The Manosphere’s Weird Relationship with Porn

Another strange thing I’ve noticed about manosphere bloggers is that, on one hand, they recognize that pornography tends to lower women’s value on the sexual marketplace but, on the other hand, they advise men to avoid it.

If I can sit home and rub one (or more) out to a super-hot, sexy 18-year-old, why in the world would I hunt around and deal with a bunch of bullshit and spend money just to maybe fuck some flabby, cuntish, 35-year-old? Chances are, I won’t.

Therefore, because of porn, if older and less-attractive women want men in their lives at all, they’re going to have to give rather than take. And, from looking around, they seem to have started. Banging a cougar or a girl who’s a little chubby is about as easy as it gets these days. And if you’re not a complete tool-bag, they’ll pay for drinks too.

But rather than celebrate and try to protect the power that porn gives men, the vast majority of manosphere blogs and articles denigrate it instead, urging men to stay away from it. Do a simple Google search for manosphere porn and 90% of the links you’ll find will be to articles telling young men that they should “stop fapping” to porn.

Why? I’m not sure. I really don’t understand. Since most men only put up with womens’ bullshit because they want sex, doesn’t an excellent facsimile of sex which doesn’t require putting up with bullshit actually work in a man’s favor? I would think so.

Imagine if someone created a 3-D printer that printed basic working cars. Automobiles that drove and were street-legal and safe. For free. Nothing fancy, but they got you safely from one point to another. What do you think that would do to the price of Porsches? Probably nothing, they’d stay a status symbol at more or less the same price-point. But what do you think it would do to the price of Hondas? They’d go out of fucking business.

Why? Because there is price-inflexibility for the stuff that’s highly desired. It’s a status symbol, it’s (often) high quality, and it’s desired no matter what it costs vis-a-vis comparable items. However, for stuff that’s only somewhat desired — stuff that’s purchased because it’s cheap or easy to obtain — there is tremendous flexibility.

Porn has the same effect on the mating market. It has essentially no impact on the hottest women. But it dramatically reduces the bargaining power of mid-level women. And, for low-level, barely desired women, it essentially prices them out of the market completely. The most they can hope for is a pump-and-dump.

So how does it hurt men? It doesn’t. Say you sit at home and rub a few out to the hottest new porn-star rather than taking chubby old Gertrude out for dinner. What have you lost? Nothing at all. You’ve gained, in fact. What have you gained?

– Time to pursue work and/or other interests
– Money
– Safety (no DUIs, car wrecks, crime, STDs, etc)
– Perspective

I think you can figure out the first three, but what do I mean by perspective? Well, think about how you feel when you’ve rubbed a couple out. Relaxed, non-horny, more clear. Now, clarity doesn’t always feel good. If clarity makes you realize that your life is kind of empty, then that sucks but it’s also great. It has clued you in that your horniness has been filling your life with false “purpose” which is based on testosterone rather than rationality.

This perspective also applies to how you view women. Are you really that interested in going to all the trouble of taking Gertrude out for drinks or dinner tonight? Is she really worth the time, effort, money, etc.? After a couple of good orgasms, you can make this determination with clarity rather than through the irrational focus that your unchecked libido gives you.

Manosphere types will say, “Well, guys should be going after the hotties, not the Gertrudes of the world.” And that’s fine, but the large majority of men, no matter how awesome their “game” is, simply aren’t going to be dating 8s, 9s and 10s. Sorry, there just aren’t that many to go around.

A large percentage of men, no matter how hard they try, are going to be stuck in the middle- and low-end of the mating market. Everyone can’t be above-average.

But marrying, or even seriously dating, some bitch just because she sometimes offers you a way to get off, is an irrational action. Why do you think most, if not all, historical societies forbade pre-marital sex and made the bonds of marriage irrevocable? To trap men.

A complete inability to divorce a woman is not a contract that I would advise any man to enter into for any reason. But, by forbidding men from quenching their strong sexual desires without that lifelong, legally enforceable commitment, it causes them to become irrational and enter into a situation they wouldn’t rationally consider.

Fortunately, society has moved away from that social construct, and porn helps men make rational decisions as well. So for those who advise young men not to get married (as I do), your anti-porn stance runs directly contrary to that admonition.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for going out to socialize and occasionally bang chicks. I’m not saying stay inside like some recluse all the time. There’s a balance to everything. If you think that porn is somehow destroying your life, then by all means curtail your use. But porn itself is not necessarily bad, just like alcohol isn’t necessarily bad just because some people have a problem with it.

Again, I don’t understand the manophere’s stance on this topic. Porn benefits men by making “sex” (or a fairly good facsimile of it) free and easy. And each year that passes, porn becomes more and more realistic. As of this writing they have 60 fps, “4K” resolution porn that, when viewed on a large monitor, looks like the girl is right there on top of you.

When men know, at a moment’s notice, they can head home and rub one out with nearly the same satisfaction as actual sex, they’re more likely to walk away from bitches who treat them badly or demand to be pedestalized. Especially low-level chicks who really don’t have that much to offer other than a warm hole for the night.

In fact, thinking about it, porn benefits those low-level women too. Instead of yet another pump-and-dump from a guy who’s just horny enough to buy you dinner and tell you what you want to hear to get in your pants, you can stay home and save yourself the trouble and heartache. The guy won’t bullshit you and string you along but will simply leave if he’s “just not that into you.” He’ll go home to his porn and you can get home early and watch a Lifetime Movie of the Week rather than suffering through some mediocre sex and spending the next several days wondering if the guy is going to call you back.

So porn’s a win-win, in my opinion. I don’t think I’ll be able to convince ugly chicks it’s a win for them, but it’s clearly a win for men. To put it simply, it gives men options. Therefore, the manosphere should guard mens’ access to porn at every turn. Because women know the score and, if given the ability, will have it banned as soon as they can to maintain their historical monopolistic hold over men’s sexual access.

Sperm Competition as the Result of Ancient Gang Rapes

I’m endlessly interested in sociology and especially the sociology of sex.  Lately I was reading for the umpteenth time about “sperm competition” – the evolved nature of a man’s body to produce different types and different amounts of sperm when the possibility arises that he will be having sex with a woman who may have had recent sex with other men.

Sperm competition also involves the shape of the penis in delivering that sperm.  Specifically, the glans has evolved into a sort-of barbed, mushroom shape to remove male competitors’ sperm from the vaginal canal.  And of course there’s the fact that men have relatively large penises as compared to other primates.

The terms which sociologists frequently use to refer to the above are “anti-cuckoldry” tactics, prevention against “female infidelity,” women’s “extra-pair coupling,” “double mating,” and things like that.  All of these terms and ideas presume womens’ agency in becoming impregnated by “rival sperm.”  That is, it’s the female’s behavior and willpower that the man has evolved to counter because she is the one “allowing” other men’s sperm inside her body.

Buss is, of course, frequently cited as he seems to be the “go-to” guy regarding paternal uncertainty.  He ascribes, at every turn, “female choice” and “sexual selection” to sperm competition. Even the titles of most books on the subject ascribe female agency to it (for example, “Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty: Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-Cuckoldry Tactics” by Steven M. Platek, Todd K. Shackelford (2006)).  Granted, Shackelford does make passing mention of it in another one of his books.

But, in all my readings about this topic, I have very, very rarely seen an author refer to historical wartime gang rape as being relevant to sperm competition and male sexual evolution.

Perhaps it’s too upsetting, or perhaps modern man is so used to the concept of women choosing to do what they want with their bodies that the idea never even enters authors’ heads.  Or perhaps they just don’t know their history.

However, it’s quite clear that many, many extra-marital offspring were produced not through infidelity on women’s part but due to the sacking of ancient cities and the vast, weeks-long orgies that accompanied those events.

While the thought of it is quite abhorrent to modern man, the reality is that the destruction of towns, the killing of men and boys, the gang-rapes and slavery of women were all pretty common and even an accepted part of life a couple/few thousand years ago.  It happened all the damn time, to put it bluntly.

Look at Babylon, look at Assyria, look at any ancient people.  Chances are they decimated, or were decimated by, some other rival state at least once in their history.  The sheer number of current family lineages that could be traced back to some ancient solider would likely be mind-blowing.

So it’s at least as likely, and in my opinion even more so, that men evolved those specific sexual “anti-competition” traits because victorious soldiers were genetically “competing” against dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of other soldiers who had also inseminated conquered women in the frenzy which occurred during the rape and pillage of a defeated town.

I think that to fail to acknowledge this likely fact is disingenuous.  The question is, why is it not acknowledged?

It could be the case that male authors don’t want to acknowledge it because it paints historical men in a bad light (as rapists).  And it could be that female authors don’t want to acknowledge it because of the disturbing idea that, for most of human history, women had very little “agency” or choice about the genetic makeup of their offspring. Therefore the concept of sexual selection – at least as it pertains to female choice – plays a greatly reduced role than previously thought in human evolution through the ages.

MRAs, PUAhaters, MGTOWs, and other red-pill failures

There a several types of men in the world.

The first are the “blue pill” men. They haven’t swallowed the “red pill” and still are caught in the lies and traps of society. We won’t discuss them here.

Then there are those men who have swallowed the “red pill.” PUAs are those who have successfully swallowed it. MRA guys, PUAhaters and MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) are those who have unsuccessfully swallowed it.

PUAs (Pick Up Artists). These are the guys who have realized what they had to realize about women and are busy trying to exploit that knowledge for their own benefit, as they should.

They have varying success rates but the key part of being a PUA is a total lack of bitterness about their new red-pill knowledge. They understand that it is their job to change, not reality’s job. Because reality won’t change. They understand this at a fundamental psychological level.

MRAs (Men’s Rights) guys. They have unsuccessfully swallowed the red pill, and have developed a hatred toward women.

Though they’ll pretend they don’t; they’ll suggest that certain types of women are great. Women from the past, women from far-off lands, traditional women who no longer exist, etc. etc. Of course the women they meet on a daily basis — that is, 100% of the women in their world — are awful. But they don’t hate women. They just hate every woman currently alive within a 2000 mile radius 😉

And oh how they blog about that hate. Their red-pill knowledge shines through with their excellent insights into women’s minds; but they fail to understand that women are human just as they are. It is their downfall. When their negative emotions well up too far, they kill women.

PUAhate guys. They guys frequent the (currently offline) web site PUAhate.com. They too have unsuccessfully swallowed the red pill, but they have developed a hatred toward other men.

This hate becomes a negative obsession with men, just as MRAs develop a negative obsession with women. PUAhaters will critique the physicality, status, and finances of other men to the tiniest detail, finding everyone but the top 0.01% lacking.

Of course, to them, only the richest and most attractive men are beloved by women. If you’re not a male model (and none of them are), then no woman will want to sleep with you.

Their red-pill knowledge shines through in their insight into other men — what makes men attractive at a surface-level. But their bitterness precludes them from understanding that there are facets beyond the surface that also make men attractive.

When these men blow up, they kill mostly other men. 4 of the 6 of Elliot Rodger’s victims were dudes. The two women were something of an afterthought.

MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way). This is a relatively new “club” with a small population but it appears to be an attempt to get away from the bitterness of the prior two camps and allow men to simply disengage from the mating market.

While this is probably an admirable alternative to wallowing in bitterness for those who have unsuccessfully swallowed the red pill, the group doesn’t actually live up to its name.

Its web site still seems to have a great deal of bitterness toward women. So I’d suggest that this group is merely an even more stunted version of the MRA group.

For in reality, men who’ve truly “gone their own way” no longer obsess over women. They certainly don’t sit around blogging about them. They’re off fishing in Alaska or designing sports cars or playing video games or whatever. They have truly forgotten about the mating market.

Conclusion. It is interesting that some men simply can’t handle the red-pill truth. MRAs, PUAhaters, MGTOW and likely countless others have not been able to assimilate the knowledge into their lives in a healthy way.

All have one major symptom: bitterness. Which is why, long ago, I suggested in another post not to take advice from bitter men. Why? Because they have lost. They have not been successful, they are not the winners. It’s perilous to take advice from failures, especially mating market failures.

Women are like Planets & You’re the Star

I like thinking of analogies that model human relationships.   These models are not “true,” but they’re helpful in simplifying the extremely complex processes that take place when you date multiple women.

As you know, I think that always dating multiple women is mandatory for my own happiness, and possibly yours.  But what’s the best way to achieve it so that your whole system is stable and can hopefully last your entire lifetime?  I don’t mean that each individual woman lasts years and years (though they can), I mean your whole system of multi-dating does.  Let me explain.

First off, some guys call it multi-dating, some call it having a “harem,” some call it “spinning plates.”  I think of it as a solar system.  You’re the star, and the women are planets which revolve around you at varying speeds.

If you look at a solar system, there are planets that orbit quickly around a star, sometimes taking only weeks or months to do so, and there are planets orbiting much farther out that can take centuries.  Think of each relationship as one, and only one, revolution around you.  Some women will complete this orbit in a short time, and some women will complete this orbit in a longer period of time.  The former are called “short-term relationships” (STRs), the latter are called “long-term relationships” (LTRs).  And then there are some in the middle (MTRs).

As you also know, I believe that women attract women.  When you have no women, it’s very difficult to get new women.  Therefore it’s best to have a system which allows you to keep the most women you can, on the terms you want and within the time, energy and monetary constraints you have.

I’ve been multi-dating for a decade now, and I like to maintain a stable system of orbiting women.  It means that they are less likely to all collapse at once and make me start over.  Stability of the entire system, rather than that of each individual woman, is what allows this to happen.

Let’s look at this model further.  If two planets get too close to each other in a solar system, they interfere with each other’s gravitation and either one or both are ejected from the solar system or they crash into each other.  Either way, that’s not a stable system.  Planets have to be spaced out in proper orbits that provide stability to the system or, at the very least, don’t cause instability.

The same thing, I’ve found, must happen with women.  I’ve found the most stable configuration is 3-4 women in my solar system with varying orbital (relationship) time-spans.  One is a long-term relationship which cycles very slowly, over the course of years.  Another is a medium-term relationship that lasts several months to a year.  And the last ones are short- and very-short-term relationships that complete their orbits in a matter of days, weeks, a few months, maybe just one night.

For some reason, when I have a bunch of women in the same orbit at the same time — several short-term, mid-term, or long-term relps — the system becomes less stable and I’m more likely to lose all of them.

I think a man needs all of the things that each relationship type can offer: the security of LTRs, the challenges of MTRs, the excitement of STRs.  Furthermore, I think that it’s almost impossible for the average man to have enough energy, money, and time to have several LTRs at once.  And I think that the average man would be unfulfilled if all he had in his life were STR after STR with no LTRs at all.

So what does this mean?  This means that you will be supervising a constantly changing, yet ultimately stable, solar system of women.  Some of them may start out orbiting quickly but then get “promoted” to a slower-orbiting path.  Some LTRs will reach the end of their orbit and a medium-term girl will have to be promoted.  Sometimes if you find that two women are competing for LTR status, you’ll have to demote one to a faster track and watch that relationship end sooner than it otherwise would have.

I wish I could make an animated solar-system video because I think that it would be more clear to see the various orbits, the various promotions and demotions, and how things can change when a LTR comes to a close and what happens to the other planets.

So visualize a system where the fast inner planets are completing their orbits and being replaced on a frequent basis, the slower middle planets taking longer, and the outermost planets taking a long time.   It remains stable with STRs entering and exiting on a frequent basis.   It does become somewhat unstable when a MTR or (especially) when an LTR completes its orbit.  But if you have options and “game,” that system regains its stability in short order.

I’ll give you an example of the system in action.  I had a 4-year LTR complete its orbit in the Spring of 2008.  It was fairly unexpected, but not entirely.   At that time I had an intermittent MTR and a couple of STRs going at the same time.  Immediately I promoted the MTR to a LTR by treating her better, seeing her more often, and generally treating her as a long-term partner.  I bumped one of the STRs — much to her surprise — into a MTR orbit.  I then spent that summer dating a shit-ton of new women.  I had about 5 new STRs that summer.  One of those was really beautiful and sweet and very quickly got bumped into LTR orbit.  This meant that the one who was already in that spot was bumped back down to MTR.  A couple of STRs duked it out and one made it into my MTR orbit, further displacing the MTR who had just been demoted.  The others stayed at STR distance and eventually completed their orbits.  The poor girl who had started out a MTR, then was temporarily promoted to LTR, then doubly demoted down to STR made her exit and was upset and confused and hates me to this day.

When all was said and done, the STRs continued their fast orbits, I had a new LTR (which lasted 3 years), and my MTRs swapped around and eventually contained a couple of new girls who lasted about 6 months each.

You can see the rather severe upheaval that happens when an outer planet completes its orbit.  Generally the whole system is disorganized for a couple of months, and then settles down into its new equilibrium.   But despite the changes within, the system itself remains stable.

Finally, I want to make one thing clear.  When I talk about bumping women into various orbits, I don’t mean that you lengthen or shorten the orbit yourself.  They will do that.  What you’re doing is treating them as LTRs or STRs, or something in between.  Here are the things you do with LTRs that you don’t do with STRs:

1) Spend more time with them

2) Spend more money on them

3) Show your affection more freely

4) Introduce them to friends and family

5) Go on trips with them

etc.

The reasons STRs end their orbits quickly is generally not because you’ve dumped them; it’s because you choose not to treat them as LTRs, and they eject.  If you’ve met up with and screwed a girl for a month and she invites you to hang out with her friends and you say no, she’s going to complete her orbit around you relatively quickly.

LTRs will usually end their orbits once they finally realize you’ll never marry them.

The only times I ever end STRs is when I don’t want to have sex with the woman again for whatever reason.

My ultimate goal is to date multiple women over my entire lifetime.  I’ve found that this system is (so far) the best at allowing me to do so.

‘Man-on-Man’ vs. ‘Zone’ Defense Dating Strategies

In team sports there are usually two major types of defense.  One is called “Man” or “Man-on-Man” where you pick one guy and guard him and try to prevent him from getting the ball.  Wherever he goes, you go too.

The other type of defense is called “Zone” defense where you pick one area of the field or court and deal with any opposing player who comes into that zone.  When the opposing player leaves your zone, you let him go and don’t follow.  Sometimes there’s one player in your zone, sometimes several, sometimes none.  You don’t really care about each individual player, you care about doing your job within the confines of your zone.

If you want to bang a lot of girls you need to play “zone” rather than “man.”  Your “zone” is getting laid.  Women will come into your zone, leave your zone, sometimes there will be several women in your zone, sometimes there will be none.

You do not want to play “man” where you chase one particular woman all over the field.  This is also called “oneitis” or “prelude to marriage.”

A kid’s coach once told me he never let any of his younger teams play zone defense.  Why?  Because inexperienced players tend to get distracted by one opposing player and end up following him all over the field whether they’re supposed to or not.  Then the zone collapses and it all becomes a de facto “man” defense anyway.

Same thing goes with new guys on the mating market.  They set up their zone, some chick comes into it or looks like she’ll come into it and the guy latches onto her and follows her out of his zone.

And believe me, women want to lead you out of your zone and into theirs.  Theirs usually involves you making commitments to them and whatever offspring they may wish to have (or already do have).  This is not in your personal best interest if you want to bang lots of chicks or otherwise lead a relatively independent life.

Focus on your zone, whatever it is.  For me, it’s “cheap, quick sex with reasonably attractive women.”  That’s a good summation of my zone.  I will entertain any woman who is in that zone or looks like she is about to enter the zone, but if she avoids the zone or starts to leave the zone, guess what, my attention leaves her.  If she comes back into the zone, then great, she regains my attention.  If she orbits my zone and refuses to actually enter, then after a few attempts to get her into my zone I’ll just ignore her.

Sometimes months will go by with no woman in my zone.  So be it.  I might expand the zone a little out of frustration during those dry phases, I’ll admit.  But not by much.  Usually if I go out more or get more aggressive, I’ll find women in my zone.

So again, focus on your zone, not on women themselves.  Eventually it will become second-nature, the borders of your zone will strengthen, and nobody will be able to draw you out, no matter how much drama she instigates 😉

Women are clients, not employers

I’m relatively lucky in one specific way, as far as my job goes: I work for myself.  This means that I have clients, not an employer.

The difference is that if you have one employer, your entire livelihood depends upon that one entity.  Whereas if you have clients, you have several — sometimes many — shifting entities in your life upon whom you rely for money.

Same goes with women.  If you have one woman in your life, you are entirely dependent on her for all your female needs — sex, love, cuddling, affection, all the things for which you want a woman in your life in the first place.

Whereas if you “Date Multiple Women, Always,” you have a slowly revolving set of women in your life who serve your needs.  When you lose one, it can be sad, but it’s not the end of everything.  Just as if you lose a business client, you may have to hustle to replace him or her, but you’re probably not going to starve since you have other clients.  Whereas if you’re fired by your one employer, you’re screwed unless you can land a new job right away.  It’s a mad, horrible scramble where you have absolutely no income between those employers.  And it can last a whole lot longer than you ever imagined.

For me, it’s liberating being able to tell my clients to fuck off if they annoy me.  I’ve worked for employers before, and it’s an unpleasant experience.  I generally suck as an employee and I’ve been fired over and over again for speaking my mind or for doing my own thing at work.

This is why I suggest that you Date Multiple Women, Always.  It turns them from an “employer” into “clients” whom you respect but whom you can live without if they become overly demanding or bitchy, or if they won’t put out on a schedule that works for you.  It means that no one woman can monopolize your ability to get sex or love or whatever you may want from the female gender.

The downside to treating women as clients is that you are constantly having to hustle and “prospect” for more.  If you’re an employee, generally you don’t have to go out and find new clients, the bosses (or other specialized salespeople) do that.  You have your specific job and you do it; you don’t have to worry about every little thing.  Whereas part of my job is going out, advertising, and getting more clients for my business.  Part of my workday is set aside for that specific reason, and if I stop then my clients dry up and I begin to starve.

This is exactly what you have to do when you treat women as clients rather than employers.  It is the downside.  You have to set out part of your dating life to not only go out with your current women but to find more women to “sign up” as your clients.  You’re constantly hustling at some level.  Always, your whole life.

Another downside is that eventually every client/woman will leave you.  Sooner or later.  There is generally no “till death do us part” client.  That’s a downside if you’re looking for “forever.”  I’m not, so it’s no big deal to me.  The one person who stays in my life forever is me, all other people will rotate in and rotate out at varying speeds.  As Billy Joel sang, “Life is a series of hellos and goodbyes,” and that’s manifested in spades when it comes to the dating world.  Yes it’s painful, but that’s just how it is.

On the whole, though, treating women like clients is great if you have the mindset to do it.  I suggest every man at least try it once in his life for a few years.

Rule 4a: You Must Lie to Women, the Remix

If you haven’t read Rule 4 yet, please do so, I’ll wait.

Ok, got it?  Now, here’s the thing, and this is where stuff starts getting somewhat advanced.  You might think that Rule 4 states that you always have to make women believe that you aren’t screwing other women.  That the “Lie” consists of preventing them from consciously realizing that you’re boning other chicks.

Not so fast.  Rule 4 is true, you must lie to women.  But preventing them from consciously knowing that you are boning other broads is only one of the lies you must tell them.  The other half of that specific lie is making them think that, yes, you are boning women.

Whaaaaat?  You have to make them believe that you aren’t boning other chicks AND that you are boning other chicks?

Yes.  Exactly.

You need to keep women in kind of a limbo.  A perpetual limbo.  Like balancing a stick on the palm of your hand.  For you to keep a woman for as long as you want her, part of her has to suspect that you are boning other broads, and part of her has to believe that you aren’t boning other broads.  If she ever finds out for sure you ARE boning other broads, her socialized neocortex will take over and dump you.  If she ever finds out for sure you are NOT boning other broads, her hindbrain will find you so unattractive that she will find a way to either cheat on you or dump you.

So this means that you have to tailor your lie to your situation.  If you are not currently boning any other broads, you have to give her hints that you are, without saying it outright.  This usually involves swinging back and forth from affection to indifference, from openness to secrecy, etc.  Mentioning other women you’ve dated, having mysterious hot chicks post things on your Facebook wall.

Example: Telling her she’s the only girl you’ve ever really loved, and then answering a text message on the sly and pretending to hide it from her.  You’re pulling her in two different directions.  On one hand it’s plausible that you love only her (which she would secretly hate) and at the same time it’s plausible that you’re screwing some other women who are at least as hot as she is (which she would be turned on by but would be forced to dump you over if she found out for sure.)

Here is what you want to instill in women: confusion.  Ideally, if her friend asks her candidly whether she thinks you’re “cheating” on her, she should think long and hard and respond, “I… I don’t THINK he is.”  If your woman can state for a fact and with full confidence that you are not boning other women, her attraction for you is already gone.  If she can state for a fact that you ARE boning other women, then her socialization will not let her stay with you.

Of course if you are boning other chicks, which you should be, you should hide 95% of it.  And the things you let her see should be calculated.  For example, walking in with a strand of long blonde hair on your shoulder which she will find.  You can easily say “Oh the wind must have blown that onto me.”  Walking in with a whiff of perfume on you.  Calls from someone very late at night.  All these can be explained away, but at the same time she’s thinking, “I wonder… I wonder…”

Keep her in limbo, always.  Use Rule 4 to keep her teetering on the edge at all times.  Lie one way, lie another way, move her back and forth, keep her guessing.  Reality should have very little bearing on the meaningful stuff that you tell her.  The stuff you tell her that’s real is just throwaway.  It’s work, yes, but it’s interesting and it will get you what you want.