Weight and Desire, Post-Nut Reflections, Pegging Dynamics, Sexual Heuristics, Modern Courtship

This week, we dive into the ever-thorny topic of physical attractiveness, honesty, and the complicated etiquette around saying what you actually think, especially to women. They discuss the social costs of radical honesty, the benefits of being perceived as a reliable truth-teller, and the minefield of commenting on a partner’s looks. Comparisons are drawn between intelligence and beauty, with a healthy dose of evolutionary psychology for good measure. Keith expresses admiration for high-IQ self-awareness, while Mike explains his method of gauging intelligence through diction, unless someone has the audacity to be foreign. The conversation then shifts to online dating profiles, where the hosts lament the apparent laziness of women's efforts and propose increasingly elaborate theories about why no one is trying very hard. Mike expresses surprise that women don’t treat their profiles as quinceañera-level events, while Keith wonders if some sort of mandatory SAT verification might improve the filtering process. The duo expresses a nostalgic yearning for more earnest selectivity, though they acknowledge it likely wouldn’t help. They touch briefly on sugar dating platforms, naturally, and what kinds of men and women such sites tend to attract. As always, the discussion veers into biologically adjacent territory, with a spirited (and extremely dry) debate about whether titty-fucking is functionally useful or just another one of those things men insist on despite universal female disinterest. Keith confesses he's never tried it, prompting Mike to explain, in painstakingly practical terms, why it mostly results in cleanup logistics. The anatomical limitations of breasts, necks, and angles are considered in unexpected detail. There is also a diversion into nipple sensitivity statistics, as if the show were about to pivot to an academic journal. Twitter: @ymmvpod Facebook: ymmvpod Email: [email protected]

Keith and Mike examine the nuances of modern dating with the clinical detachment of two men who’ve spent far too much time on dating apps. They begin by dissecting the increasingly common expectation for men to send daily "good morning" texts, a phenomenon Keith describes as both psychologically revealing and extremely stupid. Mike proposes outsourcing these texts to offshore call centers or an AI assistant, both of which he suspects would outperform the average man. The segment concludes with a meditation on communication as performance versus communication as evidence of actual affection. The conversation then drifts, as it often does, into a granular exploration of sexual technique, including thrusting strategies, vocal coaching, and the sociocultural ramifications of vigorous fingering. Keith offers a brief anatomical aside on the bone structure of mammalian penises, which is less of a non sequitur than it sounds. Mike draws a comparison between poorly instructed fingering and receiving directions like “touch me like a grapefruit,” which somehow makes sense in context. There is also a serious discussion of how women might coach men toward more satisfying encounters, though no conclusive solution is reached. From there, the hosts turn their attention to the challenges facing women in their mid-30s who are trying to find a long-term partner before their fertility window closes. Keith outlines a strategy he calls "industrialized dating," inspired by a friend who scheduled more than ten first dates per week and maintained a spreadsheet to keep track. Mike compares this to the scheduling practices of professional sex workers, which is meant as a compliment. They explore whether delaying sex can effectively filter out unserious suitors, or if it merely selects for the most patient ones. Finally, the hosts circle back to the central dilemma: how can women efficiently vet potential husbands without becoming either emotionally drained or what Mike refers to as "a sex worker for free." Various strategies are proposed, including cryptic date-countdown policies and ambiguous sexual timelines designed to disorient men just enough to reveal their true intentions. Keith recommends maximizing throughput. Twitter: @ymmvpod Facebook: ymmvpod Email: [email protected]

In this episode of Your Mileage May Vary, Keith and Mike begin by considering the ethics of emotional honesty. They discuss whether withholding one’s emotional state constitutes a lie, and how much emotional transparency is required in a functional relationship. Keith argues that stoicism, while flawed, is preferable to emotional overexposure. The conversation quickly turns to situationships, particularly cases where men engage in sustained sexual encounters while deliberately avoiding commitment. The hosts propose several mental models to explain this behavior, ranging from embarrassment to status differentials. Keith draws on the film Bridesmaids for empirical support, which is as close to peer-reviewed literature as the podcast is likely to get. Mike admits to avoiding brunch invitations for fear that a partner might meet Keith and immediately break up with him. Later, the two revisit the topic of sleep sex, a long-dormant segment of the show’s canon. A Reddit post prompts speculation on the biomechanics of unconscious consent, as well as the engineering challenges of nocturnal vaginal access. Keith is skeptical of the feasibility, while Mike proposes an alternative strategy involving the mouth. As always, they are more concerned with logistical plausibility than moral implications. Finally, the hosts explore the emotional valence of semen volume and toothbrush sanitation. Keith describes himself as “probably within a standard deviation of the mean,” which is apparently a good thing. A detailed anecdote involving mistaken toothbrush identity is shared, regrettably. The episode concludes with Keith reflecting on his lizard brain and Mike wondering about electro-ejaculators—standard fare for a podcast about relationships. Twitter: @ymmvpod Facebook: ymmvpod Email: [email protected]

This week, Keith and Mike attempt to rank the most important superficial traits that influence male sexual desire, beginning with a list that includes weight, ethnicity, facial attractiveness, figure, and everything else. What begins as an exercise in prioritization soon becomes a deep dive into personal biases, aesthetic heuristics, and a surprising amount of geometry. Keith provides a mechanical breakdown of sexual logistics with overweight partners, which leads to a somewhat academic discussion of bodily angles and the limitations of certain sexual positions. Mike contributes moral support, skepticism, and vivid analogies involving sport-fucking and Eastern European machinery. From there, the conversation leads to the relationship between apparent enthusiasm during sex and perceived long-term viability as a partner. The hosts consider whether women might accidentally disqualify themselves from relationship consideration by enjoying themselves too much during a first hookup. They explore the intersection of perceived chastity, authenticity of arousal, and the complicated social signaling involved in early sexual encounters. At no point does anyone suggest that human mating psychology is simple, pleasant, or fair. Later, the two evaluate a listener question involving pegging, face-sitting, and the limits of vulnerability in sexual dynamics. Mike posits that being a "vulnerable and whimpering mess" may carry a cost in perceived masculinity, especially outside the bedroom. Keith agrees, citing personal experiences and a fatherly punch in the film My Girl as evidence that competence and dominance remain socially desirable traits. The show wraps up with a discussion of another listener whose girlfriend experiences post-sex disgust and sadness. Various hypotheses are considered, including religious shame, misaligned intimacy expectations, and the absence of orgasms. Mike, citing their podcasting experience as a credential, suggests that breaking up may be the simplest solution. Twitter: @ymmvpod Facebook: ymmvpod Email: [email protected]

Keith and Mike mark their 200th episode today. They begin by reflecting on the accuracy of milestone counting and segue into a discussion about Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, and the fallibility of supposedly sacred sports statistics. Keith expresses suspicion that his own episode count spreadsheet may contain hidden corruption, though Mike assures him the podcast network’s data file would make such an error unlikely. The moment is appropriately celebrated with a shared sense of modest self-congratulation and implied service to humanity. The conversation moves into a deeper analysis of male sexual psychology, sparked by a text from a woman who suggests that sex with a man often ends the pursuit. Keith and Mike consider the implications of novelty, companionship, and emotional labor in relationships, with Mike drawing an analogy to deer hunting and Keith delicately suggesting that some women might simply not be compelling. The two debate whether orgasm consistency and emotional intelligence can prolong male interest beyond the novelty window. Mike proposes a theory of dual peaks of male arousal: initial sex and the first time the woman has a believable orgasm, though Keith is skeptical most men track such things. Later, the hosts discuss the cultural expectations placed on men in relationships, particularly the tension between emotional availability and sexual access. Keith outlines a behavioral pattern where men tolerate emotional excess in exchange for continued sexual opportunity, and questions whether women might strategically suppress their natural behaviors to avoid being broken up with. Mike suggests that all women have some amount of emotional nonsense, and if they don’t show it, it’s because they’ve hidden it. Keith, for his part, seems to welcome the deception so long as it's convincingly executed. The episode concludes with a discussion of whether someone should sleep with a terminally ill, married former acquaintance. The hosts dissect the ethical, emotional, and practical implications of this decision, including the possibility that the illness is a ruse, the risks of posthumous heartbreak, and the general undesirability of sex with someone undergoing chemotherapy. They offer their standard dry pragmatism and qualify moral concerns with sufficient caveats to suit most worldviews. Twitter: @ymmvpod Facebook: ymmvpod Email: [email protected]

Keith returns from Mardi Gras and reflects on the surprisingly family-friendly atmosphere, alongside the expected open-container debauchery. He and Mike discuss bead culture, public flashing, and how social dynamics at such events can override typical social inhibitions. The conversation segues into the cultural legacy of Girls Gone Wild, including its covert marketing of hardcore pornography and the legal grey areas surrounding consent and identification. Mike notes that his preferred porn was "too advanced" for Girls Gone Wild, which is a humblebrag if there ever was one. The hosts then shift gears into a conversation about sexual timing and relationship dynamics. They propose the surprisingly radical idea of having sex before dinner, rather than after, in part to avoid the logistical complications of digestion and sleepovers. This leads to an extended negotiation theory about ejaculation, cuddling, and the psychological benefits of clarity when dealing with the lizard brain. Keith confesses that his post-orgasm snuggling capabilities are vastly superior to his pre-orgasm ones, citing reduced mental bandwidth usage. Later, they explore the nuanced politics of female body hair, particularly in light of the new live-action Snow White film, which has sparked online discourse due to the visible presence of peach fuzz on the lead actress's back. Keith reflects on his strong personal aversions to body hair in intimate situations, while Mike offers a more lenient, fuzz-tolerant perspective. This leads to a revealing discussion about grooming standards, attractiveness, and how to hold unreasonable preferences without becoming the villain in someone else's patriarchy narrative. Keith admits he is "maximally intolerant" of certain aesthetic features and wishes it weren’t so—though not quite enough to change. In the final segment, the hosts dissect a listener’s account of discovering leftover toilet paper in an inconvenient location during a sexual encounter. They analyze the term "clitty litter," which is probably best left unanalyzed. Keith shares his own experiences with this phenomenon, including one instance that led to a breakup, because of course it did. The episode closes with a thoughtful consideration of pre-sex hygiene, the physics of female anatomy, and the challenges of broaching these topics without becoming a monster. Twitter: @ymmvpod Facebook: ymmvpod Email: [email protected]

This week's episode begins with a discussion about a recent controversy involving Elon Musk and an alleged baby trap, debating the ethical and financial implications of such a maneuver. The conversation quickly expands into a broader critique of transactional relationships and the unintended consequences for the children involved. The hosts then delve into the complexities of sexual preferences and boundaries, sparked by a listener’s complaint about their spouse’s aversion to oral sex. Keith suggests a strategic, if somewhat underhanded, approach to resolving the issue, while Mike questions the feasibility of engineering desire. Along the way, they explore the cultural expectations around reciprocity in relationships and the differing ways men and women perform obligations. The conclusion is inconclusive but at least thorough in its over-analysis. Further in, the duo takes a detour into the world of unconventional body modifications, thanks to an inquiry about "prison pearls." The concept is met with equal parts horror and academic fascination, with Keith struggling to remain seated at the thought. Mike, ever the pragmatist, tries to determine the minimum financial incentive required for Keith to undergo the procedure. It is unclear whether the discussion leads to any valuable insights, but it certainly occupies airtime. The episode closes with a meditation on the limits of friendship, particularly when oral sex has entered the equation. A listener laments that a casual favor has resulted in an unshakeable new dynamic with a persistently hopeful friend. Keith and Mike debate whether certain sexual encounters inevitably alter relationships, or if this particular case is simply a failure in communication. The conversation ends without resolution, but with at least one strong recommendation: some friendships are best left untested. Twitter: @ymmvpod Facebook: ymmvpod Email: [email protected]

Keith and Mike take a measured approach to their latest batch of one-star reviews, which range from the standard accusations of misogyny to the more concerning claim that their voices induce sleep. Rather than engage in self-reflection, they consider the possibility of pivoting to the lucrative world of sleep podcasts. Keith, ever the economist, points out that their detractors failed to take advantage of the show’s longstanding policy of paying for negative feedback. This oversight only serves to reinforce his belief that their harshest critics may not be operating at peak intellectual capacity. The discussion then turns to relationships, where a listener writes in with an ultimatum that can only be described as highly specific. Her husband, citing irreconcilable differences, has informed her that unless she consents to anal sex twice a week, their marriage cannot continue. Mike, applying his usual analytical rigor, wonders whether the man would maintain his conviction if the arrangement were reversed. Keith, perhaps naively, suggests a marriage counselor might provide clarity, though both agree that “twice-weekly anal” is unlikely to be a common sticking point in the profession. In a seamless transition from strained marriages to teenage resourcefulness, Keith recounts the elaborate measures he once took to ensure privacy while masturbating as a teenager. What begins as a simple precautionary tale quickly spirals into an engineering case study, complete with fleece blankets, strategic clothing placement, and an emergency contingency plan for sudden parental intrusions. Mike, unimpressed, points out the sheer number of failure points in Keith’s system, ultimately concluding that this level of problem-solving may explain both Keith’s SAT scores and his current personality. The episode concludes with an unexpected foray into the world of fantasy-themed sex toys. Mike has recently become aware of the *Bad Dragon* product line and, against his better judgment, feels compelled to investigate its possible connection to a popular series of romance novels featuring dragons. Keith, whose tolerance for nonsense has already been tested, takes one look at the website before declaring his immediate and permanent exit from the topic. The discussion, much like the episode itself, is both unhelpful and oddly compelling. Twitter: @ymmvpod Facebook: ymmvpod Email: [email protected]

A discussion leads to an extended examination of an unusual claim: that a Mormon husband once ate cereal out of his wife’s vagina. The logistics are considered, including spoon placement, sugar residue, and potential medical consequences. This transitions into a broader conversation about Mormon attitudes toward sex, particularly the practice of “soaking” and its representation in pornography. The effectiveness of soaking as a loophole is debated, along with the likelihood that it leads to more conventional sexual activity. Mormon missionary rules against masturbation come up next, specifically the requirement for male missionaries to clap at intervals while showering. The practical difficulties of this rule are analyzed, as is the possibility of working around it with various contraptions. The conversation expands to whether deeply ingrained religious prohibitions affect sexual preferences later in life. There is also some speculation about whether female missionaries, lacking explicit restrictions, may have unknowingly engaged in activities they were never taught were possible. The latter half of the episode focuses on pornography, both in its current form and its likely evolution with AI-generated content. The challenges of search, categorization, and personal preference in porn consumption are examined, as well as the potential for machine learning to optimize content for individual users. A comparison is made to TikTok’s algorithmic recommendations, with questions about whether porn has too many niche preferences to be effectively automated in the same way. Ethical and legal concerns surrounding AI-generated pornography, including the possibility of synthetic depictions of illegal content, are also discussed. The episode closes with a conversation about the broader social and psychological impact of pornography. Arguments are considered regarding whether easy access to porn affects relationships, male sexual behavior, and cultural expectations. A brief comparison is made between access to pornography and bodily autonomy debates, though the analogy is left somewhat unresolved. The discussion ends on a reflection about early internet porn consumption, the technological changes that have shaped it, and the potential implications of future developments. Twitter: @ymmvpod Facebook: ymmvpod Email: [email protected]

This week, we've some discussion of aggressive bidets, the science of clitoral measurements, and why Sydney Sweeney may or may not be fluent in Russian. Mike shares his experience installing a high-end toilet seat that may or may not be waging psychological warfare on his anus. Keith explores the concept of malicious compliance, specifically how a government employee might secretly be helping birth control access by following bad orders too well. Meanwhile, Ally regrets mentioning that airport breastfeeding pods exist because now Mike is brainstorming ways to misuse them. We also break down the latest entry in the "songs that make Ben Shapiro furious" genre, dissecting the lyrics to Fat, Juicy, and Wet with the kind of forensic rigor normally reserved for congressional hearings. What exactly is "coochie water," and why is it being autographed? Did the songwriter fully grasp the anatomical implications of their rhymes? These are the questions that matter, and we bravely attempt to answer them, only to become more confused in the process. Later, we examine a listener’s personal crisis, which starts as a question about losing her sex drive and ends in an existential conversation about whether orgasms are like hunger (or, in Ally’s case, an optional theme park trip). Mike is irritated by the fact that women don’t always want sex, Keith makes a sweeping generalization about men, and Ally tries to explain why sometimes the effort of getting naked is just too much. This leads, naturally, to a discussion of the OKCupid age-attraction graph and a thorough analysis of whether men are hopelessly deluded about their chances with 21-year-olds. The answer: yes, but hope springs eternal. Twitter: @ymmvpod Facebook: ymmvpod Email: [email protected]