Search site

In love, there is always one who kisses and one who offers the cheek (French proverb)

Love lasteth as long as the money endureth (William Caxton)

The only true love is love at first sight; second sight dispels it (Israel Zangwill)

It is well to write love letters.  There are certain things that it is not easy to ask your mistress for face-to-face, like money, for instance (Henri de Regnier)

The fickleness of the women I love is equalled only by the infernal constancy of the women who love me (George Bernard Shaw)

My soul is crushed, my spirit sore;

I do not like me anymore,

I cavil, quarrel, grumble, grouse,

I ponder on the narrow house

I shudder at the thought of men...

I'm due to fall in love again (Dorothy Parker)

A Husband is what's left of the lover once the nerve has been extracted (Helen Rowland)

Many a man has fallen in love with a girl in a light so dim he would not have chosen a suit by it (Maurice Chevalier)

Anon: 'Goodness, what beautiful diamonds'

Mae West: 'Goodness had nothing to do with it my dear' ('Night After Night, 1932)

.....

The big difference between sex for money and sex for free is that sex for money usually costs a lot less (Brendan Francis)

.....

In adolescence pornography is a substitute for sex.  In adulthood, sex is a subsitute for pornography (Edmund White)

There is no unhappier creature on earth than a fetishist who years for a woman's shoe and has to embrace the whole woman (Karl Kraus)

Women and Relationships

'When, from time to time I have seen the persons with whom the great lovers satisfied their desires, I have often been more astonished by the robustness of their appetites than envious of their success.  It is obvious that you need not often go hungry if you are willing to dine off mutton hash and turnip tops.' (W. Somerset Maugham)

This leads me nicely into the first principle of relationships - the 'Shaggability range'.

We all have a shaggability range - that is, there are certain parameters that define the quality of our prey.  Simply put, if you look like this

you ain't gonna get this

We could say that the man here has a shaggability range of 0-1.   The woman has a shaggability range of 0 - 10.  It's pretty simple really.   The woman plays in the Premiership, the man's team is skulking at the bottom of the Screwfix League.

On the other hand, if you are happy to put up with this: then, as Somerset Maugham points out, you need never go hungry.   You could always eat her....

So, the first step in embarking on any relationship is deciding (ask your friends!) what your shaggability parameters are.   All people of both sexes choose a partner that falls within their shaggability range.   Have no doubt about it - every woman wants a handsome man, and every man wants a beautiful woman.  But if your shaggability range does not stretch that far, you will go for something a little less ambitious.

FAQs

Q   'Suppose that my shaggability range is 5-7, and my intended has a shaggability range of 6-8.   What then?'

A   It depends.  If you are lucky enough to find a women with low self-esteem, she might settle for you, in which case you might be ok.  Fortunately for us, most women do have low self esteem.  Two thirds of women think they need to lose weight, but only one third actually do need to do so.  One third of all men think they need to lose weight, but two thirds need to do so.  Women always think they are rubbish at their jobs (and that one day they'll be found out), when in reality they're good, whereas men think they're brilliant at their jobs when they're rubbish.  This tells us something.  Men can shag 'upwards', at least for a while.  Watch out though for any man with a higher shaggability range...

Q   'Is it all about looks, the shaggability range?'

A   Yes, and no.  For men it is, but women are infinitely more complex.  They also like a man that can provide ' security ' (see MG politics section, under 'capitalism') - which is why you sometimes see pretty women out walking with gorillas.

Q   'I'm in a reltionship now, but I am not sure how my shaggability range compares with that of my partner.  How do I tell?'

A   This is all about who is dominant in the relationship, which brings me nicely on to the second principle of relationships - the fellatio ratio.

The Fellatio Ratio

Ask yourself one simple question:  Does she go down on me more than I do her, or visa versa?  If it's you on her, she is dominant, and has a superior shaggability factor.

Unfortunately, examination of the fellatio ratio leads to some uncomfortable conclusions:

1   If the ratio is in your favour, you are dominant, and are shagging someone too ugly for you.  You will be constantly looking for a fitter specimin, and she will be worrying constantly that you will find one;

2   If the ratio is against you, you will be submissive in the relationship, and women hate that.  Whilst she will pretend to like you doing the washing up and shit, she'll soon be off to find someone more handsome, who treats her badly, or who can provide more 'security';

3   If your shaggability parameters are about the same you will both be thinking at any one time either that you could be shagging someone more attractive, or worrying that your partner is thinking this.

It's a tricky call, but the test of the fellatio ratio means that you will be forewarned, and forewarned, as we know, is forearmed.  Knowledge is power my friends...