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: ymmvpod@gmail.com

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: ymmvpod@gmail.com

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: ymmvpod@gmail.com