Eye movements and other female signals

“Coyness” by I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, the “Bali girl”:

(See also my post on female proceptive behaviour here.)

The “language of the eyes is discussed at Chateau Heartiste here and also here. From the former post:

“The rules of eye contact are simple. After catching her eye:

If she looks down: She’s instantly attracted but shy.

If she looks to the side: She’s not instantly attracted.”

Yes, I think that is probably correct. If a woman meets your gaze for a few seconds and then looks down (and maybe blushes), that is a good sign. I believe this is a primitive submissive and coy female response. (Men, try this experiment. If you have a wife or girlfriend who respects you, try staring into her eyes for a bit longer than usual. Chances are, she will look down.)


Another blogger, whose name I forget, pointed out this well-nigh perfect (albeit acted) example (see how she drops her eyes not once, but twice, and notice his final, satisfied smile):

As for looking to the side, that seems to be something a woman does when she knows you are not (at that time) “on the same wavelength”. It is perhaps like an ocular version of shaking the head.

I originally construed the eyeroll the female singer does in this song (which is about romantic problems) as cute, but I am not so sure now. In context, it might be seen as an example of “looking to the side” to signal a lack of compatibility. In any case, there is a lot about eye movements in that song, both in the words and the images.

On a rather different kind of female sexual signal, I came across this on “why men love butts” recently and put it in a comment here on my old post on high heels and their psychology.

These topics are actually incredibly complicated. For example, see all the possible explanations as to why high heels work their magic. In the end, I concluded that it was probably basically that they enhance the normal curves of the female leg and provide what behaviourists call a “supernormal stimulus“. But there are also lots of other theories, including that they help the woman mimic lordosis (the tail-up sexual posture found in many female mammals).

Likewise, the article on why men love “butts” relates this to signalling about the female childbearing curve of the spine. Well, maybe. But there are plenty of other theories, including the purely functional suggestion that the fatty female buttocks provide a natural cushion during sexual intercourse in the “missionary position” (which, despite its name, is actually the commonest position used by humans everywhere.)

My top Manosphere posts

I noticed some interest still in one of my older posts, which has become something of a “Manosphere classic”. So I thought I would provide links to a few posts of mine which seem to have been of lasting value to readers. (These are aimed at men, primarily, but women might find them of interest too.)

A note on these posts: two of them contain ideas largely supplied by other people, and this is fully acknowledged at each post. All of them have had a lot of readers and generated interest. Rather than provide them by title, I have cited them with a brief summary of their contents.

Why women lie about what turns them on.

A woman argues for the natural inferiority of women.

Why men should marry virgins.

How to encourage good standards of wifely behaviour.

Non-feminist lifestyles for women.

(NSFW) Do some women …

enjoy looking ridiculous? (I ask this quite seriously. Do they actively get pleasure from looking foolish?)


I understand that women like to look sexy. But it seems they often also want to look silly or absurd. Perhaps they hope thereby to look more non-threatening and therefore appealing?

I have chosen a fairly mild example (the girl in the garter belt above), but this looking silly seems to be very common and goes beyond simply looking sexy. Something else is going on here, some underexplored aspect of female psychology and social strategy.

I suppose you could argue that the photographer “dressed” the girl above like that. But female models seem happy to wear whatever absurd outfit male photographers want them in. And many women choose to dress in silly outfits themselves. Here is a comparatively mild example:


I have touched on this kind of point before.

(Perhaps when God gave Eve to Adam, in the Genesis story, He intended that Adam would find her amusing and have something to laugh at.)

“Sluts” who would be OK with a change of clothes and attitude

I think the girl on the left from 2015 labelling herself a slut is cute. If she were to meet the right man, she could still be saved and become something useful:


I commented on another case like this here.

Many of these little lunatics are quite attractive. It is a shame they are wasting their youth on radical feminism.

Patriarch actually supports patriarchy

This recent statement from Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix (Arizona) is worthy of note:

“Do not be fooled by those voices wishing to erase all distinctions between mothers and fathers, ignoring the complementarity that is inherent in creation itself. Men, your presence and mission in the family is irreplaceable! Step up and lovingly, patiently take up your God-given role as protector, provider, and spiritual leader of your home. A father’s role as spiritual head of the family must never be understood or undertaken as domination over others, but only as a loving leadership and a gentle guidance for those in your care. Your fatherhood, my fatherhood, in its hidden, humble way, reflects imperfectly but surely the Fatherhood of God, the Father to those whom the Lord has given us to father.”

Admittedly, it is somewhat muted, but it is still a remarkable statement.

Most prelates do not present this kind of traditional teaching. I have only ever heard it from the occasional priest. I cannot remember the last time a bishop came out with something like this. Liberal bishops are usually quick to demand obedience to their office, but have tended to discount the rights of the husbands and fathers in their jurisdiction.

The Feminine Turn

I think this will be one of those posts that grows over time by accretion.

In any case I wanted to make a start.

This article of mine, with an interview with “PhD Bimbo” has now had 375 views, which is pretty good given its academic situation.

PhD Bimbo’s instincts, to rely on her femaleness in her life, are good, but she is stuck on the sexual side without regard – at least so far – to the childbearing side.

Here is “ContentWoman” on what we have learned:

“After 100 years of overt feminism, there is no evidence to suggest that men and women are equal in ability. It is not that women are incapable of more than being a housewife and mother if it becomes necessary, but that we are no better on average than men at anything other than that for which we are biologically designed. It is not necessary to have the majority of women in the workplace when men can do those jobs just as well or better in most cases.”


And here is something I found today on why men still dominate the news. It is, perhaps, time for people to consider that certain realities about the sexes have not changed and are probably immutable.


“As long as men continue to monopolize the highest levels of occupational and social hierarchies, we are not likely to see a major shift in media coverage,” Shor said. “The resulting dominance of men as subjects of public and dinner-table conversation may reinforce and normalize in the minds of audiences the notion that power and newsworthiness are something men have and, apparently, deserve.” [Or, you know, maybe that is just the way men naturally are.]

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-reveals-men-media-coverage-women.html#jCp

One of a series of pieces I wrote recently on what happens to a society when sex roles get ignored.

… elegant shoes

spanking …
panties kiss
elegant shoes


panties …
blossom on
the ground



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 236 other followers