TER General Board
I hear ya babe. This is what I thought I was getting at, with the ideas in my rather less direct trilogy lower down in the thread. I'd be interested to hear your response to that trilogy, if you've ... got the time ... 
Yours in sympathy,
BG
So now that all that is out of the way..................... do you wanna fuck???? 
...it takes a lot of the little things to wear me down little by little over the course of the day, and by the end of the day when I want to relax, I just want to be left alone with a book to get my mind off of it (in lieu of sex :^( 
. Not good bedside manners, I guess. LOL It's more than that, though... not sleeping, not eating, and a lot of high stress events in my life (moving, new job, new town, new schools, new doctors, new everything!, etc.). Normally, I probably wouldn't even notice. I do have a positive attitude, just ask anyone that knows me!
The main point of the post was that women deal with all those little irritations that, I believe, they are more sensitive to than men are. I think overall, men tend to let irritations go easier than women, and women internalize and personalize events like that more often and easily.
BJ
[email protected]
a casual affair with you. This way she can always deny to herself and others she is a Semi-Pro. Use your words careful to preserve the veneer for her.
No risk, no glory
Why are you putting so much emphasis on turning her into a semi-pro when your goal is just to bang her? It doesn't matter whether she's a pro, semi-pro or civilian.
Aside from the dangers to your situation (assuming you're married) which others have pointed out and the potential for ensuing blackmail everything you said about her seems to indicate that she is a gold-digger.
1- You've had the hots for this "megababe" since she was working at your children's school and she probably noticed it then but didn't act on it.
2- She's currently hard up for cash so she calls you to see if you can help while indicating she doesn't have time to actually work.
3- You've seen her go out and act romantic with men 20 years her senior.
4- She volunteers that one of those guys is paying her rent which is really just her way of providing you with some inspiration during the brainstorm session. It doesn't necessarily mean the guy is getting laid.
5- The body language, kissing on the lips, touching, "we communicate so well" etc... is just good acting. Why do you think the other guy is paying her rent while probably not getting laid? Because she has him convinced he his her special friend and that must be intoxicating to a guy his age.
6- The follow up e-mails are just an indication that she hasn't given up on getting the $300 to $400 a week which you told her you could afford. She may go as far as sleeping with you for it but only as a last resort and only if you don't fall for the special friend trick.
Based on the above my conclusion is that she is a gold-digger and that either she couldn't find one man to satisfy all of her financial needs or that she is smart and wants to diversify her sources of income so as not to be entirely dependent on one man. If you're trying to turn her into a semi-pro just for your ego my advice would be to forget about it. If you're just trying to bang her and you're willing to bear the risks then you should just invite her to a romantic dinner/lunch/whatever where she is sure to put on her romantic act and you'll play along by acting and saying how attracted you are to her then see if she'll join you at a hotel for some fun. Keep telling her that you really want to help her with her situation. If and only if she holds up her end of the bargain then you do the same. The beauty of this approach lies in its simplicity and universality (it could work for civilian as well as semi-pro or even pro) and it leaves her the plausible deniability that she's just attracted to older men.
Oh yeah, and did I mention I think she's a gold-digger?
Be careful out there!
Cynically,
Quintus
The original post concerns something about how to get two people together without all the bullshit social interaction that seems always to mislead one, both, or more than both in today's society. The main sub-thread has been (to this time) a legitimate tangent on that subject, of one hobbyist's attempts to get one lady to rearrange their interaction in such a way as to circumvent some of the usual misleading social bullshit. They both have bullshit in common. Responses have ranged from suggesting excitedly "he's IN in IN in IN!", to warning that she's a gold-digging cock-tease and that, therefore, "he's OUT out OUT out OUT!" Which just goes to show, how difficult these things are to identify and manage overtly. I tend to side with the cock-tease interpretation, if anyone's keeping score. But I'd like to bring it all back to the main thrust of the thread.
Remember the episode in "Tootsie"? What I'm thinking of, is a situation on a balcony when Dustin Hoffman is in drag. He is at a party, dressed as the female soap star whom his male character must mimic in everyday life, and is chatting with the girl of his dreams (was it Terri Garr? I can't remember the actress' name). The girl says to Dustin-her (who is really a Dustin-him), "Why can't men be more direct? I mean, I wish they'd just dispense with the social bullshit, and be HONEST. Why not a direct, 'I really find you attractive and I want to go to bed with you.'? I mean, is it THAT hard to be honest? I swear to you I'll bed the first man that approaches me in that way!" Dustin (the male character) carefully takes note of what Dustin (the female character) has just been privileged to hear.
A few scenes later, Dustin in OUT of drag, and he is isolated with the same girl, the object of all his affections. He directs at her exactly the statements that she said she wanted: "I really find you attractive and I want to go to bed with you." Bluntly honest. What does she do? Go to bed with him as she promised? Nooooo ... she throws her drink in his face and storms out.
So, is the girl a hypocrite? She certainly isn't true to her word (though Dustin has kept the secret from her that she's confronted by the very person to whom she swore her oath, so neither party is really ethically golden). But few generations in the history of mankind have failed to record the manners in which women say that they long for one thing (the nice sensitive guy; the direct approach; flowers and roses) and then respond to another (the abusive biker; the indirect approach; alcohol and chocolate). Is it hypocrisy, frivolity, simple changeability, a mix of the lot? "Varium et mutabile semper" sayeth the poet ...
(continued in next post)
-- Modified on 2/3/2003 4:54:12 PM
(continued from previous post)
And on top of all that, it's become pretty clear in this Mars and Venus era that males and females accomplish something remarkably different in engaging in the sexual act. Imagine a typical North American male "enjoying the process of intimacy" without orgasm! Yet that's a status as many as half the women on this continent find to be normal in their lives. And they don't mind it -- not too much. They feel emotionally reassured and empowered. Not that this sexual inefficacy couldn't be improved upon ... and not that the participants in this forum aren't a far sight more evolved, as a group, in their sexual proclivities than your typical North American.
These sorts of observations lead me back to the question of how to initiate a sexual interaction. "Why don't we just fuck" is a type of blunt demand which, despite all the times that people might think they want to be more blunt, will nevertheless dull the point of human congress. We most of us don't want to be thought of as "sluts" or "cheap." The social interaction that goes into creating the possibility for seuxality is all about creating value, establishing a type of worth outside of the bedroom, as well as a type of aura of loin-felt neediness which simply does not spring full forth to the mind of the typical female as readily as it does to the male. (Part of that typical female reticence, quite frankly, in my opinion, is not so much biological as cultural. I have never failed to enjoy rather quick and easy access to sex whenever I seduced a woman who was physically fit, socially conscious, and sweaty from a good jog. Running does wonders for circulation to the legs ... and the points between them. Humans just like having their genitals tickled, male or female, and to pretend that women "can't" get aroused quickly and easily is a discredit to most women. That they haven't experienced this quick arousal yet, in their own sequestered lives, is an equal discredit to the men who have been trying to seduce them.)
"Why don't we just fuck" is something I say to my girlfriends regularly. It's something I've said, in almost as many words, to women I'd only met a few hours previous. But in the intervening time I was damned careful to establish a type of horny rapport and "enablement" (for lack of a better word) that meant that "Why don't we just fuck" fell into an appropriate context, and was met with therefore the desired response. You can SAY "Why don't we just fuck," but whether or not it will work is another question entirely. Even if it's the female seducing the male, the same lesson appiles. It's up to the initiator to set it up properly before asking it.
And if you don't set it up properly, you'll find that the social setting in which you currently operate -- the early Twenty-First Century in the industrialized West -- simply will not privilege your desires over the established protocols. Those protocols have arisen over generations of sexual reticence, and have been held over into a post-feminist era when they have no good reason for existence. The people who could most quickly change things for the more liberal by accepting such offers are the women, obviously. Men can hike around making requests 'til they're blue in the balls and it won't change a thing; women alone can choose to be more sexually active or not. But women are also exactly the same people who most benefit from not changing things for the more liberal at all, since by keeping things the same they anticipate a gain not only of attention and of ego gratification but also of exactly what they think they want most in a social interaction -- Hollywood-style romance. That they don't really want that, and probably do want something more liberal, is a type of consciousness-raising which most women might indeed benefit from, but a consciousness-raising they frankly have no motivation to undergo. The status quo suits them just fine, and yet they alone have the power to change it.
I'm as unhappy as most of you are, about this imbalance of power. I think I do a good job of subverting it, sort of by infiltrating and working from within the system, sort of by reframing it so that I actively deny it exists, sort of by finding some female attractive people who, as I am, are willing to stand outside the system. But I have no illusion that the system can be changed just by asking, at least not as it currently stands, and certainly not by the methods proposed in this thread. Those are symptoms, not cures, and a change in symptoms only comes after the whole cure has been administered, and that must come with a willing patient. Our job as seducers, therefore, is to coax the patient into a frame of mind in which she might actually consider that the status quo doesn't benefit her, and from there to another frame of mind that suggests more intimate contact would be her deepest of desires.
Look, women are simple. They think they are in control of social interactions and hate the idea of undergoing some kind of alteration in which they have to think of themselves as out of control. Their "autonomy" is sacrosanct to them, "I have a right to choice!" But the thing they appreciate most in the world is a man who takes that control away from them so they no longer have to worry about it, in a way that protects rather than threatens them. All you have to do is figure out how to wrest power from them without at the same time raising their alarms that they are somehow being untrue to the sisterhood, to feminism, to propriety, to their calling, to their right to being wooed just like Tom Hanks did to Meg Ryan. Are you a millionaire super-bookstore mogul who's just put her little shop around the corner out of business? Are you lonely and yet equivalently capable of moodily disappearing from her life for months at a stretch? Didn't think so. So you'd better do something other than try to provide what Tom provided for Meg.
And that's what I have to say on the subject. Whoo! I'm done now, thanks. Soapbox available ...
(not continued at all anywhere)
-- Modified on 2/3/2003 5:38:01 PM
I agree. You've taken the words right outta my ... mouth.
That part where you say I missed something? Remember up there in your better-written post than mine? I meant that, I really did. I just didn't say it right.
Actually, though, the title of your post reminds me of a dirty little secret about men. "What about the ones who say yes?" is a legitimate question. I know a lot of men who like to think they'd want women to be sexually active and even proactive, who then label the sexually active and proactive women as "sluts" and don't want them. So, there's this ridiculous double-bind out there for women, that many guys SAY they want her to do a lot of sex, but then disapprove of her if she does.
But that's beside your point.
You sound like you exude good humor and happiness about life. Is it any surprise that you've attracted to you a bevy of women who were attractive enough for you to want to fuck them, who were excited to be in your company? If Dustin had said that "Wanna fuck?" line with your joie de vivre, you're darned right, the delivery would have been quite different, and probably a lot more effective ... at least in real life, if not in a Hollywood script.
I do not think you are far off base at all... I've said before and I'll say again that one of the really wonderful things about this industry is that it's allowed me to really enjoy some people who I may have never given a second thought to otherwise. It also changes your whole perspective on what you find to be "attractive", because it can very quickly become blatantly obvious that looks are far from everything. I'm also, dare I say, a bit highly sexed...
On the other hand... I'd be lying if I didn't say that sometimes it's really just work. Those occassions are few and far between and generally have more to do with a person's attitude or possibly cleanliness than they do with anything else. But you know... everyone has days when their job is not 100% FUN! And I love my job! Most of the time, it IS 100% fun and that is more than most people will ever have in this world, considering that most people spend half of their lives enduring jobs they hate.
But I can pretty much guarantee that if you come to me with an enthusiastic attitude, we'll have a blast together!
Hugs*
Nicole