The Top 5 Unbreakable Man Laws of 2010: A Year In Review

December 27, 2010 Leave a comment

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Since its inception, The Unbreakable Man Laws has continually strived to push the envelope with new Man Laws, Man Theories, Interviews and extremely questionable material posted to The Unbreakable Man Laws Facebook Page.  For those of you who stuck with us through thick and thin – THANK YOU! You are what makes this blog happen and the blog would not survive and thrive without your continued support.

Naughty or Nice? - The Best of 2010

With the exception of Africa and Antarctica, hundreds (and in many cases thousands) of readers are visiting the blog from every corner of the globe.   This is hard to believe for an idea that originally started with a core audience of less than 600 Facebook friends and family.

By far the landmark event of 2010 was the success of The UML Social Experiment which took place in the Nation’s Capital, Washington, D.C. on November 20th, 2010.  Nearly 200 people traveled from around the United States to attend this inaugural event.  Will there be more remains to be told. We are always looking for bigger and better ways of doing things here at the UML Command Center. If you’d like to be a part of The Resistance, contact us at We look forward to hearing from you.

And now without further adieu, I present to you THE TOP FIVE UNBREAKABLE MAN LAWS of 2010. (Editorial Note: For the sake of simplicity, this article is inclusive of all Man Laws, Man Theories, and Interviews posted on the blog during the course of this past year).

5.  Man Law #71 – Embrace Rejection!

January 30, 2010 – We’ve all been there and it’s happened to us all. For anyone who has not been rejected at some point by either a person they wanted to date, a job that didn’t hire them, or a college that didn’t admit them – Rejection is a part of life and in many ways, it serves as a powerful learning tool. I won’t quote Nietzsche right here but suffice it to say,  we all grow stronger.

5th Most Popular Post of 2010 - "Man Law #71 - Embrace Rejection"

4. Man Theory: The Relationship Event Horizon Theory

August 17,2010 – Have you ever wondered why otherwise intelligent people can act completely insane while dating someone? Look no further, we now have a Man Theory that explains why this occurs. We still don’t have a solution, but acknowledging the existence of this phenomenon is the first step into greener pastures.

4th Most Popular Post of 2010 - "Man Theory: The Relationship Event Horizon"

3.  Man Law #70 – Women Want A Wedding, Not A Marriage

January 23, 2010 – Does she want a life-long monogamous relationship that bares a family or simply a single magnificent day she has been planning since childhood in which her friends and family treat her like a Princess?  Find out in Man Law #70. This particular law happens to be a good one to discuss with significant others and family. Be sure to include friends that have gone through divorces and not simply people on their first marriage.  We wish you the best of luck. No. Really, we do!

3rd Most Popular Post of 2010 - "Man Law #70 - Women Want a Wedding, Not A Marriage."

2. Ask Christopher Ryan, Ph.D: “Is Monogamy Natural?” An interview with “Sex at Dawn” Author

November 29, 2010Whenever you start questioning people’s most basic and fundamental beliefs, you are bound for an entertaining discussion to follow.With this interview, we asked Dr. Christopher Ryan co-author of the book “Sex at Dawn,” whether Monogamy is Natural  in the human condition. Specifically, were we meant to have lifelong partners or is promiscuity in our DNA. This interview is for Mature Audiences Only.  For those of you under 18 and still idealistic, you may want to stick with the Disney ideal of relationships as long as possible. The truth may shock you!

2nd Most Popular Post of 2010 - "Ask Christopher Ryan, Ph.D - 'Is Monogamy Natural?'"

1. Man Law #75 – Sweet Lips Always Deliver The Poison

April 2, 2010 – This was an instant crowd favorite.  In this Man Law, I spoke about how disinterest from a woman can be seen as being stabbed with a velvet glove.  Coincidently, the girls over at Flirtexting had a similar post recently dealing with interpreting her text responses that I wholeheartedly agree with and give the Bishop stamp of approval.  I do have a response to the girls of Flirtexting and women reading this everywhere – just because you receive a text from us, doesn’t mean we want an engagement.

THE Most Popular Post of 2010 - "Man Law #75 - 'Sweet Lips Always Deliver The Poison' "

Stay on your toes gentlemen:

Tom Sanders: “She got to you didn’t she?”

Don Cherry: “What did you expect? They’re stronger, they’re smarter, and they don’t fight fair. It’s the next step in human evolution. It’s like the Amazons, keep a few of us around for sperm and kill off the rest.” – (Disclosure – “Sex is Power”, 1994.)

As always, I look forward to hearing feedback from you and encourage you to contact me at:

This is Ethan Bishop. Signing off for 2010. It’s a War Out There Gentlemen, and the Women are Winning!

I leave you with one last request: “Let us go forward together” – Winston Churchill

Man Law #81 – If You Allow Her To Waste Your Time, Don’t Be Surprised If She Takes You For Granted!

December 6, 2010 5 comments

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

If there is one theme of UML that I hope has been drilled into every man’s head who is reading this blog, it is this – respect your time and previous commitments. For those of you who have been here since the beginning, that idea started right here in Man Law #7.

For the women reading this in disgusted “shock,” be aware that Man Law #81 is applicable to both men and women. However, since this is a blog from a man’s perspective, you will have to deal with the man’s perspective. There are plenty of women’s magazines that will send your gender into estrogenic bliss, but on this blog, we are going to have man talk on man time from a man’s point of view and you are going to like it!

"Gentlemen, Don't fool yourselves into thinking that she doesn't know how her inattention comes across... Many women are painfully conscious of this...And some use it to test your boundaries!"

Now, it has been over a year since Man Law #7 has been published and I’ll throw this out there that many guys who read this blog walk away with only that law. It sticks in your head. Is 10% too little? Well, maybe. But if your day job of 40 hours a week (if you’re lucky) is roughly 80% of your life and 10% is for yourself (which includes hobbies, going to the gym, hanging with your buddies, paying your bills, education and pleasure), how much time should be for someone else? Is it so hard to understand why relationships are an investment and so many people lose themselves in one?

How do you know if someone is wasting your time? I can only speak for myself and my experience.  If I notice that she is taking an extraordinary long time to get back to me, consistently, then I will usually say that she is wasting my time. The key word here is consistently. This can occur with gchat, text, bbm , e-mail or even phone calls.   The best example of this is when I am chatting with someone online and all of a sudden – there is no response to a question that is pretty straight forward. For instance, we are on gchat or text and the following occurs:

Guy <insert any question here, this is just an example>: “Blue is a pretty interesting color. How did you choose that color to dye your hair?”

15 minutes pass…

25 minutes pass…

45 minutes pass…

75 minutes pass…

Girl: “Soooorrrryyyyyyyy…..Had to watch American Idol. I ❤ that show. ”

Girl: “Whoops, what was the question again? I closed that window. I am so braindead after work! ”

Guy thinks: “That’s understandable…

Specifically, if I get the impression that she is consciously taking her time to NOT respond, then I take that into account and say – “Ok. Done. Next.” and just like that – POOF – I’m gone.

Usually if the above sort of situation happens once or twice, I am OK with it.  People have their lives before they met me and I respect that. No one is stating that she has to “Stop, Drop and Respond,” anytime a text from me rolls her way, however, some people and particularly in this entire relationship building phase, don’t take into account that a simple, “Hey, my favorite show is coming on in a second, talk to you in an hour when I can think straight? ” tells me that she is consciousness and respects my time. She is communicating that “I can’t give you my full attention at the moment but I will be right back when I can!”

And I am and will always be 100% respectful of that.

This does not mean I will ignore her initiated conversations or treat her any different in a conversation. It simply means that this seems like a bad time for both of us to engage and perhaps we have too many other distractions in our lives to focus on any one person. Hey, it happens to us all and I’ve certainly been guilty of this in the past. But if you find that you are fighting a losing battle between her, and her TV, chances are you should box this interaction as having any sort of future relationship potential. Unless you plan on dating  her TV too…

My attitude towards this didn’t develop because I am lounging in the C-Suite of a Fortune 500 company but for the people who know me, and I mean, really know me – I make a conscious effort to respond to their messages, e-mails (Editorial Note: Go ahead, try it: ) and  phone calls, etc. They are important to me. In fact, for most people, if I don’t get back to you within a day or two, something is wrong.

So to summarize this up, the people who see me at my absolute best are the ones who I get the genuine impression are timely and responsive – whether we are still getting to know each other or have been friends for a dozen years. I don’t have time to play games. I am here, making deals and right around the clock. So if I see someone who seems too caught up in a social scene or preoccupied by everything else going on around her,  that is absolutely fan-spanking-tastic. Have a nice life lady, I won’t be in it…

Your Comments Welcome.

(Editorial Note: The title of this Man Law originated from a quoted tweet by @FredCuellar. As with all great quotes, I wrote it down immediately after seeing it “If I Allow You To Waste My Time, Then I Shouldn’t Be Surprised If You Take Me For Granted!” – Fred Cuellar) If you are on twitter,  take two seconds and  follow him.)

Ask Christopher Ryan, Ph.D: “Is Monogamy Natural?” An interview with “Sex at Dawn” Author

November 29, 2010 21 comments

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Every few years, decades, and centuries an idea is introduced into the world that challenges the socially acceptable beliefs of the time. In the 1500s, it was Martin Luther’s 95 Thesis. In the 1800s, Charles Darwin and his theory “On the Origin of the Species.” In 2010, Sex at Dawnis the book that the powers-that-be do not want you to read. No other book that I have read to date so fully encapsulates the belief system that The Unbreakable Man Laws is based upon. In other words, if there was a UML Graduate course offered at Harvard (and there should be…), “Sex at Dawn” would be the required textbook.

UML601 Required Reading.

In this interview, we speak with author Christopher Ryan, Ph.D about “Sex at Dawn” which he co-authored with his wife Cacilda Jethá, M.D. We take a brief look at open relationships, soul mates, and whether monogamy really exists and more.

As with previous UML interviews, we asked members of The Unbreakable Man Laws Fan Page questions they wanted to pose to the author. Before we jump into the interview,  check out the official Sex at Dawn website, Christopher Ryan’s blog on Psychology Today, the “Sex at Dawn” Facebook Fan Page, and finally twitter @SexAtDawn.

As a special limited time offer, be sure to type a question or comment that you have for the author below for a chance to win a free copy of “Sex at Dawn.” The winner will be selected by Friday, December 3rd!

Ethan Bishop: “Sex at Dawn” suggests that women may have historically been just as open to sex as men– a lot of women seem to have a tough time believing that’s true. What accounts for this skepticism? What ways are men and women really different?

CPR: Well, let’s not underestimate the effect of several millennia of witch burnings, beheadings, beatings, humiliations, and desert stonings-to-death. That kind of campaign can really put a kink into someone’s sexual adventurousness! Women in societies that don’t cast them into the street as whores if they happen to get pregnant while single or humiliate teenage girls as “sluts” for texting a topless photo to a boyfriend seem to have much less trouble believing their female ancestors enjoyed active sex lives.

Having said that, one of the major ways men and women differ is in their erotic plasticity. This refers to our ability to adapt our eroticism to changing conditions. Women have a lot more of this sort of flexibility than men do, in general. That’s why there are so many more nominally heterosexual women who’ve had sex with other women and why basing over 95% of published sex research on American undergrads is insane. A 20 year-old woman is a far cry from an accurate representation of “female sexuality.” This also explains why almost all paraphiliacs are men. Women have illicit impulses, but in general, they can control their impulses whereas men can get stuck with very inflexible erotic associations for life.

Ethan Bishop:  Your book indicates that human males are actually “well-endowed” compared to other members of the animal kingdom. Why is that?

CPR: Yes, what Dan Savage lovingly calls the “Plunger Penis” is  essentially an adaptation to sperm competition. Our long, thick penises feature a flared head that, when combined with the repeated thrusting that characterizes human intercourse, creates a suction effect that serves to pull back any sperm already en route to the ovum. See our book for juicy details, if you dare.

Authors and Husband/Wife Christopher Ryan Ph.D and Cacilda Jetha, M.D.

Ethan Bishop:  Does science hold up to the theory of “soul mates?” How do you think this idea came about?

CPR: Science doesn’t say much about it, but it stands to reason that with our highly social nature and advanced intelligence (at least compared to other animals), our ancestors would have had very intimate, spiritually-charged relationships. Science tends to focus on the brain states associated with infatuation (what anthropologist Helen Fisher calls “falling in love”). The sort of spiritual union that is implied by “soul mates” is, I think, beyond the explanatory capabilities of science.That soul-mateship would necessarily imply sexual monogamy is where we differ with the conventional wisdom. It seems to me (and a lot of other people) that you’d want your soul mate to have as much pleasure and intimacy as possible in life unless something cultural interfered with that impulse.

Ethan Bishop: Why are women louder during sex than men? Are they all “faking” or is there some evolutionary reason?

CPR: Scientists refer to this as female copulatory vocalization. Interestingly, it seems to occur mostly in primate species where female promiscuity (and thus sperm competition) is common. Some women may fake it, as it’s a good way to provoke orgasm (and ego inflation) in men. But clearly, a lot of the screaming and moaning is involuntary and thus serves as yet another indicator of our orgiastic origins.

The Truth Is Out There!

Ethan Bishop: Is monogamy a social construct imposed by government in order to maintain order and property rights? For instance, who owns Property A and whose responsibility is Child B?

CPR: That’s essentially what we argue in Sex at Dawn—and what Engels and others argued 150 years ago. The data indicate that monogamy probably arose around the same time our ancestors started worrying about property, and thus, paternity. Once property entered the picture, a  man wanted to pass his accumulated resources along to his sons, not someone else’s sons. The only way to assure that they WERE his sons was to control his wife’s sexual behavior. So we see indications of how obsession with property overlaps obsession with female fidelity: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. Nor his house. Nor his maidservant. Nor his manservant. Nor his ox. Nor his she-ass.” You know, this isn’t about sex, really; it’s about property. Thou shalt not covet thy (male) neighbor’s STUFF—and that stuff includes “his” woman. Throughout history, we see that virginity and female fidelity are especially important among the upper classes—who have the property to worry about.

Ethan Bishop: How should “Sex at Dawn” change the personal relationships we have?

CPR: There are very few “shoulds” in Sex at Dawn. Our book isn’t an indictment of monogamy or a call to open relationships. We say (and strongly believe) that monogamy can actually be a very honorable option. But it’s like vegetarianism. Just because you’ve decided to be a vegetarian, don’t expect bacon to stop smelling good. And maybe you can find a way to make exceptions for the occasional pepperoni pizza and still consider yourself (and your partner) essentially a vegetarian. All we really advocate in the book is tolerance, communication, and a more  realistic approach to these issues that incorporates a more accurate sense of what kind of creature Homo sapiens really is.

%d bloggers like this: