wily movement skills and cleverness at
concealing/revealing, a female with “good tits” and “nothing else” may wield
immense powers with nearly all males, especially after we have begun to repress our
own powers from awareness.

Tit power, which women wield well

with bras, engineered cleavage,
and other forms of fakery
is, I reluctantly conclude,
about 2% genetic
and 98% psychological
born far less from ancient knowledge
about needed nursing abilities
than modern day projections
inevitably resulting from our own male
cowardly repressions
&&&&&&&
6. ASS WILES

The next or concomitant phase of puberty, namely, pelvic expansion and

fleshing out of buttocks (summarized in male lingo as “getting a good ass”), adds
another grand arena for future wiliness to every girl’s growing repertoire of beauty.
Learning (or is it genetic by now?) how to present, move, and sway hips so as to
exaggerate their presence and potential baby-making capacities is another powerful
form of female beauty and hence potential wiliness when artfully used.
But the arts of breast and pelvic presentations, being the most potentially
powerful of all woman’s wiles, have in time become more effective with concealment
than with revelation (as remains true with animals in which estrus is not yet hidden).
Hiding–with dark promise, has proven to be more functional in power management
than showing in the light (along with, of course, occasional hints of revelation).
Probably--I pause to analyze an obvious fact--concealment of best signs of baby-
making equipment first became functional when its effectiveness in male deception
first began. If a female is not actually in heat, or her breasts swelled with milk-for-
nursing, then concealing these facts and trying to make them appear to be so anyway
would only be reasonable.
However it happened, hiding breasts and butt, with provocative hints of their
unrevealed presence and dark possibilities of touch, is now in the common repertoire
of most every woman’s wiles (conscious or not).
&&&&&&&
7. FIGURE WILES
Other bodily parts, however, less obviously related to conceive-ability, have
been more openly useful for expanding the territories of female beauty, namely, figure
and face. Even though tits and pussy exposures, the actually most powerful of all
womanly wiles, is now socially unacceptable (probably because, again I analyze, it
works better with promise than with fact, especially when estrus is being faked), figure
and face presentations remain as other sources of beauty making.
Hour glass figures, for example, when they don’t exist naturally (as so rarely
they do), can be deceptively presented with various artful forms of clothing–“pushing
in this, exaggerating that,” we might say in an all too simple summary. The biological
appeal of this geometric “figure eight” is, I surmise, a phoney way of appearing to
have “good” breasts for nourishing and a wide pelvis for containing a big baby, more
than is actually so.
&&&&&&&
8. FACE WILES
And face, being safely at a distance from pelvis, plus socially acceptable as a
source of any possible form of self beautification, has become the grandest focus of all
female conscious beautification. “Putting on makeup” to make the face deceptively
beautiful must be among the oldest of all female art forms. Although lower orifices are
both socially and reasonably off limits for adding artificial beauty for common
exposure, those on the face become readily available substitutes, even among young,
pre-puberty girls–but especially valuable for post conceive-able women.
Although genital lips (“labia majora” and “minora” we must name them, if at
all, in polite society) are actually the ones which count in baby-making, facial lips may
be artfully colored (symbolic blood as present in genital “engorgement”) implying a
hint about conditions more relevant to genetic purposes. “Symbolic sexiness,” we
might call the various forms of blood-like coloring and “pouty” presenting of female
lips.
&&&&&&&
10. HAIR WILES
The bible notes that a woman’s glory is in her hair (I Corinthians 11:15), but
then explains--erroneously, I think, that “it is given her for a covering.” Dream on,
apostle Paul. More likely it comes as a sign of “uncovering” than as a true “veil” for
hiding. Even if “covering” is the outward “cover story,” I suspect that women must
always have known that their hair can be a wonderful wile.
First, and most basically, I analyze, hair is one of the better initial signs of
youth, another powerful wile. Healthy hair–full-bodied, long, lustrous, shiny, etc., is
harder to fake than, say, a heathy body which can be imitated with clothing and make-
up. Hair, like other bodily parts tends to age noticeable. I theorize that male gene eyes
have long ago learned to recognize this fact and seek out “pretty hair” as a good sign
of a truly young and healthy baby-maker. Figure and face are fair signs from a
distance, but healthy hair up close is even more revealing and appealing.
Secondly, long hair is in general more attracting than short hair. Perhaps length
is an even better clue to youth and health; certainly it is easier to recognize, even from
a distance. Then follow an almost endless number of hair “styles” and arrangements
which, like made-up faces, offer a variety of appeals to male attention.
But perhaps the even more effective uses of hair as a wile come with how a
female moves or “plays with” it. “Letting her hair down,” for example, as might a
woman who is going to bed after “having it up” all day might do, has even made it
into the linguistic realm of apt metaphors. A female who appears, as by presenting
unbound hair, “hanging loose,” just may be giving signs of even more relevant
“getting loose” later.
Females may also invite attention to their hair (and themselves) by
nonchalantly running their fingers through it, “playing with it,” as we males might
say–perhaps under cover of “straightening it back up.” Is there a subtle invitation that
we too might eventually be able to “play with her hair” after she truly “let’s it down”?
And swinging pony tails seem to hold some innate male appeal. Are they phallic
symbols with sexual implications? Or do they imply a “swinging” female?
Finally, acts of “putting hair up” and “taking it down,” as in, repeatedly
banding up and then undoing a pony tail–ostensibly trying to “get it fixed right,” seem
to have strong seductive appeal to males. Is it symbolic of her possibly putting herself
down, even “down and dirty,” that makes such hair play so inviting. Who knows?
But more certainly, there are a wide variety of hair wiles which even young
females seem to intuitively know and diligently use.
&&&&&&&
11. SMELL WILES
“The nose,” it has been said, “knows best.” Even when eye deceptions get
more attention, as in, making up the face, females are far from inattentive to the wiles
of olfactory delights which are probably deeper rooted in primal genetics. I refer, of
course, to “smelling good.” If women know much about “looking good,” as obviously
they do, they seem to somehow know even more about “smelling good.” I suspect that
the present day perfume industry is a actually a throwback to more primal times when
smell was indeed a male’s best clue to female heat. We have long since lost these
nasal discriminations to consciousness; but I suspect that “the nose still knows,” and
that somehow wily females still remember when emitting a “good smell” was their
best way of attracting the “best males.”
Scientific data is obviously limited, but I suggest that anciently womanly
wisdom is involved in the careful attention which females give to “how things smell,”
themselves especially. And if the truth ever gets known scientifically, I imagine that
the most appealing of all female perfumes will turn out to be similar to those which
females in heat naturally emit.
&&&&&&&
12. MOVEMENT WILES
Although beauty is more commonly related to visual appeals, I think that the
most effective of female wiles are exhibited in beauty of movements–the subtle
swaying of hips, for example, which present the most relevant parts of the body
essential for good baby-making in an evident, even exaggerated way. Likewise with
the movements of breasts, after careful shaping via bras. Expanding the chest through
breath management, along with subtle right and left movements, can serve to call
attention, even exaggerate, the promise of milk-filled breasts. Then, with artfully
chosen blouses, proverbial cleavage moves become possible.
Walking in V shaped ways, i.e., placing one foot in front of the other rather
than side by side can serve to emphasize breasts and pelvis (the two most primally
relevant parts in baby-making). When undergarments and outer clothing are selected
to further amplify, support, or otherwise present a firm and nourishment-laden ass,
then moving and/or walking in ways which call attention to these baby related bodily
parts can become an expansive part of female beauty.
Finally, dancing–that is, moving all bodily parts in synchronized, harmonious
ways which present baby-making equipment in its overall best form, can become the
ultimate in movement beauty. Toss in a few moves (or many!) otherwise associated
with sexual activity, such as, opening the mouth, closing the eyes, licking lips,
protruding breasts, pelvic swaying with an occasional thrust, or other hints of potential
“doing it,” and the wiles of female power brokerage may reach their apex.
&&&&&&&
13. YOUTH WILES
If males had only one clue to a female’s conceive-ability, it would probably be
youth. Beauty in face, form, and figure count mightily, but age, finally, is perhaps the
statistically best clue to baby-making potential–even more so than heat and sexiness.
Men are genetically drawn to hosts of other female attributes, but after all is said and
done, we are more moved by young girls than by any other sign of conceive-ability.
Older women may have and offer many other powerful psychological appeals, but
when genetics are at their best, youth becomes the surest of all signs of best potential
for healthy motherhood and thus the grandest of appeals to replication-hungry males.
Predictably then, a potentially powerful woman’s wile lies in her capacity for
“looking young.” I suspect that nothing is more threatening to a woman’s sense of
power-with-males as the natural process of aging which all too quickly moves her past
optimal years of pregnancy. Many of the specific elements of other more complex
wiles involve giving signs of youth, of being younger than a woman actually is. It is
not so much “getting old” that women fear, I surmise, as it is losing this natural power
of youthfulness with the males they continue to need for security, if not sexual,
purposes.
Small wonder that females almost universally refuse to give their actual ages,
past, say, 21. The proverbial “39 and holding” is like a last ditch stand, the final age
limit that wily females are willing to accept–perhaps related to the fact that prospects
of healthy conceive-ability are almost completely gone by that time.
Beauty has, as noted, countless other elements; but none is so effective as a
wile, and hence so universally emulated, as youth. Perhaps more consistently than all
else, women who want to wield power with men try to “look young.”
&&&&&&&
14. CLOTHING WILES
Pragmatically, as males are more inclined to dress, clothing is for comfort from
heat or cold, or functional uses–such as, having pockets to hold things. But with
females, dress quickly passes such mundane utility and becomes a vast arena for
another host of potential wiles–that is, silent ways of calling attention to themselves
and inviting males to pursue. The varieties of these variations in forms of dress is
probably endless, but the bottom line of most is to accentuate favorable bodily traits,
such as, long legs, rounded hips, and full breasts, while concealing potentially
unattractive attributes (like blemishes, excessive fat, and “too big” or “too small”
anything else.
The unspoken power of clothing wiles lies, I think, in a female’s ability to use
colors, styles, and forms of dress to make her appear more like a potential baby-maker
than she actually is–for example, to present a classic hour glass type figure, or
voluptuous breasts and well rounded (but not fat) hips and ass. An endless variety of
shoes call attention to the extensions of the limbs which culminate in the most
desirable of all her parts. High heels, plus a variety of dress and skirt styles, make her
legs look longer than they actually are, herself taller, and hence, for reasons I am yet
unclear about, more attractive to male attention.
One currently popular “style” involves tying a sweater or coat abound the hips,
which calls even more attention to them through exaggerating their size, yet without
making the wearer “look fat”–since obviously the additional size is clothing only.
Another significant dress wile involves artful revelations of body and skin (the
main male interest) which are carefully cloaked more to invite attention than to cover.
These include hem lines of skirts, low cut dresses, unbuttoned blouses, and, currently,
midriff exposures, especially by females who still have “flat stomachs” and no stretch
marks.
Of course females must have any number of other personal reasons for
“dressing attractively,” such as, enjoying the artistry of clothing and the fun of
“making themselves up” to fit some private self-image; but the utility of dress as a
wile, a socially acceptable means of attracting male attention, must surely underlie
many such conscious intentions. Even if a woman “just likes to dress well and in
style” and “means nothing more,” still she may wield power with the clothing wile.
&&&&&&&
 II. WORD WILES
Words are the second major arena of female wiles. When the forces of looks
are augmented with those of language, potential power devices available to women
increase immeasurably. Many specific female advantages with language, to be
explored next, are supplemented by (perhaps rooted in) what I think to be genetic
brain differences.
Beginning with a difference in comparable sizes in Corpus Callosums, the
connecting pathway between brain hemispheres, other advantages seem apparent to
me. The slightly larger connection between right and left brains, which has been found
to statistically exist in females over males, would logically allow for greater and
quicker transfer of data from these two sources of knowledge. This, in turn, would
allow females to compute diverse types of information more rapidly–to, in effect,
“think circles around us males,” as does indeed, I reluctantly admit, seem to be true.
My observation is that women in general think far more expansively and
inclusively, computing many more types of information than we men typically do. We
males seem to be better at “focused type” thinking which allows for quicker decisions
based on shallower logic; but our “train track type” thinking which allows faster
decision making (as would logically have evolved in service of eons of game hunting
for food, etc.) is primarily accomplished by excluding much data deemed irrelevant to
an immediate subject. In other words, for all our vaunted “reasoning ability,” it is
finally based, I conclude, not so much on expansively including all available data as
on practice at leaving out much that could otherwise be known and used in making
even wiser decisions in the long run.
It is this latter ability, which we males so often deride in women with such
judgments as, “can’t ever make up their minds,” which lies at the heart of wisdom as
distinguished from
smart only. Men may appear to be smarter because we can focus our thinking and
make up our minds quicker; but women are wiser because they “look at the big
picture” and consider many factors which we men commonly miss altogether. As has
oft been noted, men may win a verbal battle, but lose the relational war; or, as we so
often bemoan among ourselves, “You can never win an argument with a woman.”
There are many other specific factors which may underlie this last observation,
but the major reason lies, I conclude, in the fact that women are simply “better
thinkers” in the larger sense of the term than are men in general. They literally use
more of their brains than do we who rely so heavily on left brain logic which is itself
limited to language distinctions based in small portions of one hemisphere only. We
may be better at focusing–which is to say, excluding much “emotional” as well as
sensual data in arriving quickly as so-called “reasonable decisions” in immediate
situations, but in so doing we must be inattentive to many other bits of information
crucial to wisdom in life.
My conclusion, which I don’t like, is that even before we begin to use words
with each other–to “communicate” as it is so often mistakenly called, women have a
distinct advantage in being able to “think” more clearly and expansively, if not to “be
logical” as we males like to think we are. If the truth be known, nearly any woman can
literally think circles around any man who has, like so many of us, become addicted to
language-based logical “thinking.” True, we males may use brute language force, just
as we may use brute physical force, to temporarily out-reason an “illogical” woman;
but, as noted before, even when we think we are “making sense,” we are commonly
the ultimate loser in any verbal exchange.
Why? I think the final answer lies in the above observation which spells out in
several more observable differences in the way males and females use words in
communication. Most all females have verbal freedoms (perhaps rooted in brain
capacities) which are generally unavailable to us, their male counterparts. These form
the basis for specific female wiles when we come to using words with each other.
&&&&&&&
15. ARGUMENT WILES
Men commonly concur with the fact that “you can never win an argument with
a woman”–which doesn’t, unwisely, stop many of us from keeping on trying anyway.
If we bother to explain the fact, our familiar explanation blames our predictable losses
on pussy power–that is, even if we win in the living room, we still lose in the
bedroom, where winning, of course, matters most.
That too, but I now think a more reasonable explanation lies in the way we use
words rather than in the way women use sex. Let’s face it, guys, the larger fact is that
women are simply better at arguing than we are. They beat us, regrettably, at our own
game. To be sure they hold a trump card playable in the bedroom, but that’s for later.
Meanwhile, in the midst of any argument, women do commonly win because
they hold many other verbal advantages quite apart from their sexual powers. Among
them are:
1. Superior think-ability. They are whole-brain thinkers, not limited to left brain words
and ideas only. Predictably, whole-brain thinking wins over half-brain thinking.
2. Integrity not at stake. Unlike us males, females don’t identify their selves with their
words. Their heart, not their word, is their bond. They are therefore free to play with
words which we take seriously. When we males argue, our personal integrity is on the
line; verbal wins are in the same category for us as physical fights–that is, crucially
important. But for females, who do not have their sense of themselves attached to their
words, winning or losing an argument is less of a personal matter. Easily they can say,
thereby defeating us: “Well, just have it you way; it doesn’t really matter.” Except to
us, it does.
3. Logic freedoms. In left brain logic there are rules for the game (fight?). All words
have specific definitions; thinking must proceed in a sequential fashion, with each
presented thought being considered and weighed one against the other; the subject
must be adhered to; only obviously related notions can be considered in any exchange;
final conclusions are based on objective weighing of presented data; etc.
But woman’s way of whole-brain thinking has no such rules of conduct. First
of all, words themselves are not taken as sacred–that is, with pre-defined,
unchangeable meanings. Women retain the right to, in effect, rewrite the dictionary
during any argument, assigning meanings to words at will. This, of course, places any
argument using words as the weapons of encounter in a totally flexible arena where
only woman holds the final power over the tools of the trade. Men, unfortunately,
though we may be slippery in word usage, do not finally have this option of re-
definition. We aren’t able, at any point, to simply free ourselves by saying, “Well,
that’s not what I mean.”
Secondly, in whole-brain thinking, as women are far more skilled at doing,
linear, train-track type, movement is completely unnecessary. No orderly progression
from one thought to another is required. In geometric metaphors, men try to think and
talk in straight lines, while women think in circular fashion. Men are busy excluding
data which doesn’t seem related to our focused lines, while women are equally busy
trying to include everything possibly within the whole circle. Literally, they think
circles around us.
Women are consequently free to introduce any new data at any point in an
argument, no matter how unrelated it may seem to us left-brain logicians. They can, as
it were, “change the subject”–or so it seems to us, at any point. This freedom, which
we males don’t have, is commonly disconcerting to us at best, and immediately
defeating at worse.
Not only do females assume freedom to introduce apparently irrelevant data,
thereby distracting us linear thinkers–that is, to change the subject at any time, but
they may also switch freely from thoughts to feelings at any point. In fact, emotions
weigh heavier in their value systems than do ideas. Right brain “feelings”–literally,
sensations, intuitions, suspicions, sixth sensings, as well as actual emotions, are not
only introduce-able at any point, but also taken to matter more than any words or
ideas.
In male-type, left brain “thinking” emotions are totally irrelevant. “What’s
feeling got to do with facts?,” we may logically ask. But in fact, with females,
“feelings” have everything to do with facts, even to the point of regularly superceding
them. When push comes to shove, how a woman “feels” takes precedence over any
so-called “fact.” This, unfortunately for us men when we talk with women, is not true
for us. No matter how we feel about facts, we discount emotions down to zero as a
power in our male-type arguments. Only “objective,” verifiable, physical data finally
counts with us.
For women, however, their freedom not only to switch from words to feelings
at any time, but also to weigh them more heavily than facts, provides an ace-in-the
hole, a hidden trump card available to be played at any time, leaving a logic-bound
male left behind, losing.
In general terms, “sense-making” is the ultimate rule in male-type thinking
(left-brain, logic) and talking. More than all else, what is said must “make sense”–that
is, “be reasonable” in the sense of adding up with outside, verifiable (subject to
scientific proof) information. We have no freedom at all for “non-sense.” If something
“doesn’t make sense” it is totally ruled out of our male-type, left brain talk. Females,
however, have another grand freedom in every argument with a male; they have no
such limiting rules for either their thinking or talk. They can as freely entertain “non-
sense” as “sense.” In whole-brain thinking, quite in contrast with left-brain logic, the
outer limits of reason are just as valuable--in fact, often more so, than limited,
provable, “sense.”
Of course, whole-brain thinking which includes what seems like non-sense at
the time, often turns out to be far more sensible in the long run, like wisdom rather
than reason only. But in the short run, in the event of an immediate argument, the
freedom to include what appears at the moment to be non-sense right along side with
obvious sense provides females with another grand advantage in all our arguments.
We males, stuck with “making sense,” find ourselves to be no match for the expansive
powers of non-sense–even if it turns out to eventually be right and true.
Different ultimate goals also give females a distinct advantage in any argument
with a male. Finally, we males are aimed at winning–which, to us, is everything.
Women, in sharp contrast, may be temporarily aimed at winning a verbal exchange,
but their ultimate goal is peace and cooperation, a win/win conclusion, not, as is true
for us males, having one winner and one loser. “Women,” we might say, “don’t have
to win to win”; but men do. Women may even “win by losing”–a possibility which
few males seem ever able to entertain.
Many social advantages also favor femininity over masculinity when we come
to verbal arguments. First there are overall language issues which favor females, for
example, word-acceptability–that is, the type of language which is socially acceptable
in conversation. Males, evolved to “plow the furrow” and “fertilize the soil” (not
“plant the seed,” as we liked to think before science proved us wrong) are, as we all
know, naturally “crude,” “rough,” and “unrefined,” even “dirty,” rather than “nice,”
“smooth,” “polite,” and “clean.” And, as we are in life, so we are with language. We
naturally talk “crude,” “rough,” “unrefined” and “dirty”–at least when on our own,
outside of social restraints. Females, in contrast, tend to speak even as they live,
which, fortunately for them, is more in accord with prevailing social standards.
When these two differing modes of natural talk are brought together in cross-
gender conversation, and woman’s way is inherently more acceptable, then she holds a
language advantage to begin with. This initial edge becomes even more exaggerated as
an argument heats up or escalates into open conflict. In the heat of battle we all tend to
regress to our more natural modes of functioning, including our speaking.
Unfortunately for us males, we begin to lose the language battle whenever we revert to
our natural modes of speech, while females move ahead in acceptability. Whereas we
males tend to get “rougher and rougher,” even to talk “dirty” in quest of victory,
females, more aimed at peace than war to begin with, tend to get “smoother and
smoother,” even “cleaner and cleaner.”
At this point in a male/female argument another female emotional advantage
appears, namely, the embraced capacity to contain and use feelings rather than simply
being directed by them. Whereas males commonly begin arguments focusing on logic
and reason, with emotions carefully suppressed, as we move further into an encounter
we tend to become more and more emotional as the “fight (as it is to us)” progresses.
Our usually-repressed emotions start “coming out.” We tend, as women see us, to “get
mad” instead of “peaceable discussing things.”
But whereas females have been free to switch from words to feelings before,
depending, I suppose, on what was working best for them, once males begin to get
heated up–that is, openly emotional and possible ready to fight physically as well as
mentally, then the deeper female agenda (peace versus winning) is apt to kick in.
Suddenly women want to rule feelings out of the encounter, at least the “rougher”
male emotions. For example: “I can see you’re getting angry; let’s just drop the
subject.”
Unfortunately we males, being less experienced at emotional management
other than by repression, are suddenly at a distinct disadvantage again. Just when we
are “beginning to enjoy the argument”–as evidenced by our emerging emotions, the
round may be declared over by the female who is both fighter and referee at the same
time. Thus, with the female ability to “lose without losing” and her control over the
immediate argument, she wins–or so it seems to us, again.
Finally, and fortunately for us males, there is one last female advantage which
is rarely used except in extreme circumstances, namely, the resurrection of “cat-
fighting” kill-ability–“Kaliness,” I have called in, after the mythical goddess of final
destruction. On the surface, we males often appear to be the killers, the ones who
choose to go out and kill animals, to fight fiercely with one another, and freely go to
wars in which we try to kill one another. Females, on the other surface hand, appear to
be entirely peaceable, unable to kill at all, in fact, completely devoted to healing and
“wouldn’t even hurt a flea.”
 Beneath the surface, however, I think that on the lowest evolutional levels,
these appearances cloak a far deeper opposite truth seldom recognized in ordered
society, namely, that women are the true “killers,” the gender which finally holds
powers of both life and death more fully and freely in their own hands. Certainly we
males fight–and seem to risk death, more freely; but we fight more to prevail, to
“win,” to “come out on top,” than to kill our enemies. Once supremacy is established–
as when defeat becomes obvious or an opponent “gives in,” we seldom kill; most often
we release a former opponent, “forgive and forget,” and may even become friendly
with him again. The male point, after all, is to be “number one,” not to kill the
opposition.
Now back to the language world–the event of an argument with a woman;
man’s goal with woman, as with other males in physical battle, is to prevail verbally.
We do want to win the argument, but not to hurt, certainly not to kill, the female
“enemy” who, after all, matters even more to us than the immediate conflict. We may
like to argue; but we want to be loved even more than we want to win, at least on
deeper psychological levels.
Paradoxically to me, a strange shift seems sometimes to occur with females
who reach points of desperation in arguments. In my experience these are extremely
rare, since, as noted in the beginning, it seems to us males that “you can never win an
argument with a women”; but in those rare instances when all else may have failed
and this may be the case, I theorize that woman’s true “killer-ness” which is regularly
denied, may somehow be unrepressed in such moments. Suddenly, even if only for an
instant, natural “Kali-ness” may somehow reappear. The normally warm and
nurturing, peaceable, woman is replaced by a cold and calculating, murderous “witch”
who is easily able to “throw you into” the proverbial “oven” without a breath of
sympathy or apparent regret.
Seldom, fortunately for us males, is this rarely revealed killer-ness exercised in
physical ways, such as, shooting us with guns; but the arts of spiritual killing–which
are entirely acceptable in society, may be skillfully exercised in such dangerous
moments. Without a qualm, or so it can seem to an unsuspecting male at such an
instant, such a female may easily commit spiritual murder “without batting an eye.”
She may, that is, completely reject him as a person, totally “cut him off,” not simply
from her sex, but from the world of herself.
In fairness, I must acknowledge that we who are lessor skilled at emotional
abuse, let alone spiritual murder, do sometimes resort to physical abuse–even literal
guns and bodily harm, at such dire moments. In final acts of desperation, when it
appears that we have been or will be ultimately rejected, we too may try to kill “the
one we love” rather than face the grander dangers of “losing her completely.”
Even though our male physical murders, which always make the news, are
better known in public, I suspect that dark male knowledge of female kill-abilities as
described above, even when they are evaded by our giving in before they can be
exercised, lie closer to this ultimate woman’s wile which is potentially available in all
our verbal arguments.
VERBAL ADVANTAGES
Female powers with words come from these major advantages: a. Self
unconnected from words; heart as bond, not words, as is so for males. Men identify
ourselves with our words; women identify themselves with their hearts. This gives
females a distinct advantage even before conversation begins, because the very
structures of language (words) have entirely different significance to each gender.
What is, for personal reasons, deadly serious for males who have ourselves attached to
words, is relatively impersonal for females who are bonded elsewhere.
This major difference becomes magnified in practice because whereas words
are specific and have distinct definitions, all of which can be determined by an
objective dictionary, hearts are notoriously difficult to pin down. The best general
translation is into emotions or “feelings,” but even these are slippery and may include
sensations and intuitions–that is, data from the five senses as well as the most elusive
sixth sense (ESP, as in, “I just feel like....”). Furthermore there is no objective criteria
for any “feeling”; they may vary from one person to the next, one time to the next, and
one circumstance to the next. Every woman is effectively omniscient (like God) when
it comes to her personal feelings. She is the ultimate authority; they mean only what
she says they do; no verification is allowed or even possible.
A man’s words, fleshed out in “facts” about things, can be checked out,
verified by outside means; but not so with woman’s “feelings” about which she is the
final and only authenticator.
Words which are honored as though sacred by males (since we identify
ourselves with them) are simply tools to be used by females (who are self-identified
with heart instead of head). Consequently, females are free not only to play with
words, but even to re-define them at will, in accord with what they privately mean, no
matter what the dictionary says the word means.
In terms of power, words, being a late-to-evolve product of a small area of the
left brain, are relatively impotent when up against ancient emotions rooted in deep
parts of both brains and the brain stem itself (limbic area). In any head to head combat,
powerful “feelings” easily and always prevail over fragile “sense”–no matter how
reasonable, logical, and scientifically provable it may be.
Since conversation begins with words, initially the rules of language,
summarized as: definitions and reasonable connections, apply for both men and
women. But as soon as differences of opinion enter–as so often they do, man is stuck
with words and “sense” for coping, but woman, not identified with her words to begin
with, can freely switch to feelings as the coping mode whenever she chooses. She may
easily use logic as long as it works; but as soon as her reasoning falters, she can easily
change into her strong suit, namely, emotions.
&&&&&&&
16. LANGUAGE OPTION WILES
Before we ever get around to sentences and ideas, females hold powers easily
usable as a wile based in language itself–that is, the kinds of words acceptable in
conversation with them, how we males are allowed to talk in their presence. From
earliest childhood where mother is the only female power in our little boy worlds, our
language is both taught and carefully monitored by the first omnipotent goddess. She
tells us both what we can say, and how we can say it.
This general control over male language commonly begins with distinguishing
“good” from “bad” words–with only the first, obviously, being allowed. “Curse
words,” for example, are speedily condemned. “Taking the Lord’s name in vain,” in
my own childhood, was one of the grandest of my language prohibitions. For such a
crime, one could indeed “get his mouth washed out with soap” as punishment. Then,
later, when curiosity about “where babies come from” became of prevailing interest, a
friend of mine got a spanking and strong warning for simply (as I would now see it)
asking what the word pregnant meant. All graphic sexual language, even the subject
itself, was “dirty” and hence completely unacceptable. Just saying fuck, for example,
would have been cause of dangerous rejections.
Fortunately for us boys the times have obviously changed greatly since I was
young; but, and this is the point here, female control over acceptable male language in
their presence hasn’t. Just as my mother was primarily in charge of my language in
childhood, so females in general remain in control of acceptable male language where
ever we go with them. Language options yet remain mainly in woman’s hands. What
we men can–and can’t--say, at least acceptably, is still the option of women.
On the surface this may seem like a small matter, related only to politeness and
“good” language; but, since language itself is the material for thinking as well as
speech, placing judgments on which words are allowed and which are not, women also
gain a measure of control over the natural thought processes of males. As long as we
don’t say the “bad” words, of course, they have no control over our internal thinking;
but once prevailing female judgments are absorbed–as commonly they are, our natural
male mode of thinking may become limited, even if we never open our mouths and
say “bad things.”
Then, once into conversation with, or even in the presence of, females who
commonly presume to hold the same language powers our mothers once did, we are
likely to be inhibited even in our thinking when we run the risk of “blurting out” any
of the numerous “bad” words which might otherwise be the natural means of
expressing our personal thoughts.
&&&&&&&
17. SUBJECT OPTION WILES
Closely related, and never separable in practice, are other female controls
which commonly begin with mothers also–namely, dictation of acceptable subjects of
talk, regardless of the words used. I call these powers the subject option wiles. In early
life, mothers determine not only the language little boys may acceptably use, but also
the subjects which are “good” and “bad.” Even if we succeed in “cleaning up” all our
words, we yet face the challenges of determining just which subjects we may talk
openly about, and which we can’t.
And what always begins in childhood commonly continues in adult life as
well; only the names of the female determiners change. The options of tolerable
subjects remain, most often, in female hands. Specifics, of course, vary from woman
to woman, but in general the most unacceptable subjects are those which are naturally
more interesting to males, namely, sex and domination (competing, aggression,
violence, and winning–being #1, wielding overt power over others).
This second major male interest, I conclude, is actually but a spin off of #1,
sex. Most of our aggressive, even violent competitions, are, I think, in service of
reproduction instincts. Surely competition is often segmented into arenas of its own;
but primally, I think, all our male urges to win are rooted in sperm-competition drives
displaced into other more socially acceptable arenas.
Be this as it may, at issue here is the prevailing way in which males so
commonly and consistently “think about sex” (and/or winning) when in our natural
minds. More than all else–and our subjects of curiosity certainly do range far and
afield–we seem to care more about sex, even, it sometimes seems, than about survival
itself much of the time. Females, in sharp contrast, may be equally “obsessed” with
security, but, as best I can tell, they have no comparable interest in “thinking about
sex” per se or even “winning.”
 The relevance of these gender differences in subject interests here–however
they arise, is in relation to who, in conversation, holds the options over “what we can
talk about”–and especially, “what we can’t.” When the major male interests are a talk
taboo, and the major female interests are totally acceptable anytime, anywhere, then
power advantages are obviously in woman’s hands.
Even apart from the private values of any particular female, major male subjects are
inherently judged to be “dirty” or “bad,” while primary female concerns are “clean”
and “good.”
Security related topics, for example, are on-scene everywhere; but even
“slightly suggestive,” let alone “down and dirty” discussions, are off-limits, even
obscene, whenever females are present. Any woman, for example, in the work place
(which was, of course, formerly a male domain like ancient kivas) can control natural
male talk, restricting it to subjects of her choice with threat of legal consequences for
any male who does not accede to her determinations. Just telling “dirty jokes,” a
popular male way of safely approaching a topic of major concern, can, for example,
get even a top executive fired.
And what is obviously true at work, with civil threats to back them up, is often
even more true at home where other less obvious threats are silently in the background
of all conversations. Of course macho or abusive type males may break these social
codes, especially apart from public scrutiny, insisting at times on their “right” to “say
what they want to”; but the prevailing fact remains that most of the time females hold
the same options of acceptable subjects for conversations as our mothers once did.
And with these either projected and/or assumed powers, the subject option
wile becomes one more means of women wielding verbal control over men.
&&&&&&&
18. “FEELINGS” TRUMP CARD WILES tc "18. “FEELINGS” TRUMP
CARDWILES " \l 2
This verbal wile is based on the power of emotions over the power of reason.
With woman’s self identification with heart rather than head (feelings rather than
reasons), and with greater inherent powers in the former than the latter, woman always
has a trump card to play whenever she chooses in the original game of reason (as
normal conversations follow). For whatever reason, at any time she may choose to
switch from words to emotions as the tool in the encounter. Her initial advantages with
words themselves (tools to her, bond to him) are easily augmented with her always-
ready-to-be-played trump card of her “feelings.”
“Feelings” can even be used in bypassing language definitions and all
objective data, as in, “I feel like that is not true (regardless of all scientific evidence)”–
after which a man has naught he can say with any force. A man may say, at least with
other males: “What’s feeling got to do with facts?,” but a woman might, if she chose
to voice the contrary position, say: “What’s reason got to do with what I feel to be
true?”
In male modes of language use, one must accept facts; but in female modes
one must accept feelings. Because emotions are inherently more powerful than
reasons, females consequently hold a regular edge in all cross gender conversations.
&&&&&&&
19. EMOTIONS VERSUS SENSE WILES tc "19. EMOTIONS VERSUS
SENSEWILES " \l 2
 This wile is about the power of “feels right” as criteria versus “sensible” as
right. What is “sensible” as defined by rules of language and reason is always severely
limited by facts and external circumstances; but “feels right” as a criterion for decision
is relatively limitless. “Sensible” is limited, but “feels right” is an expansive freedom.
Consequently, females, operating in the latter dimension always have far more room
for establishing “right.”
&&&&&&&

20. SUBJECT CHANGING FREEDOM WILES tc "

20.SUBJECT CHANGING FREEDOM WILES " \l 2
Once males are on a trail–in the jungle or in a conversation, “sticking to the subject” is
one of the rules of the game and is crucially important both in killing game and winning a
conflict. Females, in sharp contrast, being circular in thought patterns, can freely change any
subject, even in the middle of a sentence. Obviously pursuing a reasonable conclusion based
on verifiable data can be easily thwarted when the other person is always able to drop any
given subject at any time of her choosing, even without explanation.
&&&&&&&
21. LOSING WILES
Females have a freedom to lose (or appear to) which is lacking in most males. For
males who, with sound genetic reason, always try to “be first” or to win, verbal encounters are
no different from physical bouts. Once into a verbal exchange, where our words bond us as
persons, we cannot but try to succeed in “proving our point.” So far so good; females also, as
best I can tell, enjoy winning. But, and this is the crucial gender difference: winning is of
minor consequence to females who inherently value connections far more than “coming out
on top.” This profound difference plays heavily into any verbal exchange between males and
females. Just as she may play a trump card of emotions at any time, she has an even stronger
trump with her freedom from “having to win.” At any time she can freely “trump in” by using
this inherited freedom and effectively defeat a male by simply saying, even without emotion,
“Well, just have it your way.” Or, “You can think that if you want to.” Or, “Let’s just drop the
subject.”
In the masculine animal world, where winning matters supremely, this feminine wile
can be immensely useful and powerful.
&&&&&&&
22. EMOTIONAL REVERSION WILES
Although verbal exchanges begin with language–words which are definable, reasons
which are logical, etc., and men love to keep them that way since we are more comfortable
using words, women have another option which is commonly disconcerting to a mind-
oriented male, namely, the freedom to switch from head to heart, words to feelings, at any
time. If, for instance, a male begins to warm to the challenge of a verbal conflict, a female
may easily say, “Oh, you’re beginning to get angry; let’s just drop the subject.”
This option, rarely open to a male, is predictably self-defeating at the time.
&&&&&&&
23. MIND CHANGING WILES
This familiar “woman’s prerogative”–that is, to always change her mind at any time,
can become a major advantage with us men who, while trying to remain devoted to our words
(not our hearts), are consequently more stuck with what we say. We rarely embrace the
human capacity to simply change our minds and then switch to an entirely different
conclusion. Once we think or say something, it is as though we are bound to be “true to our
word”–that is, stay with a prior decision, even when we know we may be wrong.
Females, with no such loyalty to words, can easily shift positions in the midst of any
argument, without personal loss (“losing face”). “Well, I just changed my mind.” This
freedom can be an effective wile with men who lack it–as we commonly do.
&&&&&&&
24. VERBAL INDEPENDENCE WILES tc "24. VERBAL INDEPENDENCE
WILES" \l 2
First of all, as previously noted, we males typically become language-dependent–that
is, we tend to identify ourselves with our words, as indicated by the familiar male brag, “My
word is my bond.” We unwittingly come to live-as-though what-we-say is who-we-are. Once
into this self-identification with only a small portion of a capacity rooted in the Broca’s area
of the left brain we are unfortunately cut off from using our whole brains in personal
communication. Language, of course, is what gives rise to and remains the basis of “logic,”
and hence the grand male virtue of “making sense” or being reasonable.
Few if any women ever, it seems to me, make this near tragic mistake in self
identification. To form a parallel observation with the familiar male brag noted above (word
as bond) I have coined a female version: “My heart (not my words) is my bond.” This is a
cute parallel, I think, but heart is not nearly so evident or conclusive as word. To note that a
woman may be as true to her heart as a man is to his word may be verbally neat, but is far
from an equal comparison. Words, after all, are far more limited, discrete, and definable than
is heart, which may include such diverse and expansive elements as emotions, sensitivity,
intuition, desires, passions, and even extra-sensory perceptions. The latter, obviously, are
notoriously hard to pin down, let alone win an argument over with only words as weapons.
Because all verbal exchanges are, at least theoretically, through the medium of words,
which we males try to bond ourselves to, and to which females remain fiercely independent
of, attaching themselves only to heart if to any symbol, they always have a distinct advantage
before we even begin to talk together. We verbally dependent males enter conversation with
our selves, as it were, on the line, while verbally independent females have no such self
integrity at risk in their words. True, their hearts may be darkly hidden behind their words,
subject to revelation in them, but seldom are their selves at risk in what they say. Always, for
example, a female is perfectly free to say, no matter what her words may have been, “Well,
that’s not what I meant.” Us word-tied males are more often stuck with what we say, even if
it’s not what we meant or wanted to.
&&&&&&&
25. DEFINITIONS WILES
In practice, the overall verbal independence of females spells out in such diverse facts
as: freedom from word definitions. All words, literally and by virtue of what they are, have
dictionary definitions–that is, specific meanings which are accepted no matter what any
individual person may think, at least by males. We may or may not like a particular definition,
and even try to expand or change it; still, by our accepted rules of reason, we are duty-bound,
finally, to accept that words do mean something specific. Females, unfortunately for us who
are so-bonded, seldom face such a severe limitation by language. They are, as it were,
relatively free to define words as they will, even to reverse commonly accepted definitions
without personal qualms. Pointing to the left, for example, a woman may say, “Go right,” but
then, if questioned, easily reply, “Well, you know I meant left.”
 This freedom to simply redefine words, to make definitions subservient to intentions,
gives females an additional power in all conversations with typical males who lack this
freedom.
&&&&&&&
26. NONSENSE WILES
I am aware that we men often don’t make sense to women; but we are generally
committed to one of the primary rules of logic, namely, that words at least must make some
sort of sense to us. Generally, this means that they must follow laws of reason which require
that statements be fitted together, that one thing be related to another such that they add up
together. They must, that is, “make sense.”
In contrast, we are typically offended, thrown off, or otherwise bamboozled when
confronted with what seems to us to be non-sense–that is, statements not following rules of
reason or logically fitting together.
Enter women who apparently have no such dictating rules for their conversations–or
else have other hidden speech laws which we never seem to discern or be able to make fit in
with our constrictive laws of logic. Women, from our stand point, are perfectly comfortable
with placing and holding two or more bits of quite illogical or incongruent information side
by side in the same conversation–even in the same sentence. For them, things–words, that is,
don’t have to fit together in order to co-exist next to each other in talk. The fact that they think
of things one after another is enough justification to include them in proximity in their speech.
In other words: no sense required (as we males view “sense”) for any notion to be
included and considered relevant to any conversation. Nonsense, we might say, is just as
acceptable as sense–a degree of tolerance that few of us male type persons ever seem to
acquire.
All this difference in allegiance to rules of reason to note one other wile which women
have readily available to confuse males in conversation, thereby leaving us vulnerable to
various other manipulations. Just when talk is moving along reasonably and we males are
comfortably “understanding” what is being said (even if we don’t agree, so long as one thing
logically follows another), a woman may, given her freedom from the dictates of logic, simply
drop in a piece of discordant data and throw us off track.
“This,” a woman might reasonably say, “is our problem.” And it is; but the point here
is that given our common dedication to the limitations of logic, and her freedom from same,
she has a verbal power available for moving us–either positively or negatively, depending on
her wishes.
&&&&&&&
27. CONTRARY NOTION WILES
Given the slow and plodding train-track way in which men think and speak, and the
quick, expansive (“circular”) way in which women’s minds seem to work, the stage is set for
another readily available female wile, namely, confronting every male notion with a contrary
one of her own. While his mind may be struggling to figure out and logically express one
idea, she can easily upset his fragile focus by simply stating a contrary idea–the opposite of
what he is trying to say (and hopefully be understood and accepted in saying).
Because of her circular mode of thinking which is unbound from rules of reason and
hence able to include all types of data, I figure that such oppositional type comments must be
fairly easy to come up with. In general, they simply involve taking a contrary position to
whatever a male has to say. If, for example, he says, “It looks like rain today,” she may reply,
“the sun may come out later”–which, of course, may be true; but is contrary or in opposition
to what he was saying. Or, if he says, “I like red meat,” she may reply, “A green salad would
be better.” Or, if he says, “Let’s go swimming,” she may reply, “I’d rather go shopping.” To
“Red looks good on you,” she may say, “It makes me look fat.” Etc., etc.
Of course males also commonly try to confront what we hear in order to win or come
out on top. But we usually begin by acknowledging what we have heard, then trying to attack,
prove it wrong, or use other data on the same subject. But with this wile, women simply jump
immediately to an automatic type opposite position with no necessary acknowledgment of
what was stated or reason given for their contrary “opinion”–which I place in quotes here,
because in conversation these contrary notions are often stated as though they are dogmatic
truth.
&&&&&&&
28. NEVER ENOUGH WILES
We males typically, I regret to acknowledge, are commonly in quest of female
approval of what we do, such as, taking out the garbage, picking up our clothes, making up
the bed, cleaning the kitchen, mowing the yard–or endlessly on–often for reasons quite
unrelated to any immediate endeavor.
Also I note that females typically have much higher standards for almost all endeavors
than do we males. “Clean,” for example, for a man, may still be “quite dirty” for a woman.
And of course there are infinite degrees of perfection in making up a bed–for another
example, which males probably never are able to master. Etc.
But these generalities are to note another wile which is a potentially powerful force, a
carrot if you please, which I call the Never Enough Wile. Whatever it is that a man may do, a
woman, with her expansive awareness of what might be, can always make note of what
would be better.
From a man’s perspective, the implication is that what he did was not good enough,
and if he would just try harder then the approval (the carrot) he seeks might be forthcoming
with better effort. With skill this wile may be applied to any kind of male endeavor, all the
way from activities around the house, like those noted above, to how much money he makes,
how much attention he gives, how hard he works, or even how much he loves.
Whatever the endeavor, the working of this wile is never let what a man thinks is
enough be enough.
This wile, called Perfectionism elsewhere, is easily applicable in the verbal arena
whenever a man states what he has done (often as a slightly cloaked quest for affirmation).
For example, to “I mowed the yard,” a woman might say, “But you haven’t swept the leaves
yet, have you? (Not really a question)” To, “Well, I’ve put in my 8 hours today,” a woman
using this wile might say, “With one more you would have gotten overtime, wouldn’t you?”
Etc.
&&&&&&&
29. CORRECTION WILES
Surely we males, in our rush toward trying to make impressive conclusions, often
make data mistakes, especially with tangential information not truly central to the points we
are attempting to make. Females, sharp-eyed creatures that you are, must be keenly aware of
such errors in facts, as you think circularly around our train-track talk. Then, picking up on
our factual error, you have another wile easily available for managing our conversations
together. If, for example, a man begins to recall an event but then tacks on: “Last Thursday
morning, I think,” a woman using this wile may dutifully correct him. “No, it was Thursday
afternoon”–which, of course, may have been true, but easily becomes a diversion from the
point he was attempting to make.
 By “correcting him” she may easily divert him from his focused mode of talking and
at the same time re-establish herself as the one who is truly knowledgeable about what
happens.
&&&&&&&
30. INSINCERE APOLOGIES WILE
My label of “insincere” will no doubt be taken negatively since everyone who
“stoops” to apologize must inevitably believe themselves to be sincere. I pick the adjective,
however, because in the larger picture these familiar female “I’m sorrys” only appear as
apologies–a true accepting of blame in a responsible manner. In fact they may be clever ploys,
even when used nonsciously, which are notoriously effective with unwitting males. This latter
fact, cloaked with the words of apology and blame-taking, is evidenced by its repeated use
once it proves workable, as well as the immediate failure to actually take responsibility for
what has happened.
“I’m sorry I said that...,” for example, does sound like a genuine apology; but what
commonly happens is a passive withdrawal from the encounter in a power-wielding manner, a
type of self-righteous move (“see how good I am; I will even take the blame for what I said!”)
which keeps a woman in control of the situation without actually having to accept real
responsibility.
&&&&&&&
31. SUPERLATIVE WILE
I suspect that this must be one of the least intentional of all woman’s wiles, yet, as
noted before, motives have no inherent connection with power. Even if unintentional, this
wile is effective with many males who are word-focused and literal listeners.
It works like this: a woman uses a superlative, such as, always, never, best, worst, etc.
“You always do that...,” “You never talk to me,” “This is the best you’ve ever done,” “I feel
worse than I ever have before.” As vehicles for emotional expression, as commonly intended
by females, such superlatives are probably understatements rather than exaggerations as males
so often take them. The power of emotions is such that even strong language can rarely give
them adequate form. As we all know, “it’s hard to put into words how you feel.” this is true
for all emotions, but especially so for powerful ones. Hence, that ladies leap quickly to
superlatives for voicing their strong feelings is but natural and predictable.
The problem for men, however, is that being word oriented and eagle-eyed for
inaccuracies in word usage, we quickly focus in on such extreme statements and are drawn
into making mental comparisons (rather than listening for emotions). “Do I really always do
this?” “No, in fact, I seldom do.” Or, “Don’t I often talk to her?” “Of course; I’m even doing
so now.” Etc.
Unfortunately we who think thusly often cannot keep our mouths shut and listen for
feelings which may be behind what we easily take as unreasonable exaggerations. Instead we
dumbly step in verbally, either with attempts to prove her wrong or to defend ourselves, as
though her “exaggerations (as we hear them)” are an attack on or offense to us–if not onto
truth itself. In either case, we miss the point, become poor listeners, and interrupt the flow of
the conversation.
The latter happening is where the wile–intended or not–becomes operative. Surely it
may be seen as negative rather than positive power–a force that “throws a man off,” rather
than “leading him on”; still, force is force, and the wile works.
A man thrown off his mental balance, even if by his own limitations in listening skills,
is vulnerable for other manipulations as well.
 Females can easily use superlative terms such as always, never, etc. with perfect ease
since their exact definitions are irrelevant except as useful in expressing extensive feelings.
For instance, “You never say you love me,” or, “You always leave your clothes on the floor,”
etc. etc. I call these accurate-for-emotional-expression superlatives tricks because of their
predictable effect of males who like to stick to literal meanings of words.
Is there a man alive who can resist “correcting” a woman with such lame explanations
as: “That’s not true; I told you so last Valentine’s Day,” or, “I did so pick up my pants last
weekend.” Though logically correct, such a typical male is already being moved by this
particular verbal wile, “hooked,” as it were by a common female use of language.
&&&&&&&
32. PHONY QUESTIONS WILE
Another verbal wile involves asking questions which are as phony as the make up on a
woman’s face, each skillfully prepared to engage a man’s mind or eye in ways which distract
him from “thinking straight” or remaining on his own Green Spot.
The wile plays into the fact that males, with our tendency to honor words and take
them at face value, often listen to female words shaped as a question and erroneously
conclude that they are what they sound to be. For example, a woman may ask, “How does that
(that being anything) work?,” or, “Why did you do such and so?,” each of which takes the
form of a literal question. A male, hearing literally, may naively go ahead and respond with
information about the mechanics of a machine or his reasons for doing whatever.
While answering accordingly, he is operating under the power of her questions, but
spouting words which she predictably ignores because literal answers weren’t the point to
begin with. Controlling the conversation or managing his mind were; and he falls for these
and other hidden agendas, only to discover later that she wasn’t even listening to his extended
answers.
Other examples: “Do you think I’m too fat?” “How do I look in this hat?”
&&&&&&&
33. “YES, BUT...” WILE
Just as a sensitive female with sharp-eyed data about physical or emotional situations
can always find some flaw in perfection–some supposedly irritating pea under all mattresses,
so a sharp-minded woman can find flaws in every male idea or answer. After listening to a
specific, focused explanation or male notion, for example, she may, given her expansive mode
of thinking, easily note an exception or some fact left out and trickily say, “Yes, but... what
about so and so?”
Always, of course, even when we males fail to realize them, there are flaws in all our
vaunted theories which we easily confuse with “the truth,” and even our best explanations
cannot but omit certain bits of data which an attentive woman can pick up on. Simply by
pointing out such pieces of information, for instance, an exception to whatever rule we have
applied, she can often “throw us off track,” as it were, in our train-track, focused, mode of
mental activity. Her innocently inserted “Yes, buts” can become one more way of managing
conversations and keeping male-type thinking under her own management.
&&&&&&&
34. PLAYING DUMB WILE
Simply by “playing dumb”–that is, pretending not to know how to do things, a woman
can often exercise force on a fragile male ego. Given the common male desire to “be smart”
and “know how to do everything,” a sharp woman can use these ego trips to acquire services
she might otherwise have to perform for herself.
 Proverbial “dumb blond” powers, for example, have moved many male mountains,
even with otherwise smart and powerful business and political leaders, etc. This wile may also
be called the Marilyn Monroe Syndrome, as when “dumb” and “sexy” seem to be united in
one person.
&&&&&&&
 III. ACTIVITY WILES
In broadest perspective the many types of woman’s wiles which may be acted out,
rather than presented or verbalized, include various forms of innocent flirting, playing Drop
The Handkerchief, inviting male attention/following all the while pretending, especially to
themselves, not to be. They may more clearly be seen as “unconscious seductions,” or as men
may crudely label them: “prick teasing.” In this mode of action a woman gives signs of being
a virgin-in-waiting, but acts as though it is all completely platonic in nature. Following are
details about these and other action wiles.
&&&&&&&
35. ACTIVITY OPTION WILE
Before confronting specific action wiles–things women may do to influence and/or
control male behavior, the overall relationship between gender and acting is relevant as a
potential wile on its own: specifically, the fact that in early life a powerful female called
mother controls (or tries to) the behavior of every little boy. What we can and can’t do, in
early formative years of life, is largely determined by the goddess from whom we came and
who rules us, as best she can.
Point: we males begin life with females determining our acceptable actions in all
regards. Fathers, of course, are often present with opinions of their own; but mainly in the
wings, and with final decisions (“Go ask your mother”) mostly made by mothers.
Quite predictably then two things happen: first, female values about what we “should
do” set the stage for early learning about all male behavior; and secondly, the habit of female
authority for making such determinations also tends to become ingrained–especially for us
“good boys.” We learn, that is, to look to women for finding out what is acceptable and
unacceptable behavior–what we can, that is, and can’t do. Even for “bad boys” the same
authority pattern is commonly acquired–only now in rebellion rather than compliance. Grown
“bad boys” may continue to look to females for determining what to rebel against. In both
cases, the habit is directions from females–either for what to do to please or to displease them.
Outside the home, where goddess powers were at first truly real, we commonly
continue in these same modes of early learning. Later females are blindly set up, as it were,
for continuing in the same role first learned at mother’s knees. When these psychic forces are
operative, as they so commonly seem to be, later girl friends, lovers, wives, and women in
general simply come with powerful behavior wiles thrust irresponsibly into their hands.
Like them or not, consciously use them or not, women inherit, as it were, potential
powers for use in powerful wiles in relation to most grown boys now seen as men.
&&&&&&&
36. HOUSE OPTION WILES
Overall activity wiles related to masculine behavior in general become particularly
focused in the family house, called the “home” which, at least proverbially, is “a man’s
castle.” So much for proverbs; the actual fact, the way we commonly live, is that the family
home is essentially the territory of the wife/mother, not the husband/father. He may, ideally,
provide the wherewithal for acquiring it, its furnishings, and upkeep. Certainly he “lives
there,” at least “after work,” as does the primary female and their offspring; again, ideally, he
also “helps around the house” by doing assigned chores, fixing broken things, and “helping
with the children.”
But, and this is the relevant point here: in most all family settings, the woman, the
wife/mother is primarily responsible for both the house and children insofar as final decisions
are concerned. She has the proverbial “last word,” beginning with the nature of the interior of
the house (furniture and “decorations”), the way things and activities are ordered (food,
clothing, etc. down to the way the bed is made), what children are allowed to do (“how they
are raised”), and the ways family members relate together.
Perhaps--I don’t know, many women may deeply wish it were otherwise; but, if
honest about my own experience and observations, I conclude that “home as man’s castle” is
pure myth in most houses in America. Home, it turns out in actual practice, is the place where
man has fewer options of personal choice than most anywhere in his ordinary life. Formerly,
“the office (workplace)” may have come closer to being man’s “castle,” but now even that is
increasingly dominated by the same female values as prevail at home.
Perhaps I simply bemoan what is more related to male irresponsibility than to female
control; but be that as it may, the fact remains that the prevailing social situation where female
forces dictate house/home decisions (apart from financial dictates), is where most males now,
so-called, “live” if not reign.
However they get these powers, women with a “home of their own,” and certainly
when children are added, commonly inherit, as it were, a situation which includes a powerful
wile for controlling much male behavior. With determining power over most options within
the family setting, wives/mothers begin, even before we approach specific situations, with
another trump card available for playing at their own discretion.
&&&&&&&
37. LISTENING WILES
Listening is, obviously, a human capacity–ideally one of two parts in all
conversations, the other, of course, being talking. In best case scenarios both men and women
listen to each other. But, and this is the relevant point here, female listen-ability is in general
better than male “hearing,” and, given boys’ experience with the power of mothers’ listening,
all later females are commonly viewed by males as having needed “understanding” for
affirmation of their own think-abilities. “Understanding”–that is, an open, listening, female
ear which may well be a subtle clue to other potentially open orifices more specifically related
to the biological agenda, becomes the subject of a passive action which can also become a
powerful female wile.
But genetic connections aside, the power wielded by an “understanding woman,” or a
girl “willing to listen” can be a thing to behold. Males who are successful in containing their
own overt sexuality and “resist all the temptations” of a beautiful woman, often become
totally vulnerable to a female “with a good ear.” Because hearing is easier to fake than beauty,
perhaps this wile has achieved some of its attention.
Most likely, however, its power lies almost completely in male projections onto
proverbial “female wisdom” which is more a matter of whole brain (right as well as left)
thinking which we males so seldom learn to do. Left dependent of the frailties of left brain
logic only, we have come to look blindly to women to either confirm our limited reasoning, or
else augment it with the kind of holistic thinking which we inevitably lack after we fall into
repression.
Whatever the case, woman’s ability to “understand”–or to fake same, and to hold forth
her potential “understanding” can become a powerful carrot in directing male behaviors.
&&&&&&&
38. MOTHERING WILES
MOTHERING is another powerful female wile which I think is almost totally based on
male repression–that is, is psychological rather than biological in nature. Mothering wiles
involve pretending to reproduce the real childhood situation in which a mother literally
supplied the basic needs of life, including the seeming magic of healing and love. Specific
elements of mothering as a wile rather than a fact include feeding a man, as once a mother did
a boy. Commonly women know, as in the saying, “the way to a man’s heart is through his
stomach.”
Other resurrections of the magic of childhood, that is, pretending to be a mother,
include providing care and comfort–as once a real mother did (or we wanted her to, even if
she didn’t). In this mode a woman may do such things as pick up after a man, tend to his
clothing, provide living arrangements, see that he goes to the doctor and gets medical care,
etc., etc. Also, because repressed males “act tough” and deny our capacities for self-
comforting as well as self-caring, we become very vulnerable to a woman who seems to
provide these real needs–as in, comforting or “feeling sorry for us” in our daily discomforts
and various woes.
One of the most subtle elements on effective mothering as a wile is artfully pretending
not to do so–that is, providing the services so quietly and efficiently that a man need not
consciously acknowledge that she is doing so. A wily “motherer” never lets on that she is
doing so. She only says she is “being loving” without requiring the male with a “fragile ego”
to actually see how dependent he is on her motherly role with him.
&&&&&&&
39. BODILY AFFIRMATION WILES
Because repressing males so commonly separate our senses of ourselves from our real
bodies–a form of disembodying which is more difficult for females with monthly periods,
etc., we often come to live as though we “have” our bodies–that is, “are not really it.” Such
disembodiment is, of course, actually an illusion; yet it is so widespread among men that we
commonly live in constant need of bodily affirmation from others, since we fail to find our
own.
This all too familiar male state sets us up for power wielding by women who will
affirm us physically, playing into our delight in exaggerated bodily strengths and fears of
physical weakness. “Oh, you big strong man,” in all its near infinite variations in the voice of
a woman, can be a powerful wile in “propping up a fragile ego” not firmly rooted in bodily
awareness.
Verbal affirmations of muscles, strength, etc. are most obvious; but probably the most
powerful use of this typical female wile involves the sense of touch–totally apart from any
words. Simply by placing her hand on a man’s body, silently affirming a man’s physical
presence (apart from his conscious sense of himself as a disembodied ego, self, or soul), a
woman can often wield great powers over him. Physical disembodiment leaves us, as it were,
“starving for touch,” especially by a woman who seems to resurrect memories of the powers
which were once truly present in a mother’s tending and care.
Even casual touch–as on the arm or a brushing encounter, by an artful woman can
often wield immense powers in evoking male response. Of course female touch, to be a useful
wile, must be done carefully “lest it be mistaken”; but when done artfully and “innocently,” a
female’s affirmation of the male body via words or touch can be a powerful force in
influencing his behavior.
&&&&&&&
40. TOUCHING WILES
Females often wield considerable power with males by simply extending themselves
in some form of physical touch; even a hand on the sleeve will commonly command
masculine attention. Unfortunately for males, the opposite is true for us–that is, our touch is
more likely to be negative than positive. We too may wield power by unexpected touching,
but in terms of driving a woman away rather than attracting her favor.
Most males, I think, must be quite vulnerable to female touch for two major reasons:
first, any self-chosen extension of a female in our direction can be a clue to her interest or
favor of us. Even a glance or look will commonly gain our attention (again, in contrast with
what works for males with females); but a touch, now that’s easily taken (unfortunately, most
often in error!) as a hint of eventual sexual favors possibly to come.
Secondly, female touch easily elicits dark memories of mother’s touch, back in ancient
times when she was truly a goddess with magical powers to heal and make us happy via
physical contact.
Whatever the reasons, less debatable is the fact that most any female, most any time
with most any male, is likely to be able to wield positive force by any of scores of kinds of
subtle physical touch, ranging all the way from a casual contact to an affectionate stroke. The
touch wile is often a readily available carrot which works well with most of us, especially
when artfully withheld and generously given when our responses are desired.
&&&&&&&
41. TOUCH OPTION WILES
Another prevailing set of gender differences becomes the arena for another powerful
set of female wiles in the dimension of physical contact. From early ages little boys are
moved to touch girls. The urge only intensifies into later life and lasts for who knows how
long. At 71 I still feel the desire to touch female bodies almost as strongly as ever. In sharp
contrast, females, as best I can tell, have no correspondingly strong urges to touch males.
They commonly like to be held, which involves physical contact, but do not seem to feel
deep-seated urges to simply touch men.
My best explanation of this difference so far is the same as I have noted before,
namely, a genetic inclination in service of replication success. Specifically, in mate selection–
males in quest of best baby-makers, smell was the long ago best sense for determining estrus;
but then smell lost most of its discriminating power after females became able to fake being in
heat. Next, the sense of sight came to be the predominate sense for use in female selection,
especially at a distance. But for final determination, given female capacity for deception of
looks as well as smells, males must have learned to add touch to sight for sharper
discriminations regarding conceive-ability.
Surely, for example, her breasts look ample enclosed in bra and blouse, but are they
truly full and pliable for nursing? Obviously her dress and manner makes her look shapely
and soft, but is she really so? And with vulva in total hiding, apart from any smell or sight, the
only way to determine its qualities, including readiness for intercourse, is through touch.
Touching, then, would reasonably become the next useful sense for augmenting smell and
sight in quest of satisfaction of instinct #2.
Given the power of the male urge to touch female bodies, and its apparent absence in
females, this is the best explanation I have found so far. The corresponding difference in
females–that is, their freedom from similar urgencies, can also be explained with the same
theory. Security determinations, in contrast with sexual discernments, are obviously less
related to facts about male bodies than about far more subtle traits of character–few of which
can be determined by touching a male body.
However the difference arose, its reality is less open to speculation. And it is this that
places an easily available wile in the hands of every female with a body, namely, the option of
allowing or denying access to touching “it.” The carrot, in this case, becomes the option of
touch. Given the strong male urge for physical exploration of the female body, simply by
dangling the possibility before a “touch hungry” male, a woman can regularly wield power
over him–keeping him pulling, as it were. The implied promise is: “If you will ....so and so
(be good, behave, be obedient, be faithful, etc.), then I may let you touch me later.”
Males, again in sharp contrast–allow my jealousy!, have no such possibilities with
females who lack our contrary urges, whatever their source. All too easily, at least so far as
we are concerned, females can, as it were, go forever without the slightest urge to “feel us
up.”
&&&&&&&
42. EMOTIONAL AFFIRMATION WILES tc ". EMOTIONAL
AFFIRMATIONWILES " \l 2
I list this wile after physical touch not because it is less powerful, but because it
perhaps requires more art than the others. If males repress embodiment from our awareness–
as it seems to me we almost universally do, we must repress emotional awareness even more.
In our eternal quests for “being brave” and “not ever being afraid,” etc., we learn early to
deny feelings into consciousness. We learn to “act brave,” that is, to “not be controlled by
emotions.” We exaggerate thinking capacities more in compensation for denied emotions than
in legitimate use of this left brain function.
Result: most males exist in varying degrees of emotional denial. Not that we “don’t
feel,” as we often pretend (mostly to ourselves), but that we live “on top of our feelings,” as it
were. Always they are a ticking time bomb below the level of our awareness, ever threatening
us to “be sissy” or otherwise fall from our fragile ego states of being strictly rational.
Into this arena any woman willing to supply a bit of our missing self-affirmation of
feelings can often wield exceptional powers over such a man. Of course, as I noted in the
beginning, such emotional affirmations must commonly be done with great caution lest we
males be overwhelmed with released feelings; still, an artful female who “lets us feel,” mostly
without calling attention to the fact, certainly without putting down on, for instance, our tears
or fears–that is, one who artfully affirms our denied emotional capacities, can be a powerful
force in such a man’s life.
&&&&&&&
43. DROP THE HANDKERCHIEF WILES
The childhood game in which one person walks behind a circle of children and drops a
handkerchief behind one, who must then pick it up and try to catch the one who dropped it
before she can run completely around the circle and return to his place, becomes a prototype
of many versions of similar female wiles. The overall “game” is for a female to drop
something–perhaps even a literal handkerchief, but more often a hint of need or interest,
which a male is tacitly invited to “pick up on” and pursue her.
Ostensibly she will be waiting for the return of the symbolic handkerchief. If, for
example, it is a needed service, the implication is that she will be waiting, perhaps with a
reward of some type (i.e., her attention); but often, as in the childhood game, by the time a
male has performed the service, she has “run away,” inviting him to follow, but diligently
keeping out of reach.
&&&&&&&
44. FAULT FINDING WILES
Woman’s well developed sensitivity, which allows her to be attentive to details often
missed by less sensitive males, can easily be used for finding flaws in what males do. Fault
finding, pointing out the errors-in-perfection in male endeavors, can be used to keep a man off
balance and therefore more subject to female direction.
 Every male endeavor, all the way from making up a bed, putting dishes in the
dishwasher, or cleaning the bathroom, to dressing himself, driving a car, or making love, is
subject to fault finding by a woman who has learned to use this wile. Even what seems near
perfect to us males who are far less attentive to finer discriminations in female-type endeavors
(i.e., house cleaning) is likely to fall far short of ideals held by most women. This awareness
of “what would be better,” or “what is wrong with what you did” provides ready fodder for
feeding the wile of fault finding.
&&&&&&&
45. FAKING ATTENTION WILES
Most females seem to have an uncanny ability to pretend interest far better than the
average male. When males are disinterested in another person or what is being said, we are
more likely to either turn away or otherwise reveal the fact. Women always seem to know
when we’re “not really listening.” But women, perhaps because they are more geared for
harmony, politeness, and nurturing, can often face another person, look in their eyes, appear
to be listening attentively, even to be understanding, and yet be without a clue to what is
actually being said.
They can so artfully “appear to be present” while actually “out to lunch” or planning
tomorrow’s shopping trip, that more gullible males are easily fooled.
This capacity for artistic fakery of devoted interest can be a functional wile which
works well with most males most of the time.
&&&&&&&
46. PRAISE WILE
The praise carrot is the flip side of fault finding. The same female sensitivity to flaws
in perfection can be applied to “finding something good” in what a male does, “no matter how
bad it may be” in an overall sense. Because repressed males, still secretly in search of
Mother’s Smile, though long removed from home, are so in need of female affirmation, any
small amount of seemingly sincere praise can be a powerfully effective carrot to dangle
before us. A simple “You did good,” will often keep a male horse “pulling” for a long time.
If, as praise implies, we are pleasing a woman, then we have been successful in one of
our abiding quests, namely female pleasure. Whenever a woman gives any indication of her
acceptance/approval of us, we are apparently “making progress” in one of our major goals
with her. “A little praise,” we might say, can “go a long way” in managing us males who are
so vulnerable to female affirmation.
Of course compliment-giving must be made to sound sincere and kept in moderation
or it may backfire–if a man comes to suspect “you don’t really mean it.” Consequently, a
careful mixture of fault finding and occasional praise may be particularly effective in the long
run. Finding flaws implies that a woman is at least “paying attention” to what a man does.
When criticisms are carefully balanced with an appropriate number of compliments, male
service may often be managed well by an artful female.
&&&&&&&
47. LOSING WILES
If a sperm doesn’t win out over his millions of competitors, he not only misses
immortality, he soon dies. But if an ovum doesn’t lose her independence and “give in” to a
sperm, she too dies quickly. And so it seems to be with us who have evolved to bear them–
that is, men are geared to win. For us it is “win or lose.” There are no win/win situations; it’s
either/or. Somebody wins, and somebody loses.
 But at the same time women seem to be easily able to “give in” and not lose at all; in
fact, like the ova they bear, they may ultimately win in what can seem to us males like losing
at the time. Not only is losing “not that bad at all”; it can mean “final victory.”
Whatever the basis for this gender difference, its reality provides the substance for a
powerful female wile which is seldom available to us male-type persons. Some few of us, like
Ghandi and Martin Luther King, do learn to utilize this wile; but not many.
The female capacity for “losing without really losing” in consort with the male
necessity of “having to win,” provides a grand advantage to the “fairer gender” in all arenas of
possible conflict. If a woman can “give in” without personal damage, but a man “has to win”
or else lose face, then the odds are always stacked in her favor.
The losing wile, ever available to women but never to a typical male, can be exercised
in any number of ways, such as: a) appearing to “give in” without even “putting up a fight.”
This extreme example of the losing wile is amplified elsewhere as the martyr wile. b)
stopping any contest in the middle at any time by simply saying, “Well, have it your way,”
which easily becomes a second level ploy since the male is obviously losing. This form of the
wile is especially effective if the male is in fact winning at the time.
c) Observing male emotions, and using them as an explanation (excuse?) for stopping
the discussion or argument. For example, “I can see you are getting angry; let’s just drop the
subject.” Since such stopping in the middle of a “fight” is never a male option except as a
concession to losing, woman’s choosing to do so, as is easy for her, easily becomes a way of
effectively defeating the male at the time–of, that is, winning by losing.
This wile may also be seen as “One-downswoman-ship” in contrast with the more
familiar game of “One-upsman-ship.” Males commonly try to win by getting “one up” on an
opponent–either by superior physical or mental strength, i.e., making a stronger point, giving
a better reason, or proving what the other person says to be wrong. In this typical male mode
of trying to win, “giving in” or “lying down” is tantamount to losing. There is, for average
males, no such thing as “being downed” without “losing,” which, as noted before, is critically
important to us born with a “thing” showing.
But the female mode of achieving victory (reaching a goal) by giving in, as does an
ova to a sperm, thoroughly undermines–that is, defeats the male mode itself. “One-
downswoman-ship” can become a female wile which is readily available to defeat a man at
any point in a conflict of interests. Because we only know win or lose, up or down, choosing
down as a way of remaining up may thoroughly confuse us–that is, become a female victory.
&&&&&&&
48. FLIRTING WILES
Perhaps the most common of all female wiles, beginning with young girls and
extending to old women, is supposedly innocent flirting–that is, dressing, moving, speaking,
and acting in myriads of ways which males easily confuse with implied sexuality. Sexually
related intentions, as noted before, can be entirely absent–that is, such a flirting female need
not have any “provocative” motives; she can be, so far as she consciously allows, “just be
being natural” or “doing what she wants to do.” If, for example, she chooses a proverbial
“tinny weeny yellow polka dot bikini,” she may, if called on, innocently explain that she “just
liked the color,” or “only wanted to get a good tan.” Etc. Etc.
The more sexually repressed males are, the more effective the flirting wile becomes.
With considerable denial of natural masculinity, almost anything a woman, especially an
attractive one, says or does can be interpreted by such a male as “seductive” or “teasing.”
I suspect that females are perhaps more often irritated, at least consciously, by this
common male tendency to “take everything as flirting”; but even so, the temptation to play on
such typical male projections must be near irresistible for any female with even hidden desires
to manipulate male behavior. After all, it is so easy to do!
&&&&&&&
49. KISSING WILES
Kissing–rubbing nerve-packed lips of males and females together, especially when
accompanied with even more sensitive tongue explorations, can be a sensual adventure, as we
all know, for both genders. But here the potential symbolic values of this relatively simply
physical action change dramatically for boys and girls. For males, kissing, we like to dream, is
but the beginning of a female’s overt permissions to make contact with her body in ways
which may eventually lead, God willing, to our own self-replication–ideally speaking, that is.
If she permits us here, at her upper mouth, who can tell but that the path may eventually lead
to lower lips as well? Aside from present tense erotic lip and tongue delights, genetic
knowledge probably informs us about possible correlations between kiss-ability and conceive-
ability–something we deeply need to find out. Good kissers may give clues to good lovers, if
not to good mothers.
But even if not, we’ve had fun and have an experience to be proud of, even to brag
about with our envious peers, and to dream about later. For girls, unfortunately for them, the
same positive-for-us options may turn negative-for-them. First of all, male kiss-ability may be
a good clue to stud capacity–that is, to strong sperm, but tells little about “personality” and the
many other traits relevant to a “good man” capable of providing long term security and
faithful devotion. In fact, “good kissing” may be counter-intelligent–that is, more likely to
clue one who will be unfaithful rather than “true.”
Secondly, kissing, for a girl, is not something to brag about; shame is a more likely
association. “I shouldn’t have done that.” “Yes it was fun, but was I only leading him on?”
“What would my mother think of me if she knew?” Etc. Etc. Thirdly, even if she becomes
erotically involved in kissing, that which it may lead to is more commonly a social as well as
personal no-no. Her own awakened passions, given their dangerous social as well as personal
consequences, including risks of pregnancy as well as social rejection, may be quite
threatening. Perhaps she “has felt too much,” or, “let go more than she should.”
All in all, kissing can be quite different for boys and girls–positive for the former and
negative for the latter. But these perhaps regrettable surface facts open the door to issues I am
considering here, namely, the use of kissing as a potential female wile. Anything which
matters so much to males, and can be so easily offered and relatively contained, can become a
useful carrot in a girl’s power repertoire. Given the additional ability which many females
seem to acquire for severing their senses of themselves from their bodies–that is, for de-
sensitizing even erotic zones such as lips and vulva, these bodily parts thereby become
available as impersonal, as it were, “tools” to use for ulterior purposes.
When kisses are permitted, or their implied possibility later on is dangled, as it were,
before a heated boy, a girl’s possible management powers can be vastly expanded. Surely
there are dangers of “smooching getting out of hand,” but with a bit of learned control a girl
can make kissing one of her effective wiles with vulnerable boys–and men.
And so with older “girls” as well.
&&&&&&&
50. PETTING WILES
The name changes from generation to generation, but practicing the wile must remain
essentially the same. “Petting” in my time, for example, has become “making out” by this
time. But whatever the procedure is called, the artistry of mediating male hands on the female
body as a means of wielding power, even gaining control over a wide range of other male
actions, remains a major female wile.
Though seldom if ever stated this clearly, the silent message of the wile is: “I’ll let you
do so and so (sit by me, hold my hand, put your arm around me, nuzzle my cheek, kiss me,
touch my breast, ‘feel me up,’ etc.) in return for your extended attention and devotion to me.”
Such an artful though silent girl may even engage in the various “petting” procedures which
themselves hardly change from age to age, with degrees of personal pleasure herself, for
instance, becoming excited by the kisses, thrilled by the touches; but, and this is the critical
factor: in keeping touch mediation as a wile, she must carefully remain in control of the whole
procedure–that is, be the one who “stays in charge” of where and “how far it will go.”
Perhaps pussy is the eventual carrot, at least in a boy’s dreams, but meanwhile
“petting” itself, with ever expanding/receding limits, is the dangled offering which keeps the
boy coming back, “again and again” remaining blindly hopeful and increasingly obedient.
Permission to pet, like all other female allowances, is a powerful wile, especially in
the days of our youth.
&&&&&&&
51. NO SAYING WILE
But if permission to pet is a useful carrot, sometimes its withdrawal or carefully
circumscribed limits, is even more so. No saying–that is, drawing the line, being the one who
says, “No more,” or later, “Not tonight, Henry,” plays into another male vulnerability which is
only tangentially related to sexual interests, namely, our competitive instincts.
Reacting to a challenge, “taking a dare,” or responding to “I’ll bet you can’t do ....so
and so” with “Well, I’ll show you I can,” must be almost as innate in masculinity as sex itself.
Some force deep within us makes any challenge to our personal supremacy, our urge to be
Number One, to come out on top, etc., almost irresistible. Tell us “No you can’t” and even if
we don’t want to to begin with, we are often taken up in quest of “proving we can” no matter
what you say.
This familiar male urge to compete to overcome opposition of any type easily
becomes one more arena for exercising female wiles, especially in the ball park of sex.
Backed up by social standards, religious sins, and legal prohibitions, and armed (literally,
bodied) with a provocative array of tempting carrots, a female can sometimes wield irrational
amounts of personal power simply by “saying no” at various times. Also, by changing the
times and places of her no-saying, leaving a male forever uncertain about when they may
unexpectedly be heard, she further expands the effectiveness of her challenges which are
commonly taken as dares–even when she fully means otherwise.
Again, I tend to feel sympathetic with females who “really do mean no” perhaps most
of the time when they say it, but who, nevertheless cannot but confront the pervasive male
urge to “not take no for an answer” and try hard to overcome whatever we take as a dare.
Sorry about that ladies; but it does, if you learn to use it wisely, become one more
potential wile to add to your already extensive list.
&&&&&&&
52. GEOMETRIC WILES
We males love to aim, think, and build with straight lines–sometimes formed into
geometric figures with more manageable shapes like squares and rectangles. We also want to
“straighten things out,” including women, even to make them “think straight.” But behind all
our conscious attention to simpler lines, we remain powerfully drawn, as it were, to circles,
ovals, figure eights (two circles), and the ever-tempting, even almighty female V which
bridges the gap between lines and curves.
An explanation, as we males like to find for all our mysteries, may lie in evolved gene
eye attractions for circular breasts, oval hips, and overall figure eight female figures which
artistically combine them both. These, obviously, appeal grandly from a distance; but there is
the V, which is far more, at least to our primal eyes, than merely two straight lines connected.
ALMIGHTY V’S tc "ALMIGHTY V’S " \l 3
V, we men like to think,
is for Victory;
but beyond all our relative successes
V is for Vagina, the ultimate aim
of all our immediate quests
I surmise that there must be an evolved “gene eye” attraction for the geometric form of
a V–in which our eyes first focus on the points, but are then moved to the base where the
diverging lines begin and end. Certainly we love curves; but even more so, I finally see, we
are devoted to Vs. I further theorize that these native attractions must have evolved as clues,
finally, to potentially conceive-able females–that is, best possible sources of self-replication
and personal immortality.
They begin with the appeal of cleavage, the V formed at the union of a woman’s
breasts, either pushed into proximity or pointing, as it were, to lower and more genetically
relevant parts of her anatomy. Or, beginning at the other end of her body, there is the potential
upside down V in which the feet form the tops of the V and the legs become the sides which
also point to the central source of replication, namely, the cunt (symbol of womb where
babies are literally made).
Temptingly, the feet may even be superimposed one over the other, giving the
impression of a true right-side-up V, as flared hips, themselves clues to good baby-making
potential, then become top of the V. Long legs, universally sought by females--even if by
deception, as in wearing high heeled shoes, standing on toes (as in ballet), are also universally
appealing to males–which can hardly be a coincidence.
What is the appeal of long, trim female legs? Easily their use as a power source in
attracting males can explain the accepted discomfort of high heels, etc. But what about us
males? What makes them appear so? Why do we admire such “good legs” so temptingly?
Perhaps they may be ancient genetic clues related to good run-ability in females who were to
bear our offspring and, with longer legs, might be better able to survive if they could run fast
from predators or other predatory males.
But it may be that the elongated V topped off with hips which are even more
exaggerated by long slim legs with feet held close or superimposed while standing is the true
source of attraction. Standing with crossed legs, thereby exaggerating the pelvis (where babies
are made) by making a wider, more flared V, might be additionally enhanced with appeal
value because of hidden promises (of possible eventual uncrossing, thereby giving fuller
access to the source of all human replication). Did primal females invent “reverse
psychology” whereby the appeal of a Yes is compounded by a cloak of No? Is the near
universal temptation of a Wet Paint Sign the hidden invitation to do–in this case, touch, what
the sign says not to? Is the secret point of crossed female legs, and the V they make, like a
“Wet Paint Sign” which invites, in this case, the possibility of their uncrossing, and.....?
And then there is the V formed by natural pubic hair (when left unbutchered by bikini
cuts and other mutilations in the name of beauty) which points to, conceals/reveals, and
cushions a man’s entrance to where he began and where he must return lest his genes die with
him. The bible, as previously noted, states that a woman’s glory is in her hair–discretely,
perhaps in deference to degrees of repression already in effect when it was written, not saying
which hair. But shunning the dictates of popular etiquette, I suggest that when King Solomon,
after “knowing” 1000 women (700 wives, 300 concubines), confessed his glorying in
woman’s hair, he was not limiting himself to strands on her head. More boldly (Solomon’s
Song 7:1) he also added, “the joints of thy thighs are like jewels.” Was he, long before me,
referencing this thigh-held, downy-covered, glory-cloaking V?
The final and most powerful of all Vs, of course, is the upside down V formed by long
legs spread wide, pointing as well as leading to the hidden source of human creation lying
silently waiting at their point of culminating union–that is, in colloquial language, the cunt.
Girls learn early to “keep their legs crossed,” ostensibly for polite reasons, perhaps
more unconsciously, for tempting reasons; but finally ultimate female power is wielded when
the closed V–with long legs, feet together, and pointed toes exaggerating the shrouded pelvis
above them, is replaced by an open, upside down V, joined where glorious hair is then parted
by its universal promise of transcendence via orgasm, if not immortality via replication.
The ultimate male Victory is with Venus who personifies Vagina which symbolizes
the double VV– the beginning of Womb, from whence we came and forever long to return on
the longer path to potential genetic perpetuity.
Or do I simply have a good geometric imagination?
Whatever the explanation, if any, may be, I am far more certain of male vulnerability
to female curves and especially Vs. I can’t even imagine how girls learn so early and become
so proficient in presenting their multitudes of these geometric forms; it must be genetic! But
neither dare I doubt the power they commonly wield in presenting them.
Woman’s many ways of forming, concealing, and revealing her many Vs become the
source of one more powerful wile.
&&&&&&&
53. GIGGLE WILES
Female giggles–pre-language, pre-laugh, guttural noises associated with female
pleasure are also potentially powerful wiles when “innocently” sounded in male presence. We
do indeed love to hear girls laugh from amusement or catching on to one of our jokes; but
even more so we are vulnerable to giggles which somehow seem to imply pleasure on a level
below all language.
I theorize that we must darkly guess of their possible connection with potential
pleasures lying far below mind alone. Whatever the roots of giggle magic may be, I am more
certain that these female sounds, like other inviting female looks and smells, can be powerful
wiles for commanding male attention on the longer path to male services.
&&&&&&&
54. WIGGLE WILES tc "54. WIGGLE
WILES " \l 2
How girls learn so early to wiggle their blossoming hips is even more mysterious to
me than how powerfully our boy gene eyes are drawn to react to them. A rounded pelvis,
backed by a firm, full ass, and wiggled, as though it has a mind of its own calling attention to
itself, is, after all, one of the better signs of potential conceive-ability. Small wonder that we
look.
In the natural world, where timely presentations are in effect the law of the jungle in
service of mutual replication, there might be no magic in the sign. But severed from the
Drama of Reproduction, as they so commonly become in modern society, wiggling hips can
become another commanding wile, easily learned if not inherited, by any female wishing to
wield power with a male.
Would that we males had anatomical parts capable of wielding power by wiggling; but
alas! The closest comparable I have been able to imagine is not in our possibly “cute” butts,
but in fat wallets carried over them. So much for bodily envy.
To get a man’s attention
wiggle your butt
To get a woman’s attention
wiggle your wallet