I really appreciate the science you laid out showing that men instinctively look at women, even if they really love the woman they're with. Maybe I should stop feeling a tad bad about looking at beautiful women and enjoying beauty? After all, my wife and I have been married 26 years, and I've never even kissed anyone else during that time. Admittedly, I've sometimes wanted to, and I've had opportunities. Thanks for a perspective that brings in science and isn't the usual man-bashing that's out there.

--Male Reader

Your eyes probably go many places without your body robotically following suit -- like at a buffet when you ogle the chocolate cake and baby doughnuts while dutifully piling a plate with raw broccoli and fat-free dip. Fortunately, broccoli rarely retaliates by sobbing, calling you a pig, and making you sleep in your car for three days.

Evolutionary psychologist David Buss tells a story about a married guy who emailed him after reading his book "The Evolution of Desire," which lays out scientific evidence supporting evolutionary theories about human mating psychology. Buss gets heat for the book from those whose beliefs it upends -- those who cling to the idea that men and women are largely identical in basic sexual psychology -- and he admits, "Some of what I discovered about human mating is not nice."

The man conceded that "maybe some people worry that men's desire for sexual variety will give men an excuse for cheating." But, he said, learning about it helped him stay faithful. Buss said the man had previously interpreted his attraction to various women he encountered "as indications that maybe he didn't love his wife any more. But after reading my book, he realized, 'Oh, that's my evolved desire for sexual variety; it doesn't mean that I don't love my wife.'"

The man's revelation reflects what Buss sees as "two separate evolved systems": one for love and one for lust. "We become attracted to other people even if we're in a loving mating relationship and fully in love with our partner." In other words, no, you shouldn't feel bad about eyeballing the ladies. Focus on how much you love your wife and how, despite MMO -- means, motive, and opportunity -- looking has yet to give way to a need, upon arriving home, to sit in your car feverishly working the hand sanitizer in hopes of getting the glitter-flecked spray tanner off your pants.

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

I'm a woman in my late 20s. The guy I'm seeing is "not a phone person" and hates texting. Our time together is wonderful. However, he rarely texts except to make plans. I am used to frequent contact throughout the day via text with boyfriends. My friends say he should be texting every day, multiple times a day. I'm worried his lack of texts signals a lack of interest.

--Disturbed

Technology was supposed to set us free, not dial back our personal autonomy to that of my late hamster. I didn't have control over much when I was 8, but I loved how at any moment, I could go all kiddie Mussolini, pull Squeaky out of his cage, and make him turn tricks (uh...do somersaults on a pencil).

A smartphone makes constant communication possible; "it doesn't mandate it," I wrote in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck." Your friends' daily texting quotas aside, what might it mean that your boyfriend doesn't spend his entire day texting you? Um...he has a job? He prefers to communicate in spoken-word form, ideally in person? (See "not a phone person.") Frankly, maybe he's on to something, considering that so many text-versations, beyond the constant attention-hijacking, are basically conversational iceberg lettuce, amounting to: "I'm still alive!" "Yep, still alive here, too. LOL. LOL. LOL."

Chances are your guy shows he cares in a number of ways. Take stock of those. Still feel a little underloved? Consider "the dependency paradox." Social psychologist Brooke Feeney, who coined the term, finds that in romantic relationships, the more an insecure partner sees they can count on the other to be responsive to their appeals for love and comforting, the less needy and clingy they end up being. (Ultimately, through repeated dependence comes independence.)

You might ask him to be more cuddly-touchy-affectionate with you, which, Feeney finds, helps insecure partners calm down and enjoy their relationship. Assuming he cares about you (as "Our time together is wonderful" suggests), it's a relationship "task" he should enjoy. And though you're used to texts from a boyfriend, demanding texts from a man who hates texting is to be avoided. It makes a girlfriend seem less like a girlfriend and more like Mussolini with boobs and a phone seem less like a phone and more like a cattle prod that delivers dings, cat memes, and throw-up-face emojis.

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

I'm a 34-year-old woman seeking a relationship. Last week, I went to dinner with a man. We had an instantaneous connection and ended up having sex. I haven't heard from him since. I've always believed sex on a first date doesn't matter if there's a connection. Now I'm worried I moved too quickly. I'm tempted to call him. Any advice on what to say?

--Disappointed

Chasing a man into wanting you is usually about as successful as trying to split atoms with small household tools.

You may believe sex on the first date "doesn't matter," but our genes (the source of our psychology) have not heard of the women's movement and do not drink out of an ''ovaries before brovaries!" coffee mug. Women and men are more alike than different, physically and psychologically, but the physical differences we do have (like how only women get pregnant) led to the evolution of psychological sex differences. For example, evolutionary psychologists Martie Haselton and David Buss find that heterosexual men and women having sex with someone for the first time experience differing "affective shifts" -- shifts in feelings -- afterward.

In the afterglow, women felt more emotionally attached and more attracted to their partner (a "positive affective shift"). These commitment-fostering feelings align with how, for a woman, sex "signals the possibility of pregnancy" (and daddy shoes in need of filling).

On the male side, immediately after the first sexperience with a new woman, men who've had a lot of sex partners (six-plus as college undergrads, suggesting a short-term sexual strategy) experienced a "negative affective shift": finding a woman "less physically attractive and sexy." (This effect didn't show up in men with fewer sex partners or in women, no matter how many sex partners they'd had.) Haselton speculates that for hookupmeister men, the negative affective shift signals game over -- sex goal achieved -- and pushes them to move on lest they get "entangled in an unwanted long-term relationship."

If this guy wanted to see you again, he'd be blowing up your phone. To help yourself accept that, recycle him from a current goal to an ongoing reminder: Whenever you might want more than a hookup with a particular guy, wait till he's emotionally attached before having sex with him. How many dates, calls, and texts this takes will vary, but basically, a man needs to care about you enough to weather how your sex face makes you look like a mortally wounded hamster.

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

My boyfriend and I broke up during a nasty fight. I (rashly and immaturely) blurted out that we should just break up. He blurted out, "Fine!" and asked to stop talking for a while. Ugh. I still want to be with him. Dating coaches advise a "no contact" rule post-breakup (cutting off communication for 21 to 45 days). Do you agree? Is this a way to give him a chance to miss me, reset, and get back together in a healthy way?

--Distressed

If you broke up by accident and still want to be with the person, there's something you should do, and it isn't spending a month and a half being all "My spirit animal is a 3,000-year-old crustacean fossilized in rock."

Breaking up because you hit an impasse in an argument is like abandoning your apartment because your toilet's clogged. Chances are you exploded because you "reasoned" with part of the brain not equipped for the job. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains that our brain has two information-processing systems: System 1, our instinctive, fast-responding emotional system that jumps into action automatically; and System 2, our slow-to-awaken reasoning system that we have to force to do its job.

System 1 (automatic emotion!) drove you to blurt your way into breaking up. Possibly getting back together takes hauling your System 2 reasoning out of bed and making it process whether you, as a couple, are irretrievably broken or just need to learn healthy conflict resolution techniques.

You resolve conflict not through fighting to win -- hammering the other person until they give in -- but through listening with an open mind: putting in the effort to understand and empathize and then working to solve problems as a we instead of a you versus me. (This takes practice, and psychologist John Gottman's "The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work" is a helpful guide, but in the meantime, a clue: If the volume goes up, you're doing it wrong.)

Since the guy was in a relationship with you until you accidentally blew it up, he probably cares about you and doesn't need to be psychologically manipulated into wanting you with some "no contact" crapfest. Ultimately, if you love something and accidentally set it free, go after it and tell it you were an idiot: "If I'm gonna have fights about underwear used for a coffee table coaster, I want them to be with you."

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

In my romantic relationships, conflicts bring out a side of me that I don't like. I fly into a rage and end up making ugly comments I later regret. In the moment, it's like I can't stop. I'm shocked by the level of anger I have, and I'm afraid to enter relationships as a result.

--Exploding Woman

There are obvious shortcuts in anger management, such as: "Never go to bed angry. Smother the unreasonable idiot next to you so you can get some sleep."

Anger gets knocked as a toxic emotion, but when somebody's disrespecting or fleecing us, our blowing up suggests this won't end well for them -- in a way our being all "Hey, no prob, bro" does not. Research by evolutionary psychologist Aaron Sell suggests anger evolved as a "bargaining" tool to help the angry person resolve conflicts of interest in their favor.

Sell observes that anger is one of a few emotions (like sadness) that "regulates" others' behavior as well as our own. Anger rises in us when we perceive someone is treating us unfairly -- not putting enough value on our well-being -- and motivates us to get them to mend their ways. It motivates the person we're angry at through two means: the prospect that we'll "withdraw benefits" (like by shutting off the sex spigot) like sex or the perks of friendship) or "inflict costs" (like by throwing public tantrums or hacking off the left arm of all their shirts).

So, anger is a potential solution, a negotiating platform. The problem comes when you express it in counterproductive ways, leaving you embarrassed, ashamed, out of a job, or in the slammer. Going explosively ugly at a romantic partner is like using a shoulder-fired missile launcher to get martini olives out of a jar. Sure, it works to remove the olives -- and you might eventually find a few specks of them on the cable guy's truck two streets back.

To be human is to be occasionally explody, but habitual exploders tend to be driven by some or all of this trio: conflict avoidance, irrational beliefs, and/or unannounced needs.

Conflict avoidance: People avoid difficult conversations to avoid the unpleasantness that comes with. Unfortunately, avoiding conflict doesn't make it go away, and the unpleasantness only grows; it's just all on their end, continually eating them up inside and making them angrier. In contrast, when you confront somebody, the discomfort is momentary. It also solves a problem -- either by prompting them to come around or finding out that they probably never will.

Irrational beliefs: Pop the hood of rage and you'll typically find the irrational belief that psychologist Albert Ellis sometimes sums up as "People MUST always treat me well!" (or MUST this or that). In fact, Ellis explains, it's rational to prefer to be treated well, but nobody "must" do anything. There's only how they do behave and how you'll decide to behave in response.

"Catastrophizing" is Ellis' term for a companion irrational belief: "It will be HORRIBLE if they treat me badly!" "Horrible" is getting flattened to death by the secretly motorized walls of your bathroom closing in on you or getting chased and eaten by giant cockroaches. But somebody being kind of a jerk to you will merely be disappointing, annoying, frustrating, and/or depressing. You've survived all of these feelings before, and you're sure to do it again. And again.

Unannounced needs: People blow up over their needs that keep going unmet -- which really isn't reasonable or fair when these needs remain unannounced. No, you can't just hint or decide that a man "should just know" what you want. Yes, you have to tell him. He can't read your thoughts on his Kindle.

Present your needs as a feelings-driven "ask" rather than an attack, which sets him up to listen instead of fight back. For example: "I feel X way when things go like this. Here's what I'd prefer." If he cares about you, hearing that you feel bad should evoke empathy and make him want to make you feel better -- possibly by doing what you're asking. At the very least, he might tell you he can't and explain why.

To change your habitual ragey response to conflict, pre-plan and even practice a more rational reaction. Should a discussion start getting heated, suggest taking a break and maybe take a walk solo to calm down. Lapses are probably inevitable, so try to avoid them, but expect them and forgive yourself. Telling your partner about your efforts might help him forgive lapses, too, as well as giving him hope for your future together. Ideally, his pet name for you should be something boringly endearing like "honey," "darling," or "babe," as opposed to the nickname of my (now-reformed hothead) friend Hiroko -- Japanese for "magnanimous" -- whose former boyfriend couldn't help but call her "Hiroshima."

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

I'm a college sophomore, and my boyfriend is a senior. He's a football player, and other girls have crushes on him. Recently, he was with his guy friends at a party. A girl came over and said I'd slapped her across the face. I've never even met her! Why would she do this?

--Mystified

Women are seen as the kinder, gentler sex because they tend not to leave a trail of bloody noses and broken barstools. But women go plenty aggressive on other women, just in ways they can't patch up at urgent care -- like when some mean girl dislocates your reputation and fractures your psyche in 36 places.

In short, while men have Fight Club, women have Underhanded Snipe Club. Researchers find that women almost always use "indirect aggression" against other women -- nasty gossip, ostracism, and "just trying to help!" shaming remarks -- to vie for mates and jobs. Psychologist Kaj Bjorkqvist explains that this covert "social manipulation" maximizes the harm to the victim while minimizing the risk of counterattack on the perpetrator, who often remains anonymous -- leaving the victim unable to trace how her social status ended up in the morgue.

Women's mate competition can be a beauty contest -- hotting up one's appearance to yank male eyeballs away from female rivals -- or an ugly contest: using "competitor derogation" (disparaging the competition to decrease others' mate value relative to one's own). A woman trashing another woman to men typically sneers that she's ugly or slutty (in line with men's evolved priorities for physical attractiveness and fidelity). However, evolutionary psychologist Maryanne Fisher observes that if the woman casting the shade is not all that hot herself, her remarks about another woman's looks are likely to be dismissed. This might lead her to rely on "alternative tactics" -- like inventing a story about how a hot woman is actually the lady bar brawler of the sophomore class.

Unfortunately for the cuckoo case trying to destroy your reputation, her efforts may backfire. Most undergrad guys aren't dating to wife up, so some (or many!) would be way into a high scorer on the hot/crazy scale: Hello, aggro babe hate sex! As for the eventual "auto detailing" that so often comes with, guys try to focus on the upside, like their car being easier to spot in a crowded campus parking lot. (Just look for the hot-pink spray paint, "GET YOUR HERPES HERE!")

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.

You wrote about a 58-year-old woman dating a 23-year-old guy. What's the big deal with that? My daughter moved in with a 58-year-old creep when she was 18. He gave his own daughter heroin when she was 18. Bad guy. He and my daughter just had a baby, and now she's pregnant again.

--Distraught Dad

First-time parents live in terror that they're getting it wrong (like that they aren't spending enough time reading "Hooked on Phonics" to their kid in the womb), when they could really just leave their kid in the woods and say, "Come back when you're 20."

Okay, so the woods thing is a bit of an exaggeration. However, psychologist and twins researcher Nancy Segal explains that while "most parents believe they significantly shape their children's behaviors ... we now know that genetic effects are pervasive." In fact, "Most behaviors have a 50% genetic influence."

The power of genes in shaping our personality and choices is especially apparent in identical twins who were separated at birth and raised apart. Segal studied two of these identical twins: Oskar, who grew up Catholic in Nazi Germany and was an enthusiastic member of the Hitler Youth, and his brother, Jack, who was raised as a Jew in the Caribbean and spent time on an Israeli kibbutz. When Segal and her colleagues brought them together as adults, each showed up at the Minneapolis airport in a white sports jacket over a two-pocket blue shirt with epaulets and had wire-rimmed glasses and a mustache. Among their many shared quirks, each read magazines from back to front, wrapped tape around pens for a better grip, kept rubber bands around their wrists, and -- because each is germophobic -- flushed toilets before use as well as after.

As Segal emphasizes, a child's "environment," including parenting, "contributes only modestly" to the sort of person they become. Focusing on this might help. Perhaps if you remove any "shoulda, coulda" blame you place on yourself, you can set aside some of your anger, show compassion for your daughter, and be loving and supportive despite your dismay at her choices. It's possible your grandkids have a chance. If you come at this more lovingly than adversarially, they just might end up spending more time with Grandpa than the bad dad you probably suspect is a few infant crying jags away from putting grain alcohol in the sippy cup.

For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.