YMMV: The Unfiltered Sex & Dating Podcast

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 [https://twitter.com/ymmvpod] Facebook: ymmvpod [https://www.facebook.com/ymmvpod] Email: ymmvpod@gmail.com [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 [https://twitter.com/ymmvpod] Facebook: ymmvpod [https://www.facebook.com/ymmvpod] Email: ymmvpod@gmail.com [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 [https://twitter.com/ymmvpod] Facebook: ymmvpod [https://www.facebook.com/ymmvpod] Email: ymmvpod@gmail.com [ymmvpod@gmail.com]

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 [https://twitter.com/ymmvpod] Facebook: ymmvpod [https://www.facebook.com/ymmvpod] Email: ymmvpod@gmail.com [ymmvpod@gmail.com]

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 [https://twitter.com/ymmvpod] Facebook: ymmvpod [https://www.facebook.com/ymmvpod] Email: ymmvpod@gmail.com [ymmvpod@gmail.com]